Timcast IRL - Biden DECREES New 28th Amendment WITH NO AUTHORITY & Dems CHEER w/Myron Gaines

Episode Date: January 18, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Elaad are joined by Myron Gaines & Adam Johnson to discuss Joe Biden decreeing a new 28th amendment, SCOTUS ruling 9-0 to uphold the looming TikTok ban, Myron Gaines saying Pro Palestine posts are the reason for TikTok getting banned, and Trump's inauguration to be moved indoors. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @elaadeliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guests: Myron Gaines @MyronGainesX (X) Adam Johnson @LecternLeader (X) Myron Gaines is a former federal agent and social media personality known for co-hosting the "Fresh & Fit" podcast, where he discusses dating, fitness, and self-improvement topics. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win.

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Joe Biden, on his way out, has hereby decreed the 20th Amendment is not ratified, which he can't do. He has no legal authority to do. And this is absolutely hilarious to me. Once again, Joe Biden has decreed the Equal Rights Amendment is now law of the land.

And Democrats are lining up saying, yay, the 20th Amendment is ratified. And it's not. It's not a thing. It's the weirdest thing for Joe Biden to decree something like this. And the funny thing is, where's the corporate press to call him out as an authoritarian despot trying to rule by decree? I guess because he only has three days left and they've already started removing his portrait. They don't really care, but we do and we'll talk about it. Then, big news.

The Supreme Court has unanimously agreed TikTok is going to be banned. Now, the ruling is actually that China must divest. TikTok is choosing to shut themselves down in this country, but it's an effective ban based on what's going to happen. They're going to pull from the app store. Donald Trump apparently wants to have an executive order to protect TikTok, but that would be insane because then what do our laws mean if they're just ignored outright?

Aside from that, the third-party companies that run these servers and host the app probably are going to just take them down anyway because they don't want to be involved in anything criminal. Should be interesting, my friends. But before we get into all of the news today, make sure you head over to TimCast.com and click join us to become a member and support our work directly. Why? It's how the show exists. Without you as members, there's no show. If you like the show, be a member. Now, here's the best part.

As a member, you'll get access to our Discord community. Over 20,000 people share memes. There's a pre-show. There's a morning show. There's an after show

every day. So if you're looking to make friends and connect with like-minded people to figure out what's going on in this world

and maybe some of you hate my guts and want to go in there and tell all of the people in the community how much i'm bad you can do it just become a member at simcast.com in fact a lot of people uh argue all the time in the discord it's great you'll also get access to our uncensored members only show monday through thursday and our whole library of uncensored shows a lot of good stuff in there so uh please become a member if you believe that we do a good job and you want us to continue to exist.

Without you, we would not. So thank you all to all of our members. Now, don't forget to also smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more, we got Myron Gaines. Hey, happy to be here, man. One half of the Fresh Fit Podcast. I run my own show, Myron Gaines X, on all the platforms, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.

Political commentary, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Then we do Fresh Fit. Right on. We got the lectern guy. Hey, hi, everyone. Glad to be back on. World's most infamous furniture mover, unlicensed. Glad to be back. Adam Johnson. My name is Elad Eliyahu. I'm glad to be here.

I am a journalist here at TimCast News. I also am a Jewish affairs correspondent. Shabbat shalom, everybody. Phil, how's it going? Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary. Let's go. Before we get started, don't forget we got Cast Brew Coffee available. And let's just check the numbers because Ian's graphene dream, he's only got 839 bags left. You know what I think it is? I think

Ian is promoting the coffee on his own time. So I'm like, there's no way he's so like just from us doing these, he sold over 1,200 bags, but he has. So a shout out to Ian for his coffee. We also got Phil's coffee two weeks till Christmas, even though we're three weeks from Christmas, it's fine. You can get your bag of gingerbread coffee with Phil dressed like Santa Claus. And the reason why I held off on promoting this until after the introductions is because of this. I am deeply offended, gentlemen. Joe Biden decreed the 28th Amendment. The only problem was I decreed it two weeks ago. Two weeks ago, I personally decreed the 28th Amendment. Go to boonieshq.com to pick up the 28th Amendment skateboard. And it is this. Chickens being necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep, bear, and breed chickens shall not be infringed. Joe Biden comes along and thinks he can then decree a different 28th Amendment. He's infringing upon my right to sell skateboards. So go to booneyshq, pick him up. And now let's get serious and jump to the news. We got this story from CNN. Biden says equal rights amendment is ratified. It's not kicking off expected legal battle as

he pushes through final executive actions. This one's actually pretty amazing. He tweeted this today. I'm affirming what I have long believed and what three fourths of the states have ratified. The 28th amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of their sex. You then get this beautiful, beautiful community note

that says, actually, the National Archivist who is responsible for enrolling new amendments has stated the ERA has not been lawfully ratified, citing a legal opinion drafted by the Biden

Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in 2022, confirming this position. And then we get good old Kirsten Gillibrand. President Biden just declared that the Equal Rights Amendment is now a valid part of the Constitution and should be considered the law of the land. This is an incredible moment for reproductive freedoms, an historic day for equality, blah, blah, blah. And then you get the rare double. You get the double community note because she gets community noted.

And then Biden is community noted because it is not ratified. But what I find truly fascinating with all this is that Biden just tried to decree an amendment to the Constitution. And the media isn't screaming that he's a despot trying to take over the country. Yeah, they're not calling him a fascist. They should. I mean, first of all, he tweeted nothing. That was one of his staffers. And we've seen the makeup of his staffers,

so it was probably definitely one of the ones wearing a dress with a package below. I got to be honest. I actually think this might be like a low-level staffer who was just like, I'm doing it, and just tweeted it out. Yeah. YOLO, right? I mean, I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that Kamala followed suit, you know, Gillibrand followed suit.

It's just— It's one person! Oh, know, Jill Abrant followed suit. It's just – It's one person. Oh, the same person for all of them. It's one person running all their accounts. Well, I mean, maybe. You know? Who knows? The DNC hired the Kamala HQ staffers.

So it's probably like – okay, like half kidding, but it's probably one person tweeting all this stuff, right? Yes. No, it is. I mean, I used to work in the government. Like, dude, government employees don't know how social media works whatsoever. It's like one person that does all this stuff, right? Yes. No, it is. I mean, I used to work in the government. Like, dude, government employees don't know how social media works whatsoever. It's like one person that does all the technology, does all the social media.

They do everything. So, yeah. No matter how bad you are at it, you will find a new gig in the same business. It's amazing that the Kamala HQ people got, I think, promoted to do Democrat or another page with the Trump administration. It's going to be nice to have someone back in office who can use Twitter again.

All by himself. Well, I mean, here's the truth. Technically he can, but he does tweet things like covfefe. The issue is when Trump screws it up, it's funny and we enjoy it. I guess it's like this. Trump tweets covfefe and it said despite the negative press covfefe, obviously he was going to say coverage, and then he sausage fingered the phone and accidentally sent it. Run on sentences.

Yeah. That's good, too. He doesn't use periods or commas. But here's the thing. When Trump tweets mean things, remember that Coke tweet where he was like, what did he say? He said, it's garbage, but I'm going to keep drinking it anyway or something like that. It was a really funny tweet.

The thing about what Democrats do is they post insane lies that negatively impact our actual society. Whereas Trump just posts memes and then like rants and has run up run sentences or covfefe. Yeah, it's funny. Trump's an insane man on Twitter. And that's the way they are well on the Internet. And that's the way that we like him. Yeah, that's the way that everybody wants well on the internet. And that's the way that we like him. Yeah. That's the way that everybody wants.

That's why people pay attention to Trump. It makes money for all the Democrats. So they can say, look at how terrible this guy is. Look at how he's going to end the world. And it's, it's such a bad thing and blah, blah,

blah. It's locker room talk. You know, that's why we appreciate it. That's right. So let's, let's read Biden's new 20th amendment. It says,

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress, assembled two-thirds of each house, that the following articles proposed and amended, etc. Article 1, equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. 2, the Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article. And three, this amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. So can someone explain to me what the heck the first section even

means? Equality of rights of the law shall not be denied or abridged. We already have the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yeah. So what does this thing even do? Makes the left feel good i mean it's it's it's not substantive you know the the idea that that there's some form of inequality out

there that is is systemic as bs and the fact that or the idea that it's elite that it's legal to discriminate because of the 64 civil rights act like the idea that it's legal to discriminate because of the 64 Civil Rights Act the idea that it's legal to discriminate, that's BS too, so it doesn't do anything actually. We got a real time fact check from Neboops. Trump tweeted, I have never seen a thin

person drinking Diet Coke. Epic. Two days later he says, the Coca-Cola company isn't happy with me. That's okay. I'll still keep drinking that garbage. They gave him the bottle the other day, too. The CEO of Coke gave him the little bottle. That's right. I heard that the Diet Coke presidential, Diet Presidential Coke.

Is that what you call it? What's better, though? Coke Zero or Diet Coke? Neither. It's awful. Coke Zero, man. Come on. Coke Zero is where it's at.

I don't drink that garbage. I remember when I was on a job back in the day, and I got a full-on argument with one of my colleagues about Diet Coke versus Coke Zero is where it's at I don't drink that garbage I remember when I was on a job back in the day and I got like a full on argument with one of my colleagues about Diet Coke versus Coke Zero Coke Zero is superior A glass bottle of the inauguration of President of the United States Donald J. Trump Trump loves Diet Coke man

Apparently he had a Diet Coke button At McDonald's I heard he had a Diet Coke button Oh I didn't know a Diet Coke button Okay I didn't know that Oh wow I know he loves McDonald's button I heard he had a Diet Coke button oh I didn't know a Diet Coke button and someone bring him a Diet Coke I know he loves McDonald's too I think it's funny that we're looking at Joe Biden

decree mandate to the Constitution and like the complaints about Trump like we did this debate earlier on the culture war was that he was threatening the media. He was saying he was going to use like he's take legal action against him. Yeah. And it's like, but but you can file legal action like that's a thing you can do and challenge to a court to see if you are correct. And then Joe Biden is ruling by decree and they're acting like Trump's the fascist.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, look, what I think is this. I think every president likes to leave behind some kind of legacy or I did this when I was in office, et cetera. I think with Biden, right, he's going to have a pretty much tarnished legacy. So on his way out, like, look, I did this. And yeah, I think that's kind of what it is. Like every president likes to have something that they're remembered by, some kind of act or some kind of order that they put in place

while they were in office. And this is my legacy. He's trying to avoid being remembered exactly like jimmy carter and it's a little bit unnerving how many parallels there seems to be between him and jimmy carter that's a good one term democrat president um and then also with the hostage releaser or we hope to see the hostages be released uh those parallels are just really. And Trump's basically like Reagan. Like the Make America Great Again was effectively his Reagan slogan. And I think Jimmy Carter was also the first person to,

or Joe Biden was the first sitting senator to endorse Jimmy Carter when he ran or something like that. And they go way back. But he's nervous to be remembered that way. And he's trying to get his goodies in, Myron, as you said, at the end. And this is the best he could muster this isn't changing anything this isn't really doing anything this isn't a difference maker um and he had a bunch of like unfavorable pardons on his

way out that's why presidents always pardon on the way out because a lot of times it's wildly unpopular so i think this was like okay i gave a bunch of unpopular pardons on people that probably shouldn't be pardoned uh let me go ahead and do this thing and say woo civil rights yeah yeah i don't see the i don't see the benefit of making this kind of assertion though everyone knows like everyone's serious knows and another thing is i don't see why cnn is covering it as if it's a real thing as well you know this is it they the idea that it's going to be challenged in the courts it's not going to be a law at all like this is just factually not true they're making stuff up and asserting oh we have this power the federal government acts or well people act as if as if the executive branch has a whole lot more authorities than it does and hopefully even though

people want to see trump come in and do a bunch of stuff hopefully when trump's done the actual office of the executive office is significantly smaller because hopefully he's gotten rid of a lot of the bureaucracies or at least shrunk them. Move them out of D.C. so that way people quit. I mean, look,

we were talking last night. If you move the bureaucracies, like when you move a business or whatever, there's about 20% attrition rate. So move the bureaucracies, like when you move a business or whatever, there's about 20% attrition rate. So move the bureaucracies out of D.C. It serves multiple purposes. First of all, it changes the culture because they're not trying to get into the same parties. They're not trying to be hanging out with the cool people in D.C.

That stuff ends if you put Department of agriculture in Iowa and you put the FBI, I don't know, in Denver or whatever, just get them out of DC to put the FBI up in, in Alaska. But the point is get them out of DC because DC went 94% for Kamala Harris. Yeah. 6% for Donald Trump.

I mean, to say that it's a single political opinion in D.C. is not an overstatement by any stretch of the imagination. So get him out of there. And then hopefully that'll shrink the power of the executive branch because the cabinet-level bureaucracies will shrink because people will decide, I don't want to go to these weird places.

I like living in D.C. Maybe I can get a job as a lobbyist or whatever. And hopefully this will have an actual tangible positive effect on the size of the bureaucracy. Because you know that if Trump tries to fire anybody, there's going to be all kinds of issues with that, too. Not to get into the political weeds a little bit too much here, but I think the presidents are able to dictate like this because Congress has kind of sent their duties away to the president by not fulfilling them themselves. So Congress is completely, the process is retarded. I mean, that literally like slowed down. And with the Senate filibuster with over 60 votes, they're barely able to pass something right now.

I think the majority after at least Stefanik gets confirmed is going to be something like 217 to 215. So with Congress unable to get anything done, the presidency feels more and more emboldened. Congress people do not want to take controversial stances and have to lose when they run again in two years. And they'd rather send that to the presidency and let him do all their dirty work. I mean, I think we can blame, you know, blame George Bush and the Congress that we had during the for the aughts because they abdicated a massive amount of power to the president by saying they gave him the authority to wage war in Iraq, which there was, in my opinion, there was nothing good that came from the Iraq war. The fact that Congress no longer passes laws, everything's an omnibus. They do everything they can to shirk responsibility and have their constituents have some way to deny that they did something their constituents dislike. But Myron, certainly this should be disconcerting because with this new Equal Rights Amendment, should it be actually viewed as ratified, you're going to have twice as hard of a time to get rid of the 19th i know that's why i'm pissed off like i'm like we need to get rid of the 19th amendment this makes my job harder now i wonder

how many people out there are like which one's the 19th the one that lets women vote for those that are wondering we need to take that away but uh i'm all in favor of getting rid of the 17th that's a bad one byron you said said you don't want women to vote. Would you vote for a woman? No. No, no position. I don't think women should vote. I will say, I don't think getting rid of the

19th Amendment goes hard enough. I think that just getting rid of women's rights to vote, that's just the tip of the iceberg. That's just the beginning. Yeah, we need to get rid of a lot of people's rights. Yeah. That's the the tip of the iceberg. That's just the beginning. Yeah, we need to get rid of a lot of people's rights. Yeah. Because that's the family guy joke where Peter's like, we're going to set up a new country where everyone can vote,

except for black people and women and Jewish people and the Irish, the Italians. You know what? No white people. No one votes. You know what? Women and blacks can vote. Yeah, there you go.

