Timcast IRL - Democrats Prep Trip To El Salvador To SAVE MS-13 Gang Member, Bring Terrorist To US w/ Hannah Cox

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Ian are joined by Elaad & Hannah Cox to discuss Democrats planning trip to El Salvador to save alleged MS-13 gang member, Democrats continuing to push the 'Maryland Man Deported' hoax, Trump pushing for deportations for violent US criminals, and the Trump administration accused of firing a Navy officer for refusing to hang portrait of President Trump. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Elad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Hannah Cox @HannahDCox (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge.

BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Democrats in their infinite empathy are going on a perilous journey to save a Maryland man who has been sent to a foreign prison to be tortured and may already be dead. At least that's the narrative that the corporate press is giving. In reality, Democrats are planning a trip to fly to El Salvador to try and rescue a Salvadoran man from his own country's jail for crimes he's guilty of in his own country. And it's because he was in this country illegally. There's a deportation order. And under the Alien Enemies Act, the Trump administration removed him. So again, to clarify, you know the story. A man from El Salvador illegally entered the United States, was not granted asylum, but he was given a temporary stay. He was deported. The administration said it was an

administrative error because he did have a, I believe he had two orders for removal. Two different courts determined he was a gang member in MS-13 and he was here illegally. But there was a stay over threats of safety to his life. Well, he has been deported. He's a Salvadoran citizen in El Salvador, where he will likely stay. President Nayib Bukele says he's not going to let loose a terrorist in his own country so that the U.S. can bring him back to the U.S. And this has resulted in Democrat outrage.

They're lying about what's going on. This has become their their principal issue of the week, I guess. Their cause celebrate that we must rescue this innocent man. Let me just stress Democrats are trying to rescue a terrorist member of MS-13 from prison to bring to the United States. Now, we're going to go through the court documents and we'll break this down for you and why they're falsely framing and misrepresenting what's actually going on. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why other than it's a cult, I guess. So I'll talk about that. But there is there are a handful of other stories. And one that I do want to talk about that's that's been going viral was a man who was brutally attacked in a just a reckless, just unwarranted, random hatchet strike. And while people are talking about, you know, race relations and violent crime, this story that's been largely gone unnoticed until recently with Libs of TikTok sharing it, I think should we should we should bring up.

So we definitely have a lot to bring up as it, I think we should bring up. So we definitely have a lot to bring up as it pertains to this illegal immigration story. But I do also believe that this plays into the judicial coup that we are seeing right now, which has many people worried about the fate of this country. We will get into that. Before we do, my friends, we have a great sponsor tonight. It's American Financing. So make sure you head over to AmericanFinancing.net. And my friends, with everything that's happening in the economy, it feels like we're walking on shaky ground. Prices are stuck at a really high level, and it seems like nothing is affordable anymore. It's no wonder many are relying on credit cards to cover the gaps. Credit card debt is

skyrocketing, and it's leaving a lot of people stressed out. If you're a homeowner, you don't have to face the uncertainty alone. Our friends over at American financing can help you take control. They can help you access the equity in your home to help you pay down the high interest credit card debt, giving you peace of mind and real savings. On average, people just like you are saving 800 bucks a month. Plus they may close your loan in as little as 10 days. Don't let the chaos of the economy get the best of you. Call American Financing now. It costs you nothing to get started, and you may delay

two mortgage payments, giving you a cushion in this uncertain time. Call 866-890-7811. That's 866-890-7811, or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim. And shout out, thanks for sponsoring the show. Of course, make sure you go to CastBrew.com and pick up some delicious Cast Brew coffee, Appalachian Nights. Maybe you want some low acidity Ian's Graphene Dream, which does really well. But hey, we got a bunch more.

We got Luck of the Seamus. We got Focus with Mr. Bocas. Pick it up while you can. And more importantly, at TimCast.com, you can join our Discord server. And why does this matter? The tickets are available for the Culture War live event now. I believe there's only, I think, maybe like 15 left.

