Timcast IRL - Democrats Launch DESPERATE MILLION Dollar Bid To Find "Liberal Joe Rogan" Project SAM w/ Steve Baker

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Elad are joined by Steve Baker to discuss Democrats spending millions to find a "liberal Joe Rogan," Democrat comedians admitting they only hate Trump for the "clicks," the ratings collapse of Democrat media, and NPR suing Trump over him cutting their federal funding.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Steve Baker @SteveBakerUSA (X) 

Stop wasting time scrolling through endless clickbait, social media, and emails trying to keep up with the news. Instead, listen to all the news you need in just 10 minutes. Welcome, welcome to The Newsworthy. The Newsworthy podcast makes it faster, easier, and more enjoyable to get unbiased news on the go. It helps us navigate the news without feeling overwhelmed. Even when my time is limited. So much detail and information in 10 minutes. Listen now by searching The Newsworthy in your podcast app or go to thenewsworthy.com.

It's our greatest fear realized. Democrats launching Project Codename Sam. Speaking to American men. Or speaking with American men, yeah. I'm kidding, by the way. This is laughably absurd. Democrats are spending 20 million dollars on a project to learn how to talk to men because they don't know how. I'm loving this. At the same time, they're on their quest for their liberal Joe Rogan, and they just don't get it. We're going to break this down, but it comes down to basically your policies are really bad. You're elitists. And the fact that you're trying to learn how to talk to men shows exactly what the problem is.

You don't act like people, just like regular people who have a conversation. Prominent writer for The Atlantic said, I have a suggestion. Just create a bunch of health podcasts and then trick people at the very last minute into voting Democrat, which is exactly what they're doing now, and they can't understand it. Now, of course, maybe it comes and goes in waves, and the moderates that joined the right will shift back depending on what happens. But we'll see two big projects from Democrats because they lost an election. We got that. Then we got Donald Trump launching his truth social post where he claims Canada is considering becoming the 51st state. They're not, but it's funny that he said it. We'll talk about that, plus a bunch of other news. Obviously, there was a big conundrum, not conundrum, a big controversy surrounding Jordan

Peterson, who appeared on a Jubilee show. One Christian versus 20 atheists, and then Jordan Peterson is like, I'm not a Christian. I never said that. And then they had to change the title, and now the whole episode makes no sense, And everyone's ragging on Jordan Peterson from left to right. So we'll get into all that. We are back, my friends. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor. It is Home Title Lock. Check out, make sure you go to hometitlelock.com, promo code Tim. If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this. When's the last time you checked on your home title? That's the legal proof you own your house. And if you're like me, the answer is never. To be honest, the answer was never until we actually started looking into this stuff. And then we checked. Seriously, we did. But to be fair,

we check on this stuff regularly because of the threats that we get. And it is serious. The problem is in today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing home titles and your equity is the target. Here's how it works. Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and boom, your home title has been transferred out of your name. Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property.

You won't even know what's happened until finally you get a collection or a foreclosure notice. That's why you need to stop what you're doing and find out today if you're already a victim. Use promo code TIM at hometitlelock.com to make sure your title is still in your name. You'll also get a free title history report plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar triple lock protection. That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it. Go to HomeTitleLock.com now.

Use promo code TIM. Once again, HomeTitleLock.com now. Use promo code Tim. Once again, HomeTitleLock.com, promo code Tim. And don't forget, go to BooneysHQ.com. We got Step on Snack and Find Out boards back in stock. So if you think people should not step on snack because they would find out, then go to BooneysHQ, pick up one of these Step on Snack and Find Out boards. We've got a bunch of others, though. I'm absolutely thrilled by this one

the 20th amendment board I want to say thank you to everybody a heartfelt sincere thank you this is my gag 20th amendment the right to keep bear and breeding chickens

not being infringed and we've sold out of this I think two or three times so they're back in stock if you guys want to pick up your right to keep bear and breed chickens skateboard

it's at boonieshq.com don't forget to also smash that like button share the show right now with everyone you know we really do appreciate it joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is steve baker tim so good to be back welcome back who are you having me what do you do what do i do i write for the blaze on occasion. Journalist? Yeah. Writer? Yeah. Investigator? They actually want more content out of me, but they keep putting me on these jobs that takes me, you know, into the deep, dark nether regions of investigative reporting. So I have to do that work.

Yeah, we have an episode of the Green Room podcast at rumble.com coming up in a little bit where you're talking about directed energy weapons used on January 6th. Maybe. Ooh, very spooky. Maybe. Creepy. So thanks for joining us.

Should be fun. Yeah. We also have Elad hanging out. Hey, everybody. Good evening. Excuse me. My name is Elad Eliyahu. I'm the White House correspondent here at TimCast.

I hope everybody had a very meaningful Memorial Day weekend. Phil. 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 get into it. Here's a story from The Independent. Democrats spending millions to learn how to speak to American men and win back the working class.

It's not going to happen. Look at this photo. I love it. They're like, let's get a picture of a guy doing what appears to be electrical work. I think it's electrical work, right? Party leaders are holing up in luxury hotel rooms, okay, problem number one, on a strategy code named SAM, or Speaking With American Men, A Strategic Plan, which of course would be SWAMISP, not SAM, to try and convince working class to vote their way again, according to a report. They've blown millions of dollars, upwards of 20 million on their efforts, with donors and strategists holing up in luxury hotel rooms, brainstorming how to convince working class men to return to the party. The plan, codenamed Sam, we get it, promises to use the funds to study the

syntax, language and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces. Along with this, we had this report from The New York Times. Democrats throw money at a problem countering GOP clout. At private gatherings, strategists and donors are swapping ideas to help the party capture the digital mojo that helped President Trump win. Yes, there's a price tag. Hey, look, it's everybody's favorite TDS cheerleader, Brian Tyler Cohen, who I think nine out of 10 of his videos are just pictures of Trump. I'm not kidding. Go to his YouTube channel. It's well, don't. But I guess if you do, you'll see literally nothing but Trump is bad in oh so many ways. But hey, you know, it works for him. He games the algorithm. He makes

money off it. Now, to exemplify this, I have this tweet from Derek Thompson, who I think hits the nail on the head with the hammer as to why Democrats cannot figure this out. Derek Thompson, of course, from The Atlantic, writes, What Democrats really need is a way to reach people, especially young men who aren't consuming political news at all. My plan, if donors are listening, is that Democrats should create a men's health sleeper cell movement. You astroturf liberal Joe Rogan by paying a bunch of ripped, great looking male influencers to do three years of nonpolitical stuff, historical conspiracies, weird health ish, supplement advocacy, et cetera. And then in August of twenty twenty eight, they all they're all contractually

obligated to go, oh, by the way, vote for the Democrat. What I absolutely love about that is he's saying, I know let's trick people into voting Democrat, which didn't work the first time. And additionally, this is what they did in 2016. Prominent personalities and celebrities all came out and said, yay, Democrat. The issue is you have weird policies. Working class guys don't want to chop off little kids balls and they don't want open borders. They want their jobs back. So Democrats, if they came out and they were like, I'm just like Joe Rogan, the moon is a secret terraforming base created by aliens and the pyramids can actually walk. People like that's interesting. And then he went also, we should remove the testicles of children.

They'd be like, I'm not voting Democrat. It's not going to happen. If Democrats want to win, they need to change their policies. The problem is they really want these policies. So you know what they're doing in Texas instead? They're just running covertly in Texas. They're running as Republicans. They say all the right words as Republicans. And then when they get to the statehouse, oops, they're Democrats. Yep. Oops, all Democrats.

That's the strategy. I guess that's what they have to do. They really do want these policies. They're not going to walk away from them. As a bros bro, I'll give the Democrats some free advice because I know they won't follow it anyway because they are beholden to the far left. The issue at hand here is that men don't want to be towing police and put up on endless purity tests. They don't have to feel like they're walking around on eggshells when they're on a podcast or what have you. So none of this would work because they'd say the wrong thing in a podcast and none of their viewers would end up forgiving them because of some, you know, misdeed that they've done in the

past. And there's no room for forgiveness in the far left space. It's just an endless firing squad on one another. So that's why I don't think this stuff is going to pan out for them. The bros need space to feel comfortable being themselves, being a little bit off-colored, and that is no longer permitted at all in these leftist spaces. So men are ostracized out of their spaces, especially young men. And I don't think there's a very effective way to bring them back in at this point. I mean, young people, young men know how the Democrats have looked at them and spoke about them for the past two decades, probably. I don't think that there's going to be any confusion among young men when it comes to

the position the left have regarding young men. It's been so overstated. It's been drilled into society, essentially. You've got it all over pop culture. The, the doofy husband that wouldn't be able to function if it wasn't for his brilliant wife that does everything. That's something that trope has been trotted out for in every sitcom in

every, you know, finish real quick. I don't know. I mean, it's, it's, it's in everywhere that you look and that's just the tip

of the iceberg it's everywhere that men are considered bad toxic masculinity men are looked at as the problem and women are looked at as the solution according to democrats there's no hiding that i want to push back in that while i i would argue that the sitcom problem we have is that everybody hates marriage is the is the bigger issue homer simpson Homer Simpson is a moron who just magically succeeds at everything he does no matter what. And Peter Griffin is much the same. Right? They actually made a joke about it where Peter has a helicopter and Joe is like, how can you afford these things? So they have the idiot, doofy, fat husband trope.

But at least as far as it goes with like Simpsons and Family Guy homer's an astronaut he went to space yeah i mean like so fair enough so so take that you know take that for what it's worth but it's the point broad point still remains toxic masculinity there is no positive role models for men the the the idea of masculinity is looked at as overall just bad so fair point on on you know, Homer and stuff like that. But I think that the overall point still stands. Men have been demonized by the left. Young men know it. They've seen it.

They've grown up with it. And they're not going to be attracted to the left just by Hassan saying, yo, bro, I go to the gym, too. That's just not going to work. Yeah, I actually wonder who watches channels like his, you know? I think it's mostly LGBTQ. Men dressed like women. Manly dressed women, you said?

I said men dressed like women. Where do they go to the restroom, though? Because that's the brilliance on the right, is that if you can demonize them for going, you know, men dressed like women, for going into the women's room, and then they go into the men's room dressed like a woman? It's a big loser. Yeah, I mean, it is, but, like, it's also—and it's better for a man dressed like a woman to go into the men's room than for a man dressed like a woman to go into the women's room.

I believe that. It's tough to pick which one you prefer, I think. I think the issue largely is that Democrats don't have sincere policy plans. They have wacky ideas that they adhere to because you're supposed to. And that's it. They don't want to deviate from those lines. I think liberals all tend to have—don't get me wrong, conservatives have some of this, too. But liberals tend to have a degree—like, your degree of how far left you are is where you draw the line

on what is acceptable socially. So far left doesn't mean you're a socialist anymore. Probably does correlate. It just means that you buy into everything the left offers. Then you have like the moderate left and it's like, well, you're not going as far as some of these leftists, but you still don't like Trump. And then you're liberal if you can disagree with all those things, but you still hate Trump no matter what. You won't recognize when the media lied to you. You have to hate Trump. You can agree on everything else. You can call woke bad, but you're going to be a liberal. That means you have to hate Trump. And then you're conservative if you just disagree. And so as long as that's the case, that means regular run of the mill guys who are like, I don't really care that much about Trump

at all. They're like, well, then you're conservative. It's like, okay, I guess. The problem with Democrats is not how they're talking. It's that they're basically saying to young men, do you like Trump? And they go, don't really know much about him. You're a white supremacist. And they're like, okay, bye. I think it's if you don't adhere to all of their ideological perspectives, then you're othered immediately. So if you're a pro-choice, you are not welcome in Democrat circles. If you are anti-immigration, if you want to build-choice, you are not welcome in Democrat circles. If you are anti-immigration, if you want to build the wall, then you're not welcome in any of these circles. If you don't believe in Medicare for all, you're not welcome in these circles. And

increasingly, if you're not a socialist or a communist, you're not welcome in these circles. And you have to virtue signal to those people. And within the party, those people will purity test and ostracize you because that's where the base is. I think there's a white pill way to read into this. And it's that after decades of demonizing young white men, the Democrats are finally deciding that it's not a winning strategy and they're working to refocus outreach to them. So I think this may indeed be a sign of a white boy summer to come. Well, I actually think the Democrat strategy was white people don't have kids, so don't bet on them for the future. Bet on. So they were probably looking at a combination of racial in-group preference, except for white liberals with a racial out-group preference. And they said, how do we build a coalition? We're going to need something that brings together all races and white liberals.

And that's why you end up with DEI there. So they're trying to unify all of these groups under one umbrella. Then they basically say, we will take your job from you. We will destroy your life unless you agree with every aspect of the psychotic ideology, which is a big tent that it's, you know, they're jamming puzzle pieces

into spaces they don't fit. The right is just like, you guys want to hang out and debate? And they're like, sure. I don't agree with you. That's cool. I don't agree with you. Well, what should we do? That's the right. Larg, you guys want to hang out and debate? And they're like, sure. I don't agree with you. That's cool. I don't agree with you. Well, what should we do?