No blacks either. Wait, what about non-Protestants? No. If we had, and I'm not even a Protestant. If you actually had a government that truly protected the rights that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, I would have no issue with being like, Phil, you can't vote. I don't care. Fine.

If you had a limited government that actually was was restricted by the constitution but the bill of rights and the the the powers laid out in the in the constitution i don't care because it's not supposed to matter it's supposed to be states that really matter to you it's supposed to be where you live given the way the past election went i am happy with the current electorate i don't think we need to get rid of women from the electorate or i i agree i don't think anybody needs to be set up from I don't think we need to get rid of women from the electorate. I agree. I don't think anybody needs to be removed from the electorate. I think we need to add prerequisites.

We can start simply selective service. That's my main basis for why, yeah, for the repeal on the 19th. So my view is that I don't care who you are, what your background is. That's silly. It's mostly tongue-in-cheek half the time. Some people it's not so much, but usually tongue-in-cheek. The real issue is there has to be civic responsibility tied to voting in general. Agreed, agreed.

And that alleviates a lot of the problems. But let's jump to this next story from the AP. Supreme Court backs law banning TikTok if it's not sold by its Chinese parent company. This goes hard, ladies and gentlemen. It wasn't just the Supreme Court backing the divestment bill, which effectively bans TikTok. It was 9-0. Every justice agreed. Let me read this.

We got this post from Russell T. Warren. He says, I read the legal opinion. Here's what you should know. TikTok lost almost every single argument it made. It's a 9-0 ruling, sending a resounding message. TikTok's data collection practices are insane. The app gathers data that other apps normally consider off-limits, including the content of users' private messages

and the full contents of a user's device contacts. I've also heard this, I don't know if it's true, that it collects the private messages of other apps. Have you guys heard that? I've heard that, but I've heard it collects everything. It's the most invasive by far. By far. They say...

If you read the terms of the server, it's actually very scary. I'll try and pull that up in a second. They say it's the last part that concerns SCOTUS the most. If you have an email contact who has a TikTok account, China has your name, email,

and possibly your phone number, photo, and more. Chinese law requires its social media companies, including TikTok and ByteDance, to assist or cooperate with the Chinese government's intelligence work and to ensure that Chinese government and more. Chinese law requires its social media companies, including TikTok and ByteDance, to assist or cooperate with the Chinese government's intelligence work and to ensure that Chinese government has the power to access and control private data. And so to that point, the fact that it's going after people that aren't, that don't have TikTok, right? So if you have

the email address of some, or if someone that has a TikTok account has your email address, that means they likely have all of your information as well. That's probably a significant issue for the Supreme Court. It's like if you if you want to say, I don't want a TikTok, I don't want to have TikTok. I don't download it on my phone. That's that's supposed to insulate you from being from being collected by. I'm going to add on to that in a second. Let me read the last two points. It says, Congress and the FBI worry that this info and more could be used for espionage or to compile blackmail dossiers on elected officials or government employees.

All nine SCOTUS justices agree that the need to prevent espionage overrules any First Amendment concerns. Yeah. And then he says you should stop watching those stupid dancing videos months ago. Facebook has something called shadow profiles. Do you guys know what this is? You ever hear this? No, shadow profiles, no. So let's say your mom never signs up for Facebook.

She has what's called a Facebook shadow profile. How it works is, let's not use you as an example. Let's use a hypothetical mom. She has three kids and she has Tom, Dick, and Harry. She's never signed up for Facebook. Tom, Dick, and Harry each have in their phone book, mom, mom, and mom. And the phone number is 555-1234. When they log into Facebook Messenger, it says, would you like to sync your contacts?

Yes. Facebook then gets a list of your contacts, including mom, 555-1234. Facebook now knows Tom, Dick, and Harry are brothers. Here's where it gets better. A lawn server, you know, a groundskeeper has Janet, the woman's name, in the phone book, 555-1234. Facebook now knows Janet has three sons, Tom, Dick, and Harry. Here's where she lives.

Here's where she gets her lawn mowed. And they can track where she is, what she does, based on the data of other people. TikTok does the same thing. The only difference is that it's controlled by China. This is where things get pretty crazy. But I can't believe I'm saying this. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're standing up, please sit down.

Jimmy Kimmel broke this down beautifully with an excellent point. But hey, a broken clock, right? Here's what Jimmy Kimmel had to say. They're right. It's not enough for teenagers, just like crop tops are great shirts for old fat guys. TikTok is for everyone. The problem with TikTok is it's totally controlled by the Chinese government. I heard a good explanation of why there's a problem,

because I wasn't sure why exactly it was a problem. The reason why the Chinese having our kids' personal information is a threat is because kids aren't kids forever. They grow up and get jobs, and when they do, the Chinese government will have all the passwords they use. They'll have everything they posted, their financial information in a lot of cases, messages, you name it, they will have it,

which isn't so much of a problem if they grow up to work at Petco, but some teenagers grow up and become nuclear physicists or they join the military or the State Department. Every single person in the Army and the State Department used to be a teenager. I don't know if you knew that. And in the future, the Chinese government will have tons of their data to blackmail them with. And that's why it's a national security threat when your nephew films

himself eating corn on the cob off a Makita drill bit, which someone did and like it hurt their teeth. But the interesting thing is he's oversimplified it quite a bit, but that is a big issue. And then as it pertains to the law, I do want to read this from OSINT Defender. If TikTok is at all accessible after Sunday, it will truly prove just how useless our federal government really is.

What is the point of declaring something a national security threat and pushing to ban it only to totally change up days before the ban goes into effect? I completely agree. Yeah. TikTok, TikTok, man. They've been talking about this for years that they were going to get rid of it because of it being.

Well, let's start here. Go ahead. Do you guys think TikTok should be banned? Yes. I mean, I've made this point before the past couple nights and in my like we were we had a whole big episode where tim and one of our guests was talking about it and there was the free speech or the morality argument for me it's just a matter of like jimmy kimmel's thing it's just a matter of national security so like if all of this information is being collected by the chinese

communist party that is a bad thing for the United States national security. That's that's all there is to it. And people can say, well, you know, Facebook grabs this and, you know, X grabs that and yada, yada, yada. That doesn't make it good or right or OK. And I would I would argue and honestly, you're not going to make me think anything different. It's worse if China's doing it. It's bad when Facebook does it. It's bad if other apps are doing it. It's worse if a foreign adversary is doing it. And just to spell out why it's worse if a foreign adversary does it as opposed to a national company in America,

we could FOIA request companies in America. We could bring lawsuits to them. And TikTok answers to nobody. Well, actually, they answer to somebody, the CCP. So that's the difference between the two. And I'm obviously for the banning as well. We've seen how the government colludes with these big tech platforms, and it's bad.

But I got to be honest, guys. In the United States, if the federal government had compromising information that was stolen from your social media and released it, that would be a major scandal that could result in serious political consequences. If China has compromising information from your direct messages and releases it, nothing. Good luck. Have fun. And then what happens, I'll tell you, man, there are these stories. There was one story where a kid got catfished, like teenager, and the catfisher was like, send me compromising images, right?

This happens quite a bit. Then they blackmail the kid saying, we're going to upload this publicly and share it with all of your friends in school unless you give us money or do this thing. And this one kid committed suicide because of it. These people probably don't even live in the United States. What happens when China contacts some dude who's 20, not even a nuclear physicist, an intern working for a member of Congress, and they get an email, it's encrypted, and it says, you are going to download the hard drive in your office and click this link

and click this button which will send all of the data to this server otherwise we're publishing and then it posts a photo posts a video it posts this person's having an affair whatever then what do you do because that person either has to go public with that information go to the police or there be blackmailed and give up compromising information on the U.S. government or our politicians. Yeah, but we might get the Epstein list. Yeah, I was going to say it's like strategy of intel agencies. I mean, look, I'm indifferent with TikTok. I've been

banned a million times. It's super woke. It's annoying. It is what it is. I do think that there's a national security threat, especially with the amount of information it collects on there. It can absolutely put a lot of people in compromising situations. But let's be honest here. We know why TikTok is getting banned. It's because of Israel. It's not because of China.

We've been talking about getting rid of it for China reasons for years, but it wasn't until the ADL made us think about it that they said we're going to get rid of TikTok. I would say I agree. I do have another story that I want to pull up in a second. Sure, sure. But it is interesting how Democrats only recently got on board. But before we get into that and i i want to make sure everyone knows like put a pin in that one because we're

going to jump to it literally one minute whenever you're ready it is strange that we went from trump says let's ban it democrats say no democrats are probably republicans that agree let's ban it and now donald trump is saying don't ban it and what we heard the other day is that there are prominent trump supporting conservatives who are now lobbying on behalf of TikTok in the United States. My view of this is that proves it. Like, I'm sorry. This is a Chinese-owned company. And you have people publicly defending the rights of China to operate mass media in the United States.

And that, to me, is absolutely insane. And then guess what? These people are either getting paid by lobbying firms on behalf of TikTok. They have large followings on TikTok. They have interests to protect the platform. And then they defend, once again, a foreign adversary's interest in America over American interest. And to me, that's nuts. They sent spy balloons for months all across the country and there was no retribution for that whatsoever. That just happened. And we're like, yeah, they're allowed to spy on us. I'm not surprised this thing's been allowed to exist as long as it has. It should be, it should clearly be considered an espionage tool.

Like you can have your opinion about it. I know there are people that make money on it look there there is a legitimate complaint about things like facebook and the way that they treat their users the things like instagram meta is one of the most garbage companies it's the worst they're they're absolutely atrocious they treat their their users like absolute trash. The thing that people love about TikTok is the way that the algorithm spreads their content and the fact that TikTok lays it out right in front of you. If you want to make, if you want to gain followers, do these things. If Instagram would do that, Instagram would fill the role that TikTok has instantly. It would take six months if Instagram just said, look, we know that you guys wanted that the American people really like TikTok. So what we're doing is we're going to change the way that our algorithm works. So that

way we're going to help you guys reach other people. We're going to help. Well, if you look at all the updates for Instagram, it's directly to compete with tech talk over the past four to five years haven't done the important thing which is help people reach other other users i gotta i have like i don't i very try to compete i very rarely use my instagram page i think i have like 20 000 users or whatever and i got a message from instagram the other day a little one of the little posts i said what your post reached 330 people that are not in your network that's the most in blah blah it's like what the f do i care 330 people why am i going to be on your on your stupid platform i post something on x and if it's a good post it'll

reach multiple million people you know it's it's such a ridiculous thing so let's talk about this right now the story is of course that course, that TikTok is being effectively banned. And we saw early on Republicans wanted it banned. They viewed it as biased. But Democrats disagreed. At some point in 2023, Democrats all got on board. And then in early 2024, a bipartisan bill was passed, signed by Joe Biden, forcing TikTok to divest from China. The Supreme Court has ruled 9 to 0 that this law will be upheld and comes this Sunday. So in two days from this recording, TikTok will either have to be removed from U.S. servers or they will have to divest to divest from China. Now, Myron says the principal reason for this, the reason why this got banned is not because of Chinese threats, but because of the threat of China and a threat to our data and security, but because of Israeli interests. So I'm curious if you want to elaborate on that and why you think that is.

Yeah, I mean, we've been talking about banning TikTok for espionage for years, but it wasn't until the ADL and everyone else started making a stink about, you know, the overwhelming over-representation of pro-Palestine posts on TikTok that they actually started making things happen. And now we're kind of seeing the entail of that where they're getting rid of it. And there's been an enormous amount of lobbying from these organizations that are pro-Zionist to get rid of TikTok. I mean, hell, a bunch of them tried to buy it and they weren't successful. Ian Carroll made a fantastic video about this. So yeah, I mean, you know, the truth is, is that the main reason why TikTok is getting removed from the United States is for Israeli security. So I'm going to pull up this story. I'm going to pull up this story from Axios and I'll say this. I wouldn't frame it the same way

as you do, but we can have a difference of opinion. Yeah. But I do believe you are largely correct that it was lobbying from pro-Israel groups that resulted in Democrats changing their tune on the banning of TikTok. This story from Axios we covered at the time and straight up said that it was posts in favor of Palestine that resulted in Democrats finally getting on board with Republicans to to get TikTok effectively banned. In this story, it says on TikTok views of pro-Palestine posts far surpass views of pro-Israel posts. And it shows this chart. What's interesting here is that there were a bunch of experts in media and social media. I would consider, I would say this. Call me whatever you want.

As someone who for, you know, I don't know, 20 years has been working on social media in some form or another. I've been on the internet my whole life. And based on the research I've done in marketing and social media, we've built up this podcast, one of the top podcasts in the world. I agree with other researchers when it appears that TikTok intentionally altered its algorithm to promote pro-Palestine views. And so I can show you this chart and explain why. So this is just after October 7th. On October 16th to the 23rd, 2023, Stand with Palestine had 11 million views and Stand with Israel had 12 million. However,

there were 123,000 posts Stand with Palestine, and there were only 8,000 posts for Stand with Israel. This means that very few people were engaging with Stand with Palestine content. It was being posted. People were not watching the content. From in the next week, which is a rapid shift, with only 87,000 posts, so a decrease of around 40,000 posts, Stand With Palestine was now getting 285 million views. Stand With Israel saw an increase to 64 million views with 9,000 posts. But this is indicative of an intentional change in the algorithm. Now, there's one or two ways to look at it. TikTok's algorithm updates itself once a week, perhaps.