We're about to sell out. It's a small venue, only 60 seats. But you, as members of the TimCast.com Discord, you can get free tickets to our events first come first serve and submit your debate talking points. Join the show. The Culture Podcast is the 10th biggest live stream in the country. It averages around 400 to 500000 views per episode. We want you guys on this. We want you a part of this. We want to give people an opportunity to join that debate and sit alongside people like me or Phil or Alex Stein and many others and debate those issues. We're hoping that we can get this every week. For now, the pilot will be May 3rd. And for the time being,

the plan is once a month with a goal of getting it every single week if we can secure a proper venue and get that all done. It's going to be really amazing. But don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Hannah Cox. Good to be with you guys. Who are you? What do you do? My name's Hannah Cox. I am a commentator and a writer and an activist. And mostly I spend my days working to move state policy or turn it over if it's bad policy. Right on. Well, thanks for hanging out. Should be fun. Elad is here straight from the White House. Good evening, everybody. I am Elad Eliyahu, a White House correspondent here at TimCast. Ian, what's up? It's nice to see you. You too, man. I'm also wearing a suit, if you

haven't seen this yet. This is one I picked up in Miami while I was down there. Everybody, Ian Crossland up in the house. Good to be here. Good to see you. Hi, Phil. Hello, Ian. Elad, I got to say, as the Israeli correspondent, a very nice selection of Thai color. I am Phil Abadi, the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's go. Here's a story from NBC News. Democratic lawmakers say they'll travel to El Salvador to

push for Kilmar Abrego Garcia's release. Senator Chris Van Hollen, not Halen, said that if the Maryland man uh-huh, the Maryland man, whom the administration acknowledged having deported mistakenly wasn't back in the U.S. by midweek, he would travel to El Salvador. My favorite response to this and Cory Booker was I think it was Will Chamberlain who says

Naeem Bukele has the chance to do the funniest thing ever. And Jack Posobiec responded with, I agree. I think all of the Democrats should go to the El Salvadoran prison. Yes. So it's not just Van Hollen. Also, Cory Booker and others are playing a trip to fly to save the Maryland man. I just I just can't even. These people are evil. The Democrats are evil. I don't care if if you're concerned about the deportation, that's fine. Just be honest. It is a man from El Salvador. He had two deportation orders to be returned to El Salvador. He had a temporary stay. Initially, the White House said we were following through with the deportation orders and they made a mistake because they because the filing for my understanding is the filing for the stay

is not stored in the same capacity. So they get a big list of people with deportation orders. They go deport them and go, wait, that guy had a stay. And they went, OK, well, there's nothing you do about that now. El Salvador's got him. Now what the argument is, I believe Stephen Miller's arguing this. The Alien Enemies Act, once this organization was deemed a terrorist organization, supersedes the judge's stay and we can remove alien invaders. And the Supreme Court agreed Trump can remove them. They agreed no one can force the president to engage in foreign policy actions. But in the event of Rego Garcia is able to be returned to the U.S., Trump must facilitate that. What that means, I don't know. But Democrats have decided to die on this hill, as it were. And is this the

best they got? Is the only issue they have? It's a big issue. I don't know if it's the best issue they got, but if a president can say, because we're in a state of emergency since 2001, this group of people is a foreign terrorist organization now because they have ties to a foreign country that we're at war with or that we're going to be at war with, then they can just

deport them because they're a terrorist, because they said they were a terrorist. That doesn't really reflect what happened, did it? He said, am I, uh, MS-13 is a terrorist organization. Then that was their grounds to brought a guy who had to stay. Thank you, Ian. Let me take you home on this one. So I appreciate your response.