That's the right. Largely, not completely. It's become more big tent, I feel. I mean, yeah, but the thing is, that's because the left is so exclusive, right? The left kicks everyone out that doesn't agree. Again, this is something that we talked about a lot of times, but the reason that Donald Trump is in the Republican Party

is because he used to be a Democrat and now he wouldn't be welcome in the Democrat Party. Same thing with JFK. Same thing with Tulsi Gabbard. Same thing with, you know, down the line. There's many, many, many, many people that you can name in public life in the administration that used to be Democrat and have just normal person opinions because they don't believe things like, you know, men can become women. They're excommunicated from the Democrat Party. That's why the MAGA, you know, the MAGA big tent is what it is. That's why we have the people that are, you know, pro-choice as well as people that are pro-life under the MAGA tent because it's a big tent, you know, party.

I want to pull up this clip. We've got this from Hollywood Reporter. Democrat comedians basically admitting they only target Donald Trump because of audience capture. Listen to this. That was going to be the title of one of my specials, Kill the Comedian, because it's just like, you know, it's also like you're the only ones going after Trump. You're the only ones going after Trump. It's like the pressure to constantly talk about Trump. It's like we're also comedians. You're also supposed to provide people with a reprieve from thinking about Donald Trump for a minute,

for an hour, for however long your show is. You want to provide that. That's why I like also doing stand-up, because I'm so tired of it. It's like, I've been there, done that. Everyone knows how I feel. I can't just keep banging this drum. You weren't using your platform enough to speak about

the issue. Here's what i get from this clip when um what was that guy's name the guy i forget these people's names the what's his face this guy what's that guy's name i have no idea i know he does uh one of the nightly shows but i have no idea yeah another one of those nightly shows that i never i forget these seth seth myers seth myers okay seth green seth myers okay there you go that's right that's seth myers um of those nightly shows that I never I forget these Seth Seth Meyers Seth Meyers okay Seth Green Seth Meyers okay there you go that's right that's Seth Meyers um what I'm hearing from this where he's like I like doing stand-up because I'm tired of it sometimes is that what actually is happening media has decentralized such a degree that anyone can get their opinions from anyone they want. So if there's a

guy who firmly believes the earth is both flat and hollow, and in fact, it's a donut, someone can find that and listen to it. It used to be that you watched what was available. Yep. Now what they've found is their their lowest common denominator is not liking Trump. And so whether you're a socialist, a communist, an anarchist, or just some old lady who thinks Trump is a lizard, you will watch content that says Trump is bad. And so that's what he's actually talking about. It's not that the audience is demanding it. It's that nothing else unifies people anymore. There's no general conversation on news and politics. It is. We hate Trump there. So every

nightly talk show starts with that. This is a really great example. Um, because when we were, we were looking at these, uh, liberal YouTubers right now, the Democrats are looking to spend a lot of money on and you go to like David Pakman or Brian Tyler Cohen and almost every single video they do is just a photo of Trump and something bad written about him. It'll say Trump shocks audience with unhinged comments. That's like not even specific. It's just pure hatred of Trump driving these views. And I look at him like, how do you get half a million views on this? Probably the same people watching every video nonstop over and over again. And Sean, who was doing research on this, said, hey, it's it's every nightly talk show is the exact

same thing. Every monologue from Colbert, from Myers, from Fallon, it's always and Jimmy Kimmel, always the same thing. Here's why Trump is bad. Maybe Trump needs to just lay off the news for a little bit to see what happens, see what happens to these people. The point is they don't actually care about Trump. They just know that their ratings are predicated upon if they can say Trump is bad today. Because if they came out and they were, you know, look, I have a couple of videos I did about Katy Perry. Surprisingly, they've got like half a million views. And I was like, wow. But there was something to talk about. Katy Perry got fired from her Vegas residency or whatever, and they said she lost money. And I'm like, that's that's actually really interesting for

a major celebrity who just went into outer space and all this to be bombing so miserably. More people care about that. The issue for these people is they're addicted to it and they don't know what else to talk about. Why did Johnny Carson get by with never doing that? Talking politics? Well, I mean, he talked politics, but he picked on both sides. He was an equal opportunity offender. Well, you know, back then there were very few channels. And so you knew that you were going to have 10 million liberals, 10 million conservatives.

And so you had to be for the big tent approach. Here's what I say. I mean, we seem to have no trouble criticizing Donald Trump on this show. We largely like what he does. So it's not like we're just attacking him nonstop for no reason. But when there's things to criticize him for, I know I can give the same examples over and over and over again. In this term, I was skeptical on the universal tariffs. We'll see where we end up with them. In the past term, you had the Tomahawk strikes in Syria. People have criticized him for these things. And I criticized him for mocking

the journals, getting body slammed, all that stuff. The right is OK with that. You're you're allowed to make fun of Donald Trump. It's funny. I'll give a shout out to Seamus Coughlin, Freedom Tunes. He makes fun of Trump all the time and people love it. I feel like that energy you're mentioning of Johnny Carson going after both sides. It's just the right now. The left is cultish. You can't. But their but their audiences are so much smaller now. Like you pointed out, there was only three options back 45 years ago. But now there's hundreds of options for entertainment value. But they deliberately ostracize half of their potential audience. Why would they? I still don't understand why, if you're funny, if you are genuinely funny as a

comedian, why would you deliberately do that? Because you have to one way or the other. Is that coming from the editorial board of the. No, no, no, no, no. I'm saying if if Seth Meyers came out and said Joe Biden's brain is made of jello, this guy's ridiculous. Who would consider voting for a lunatic? Then the left would riot against them. The conservatives won't come and watch. The left will riot and stop watching and their ratings go to zero. So they said, okay,

this is the conservatives' fault to a certain degree and I've complained about this quite a bit. These TV shows, like Jimmy Kimmel, what is he getting? A couple hundred thousand these days? It's crazy how small their shows have gotten. 10 years ago, they were getting millions.

Now they're getting hundreds of thousands. And they're basically saying, look, we went hard against Trump. We bet against him and we lost. If we were to come out now and try and be pro-Trump, conservatives won't watch and liberals will leave. So why do it? I wonder if the same kind of calculation will happen when it comes to trying to attract young men. We were just talking about trying to attract young men to the Democrat Party. What happens when young men start coming to the Democrat Party and behaving like young men?

Does the Democrat Party lose the left and then the young men realize, oh, this isn't the place for me and then lose everything? No, I think that is the path towards correction. So I would say when you look at the Democratic Party, millennial women make up a large component of it right now. They're two thirds liberal and the men lean slightly away. It's like 45 percent of millennial men are Democrat. These numbers changed, but these are the numbers from a few years ago. Millennial men are 55% Republican, 45%, and there's a slight deviation there, liberal. Women are more susceptible to social pressures than men are. So when the official mainstream narrative is weird, woke, psycho garbage, you are likely going to find that women adhere to those narratives more than men do, because of their feelings, not because of the facts, men are going to be more aggressive

and obstinate, and they're going to adhere to facts, things they believe to be true and argue. If the Democrats started to bring men in and let them speak, it would create social pressures where more women would move over to their line of thinking. They'd still be liberals because you'd have masculine, aggressive, liberal men, not like Hassan. I mean, actually like politically moderate liberal types who are going to say things like, we don't want to trans the kids, but we do need to secure our borders. And we do need, you know, like I think taxes on the wealth, on the rich makes sense. Bring a guy in who says that and is charismatic and you'll see women start adopting those views

and abandoning the weird woke ideology stuff. I think with the direction that people getting married is going in in our country, that we're unfortunately not going to see that. And I think people between the parties, support is becoming more gendered, that is. More men are supporting the Republican Party. More women are supporting the Democrat Party.

And we're actually seeing that to continue to be further exacerbated and men and women not ending up getting married and exchanging values and deciding one way or another. And I don't know what the downstream consequences of this will be, but I foresee this trend continuing. I think in some other countries we're seeing more extreme examples of this. So, for example, in South Korea, the gender divide and how they vote is very extreme. And with the way that the parties signal to the genders,

I just foresee it continue to go to that direction. I feel like we'd be remiss if we didn't also mention that the Democrats are overwhelmingly pro-choice. And I've said it before on the show that I think women would rather be poor than lose their access to abortion at this point. I mean, generally for most women in this country. So just things to consider. And so long as the Republicans are anti-abortion, you know, there's going to be gendered consequences to that, among other things. But I think that's a big, that plays a big role here.

I just did a quick Google search on ratings for cable TV. The last word with Lawrence O'Donnell. How many key demo viewers do you think he had? Oh, God. 50,000. Lawrence O'Donnell. 12,000. Yeah. In the demo?

This is the 5 p.m. hour. Lawrence O'Donnell. 5 p.m., 50,000. In the key demo? Key demo. 12,000. Oh. Wow, 12,000.

Well, I think most people who watch, what is he, fromsnbc um no nobody old people yeah like old people watch like they'll probably get 100k 200k but it's all old people so in the key demo that's 50 yeah i thought nine nine thousand nine thousand wow yeah uh holy crap i didn't think that was uh i i didn't think it was going to be that low. Especially for, I'll let people, can you explain key demo to people just so they. 25 to 54 years old. That's what's important here.

Now, yo, check this out. This is where things get really crazy. I'm going to scroll and I got, I should just pull this up on the, let me see if I can pull this up so y'all can see it. And do you have Fox's numbers too? Because Fox kills it no no bro wait till you see this if i can get uh what which article do i have fox is a true underappreciated juggernaut in the media space may 21st let me pull this up so uh here we go they say

the five ascended to familiar territories across over the four million total viewer threshold on wednesday evening fox news is 5 p.m panel show is the number one program in the advertiser-coveted 25-54 demo. However, yo, they're playing flashy word games how they wrote that. The Five got 391,000 viewers in the key demo. That's number one. The number one cable TV show gets 391,000 viewers in the key demo. Wow. With all due respect, I'm a fan of the five.

Yo, we do like 700. We do between like 700,000, 800,000 per episode on TimCast IRL. And I think maybe like 600, maybe 650 is key demo. People aren't watching these networks anymore except, check this out, this is how crazy things are. So if you can look at CNN, you've got a hundred thousand for Anderson Cooper. Yo, that's wild. 9 PM. Hannity's got 300,000. Gutfeld gets 321, 22,000. Now, yo, I was on waters a couple of weeks ago. They don't come out and say this when, when they talk about their ratings, where's our waters 372 000 that's awesome but take a look at their total viewership waters got 3.5 million the five got 4.06 4.064

the overwhelming majority of the viewers they have are over 55 and I think the average is 70 years old. What's going to happen to this, all of this stuff, in 10 years? Well, I mean, the fact that there's going to be significantly fewer boomers, it's just a continuation of what's been happening for the past decade, right? Everything has been moving to the internet. Everything has been moving away from legacy media. So the trend is just going to continue and and probably increase in in velocity you know there's significantly few boomers at this table right now by the way yeah i mean i'm a boomer at heart though so i think i count for one i wanted to do a little inside of the lines reading here tim if you go back to the the full

graph here so i think um what is very important for people to understand is that i think 8 p.m is actually the key spot to have. Like that is the most coveted TV spot to have. And that's the spot that Tucker Carlson used to fill at Fox News. And now you'd actually notice that the 5, which is at 5 o'clock, is actually getting more viewership than the coveted 8 p.m. spot. I just think it's an important thing to recognize that there's a reason we shoot at 8 p.m. And 8 p.m. is when when football games and everything would start. It's the key time when people get home

and what have you. They're getting less. Waters is getting less views more often than not than the 5 is a 5. However, Jesse Waters is like the principal personality of the 5. Correct. So, you know, I think Waters is like the man at Fox News right now.

And it's Waters and Gutfeld, basically. I guess, I don't know. I mean, Hannity's getting $300,000. In a roundabout way, Tim, I guess I'm saying that Jesse Waters doesn't fill Tucker Carlson's shoes, who had big shoes to fill when Bill O'Reilly left, too. Oh, yeah. And that's crazy they got rid of Tucker Carlson. Totally.

That was absolutely nuts. I think Tucker would still be doing monster numbers more than jesse waters uh but it seems as though he's more interested in doing the tucker carlson network stuff i i gotta say like it is look when i turn on fox news do you know what the advertisements are um pharmaceuticals for old people yeah and and um street ekgs Have you seen that commercial? No. Is my pillow still there too? No, not so much. Not so much. Not that I've seen.

They have this one commercial where it's a guy, he's like, I am not in a doctor's office. I'm not even a doctor. I'm in the street. And you can get a medical grade EKG by putting your fingers on this thing. How much do you think that costs? All of, and reverse mortgages. Yeah. So don't get me wrong like older people elderly need services too

and their services advertised to them they actually have a disproportionate amount of wealth there's a lot of hyper concentrated wealth and power in the 65 plus demographic now when we look at the average age of viewers on these networks it's around 70 years old right now because like to be honest like 70 seven or seven years ago, we were talking about this. The average age was like 65. So I could arguably be like it's probably 70 now, but I think it's 69, 70 years old. We also see with the real clear politics age breakdown, the only age bracket that opposes Trump is 70 plus. All of this wealth, homeownership, corporate equities is about 10 years away from just being up in the air. The votes are gone. The properties are where do they go?

