All Episodes
Previous Next
July 1, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:04:17
Trump DOJ To Being STRIPPING CITIZENSHIP From Criminals And DEPORTING THEM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
The Donald Trump administration has issued a memo stating they will begin to prioritize denaturalizing criminals.
These are individuals who came to the United States and acquired citizenship, but are now criminals, were criminals, or lied in some way on their forms, as well as individuals who received citizenship but then committed fraud against the United States government, among other crimes.
This memo's got a big list.
The Trump administration has already, according to NPR, stripped citizenship and denaturalized at least one individual over child, child crimes.
I'm trying to keep it light.
I always try to keep it light in the beginning, but you know what I mean.
Very serious stuff.
Now, the Democrats are crying, saying, you can't do this.
The Constitution says nothing.
This is codified law.
I got the law pulled up for, I will break down.
Denaturalization is not only possible, but it is required of the DOJ.
The law actually states that the Justice Department must pursue denaturalization where they believe people had fraudulently received citizenship.
How would we not have that remedy?
The idea that we would allow someone to become a citizen, but once they walk in the door and then reveal themselves to be a terrorist or criminal, we go, drats, he got us.
He lied and is committing crimes.
Nope.
The process by which we can take away someone's citizenship actually exists.
Now, if you're born here, bit different.
But if you were not born here, there are caveats to when you sign those forms, take that test, and swear those pledges and all of that stuff.
And it can be revoked.
Now, I actually think the DOJ isn't going far enough.
And I think we got to get some seditious conspiracy charges.
I mean, everybody's always screaming treason, treason, this, treason, that.
And people say Trump is a traitor.
And it's like, traitor to the who?
Okay, the point of treason is that you're aiding and abetting an adversary, an enemy.
No, sedition is when you seek to undermine or overthrow the U.S. government.
And what we are seeing now with many of these far-left individuals and many jurisdictions, like in Portland or in California, they are actively conspiring to undermine the authority of the United States and have been doing so for decades.
The Trump administration wants to take this seriously.
Perhaps we will eventually see some seditious conspiracy charges.
You know, like the ones they locked up the J-Sixers on, even people who weren't even in Washington, D.C. So this is not unprecedented.
In fact, I believe it's a requirement.
And look, I want to stress, they're going to keep telling you seditious conspiracy is over the top.
It's too much.
It's not even, it's like a 10-year sentence.
Seditious conspiracy against the U.S. isn't even as bad as some fraud crimes.
Like there are crimes of fraud you can commit that are going to get you 15 to 20 years.
Seditious conspiracy, it's like 10 years, Max.
You could get three years or less for seditious conspiracy.
And to be fair, they compounded the charge on the J6 and gave them like two decades.
The point is, if there are individuals conspiring to obstruct the enforcement of the law by the federal government, that is seditious conspiracy.
And I believe these people got to be charged.
But let's take a look at what's Trump doing right now, taking away people's citizenship.
My friends, smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know, and don't forget, go to boonieshq.com, boonieshq.com, and pick up your don't be gay skateboard.
Now, we're not here to rag on anybody.
We also have the somewhat less popular, be gay.
The choice is yours.
See, we knew that for Pride Month and Mega Month, we were going to get in the middle of some culture war, and so we said, we'll make both.
So we have our Pride Month collection, which is be gay or don't be gay, whichever one you want.
We've sold out of these.
They're selling like crazy.
And they're available at boonieshq.com.
And also, my friends, don't forget, the Culture War Live on stage.
We got three dates in Washington, D.C. July 26th, August 2nd, and August 9th.
August 2nd tickets.
That's the confirmed date with Michael Malice and Angry Cops, Alex Steiner, myself.
And those are selling quick.
I know, even though it's two months out or a month out.
Wait, oh yeah, yeah, yeah, because we're doing every week.
It's about a month out, and they're selling quick.
So make sure you pick up these tickets.
July 26th is available, but we have not yet announced the debate or the guests.
So that will be coming soon.
But again, go to dccomedyloft.com and go to events.
You'll find it or click the link in the description below.
We want to see you guys there.
Dude, the Michael Mouse Angry Cops event, I am more excited for than like any event we've done.
These guys are both absolutely amazing and hilarious.
They're both Trump guys, but they disagree on the issue of cops.
So it's very, it's going to be interesting.
And again, Angry Cops, Michael Mouse, these guys are hilarious.
Alex Stein's going to be sitting there shaking his head, not knowing what to do because these guys are so crazy.
But we're really excited for this show.
It's going to be epic.
And check it out.
Couple hundred seats.
It's going to be a big show.
Let's get into the news.
We got this from npr.org.
DOJ announces plan to prioritize cases to revoke citizenship.
Now, the struggle I have with this is when I first heard the news, I could not think of a word that means more than based.
And so I was like, well, I can't call it based.
That's not enough.
Anyway, the DOJ is aggressively prioritizing efforts to strip some Americans of their U.S. citizenship.
Department of leadership is directing its attorneys to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.
Mega-based?
And giving U.S. attorneys wider discretion on when to pursue this tactic.
According to a June 11th memo published online, the move is aimed at U.S. citizens who are not born of the country.
According to data from 2023, excuse me, close to 25 million immigrants were naturalized citizens.
And if you want to commit certain crimes like against children or fraud against the U.S. government or its people, then you, why are you a citizen?
What is going on here?
What's going on?
You can't run for president.
At least one person has already been denaturalized.
Let me stress that again for you guys.
Donald Trump ain't sitting around doing nothing, okay?
We had 324 criminal charges on that fraud against the U.S. government.
So we're talking about Doge.
We're talking about waste, fraud, and abuse.
The DOJ found $14.6 billion in fraud and issued charges against 324.
Let's go.
Now they've already denaturalized, stripped the citizenship from somebody who is child, distributing child sex abuse material.
They're lucky denaturalization is the only penalty they get.
I mean, they're getting, you know, prison and all that stuff.
On June 13th, a judge ordered the revocation of the citizenship of Elliot Duke, who uses they, them pronouns.
Ooh, thanks for reminding me.
Duke is an American military vet originally from the UK who was convicted for distributing child sex abuse material, something they later admitted they were doing prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.