I think you're actually referring to the NDAA 2012 indefinite detention provision that was signed into law by Barack Obama, which stated exactly as you said, that if someone was part of al Qaeda involved in September 11th or an enemy in waging war against the United States, they could be indefinitely renditioned in black sites anywhere in the world. So if they wanted it, I believe that got repealed in 2024. So only last year. Now, back to the main story we're talking about, where a guy who had a deportation order was deported, you were saying? Oh, the guy that had the stay on his deportation order was deported? The guy with two deportation orders who was here illegally and a member of a criminal gang, MS-13, who was deported mistakenly is in the custody of his own country for which he committed crimes, is now in his own prison, and we have no authority to get him out of that prison. So, yes.

So what were you going to say, Phil? Well, I just thought that was my understanding. The guy that we were talking about was an illegal alien. So the fact that he's deported is perfectly consistent with the law. Being that he was associated with MS-13, that's why Trump calls him a terrorist. But that's kind of notwithstanding the fact that he's here illegally. If he's an illegal alien and he's come, you know, he's come here illegally, whatever the context, ship him home.

Well, if he has a stay on his deportation, you got to wait. Why? Because there's a stay on his deportation. But what was there? Is there a context in which something may supersede a stay from a judge? Always. War. But they'd have to prove that there had been a crime.

Or a terrorist designation under the Alien Enemies Act, for which the Supreme Court ruled that he does have the authority to deport people under? Potentially. Here's my issue with it, though. Deportation's one thing, but they didn't just deport him. They sent him to a prison with no due process, where I assume he's not going to have a trial there either, correct? Oh, that's a matter for a foreign country. I mean, we're not going to invade China and try and force China to release people from their prisons. But why are we putting people in prison? Why can't we just deport them? El Salvador did. So they're charging him with crimes?

In El Salvador, if you are a member of MS-13, you go to jail. It's a crime. And that's how Nayib Bukele started. He started rounding up all the gang members. They made it illegal and they started throwing everybody in prison. The criticism there was that innocent people were getting wrapped up in it. But that's a matter for a foreign country. Now, I do think there's concerns over when we deport people and we can, what El Salvador does after the fact is of concern. But at the same time, the question as it pertains to this is an El Salvador, a Salvadoran man is in a Salvadoran jail for crimes in El Salvador. Next question, I guess. So the concern there is if we are just deporting anybody because we can deport them and Trump is sending to El Salvador

and then El Salvador is put in prison. There's a chain there where I have concerns with it. Yeah. The challenge, of course, however, is the due process afforded to illegal immigrants in this country is are you here legally or not? No, then you leave. The Supreme Court ruled that these people are all entitled to habeas hearings, justifying whether or not they are to be held. That's the point. Okay. Are you here illegally? You are? Then we can deport you. If El Salvador, after the fact, imprisons them, the challenge then is the foreign policy action between the U.S. and El Salvador, not due process in the United States, for which that's negotiating power between Trump and El Salvador. So I do have concerns over if people, here's the challenge, I suppose. Conservatives are

going to say, we don't care. You came to this country illegally. That's your problem. And I believe Jack Posobiec mentioned that it was a deterrent. You come to this country illegally, maybe you'll be on the plane to El Salvador. I'm not a fan of making examples of people like that. In this specific capacity, the man who was here did have a stay. If it is true, as they initially argued, that he was mistakenly deported because he, I believe he had two removal orders and no asylum. The question then becomes, how do you have a stay on deportation without being granted asylum?

What is the cause by which a judge can grant an indefinite stay on deportation? I'd argue that's unconstitutional. A judge doesn't have the authority to give de facto citizenship to an illegal immigrant here illegally with deportation orders. So what we're actually dealing with is a constitutional crisis by which the judiciary de facto has tried to give an individual citizenship or second class citizenship, which to me is alarming. And then the only real argument becomes, was Trump acting in a heavy handed manner by sending back to El Salvador where El Salvador is going to put him in prison? I don't think that they're what like you said, what El Salvador does with any of the people that go back to El Salvador, that's their that's their problem. That's a domestic issue for that country. The United States has millions of illegal immigrants