I don't know. And based on the amount of posts that came through, TikTok's algorithm automatically adjusted to then show more of this because so much content was being produced. I don't believe that likely. Seems more likely that there was an intentional shift in the algorithm to promote the views some 26 times more than they had already been seen before that. So it does look like there was an intentional promotion

of this content. When this happened, lobbying came to DC. Democrats changed their tunes overnight. This seems to be the reason. Elad, I'm uh, as someone who was much more pro Israel, what you think of that? I disagree that Israel is the main factor at play when it comes to the banning of Tik TOK. I think it's oversimplistic, lacks nuance, and, and it makes you actually miss a bigger and more interesting story of the interests that are at play here. So, for example, Trump used to be against or was for the TikTok banning initially because he was listening to many China hawks.

And he had a bad relationship with a very rich billionaire named Jeffrey Yass, who has a very large investment in ByteDance. And he is of the Club for Growth, a group that's been lobbying on Tic Tac's behalf to keep them together. Trump fixed his relationship with Jeffrey Yass, and he became a large Trump donor. And that's large in part why Trump has flipped on the TikTok issue. I think it also misses the bigger picture of other social media companies stand to benefit so much from TikTok's banning. For example, Meta, obviously, Google, Twitter, obviously, benefits a ton from this. And then also TikTok played their hand very poorly. I don't know if you remember initially when the bill came out before October 7th, when all the China hawks were talking about banning TikTok. When you opened up the TikTok app,

they actually had your congressman's phone number and then congresspeople got spammed with phone calls from young teenagers who never voted complaining about uh the tiktok the looming tiktok ban and i'll tell you one thing congress people do not like being pushed around like that but here's what i'll say that's not as salacious that's not as spicy that's not as sexy as saying damn the jews did it you know what i mean and and that's really one of the issues i think with spewing this stuff is that you miss the bigger more interesting political story and it's kind of, it makes you dumber, I think. But a lot. Just a spoon food, you just use it.

I think TikTok should be forced to divest from China for all of the data reasons. So when someone comes to me and says, Tim, it's the Jews, they did it, I'll be like, wow, they're great. I'm really happy that they helped us out here because they have base. Not only should you be thankful that the Jews got TikTok banned, they also helped get rid of Jamal Bowman, the Jews, and they also helped get rid of Cori Bush. I don't think the Jews get enough credit for all the good, the obvious. Well, maybe they really are our best ally.

I don't know. I'll say this. Myron, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding, Myron. No, no, you're good. You're good. I mean, I respectfully disagree. I do think that there is growing. You like Jamal Bowman. Yeah, I don't even know who that is. Oh, I respectfully disagree. I do think that there is growing...

You like Jamal Bowman. Yeah, I don't even know who that is, but... Oh, fire alarm guy. When you can blame everything on the Jews, you don't even need to think about these important elections. Yeah, no, I mean, my thing is, I don't think that it's manipulated, as you would say. I do think that in general,

there is a general disdain for Israel. Whether you want to look at TikTok saying, oh, yeah, pro-Palestine post. Well, if you look on X, X is overwhelmingly anti-Israel. If you look at YouTube comment section where there's two people. That's not true. Yeah, I don't know. X is not overwhelmingly anti-Israel.

Bro, I got to tell you. Every big pro-Israel commentator gets ratioed whenever they show. I got to pause you there, bro. You're in a bubble. You're in a bubble. That's because of the people that, I mean, he's got a point. If that is true, then why isn't Twitter banned?

Because the Jews are almighty and powerful. But if it's as unpopular and anti-Semitic as you're saying, Twitter is, then why isn't Twitter getting banned? I didn't say that. I just said that in general, on social media platforms, Israel is just not liked. Whether you look at YouTube videos where there's someone debating Zionism versus pro-Palestine stances,

the comment section, overwhelmingly anti-Israel. You fiercely misunderstand the function of social media in that regard. A loud community does not mean majority. Well, I don't know. 10,000 people who post every single time is not the majority. So do you know about the 1% rule? We live in a bubble in the United States. Do you know what the 1% rule is in the majority so do you know about the the one percent rule we live in a bubble in the united states do you know what the one percent rules in the united states a free bubble do you know okay do you know what the one percent rule on the internet is yeah

go ahead one percent of the people make all of the comments of course of course so it is it is it is never correct to say that because i see more comments or more ratios that determines this platform favors this thing so So I can't speak to the entirety of the platform. What I can say is, but it does indicate trends and it does indicate popular sentiment. But not this. It absolutely does not. So for example, when I post, but it's just literally logically not correct. Just because there's a small group of people who are very loud does not mean it's trending or popular. So for example, if I make a post about Israel, it gets slammed with spam that's anti-Israel. Now, a normal person might be like, wow, people hate Israel. Only, I'm not an idiot. So what do

I do? On numerous occasions, I have posted a tweet with no text. Literally, it would just say, Israel, Palestine. Guess who wins every single time? Israel. 80% to 20%. Then, the last time I did it, some of these anti-Israel users took the tweet and said, you know what to do, boys, and they all retweeted it like crazy. It's shifted to 70-30. I'm not saying that means Israel is more favored on the platform,

but I am saying the squeaky wheel gets the grease and a large, loud minority does not mean that X is anti-Israel in its majority. Yeah, of course. But I will say that there's a reason why the ADL is lobbying so strongly and saying anti-Semitism is on the rise and saying all this other stuff. The youth people, young people are waking up and realizing that Israel is not our greatest allies.

I disagree. I think there's a lot of people with legitimate criticisms of Israel. We can see here from NBC News, to go back into the story. This is, I'm not a fan of NBC News, but look, critics renew calls for TikTok ban, claiming platform has an anti-Israel bias. This is reported widely following October, saying that it's members of Congress, conservative activists, and wealthy tech investors are renewing calls to ban it, arguing that the popular content related to Israel-Hamas war on the app has a pro-Palestinian slant.

The concern was that it opposed U.S. military interests. China was trying to sow discord and all that stuff. It opposes Israeli interests, I would say. Well, certainly Israeli interests, but that also is U.S. military interests. Whether you think Israel is directing American foreign policy or the inverse, either way, the U.S. foreign policy is negatively impacted by TikTok and that matter I think the phrasing of that matters because it is the U.S. that is banning TikTok do you actually do you think that when you say that

Israel is directing foreign U.S. foreign policy do you think that Israel decides what the United States does Israel absolutely dictates our foreign policy especially in the Middle East you think especially in the Middle East you mentioned Iraq war earlier right you said it was a waste of time it was a bad war right why did we go to war in Iraq for Israel I don't believe that it was for Israel I think that it was actually because

Saddam Hussein went into Kuwait and I also believe that that's the reason but that was like a decade prior I was talking about the's the reason. Yeah, but that was like a decade prior. Okay, no, no. I was talking about the first. Okay. Desert Storm. Yeah, Desert Storm.

Not the second. I'm sorry. Iraqi. Yeah, you're right. Someone's phone is next to their microphone. It's all of our phones. You guys could hear that. It's all of our phones, yeah.

Right? Was the Kuwait war for the Jews too? I'm sorry? Was the Kuwait when we went to war in Kuwait? Was it not for Israel? Yes. I mean, most of our conflicts in Kuwait? Was that for Israel? Yes. I mean, most of our conflicts in the Middle East is for the benefit of Israel. We were defending Muslims in Kuwait.

I think they're mostly— If we're going to go ahead and look at our foreign policy in the Middle East, it's 100% dictated for Israeli security. I totally disagree because I think that a lot of the reason that we have the military actions is because of the Saudis, because we're defending the Saudis, because of the military base that we have in Saudi Arabia and stuff like that, and keeping the Saudi royal family in power because of oil. So I don't think that it's—I mean, I do think that there are times where the U.S. does stuff in conjunction with Israel. I'm not trying to say that we don't, but I don't think that it's always Israel. I would just say this.

If you were to say that Israel has immense pressure on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, I'd be like, interesting, tell me more. If you say they direct all of that, I'm going to be like, bro, come on. The Mujahideen, Afghanistan, the Soviets, all that stuff was not about Israel. So to be so absolute, I feel hurts your argument. Yeah, well, here's the thing. I'm not

saying absolutely, but I'm saying they dictate a significant amount of it. Well, that's why I asked you to clarify earlier. Well, I mean, we could talk about the Iraq War. That was for Israel. You know what I mean? The first one? Explain that. The first one or the second one?

I'm talking about 03. The weapons of mass destruction. Yeah, I think that was Iraqi freedom or whatever, right? I think George Bush was mad that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy. Guys, guys, guys. The whole justification was 9-11 and there was no connection. Go ahead.

I'm not saying you're wrong. The point of the Iraq war was that we surrounded Iran as Bolton, our Bolton bro over here, he knows this, but he winks at me. Bolton said,

what did he say? It was like in 2018 or whatever. By this time next year, we will be celebrating in Tehran. The U.S. foreign policy has long wanted to put a boot on Iran. So who wrote the foreign policy? For taking out Iran. Dual citizen neocons.

Like who? Yeah. Wolfowitz, the Pearls, the Fives. The Wolfowitz. All dual citizen Israeli neocons. Wolfowitz has Israeli citizenship. I don't. He doesn't have Wolfowitz.

Okay. Maybe one doesn't have Israeli citizenship. So, no, let's be specific. Who are you saying are the Israeli citizens? Those guys. Those guys. A bunch of them have dual citizenship. Can we name them?

Because I want to be specific. Wolfowitz doesn't. I'm talking about Pearl, Five, you know, Bill Kristol, et cetera. The point is, is that we have individuals that have a- Yeah, Wolfowitz is not. Yeah. The point is that- And I don have a... Yeah, Wolfowitz is not. Bill Kristol is not in Israel. Remember when they called Luke Rutkowski a Jew? Yeah. They made a chart of all the media

personalities. Not only Jewish, though, but Israeli citizens. And these aren't Israeli citizens. The point is that they went ahead and whether we're going to talk about a clean break memo or we're going to talk about foreign policy, etc. We have guys that are vastly interested in the security of Israel. There are government employees that have a dual loyalty.

I know that's a dirty word nowadays, but that is the truth. I think the argument here is that there's no logical basis not to argue the inverse, that the U.S. utilizes Israel as a partner in the Middle East for U.S. strategic interests. And so that's- You would have no beef in the Middle East if not for Israel. That's not true. The Soviets in Afghanistan, China and lithium in Afghanistan. I disagree with that too.

With the Soviets, that's a whole other situation. We armed the Mujahideen and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to fight the Russians. So in the Middle East, when we armed the Mujahideen and American imperialism radicalized and radicalized a bunch of them

to become Al-Qaeda why did they radicalize? because American empire was going and basically taking over a bunch of countries overthrowing governments like Iran bombing other countries

partnering with the Saudis joining enemies of certain Islamic groups the United States was interfering in the Middle East to go to war on behalf of whom?

the United States Israel we did not arm the mujahideen for israel the soviets were trying to take afghanistan yes and then they won and then they won they beat him off that's exactly osama bin laden poor choice of words they won yeah that was a bad choice of words they they knocked them out they got them out of there right and then what ends up happening where osama bin laden right has a beef with Saddam trying to fight with Saudi Arabia. He's like, hey, these guys, we need to go in and fight.

And then America says, no, we're going to protect them, et cetera. And it's all over oil. Go ahead. Sorry. Continue. No, no, no. Well, I was just going to say, I don't want to interrupt you. I was just going to make a point when you were done.

I think the issue largely comes down to, of course, the United States and Israel intertwined in military action in the Middle East. The U.S. has its interests. Israel has its interests. And they cooperate largely. Of course. What we end up then hearing from certain groups of people is that Israel is directing it. When it's like, I don't know, I mean, like the U.S. probably meets with Israel and says, here are the objectives we want. And then they work as a team. It is the foundation of many of the reasons why the Middle East hates us. It is our support of Israel. It is the foundation of many of the reasons why the Middle East hates us, is our support of Israel.

It is a huge reason. If you look at every single terrorist that's attacked the United States, whether it's Osama bin Laden to the Zokar brothers, every single time, our support of Israel is one of the chief reasons

why they attack us. That is 100% correct, and bin Laden wrote about it. Other countries have stated it strongly. The conflict with Hamas, Iran's interests, they do not like that the U.S. provides weapons support, et cetera, to Israel. It doesn't mean Israel controls the U.S.

I mean, that's a debatable thing. I mean, we— That's the debate we're having. Yeah, but they— Yeah, but I'm saying that they absolutely— Because we don't get any benefit from being over there. We really don't. What strategic benefit does the United States get?

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. What strategic benefit does the United States get? I would say this. I agree with you for a different reason. The United States, what benefit do we get from Ukraine or from Sudan or from Taiwan? I agree. Right. So for a different reason, I'm like, the U.S. isn't benefiting from these foreign entanglements in these ways.

Yeah, we don't. But the U.S. neocon neoliberal establishment and the military industrial complex and the petrodollar machine and the IMF and the swift payment system largely benefit from all of these incursions and alliances. It's not just Israel. There's a reason why we spent more on Ukraine in two years than all of Israel in 50 years. Yeah, but Israel gets away with things that other countries would never get away with. Ukraine gets away with things. No. Ukraine is drafting 60-year-olds and women. Yeah, but has Ukraine been involved in spying on us?

Yes. Have they stolen nuclear weapons from us? Yes. They've stolen nuclear weapons from us? No, no, no. They haven't stolen nuclear weapons. Yeah, but they were spying on us. And Kissinger gave Israel nuclear weapons.

It wasn't like they stole them. Kissinger was like... No, they absolutely stole them. They absolutely stole them. Wait, hold on. For the Americans? I thought it was the French. No, they stole the weapons from Apollo in Pennsylvania from the NUMEC facility.

They absolutely stole it. Smuggled them through South America, destined for Palestine. All right, so the challenge with that is that they stole the uranium. And so here's the challenge. So uranium or nuclear weapons? The uranium that they used to eventually create the nuclear weapons. And they should be getting aid now because of Jimmy Carter. So that's impossible to prove.

Kennedy knew this. It was a good reason why he got killed. One of the reasons he got killed. Bro, bro. I don't know if you want to go down this path, but I'm telling you, Kennedy knew this. It's not true. They tested the soil in Dimona. I've watched these videos, too.