The corporate equities, where do they go? And all of these channels, nothing. Yo, I don't know. I do a quick I did a quick Google search once. Actually, let me do it. Let me let me do a quick Google search now. Jesse Waters' salary. And we're picking on Jesse Waters, which we—I'm a fan, by the way. That's why I went on the show. What do you guys think his salary is listed as? It'd be a couple million a year, at least. I don't know.

He's probably—he's one of their number ones, APM coveted slot guy. Five million a year. I'm going five. This is what it says when you Google it. It says five million a year. How are they going to pay this guy five million a year if he'm going $5. This is what it says when you Google it. It says $5 million a year. How are they going to pay this guy $5 million a year if he's pulling in $300K per episode? Well, especially if they lose the pharmaceutical companies. Right.

That's why they can pay him. You're asking in 10 years, will he be able to pull in that? Perhaps. He can do it right now because, as you said, the disproportionate amount of wealth on the boomer market that they're appealing to. So right now there's also carriage fees, too. But, yo, young people don't have cable. So I'm wondering, this whole thing's going belly up in 10 years. So I did a quick Google search on Hannity. His salary is estimated at $36 million. You know, again, I shouldn't pick on Fox News. We should look at, like, Anderson Cooper, right? I think there's also, it's worth mentioning that

like some of, most of Fox News' biggest stars have ended up leaving Fox and ended up becoming independent, Tim Pool type creators, if you will, podcasters. Megyn Kelly, for example, Tucker Carlson. I'm sure I'm forgetting some others, but like a lot of their best talent, most recognizable talent has left. And it really is a sign of where things are to go. But also working at Fox News must be great because, you know, you're tapped into getting tapped on the shoulder by President Trump and being brought on board in the cabinet or something. I'm just, you know, I'm sitting here Google searching salaries and Anderson Cooper's salary is estimated at $20 million a year. For a guy who pulls in $100K in the key demo,

I'm just wondering. Let's not even do that. Anderson Cooper total viewership, 582,000. Okay, let's just do some math. How many commercials do you think aired during one hour of Anderson Cooper's show? Like, honest, how many commercials? It could be like three or a break.

Probably one every 10 minutes. 15 to 20. 15 to 20? To be fair, that could be like three or a break. Probably one every 10 minutes. 15 to 20. 15 to 20. To be fair, that could be a lot of money with 500,000 views. So if you're talking 10K, you could be doing 150,000 per episode. At 500,000 total viewers, you could be 582 with a standard CPM. You could be charging $10,000 per ad. I don't think it's there, though.

Because we tried to run that gag pillow commercial on Fox News. The idea we had was Our Pillow. Our Pillow was a burlap sack full of styrofoam packing peanuts. And I legit called Fox News, and I was like, I want to run a commercial where we try and sell a burlap sack full of styrofoam packing peanuts. They laughed and they were like, okay, it costs money. Tucker Carlson, who was getting, to be honest, I think he was getting half a million in the key demo and about $3.5 million on average. It was $12,000 for one commercial on his show. That's relatively cheap compared to what you pay on the internet

for podcasts and things like this. I think Joe Rogan might charge between $20,000 and $50,000 per ad read on his show. Yeah, it's a big show. You know what I mean? He's getting millions, but they're closer to the key demo. So to be fair, I mean, there is Joe. I don't understand how Anderson Cooper makes the money. Where's that money come from? That's the crazy thing. Anderson Cooper is a descendant from the Vanderbilt family. So maybe he's leaving some money on the table and not too worried about, I believe he'd stay there even if they paid him zero dollars because he's doing it all for ego. Which isn't unique to him. But the NGOs have to prop those networks up. They have to. They have no choice because if they're going to get their message out at all, they have no choice but to prop them up.

What's most annoying to me is that we've had a lot on staff now for a couple weeks that AIPAC hasn't called. Like, yo, what's up, Elon? Not yet. Not yet. I think I need to say the resident, the Jew more often here. Jewish correspondent. Jewish affairs correspondent, rather. There was a funny meme.

It's going to just piss some people off because everyone gets mad about Israel stuff. But someone had a funny post where they said something like, I don't understand why everybody thinks Israel is paying all these people when the only thing they've ever done is beg me for money. Like all these NGOs and nonprofits are always asking for donations and things like that. No, there's, you know, I will say this too. There is, like you mentioned, the NGOs have to keep this propped up. I don't think that exists. You don't think so? No, it's pharmaceutical companies.

Well, they are. Yeah, like everybody wants to believe that the only way their opposition is funded is by some nefarious ne'er-do-well billionaire. And it's just not. Certainly there are NGOs that get money from Lexoros. That exists. And they might buy commercials, but we don't actually see a lot of those commercial buys.

It's pharmaceutical companies that are propping up these cable networks. And the reason why we get these messages is because they want favorable policies from Democrat politicians

they're cutting these deals with. It's really simple. Pharmaceutical companies are going to make contributions when and where they can. They're going to prop up corporate news outlets. Those new news outlets are scared of losing access. And the pharmaceuticals are like, listen, these Democrats are going to give us good deals. If you start running commercials that are pro-Republican, that are challenging all this stuff, we're not going to buy ads with

you anymore. And the news network's like, OK, then we'll stop doing it. The editorial comes in and says, guys, we don't want to we don't want to look a Republican, you know, RFK Jr. For instance, why did the media attack him relentlessly? Pharmaceutical companies probably went to the big media and said, we will pull our ads if you keep disparaging us. And they said, okay, went to their team and said, guys, we got to lay off on the weird pharma stuff. Okay. Let's just not risk our bottom line over whatever the story is. I, you know,

I have, I have another way to put it that I love to explain to people. The reason why journalism is not news journalism will not tell you the truth. And anyone who thinks it will is, is, is, is, is misinformed.

It's really simple. Let me ask you a question. If, uh, I want, I want you to invest in my company. All right. I need $100,000 so that I can make a website that will, we're going to make, I don't know,

articles about Brad Pitt's junk and Katy Perry. And also we hate Trump. We're going to hire three people. We're going to pay them, I don't know, a couple bucks an article and we're going to get 300,000 views per video, especially the Trump ones. Is this Shark Tank right now? So here's what happens. The investor says, okay, my principal investment is a hundred grand for one year. So if I want to, so let's just do a three-year deal at 300,000 over three years. You're going to make, you're going to hire three guys. You're going to contract three guys to write rage bait articles. Those articles will generate a couple grand each because you're going to say

Trump is bad, celebrity garbage, celebrity garbage, and we're going to look with ads. Okay. Sounds like I'll make money. Now let's talk about real journalism. Why don't you go to an investor and say this? I need $500,000 for one year. Salary for the journalist is going to be, we're going to be modest. We're going to say $80,000 a year, but travel costs, legal costs, legal costs is going to be 300,000 for the first year because we're going to get sued to oblivion when we start digging into Pfizer's or pharmaceutical. The investor is going to say, okay, okay, half a million. What do I get at the end of the year? We don't know. We haven't investigated the company yet. He is going to say, okay, okay, half a million. What do I get at the end of the year? We don't know. We haven't investigated the company yet. He's going to say,

screw off. I invest in money in that. So all of these big companies, that's how they're operating. Why would they make news? They're going to play softball so that you believe you're getting the news, but you are the product. They need more eyeballs. So they need sensational rage bait garbage at the lowest cost possible to appease their investors. To be fair, you do have another problem today with membership bases where it's largely better so long as you're adhering to some kind of standard. But then you end up with, say, Washington Post or The New York Times where they have audience capture. Their audience hates Trump. They've invested heavily in making anti-Trump content. If they change now, they will lose members and they will shrink. So what do they do?

They maintain those lies. You are not getting fair and honest reporting from news organizations. It just doesn't exist. I think especially in the news media space, journalism sadly cannot be monetized to the amount that it takes to pay the journalist to make a living. And the downstream consequences of that is that journalism and news outfits usually cannot be profitable and therefore tend to be bought out by billionaires or owned by billionaires. So for the New York Times, it's owned by the Salzburger family. So the thing is,

they're not really adhering or have to feel the pressure from their subscribers if it came down to that, because they're a very rich family. Same for the Washington Post, currently owned by Jeff Bezos. If push comes to shove, they actually don't need to be profitable, and it's just rich people and rich companies

that own a lot of these different news outlets. The motivation then is going to be just for access or the ability to affect the narrative then, right? The overall of america so let's talk about let me do this let me jump to this story first kick this off we have this from the new york times you know me 11 npr sues trump over order to cut funding the lawsuit filed in federal court in washington by npr another public radio organization said president trump's executive order violated the constitution and the first amendment i absolutely love that nPR's argument is we have a First Amendment right to taxpayer funds. It is a psychotic, crazy world where the AP, the Associated Press, sued saying we should

be allowed in the press pool in Trump's Oval Office. Right. This is Trump's, this is an invitation. There's no guarantee in the Constitution that a private organization has access to Trump's office. And because Trump would invite the press in general, AP, won a court case saying they should be allowed in, my argument is I should sue next. Why can't I be in the Oval Office whenever I want? What makes the AP special? If the courts are saying the AP needs to be allowed in, then I need to be allowed in too. And we'll do the podcast right from the Oval Office next to Trump because they got to let me in.

It's an absurdity. So now NPR is suing Trump. Here's the executive order. The executive order that Trump issued four weeks ago, or I'm sorry, it was about three and a half weeks ago, ending taxpayer subsidization of biased media. It's not a First Amendment issue. He's saying the U.S. government cannot be spending money on promoting

one ideology. That violates the First Amendment. It is a violation of the First Amendment that NPR would receive funds. That's what's at play. So they want to say that the NPR has sued the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington by NPR and other public radio organizations, including Colorado Public Radio. And Aspen Public Radio said Mr. Trump's order violated the Constitution. Quote, The president has no authority under the Constitution to take such actions. On the contrary, the power of the purse is reserved for Congress. Dwight said no immediate comment. This month, Mr. Trump signed an executive order ordering the corporate for a corporation for public broadcasting, which backs NPR and PBS, to freeze all funding to those organizations.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting spends more than half a billion dollars on public radio. However, I do believe that is an executive branch, Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And so the president does have authority to direct their actions. However, there is a legal challenge, and Congress has passed the funds for specific things, which means there's a check and a bounce. So this can't happen. Jumping back into what we were talking about before, getting into the story, what I wanted to mention is Phil brought up how the purpose of these news organizations is for clout and to

control the narrative in the system. That's why, I believe it was Haim Saban, I'm not sure. He's, I don't know if he owns Univision. I think he might. Big Hillary Clinton guy. They Univision and ABC launched Fusion. And I think they spent something like 300 million dollars trying to create what they were calling, quote, nice vice because they needed to get young people. And they weren't profitable. They didn't expect to be profitable. As far as I can tell in the conversations I have with these people, it was to create an influence operation. They wanted to be able to mass produce content that shaped the political landscape of young people. And they failed miserably. And it's they had every opportunity to do it right. but boy, would they not listen? Let me, let me give you an example of, so they failed. They laid everybody off. They burned this money to the ground. The company's completely gone. When I was there, they, they had produced a bunch of content that was overly woke gender ideology stuff. I went to the president of the company and I said, this stuff's not getting any views. You're not getting any traction. You're not generating any attention.

And so me and my brother told them we can help them with a campaign. We can find content you have, that sleeper content that's been improperly marketed and we can make it big. So there was one video called Open Mic Massacre and it was a comedian and it was a cartoon bit where every time he tried to tell a joke, they'd boo him and call him racist or a bigot.

It was mocking the woke. It exploded. I don't remember how many views it got, but it got a ton of views. They doubled their subscribers and the company went nuts, outraged. They did not want that narrative to be successful. They were pissed off that it happened. So they said, stop, stop doing this. And that was the end of it. And I was like, I don't understand. We found the content that young people like. We helped promote it. It took off like crazy. You're building subscribers.

What do you want? And they said, not that. So what did they end up doing? Doubling down on woke garbage that failed and then they went out of business. Well, I don't, again, these companies don't even care about being profitable because again, it is an influence op. And I think we also need to take notice of one of the biggest influence ops that is coming out of the Middle East, a news organization called Al Jazeera that I think is underappreciated for how much it is a propagandizing arm of Qatar that, again, doesn't need to be profitable. And I think we'll need a wrangle with the consequences of news organizations not even trying to be profitable at this point. Tim, I wanted to follow up on something you said earlier about NPR. And I believe it's the AP trying to sue

Trump and the Trump administration to get more access to the Oval Office. Here's the thing. We're very thankful here at TimCast for the Trump administration shaking up the way they do media access at the White House. If it was up to the White House Correspondents Association, who currently has a monopoly on coverage and access in the Oval Office, or well, used to, we wouldn't be in the Oval Office at all. Space in the Oval Office is zero sum. It's actually a very small room. And the fact when NPR isn't there or the AP isn't there, it's a different new media person that is. So all of that is to say that NPR and AP trying to get back in is trying to take the place of other new media outfits getting in there like us, like the Daily Wire, like the Daily Caller, among other people. And I hope that NPR and AP fails in their lawsuits trying to get back in.