that have come in that had come in the previous four years during the obama or during the biden administration president biden himself said we want to see a surge we want to see people to the border for if you're seeking asylum the administration allowed all kinds of breaking of the rules when it comes to the asylum claims. You shouldn't come to the United States through South America if you're looking for asylum because Mexico is safe and there are multiple countries that these people stopped that could have stopped in. So right off the bat, it's breaking the law. The idea that we have to give all these everybody that's here that claimed asylum a hearing. I reject that because they came here

under under false presenses by an illegal method they're supposed to come to ports of entry and they didn't they would just cross the border and then dhs would pick them up or the border patrol would pick them up if they didn't come here and go to an actual port of entry if they got picked up beat it i don't care they don't they't all get – they shouldn't all get – They're hurting actual asylum seekers in doing that. That hurts the actual people in line. It does, but the lawlessness prior to that hurts America more. So there will be times where we will send people that are actually seeking asylum away when they may have – had they gone through the actual proper channels when they would have been granted asylum.

But because they didn't, see you later. And I'm with you up until a point. And with him being from El Salvador, I think that makes this case less of a huge deal because we are sending him back to a country where he's from. But if we're sending people who are not from that country back to this country to be put in prison indefinitely versus just simply deporting them, that's where my issue comes in. I have no idea where they go to.

They just need to go back to their country of Oregon. I'm not saying that we should send them to El Salvador. So send them to wherever they're from. The issue is Venezuela has refused to take back criminal gang members from Venezuela.

So Trendy Aragua, for instance. So Trump said, then we'll send them to El Salvador. They're not Americans. The due process they get is an immigration court habeas hearing. Are you here legally or not? Can we hold you? We can't. Deportation. And see, I guess my concern around that is where is the proof that they are terrorists?

Where is the proof that they have actually committed crimes? And if they have, then send them. I don't care. Right. But there has to be some kind of due process in place to make sure that we're not falsely identifying people. You've got this tattoo. What is due process? Due process would be actual evidence, fact finding, presenting evidence before a judge. You don't have the resources. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. What's what's for what reason do we want that kind of hearing?

Because we don't want to put innocent people in jail indefinitely with no hope of ever getting. But we're not. El Salvador is. But we're paying El Salvador to run these prisons. So by proxy, we are. And so the the the question at hand, I suppose, is right. There is a challenge in that this is our foreign policy action. This is what Trump expects to happen. But it is it's this it's this nebulous circumstance where Trump says they're not Americans,

so they got to go. And if they can't go home because Venezuela won't take them, El Salvador will. Where do we send them if they won't be returned to Venezuela, will not accept these deportations? I'm fine with Gitmo. I'm perfectly fine with Gitmo. We're trying to obey costs a lot of money for the American taxpayer and is limited in space. Fair enough. But so this so first they get their due process and the due process is literally the habeas hearing in which you are a citizen or not. Are you are you eligible? No. OK, so we've determined that these people have removal orders. That's the basis by which Trump went to go about deporting these

individuals. They had orders for removal. If we can't send them back to Venezuela, where do we send them? Send them anywhere else in Mexico. So they can't. I mean, get them out of our country. But do they have to go to a prison? If elsewhere, it just feels very shaky to me. Do you think El Salvador wants to accept criminals from Venezuela freely to walk about their streets? I think they want to accept our dollars and we'll do whatever we tell them to. Do you think El Salvador will accept criminals from Venezuela like Trende Aragua under the agreement that they allow them to freely move about El Salvador? They're proven to be criminals. And that's my whole point.

If they are actually proven to be gang members or criminals here, I don't care if we send them to a prison in El Salvador. Like my issues go away entirely. My concern is that we are saying this guy was loosely affiliated with this gang allegedly and we have no concrete proof of that. And then that person ends up in a jail and they have no hope to ever get out. I mean, that's dystopian. So it sounds like you would be OK with Trump deporting all these people to El Salvador if El Salvador had a criminal hearing determined they were gang members or not. Probably, yeah. I would accept those terms.