Denaturalization is a tactic that was heavily used during the McCarthy era of the late 1940s and the early 1950s, and one that was expanded during the Obama administration and grew further during President Trump's first term.
It's meant to strip citizenship from those who may have lied about their criminal convictions or membership in illegal groups like the Nazi Party or communists during McCarthyism on their citizenship applications.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Schumate wrote in the memo that pursuing denaturalization will be among the agency's top five enforcement priorities for the civil division.
I'm feeling pretty good.
I don't know how you guys are feeling.
It's summer.
It's the first day of MAGA month.
I can't forget.
Shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club for this Rumble Morning lineup.
Man, I'm feeling good.
I think we should take the boys out to celebrate, pop some champagne.
Donald Trump is getting the job done.
Now, there's a lot more that we want to see.
Don't get me wrong.
A lot of people are upset about the Epstein files.
I hear you.
But I think Cash Dan and Pam are actually doing a decent job.
These fraud arrests that we found, don't forget, you got a bunch of smaller jurisdictions.
Now, I was talking to General Flynn the other day, and he says the problem is they're just cracking the surface.
They're barely getting to the deep of the deep state.
There's a lot of bad people still in there.
But this is phase one.
It is just beginning.
And I like what we are seeing so far.
They go on to say, the civil decision shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings in all cases permitted by law and supported by the evidence.
The focus on denaturalization is just the latest step by the Trump administration to reshape the nation's immigration system across all levels of government, turning it into a major focus across multiple federal agencies that has come with redefining who is let into the U.S. or has the right to be an American.
Since his return to office, the president has sought to end birthright citizenship and scale back refugee programs.
Again, based.
But immigration law experts expressed serious concern about the effort's constitutionality and how this could impact families of naturalized citizens.
The DOJ memo says the federal government will pursue denaturalization cases via civil litigation.
An especially concerning move, said Cassandra Robertson, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University.
Ah, yes, Case Western Reserve.
I've heard of them.
I haven't, but you get the point.
In civil proceedings, any individual subject...
The reason I did that and just said that is because you can find a professor at literally any university anywhere in the world to agree with your opinion so you can inject it into a news story.
It doesn't mean it has merit.
Anyway, in civil proceedings, any individual subject to denaturalization is not entitled to an attorney, Robertson said.
There is a lower burden of proof for the government to reach, and it is far easier And faster to reach a conclusion in these cases.
Robertson says that stripping Americans of citizenship through civil litigation violates due process and infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
I humbly disagree, but who am I?
But some guy whinging on the internet.
Hans von Spikovsky with the Conservative Heritage Foundation supports the DOJ's denaturalization efforts.
I do not understand how anyone could possibly be opposed to the Justice Department taking such action to protect the nation from obvious predators, criminals, and terrorists.
As for due process concerns, Von Spikovsky said nothing prevents that alien from hiring their own lawyer to represent them.
They are not entitled to have the government and thus the American taxpayer pay for their lawyer.
That is not a due process violation since all immigration proceedings are civil matters and no individuals, including American citizens, are entitled to government furnished lawyers in any type of civil matter.
And he is correct.
The DOJ and the Trump White House declined to comment for this story.
Broad criteria.
Let's roll, baby.
According to this new memo, the DOJ is expanding its criteria of which crimes put individuals at risk of losing their citizenship.
That includes national security violations and committing acts of fraud against individuals or against any government, against the government, like paycheck protection program, loan fraud, or Medicaid or Medicare fraud.
Quote, to see that this administration is plotting out how they're going to expand its use in ways that have not seen use before is very shocking and very concerning, says Samira Hafiz, policy director of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national advocacy organization providing legal training in immigration law.
It is kind of, in a way, trying to create a second class of U.S. citizens where one set of Americans is safe and those not born in the country are still at risk of losing their hard-fought citizenship.
She said, sure, if you are abusing children and defrauding this country, you can lose citizenship.
Crime me a river.
Listen, I actually, I think there is an argument to be made that this will put immigrants who come here illegally at a higher criteria of losing citizenship or a higher criteria for penalty for crimes.
I don't care.
I have no problem with this.
Listen, if you are duly convicted of defrauding the government, then there is a penalty that will apply to you and you can be denaturalized.
Now, I do think there are questions about the individuals who are naturalized and whether or not they retain citizenship in other countries.
But I reject the idea that once you walk through the fence, walk through the gate, we are now forever beholden to you, even if you're abusing children.
That's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous.
Now, I understand if you're an American citizen born here, it won't apply to you.
Well, that's too bad.
It's too bad for the illegal immigrants.
The people who are born here are going to face the penalties and go to prison for committing these crimes all the same.
But they are people who are born here.
And if you were not born here and you want to come here and ask us permission, okay, there's something different there.
Now, I will say this.
I will.
There is going to be a legal challenge in that regard.
I mean, like a legal issue.
What happens when someone is a naturalized citizen for 20 years?
And then we find they committed a crime or committed these crimes and they've renounced citizenship or have no citizenship.
I think that will create legal issues.
But I am, listen, if you are duly convicted of a crime through due process and then you are civilly challenged and you can fight it, this is not some issue where Trump is rounding people up and destroying lives.
He's saying it's due process.
You committed a crime.
Here's the penalty.
And I'll put it this way.
They're going to go on and they're going to make the argument, you can't do this.
Lies.
Lies.
8 USC 1451 revocation of naturalization.
Not only is it within the law to do this and has been for 70 years, it's a legal obligation of law enforcement.
It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts upon affidavit showing good cause, therefore, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order.
Admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured.
or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation.
And such revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship and such canceling of certificate of naturalization shall be effective as of the original date of the order, respectively provided that refusal on the part of a naturalized citizen within a period of 10 years following his naturalization to testify as a witness in any proceeding before congressional committee concerning his subversive activities or her in a case where such person has been convicted of contempt for such refusal shall be held to constitute a ground for
revocation of such person's naturalization.
The point is, when these liberals come out and they say, it's going to create a second-class citizen.
It's not fair.
Oh, that's always been the case.
Look at, we scroll down.
Editorial notes.