I just want to show you guys I found it. We've pulled this up from time to time. It's a good example of the fails of nine years ago, 589,000 views. I show you this because I believe this is evidence that when a media company with hundreds of millions of dollars was given an opportunity to produce successful content, they chose not to intentionally. They were told what would succeed. You know, it's not even about politics. We did a video called Fallout from Fukushima. I went to the president of the company. I said,

Fallout 4 is coming out. It is the most anticipated game of the year. It's been a long time, huh? I said, Fallout 3 was game of the year. Fallout 4 is coming out. We should go to Fukushima, Japan, do a mini documentary on the disaster and where it's currently at and call it Fallout from Fukushima. We're going to capture all that SEO. So everyone searching for Fallout is going to find our documentary. And it creates a cool real world view for what these video games are. And video games are popular. And they said, do it.

Boom, half a million views right at launch. And they said, no, make more trans kids. I said, here's my idea for a series. Let's create mini documentaries based on video games. So Call of Duty, let's make a Call of Duty mini doc that explores modern warfare and combat. And we film it with shots. We put a GoPro on the weapon and we film first person POV training and make it look like the video game. That way, when people are playing the video game on their board and they said, no, we want feminism, mission driven storytelling, and none of it ever worked. That is, with hundreds of millions of dollars pouring in, the goal was never to build successful media. It was to build narrative and pay to inject it into the culture, which is what I was warning last November when I said this is what Democrats are going to do.

They lost the election. Now what they're going to do is they tried the corporate route, build a company, dump the money, see if it works. It didn't work. Now they're going to find liberal podcasters, and they're going to say, you got a big channel. Let's give you $10 million in advertisement. Your face will be everywhere. And what's fascinating to me is that the right with domination in the space for now, the podcast presence, they call it, have not been utilizing their resources to take

cultural ubiquity. This is what I'll get. Did you guys see the Times Square thing of all the black men's faces? Yeah. No. You didn't see that? Let me see if I can pull that up. Black men's faces, Times Square.

What is this? How do I find this? Black men in Times Square? That's not it okay it is yeah i can pull this one up i guess the price okay that's annoying i don't want to pull that one up uh is this it i don't know this might be it let's just pull this in and see what happens. There you go. So all of a sudden, every billboard in Times Square that you can buy turns into a picture of a black man's face. And it's some like art campaign or whatever. I was talking to my buddies about this 10 years ago. How do we buy every billboard in Times Square all at once? Because that's like a big flash.

Everybody notices. And exactly what happened with this. The right won a podcast battle helping Donald Trump win. And they all remained independent, isolated, didn't do big ad runs. They're not doing what Coca-Cola does. What I think we're going to see next, I think, you know, we bought billboards. Timcast IRL is on billboards all across the country and many people have seen them if you're driving through especially the

rust belt where we bought a bunch very expensive to do it's because i i firmly believe in a year you are going to see insert liberal podcast all over Times Square on YouTube nonstop. You're going to pull up, you know, Asmongold. You're going to want to watch, you know, he's just a streamer, right? Politically unaffiliated, but leans kind of in the Trump direction. And whenever you click his video, it's going to autoplay a commercial from a liberal podcast or or the liberal podcast itself. These big companies, they can afford to give Rachel Maddow $20 million. They're going to go to Google and say, we want to buy a big package.

Let me tell you guys about last year. We spent a lot of money on Google ads. And Google, to this day, will not stop emailing me saying, please talk to us and do a deal with us. We'll cut you a deal. We'll prioritize all this stuff because you spent a lot of money. It makes sense. But we don't spend as much as these people can. And so we might do like tens of thousands per month, depending on the show we're doing or the videos we want to promote, things like that. What you're going to end up seeing is, here's my bet,

Democrat PAC or something or a media, a Democrat aligned media interest is going to say we represent a bunch of these big podcasts and liberal side that are on YouTube, but they don't do so well. Now we've got a $50 million budget for the year, but we don't know if we want to spend that on, on YouTube ads. If you guys aren't promoting us and they're not being seen by people anyway. YouTube will then be like, let's do a deal. Then when you go to the front page of YouTube as a conservative, all of a sudden you're only getting liberals. Right.

And it's because YouTube says, look, they bought a $50 million package. So their ads are going to appear all over the place. Banner ads, video display ads, and they're going to start popping up in the algorithm more often. So they're going to ignore your personally identified profile algorithm and then force feed you. I would argue that there's a balance of yes with a but. YouTube, of course, doesn't want to lose users. They don't want to lose users. But the balance is, or the question is, why doesn't YouTube want people to leave the website? They want to maximize how many ads they can deliver.

If they abuse it too much, people will leave. However, they also need money. And if people are already leaving to say rumble and they're conservative, YouTube is going to have this equation in front of them. Conservatives have left and gone to rumble largely and maybe not entirely, but a large portion or at least a significant double digit portion. We've already lost a lot of that money. How do we make back that money? Democrats then come and say, well, promote our personalities. But here's the thing, too.

Like that guy, Derek Thompson, was saying it's going to be sleeper cells. They're going to be liberal aligned shows that are passively liberal. But in the health space, YouTube will start promoting these things. They've been doing it. They've done it before. They'll do it again. YouTube will begin putting pressure. So it's harder to find shows like this and other shows that lean away from the narrative machine. They'll try and do it in a way to maintain as many viewers as possible without bleeding too much. But the equation, as I mentioned, is if conservatives leave and are angry and liberals are threatening to leave, pander to the liberals. End of story. Especially if they're offering big

cash. I think we're going to see that next year in the midterms. And that's what's going to cause a lot of damage to Republicans. But that being said, Democrats still have crackpot policies that regular people don't like. Yeah, I mean, the scenario you lay out actually is very similar to the way that it was before people kind of started to realize that the left controlled everything. I mean, the general consensus was that it was normal and then you had conservatives. But then normal started saying crazy things like men and women men can become women and such but it was that you know the general consensus was oh this is this is what normal people think and this is we don't have to be political we just talk about whatever topic we're talking about or whatever we like and then if politics comes up it's obvious

that we would vote for Barack Obama or it's obvious the right choice is the Democrats. And that was the way that kind of society was had been running for, you know, probably since Bill Clinton, you know, even even when George Bush was a was the president, the general consensus was still from the media and from the left that it was clear that, you know, George Bush might've been kind of an anomaly, but most of your, your Paul, most of your political positions should be the positions that the left had. I don't want to make this sound like it's uniquely a left issue. There was a story that came that, that relates to this,

that came across my radar last week from the Washington examiner talking about how Qatar, Qatar has foreign influence operations here in the United States. I'm going to read you a couple of paragraphs from here because I feel like it relates. It's in regard to Tucker Carlson interviewing the prime minister of Qatar and the organization that paid for that to happen was giving Tucker Carlson allegedly $180,000 per month. So let me just read this. Wait, what? What's the title?

I'll just pull it up. The title, it's from the Washington Examiner, conservative media targeted by Qatari foreign influence operations. You're going to have to archive it because it has a paywall. So it says, I'm reading from it, perhaps Qatar's biggest victory in its post-election right-wing media campaign thus far was securing an interview between Tucker Carlson and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Al Thani. The interview racked up nearly 6 million views. Qatar paid top dollar to ensure the interview take place. FARA records show that Lumen Aid Advisors, a legal consulting company for which very little public information is available,

facilitated the interview between Carlson and the Qatari dignitary. The Lumen Aid Advisors paid $180,000 per month to provide media and communication coaching and consulting services. I don't have it pulled up, so just keep going. No, it's that. It's this. No, I don't have it pulled up, so just keep going. What's your point?

Oh, and then, so we need to be worried about, again, this is rich people trying to sway opinion one way or another. I'm not saying that. I do have it pulled up now. Yeah. Conservative media targeted by Qatari for an influence operation. So what was the point you were bringing up?

You said that. I was saying, so we were talking a lot about how the left is influenced by billionaires that are trying to fund their money. And I don't think it's unique to the left. And I think on the right, we also have different billionaires flooding money into the space, perhaps trying to get favorable coverage. So let me read this. It says,

Cutter paid top dollar to ensure this interview took place. Foreign Agent Registration Act records show that Lumen 8 Advisors LLC, a legal consulting company for which very little public information is available, helped facilitate between Carlson and the Qatari dignitary. The embassy of the state of Cutter pays L Lumen 8 advisors $180,000 per month to provide media and communication coaching and consulting services. Qatar wants to further cement ties with Trump and allies for many reasons, including to defend itself against Republican attacks for its relationship with Hamas in Iran. Anna Jacobs, a non-resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute,

said of the Carlson interview. So they were saying that the biggest victory was Tucker Carlson and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in March. Now, they want to mention it's got six million views across X and YouTube. That being said, I mean, doesn't mean Carlson has anything to do with it. I think what we have to be careful about, if Qatar is hiring a media advisory agency and then saying we want to like on this Lumen is hiring a media advisory agency and then saying we want to like on this lumen eight emails tucker and says would you like to interview the prime minister of cutter he's going to say yes so i don't think there's anything untoward or any is

there any implication that carlson or anybody was actually taking money um so it was people registered with farah that helped um facilitate the interview that sounds normal yeah i need to look exactly the advisors were paid 180 000 a month um i don't know if that i need to look up to to see if that eventually made it to tucker i i don't think tucker got paid to do this interview i think if someone emailed me and said, would you, if someone emailed Tim Castellarone and said, would you like to interview the prime minister of Qatar? I'd say yes.

I think there's foreign agents being paid by the Qataris to help facilitate their relationship with right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson. And I watched parts of the interview. It was an extremely friendly interview from what I'm used to seeing from Tucker Carlson. So I think there is reason for concern. And again, there there's also many people in the Trump administration who's have that who's had a lot of donations from Qatar that I think it's something to be aware of. Pam Bondi received millions of dollars in donations when she was in Florida from Qatar. She formerly lobbied for Qatar, it says. Yeah, for Qatar as well.

I think also Kash Patel, despite, I think, doing a great job so far, also had a lot of Qatar involved with them. It's a small country. It's got 300,000 people. And then, moreover, Qatar also has their Al Jazeera media outfit that they're only losing money on. So I think it isn't too crazy to assume that such a small country may have some ulterior motives with a lot of their media strategy here. Well, I mean, I think that it's probably obvious that they're looking to do as much as they

can to influence. But I think that a lot of countries do that, don't they? It's a question of whether it's illicit. And let's try and break this down. I think this is why I can't stand the issue of the Israel-Palestine stuff. Because nobody is – I'll just put it this way. All is fair in love and war. I get it.

So what do we have here? I would break this down as Tucker Carlson was approached by a media consulting firm that works for Cutter and said, would you like to interview the prime minister? And he said, yeah, that sounds amazing. An interview with a world leader. That's huge. That's it. Cutter hires a media agency. Like we have PR and publicists.

We pay them. They're not foreign. They're Americans. And they reach out to news outlets and say on on behalf of Tim Castaero, like, would you be interested in these stories? Would you be interested in these interviews? I think that's all this is. The reason it's FARA is because it's Cutter. And I think the

attempt here from the examiner is to malign Tucker Carlson as if he didn't make it appear as though he did something wrong. Is there a narrative that you believe Cutter tends to push that you find objectionable? Or do you think that they have motives that are contrary to what the United States' motivation is?

So I think their Al Jazeera media outfit is an anti-Western outlet that has a lot of nefarious intentions on the world stage. And I think they are the main funders behind that. And I'm super critical of them. I think they're huge hypocrites. So, you know, like on their Al Jazeazeera channel they'll constantly rail about human rights but um they built their country with slave labor and you said they only have 300 citizens 300,000

citizens right but there's something like two million non-registered citizens in their country pretty much acting as slaves um there's no rights for women in their country among other things but i think al jazeera plus was is or the bigger issue. I don't know if they still exist. That's their more progressive outfit. But again, Al Jazeera, they never cover Qatar either in any sort of professional way. They what? They shouldn't. Why not? It's a conflict of interest. I think it's a conflict of interest to just completely stay out of it. I think they should try to be unbiased and cover themselves. The same thing with the Washington Post and Bezos.

If you were truly unbiased, then you'd have some of the most cynical coverage of yourself. But it's convenient for one of the biggest networks in the Middle East, run by such a small country, to be like, oh yeah, we'll cover all the misdealings of all the countries around us, except in our own country. And a lot of the Middle Eastern countries around them in the Middle East don't like them as a result of this. I think the BBC are a bunch of liars. Sure.

And so that's the issue. It could go either way. I don't fault a country for reporting on themselves or not, depending on the size of the country, I suppose. Like, we read the BBC, and it's often BS. Tommy Robinson got released today, which is awesome and amazing news. And if you're going to read about him in the BBC, they're lying about everything.