That would make me feel much more comfortable. So, I mean, then the onus is off of the United States. You're here illegally. We can't send you home. We send you to El Salvador. El Salvador, let's have a hearing to determine whether or not they're MS-13 or any other criminal gang, and then you decide with a proper hearing. I think it's important to note that I think this was the most questionable case that they found. And overwhelmingly, all of the case, all of the most of the people that were sent

to El Salvador were like very obviously trend day, Aragua gangsters. Stephen Miller said he had evidence. And I agree with you that I believe he should release it. The politics of this, I think is very funny, because I think what's happening on the democrat side is that they're dropping this muhammad guy because i guess it wasn't sympathetic mahmoud i'm sorry um he they're dropping that guy completely wasn't sympathetic enough and now you see um you know all these uh senators uh what was his name again the senator from new jersey holland oh no cory booker cory booker who i believe is uh auditioning for a 2028 run. And this is the issue that they're really choosing to run on, defending these Trend de Aragua gangsters. But I think we should feel good knowing that we're in good hands with Stephen Miller,

because I think Stephen Miller is so singularly focused in a good way. And there's somebody in the Trump administration that we know we can trust to the fullest, that will do a good job. I have just said he said he had evidence and didn't release it. But why would you trust him? There's a lot of evidence that the government can't release. He was here illegally to begin with. And I think all of these should be deported.

Yeah. And so there is. And I think the thing about that Stephen Miller said, too, was that there was evidence of him being a terrorist. And that superseded the stay that the judge has the American the American Enemies Act supersedes when that declaration was made it supersedes the stay and and I want to stress this point he was not granted asylum he was denied asylum okay Abrego Garcia was denied asylum he did not apply for asylum until way later on when he decided he wanted to stay. He entered illegally. Two different courts, a lower court and appellate court, determined he was a member of MS-13. By what constitutional grounds can a judge give de facto citizenship to an individual? That is psych. That is what is. Do you know what the judge's explanation was?

Stay on deportation over fears that if he was returned to El Salvador, he could be killed. So on what grounds can a judge say we are not going to finalize the adjudication? We will just put a temporary stay indefinitely to allow you to live and work in the United States as if you were a citizen. That is unconstitutional as far as that makes no sense. If that's all true, why didn't he meet the conditions to get asylum? Because he didn't apply when he got here he just didn't try he got the stay because he was here illegally and uh the i believe the the doj's accused him of working with ms-13 and human trafficking and so the argument they've made is that he was here doing illicit deeds um

and never applied for asylum because he wasn't here seeking asylum. He was here trafficking human beings. And only after a certain amount of time did he actually apply, to which he was denied because he did not properly go about the law to seek asylum. Got it. But my concern is, again, a judge just rubber stamping. You can stay here forever. It's a weird case. You can't do that. Yeah, I can't do that. I don't think, I mean, maybe the most hardcore leftists are arguing this. I looked into the case earlier today. It's a weird case. It's got a lot of weird factors on it. I have a question for you, because I do agree. We have concerns over due process. And I do have concerns over an innocent person getting wrapped up in a deportation to a Salvadoran prison. Here's the issue, though. And this and this is where we try to find an answer. During the Biden administration, we saw probably the largest influx of illegal immigrants into the United States.

They say that it rivals some of the largest mass mass migrations in human history. Yeah. Some 10 to 20 million people migrating in the span of only a few years rivals the partition of India. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience

to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun. And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out.

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor

free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck.

Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more.

Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. When these people were allowed to come in, the Biden administration took dubious asylum requests and then immediately dropped them, creating de facto second class citizens who are not subject to deportation, but we're not here legally by any means. When Trump tries to deport them, he's barred by by judges. He is blocked every which way. If Democrats are able to make the largest human migration in history and when the people vote to stop it are barred from stopping it. How do we solve for this problem? What do we do?