Section 702 of the Nationality Act of 1940 as amended, referred to in subsection G, which was classified as section 1002 of this title, was repealed by section 403A42 of Act June 27, 1952.
This has been long-standing law for 70 years, longer than that, technically.
If you want to go back to 1940, where they initially had this, it has always been the case that if you are naturalized, they can revoke your citizenship.
So cry more, I guess.
I don't want to hear it.
MSNBC, Trump's DOJ is prioritizing denaturalization.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Yeah?
What?
14th Amendments?
Let's play, baby.
Last week, Rep.
Andy Ogles of Tennessee sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi that called for a federal investigation to determine whether New York mayoral candidate Zoran Mamdani, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Uganda, should be subject to denaturalization proceedings based on an eight-year-old rap lyrics that Ogles claim would constitute material support for terrorism.
In a news conference Monday, White House Secretary Carolyn Levitt indicated that allegations, if true, were something that should be investigated.
They should be.
See, what they're trying to cover up is that Zoran Mamdani was praising some organization that was funding Hamas or something.
And if he concealed that fact and became a citizen, then yeah, he's in violation of the law, literally, the one that I just read to you.
Now, the argument MSNBC is making, it's just rap lyrics.
Well, rap lyrics, I would say, are the probable cause.
The investigation will now be witness testimony, social media posts, or other writings to make some of these determinations.
Look at this.
I don't know why the computer is doing it.
It just reformatted the screen again.
It'll go back in like 10 seconds.
Anyway, I think, oh, I think it switches them.
Is that what it's doing?
Anyway, Zona and Mamdani can be investigated over this.
And then should it turn out that he wasn't actually, and it was rap lyrics written by someone else, then whatever, I guess.
Is it going to give me the, oh, whatever.
Well, I'll keep reading.
I know it's going to be harder to see now because the computer's on a fritz, but sometimes the computer's on the fritz.
They're going to say, as the apparent next step in the Trump administration's mass deportation regime, this rarely used, potentially far-reaching government power is getting newfound attention.
As legal scholars who study denaturalization, we believe the new Justice Department policy could significantly expand the circumstances under which naturalized Americans might lose their citizenship in ways that raise serious constitutional questions.
Denaturalization is the government's power to revoke people's U.S. citizenship after they've been naturalized.
Unlike deportation, which removes non-citizens from the country, denaturalization strips away the citizenship itself, returning people to their previous immigration statuses and potentially making them deportable.
Okay.
Yeah, I don't see why not.
Now I got this formatting problem and it's really screwing me up and I'm not happy with it.
But I guess we'll see.
The computer's on the fritz again.
This is what happens, man.
This is what happens.
But let's carry on.
Not only are we moving in that direction, but we have this from the postmillennial.
DOJ sues over unlawful sanctuary city policies.
The complaint stated that LA sanctuary cities policies are in violation of the supremacy clause found in Article 6 of the Constitution.
Oh boy.
I'm going to say it again.
I believe that they should file seditious conspiracy charges against these individuals who are running these sanctuary city policies.
These aren't policies that are like we're going to have a 2% tax increase or something.
These aren't policies that are like we're going to build new roads or stop people from, I don't know, parking their scooters anywhere they see fit.
Scooters now have to go into a designated area.
No, no, no.
This is the policy of obstructing the U.S. government's law enforcement apparatus intentionally for political gain and for which is seditious conspiracy.
The post-millennial says, the DOJ has sued the city of Los Angeles as well as LA Mayor Karen Bass over the city's sanctuary city policies.
Sanctuary city policies.
This came after the Trump administration conducted a number of immigration enforcement operations in the city that led to riots taking place in the streets against immigration and customs enforcement agents.
The complaint stated that LA's sanctuary city policies are in violation of the supremacy clause found in Article 6 of the Constitution.
And as a result, the policies are unlawful, unenforceable, and voib, I'm sorry, void ab initio, voib, or void from the beginning.
With the complaint, the DOJ seeks to bar LA from enforcing the sanctuary city policies, which would allow for the federal government to be better able to take illegal immigrants into custody.
In a press release, the DOJ stated not only are Los Angeles' sanctuary city policies illegal under federal law, but as alleged in the complaint, Los Angeles' refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities contributed to the recent lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe that it required the federal government to deploy the California National Guard and the United States Marines to quell the chaos.
Attorney General Pam Bonnie said of a lawsuit against LA, sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in L.A. Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining the law enforcement, undermining law enforcement at every level.
It ends under President Trump.
Now, I'm going to say I think the individuals that are running these policies should be charged with seditious conspiracy.
And I'm going to pull it up.
Let's pull it up.
18 U.S. Code 2384.
We read this recently, but I'll read it again for you.
If two or more persons in any state or territory or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States conspire to overthrow, put down or destroy by force the government of the United States or to levy war against them or to oppose by force the authority thereof or by force to prevent,
hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years or both.
I was wrong.
I said earlier 10 years.
It's 20.
Serious crime.
That's it.
So this is going back to 1948.
It's been amended several times, 1956, 1994.
Let me ask you a question for what's in the chat.
If two or more persons in any state or territory conspire to, let's see, let's see, delay the execution of any law of the United States, would you agree that sanctuary jurisdictions include these jurisdictions are run by or these policies are maintained by two or more persons that are trying to delay the execution of any law of the United States?
I would argue that is a seditious conspiracy.
I certainly think so.
And I think it is only through cowardice that we don't actually get these charges.
Now, there are a bunch of other charges they could potentially bring.
You know, you've got what is misprision?
Misprision of treason.
I don't know.
Let's see.
Ah, okay.
If you know of treason being committed, the reason why I don't think treason applies, and I always bring this up, it says whoever owing allegiance to the U.S. levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the U.S. or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death or shall be imprisoned, imprisoned, not less than five years and fined under this title, but not less than $10,000, and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Now, it's funny.
Not less than five years.
So it's a five-year minimum.
And I believe sedition is a 20-year maximum.
So what is it?
Not more than 20 years.
And this one says, let's see, not less than five.
So if you commit treason, you're getting five years at minimum.
You could get potentially more.
But treason is waging war.
I know some people might try and argue that the people that are invading this country, and listen, listen, spare me the lies, you know, of the, of the left can just, I'm not interested.