It's insane. And so, Cutter's not reporting on themselves. I shrug. If they were, would we believe it? Do we want? I wouldn't want to read that. I'm going to read something else, you know. I do think it's interesting that a tiny nation has such outsized influence. Trump going there and the Qatari jet was

a terrible idea. He should not be accepting that jet for security reasons alone. Then you had Theo Vaughn going and visiting with Trump and then coming back and saying, there's a genocide going on in Palestine, in Gaza. And I'm just like, when I pointed out that, so people started commenting, Theo Vaughn just got back from Qatar. And I was like, I thought they were kidding. I thought they were making us like they were insulting him, saying that his take his position on this is like akin to him going to Qatar. And then I realized he actually did go there, like it was actually a big trip that he did. And so I tweeted, wow, I didn't realize this. And the response I got from people was that I was implying Qatar paid him for that opinion.

I never said that. These people are psychotic. I said, no, he went to Cutter, talked to some people, they told him this, and he said, wow, I didn't know that, and then came back and became a part of his show. The question I have is, why does this small country have such outsized influence? And I'm not saying they're paying for it. I'm saying

people want to go there, and they go there, and they adopt those views and those opinions and they believe it. It's wild. And I'm not even going to make a comment on Israel. They have such outsized influence because they are paying for it. To a certain degree. Yeah. But, I mean, like, I don't think they went to Theo Vaughn and said, here's a million dollars.

Go claim there's a genocide happening. Maybe not. Maybe not in that case. But they're going to have influence with celebrities that they're going to bring over for their weddings, and they're going to pay $250 million for a wedding for a prince or a... And they'll donate a ton of money to the school that you want your child to go to, and they're donating to all these politicians, and they're donating to all of these interest groups, and then they have their media outfits that are all incestuous with one another. You know, the Israelis would be jealous of the influence

operation that the Qataris have. It's amazing. I view it largely similarly, to be honest. I think the numbers from Qatar greatly, vastly outnumber the amount that Israel's contributing. And I think there's also something to say about, I think there is actually a lot of genuine grassroots support for Israel in the West, in America in particular. I also think Israel's coded to be right-wing and coded to be right, at least by the left. So I think there's reason to support Israel in the country, as opposed to Qatar, which is completely misaligned with our values totally and supports terrorists, actually, and people who are antithetical to our values and actually don't align with us on any values, but we do have an air base there,

so I think that's what it kind of comes down to, to project power. It's a big deal. Yeah. And I mean, even his donations to Pam Bondi in the past, they're willing to line anybody's pockets. So you're saying that Trump is a Qatari asset, not a Russian asset. I think after your trip to Israel, you're going to have to stop in Qatar as well.

When I go to Israel? When am I going to Israel? Oh, we'll need to plan the trip out. With your new APAC handler, you know, I made some phone calls. I've been to Tel Aviv before. It was beautiful. And, you know, I don't know. I think people are nuts. I think it is infinitely strange to me how

this is the center. You know what I call this? I call it Israel first. I think the people who love and hate Israel are both Israel first, and it's the weirdest thing to me. Because I'm like Israel 10th, maybe. There's a bunch of other countries I think are more important, like Mexico and the cartels are in a higher ranking

as to what I care about in this world. Ukraine ranks higher as far as I'm concerned. It matters. You know, what's going on there is important. The only reason it's on the list at all is because the U.S. is providing funding to Israel and there's, you know, conflict going on around it that I don't think the U.S. should be involved in. But it's amazing that there are people in this country who they've literally super chatted this show in last year's election cycle saying they would vote for Joe Biden if Joe Biden said he was critical of Israel. And I'm like, that's America last.

You care so much about Israel. You would burn this country to the ground with Joe Biden. That's crazy to me. That means your first priority is Israel, whether you love Israel or hate Israel. These people who only ever ever complain about Israel, they don't care about Burma, they don't care about Tibet, they don't care about Ukraine, they don't care about South Sudan or Eritrea

or Afghanistan. The first country in their minds in every instance is Israel. And again, that's the people who hate it and the people who love it. So I'm just like, guys, you guys, just go get a hotel room or something. I don't know. It's crazy to me.

I mean, the fact that there are people that are so focused, they call themselves America-versed and they're so focused on Israel, when the amount of money that we give to Israel is marginal when it comes to the real

big problems like in the national debt, like mandatory spending, Medicare, Medicaid, those things that are having a serious impact on whether or not people will buy our treasury bills now. I mean, last week, the bond market opened up and there was such soft demand that they had to, you know, the yield, I think, went up. I don't know exactly how much it was,

but the yield went up for treasury bonds because people didn't want them. And the reason people didn't want them is because the bill passed, the big, beautiful bill passed, and there's so much more spending. Worrying about how much money we give to Israel is entirely pointless. If you have a moral qualm with it, fine, that makes sense. I have a problem with the fact that the U.S. is involved in a war that's going on over there fine makes perfect sense but the idea that we have to we give so much money to israel like it's it's it's pennies compared to the real serious pressing economic issues as you point out the america first people only talk about israel and they are they

are the functional democracy there they They do allow, uh, Arabs, Muslims in the Knesset. They do allow gays and, uh, trans genders. Oh, wow.

So now we're anti-Israel. No, maybe to their own detriment. I mean, these are allowed in their culture and they're not allowed in the border cultures. and that's why my point is if someone came to me and said, I don't like the u.s spending money these foreign wars ukraine taiwan israel afghanistan iraq i'd say oh i understand i'm

totally with you on that but when they come to me and they say the u.s should be spending money on israel i say what about other countries no israel and i'm like dude the only thing you care about is that you are israel, first and foremost. All the groipers, Nick Fuentes and everyone there, Israel first. The only thing they ever talk about, they won't shut up about it. They love Israel. I get it. They hate it.

They hate Israel. They hate AIPAC. They hate all these people. But it's the only thing they talk about. They act like no other problems exist. And I'm like, the point is when you wake up in the morning, the first thing in your mind is Israel. For me, it's America. How do we secure our borders?

What's going on with fentanyl in Canada? What's going on with illegal immigration from Guatemala into our country? So when I have a list of countries I care more about, I'm like, first of all, American labor. Are we are we helping Gen Z get in the labor force, buy houses and have families? That's the first thing I'm thinking about when I wake up. How do we build culture among Americans? How do we get people to be moralistic in our country? Then I'm worried about Mexico. They got cartels. They're shoveling drugs up to our country. Our borders insecure. Then I'm concerned about Guatemala. Then I'm concerned about El Salvador. Then I'm concerned about Honduras, then Brazil. And at some point down the list, I'm like, there's Israel. But these people wake up every day bashing their faces against the wall, screaming the word Israel. And I'm like, you are Israel first. And I hope you hear me.

Clearly, they're definitely focused on Israel far more than they are on the U.S. Yep. And that's why when they said they would vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump, I said, that is a person who would burn this country to the ground because they care more about Israel. They hate Israel, but Israel matters so much more to them, they would see America burn if it meant bad things happened to Israel. Cutting your nose to spite your face, yeah. I don't know why you care so much.

And they live in these crazy worlds where Israel is the most important country on the planet. I'm telling you, it is fascinating how they think Israel controls the weather. It's not even a joke. I know, it's obvious that Ian controls the weather. I like the amount of, it's not even a joke. I know. It's obvious that Ian controls the weather, not Israel. The amount of crazy conspiracies they think, it's, they believe that Israel controls everything,

is this secret cabal of Jews that are running the whole world. And I'm like, that is Israel's first you can get. They hate America and they only care about Israel. It's the only thing they focus on. Let's jump to this next story from Newsweek.

Donald Trump makes Canada a new offer to become the 51st state. And the best part is he claims they're considering it. He posted on Truth, I told Canada, which very much wants to be a part of our fabulous Golden Dome system, that it will cost $61 billion if they remain a separate but unequal nation, but will cost $0 if they become our cherished 51st state. They are considering the offer. They aren't, but it's funny. I don't want Canada to be the 51st state because I see the way the Canadians vote. Would you imagine like Senator Trudeau? Oh, God.

It sounds like a terrible idea. Senate Majority Leader Trudeau. We could take Alberta, though. Maybe. And Saskatchewan right here, right? What's that? Saskatchewan, too, though. Maybe. And Saskatchewan right here, right? What's that? Saskatchewan, too? Maybe.

Maybe. But Alberta for the oil and the mountains. But, yeah. We could take their oil, you're saying? Oh, yeah. So because I'm an expansionist, I'm actually, I'm down with taking Canada. So I think the real test case for taking Canada would be if a war broke out, we'd have to occupy Canada to maintain its safety and to make sure it doesn't become a satellite of Canada. Or a satellite of China is how I think it would go. There he is.

Yeah, exactly. But during a time of war. They were doing Chinese military operations up there. During a time of war, we'd have to go and um decommunize uh canada so i think that's when it would really go down i think president trump is just trying to warm the canadians up to the idea a little bit at this point you're you uh well i mean i think that trump just likes to say things to get canada is in our future whether or not it's unfinished business phil no it's not um but like at the at the end of the day, Canada is going to be, they will be protected.

If we do design and build a Golden Dome, the United States is going to protect Canada as well. That's just the way that it's going to be. During a time of war, we will need to occupy them for their own safety. No, that's ridiculous. Secure their liberty. That's ridiculous. Protect them from communism, from the Chinese. No, stop.

We're going to be liberators, Phil. No, this is dumb. Me and you. No, no, no. Liberators of Canada? Yeah, we're going to liberate Canada from the Chinese. Yeah, from the communists. He's going to go up there and freeze to death by himself.

We're the anti-communists. I'm not going. Well, hold on. The, you know, freeze, but that's if he goes in winter. If he goes in summer, they have an extra long growing season and it's quite warm. Then you'll just die of mosquito bites and ticks.

Black flies. Yeah, they're terrible. As I understand, their waterways will become very important within the next few decades thanks to climate change. Do you guys remember climate change as a political issue? I feel like I haven't heard that word in a long time. It's not real. Like that completely, that was like the number one issue.

And let me clarify, I'm saying as a political issue. Yeah. I know they're going to be like, oh, we got him. That's what happened with Trump. He said something like that, like the political climate change is no longer relevant. And the media all ran, Trump says climate change isn't real. And I was like, no, he was saying that the political attacks they were using were based on lies.

If climate change was actually the crisis that they say, they would have been issuing nuclear permits two decades ago. But it wasn't. It never was. They were just trying to use the climate and the environment as a means to further control the, you know, basically the land and stuff, how you use your faucet and what, you know, what showerhead you can have. My next question to President Trump, if I'm so privileged to get another two, and maybe I'll ask about Greenland and Canada again, what the updates are. I think Trump clearly just cares about global trade routes in the ocean.

So the whole Canada-Greenland thing is about the Northwest Passage and Panama, obviously the canal and Israel is largely Suez. And it was funny because all of these anti-Israel people got super mad when I pointed that out to Adam Conover and they lost their minds because they live in Wally world. I'm like Trump's issue if you look at the big picture is global trade that's why they're bombing the Houthis that's why they have interest in Sinai in the Suez and that's why he cares about the Northwest Passage Greenland Canada and that's why Panama his like principal issue is I will control global trade that's largely been the American position for domination we police the ocean so you don't think Trump's serious about Greenland? I do, yeah.

I mean, no, in terms of acquisition. Absolutely. Okay, yeah, but not about Canada. I think Canada might be a half joke. Half joking. Trump wants some kind of deal where we can have a military presence or naval presence. I don't think he literally believes

the entirety of Canada will be one state. That makes no sense. But I think it's some kind of essence of a big ask. So where he goes to Canada and says, hey, you want Golden Dome protection? They say, yes, but what's it going to cost? He says $60 billion. They go, we can't afford that. He goes, then how about this? You lease us parts of, you know, Ken, Kenyan territory in the Northwest passage, and we will then provide blanket coverage with golden dome. That's where I think we might end up. I think it's textbook art of the deal. And he's just getting re this is just his starting point in the negotiations. I think particularly for Greenland. And I think Tim's spot on about getting different parts of random northern parts of Canada for future military bases and whatnot.

Same with Greenland, if we can negotiate something with like that. Or at least getting people interested in the idea, maybe a couple of decades down the line, something goes wrong in Canada and Americans change their feelings towards that. Maybe we could be like, oh, remember when Trump thought this was a good idea? And we're warming people up to it. I'm warming you up to it, Phil. I don't know. I don't know if you're warming up to it, Phil. I don't know if you're warming me up to it or not. I don't think so.