I've read the documents as well. It's a lot of conjecture omitting a lot of information. So here's the issue i take with the israel controls everything it's like i'm not saying everything i mean like the foreign policy significant amount the issue is i see i i've long made this argument with a lot of different conspiracy theories i don't mean that negative way i mean like a group of people literally coming together to try and dictate something is that people will find a morsel of truth and they will isolate with a magnifying glass zoom in and it becomes their

whole world sure there are so many moving pieces to american empire so that's why i bring up ukraine so uh the issue with like foreign policy israel kennedy and all these things yeah it is it in my and i will just say this it is silly to to say that Israel is the reason Kennedy got killed. It's a component. I agree with you. That's very lazy because there was a bunch of people that wanted Kennedy gone. The mafia, the CIA. And the CIA probably did it.

They absolutely wanted him gone. So I never sit there and say, it's just them. No, I can explain systematically why they wanted him gone. But no one talks about the Zionist connection with the JFK assassination. What was the organization? It was like AZN and then there was APAC and then people tried. People take one piece and zoom it in. Yeah.

And that's wrong. There were so many components to this. But I will say that. That's why it's impossible to have a real argument. Here's the thing. They found in the soil, they tested the soil.

It came back. Who was they though? The CIA. They went over and they tested the mona, right? Yeah, I know. They went back and tested the soil

and they found that there's uranium in there. Back then, the only country that was making uranium of that enrichment was the United States from that Apollo facility. That's how Kenny knew that they had stolen the uranium from us. We were the only ones that made it. And he was putting pressure on Ben-Gurion to have nuclear inspections. That's why he resigned, actually, as a matter of fact. So it's been well documented that they stole the nuclear weapon from us and the materials to do so. And we should be giving them aid

because they violated an act from Jimmy Carter in 1973 because of that. So I can't really go into that. I don't have a good response. But what I will say is there's the aid that goes to Sudan that's been massive. There's obviously Taiwan. There's Ukraine.

We've given more money to Ukraine in two years than Israel in 60, 70 years. Yep's obviously Taiwan. There's Ukraine. We've given more money to Ukraine in two years than Israel in 60, 70 years. Get this. Ukraine, according to numerous sources, including Politico, which contradicts itself, Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election to try and get Hillary Clinton elected. The Ukrainian president has

come to this country and lobbied Congress, and Congress all waved Ukrainian flags in unison. You can't do that, too. I mean, that to me is absolutely insane. I'm not for foreign aid at all, by the way. All right, but here's my point. I'm against it. I'm not for foreign aid.

When people are like, Israel controls us. And I'm like, bro, they were waving Ukrainian flags in our Congress. They dropped it down. As the president came, even after they tried to overthrow our government. This is not an exaggeration. The Ukrainian government fed documents to political enemies of Donald Trump and got Manafort arrested to disrupt Trump's campaign, and he still won. Then you get the Burisma scandal. Ukraine is deeply entwined in interfering with the United States' government. Criminal actions. The Nord Stream pipeline was bombed. Germany has

accused the Ukrainian of having done it. Yet the U.S. has given Ukraine more, I'm not saying that Ukrainians secretly control the world. I'm saying foreign policy is not dictated by any one source. The figures at play here are massive, global. And I think the bigger picture to look at is IMF, SWIFT, the Military Industrial Complex, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations. These groups are not all one unified group. They're all just different wealthy special interests from various countries who all want somewhat different things but kind of align in certain areas. It's a big pie, and there are definitely Jews that are looking for a piece, but it's not all the Jews eating the pie.

I never said it's all. I'm very specific here where I'm saying that they're able to get away with certain things that other countries and other allies would never be able to get away with. I think Ukraine is. I'll say it again. But we don't have a Ukrainian lobby that controls our politicians. What happened when Donald Trump— Like, we don't have a UPAC.

What happened when Donald Trump tried to investigate the Burisma scandal? You're talking about with the Biden family, right? Obviously, the Biden crime family. All Trump said was, there's this video of Biden saying, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollars. I want to know what's about what happened to Donald Trump. A CIA agent or I don't know if he's an agent or whatever. Someone who was working with CIA recorded a phone call, passed it off to another employee who blew the whistle, resulting in not only the impeachment of Donald Trump, an attempt to arrest and jail him, but also big tech companies in the United States banned anyone

who would say the name of that CIA agent. That is one of the most insane things I have ever heard. And a criminal action by a former vice president, a quid pro quo, as he was active vice president, illegal by their standards. And when Trump said, let's investigate this, the CIA went after Donald Trump for it or Ukraine, not for Israel. Yeah. Well, look, again, I'm not doubting what you're saying.

Like, of course, the Burisma scandal, everything else like that, yes, that occurred. But what I am saying is that Ukraine does not have the same level of influence that Israel does in the United States. They don't have a super lobby. They don't have the powerful lobby that they have. And quite frankly, Ukraine would not be able to get away with half the things that Israel's been able to do. Well, I will say this. I do want to move on because we have big news. Sure, sure.

And I do think it's a fun conversation. It's a great discussion. I'm happy to have it. There's so much history. We have to go back like 200 years. I don't think we'd ever get there. So let's just... I'm just going to cut it off there. APAC should register as a foreign lobby group. Why? It's Americans donating. It's not.

Is there anything they should? Well, let's jump to this next story because it is somewhat still related to the big foreign policy discussion. We have this from The Daily Wire. Trump's inauguration to be moved indoors. Officials were worried about the health of those attending due to the freezing temperatures that are expected. Now, the first thing, polar vortex, ladies and gentlemen. They're saying the polar vortex is coming and it's going to be very cold, too cold maybe. And so they're going to have to go inside.

Now, the news around this in the immediate is that a lot of people who had tickets to the inauguration are getting notifications that they can no longer attend. Indoors means much, much smaller capacity. I'm curious, however, if any y'all have a theory as to a different theory as to why they may be moving i can speak on this a little bit uh you know as you guys know used to be especially with dhs and i've done secret service details before and i will tell you guys i mean obviously the fact that he's been almost assassinated twice um is gonna play a role into that and to them they're like look we just want to get this done they're obviously probably stressing out right now they They're making sure that he's going to be

safe because the worst thing that could happen is something happened to the president-elect on inauguration day. So I think this is more of a self-preservation. Whoever the director of the Secret Service is right now is like, I'm not going to get cheated. We're going to bring them inside. We're going to make sure this is good and we're going to get it done. Cheatled? Yeah, cheatled. So that's what I would say is like they're just trying to avoid headaches. Here you go from the Post-Millennial. D.C. area police refused to help secure Trump inauguration event. As soon as that happens, Trump probably said bring it inside.

They used health instead of safety and claimed freezing temperatures instead of, well, they righted last time we elected him. Yeah. Here's what I'll say. The Jews were just forced to have this horrible deal in israel that trump forced upon them and they said hey your inauguration was supposed to be beautiful weather we might have to turn down the temps a little bit so they have a special israeli harp but in all seriousness i just want to say this youtube he's joking please don't ban me

in all seriousness it's just actually really cold. And I don't think there's any foul play here. Yeah. And then also, I think it's important for people. Not as funny, though. It's not as interesting. The Secret Service is heavily dependent upon other law enforcement agencies to augment their security details. So them saying, hey, we don't want to be involved there.

We're not going to be able to give you as much manpower as you want. That is going to play a huge role in how much uh the secret services or what they're going to do because um you know and this kind of got exposed when he got shot the first time in butler is they're too overly reliant on other agencies so i think this also plays a big role in okay if you guys can't give us what we need we're just not going to do it versus like maybe prior assassin like if there had never been assassinations them they'd kind of like make do and they'd bring other people in. But now they're like, you know what, no, we're not going to try it. I think security is a big factor here. Huge.

The media is calling it a conspiracy. Look at this. Daily Mail says MAGA Republicans spark deep state conspiracy theories as Trump's inauguration has moved indoors. Security fears. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, I have personally attended countless rallies where President Trump spoke in extreme weather conditions from cold to rain to heat.

Is there a security threat or other extreme other than extreme cold temperatures, not only for him, but for the people? I think it's highly likely. We had already heard that there was I believe it was the Secret Service or the FBI issued a statement that there was a severe threat from politically aggrieved individuals coming up in dc this week yeah that report dropped we covered that last week next thing we know they're going indoors saying it's for the cold i think i think they may fear this drone stuff yeah i mean look just me putting on my old agent hat like if i was the director of secret service and i'm like responsible for his safety given all the fucking issues that have occurred over the past few months i want this to be done as nicely as possible smooth no issues we got threats whatever i'm going to mitigate as many risks as i can he's indoors i can control everything i control who goes in who goes out there's no open air like they can't afford for anything to even mic like

from a micro level look bad so yeah i mean if i was the director i'd put director, I'd put him inside too. I'd be like, your safety is paramount and we're not even going to risk it. I'm going to disagree. The Capitol's actually very easy to get inside of. They will just open doors so you can walk right in. Fair enough. There's going to be some dude dressed like a shaman. Better than outside then. Instead of the American flag, he's got a pride flag. So, at Trump's last inauguration, there were actually a lot many protesters outside,

and I believe there were many fights. Not fights. Trump supporters getting assaulted. I was there. So maybe they're trying to prevent something like that. It was several hundred people running around, smashing windows, starting fires. They torched some vehicles, and the police arrested some 200 of them. I was initially caught in the group of those arrested,

and I calmly waited, holding up a press badge until I was able to get out. Many others were arrested, charged with conspiracy, ultimately had their charges dropped, sued the city and won a million bucks. Do you think we'll see anything like that this year? Yep. Now, I say yes, but these people do not like bad weather. Leftists will scream and bash their faces on the table screaming revolution and then it starts raining and they say you want to go inside and have tea and play video games instead yeah like it is wild to me having covered all these protests

and i don't know if you've experienced this too a lot but like they'll put out a flyer being like we're protesting everyone show up at you, you know, Union Square or whatever. And then it rains and like 10 people show up. Yeah. Bad weather definitely tamps down the crowds a bit. I haven't seen any flyers. I haven't seen any flyers and stuff this inauguration. I was surprised.

We'll see what the reaction is this time around. Last time around there was the Women's March. We'll see if something like that comes into play. It'd be funny if that like, now that we're hearing that Deep State, people are quitting, Donald Trump is coming in, that all of a sudden Antifa just ceases to exist. Yeah. There weren't any protests at almost any Trump rallies this time around. No protesters at all, which was a bit shocking to me because the first time around, the deep state just gave up.

Well, Trump became normalized a bit. And you can only fearmonger for how many years, seven, eight years before it's just like, wait, this guy was already president. We should make a group called Antifa for Trump and then show up in D.C. wearing like masks and everything, but waving American flags of Trump on it. It was just cheaper to hire one person to try to shoot him, honestly, than have riots all summer long. I think that there's just not the energy there anymore. I really, like we've talked about this a little bit. There has to be at least a baseline of people that are really upset.

And without the stuff that came with the George Floyd situation, you don't see the same kind of people freaking out. Even the first time that he got elected, like I wouldn't be surprised if when he actually gets inaugurated, there is a little bit of, there are some issues in D.C. Like, you know, there was that dude that his limousine was caught on fire and there were some windows broken. That might happen, but I don't imagine that it's going to be a significant issue this time.

I think that the energy is just gone. I think people aren't, it's not as convincing. Oh, the fascist. I don't think that convinces people the way they used to. It's Trump won the popular vote. Yeah. People were not, people were convinced Trump is the right choice at this point. Yeah. So a lot of the bodies that Antifa and far leftists needed to provide the cover

for them voted for Trump. Yeah. there you go yeah but we'll see at this point it's secret service just kind of you know they got a blemish so they're like dude we're not even going to risk i mean look i'll tell you how bad it was right so me this is me kind of going in the weeds here but just explain like the situation after trump got shot in july um the rnc was right after right and when i was there at the rnc i saw fbi agents there i was like in plain clothes right doing security and i was like wow this is you never see fbi do fucking security details that's a secret service dhs thing typically they don't bring in doj agents in so the

fact that they brought them in i was like okay like they're really like okay we can't afford to have anything happen here so i think at this right, we just got to get our guys sworn in nicely and safely and no director of Secret Service wants to take a risk and have their neck on the chopping block. What they saw happen in Cheadle, they're like, nope, we're just going to make sure he's good, he gets sworn in, and we don't have to deal with no hands. Who is it right now? Do you know? It's probably the guy that, it's a guy, I forget his name. He had to testify after the fact. He was the deputy director.

He's more than likely acting, I'm assuming. Because that's how the government works. Because they never actually want to hire anybody. They just make them act for free. So that's how it goes with the government. So that's how I knew it was bad. When I saw bureau agents there, I was like, what the fuck? Pull these guys out of the JTTF for this?

Well, here's my expectation for the next term. The Babylon Beast has an announcement. The Babylon Beach will shut down as there will be nothing to make fun of during the perfect Trump administration. Yeah. I bet. That's how we all feel.

I hope every liberal hears this and clips this. Trump can't do anything wrong. Literally everything he's ever done has been perfect, no matter what, even when, you know, he fired rockets into Syria. Nope. Perfect.

Commander Ray Zeman. Perfect rockets. Okay. Perfect. Yeah. It was all done. Too perfect. Too good of administration, actually. And Trump can't do

anything wrong because Trump is perfect. I injected bleach on his recommendation. And it did go well, didn't it? It did. Don't do that. But it is pretty wild to me that we had this debate this morning with some liberals and the question they kept asking was, can you defend Trump's actions? And it's just like, yes. Yeah yes yeah some of them you criticize like he's not perfect but like the world that

liberals live i'm more concerned about like the you know trans the peaceful transfer of power and i was like well you guys always forget that like the election was fucking stalling and it really was i was like dude there was an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that at least it warrants an investigation. So it's like, well, but he's a fascist. He's an authoritarian. Even if you're uncomfortable saying it is stolen, like if you can at least acknowledge that it was a novel election and having mail, mailing out ballots and then having people go collect those ballots.

That is, dude, I listed off 20 things, like like like 10 or 20 things of like issues that we had with this election they're like well geolocation i'm like okay what about the other like 19 things i named and it's like there's there's actually one issue that needs to be answered that was never answered that could have changed the results of the election and it was one of the things you mentioned was it was the unilateral altering of the elections by governors and judges, which violates the Constitution. Yep. And so... Individual state constitutions.