When you have thousands of people marching through Mexico, holding up large flags of their home nation, you're waging war against us.
And so there's a serious question, but I don't think treason applies to these government officials or anything like that.
Sedition, yes.
That being said, they say it's not an invasion.
When we see thousands of people marching together, and many of them are holding up large flags, okay.
What's the difference?
Monst question.
If it was like the 1500s and a bunch of British people were marching through France carrying their flags and then were trying to occupy, I mean literally like enter a town and then start living there.
What do you think the French would have done?
They'd be like, we're being invaded by the British.
This is an attack.
And what do you think would happen if you tried to stop them?
Well, we saw that.
In several instances during Trump's first administration, we saw these caravans physically attack people at our border.
Our National Guard, our police, our CBP.
They were being rushed and attacked and using shields to block invaders.
There was the viral moment from San Diego where you got the woman grabbing her kids and there's tear gas everywhere.
And they were like, they're tear gassing children.
And I'm like, it's an invasive force attacking our country.
What do you expect to happen?
So I say sedition.
I say sedition indeed, my friends.
This is an effort to undermine, overthrow, and delay the execution of any law of this country.
The purpose of these illegal immigrants being allowed in is because they are trying to bolster their electoral college vote count illicitly and their congressional seat count.
Now, we also have this story.
Attorney General Pam Bonnie warns IceBlock app developer to watch out, says the DOJ is looking at him.
That's interesting.
The DOJ is looking at a guy who made an IceBlock app, and this one's interesting.
IceBlock allows anonymous users to share where they've seen ICE agents.
First Amendment or sedition.
The challenge here is that the effort is obviously to undermine, overthrow, and disrupt the U.S. government.
But the Founding Fathers wanted speech, free speech, specifically because they were speaking out against the Crown and were penalized for it.
The First Amendment was basically, look, the Crown did bad.
We were having meetings, speaking about what we wanted, and they called it treason and they attacked us.
So no, we should be allowed to meet.
And I don't think the Founding Fathers thought the First Amendment was going to mean that you can march through streets and lock things down and obstruct people's ways of life, but that's where we are now.
So I don't know if I think there's anything that can be done about a guy who made an app where people can say, I saw an ICE agent.
There is a challenge, I think.
Maybe there's like a civil one.
Hey, look, the monitor just changed again.
It took like five minutes and it switched back.
I have no idea what that's all about.
Anyway, we'll get it fixed.
Long story short.
The guy made an app.
I'm curious what you guys think.
So comment.
There's a certain point at which this is not just speech.
This is the creation of a system by which people can seek to obstruct federal law enforcement to aid and abet in an invasive force.
Non-citizens, criminal aliens.
Let me put it this way.
If you are instructing or advising a criminal on how to evade law enforcement, is that free speech?
Nope.
I'll put it again.
I'll say it again.
A guy robs a bank and he's hiding in an alley and you see cops are coming and you see the bank robber.
So you go and you go, hey, buddy, the cops are coming.
They're coming this way.
Run the other direction.
And then he runs off.
You just aided and abetted a criminal fugitive.
You get charged for that.
But I have free speech rights, not when you are aiding and abetting crimes.
Now, for threats of violence, it's imminent.
Now, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
I'm pretty sure if you go to someone and say, here's how you do criminal thing and avoid the police.
Now, Ice block, what is the purpose?
To tell people who are breaking the law how to avoid law enforcement.
I make the argument.
This violates, what is it?
I think it's 8 USC 1324.
Yep.
Title 81324.
And that would be encouraging and inducing any person to reside here illegally.
So I'd argue, lock them up.
Now, my friends, it is not just happening here in these United States.
In fact, we had this big story in Glastonbury where a guy, a rapper, Bob Villen, was chanting, you're never getting your country back at these people.
Now, the U.S. has revoked his visa, and we're going to get into that.
And we'll be joined by Carl Benjamin, aka Sarkanavakad.
That'll be at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash TimPool and youtube.com slash Timcast.
So make sure you check that out.
Don't forget to smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
Stay tuned.
We got more segments coming up for you.
Thanks for hanging out, and we will see you all then.
For everybody else, We will stay live, pull up this story, and be joined by Carl in a minute.
We've got this from NBC News.
State Department bans visas for English punk duo Bob Villain after Glastonberry performance.
Bob Villain led the crowds of Free, Free Palestine and Death to the IDF at the English Music Festival.
The State Department banned an English rap punk duo from performing in the U.S. if they appeared to lead a crowd in chants of supporting besieged Gaza residents and wishing death upon Israeli forces.
Visas for Bob Villain and his group of the same name were revoked in light of their hateful tirade at Glastonbury, including leading the crowd in death chants.
The rapper led Glastonbury Festival crowd chants.
We know this hidden.
He also said from the river to the sea, he could be seen saying on video shared across social media.
He said, Palestine must be free, will be, inshallah, it will be free.
Now, the funny thing about From the River to the Sea is most of these activists don't know from which river to which sea.
But anyway, it refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
And the phrase basically means Israel will cease to exist.
That's the light wave describing it.
Of course, as we know, if that is the case, lots of people will die.
Some pro-Palestinian activists say to call for peace in the region.
Others argue that those words qualify as hate speech.
A Somerset police detective has been assigned to determine if any hate crime statutes were broken during the performance.
Now, additionally, this man was chanting on stage, you're never getting your country back.
You want your country back.
It's not going to happen.
And he was saying that to the British people.
This is a threat faced by the West.
And interestingly, we have similar issues here that the British are having there.
So I'm going to be pulling in our good friend Carl Benjamin right now.
Let me grab the link and we load it up.
Usually takes about 10 seconds.
You guys know this.
We load it up.
Getting it going.
And it is loading.
I believe we now have...
Can you hear me?
Hello.
I can.
How's it going, man?
Thanks for joining.
I'm great, man.
Gorgeous sunny weather in England at the moment, and everyone's complaining about it, but I'm actually really enjoying it.
Right on.
It's hot here.
It's hot.
It's like 90-something.
Well, but we're a big place.
We're in West Virginia.