I do think that the argument that the government makes about Greenland being important to national security is legitimate, but I don't think that we're actually going to get Greenland. I think that it'll likely be some kind of military base that we lease an area to install a military base. I'm pretty sure that there's already a U.S. military base there, at least one. The president and J.D. Vance were both talking about economic incentives to Greenland to get them to allow more. And I think that's what it's going to end up winding up being. I believe during World War II, we did occupy Greenland again

to secure their liberty. Because someone else was occupying. No, exactly. So again, I think this will have a similar cast as belly. There'll be a similar political crisis that the United States will be able to utilize. We should have stayed in Greenland post-World Wari and so you think that it'll be uh a similar like that do you think like uh because there's gonna be a big world denmark that that actually owns greenland right

sure yeah but if the you know if something pops off in europe germany if something pops off in europe hey maybe we'll see how things go in Ukraine and Russia. Who knows down the line? I'm just keeping my options open in my expansionist dream here. We probably shouldn't have left post-World War II. And we probably shouldn't have ever given back the Panama Canal. Worst trade deal in history. Well, the Panama Canal stuff, I agree. That shouldn't have.

That was just very dumb, frankly. I believe it was Jimmy Carter just trying to flex. I don't know. I'm not old enough to remember. Jimmy Carter had some bad ideas. I think it was like, oh, we're decolonizing or what have you. I don't think that it was decolonizing. I mean, that was the idea where it's decolonization. No, I don't think that it was actually decolonization.

I think that it was economic. I don't think that it was like, oh, we're actually... Their argument was that we're colonizing them. And I think Jimmy Carter's angle was. I'd have to look to be sure to see what the argument was. But decolonization has a specific leftist context. And I don't think that that was the idea behind it.

But I'd go look. Yeah. Dumb trade deals. Liberate Greenland for no reason um and then give back panama canal for no reason let canada exist again where we're footing their defense we're their biggest trade partner um and what do we get out of it nothing we get a raw end of the raw end of the stick and i'm glad president trump actually recognizes it's sort out of it. Carter, you're loving this. I mean, I don't know that I share your estimation of having,

whether we should or should not have given back Greenland or whatever. Or the canal. Or the canal. I think that I don't... I think that the canal actually was a bad idea. I think the U.S. should have kept at least a presence on the canal, but I'm not so sure about Greenland.

I don't know. Why not take Greenland? I don't mean by force. Why give it up? We should have kept it while we had it. It's easier to... You mean during World War II? Yeah. But it was a treaty. We still have a treaty, I think it. It's easier to... You mean during World War II? Yeah. But it was a treaty. We still have a treaty, I think, with Denmark allowing us to operate there. Well, that's... Like I said earlier, I think that

it'll end up being the U.S. having some kind of military presence, maybe another military base or a couple military bases or something, but I don't think that there's a whole lot of benefit to taking Greenland because most of it... I mean, there are geothermal things down there. You know, there's abandoned underground nuclear bases.

Are there? The Nazis' bases there? U.S. Secret Nazis. U.S. tried building weapons depots and launch sites and struggled, so they built these big underground bunkers and then left. So they're there, and they're extremely valuable. Yep. There's so much going on post-World War II that I think if we turned it into a territory...

Canada? Greenland. It would have just been a bookmark in history and we would have just accepted it. Well, I think Trump is smart and realizes that Canada was always a part of America and it's only by happenstance that we've not had our proper military control over it.

And so, in the name of justice, we must take Canada. Monarchy is wrong. You get so many death threats when I say that. I don't want Canada, because I don't want... The Canadians acting up.

I don't know, though. They got moose. Moose are cool. Is it meese or mooses? The great documentary, Canadian Bacon, starring, you know, John Candy. That's the film about the war

between the United States and Canada. You guys don't even know what that is, right? I know the reference, but know, John Candy. That's the film about the war between the United States and Canada. You guys don't even know what that is, right? I know the reference, but I know the movie. But no idea. It's Moose. I think that, I think. I know. Okay.

Let's jump. We got one more story for you guys. There's actually a bunch. We'll grab this one. From the Independent, Jordan Peterson refuses to identify as a Christian in viral atheist debate. This story is nuts. I think it was, what, Sunday? They put out, Jubilee put out,

one Christian versus 20 atheists featuring Jordan Peterson. Then after a major backlash from Christians who were like, Jordan Peterson is not a Christian, and even says in the show that he's not, they changed it to Jordan Peterson versus atheists. To be fair, I think Jubilee should retitle it to Jordan Peterson versus 20 anti-Christians, because I don't even think it's fair to call them atheists. Here's the clip in question, however, that is going massively

viral. Why is that relevant? Because you go to a Catholic church, don't you? You've attended recently. You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you? Sure. All right. Are you familiar with their doctrines? Somewhat. Okay, you're familiar. How do they regard Mary? Why are you asking me that? Because you're a Christian. You say that. I haven't claimed that.

Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus atheists? I don't know. You don't know where you are right now. Don't be a smartass. Well, either you're a Christian or you're not. I'll talk to you if you're a smartass. Oh, either you're a Christian or you're not.

Which one is it? I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you're a Christian or you're not. I won't talk to you if you're a smartass. Either you're a Christian or you're not. Which one is it? I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you. You don't have to tell me. I was under the impression. I was invited to talk to a Christian. Am I not talking to a Christian? No, you were invited to. I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel.

You're probably in the wrong YouTube video. You're really quite something. You are. Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing. Right. You're not a Christian. I'm done with him.

Jordan Peterson is getting roasted by the left and the right because in this whole debate, whatever you want to call it, he kept doing, I don't know, semantic games. He said, what is what do you mean by believe? And then the young man says something you think to be true. And he was like, no, now you're just claiming true is a substitution for believe. And he like wouldn't answer it. He's debating a guy and he's asked whether or not he's a Christian. He says, I could be either, but I'm not going to tell you or I don't have to tell you.

And it's like, then what are you doing in this debate? I think the issue is that Jubilee, this company, wanted a Christian versus atheist video and they wanted a big name. So they said, hey, Jordan Peterson, do you want to debate a bunch of atheists? He said, sure. They then wrote down Christian versus atheist. Jordan Peterson comes in as some kind of deist, not Christian, and then no one understands what they're debating at all. Yeah, I mean, clearly Jordan Peterson wasn't there to defend Christianity from a position of, I believe Christ is my savior, right? Like, if you're going to go in there and you're going to be defending Christianity, you shouldn't just defend the moral principles laid out in Christianity. You should be there saying, no,

I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ is his son, and I believe that I'm saved through his grace. You shouldn't be like, oh, you know, I like Christianity, and I like the way that Christianity sets up society, or the way that societies that are Christian end up being run. I think that you should actually believe in Christianity, and I think that's a big problem here is he doesn't. Let me play this other clip. This is why Jordan Peterson is getting ragged on.

So do you believe in the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good notion of God? What do you mean by believe? Do you think it to be true? That's the circular definition. What do you mean when you say believe? How is that circular? Because you added no content to the answer by substituting the word true and believe. I said you think it to be true.

All right. So if you believe something, you stake your life on it. What do you mean by that? You live for it and you die for it. What? That's what I mean by that. It isn't something that you say. It isn't something that's associated with logical consistency. It's not declarative. It's not propositional

It's not a figment of your imagination It's the presupposition of your attention and your action and you're either Fragmented in which case you worship multiple gods or there's some unity at the bottom of it that makes you an unstoppable force What? Okay, so you're saying that you don't believe something if you wouldn't die for it? Not really, no. Okay.

How would you define belief? Something you say? Can I explain? I could believe it is the case that this pen exists, but if someone threatened my life, I would lie in order to be able to save my life. I think you would do that too. You wouldn't lie to save your life?

Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? Don't be so sure. You wouldn't lie to save your life? How much do you know about me? I didn't lie to save my career. I didn't lie to save my clinical practice. Would you lie to like save your children, your mom, your dad? I don't think lying would save them.

Can there ever be a circumstance logically that lying could save someone's life? Yeah, and if you're steeped in sin, you're likely to live in circumstances like that. I'll give you an example. If you're in Nazi Germany, and it is the case that there's Jewish people in your attic, and you're trying to protect them, would you lie to the Nazis? I would have done everything I bloody well could, so I wouldn't be in that situation to begin with. Would you lie? It's a hypothetical, and it's not answerable.

You can't answer hypotheticals? No, I can't answer a hypothetical like that because it's far... Look, don't play games. Yes, you are. I don't understand what Jordan Peterson is at this point, to be honest.

This was hard for me because I think that Jordan Peterson contributed a lot to my own life going back before his fame even, the videos that I used to watch. And I have actually said over and over again to many people in certain circumstances when you're being very, you know, transparent about your life and your own spiritual journey that he helped me a lot in rediscovering kind of who I am as a man and as a father. And this, I couldn't, out of the half dozen or so of these that I watched, I couldn't finish any of them. A few of his points he was right on. I think the issue largely is Jubilee asked Jordan Peterson to debate atheists,

and he's some kind of deist, not a Christian, and then told all these atheists, you're going to debate a Christian, which actually proves Jordan Peterson was right the whole time. That being said, Jordan Peterson's performance was pretty miserable when he's like, what do you mean by believe? Like, bro, you understand what he's saying. If you want to clarify for the audience and say, I believe what you're saying by believe is— But the kid said something you think to be true. Okay, he's qualified his statement. The issue is that Jordan Peterson's first claim was atheists reject God without understanding what they're rejecting.

And the fact that the Jubilee producers asked a bunch of anti-Christians to debate a deist proves the producers themselves don't know what atheism or Christianity or deism or God is. Their minds, they thought one thing. If you're an atheist, you don't believe in Jesus. Jordan Peterson, as a deist, is saying God has many shapes and forms. You don't know what you're saying no to. At one point in the debate, where I do think he did well, he said that one of the definitions of God, I think Jonah in the Bible, is conscience, the voice of morality within you, not this all-knowing divine creator, necessarily. They're just saying, okay, well, I don't believe in Scripture. And so Jordan Peterson is debating anti-Christians from the context of they don't believe God exists, and they're debating a

deist based on their criticism of Christianity specifically. All of the people who came in were debating Christianity, not Islam, not Hinduism, not Confucianism or anything else. It was literally anti-Christians versus Jordan Peterson. Horrifyingly embarrassing, though, for all of them. I will say Jubilee may have played some funny games with how they brought all of this together, but I think for me and any others who looked up to Jordan Peterson in the past and found a lot of meaning in a lot of his self-help early on are deeply saddened to see him like this. the famous Kathy Newman interview years ago, I remember him. He was sitting back, hanging out, ready to, you know, deflect or have some witty comeback to whatever Kathy was coming back against him there. Here he's tense, sitting forward, stressed out.

It's... Can't play games. I'm not. I'm asking you what you think true means. Like, extremely serious, as opposed to... I'm thinking back to that Kathy Newman interview where he handled it so well.

And the the conspiracy theory now is we have this major resurgence in among the youth towards Christianity. So I actually I just the episode I did with Bill Maher and Club Random came out. And one of the things we talked about a couple of times was, you know, I asked him, you're an atheist. It's obviously. Why do you think atheism is losing? And he agreed. He's like, it's a good point. Young people are becoming more religious. The conspiracy theory is that Jordan Peterson was brought in as a heel, not Jordan Peterson intentionally, but other people brought him in as he is not a good representation of Christianity so that young men will watch this and think

Christians are stupid, can't answer basic questions. And this is the clever tactics that we'll see from liberals. They're going to try and get people like Jordan Peterson. They're going to create circumstances where they can laugh in your face. This is my problem with Real Time with Bill Maher. This is my problem with Jubilee. Ben Shapiro came on the show, and some trans person just berated him with a gish gallop for a minute and then got up and left. And they all started hooting and clapping and cheering. The intention is to manipulate young people into thinking that's power. So here you have Jordan Peterson hemming and hawing, failing to answer basic questions and playing semantic games.

So young people are going to see this and be like, wow, Christians are dumb. As a producer right now, could I chime in and just give my take on that? Because it seemed like they were doing the whole Tim and Eric thing where they would go to the, like a funny looking guy to just mog Jordan Peterson there. But also if you've read Jordan Peterson's book, one of the things he says is don't lie

or at least try to tell the truth. Or I think it's the other way around. Tell the truth or at least don't lie. So if he were to say that, then he would be breaking his own rule. Yeah, but everyone's response to this particular video is that he failed the IQ test. If you did not eat breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt? Well, how can I know that? I ate breakfast. It's a hypothetical. I can't

answer. And everyone's like, bro, the hypothetical is a guy breaks into your house and says, where's your daughter? Do you tell him or not? I don't know. It's a hypothetical. Tim, I'm not sure. You can answer. Stop playing games, Tim.

Or, you know, I think the other issue is that he just answered it poorly. And I can make the argument that, you know, in a situation like this, he doesn't come off as strong by saying, I can't answer that. It's a hypothetical. Or he can say, give me a modern context example. Don't use the history generic one. And then make him frame it in something like, a guy breaks into your house, which is a more generic issue. The problem I largely see, though, is the answer is easy. You would lie to save your family members. No question. Everyone would do it.