Right. Well, and no, the federal Constitution, which dictates that the legislatures of the state determine how elections are run. So when a judge decreed universal mail-in voting, violation of the Constitution. When a governor decreed universal mail-in voting, violation of the Constitution. And Pennsylvania, a lower court ruled that oh yes okay republicans were correct on the merits and would likely win that implementing universal mail-in voting violated the constitution and the proper procedure was not put in place when it went to the higher court in the state the supreme

court was democrat appointees they said no we're going to allow it anyway. A lawsuit was had. Forty eight states got involved, Texas v. Pennsylvania. And Texas said we cannot be party to an election. I'm paraphrasing or paralegaling. They were basically saying that Pennsylvania violated the Constitution and their votes should be null. Why are how is it fair that we abide by the rules of the Constitution? They don't, but our votes get weighed the same. And the Supreme Court, ever being the cowards they are, said, we will not answer this question. Thomas and Alito were based AF and said, let's absolutely answer that question. We should. We're the Supreme Court. It's a question for us. It's called original jurisdiction.

And the rest of the justices were like, no, please, we're scared. They'll be saying mean things to us. So now, as a nation, we do not have an answer to the question of what happens when states unilaterally through executive authority alter an election's rules in violation of the federal constitution. That is a constitutional crisis, and it's never been answered, needs to be answered, and it's shocking that we're in this position. So to all those liberals who are like, Trump did this, Trump did that. I'll be like, don't know. Don't care. Several states, the governors like Georgia said, we're doing it this way. You can't do that. That's unconstitutional and it's never been ruled on. And the issue of standing happens when someone would say, I'm a voter in the state. I do not like that. They changed the rules. It impacts the results of the election. The courts would say, no standing because you're not running for office. Then Donald Trump would

sue and they would say no standing because it's moot. They wouldn't say no standing. They would say moot that the outcome of changing this would not alter the election substantively. So we will actually not take the merits. So they didn't actually get a chance to argue what should have been argued. I viewed it as largely corrupt and procedural, but there is actually only one point that matters for 2020. I mean, the first thing I'll say is it's over. Trump wins. In three days, he'll be president, and we can all just

say, okay, it actually worked out well for us, in that he created this coalition with RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard and Vivek Ramaswamy. But the only question, now I forgot what I was goingamy yeah but the only uh question uh now i forgot what i was going to say was the only question that mattered because i was because i was getting while you think of it uh what i was going to say was i just find it interesting how like they just wanted to go right at the fascism like oh he's a fascist because he did xyz didn't

want to have the peaceful transfer of power as if like he didn't have a cause to say well we need to question this election because it's b. And what you mentioned with the courts, what I mentioned, it warranted an investigation at bare minimum. It's not like the MAGA movement was like, oh, this is bullshit. No, there was questions there with this election. The only thing that mattered in 2020

was that power won. You can claim it was stolen from Trump. You can claim whatever you want. Doesn't matter. Joe Biden won the power in the game of politics. And if you think politics is a game played where you get as many votes as possible, I got a bridge to sell you.

So when I say Joe Biden wins, a lot of people go, no, he didn't win. Trump actually won. It was stolen. I'll be like, look, man. And he got more votes than Kamala, didn't he? Oh, yeah. No, no, no, no. Kamala got more votes. Okay. Two powerful entities are vying for power. They're playing a game. You

abided by the rules and you lost. Then you said we actually won. No, because there's one man sitting in the throne. And then what does he do? Utilizes the power of the federal government to go after Trump and all of his opponents. Doesn't sound like Trump won that to me. So you can say winning is a gentleman's game

where we sit down and count the votes. Meanwhile, the Democrats walk in, stuff the ballot and then say, who won? And you go, well, we would have if you didn't stuff the ballots. No, no, no, prove it. We're not going to let you because we win. Yeah, and you can't even investigate it

because you don't have the Justice Department. Yeah, he does now. Do you think he will investigate it? I hope he does. He was very quiet about it this election because it was a losing argument. He didn't really help his polling. I wonder if he will investigate it. I hope he does. He was very quiet about it this election because it was a losing argument. He didn't really help his polling. I wonder if he will investigate now.

I have a dog in this game. I would like to be vindicated. It would be very, very nice if history talked a little bit nicer about me in the long run. Yeah, I think all the January doesn't need to be pardoned, man. I mean, that's not even...

It's going to be funny when Trump launches an investigation and it comes out and they say, that lect not even... It's going to be funny when Trump launches an investigation, then it comes out and they say that lectern actually was owned by Adam. Lectern guy, can I ask you, what's your reaction to J.D. Vance? I think he said that he wanted to pardon the nonviolent, I think, or people who didn't attack cop January 6th rioters. I have a different take than a lot of j6ers i think that we should pardon the non-violent people day one just full on pardon i do think that we should commute sentences who committed acts of violence because they've served way more time than people typically

serve for those charges my concern with the blanket pardoned is that not just that people who were maybe bad actors get swept under the rug. It's that the entire thing gets swept under the rug. I want to know where the pop bomb came from, who was in charge of that. I want to know why the Capitol doors, magnetic locks were opened. I want to know exactly who was in that crowd who may have been instigating some of the things like breaking windows and pulling people inside. If we do a blanket pardon, I think it's a very easy way to just sweep it under the rug and don't don't talk about it anymore. Absolutely. I want to ask you just to follow up because some critics would not critics. I obviously want pardons for the right people and not for the others.

But there's some who say Trump needs to just put this stuff behind him and for even to for him to rehash it with pardons or some sort of congressional investigation into what happened is just really bogging down time that they could be doing other things with. It's a short-sighted victory to say we're pardoned, therefore we are whole, because people will not be made whole when they're pardoned. They've lost their licenses. They've lost their ability to have gainful employment. There is no coming back from it if you were a J6er. Your life is functionally over at least in a vocational sense, right? Unless you lean into J6, you're now that person trying to make some money off of it, you're pretty much done. You know, I find it, oh, sorry, I wanted you to finish.

No, it's good. These people need to be restored historically, in canon, in history. They need to be told that what they did, maybe hitting cops is always bad, don't stand for that, that's a bad thing. But a lot of these people put their hands on the back of cops,

said good job, and they got charged with assault for this. Those stories need to be made very public, very widely known that that was not assault and this person was charged with DOJ has been when it come and the Democrats have been when it comes to what happened on January 6th. You know, the way that the people have been treated, people that had done that have done nothing wrong, but that have been had their lives destroyed. And even if they didn't end up spending a ton of time in jail, if they, you know, they got exonerated or whatever, they still had to go through – there were a lot of people that had to go through the process of dealing with the government. And a lot of times the process is the punishment. So I think I completely agree with you. And someone that used to work in law enforcement, I think it's bullshit that they wasted this ridiculous amount of resources to go after these guys for a lot of times for misdemeanors, man, for misdemeanors. Like you take an oath to defend a constitution, right? You're know 1811 special agent like you're supposed to investigate felonies you're not

supposed to sit there and go after misdemeanors and then i also find interesting how you know the george floyd riots they didn't do shit they destroyed the city of minneapolis they destroyed seattle they destroyed portland they destroyed all these liberal cities they didn't go after any of them antifa blm etc these are terrorist organizations but they went ahead and expended all these resources all these agents all these prosecutions for fucking misdemeanors meanwhile these guys are over here shooting at the minneapolis police department setting stuff on fire like it's absolutely ridiculous it's absolutely a waste of um resources and this is why the fbi has you know its reputations went into the fucking shitter over the past several uh years because they don't go after the appropriate

targets myron wow i strongly agree with you i think the why so many people have an issue condemning so much of what happened on the on january 6th is that double standard that they don't see um any of these organizations the fbi going against any of the stuff we saw during the george floyd yeah no they don't double standard and it pisses me off yeah the double standard pisses me off and then the other thing too is that like i used to come from that world so i know how costly it is how much time and resources it takes to prosecute that many people for misdemeanors seriously we got real shit going on in this country we're gonna go after some patriots because they went into a building to um you know peacefully protest against an election that was fucking stolen ridiculous man and the fbi needs to really like reevaluate what the fuck they're doing there used to be a great agency a lot of great lore

now it's the reputation and the fucking shitter man this is my thing right we talk about retribution we don't talk about reformation and the retribution talk is fine we're in a season where we need to be powerful and walk with a big stick but we need reformation more than retribution that needs to happen because four years from now we will will have a different presidency. Two years from now, we have midterms. We need to reform these things, not just throw them away. Trump needs to come in quickly and in a very heavy fashion, clean up all of our institutions, begin deportations. And we need investigations from the DOJ to go after these states like Arizona and Maricopa County particularly to figure out what's going on with their ballot machines screwing up. If this is done properly and we clean up these systems, we could be good for the rest of our lives.

What did we just see? Was it in California where they had it on video now where they were counting the stacks three times in a row? I think George broke this on Twitter earlier. The problem with that is understanding what it means to see someone run papers through a machine three times is not so simple. So people who want to people like the liberals just say so what the machine was kicking them back in error

and they had to run them through again because it wasn't working. That's the only response. It doesn't provide any real debate talking point for anybody other than those who are already believing that it's fraudulent. You know what I mean? Sure. So there's that video where they're uh pulling out boxes of ballots and then opening and running them through yeah and if you watch the full video you can see them putting the votes there so the full video was them getting ballots from people and then putting them

in boxes and closing the boxes and then sliding them under the table and then several hours later they bring them out to be counted after we kicked kicked everyone else out and told them we couldn't serve them. No, no, no. This was actually, so there's a video where, I think some of these things may be intentionally planted to disrupt those who are challenging the election. I saw the totes coming in earlier in the day and I saw them going under the table. Is this the video you're talking about? There's more than one.

One is they collect ballots on a table. They're brought in and put in boxes. Then they close the boxes, take them off and slide them under the table and then start collecting more. If you watch the whole video raw, they later then open the boxes and run the votes through the machine. I think some of these stories are planted on purpose to discredit those who are challenging the election.

Because what happens is the out of context portion is shared. Whoever found that in the first place knew what the full context was. So maybe it's an idiot or maybe it's intentional. Why? All of Trump supporters then share a video easily debunked 10 minutes later by the corporate press who says, see, they lied about everything. And that poisons the well. So when you come out and say Pennsylvania had no constitutional authority in issuing mail-in votes, they go, your conspiracies are fake. We debunked them all already. Remember? Remember that video where you claimed this thing so that's why i i think that too with like uh the the dnc emails that got released where it said stuff like uh there was a map left in the kitchen who did it

belong to and then people are like what does that mean it was like it was a map on a handkerchief and then everyone starts speculating and then all of a sudden out of nowhere it turns into there's a pizza place in dc and children are in basement, which is easily debunked because there's no basement. When the real story was probably Democrats were doing drugs and their code words they were using was for drugs. How do you so you get all of the Internet reading leaked emails leading them down the path of Democrats are doing illegal drugs in D.C., which seems to make the most sense. How do you stop them from properly investigating? Introduce a crackpot theory which drives them away from the real story and towards some random pizza place that's easily debunked. And then everyone dropped the investigation.

I think the bottom line is it needs to be investigated. There's way too many issues with the 2020 election. It needs to be thoroughly investigated. Absolutely. 100 percent. Right. It's not, you know, there might be some stuff here that is debunked some stuff that's true that's not but it absolutely warrants an investigation the way that liberals try to write it off as you guys are some crazy

macca conspiracy theorists the election wasn't rigged we know it like everything end up get gets and everything ends up gets getting thrown at the wall and then you can't pick up anything uh that's real so for example fox news started running stories about Dominion that eventually ended up being false. And they had to pay out some hundred million dollar defamation suits. And then you have Dinesh D'Souza who comes out with Thousand Mules. And then many years later has to come out with an apology saying that like, oh yeah,

my data didn't actually prove anything that I was alleging in the film. And it just muddies all the water because it's like, yeah, now we're looking for stuff and it's all really made up BS. Let's jump to this story. Speaking of defamation, from the post-millennial, CNN found liable for defaming Navy veteran in Jake Tapper segment $5 million awarded.

This is a sad story, man. I feel bad for this guy. Listen to this. Young was working to evacuate Afghans during the Biden administration caddock military withdrawal. In 2021, Tapper misrepresented Young and his work, and Young stated he hasn't been able to work since. Check this out. who operated in a black market. Young, who had the segment irreparably destroyed his business, Nemex Enterprises and Reputation,

worked to evacuate Afghans during the Biden-Harris administration's deadly and chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. He testified that since that segment ran, he hasn't worked or made money. During closing arguments, closing arguments, CNN attorney David Axelrod,

that's interesting, claimed that the story was accurate and tough but fair and that Young should have gone out of his way to convince journalists with the outlet that he wasn't shady. Mr. Young put himself in the story, not CNN. He inserted himself into it to make a buck, Axelrod told the jury, adding, use your common sense. Do you see a conspiracy or do you see people just doing their best? So ultimately, CNN lost lost this this is huge they're going to say uh i don't know if there's any more to add to this blah blah blah they've got to pay five million dollars i can't believe they actually tried to continually argue after

the fact instead of settling when they defamed a guy and destroyed his life and five million dollars doesn't that qualify as a nuisance settlement to them? Yes. No. $5 million is CNN? Well, I mean, it's interesting because CNN, I don't think they're doing so hot, right? Their ratings are in the gutter. What do they get, like, 50,000, 40,000 in a key demo? Yeah.

Hell, you guys might get more views than them probably. We have more watching at any one moment than they get in their entire primetime lineup, which is crazy. So they're probably hurting for this. It's pretty wild that they tried taking this all the way. And I'm wondering if there's going to be precedent set from this in any way. But I feel bad for this guy. Could you imagine being like a veteran who's trying to evacuate people because Biden screwed up?

I wonder if the real reason CNN defamed him is because CNN was trying to run cover for the Biden administration and their botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me. It was a botched withdrawal. I'm sorry. I have to apologize for that. It wasn't botched. Joe Biden did exactly what he intended to do. You can't accidentally abandon Bagram Air Force Base. It's just not possible.

And look, they took the combat forces out before they took the civilians and the other, you know, logistics people out. That was the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I can't believe that that was okayed. So, I mean. So what do you guys think happens in the, you know, Babylon Bee had that joke that they were shutting down. What happens going into the Trump administration? One of two worlds.

Trump won the popular vote. People tune out and say, do your thing, whatever, don't care. Political content becomes unpopular because people are just tired of it and they're bored. Or Trump begins mass deportations, investigations, arrests. Democrats start panicking. Far leftists lose their minds and start firebombing. And then everyone's whole world is entrenched in political conflict.