So, Mr. Benjamin, I couldn't help but notice, well, we've noticed this for a long time.
The U.K. has been dealing with a lot of similar immigration issues that the U.S. has.
I think you guys, obviously, you're going in a different direction.
It's been very different.
But in the U.S., we have Donald Trump, the DOJ's announced they will begin to denaturalize people, denaturalize individuals who are here and have committed certain crimes, lose their citizenship, potentially deport them.
One story, a British individual who was distributing child sexual abuse material was denaturalized already.
So it's an interesting story.
I'm curious your take on that from a British perspective, but the context, of course, being we just saw Bob Villen chanting on stage at Glastonbury that you're never getting your country back.
So what's going on?
Well, I tell you, you can keep that guy.
I don't want that guy back.
The other guy, like, sorry, you know.
He's your guy.
You take him.
I know, but I'm trying to think of an excuse.
I'm very pro-immigration all of a sudden.
Definitely to America.
Man, it's been an interesting couple of days.
So the context is that Glastonbury is a very white and middle class festival.
I don't know whether you've seen pictures of the crowd, but you'll notice that they're probably on average about, in fact, we know actually that they're about 40 on average in age.
They're Middle Englanders.
They're all basically all white and disproportionately people who work in office jobs.
So they're part of the sort of technocratic managerial regime.
And it seems that every year, what they do at Glastonbury Festival is get a series of obscure ethnic acts to get up on stage, say, we hate Britain, so the crowd can cathartically cheer for it.
So, yeah, God, we do as well.
Right.
And you might think that this is weird, but actually, it's kind of necessary.
It's become a kind of a religious rite for them because remember, these people are the system, right?
When the left is like, oh, this system is racist, it's homophobic, it's xenophobic, it's all these terrible isss and phobes.
They're liberals.
So they say, yeah, yeah, no, it's really bad.
But my mortgage payments rely on it, right?
So I've got to go to work tomorrow.
And even though I agree with the radical leftists that the system is exactly as racist as you think it is, I have to go there and I have to do my job and I have to carry on and pay the bills.
And the thing is, there's also this kind of discordance in their minds because they also know the system isn't actually racist, right?
The system is actually anti-racist.
The system does everything it can to funnel resources from hardworking people via their taxes to disproportionately minority communities who don't pay taxes, who are not a net gain to the exchequer.
And so they know first person that it's not racist, but they can see the disparate outcomes and they say, oh, well, it just has to be racism.
It just has to be.
And so they have to live with this all day, every day, all year.
And Glastonbury is where they get to go and say, fuck the system whilst being the system, to purge themselves of these ill humors that build up inside of them.
And so it's very, very performative.
And like I said, they do this basically every year.
They get like the most obscure ethnic acts that they can get and pretend like they've been big fans of these people where they say, you know, to hell with Britain, we hate the British, we hate white people, we hate the English.
And so Bob Villen is just following in that long tradition.
And actually, you'll notice that if you look at the media coverage, it's the people on social media, like, hang on, does he have a song that says you're never getting your country back and shut up about it?
Right.
It's the people on social media who see that.
I'm like, I'm not okay with that.
The media, the politicians, they're all screeching that he was like, death to the IDF.
And it's just like, the IDF is an army.
It's not like he's, you know, it's an active army engaged in military operations.
Obviously, it has enemies.
And I'm not saying, you know, you have to be for or against the IDF.
And if you're for the IDF, you obviously don't want them to die.
But you've Got to concede that their enemies obviously do want them to die, which is why they're fighting them with real live ammunition and explosives.
And it's the same with like Russia and Ukraine.
If you're a Ukrainian and you say death to the Russian army, I'm like, of course you think that.
Of course.
And if you're a Russian, you say death to the Ukrainian army, because that's exactly what you're doing when you fight.
You're bringing death to your enemies.
So the pearl clutching over the statement over death to the, it's like, what are you talking about?
That's a perfectly normal position to have regarding an enemy army.
And so it's not really very offensive at all.
The more offensive thing was the story he told about Zionists, right?
Because of course, he was at the United Talent Agency group.
And this is staffed at the top end entirely by Jewish people.
And so when he's giving this story about, oh, I work for Zionists and they're really pro-Israel and I really hate them.
Well, I mean, it was kind of expected that they'd say, well, right, okay, then, well, you're dropped, right?
But again, even that wasn't really the offensive thing.
That was what got him dropped from his label.
It was the death of the IDF thing that got everyone up in a, it's like, right.
It's a very weird thing.
But the actual thing that, and it's interesting how you, that's the thing that you focused on here.
Yeah.
Because it shows you where people's interests lie, right?
So our political class and our media class are obsessed with defending Israel, which I think Israel is doing a perfectly good job of defending itself.
I can't help but notice that the IDF are one of the most capable military forces in the world.
They're highly experienced, they're highly effective, and they keep winning everywhere.
I don't think we need to be protective over them.
I think they're doing just fine.
And then on the other side, you've got the people who are like actually concerned about the state of the country and the nature of the country, the sort of moral telos of the country, where the country is going and who the country is actually for.
And that's where the Bob Villon song pissed everyone off because that song was recorded back in 2020, right?
This is not a new song.
And it's interesting that for the last five years, that record label was quite happy to publish his song about you're never getting your country back.
That was rub it in our face.
The BBC promoted this guy since 2016, trying to make him a star.
And all of a sudden, he's just like, well, I actually don't like Israel.
And they're like, well, you're going to.
That's very interesting.
I can't help but notice a few things about that.
You know what I mean?
So that's the current thing play.
It is funny how it is largely blowing up in a lot of their faces.
These record labels, these media outlets have promoted the left being like, oh, all the woke stuff, whatever.
They didn't call it the woke stuff, but saying, oh, diversity, it's so fantastic.
And then one day, the guy they hired turns around and says, oh, by the way, also, we hate Israel.
And it's like, uh-oh, whoops.
But that was funny, too.
Because I think even Ted Cruz was getting flack because he shared a video of Bob Villen saying, death to the IDF.
And he was like, how could this be?
We got to investigate this.
And everyone's like, what?
Not the part where he's singing, you're never getting your country back to a bunch of Brits at a time when they're dealing with a mass migration crisis?