He didn't want to be pinned down by this guy. Any of them. Any of them. And so he would never give any straightforward answers because he was concerned that they were going to trick him or something. So instead of having an honest conversation, he just gives non-answers the whole time. He's unrecognizable from his previous self now. I feel like I'm watching a totally different

guy. I don't know what happened, but it doesn't feel like the same guy who I remember coming up years ago. Honestly, I think that it does depend on the context, and i think that he's putting him in himself in places where he shouldn't be i mean uh my girlfriend and i just watched his uh the parenting thing that they're doing on daily wire they have the they for members you have a

he's doing a um a series on parent parenting and all of it was completely reasonable all the same kind of stuff that you'd expect from jordan. He seemed like he was intelligent. Granted, it was a Daily Wire production, so they're not going to make him look like a fool or anything, but the content was good, too. The actual things that he was saying about how you deal with this situation with a child

and that situation with a child. It was completely reasonable. So I do think that the context that he's in, this is not a place where Jordan Peterson would shine this type of thing. I think that it was the wrong guy to make these arguments. So when he was doing his big tour out with, you know, Dave Rubin opening for him and that sort of thing, I went and saw him in Charlotte, a big theater there, Charlotte, North Carolina. And I didn't know what to expect at that time going back that far with him, but he was about 98% apolitical. He was 97% irreligious, you know, no, no,

there was no spin on anything whatsoever. And he took about 15 minutes of awkwardness to, before he found his sea legs up there. And then he was just brilliant. And, and the one thing that we saw was all the young men with the books to get it signed. It was just packed out of young men wanting to hear from this guy. That's why this, yeah. Well, I don't think, I don't blame Jubilee for Peterson's performance.

No. I do blame them. There are jump cuts in there, notably in the first one about Christianity. The guy says, I was invited to talk to a Christian. He says, no, you were invited here too. And then it jump cuts. So we don't know what Jordan Peterson said. It sounds to me like Jordan Peterson was arguing as a deist or some form of deist and Jubilee went and said, do you want to debate Christians? So I actually agree with Jordan Peterson when he says atheists reject God without understanding it. And it's because I would say 95% of conversations I have with atheists end up just arguing Christianity, to which I go, well, I'm not a Christian, so I don't know what you're arguing.

And they'll be like, well, like Jesus, this, and I'll be like, okay, well, I'm not talking about Christianity, so what are you arguing? Almost every instance where I have a conversation about my belief in the existence of God, it results in them just arguing Scripture. And then I'm like, agreed. Now come back to the issue of God, and they can't tell the difference. So Jordan Peterson, I think, gets that right.

But when you're in a room full of people who are anti-Christians, using the word atheist to describe that, it's a really easy attack vector. One of the things he gets asked about is whether he believes he rejects the god Lono. Was it Lono, I think? The Polynesian god?

Yeah. And it's a stupid argument, but Jordan Peterson also didn't answer that one very well. He says, I don't know. I don't know anything about it. And then they're saying, you're rejecting, you know, this guy got booted off real quick

because it was a stupid argument. But that's the issue, I think largely with these people they always base their disbelief in god on they think god means i'm not saying literally every atheist i'm saying there's a tendency among people who identify as atheists they believe god means man in white robes with a beard flying in the sky. And then when you try and explain something like, you know, with all due respect to Bill Maher, when I asked him if he understood Einsteinian God or Logos, he just chuckled and said, I love how people come up with cute ideas to try and give themselves this thing. And I was like, I'm not saying I believe in scripture. I don't know that Bill Maher understands the concept of Logos, universal code, or any idea. He largely just views narrative tales as religion.

So when he says he's an atheist, he's basically saying, I don't believe the Torah. I don't believe the Bible. I don't believe the Hadith or whatever, or the Quran. He's saying, I don't believe your version of history. And I'm like, okay, well, I don't care about that. I care about the fundamental nature of reality. Most atheists don't care about that. I care about the fundamental nature of reality. Most atheists don't question it.

Because I think the issue is, if you were to legitimately question the nature of reality, you'd probably conclude that you're at least agnostic, not atheist, not outright stating there is no God. But how about that? Let's go to your chats. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. We've got, of course, the uncensored members-only show coming up at rumble.com slash timcastirl. 10 p.m., you don't want to miss it. Use promo code TIM10 at Rumble

if you want to hang out and watch. We do a few minutes, you know, free for you guys to watch, and then it goes to members-only. Before we jump into your chats, though, we've got a great sponsor, my friends. It is Lear Capital. My friends, I got to tell you, gold and silver, I think, is fantastic. I actually have owned gold and silver for quite a bit. And, you know, they don't tell me to say this, but I will

add, I have copper as well. I have a big box of copper. You ever see those, you know, people ripping copper out of the walls? It's valuable. Metals are valuable. They're stable. I'm a fan. Gold and silver are critical, which is why I've always been a longtime holder. And I was talking to the Lindy man earlier on the morning show, and he was saying he thought people should buy gold and silver because population collapse is going to result in some kind of economic crises. And then maybe AI picks up the slack. But I'm like, what do we do? He's like, I don't know, gold, silver, and Bitcoin.

So my friends, Trump is trying to make America great again. It's not going to happen overnight. I've always believed in physical gold and silver ownership as a great diversifier. But now it's 100% mandatory because you've got to offset the whiplash markets are experiencing right now. It has been pretty wild.

So have you guys been watching gold prices? They're not just rising, they're soaring. In 12 months, gold has surged to more than 3,300 an ounce. Goldman Sachs and other experts have predicted, the ones who predicted 3,200 an ounce are saying it could reach 4,500 or more. While the government can print, borrow, and run recurring budget deficits, you can't. Your retirement, your savings, your pension, 401kk and fixed income accounts do not get a bailout. That's why more Americans are acquiring

gold and silver to protect their money on their own. Also, I don't know if you guys heard this, Florida passed a bill, I saw this on X earlier, making gold and silver legal tender. I don't know if you guys heard of that one. That's crazy. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So big stuff, big stuff. That's going to add to its value. So Lear is an education-first company. Got no pressure to buy. 24-hour risk-free purchase guarantee. Over 25 years in the business. Almost 30, actually.

With over 3 billion entrusted transactions. Thousands of five-star reviews. Lots of gold companies to choose from. But Lear is who I trust. Take a positive step towards protecting your wealth. My friends at Lear Capital can help you. Lear's the only company I trust to help me purchase my gold and silver.

And it's private though, but yeah, we are working on that stuff. Call 800-489-6450 or go to leartim.com. That's L-E-A-R-T-I-M.com for your free gold and silver investor kit. Learn how easy it is to own gold in your IRA or deliver it to your door.

And as a special offer for my viewers, first-time buyers can get up to $15,000 in bonus gold or silver with a qualifying purchase. Call 800-489-6450. Once again, that's 800-489-6450 or leertim.com. Shout out. Let's go to your chats though, my friends. So again, smash that like button. Share the show.

Follow me on X and Instagram at TimC. We got Shane H Wilder. He says, so with the COVID vaccine, no longer being recommended by RFK jr. And the new strain coming from China, what's the over-under on the left, blaming the admin for people getting sick before the week is out. I'd give it a hundred percent to be, to be clear, RFK jr. Uh, through CDC specifically, has removed the COVID vaccine from the recommendation lists for young children and for pregnant women. So I don't know where they're currently recommending for regular, you know, middle-aged individuals or adults, but for kids, they're like, nah. Alpha 2 Omega says, howdy, people. Can I get prayers for my friend Rupert? I found out he was diagnosed with stage four skin cancer.

You might not know him, but he is one of the best people I know. Sad to hear it, man. Shout out to your friend Rupert. Hopefully it works out well. Sorry to hear. Omega, Roseto says, stop helping your opposition while they are making mistakes. Sun Tzu weeps at your exposition, Tim. Which one are you referring to? I don't know what that is.

No idea. The Democrats should have to pay you for that advice. I don't know what you said about probably in the first segment. I also gave some advice. But if if like there's no amount of money they could pay me to give them the strategy they need to be fair. However, maybe not. Like if they came to me and said, Tim, we will pay you $5 million to tell us what to do to win back young men, I'd say yes. You know why?

I'd say drop the weird trans stuff, secure the border, stop selling out our jobs to China. Look at what Trump is saying. Those are the policies that resonate with young men. Thank you. I'll take my money now. I think it's that they can't affect the advice that you'd give them so you wouldn't just say drop the trans stuff you'd say stop making it a purity test welcome people who might be anti-trans into the party but they won't be able to do that because of their purity test so no matter what advice we they're in a catch-22 they can't take our advice it's a death spiral that's the point

that's why it's like if they offered me the money to give them advice, I'd say sure, because they can't take it. They want these policies. The issue is those policies are toxic. People don't like them in general. So when they're like, how do we win young men over, stop pushing policies that freak people out. But those are the policies we want. They're basically saying, how do we convince young men to be okay with cutting off children's genitals? And it's like, you're not going to be able to. It's just not going to happen. How do you convince young men to allow us to scapegoat them is really what

they need. Right. Yep. They're not happy with that. So if the Democrats today just came out, I'm talking like Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, And they said, woke is broke. It's disgusting. We no longer want to be involved in it. It was a mistake to change in the first place. I clap. I'd say, great. Then if then if like some dude emerged, an unknown who was a Democrat, and he was like, woke is dumb. It's bad. The Democrats should protect working class individuals. We should rework these free trade deals so that we can bring manufacturing back to the United States and stop getting ripped off by China. I'd be like, sounds like Trump. But it's crazy. Their policies are just nonsense. If the Democrats followed our advice,

they wouldn't be Democrats anymore. Exactly. That's what it comes down to. Yep. The emperor's champion says the same thing Democrats are trying reminds me of when Spongebob tried to get into the tough guy bar but fails and has to go to the weenie hut. Weenie hut juniors. Is that what it was? Yeah, throwback. Weenie hut juniors.

Oh, man. JB Rocky says, or JB Rocky says, Homer is an astronaut like Katy Perry. Yep. The point is, it's actually pretty funny. In The Simpsons and in Family Guy, they get all, like, Homer, like, you know what The Simpsons is? It's a show about a middle-aged guy who gets random odd jobs.

That's what it is. I mean, these days, I have no idea what the show's about. They're on season 35, and it's, like, Abe Simpson's gay now or something. I didn't know they still had the show going. Yeah, I'm not kidding. There was an episode where Abe was making out with a guy. I don't even know what character Abe is. Grandpa Simpson.

Oh, okay. They made him gay. They made an episode, I think, where Bart gets mad that they gender swapped Itchy and Scratchy and made them girls. Well, if you run that long, you just need to start including gay people in your show. Well, let's just base episodes off of stuff that's happening, I guess. I don't know.

Yeah. Homer was originally 37, I think, when the show first started. Wow. Yeah. But there's an episode where Homer lists all of his jobs, and then you're like, it really is just a show about a guy who gets eye jobs. But the astronaut was one of them. I love one love the uh one of the best okay so remember when um Douglas Murray went on uh

Rogan with Dave Smith and he was like Dave when was the last time you've been to the crossings and Dave's like I've never gone he goes really you've never been that was the perfect meme moment because in the Simpsons there there's the meme where Grimes, Grimey, as Homer liked to call them, goes to his house and he's like, you, you've been to outer space. And Homer goes, yes, you've never been? Yeah, that reminds me of the Douglas Murray thing.

All right, what do we got? Let's see. Koss Jayer says, Tim, have you tried talking with Tech Deck, the fingerboard you play with for your board design um excuse me uh so first of all we don't use tech decks these are fingerboards and uh someone actually made this for us this is the rooster tim pool board from boonies hq on a fingerboard and it's one of the best fingerboards I've ever used. And I really am quite good, I suppose. That's what you're doing when you're fidgeting as a kid.

You know, you got a little skateboard on your desk, and you're doing flips with it and stuff. But, yeah, somebody made a bunch of the Boonies boards as fingerboards for us. I should figure out who did it. I'm sure the Boonies crew was like, Tim, come on, how do you not know the guy's name? There's not only a full skate park here,

but there's also a full mini skate park here for the finger. We actually, no, but we actually have someone building a miniature version of the full park. Of the full park, yeah. Yeah, I think it'll be here in a couple weeks. Wow. And we're going to put it upstairs,

and you're going to have a fingerboard version of the full skate park. Very nice. Yep. Of course. I don't know if the mini ramp's going to be included. All right. What do we have here?

Mr. Laxative, is that what that says? Have you heard that Alberta is attempting to separate from Canada and Trump is offered to allow them to be covered by the Golden Dome for free if they become the 51st state? Yeah, Alberta is a separatist movement, I believe. I don't know how prominent it is. Quebec did years ago. They almost got out. I mean, it was a fraction of a percentage point that they managed to get enough of a vote to stay within the Canadian Union, if they call it that. But they were almost out.

That's another Trojan horse for American annexation of Canada. If Quebec splits apart, then maybe some other provinces might get some ideas. That's our opportunity to strike. There you go. Metaphorically. Our opportunity to strike. Let's see what we have here. Guys, Canadian bacon.

You don't get the reference. I can't. John Nacos says, Hi, Tim. Long-time listener. First- time contributor. I need help. My civil rights were violated at 500 Gold Street,

the courthouse in, say, ALB, New Mexico, Albuquerque. The guard grabbed me and when I defended myself, I went to jail. Whoa. I don't know what to do, man. You need a lawyer. Yeah, and I mean, without knowing more, it's tough to say that, you know, what exactly do you mean by defended yourself?