It's immediately going to be the deportations are going to occur. And then it will immediately be illegal immigrant season. That's what all the protests will be based on. It will be they're putting kids back in cages almost immediately out of the gate is what I suspect happening. I want deportations. Well, they already said no mass deportations. Holman has come out and said that. It's going to be proven all aliens. Well, that's how has come out and said that. It's going to be criminal aliens.

Well, that's how they're going to start it. It's been the status quo always. I want deportations that are going to piss off the left immensely. I want deportations that are going to make the left lose their mind. So when it comes to criminal aliens, right? So I could speak about this, right? So there's something called the CAP, criminal alien program, that ICE, ERO, Immigration

Councils Enforcement Removal Operations, where the field office in these major cities all over the United States, they basically only go after convicted felons or aliens that have been convicted of misdemeanors or crimes of moral interpitude, or two of them. So that's what they're going to focus on. So people that are just illegally here, they're not going to go after them. What are the loose numbers on that? Do you know? Are we talking tens of thousands of people

in that grouping or hundreds of thousands? It depends on where it's located. So in New York City, obviously, they're going to have more targets than in other places. But then the other issue is sanctuary cities, right? So some cities don't play ball with ICE. ICE will go ahead and say,

hey, look, we're putting a detainer on this individual. You need to hold the body for us to come. And then SFPD, San Francisco PD, Austin Police Department, whatever, these blue cities, they won't hold the body. They'll just let them go. Look, Marco Rubio was on with Kristen Welker today, and he was talking about we need to deport 10 millions of people. Right. He's going to be the secretary of state. And he's coming out and saying yeah but no immigration authority no he's not but the point but the point is if if if a representative of the

government like the secret incoming secretary of state is saying those kind of things there is an appetite for it and also i reiterate there is like 70 percent of the american people that have said they want deportations. They probably say, you know, Homan's probably saying, you know, we're going to start this way and stuff, but there is an appetite. The American people want to see mass deportations. Yeah, but they're pulling it back. Like they were campaigning on mass deportations. Now it's criminal aliens.

Like they've kind of pulled back on it as the issue. Trust me, I'm for it. I don't even want H-1B visas. I'm pretty far right when it comes to immigration. Like. I don't even want H-1B visas. I'm pretty far right when it comes to immigration. I don't even want the H-1B visas. I got my verification taken on Twitter for talking about this.

But yeah, I mean, there's a whole, I can talk about how we have not just an immigration problem with illegal immigration, but we also have a problem with illegal migration.

The H-1B visa, the F-1 visa, the B-1B2 visa, all these visas are absolutely abused by foreign nationals coming to the United States and exploits our immigration system. But Myron, Americans are too lazy,

and their work ethic means that we should hire from other countries. Yeah, Vivek is stupid for saying that. Wait, did Vivek actually say that? Yeah, he basically made this whole long tweet saying that Americans are lazy and we're more focused on the prom queen versus like the nerds. And it's like, no, bro. No, that's not what it is.

The issue is this. We have a issue with H-1B visas where we just let these people come in because it's cheap labor and we've not reeled it in and we've not reeled in F-1 visas. People literally come here on like, oh, I'm going to learn Spanish. I'm going to go to a language school in America. They enroll in the school. They show up. They fly in and then they never go language school in America. They enroll in the school. They show up. They fly in.

And then they never go to school. And then they're in the country illegally. And that's how a lot of people actually come to the United States is they come in legally and then they overstay or never leave. And then another thing, too, which I talked about extensively is like the visa waiver program. A lot of people come here from first world countries and overstay. Canada, Australia, England, et cetera, because we have way more opportunities here than these

other places. So they come in legally, right, because they don't need a visa. And then they overstay canada australia england etc because we have way more opportunities here than these other places so they come in legally right because they don't need a visa and then they overstay as well like miami is overrun with canadians and people from um western europe just wanting to get a job right j1 visas also exploited all the time so we have a massive immigration problem where not only are we getting destroyed in the southwest border which i could talk about that but we're also getting destroyed when it comes to the exploitation of our visa system as well it's a huge problem and for veck and elon to just write it off as like oh well the americans are lazy fuck you you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to immigration at all and that's the problem we have these individuals come in right that don't know anything about title eight they don't know anything about immigration they don't

know what's going on in the border they don't understand how our visas are getting exploited they don't know and they're trying to talk as if they do know and they don't i mean i don't think there's a lot of disagreement around this yeah yeah no no no not with you guys of course i mean you guys get it but like like i don't i don't i don't you know we get our verification taken on on twitter for exposing this and it's like vivek and elon simply don't know yeah but you know that's that story is not entirely accurate the verification removal thing so i would say... Well, there's like 10 of us that got it taken away

for requesting the H-1B stuff. So the first thing is it's hard to know exactly if it was H-1B. The one thing I can say is that when it was OG Conservative got their gold checkmark removed, it removed everyone underneath them. Yes. Do you know why they got their thing removed? Well, I know people... They were posting photos of Indian people calling them slurs. Yeah. underneath them yes do you know why they got their thing removed uh well i know you're posting

photos of indian people calling them slurs and yeah and like so i'm not i'm not saying it was okay to remove their badges but the issue was elon citing hate like elon didn't intentionally personally do this but it was likely x saying hate speech yeah elon ben went on later to say actually i don't know if it was elon but uh someone from x was pointing out that a lot of a lot of the accounts that did get suspended that were smaller bot accounts were sharing images of children that were inappropriate. Yeah, well, they got their badge back. But what I find interesting is like everyone that was critical of the H-1B visa pretty

much lost their verification. Like everybody, pretty much. So they get them back? No, no. I still don't have mine back. I mean, Laura's got her laura laura got laura got hers back but everybody else uh pretty much and they're also and you you weren't part of any organizations you had personally bought yeah so i had my own organization they

took they took it from my organization and then uh and then i then i got it again the organization they took it again wow yeah you know what's interesting though is i also noticed that a lot of the groups that got their verifications removed have an overlap with constantly talking about Jews. Yes. Being critical of Israel or H-1B visas, you're done. I'm surprised you didn't get a verification. Hold on. Not Israel.

Dave Smith didn't get his verification removed. And Dave Smith was anti-H-1B and critical of Israel. It was specifically the Jews. That's one thing that happens. We were talking about this the other night. It's a hate speech violation. That's what got it removed. People talk about the freedom of speech and stuff on X, and they're critical of Elon

and Elon banning people. I'm not for it. I don't endorse it. The fact of the matter is, if you are delicate with the way that you talk about these issues, they're not going to ban you. Well, then that's not freedom of speech and that's directly why people have issues with Elon. That's fine.

No, listen, hold on, hold on. There's debate there. The important part is that you are able, the important part of freedom of speech is the ability to exchange ideas, not the ability to fling shit, right? If you're saying, oh, I don't have the freedom of speech

unless I can insult whoever I want, however I want, you're going to, well, I mean, you can disagree, but the point is, it's the way that these platforms are going to look at it. The issue here is this. First of all, free speech is the right to insult and be offensive. In fact, it is the only speech that needs to be protected. The issue, however. No.

What? No. Quite literally. It's free however... No. What? No, the only... Quite literally. It's free speech. No, the important thing about freedom of speech is saying controversial ideas. You can approach saying controversial ideas in a delicate

way. It's not important to be able to say kike or Jew and insult people like that. That's free speech. That's free speech. I might not like it, but I would defend your right to say it. I'm not saying that it That's free speech. I might not like it, but I would defend your right to say it. I'm not saying that it's not free speech, but you're talking about the way platforms are going to approach it.

The important thing about having the freedom of speech is the ability to exchange ideas. It's not important. There's a lot to break down. It's not right. Hold on. I got to address this. First of all, I can't insult people the way that I want, it's not right. It doesn't matter. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I got to address this. First of all, I will stress it again. The idea that someone would determine your speech to be offensive and then ban you for it quite literally is anti-free speech, regardless of how you express yourself. More importantly, Elon Musk isn't violating the free speech of individuals by taking away premium. Elon made the point. He said, I disagree, but some people think freedom of speech means I have to pay them for it. It does not. Okay.

Can I push back on that? Yeah. So my thing is this, right? If you're going to say freedom of speech, that also means freedom of reach. And that also means monetization to a degree. And let me explain why. Okay. So here's the thing.

If I'm in a jail cell and I say, oh, I have freedom of speech and I am talking to a wall that technically I have the freedom of speech, but I don't have the freedom of reach, so it doesn't matter, right? Freedom of speech only matters if you have the freedom of reach.

You mentioned the marketplace of ideas. To get to the marketplace of ideas, I must reach the marketplace of ideas so that my ideas can even be heard. No one has an obligation to advertise you. Well, here's the thing. When we're talking about premium, premium you pay for that and then also he took away the subscribers which is the creator dealing directly with their subscribers i'm totally fine with it yeah with taking away the subscribers too yep okay so i i have said well let me just finish my my stance right so my thing is this if you're going to go ahead and say this is a free

speech app right and then you're going to turn ahead and say this is a free speech app. Right. And then you're going to turn back and say, oh, well, that doesn't mean freedom of freedom of reach or modernization. Blah, blah, blah. That is that that is censorship, because if you take away someone's ability to earn or someone's ability to reach, you are directly censoring them and their ability to reach the marketplace. And the other thing, too, also, what do you mean? It's communism. I have a right to your services. Nah, nice try. But he's marketing as a free speech app. That's the issue.

If you're going to market as a free speech app, and he uses the First Amendment to validify his stance with it being free speech. And his speech is protected under the First Amendment under a million different case laws. So my thing is, if you're going to go... Criticize Elon. Let me just finish.

If you're going to use the First Amendment as the basis and say that it is the bedrock of a democracy then you need to stand by that and that means that you are not going to sit there and oh well i don't believe in censorship but then you demonetize people i would argue demonetizing someone is one of the best ways to censor because now that creates a chilling effect with everyone else where i can't say what he's saying i can't even say what i want to say so i'm going to chill out and you have no right to someone else's services when the first adpocalypse happened on YouTube and they started demonetizing they're not a free speech app and they started censoring people I said and I maintain this position so long as you are allowed to post the content people can subscribe to it and they will

receive your content you are that's the extent of free speech on the platform the idea that x should allow you to be boosted to reach new people or receive money from it, those are services they provide you they have no obligation to, and that's outside of free speech. Well, they just put that rule in recently. They literally didn't have that in terms of service. They literally just put that in a couple of days ago. I don't care. Elon has no obligation to have you use a payment processing service.

Tim, you've made the point that not- He marketed it as a free speech app. You've used the First Amendment as the basis. Should pornographers have freedom of reach on Twitter? That's the thing. You've made the point that total free speech is not the way that any app- Wait, wait, wait. So it's not free speech then.

Your free speech is limited to pornographers is what you're saying. No, no. So you've made the point that total- They're talking over you. That's not- Pornography is not the same at all about when we're talking that's not that's not the pornography is not in the same at all about when we're talking about political discourse or so having a freedom of speech except for pornographers so you're not a free speech pornography should not exist at all it should

be banned i mean i don't disagree with you but picking and choosing what's your freedom of speeching is what i'm saying no pornography is not speech we have already had this discussion about there is no universal principle yeah there is no free speech absolutism it doesn't exist but here's the thing yeah so there shouldn't be freedom of reach on twitter for everybody for pornography is not the same whatsoever like okay so what else should there not be freedom of reach on for twitter so it shouldn't be for pornography should be allowed outside of obviously like non-insighting violence i i think it should align with the first speech guys guys guys here's the here's the thing elon musk framed twitter saying i believe in the

first amendment and it's the bedrock of a democracy if you're gonna say that stand by it that means freedom of speech hate speech etc it's all protected and this has been shown a million times a different case law that's my thing so for him to say well i'm gonna take premium away because you don't agree with me on h1b etc when other people do the same shit okay bro when you know you know that misgendering is banned on x what misgendering is not allowed on x what do you mean by misgendering like calling someone like a yeah yeah no no no misgendering calling someone so somebody who says that their pronoun is she you can't say he elon did this i complained about it it was it's a big story x has maintained their hate speech policies

the entire time it never got rid of them we can criticize selectively enforce it they always have they selectively enforce so so this the the inversion now is it was the government colluding with with the former heads of twitter to selectively enforce it in one way elon alleviated a bunch of that tensions but still has some people censored and some people still lose access to some services. Yeah, but we're missing... So my point is literally, when you say he marketed a certain way,

I'll say, bro, since he took it over, he refused to reinstate Alex Jones for like a year after he took it over, saying, nope, don't care, he said something I don't like. Yep. That's problematic. Never changed.

Yeah, but see how that's problematic? So by all means, criticize it and say we should change it. Because now if you disagree with him or you go against, I mean he took a blue check from Osmogold for saying he got boosted on a video game. That's problematic. This guy's drunk with power. Like let's just call a spade a spade. We disagreed with him on H-1B visa.

Yeah, he exposed the DMs and he took his blue check away. So, like, this is problematic because he comes in saying, I believe in free speech. The Don Lemon interview goes viral everywhere. I believe it's the better arc of democracy. Frames it against the First Amendment. Well, stand on that, dude, because you can't sit there and say, I'm going to demonetize people, take their subscribers, and take their premium away. What does that mean? Free speech grants you access to someone's labor.

What do you mean? Free speech grants, speech grants you access to someone's labor? What do you mean? Free speech grants, what do you mean by someone's labor? So X builds a service. Yes. On top of that service are other things you can have. Yep. Okay. Why should you get access to the labor of the company?

Because he marketed it that saying it's a free speech app. So you're saying. I'm holding Elon to his word. So a business in this country can never sever a relationship with a client well my thing is if you're going to market as a free speech app and then you are going to censor people for the free speech that you promote that's a problem but they're not silencing your free speech they're taking away a payment processing service and they're also taking away your reach because the verification absolutely affects your ability to your ability to speak is not advertising for you

why do you think a network should be forced to do something for you? You want free speech? Go stand in a street corner in downtown Chicago. You can say whatever you want. Why should anyone be forced to amplify your message for your speech? Well, it's not about being forced. It's about you pay for the service, and then he says it's free speech, and it's not free speech.