We have that issue happening here.
I do love how It's really weird.
And the thing is, well, this is the only thing worth talking about, right?
And it really is a genuine question that has been brought upon us, which is there is a collective we, right?
In we the people.
Americans very much recognize there is a collective we.
It's the very first word of the Declaration of Independence.
So that assumes pre-political loyalties.
That assumes there is a group of people who are loyal to one another, and they have decided actually they don't like the government.
They don't like what's happening.
And so they're going to do something about it.
And what they do is create a jurisdiction for themselves.
We, the people, own this land.
We collectively are going to be the people who steward it and declare its laws and decide its policies, right?
And that question is what's coming up very, very sharply in Britain at the moment.
If there is a jurisdiction, a collective jurisdiction over the United Kingdom, specifically England, to whom does it belong?
In Scotland, they've got a devolved parliament with the Scottish National Party.
In Wales, they've got a devolved parliament with a Welsh Nationalist Party, although the Labour Party is in charge in Wales.
In England, we don't have anything and this is for anyone.
And so the question is, do the English have jurisdiction over England?
And Bob Willem would say, no, and you're not getting it back.
We are keeping it.
And what I love about this is it's just an open admission.
Yeah, no, we've taken your country and you're not having it back.
And we're going to keep it from you.
And it's okay.
But at the moment, every right-winger in Britain is saying, no, we're getting our country back.
So just saying, you've pissed a lot of people off on that.
I got a question.
So in the United States, a lot of people don't know the difference between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom.
So I suppose maybe you could just give a quick cursory answer.
But my question was, do you guys view England as a separate nation from, say, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland?
Ethnically, it is.
So the nations of...
And then Great Britain is the largest island of this archipelago.
And then there are lots of small islands circling around it.
That's the British Isles.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the political jurisdiction of the Crown of the United Kingdom, which is over Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
And then in Great Britain, the big island, you have Scotland, England, and Wales as the constituent national ethnicities of those groups.
So the English give their name to England, the Welsh give their name to Wales, the Scottish give their name to Scotland.
It's actually the reverse of in America, if you think about it.
America, the continent, gives its name to the Americans.
In Europe, French people give their name to France.
And so it's where the people are in the old world rather than what the continent is.
Because, I mean, before the English arrived in England 1,500 years ago, it was called Britannia.
So it wasn't called England.
England didn't exist at that point.
So it's a sort of strange reversal on that.
And yeah, no, I mean, it's well understood in Britain that British means it's a purely political and legal identity as in the British state.
because the United Kingdom was formed as a union of crowns between England and Scotland in the 17th century.
I can't remember the exact date.
And it was formalized into the Union of the United Kingdom of Scotland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1707, the Act of Union.
But the constituent nations never went away.
The Welsh identity has been quite strong.
The Scottish identity is strong.
And to be honest with you, the English identity is still fairly strong, although it's been thinned out a lot recently.
But there's a big sort of push to reclaim it.
But this is all really interesting to Americans, I find.
Whenever I talk to Americans about it, they'll find it really interesting.
Because you guys aren't like an ancient tribal land, whereas everywhere in the Old World is an ancient tribal land.
And so there's much more of a feeling of possession and ownership in the Old World, whereas in America, people are like, oh, I'm just going to move somewhere else.
And I'm like, what do you mean you're just going to move somewhere else?
Oh, I just fancy living over there.
I said, what do you mean fancy living over there?
Like, what are you talking about?
I'm not going to do that.
You know, my ancestors are from Wessex, and I live in Wessex.
And, you know, God willing, a thousand years'time, my ancestors will be still living in Wessex.
My descendants will still be living in Wessex.
What are you talking about?
You know?
So it's a different mindset altogether.
So when this Bob Villain guy says, you're not getting your country back, who did he write that about?
Was that, I mean, because the song is not about the UK, but he is chanting it in this instance.
When he's saying it to you guys, it is.
He is explicitly saying that to the right-wingers who feel that they have the jurisdiction of the country.
He is saying that to the Tommy Robinson fans.
He is saying that to the football fans.
He is saying that to people like me.
He is saying that to people who view themselves not just as an atomic citizen of anywhere.
He's saying that to the people who feel that they are English and they belong to England.
He's saying, no, I've taken your country, whatever he thinks he represents, and you're never getting this back.
And honestly, I think that this is going to be looked at with arrogance because at the moment, Rupert Lowe, currently an independent MP, has just started a movement called Restore Britain.
And man, it is bang on the money on basically every single point, like every sort of far right thing that I want to see fixed in the country.
He's like, yeah, no, we're doing this.
We're doing that.
We're going to make sure immigration is negative.
We're going to deport every illegal.
We're going to bring back the death penalty.
We are going to fix this country.
We're going to put it back how it used to be and how it should be.
And 100,000 people are following it in a day, and it's just snowballing.
And it's one of those things.
It's like, okay, this has got some legs because people know what needs to be done.
We know what we want.
We know how the country should be.
And I mean, like another thing, people should just stop going to jail for tweets, right?
No one in Britain ever agreed that someone should go to jail for a social media post.
It's just been forced upon us over and over.
And Rupert Lowe's like, yep, there's a, the totemic case in Britain is Lucy Connolly, who during the Southport riots tweeted something very mean.
Don't get me wrong.
It wasn't good, but she deleted it very quickly.
And now she's got three years in jail.
And it's like, that's unacceptable.
That is just unacceptable.
We shouldn't have English men and women going to jail over the things they post on social media.
And it's going to change.
We are going to win this.
We are going to move this forward.
We are going to take government and we are going to change it.
It is happening.
I've heard that one of the issues you guys had, and it's not like I heard this from anyone of merit, but that the crown is woke, that your royal family is in favor of these immigration policies and transforming the country the way it was.
Yeah.
Can they do anything about it or are they woke?
Well, I mean, the king technically has as much power as he could possibly want, right?
Like he could force a constitutional crisis and dissolve parliament.
And so we'd be back into kind of 17th century English civil war territory, where if the parliament wanted to resist it, they'd have to raise an army.
But everyone hates the parliament.
No one, no one would fight for the parliament.
And the actual military forces are loyal to the king.