The security guard, you know, violated your rights. I mean, it's not saying you're lying, but, you know, it's tough to make a call off of a super chat. Roflo 1804 says, Confirmed, Jordan Peterson wouldn't save the Jews in Nazi Germany. He's a Nazi. Michaela was raised by a Nazi. To be fair, though, Jordan Peterson's response was essentially that. He could have just said to him,

No, I wouldn't lie. And they would have been like, If you have Jews hiding in your attic, you wouldn't lie to save them? No, I wouldn't. Well, I think he said, I wouldn't allow myself to get into that position, because you got into that position then you've already sinned so many times and he was doing mental gymnastics but yeah i i i think he could have phrased it like well i understand the hypothetical you're giving me but i would never allow jews to hide in my attic

tim would you allow jews to hide in your attic yes nice just Nice. Just not you. Would you lie? Well, there's only one that... Yes. Yeah. Oh, would you lie? I'm not a Christian. But I mean, I am, and I would. Yeah. Absolutely, I would. Yeah, and I don't understand why Jordan Peterson wouldn't just answer the question. It's not like the fact that we make sacrifices or sin means that Christianity is wrong. He didn't want to let them have any any logical standing point he was being precise in a speech sure are you a christian maybe well are you or not i don't have bloody well have to tell you it's like well i'm trying to have a conversation with you bro if you're not just say so and we'll have a different discussion that's what's annoying

i wanted to say i appreciate you guys at a rising time—during a rising time of anti-Semitism. It's heartwarming to know that you guys would hide me in your attic if need be. Yeah. If need be. You know, there's a— Well, you need to get him off your trail, Phil. Thank you. There's a funny story I read.

I don't know where the story comes from. Maybe it's like a famous thing or something. But someone was like—a teacher said to his students, how many of you would have been an abolitionist in the Civil War? And they all raised their hands. And he was like, so, okay, you all raised your hands. Name something today that you've done that would get you fired from your job that is considered widely offensive and goes against the social order. And none of them had anything to say and he was like this is the thing everybody today says i'd be against slavery but back then most people did not care at all and slavery was a normal thing everywhere and it was just i think the issue is that people when they think of slavery they think

of like kunta kinde or whatever they think of people being whipped in a field and they don't understand that a lot of slavery was like a guy a co cobbler. There's like a black man who works at a shoe store and he has no rights. He can't vote. He can't leave. He can't do anything. If he tries to go and live his own life, they'll chase him down. Slavery wasn't all just working on farms. There were lots of urban, you know, there were, there were slaves that worked in houses. Slavery was just individuals had no freedom, no rights, and it was from bad to worse. But because everybody assumes it was all the epitome of the most vile evil, they'd say, of course I'm against it. And then what would happen is they'd walk into a shoe store and see

a guy making shoes and they wouldn't think twice. They wouldn't be like, I'll help you escape. They'd be like, thanks for the shoes, mister. Slavery was such a part of the human condition for thousands of years. It still is. It still is, of course. There's more now today than even back in the founding of this country. But when our black slaves became free in this country, they became some of the highest percentage of slave owners themselves follow up because once they once they were freed and they acquired land and then they acquired property part of that property were other human beings i know because you can actually go you can look this up and you can see state by state because i was horrified that the state that i was born and bred in louisiana actually had the highest percentage of black slave-owning blacks,

or the highest percentage of black who owned slaves post their emancipations. And I believe that was also the case with Liberia, I believe it was, where former slaves went, we sent them back to Africa, and they ended up enslaving and copying the plantations that they were familiar with over here. And they have a similar constitution, I believe, to the United States. But they've— We just didn't do it as good as we did. Well, you can't take a bunch of slaves, people who couldn't read or write or understand the constitution that they were given,

dump them in a faraway land and say, best of luck, and then expect a country to emerge. Silly. Let's read this. We got Lurch. Six, eight, five says it's about extricating Israeli influence on our politics. You can't be this dumb. No, we found an Israel first guy. Hey, I did the math for you. Top 10 countries in terms of, uh, foreign, uh, in terms of spending, overt spending, known spending to influence our political system. From 2016 through 2024, let's play a game. What country is the number one spender in the United States? Do you guys want to guess first? Which country is the number one?

What is the top spender? And this is overt legal money, for influencing U.S. political systems, the number one country, the country that spends the most money? China. I'd go China in a heartbeat. I'd say China. Ding, ding, ding.

You are all correct. China spent $456.9 million through 2016 to 2024. Let's try again. Number two, the second country that spent the second most money over this time period. So I'm going to go non-traditional guess. I want to say it's maybe an East Asian company, maybe Japan.

You're looking at the monitor. No, I swear. No, no, no, no. Is it up? No, no, no. I'm familiar with these numbers because I've heard the argument a lot of times. Japan spent $410 million over this time period. Let's go to number three.

The country that spent the third most amount of money influencing U.S. politics. Now, again, overtly through lobbying campaigns, ad spending, PACs, et cetera. UAE. Now I think this one's Qatar. I say United Arab Emirates. Saudis? Liberia. Liberia.

At $353.1 million. Number four. Qatar? Now Qatar? South Korea. South Korea. $322 million. Number five.

Saudi Arabia, $309 million. Marshall Islands, $285 million. Israel's got to pump up those numbers, frankly 309. Marshall Islands, 285. Israel's got to pump up those numbers, Frank. Qatar, number seven at 256.3 million. Emirates at 242. The Bahamas at 241. Bermuda at 192.7. And where does Israel rank?

Honestly, I don't know. It's so far down the list. They spent over this time period through their subsidiaries, direct government spending, APAC, et cetera, $37 million. Wait, that includes APAC? Yes. Okay, interesting, because traditionally I understand APAC to not be, they don't have to register as far as it's American citizens supporting them.

APAC included. Interesting. Yep. When you add all the numbers up, you get a total of 30. So, oh, no, I'm sorry. It's about 40 some odd million. So let's see. Let me do the math quick.

So you've got you've got AIPAC at 40 and then you've got Israel at 5.7. So let's just let's just roll it up and say 50, 50 million. But those are Americans supporting Israelis as opposed to the Israelis trying to donate money, right? It's, sure, call it whatever you want. The point is, I just, this is from Open Secrets, Foreign Lobby Watch. If you think Open Secrets is secretly run by the Jews and they're lying to obfuscate how much money the Jews are spending, fine. You can believe whatever you want. But according to Open Watch, Foreign Lobby Sp Israel's not even the top 10. That's why I say when I like you have to live in this world where there's a bunch of like they think Jews are running around controlling everything.

Because when you actually look at the data and go over all of it, you're like, yeah, they don't. It's not a salacious. They're not spending the money. Well, they're spending it somehow. They're not telling you. It's like, dude, OK, well, live in whatever world you want. Some people think the earth is flat. If I don't have data to back something up, I don't i'm not going to just assert it open uh open watch foreign

lobby spending i'm sorry open secrets maybe they're wrong it's possible okay for now when i do research regardless of what the lunatics believe and regardless of what people tell me whether they're experts or otherwise what i find is israel's not even the top 10 cutter's number seven cutter spends what eight times as much as Israel does, according to Open Secrets. It would be interesting to get those numbers per capita as well because China's number one, but China's a country of over a billion people.

Qatar's a country of 300,000 people. Worth mentioning. Korea also, I don't know, 30-plus million. But these are bigger countries, especially compared to Qatar. Michael Lorenz says Peter Griffin had odd jobs. Homer Simpson was a nuclear plant operator. Oh, boy, you are so wrong. List all jobs Homer Simpson had.

Did he get fired from the nuclear plant? I thought that was a big part of the show. I mean, probably 15 times. Okay, let's see. He's had, let's see. Safety inspector at the nuclear power plant. Astronaut. Multiple. Okay, let's see. He's had, let's see. Safety inspector at the nuclear power plant. Astronaut. Mayor.

Boxer. Food critic. Grease salesman. Bodyguard for Mayor Quimby. Country western manager for Lorraine Lumpkin. Garbage commissioner. Mountain climber. Farmer.

Inventor. Krusty the clown impersonator. Voice of Pooch at H.H. Sgrady. Celebrity assistant to Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. Passenger. Fortune cookie writer. Beer baron.

Cookie mart clerk. Missionary. Monorail conductor. Snowplow operator. Hairresser, bounty hunter, opera singer, mall Santa, union leader, telemarketer, chauffeur, home, like, dude, the list is insane. I can't read all this. Yo, this is crazy. There's so many episodes. He was the mayor, a judge, he was an executioner, a croupier, a voice actor, a singer, a musician, a record producer, a talent scout. He's been a TV show host, a guest, a consistent, a judge, a producer, a director, a writer, a musician, a record producer, a talent scout. He's been a TV show host, a guest, a consistent, a judge, a producer, a director, a writer, an editor, a cameraman, a sound engineer.

Come on. Literally The Simpsons is a show about a guy who has jobs. He's been a masked vigilante. He's been the white knight, the black knight, a cyborg, an android, a clown, a time traveler. Okay, you get it. But his most important job, being a father. Wow, this is crazy.

I had no idea that he had so many jobs. Yeah. They put him in so many... He's been a ufologist, he's been a cosmologist, an exobiologist, an astrophysicist, a rocket scientist. Some of these are redundant. Time travel's not a job. If this was talking about Family Guy

and these were all the cut scenes that were just like 30 seconds to a minute of the show, I mean, that would make more sense, but I had no idea that Homer Simpson had that many jobs. I didn't. But that's basically the joke. There's an episode from the early seasons where Homer goes, Marge, you know, I've had a lot of jobs in my life.

Snowplow operator, Crusty the Clown impersonator, astronaut. And he just starts listing all the jobs he's had. Peter Griffin's had a lot of jobs, too, and that's nowhere near as many as Homer Simpson's. I can actually go through all the jobs Peter Griffin's had. Safety Inspector, Fisherman, Shipping Clerk, Towel Boy, Serial Mascot, Bartender, Calvin Klein, Model, Grim Reaper, Replacement. That's not a job. Pianist, Producer, ed teacher temporary principal waiter ghostbuster sheriff hitman president recycling mascot similar wrestler night volunteer singer cpr instructor cashier fast food worker ceo dictator and united nations interpreter opera singer bomb diffuser and uh and those those are the are the cutaway gags

so in actual episodes it's like 25 yeah you ain't hanging with Homer Simpson, dude. He's got all the jobs. All right, what do we got here? Blake Snyder says, people that complain wanting others' money have no drive. I got t-boned, lost my job, and became homeless. Went out and got a job within 20 days that pays far better and is a far better job. You know what I really don't like about communists? Right now, here's how our tax system works. If you work 40 hours and they say it's an eight hour day and it's a five day work week. Okay. If I choose to work more than that, I get taxed more. They punish me for working harder. That's our current tax system. A lot of people came at me and they were like, yes, but what about no tax on overtime? Does not apply to salaries.

So if you say to somebody, we'll pay you $100,000 a year salary job to do this work. And then you go, I want to work 16-hour days every day with no day off. They say, okay. You get no more money for that. And then, so let's say two people apply for a job. And they're like, we can pay you a salaried position. Let's say you're a business owner, right? And you're like, if I work weekends, I will make an additional $10,000 a month.

But because that puts me in a higher tax bracket, I lose money by doing it. It is a diminishing return on working hard. So how about this? Here's my proposal. Taxes only on the first 40 hours worked. And if you're salaried, you list your hours every week. And then we divide how much you get paid in salary by those hours. And you're only taxed on the first 40 hours. That way you can choose to work more. And when you do, you don't lose money by doing so. Taxes not so Trump passed, they passed the passed the big beautiful bill no tax on overtime i'm saying straight up no taxes on

anything past 40 hours i'd accomplish that in three days a lot on taxes right anything that minimizes taxes i'm gonna be okay my friends smash that like button share the show with everyone you know head over to rumble.com slash timcast IRL. That members-only call-in show will be starting. It's going to be uncensored. So not so family-friendly, but always fun and funny. And you want to join Rumble Premium with promo code TIM10 so you can check it out. And if you join our Discord server at timcast.com, you can actually call in and everything you chat will appear on the screen,

for better or for worse. That's why it's uncensored. Again, follow me on Instagram at Timcast. Smash the like button. Steve, you want to shout anything out? Nothing to shout right now, except, you know, hop on over to The Blaze and check out our stories that we're doing on a particular congressman from Florida and then about a rogue FBI agent that we caught in the act of not actually working for the FBI, why she pretended that she was. Wow. Yeah. Interesting. They have some very interesting reporting on Representative Corey Mills over at The Blaze that would be worthwhile to read.

Thank you guys for tuning in tonight. My name is Allad El-Yahoo. I'm the White House correspondent here at Timcast. You can follow me at Allad El-Yahu across all platforms. Phil? I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. Our new record is entitled Anti-Fragile. You can check it out

on Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast IRL in a 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out.