You lied. So that's why he's getting a lot of issues with this. We're going to try this again. Look, if you're going to market as a free speech app, Tim, you have to stand on it. No, no, no. Bro, you're misunderstanding.

You are not banned, right? No. So he marketed a platform for free speech and you were still allowed to speak. Yes. He offered you a premium service that allows you to make money

on the platform. Which directly affects your reach. Which affects your free speech. It does affect your speech because it affects your reach. No, no, no. Your ability. Freedom of speech is contingent upon reach, Tim. That's where me and you disagree. No. Absolutely not. No one has to advertise

you and promote you to other people for you to have free speech. Freedom of reach means. You are only saying that because you are being negatively impacted by a private action of a private company. That advertises freedom of speech. They allow you to keep speaking. They've not censored your speech?

They have. No, they have not. Yes, they have. What words of yours have they deleted? I get posts taken all the time. Visibility limited for hate speech. So in the confines of Elon's moral code, what is misaligned with the rules that have always been in place?

That's problematic because he interprets what's hate speech now. Okay, you're conflating two different things. If we're talking about Elon taking over a company and marketing a service with hate speech rules that we all disagree with, you knew what you were buying when you bought it. Well, here's the thing. Again, it's selective enforcement. And it's Twitter was and X is. And it's supposed to be free speech. And that's where the issue lies where, look, if you're going to market this as a free speech app that means hate speech as well and then again like i said

before freedom of speech only matters if you have freedom of reach are you aware that elon has never unbanned some accounts yes so you knew when you bought the service elon was selectively enforcing the censorship policies it depends what in what in what regard do you mean? You say Elon advertised a service that was for free speech, but you knew he was selectively enforcing the rules. Well, here's the thing. Those people were banned before he even came into power. And he never unbanned them,

and he outright said explicitly, I will not unban some of these people. And he unbanned them. So he goes back and unbanned Alex Jones, he unbanned a couple of people, he unbanned Nick Fuentes, etc. Sure. And there's still a lot of accounts

that have never been unbanned. Like, I don't know who they are but i mean they exist like i mean look my thing my argument is simply this if you're going to come in and say the free speech app and model it after the first amendment like he did stand on it that's all i'm saying and taking away people's premium and penalizing them for saying hate speech is antithetical to freedom of speech so the issue at play right now is and we can agree it's fine i i i believe you are arguing you you are deserving of a service that a private company is selling because you want to be advertised and you are arguing first amendment protections or at least principles free principles because you want promotion no i'm arguing free speech principles that they advertise and said that is our app doesn't matter that's free speech and never said you get

advertising end of story no no you don't get you don't get it this is this is where me and you can agree to disagree and that's fine i think that's's, but I think that's common. I think by, by, by the idea that a company must give me a service that is antithetical, that is antithetical to freedom of speech by limiting someone's reach. So it's antithetical because speech has no need. If it can't reach people, if I can't reach the marketplace of ideas, what do you like?

What's the point? So when you, so when you go out in the middle of a middle of the street in Chicago and you start yelling, what reach do you have? Well, the people there can hear me, right, to a degree. But what I'm saying is that, again, if you're going to market it as a free speech app— Should you be legally allowed to use an amplifier?

Should you be legally—what? Should you be legally allowed to use an amplifier for your speech? Well, I think if that platform is going to advertise and say we believe in free speech and use the First Amendment, then it needs to stand by it. That's my thing. In public, should you be allowed to use an amplifier? I'm simply just holding Elon to his word.

That's all I'm doing. But I disagree. And it's been problematic. I think you're personally aggrieved and you want something from a private company. I mean, it's not me even having a personal issue with it. I don't care because Twitter isn't my main thing. But what I'm saying is that it's extremely hypocritical

to say this is a free speech app modeled after the First Amendment and then go back on that and then take people's checks away for disagreeing with you on H-1B visas. We don't disagree. That's what he did.

We don't disagree on selective enforcement. Yep. Where we disagree is that you think he should be promoting you. No, I think he should be promoting, he should be allowing everyone to have a fair seat at the table

and have their voice heard. Everybody. How have you lost reach? When you lose verification, your ability to be seen drops off precipitously. This is a fact. There's a paid service. He's even said this with premium. There's a paid service.

So you believe that your words should be presented in a feed for other people algorithmically to discover. No, I think the best ideas should be able to be discovered and let the people decide, but it's not even reaching is my point. So can people still follow you? But if you're shadow banned or you're- They can go to your account and they can see what you're posting, right? Yeah, but you're shadow banned. You can't discover it.

It doesn't come up on a feed. You're not shadow banned. Not having premium doesn't shadow ban you. It absolutely limits your ability. Yeah, it deprioritizes you, which is shadow banning. And it hurts your ability to be seen. Shadow banning is when you are removed from the space entirely without your knowledge. That's why it's ban.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But again, it's harder for people to find you. Your tweets don't post up on the news feed as usual for you. So that is all censorship. That is all censorship, Tim. I mean, you might disagree with me, but that is all censorship. That is all censorship, Tim. I mean, you might disagree with me, but that is all censorship. And I'm against all censorship.

There's an argument. I mean, well, I'll throw it to you guys because we can take it away from us. Sure, sure. Do you guys believe that... We can agree to disagree, Tim. It's fine. But like, yeah.

Lectern guy. Adam, should platforms be required to offer you some degree of promotion in your content? I think if you pay for it, I think you enter a contract, right? I'm paying for services. You should provide services. At any point, I can end that contract. It's Elon's house, right?

If I invited you to my house and come hang out, say what you want, and you're being rude to my guests or whatever, I'm going to ask you to leave. At the end of the day, it's my house. You have free speech. You can say what you want, but there are going to be consequences sometimes for saying the things you say. So is it completely free speech? I don't think so. I think you can be deplatformed.

I think you can be demonetized if things happen, but it's still more free than anywhere else, and it is his house. So you're- Rumble's more free, by far. Sure. Rumble, absolutely. Rumble beats X to every degree when it comes to free speech. Rumble's pretty crazy

they're just like do your thing yeah like rumble there's there's no censorship at all pretty much like rumble's the fortune rumble that's why and that's that's my issue like me and like me and chris pavlosky we we disagree on so many different things politically but like he will always fight for my right to say it and that's why i have an enormous amount of respect for him um versus with elon i'm like no the h1b is a problem xyz verification gone and that's my what do you guys think drunk with power i still think that the the at the end of the day because it's it's uh it's i think that it's the way that you say things i think just like you were saying just like you were saying tim like there is some level of of regulation. But for everybody, when it comes to freedom of speech, you have a problem with porn.

You don't consider that freedom of speech. Some people say that insults are bad or hate speech. I don't agree that hate speech is actually it violates the freedom of speech. But I do understand that on a platform like X, as long as you can articulate arguments, I think that they have a very broad approach to the freedom of speech. You can't insult people. You can't use certain words or whatever. I think that it's actually about pattern of behavior is what actually gets you banned because people like Scott Horton, people like Dave Smith, they make all sorts of arguments against Israel all like all the time. They're constantly critical of Israel and they're not in jeopardy of getting banned because of the way they approach the subject.

So I think that David Duke is still banned. Yeah. Is he? Yeah. He was back. So I will say this to the super chatters, falsely conflating my position on free speech and trying to apply that to banks is a miss miss is intentionally misconstruing what i'm misconstruing what i'm saying when when youtube started censoring people there was a question of whether or not you should be recommended or put in the partner program and my position has always been if if they have a monopoly on this platform and they ban you and remove your ability to post videos, that's censorship. That is a violation of the principle of free speech. It's a public forum.

We all want to come here. However, YouTube also operates an ad sales agency. But if an advertiser says, we refuse to, like Colgate Toothpaste says, we don't want to be associated with this guy's content, you have no right to that advertiser, putting a video on your, on your, on like an ad on your video. How does that, how does that make sense? So, so the question always becomes about scale. If there's a single company that controls everything, then the government steps in and

enshrines the rights of the individual in every capacity. If we're dealing with a platform that is not monopolistic, then they do not. Scale matters. So for a bank, for instance, Visa and MasterCard having a complete monopoly on the system, they forego rights as a private business and now must act as a public. It's like a privately owned public entity, essentially. So you can't disable someone's right to use a bank when you are the only bank or the only payment processor. However, free speech is not the same thing as being required to promote somebody. That's my position.

Yeah, I see your position. You're saying, look, you can say what you want to say, but Twitter doesn't have a right to promote you, which that's fine. You don't have a right to Twitter boosting you. Fair. But what I'm saying about shadow banning. Yeah, but that's what precisely what I'm saying is that by them not allowing you to engage in a service that you pay for or by you saying things that they don't like they are censoring you and that's my issue it is censorship demonetization shadow banning um limiting visibility that is all forms of censorship

and it's a slippery slope that leads to problems that's why even um with with your rhetoric saying like hey look you got to phrase things a certain way i have an issue even with that i think people need to be able to say what they want to say however they want to say it not necessarily because i want to say it but because we need to be able to make sure that the freedom of speech stays and this is how they take away our rights they start with well you know maybe just say in a better way well you know maybe not talk about this topic maybe not that and the next thing you know bam your rights are gone and that's my issue with hate speech we need to protect hate speech

but they're not telling you you can't talk about a topic I've always I believe that people who want to use slurs and say the nastiest most vile things like the post from conservative OG about that Indian guy and they called him some pretty nasty things and mocked his genetics i i'm in favor of them having the right to say that

because then i can see it and i know who they are and i say i won't associate with them good and i agree with you like they need to be able to see it and i think they need to be able to have the reach too because here's the thing if we want to go ahead and have the marketplace of ideas for real and let the best ideas come out there everyone everyone needs to be able to reach the marketplace. When you censor people or you demonetize them or whatever, you're inadvertently creating censorship. I know you're saying, well, you don't have a right to earn. That's fine, but what you're doing when you do that,

when you demonetize someone, is you're effectively using them as the scapegoat. Like, look, if you talk like this guy, you are going to lose your monetization. I would say most people off that are going to start self-censoring. You keep saying marketplace of ideas, but the ideas are not censored. Like I said, people like— They can't reach the marketplace of ideas is the point.

They can't reach it. Listen, the anti-war guys, Scott Horton and Dave Smith, they do not have the same kind of limits placed on their stuff. And they are as critical of Israel as anyone else. So it's not about the ideas. It's about the delivery. Well, if we're going to police delivery, that's problematic because that's not the marketplace of ideas, though. Again, the problem is the advertisers.

When you are on premium and advertisements appear in your content and the advertisers say, I refuse to pay for this, what is the solution? Well, when it comes to advertisers let's be very i mean we could talk about advertisers and how that really works the problem with advertisers is advertisers really don't give a shit about where their where their ads run they only care about making money they only care when the adl media matters splc and these left-wing watchdog groups come in and say are you aware of the fact that your ads are running on xyz person's content then they lobby the platforms right and then they go ahead and pull the advertising

those are the large functions but there's also just regular leftists who run sock puppet accounts and send like 50 emails to coke you know yeah sure but but look but who really gets their ear and then really gets their ear jonathan greenblatt media matters etc that is how censorship works in america they they literally this guy's made money to do your ad right on this guy's content and then this is why i think they're gonna get a pr hit and so they say then they go to x or they go to youtube and they say what is this all about and why are we getting emailed like this this scares us and then the platform says yes what what are you going to do the advertiser says we're not going to spend money so long as we're getting this level of and that's problematic i like again

that's why i didn't make the argument for youtube or these other platforms the only reason i'm harping on this with x is because elon came in saying this is a free speech app i believe in it it's the bedrock of a democracy and utilize the first amendment substantiate his claim if you're going to do that that means you need to protect the hate speech that means that it doesn't matter how people say things and i see what you're saying you're saying scott horton and dave smith say things in an eloquent manner when it comes to israel well guess what there's people out there that are critical of jewish power as well and that's what gets censored so that they don't they don't talk about just the geopolitical angle they talk about the cultural stuff whatever which i won't get into on youtube

but the point i'm trying to make is is that all that speech needs to be able to come in the way it's said or or you know the tonality and all that that doesn't matter it all needs to come in and then we can assess and be like this guy's an idiot this guy's good this guy's smart this is not but if it doesn't come in that's the problem i think it all needs to come in i have no problem completely agree i like police tonality i like the problems arise i like it when someone is arguing something and then they're miserably crass crude nasty and then i'm like they're hurting their own argument they're making themselves and their followers look really bad by doing this. So if there's someone who has an idea that you don't like, let's say, like, so I largely believe that there was a big op pertaining to H-1B,

and I think we talked about it before the show or whatever, but the issue was that there were anti-H-1B accounts. So these are people who don't want immigrant workers that were posting vile racist and graphic images. I don't believe that was real anti-H-1B activists, workers that were posting vile racist and graphic images. Sure. I don't believe that was real anti-H1B activists. Because why would someone who's like, I have criticism of immigration, start posting insanely racist things to hurt their own argument? Yeah.

I mean, look, again, I don't have to, because people say all the time, Myron, you align with white supremacists or white nationalists. It's not that I align with them. It's that I'm a free speech absolutist. And though they say deplorable things about me too, about my Muslim background, my skin color. You don't want, wait, wait. They say, hold on. The thing is this.

Though I don't agree with them, I will fight tooth and nail for their ability to say what they say. Because I understand that they're on the front lines of freedom of speech. If they take their speech away, I'm next. So I need to fight for their ability to say it, regardless of whether I like it or not. I am truly a free speech absolutist. I don't believe you're a free speech absolutist at all. Pornography doesn't count.

You're not a free speech absolutist. It doesn't exist. Do you think people should advocate, direct for, and explain how to commit violence against other people? Look, if we're going to talk about violence and hurting people i mean it's within we got to use a little bit of reason point that we're making but but inciting violence is saying we need to go do xyz but i'm talking pornography you're you're straight up saying that does not count as free speech not at all it's just your perspective porn does not count as free speech whatsoever. It is degenerative entertainment.

Let's pause. Let's pause real quick. Do you think it's, Phil, you think it is free speech? I do. Okay, now, now. I'm not advocating for it. Let's just stop. The two of you are the only people voting.