But the problem is the king would never do that because he is, as you say, a total woke globalist.
He is exactly, I'm not joking.
He is as much of a shit lib as any blue head Portland lefty.
I'm not joking.
How does that happen?
He's 90 or something, isn't he?
I think he's 78.
Oh, okay.
He's quite old.
He's not quite that old.
I'd have to double check that, but he's, he's quite old, but he's always been a bit of a kind of lib.
And he's very concerned about climate change and global warming, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, all that.
So, you know, and all the, you know, refugees welcome.
And he like, when it's some Islamic holiday, he'll go down and serve food to them and stuff like that.
And it's just like, ah, great.
You know, he's not our king.
You know what I mean?
You saw, he abdicated the land of Canada to the, uh, on a she bag and Algonquin people, right?
Yep.
I mean, kiss armor.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's Oh God.
Like kiss armor is currently dismembering what little remains of the British empire.
And the king is just like, yeah, no, go ahead.
I'm not going to stop you from dismembering my realm.
I don't care.
We're going to give away like the Chagos islands thing is the most ridiculous.
What is that?
So out of nowhere, kiss armor was like, I think we're going to give away this Chagos islands.
So I kept it.
We've got a military base there.
We work for the Americans with it.
We actually need that.
And he's like, yeah, good point.
Maybe we'll lease it off the Mauritians.
So we're giving it back to you for 9 billion a year or something stupid like that.
It's like, who is making you do this?
Yeah.
Like no one was making you do this.
Why are you doing this?
So we're just, we're just paying out money for no reason that I hate it.
Honestly, it makes no sense at the same time while they're complaining about Russia, largely you're, you're complaining.
There's an Imperial nation that wants to take over Europe while you're dismantling your, your infrastructure.
Is Russia making them do it?
I guess.
Can we, can we point the finger there?
Nope.
Nope.
No one is making them do it.
What it, what it comes from is a legal judgment.
Now, well, it like an, a legal, a piece of advice.
It wasn't even a judgment, but it was a piece of advice that some human rights lawyer wrote.
wrote years ago saying oh well shouldn't chagos be really with the mauritians and there's nothing to it there's no force of law behind it it's just that i think that would be nice but you're exactly right like we are moving into an era of geopolitical instability, actually securing those things that we actually already have to make sure we can project power around the world to protect ourselves seems wise.
And so obviously the Labor government is like, right, okay, well, if that's going to hurt Britain to give that away, then we'll give that away.
And any excuse to make us weaker and more feeble, that's what this is.
I can make a bunch of predictions about the United States.
You know, it's looking pretty good.
The Trump administration, like I said, they've already begun denaturalizing criminals.
Your citizenship is not guaranteed.
The Big Beautiful bill that Trump calls it, it's got a lot of problems, but it does provide tens of billions for ICE and CBP to begin mass deportations.
So there's a lot of things to be looking forward to with what the Trump administration is doing.
As for the UK, however, I don't follow your guys' news every day, but at least a cursory glance, it doesn't seem like you have that same kind of, you did mention the Restore Britain movement, but is there actually political weight behind any kind of effort to solve these issues for you guys?
Well, it was literally only launched yesterday.
So again, to get 100,000 followers in a day, not a bad thing in Britain.
So that's a good start.
It's hard to say.
We're four years out from an election and a lot can change in four years.
Nigel Farage is currently ahead in the polls, but he only started this party four years ago.
So who knows what happens in four years?
I tell you what, though, I am generally quite impressed with how Trump is handling things.
Love Stephen Miller.
My God.
What a great beast.
Yeah.
I love Stephen Miller's uncompromising moral lectures towards the press being like, no, no, no.
It's about locking up criminals, about deporting criminals, about making America safe.
And those people who shouldn't be here can just go.
And again, the denaturalization.
Look, man, if it was signed at a stroke for pen that they happen to be naturalized, they'd be unnaturalized at the stroke for pen as well.
You know, sorry, if that's what it takes to make you a citizen, then you're not really a part.
You're not from the place.
You know what I mean?
And so if you don't behave well, if you commit crimes, yeah, stroke for pen out.
And perfectly reasonable.
This law has been in the books since the 40s that in the event of fraud or crimes against the United States, citizenship can be revoked.
The process can be revoked.
So I suppose then, you know, with all the talk about regime change in Iran, would you welcome the U.S. bringing regime change to you guys?
As with the Iranians, no.
Believe it or not, people actually don't approve of this.
You can ask the Canadians at the moment if they like the idea.
The U.S. coming and changing your government?
It's got to be something that comes from the inside, right?
It has to be something that you do yourself.
On the plus side, I can't imagine that the mullahs are going to last that long in Iran.
Like the Iranians are not an Islamic society anymore.
And so having this artificially imposed upon them from above.
And the Iranians are proud, man.
They've got a great history and they're a very proud people.
So like saying that we're going to come over and regime change, it's just going to get their backs up.
And it's the same over here.
You know, we're actually, we are a proud people with a great history and we're not having this.
The change has to come from within.
We appreciate the offer, though.
To be honest with you, right?
If something kicked off here, I don't think our government has the capacity to resist it.
They are not competent.
They're not effective.
They can't recruit for the army.
The police are absolutely, they're just a clown show.
I mean, every day you see videos of British police looking just, oh, God, like they've come out of a circus or something.
And it's just like, and the thing they're most worried about is the white British population has been like, no, we've had enough.
We've had enough.
It's violence from here on out.
That's what it's going to be.
And that is why Starmer came out and just started rampantly putting people through the courts after Southport.
Because he was like, no, I've got to smash this down and make an example.
And that's why they're all in jail at the moment to make an example.
The thing is, this didn't make people less angry.
This didn't make people less inclined to not cooperate.
It just cemented a lot of people's results saying, okay, all right.
We noted and we'll see where that goes, right?
I think there's an inevitability.
Either, you know, what's a saying?
Either there's a peace, if those that prevent peaceful revolution make violent revolution inevitable.
Or if you stop peaceful.
So the issue is in New York, you've got this Zoran Mamdani who has literally proposed taxing white people.
And, you know, I've had people ask me, like, how is it possible that he could actually put that?
Like, you know, my friends and family are like, what?
And I'm like, look, I've shown the website.
Here's the PDF that says richer and whiter neighborhoods should be taxed higher property tax values.
And whiter neighborhoods.
Like, it's not even an implication.
It's our inference.
But they asked me, how is it possible?
And I tell them, because white people are 29% of the population.
And so if all racial groups have an out-group, I'm sorry, have an in-group preference, then you basically can go to 70% of the population and say, hey, here's a racial group you guys don't like.
How about we take their stuff?
And they're going to vote yes.
But what's going to happen is for these white liberals with out-group preference, they're agreeing to it.
If that spreads, or let's say like in the instance of the UK with England, once it gets down to a certain percentage of population being a minority but overtly oppressed, you will get riots.
And so right now with people being arrested for social media posts and with the percentage base of the white population of England declining, sooner or later, you're going to have people who say, I have nothing left to lose.
The government is crushing me.
They're taking everything from me.
And it will just become race riots.
I think in the U.S., this is going to reverse.
Someone pointed, I can't remember who it was on the show, on our show last night, said that the white classical liberal nations tolerated equality and these liberal values among all races that these other nations do not appreciate.
So it's not about the race of the person necessarily, but when you bring in people from South America or Africa or otherwise, and their views are more tribal and racially based, once they get power, they will eliminate the equality in the system, and then you will get race conflict again.
Yeah.
The best case scenario is that what happens to our countries, and I mean all of our countries, the Anglosphere countries, is, I mean, best case scenario, Lebanon, worst case scenario, South Africa, right?
Yep.
So things are rough in Lebanon, and they've been through a civil war, but in South Africa, you have a building genocidal movement that has, there's a million people strong and that results in loads of stochastic terrorism of the most barbaric kind, genuinely the most barbaric kind.
A kind of balkanization like you see in Lebanon would be better than that.
But honestly, I think the South Africanization of our countries is what's going on.
I mean, what's the guy's name in New York?
I can never pronounce it.
Zohran Mamdani?
Zoran Mamdani, yeah.
It just, just, you know, it's from Uganda.
It's not exactly, you know, like bloody George Washington, is it?
You know, like Samuel Adams.
Did you know that?
Zohan Ramani or whatever his name is.
I think something might have gone wrong there.
Do you know that in South Africa, they have gates blocking their home, the living room and kitchen from their bedrooms?
So when you go into your property, you open up a gate and lock it, and it's got probably spikes or electrical wire or something.
Then you go in your house, and when you're going to bed, you go through your bedroom gate and lock the gate to your bedrooms because it is so common that they bypass the outer gate and break into the house.
They had to put gates around their bedrooms where they sleep.
That's South Africa.
That's awful, isn't it?
Yep.
But this Zoran guy, what he's doing is an explicitly South African policy, where it's affirmative action for the majority in New York against the minority who honestly, I just don't think deserve it.
That's the fundamental issue that comes all this.
And the question is, well, again, it comes back to the kind of jurisdiction, because in South Africa, there are lots of black people who just feel that they have complete jurisdiction over the country.
It's not a rainbow nation.
It's a black nation with an occupying white minority.
And that's what Zohan is putting across when he says, we're just going to tax the white people because they're richer, right?
So the jurisdiction isn't an integrated shared one between a plurality of communities.
It's the non-white community having jurisdiction over the white community.
And that's what people can feel is happening in all of these countries.
They can feel it.
And frankly, it's the dignity of their own sort of collective sense of self that is under attack with all of this.
And this is what the Southport riots were about.
It's like, look, we know the country isn't being run for us.
And we want a country that's being run for us.
Because people have got to remember, all of the immigrants who come in, they all have countries of their own that are run for them.
They all have these countries.
And you can say, yeah, but look at them.
Like there was a Democrat the other day who said, yeah, but it's not safe to send people back to Haiti.
It's like, okay, but whose fault is that?
Like that's their problem.
And if you want, we can send a governor maybe, send like, you know, 5,000 men, send a governor, set up a task force, impose colonial rule on them if it makes it safer for them to live there.
But it's not that we have to take them all in as refugees.
That's not our responsibility.
That's what independence means.
That's why I liked the movie Black Panther, where it was a tribal country where the right to rule was tried by combat among only the men in the regal line.
We don't do that here.
But also, when D'Chala said, if we open up our country to refugees, we bring their problems in with us.
So anyway, I mean, I don't know what the message of the movie is supposed to be.
You described it as Adolf Hitler versus Richard Spencer, I believe, which was funny.
But we are out of time.
So, Carl, where can people find you?
You can find me at loadcases.com, where we cover this sort of stuff every day on the podcast.
Right on, thanks for hanging out, man.
It's always good to see you.
We'll see you next time.
Anytime, man.
Take care.
Take care.
I actually did like the Black Panther movie.
Because for those that don't know the first Black Panther, T'Challa was like, close our borders.
We don't let anybody in.
The wealth belongs to us.
Our way of life belongs to us.
And in the end, they're like, we'll bring in some people.
But as you can clearly see from all of the MCU Marvel history, they kept the borders up.
They kept the barriers up.
They didn't let anybody in.
They went to Oakland and like started a youth center in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, which is just weird or whatever.
And then, of course, they made the second Black Panther, which I kid you not.
I hope you guys have seen it.
It's about a bunch of Mexicans, not a joke, sneak into Wakanda through the river.
And in order to defeat Neymar, the bad guy, who's a Mexican guy, whatever the woman's name is, I forgot her name, because Talib died.
She has to dry his back off.
I'm not kidding.
This is not a joke.
In the movie, they're like, this Mexican man, his skin absorbs the oxygen from the water.
So that's why he's so strong.
If you can dry him off, he will be weak.
And she literally blasts his back with a jet, which like dries all the water off, and then he collapses.
Wow.
I can't believe they made that movie.
Nobody noticed that?
Okay, we're going to wrap up.
Smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, shout out to Carl Benjamin.
We're going to get that raid ready for you guys and send you on your way to hang out with our friend Russell Brand, who is going live right now.
So once again, follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
Smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, we're back at 8 p.m. tonight.
Timcast IRL.
Don't miss it.
▲
Export Selection