Vote on whether or not you believe that free speech includes porn. What's your vote? No? What's your vote? Yes? How do you rectify the problem? Okay, you can make the argument that porn can be shot without any speech at all no no no i'm saying like it's literally the issue is this

in in your country phil is protesting you for violating free speech rights and you're saying but i'm not you clearly there is a disagreement but it's not what about what if you're writing what if you're writing pornographic stories right it's a story it's it's okay it's it's not. What about what if you're writing? What if you're writing pornographic stories, right? It's a story. It's it's it's it's literature and it's vulgar as you possibly can get. And it's pornographic, but it's not pictures like books. Yeah. Well, I think that's a bit different. What about Playboy? Mm hmm.

I mean, the stop, stop, let him get into it. We're getting into into a slippery slope here. I know that's the whole point of this. Like again, but again, same with calls to violence. I'm I don't think you're principled in your free speech. Absolutism a slippery slope here. I know. That's the whole point of this, though. Like, again, but again. And same with calls to violence. I'm talking. I don't think you're principled in your free speech absolutism is the issue here. I think you're aggrieved. It's within reason.

We have to be reasonable here. Like, oh, yeah, I'm a free speech absolutist. It means I allow people to talk about, you know, violent rhetoric. Most people who call themselves free speech absolutists do believe in free reach of calls for violence. No, they don't. No, they don't. 100%. No, they don't. No, they do not. Free speech absolutism. believe in free reach of calls for violence no they don't yes they don't 100 no they don't no they do free speech absolutism they do not every free speech

absolutist i don't none of them are principles at all none of them violence none of them abc crazy advocate for them being allowed to use that speech is what a free app speech absolutist would know not that they would look this is a fact question and you're wrong they're like we we've had debates with free speech absolutists, anarchists. I've had them on my show. They don't believe in violence. I never said

I'm believing in violence. Free speech absolutists believe you can speak because speaking is not action and you should be allowed to say whatever you want even if it's encouraging violent crime

or directing it because you didn't actually do anything. That's why I'm not an absolutist. I actually think censorship is good. The issue is... Ooh. That's what I mean you and you disagree you are completely wrong do you think that books uh with with adult content for sex ed should be given to children no that's censorship censorship censorship

without reason i mean like like see the thing is that now see i'm assuming with me hold on hold on we all have common sense in here where I don't have to go ahead and delineate specific instances where free speech doesn't apply. Because I would think that we all have the common sense here. We're talking about political speech. We're talking about ideas, the marketplace, not pornography. Okay, I get it. Showing images to kids.

Like, come on, guys. And this would be incorrect for several reasons. So Ian Crossland on the show was a censor for Minds.com. What did he censor? Censor literally means choosing whether to show or not show something. It comes from the word census going back to ancient Rome. What was Ian doing as a censor on Minds? Most of the stuff that was being censored was graphic gore, child abuse and things like that.

He on Minds would see something and say people are not allowed to see this. Delete. Remove. So when I had the debate with Emma Vigeland for Majority Report, I said, adults should not bring books with graphic adult images into grade schools. She said, that's censorship. I said, you're damn right it is, and I am for it. So the issue is, my moral line says, I agree with you, porn, I do not respect as free speech. I am not a free speech absolutist. I recognize that some people want the right to show graphic images in public. I reject that outright. Free speech to me can be broad, but largely refers to explaining ideas and how governance

should work and what should or should not be. So showing two dudes or two ladies or a guy and a dude in public, I don't consider that within the confines of free speech. And I'd be willing to bet. And I would say most sensible people wouldn't, which is why I didn't feel the need to delineate that for you guys. Cause we're talking about politics and ideas and culture. If you went to the founding fathers and said,

do you believe free speech includes showing images of adults engaged in adult activities in public? They'd be like, heavens. No, we'll arrest you for that. Yeah. So George Carlin in the seventies got arrested for cursing.

See, I think cursing is free speech. I think slurs are free speech. I don't think you should be allowed to instruct or direct violence because you're providing a mechanism for which someone agreed. Agree in violence. I don't think political ideas and the function of society and governance is benefited by displaying images of adult content that conveys no structure, no political opinion. I don't agree with that, but that's why I'm not a free speech absolutist.

I believe free speech extends to political ideas, cultural ideas, and explaining how we think things should be or should work. So if you want to go on public and argue, you have a right to display pornography. That's free speech. If you want to actually hold up pictures of it I disagree that's obscene and lewd and I don't think it should be allowed yeah well again I didn't think I would need to you know talk about that explicitly because we're on a political podcast we all have common sense here I don't need to go ahead and be talk about oh yeah well pornography doesn't count or violence like I think we're all sensible here to understand like we're talking about political talk culture etc I didn't need to go there but if you guys really want to go there and say well technically that's not free speech absolutely because whatever i'm trying to stay on topic here

my point is is that if we're using the word wrong myron using free speech absolutist wrong so there go to go to the lp right go to their convention and you within reason and there will be a absolute absolutism within reason since we need to add this. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Absolute means to the extreme. And there's no there's nothing. It's as far as you can go. As far as you can go is that I can say literally anything at any point without consequence. That's absolutism.

And these people exist. And we've debated them on the show. We've argued with them. And they've literally stated advocating for directing and explaining how to commit violence is not the action itself. People can say whatever they want. I disagree. Yeah, no, that's crazy.

And I mean, and again, I typically frame it by the First Amendment. Again, that's my big thing is the First Amendment. Obviously, inciting violence or going into that realm is illegal. Peaceably. So, so yeah. So, you know, there is a challenge there. What? Because what the left has been trying to do is argue that emotional damage is violence. And so that's why, under the First Amendment, hate speech can be banned.

Because actions that can induce harm, such as incitement to violence, we agree aren't free speech. Ergo, speech that causes emotional trauma or other deleterious effects or negative effects on a person is harmful violence we can ban it yeah but that's the argument they're making yeah of course but there's a million cases where hate speech is protected under the first amendment even in situations where there have been like riots like i'm gonna i gotta try and read some super chats i apologize for that the definition of free speech that's fine but my point is simply put if Elon's gonna come in

and say first amendment free speech he's a standby that's my stance Darren Gaming says this is the start of Russia hoax 2.0 Biden decrees equal rights which we have Trump admins says he can't do that via order media says Trump hates equal rights and uses this for four years.

I think so. Yes. Trump's going to get asked the question and he's going to say that's not legitimate. And they're going to say Trump thinks women shouldn't have rights. Yes. Well, the issue is the left will read the arguments he's saying and saying, well, no, Biden said it's a thing. So it's a thing. They don't care if it's legal or if it's right.

Biden said it. He's their emperor and they're going to believe it. But it's honestly, I blame the people for this. We both sides want an emperor. We actually don't want Congress to do things because they don't really do things. Both sides want an emperor right now. All right. Just because I'm free, he says, TikTok conservatives were upset and wanted to ban it. Then the culture started shifting conservative. TikTok then started showing more conservative posts. Then Dems want to ban it. Then the culture started shifting conservative. TikTok then started showing more conservative posts. Then Dems want to ban it. They tried to play both sides and got burned.

Interestingly, have you ever noticed that some of the most prominent, actually I think the most of the most prominent Trump supporters are banned on TikTok? Yeah, I have. Yeah, yeah. Conservatives are banned on TikTok. You're always banned when you try to open the TimCast accounts oniktok as well uh timcast so when trump said he wanted to ban it we were on

tiktok timcast and timcast irl and we agreed and then they arbitrarily with no rule violations banned us with no recourse and uh but ban like five times like i've had like 10 plus accounts like yeah so so the accounts, the pro-Trump accounts that are allowed to be on are people who are typically not as prominent and the most prominent individuals, many of them are outright banned for seemingly no reason. Yeah.

I think TikTok's aim was to pony up to Trump in some way without giving any power to individual Trump supporters. Whereas on X, you've got people who literally like have a random avatar, all of a sudden have 2 million followers and make a living and then end up turning into a real person. Be like, wow, I didn't realize I'd get so popular and prominent on this platform, but they make a name for themselves. Yeah. TikTok bans you. Yeah. I mean, anything conservative or right wing on most of social media platforms gets banned it's just whether it's youtube right or you know instagram meta yeah tiktok seems to be one of the worst offenders in that yes yes i mean they all suck i mean youtube is maybe my i hope it gets better but

like yeah i mean we know all the biggest conservative creators on on youtube get censored right like to a degree like it's wild oh yeah polyp. Polly Piret says, Tim is right. A small minority makes all the noise and don't represent the majority. Trump's re-election is evidence of that. It's true. Because people were surprised that it was a clean sweep by the end of the day. Even we didn't believe Trump would be

declared the winner that quickly. No. It was all of the swing states. All of the swing states. Yeah, we had prepared. Like, Kyle Kalinske thought that Trump was going to lose Iowa. We had prepared to do election coverage for a week straight. And then it was just done. And we were like, well, what do we do? All right.

I guess it's just back to normal. Yeah. We'll try and grab a couple more. I think alternative media was huge. Yes, absolutely. With Rumble and X. And I give Elon credit for that, right? We'll try and grab a couple more. I think alternative media was huge. Absolutely. With Rumble and X. And I give Elon credit for that.

I do give him his flowers when it's deserved. But yeah, Rumble and X. KDM says, Tim's reaction to Jewish criticism is telling. Ah, the unfalsifiable claim. If you at all disagree with me, it proves that I'm right. What is that called?

There's a term for that. It's, I forgot what it is. Retarded? No, no, no. There's a term for it in debate. And yeah, yeah, yeah, I forgot what it is. It's like, if your reaction is in any way disagreeing with me, it proves that I was right the whole time.

If you live in that world, man, you got to take a step back. Rossi Shackelford says, is that lectern guy or the lead singer of Taking Back Sunday? Yeah, I love that band. I will take that compliment. It's a good band. We do members for your people, right? What's up? We're gonna do members for your people? No, no, no, not on Fridays. No, but we are,

I don't know why it ever stopped, but we're launching The Green Room ASAP, so The Green Room used to be a show where we would record with the guests hanging out in the Green Room and have double the members-only content. And then for some reason, it just stopped existing.

I don't know why. And then I was talking to my team today. I was like, how did this just stop getting done? And everyone shrugged. And I was like, are you kidding me? So like,

I mean, look, Green Room once, I was the best stuff. And then I was just like, this is the problem. This is what's guys. I got to tell you, it's hard to run a company. I'm producing a morning show, a nightly show.

I got to deal with taxes, paperwork, contracts. And then we're supposed to have a like, you know, when people just stop doing their jobs and nobody tells you and the manager doesn't tell you. And then one day I'm like, Oh, what was the, like, I'm going through the site.

Like we got to get this stuff arranged. Cause I'm negotiating these companies. And it's like, Oh, we haven't done a green room in like six months. And I was like, huh? Dude, if you want down to doing right now tonight after this for the,

for your people, if you're down, well, it's before. Oh, well, I mean, we could do an after,

I don't know. A member's only green room. I'm down. If you're down, it's cool. Cause I know they probably want to listen more to, you know, the stuff. The stuff. The debates.

Yeah, so. Well, let's see. I mean, I don't know if we're prepared right now because nobody's here. No. Right. Maybe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No worries. But I will say let's have you come back ASAP. Sure. I'll go full on and we can have discussions.

I'm saying like really soon, like maybe even next week or something, whenever you have time. And then we'll do a green room thing. We'll get people to hang out and Elad can come. I'm looking forward to our part two. Yeah, sure. We have a box of matzos in there.

I think this is a beautiful thing, right? We can sit here and agree and disagree on certain things and that's totally fine. And I think that these are more conversations that need to be had like this, right? I mean, we disagree on some things, like maybe Israel, whatever it may be, and that's totally cool. And think that these are more conversations that need to be had like this, right? I mean, we disagree on some things like maybe Israel, whatever it may be, and that's totally cool and I think it's great to have these discussions.

Yeah. Well, we'll wrap it up here. I do apologize for not getting as much Super Chats because when we go long, we do go long and that's my fault. So I do apologize for that. But my friends, if you want to support us, you can become a member at TimCast.com and we're going to reignite that Green Room show which I actually thought was the better of the shows.

That's why I was pissed when I found out they weren't making it. We'll do it. I'll go full unhinged for your people. Unhinged as we can get. I'll go unhinged on there for you. What we would do is we would just have the camera crew film the guests coming in. Sure. And you get to see behind the scenes and just the rough conversation.

And so what happened was we had Daniel Negreanu on a couple days ago. And I'm a huge fan. He's one of the best poker players in the world. And so he was telling us these amazing stories as we were getting ready for the show. And then I'm like, where's the camera? And then I'm like, what's going on? And they were like, oh, we don't do that anymore.

And I was like, what? I was like, we're sitting here with this amazing dude telling us this great story. And then I was like, I totally lost track of this stuff. So anyway, my friends, we are going to ramp things up. We're going to get it back going. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Become a member if you so choose. My anyway, my friends, we are going to ramp things up. We're going to get it back going. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know.

Become a member if you so choose. Myron, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, guys, check me out, Fresh and Fit, on YouTube. And then also Myron Gaines X, where I do my political commentary Monday through Friday at 5 p.m. Don't interlap with you guys. And no, man, happy to be here. And we'll make something great next week or whatever. I'm always happy to come here.

And we can have these discussions and disagreements. I think it's great. Absolutely, dude. I appreciate it. Absolutely, dude. I'll be at the Supreme Court tomorrow at noon if you want to come hang out. We had planned a Capitol tour, but Trump took over the Capitol. Very inconsiderate, very rude. I'm worried about the protesters

because we're planning on being down for the inauguration, but we have no choice but to get a bunch of security. So I'd say I'd join you, but I don't know if I can. That's okay. We'll see. We'll see. We'll see. I'll be down there. I'll be down there. Thanks for tuning in, everybody. My name's Alad Eliyahu. I'm a field reporter here at TimCast. This weekend, I'll be covering the People's March. It's an anti-Trump march tomorrow, and then Trump's having an inauguration rally on Sunday. All that stuff will be on Tim's The Culture War channel and TimCastNews on Twitter and Instagram. Check that stuff out. Thank you for tuning in, Phil.

I am Phil that Remains on Twix. You can subscribe to me there. I'm Phil that Remains Official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. January 31st, our new record drops. It is called Anti-Fragile. You can go to Spotify and pre-save right now. If you want to check out some of the songs, you can check out Forever Cold, Let You Go, No Tomorrow, and Divine. They're on YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. Don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We are back.

Monday, it's going to be amazing. Donald Trump will be president, and we will be here for it. So thank you all so much for hanging out. We will see you all then. you