Ideally, Congress would take some action, but I think that's a pipe dream, right? President, you think run right over? OK, can Congress overrule habeas rights? Could I think they could absolutely pass legislation that would overturn that procedure that they put in place? Yeah, 20 million. Let's let's let's do the lowest of it. 10 million people are here illegally from Joe Biden. could absolutely pass legislation that would overturn that procedure that they put in place. Yeah. 20 million. Let's let's let's do the lowest of it.

10 million people are here illegally from Joe Biden. Trump wants to get him out. Supreme Court ruled all of them have to have a habeas hearing. That's that's impossible. Trump will never be able to deport these people. How do we rectify the criminal actions of the Biden administration? And how do we do that? Same way Lincoln would have run right over the judiciary.

I'm serious. Well, Lincoln threatened to arrest a Supreme Court justice. Well, I mean, I wouldn't say arrest the chief, but Lincoln was never held back by the Constitution. Not at all. Not at all. And to be honest with you, look, when you have a lawless administration and then the people vote, this is not a this is not a 50 50 issue this is a 70 30 80 20 issue the american people want the illegal aliens that came here during the biden administration they want them sent home this is not something that is well just by a little bit he kind of won

this isn't this is one of the many 80 20 issues that the president is on the right side of. So if the judiciary is in the way, then in my opinion, the executive should run straight over the judiciary. I don't care. The previous executive ran roughshod over the law in just the same fashion. And this is a this is something, again, the American people want that fixes a problem created by the previous administration. I don't care. Real quick, just for the just for posterity. Here's a tweet from Billy Baldwin saying, where was it proven that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13? Well, thanks to X, literally everybody just spam blasted him with all the documents

while liberals claimed he wasn't. So you have Viva Frye, of course, with this document says, after considering the information provided by both parties, the court concluded that no bond was appropriate in this matter. The court first reasoned that the respondent failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his release from custody would not pose a danger to others, as the evidence shows he is a verified member of MS-13. They then go on to cite court reference, I believe three, or it looks like two. The BIA has held that absent any indication that the information therein is incorrect or the result of coercion or duress, Form I-213 is inherently trustworthy and admissible. There were not just two rulings, a lower court and appellate court,

but subsequent courts that used that justification that he was a member of MS-13. In fact, I believe the only reason they dropped the charges against him is because they don't want to force an extradition from El Salvador. And I believe it is absolutely fair to say Donald Trump could bully. And I mean, bullying the lightest sense. He could go to Nayib Bukele and say, look, I want you to release the guy. It's a political problem for us. We'll take him back. And I would say, you got it. But I do think Trump's looking at it. It's more like an 80 20 thing in that. Yes, Trump could do that. It's going to make naive be like, you owe me a favor. Like, OK, fine. But this makes me look bad. I'm going to want something in return like he would abide by Trump. Come on. Nobody anybody arguing that he wouldn't listen to Trump if Trump made the request is being

silly. That being said, I don't think that Trump wants to even, even nudge Nayib Bukele in such a way and say, no, no, no, no, no. He's an MS-13 guy. He's your citizen. We can't do that. He doesn't want to admit that he made a mistake. If he thinks he did, he doesn't want to admit it because it looked like he did.

I take that back. I take it back. Imagine you're Nayib Bukele. Donald Trump comes to you and says, for political reasons, I want you to hand over one of your citizens to me. Nayib Bukele has no choice but to say, I can't do that. Imagine if Iran or South Africa told the United States, Ian Crossland will be delivered to us now. The U.S. would be like, absolutely not. So I think even with their relationship, it's a rock and a hard place for Nayib u.s would be like absolutely not so i think even with their relationship it's a rock and a hard place for naya bichelli to be like trump i can't do that i can't

turn over a salvadoran citizen to the united states just the precedent that it was that yeah that the u.s can come and just say you will give your citizen to me if it was just a citizen that never been to the states for sure but since it was an American living in the United States sent there, there's nuance in the potential of a... It was what? Because this guy was... I said he was an American, but what I meant was he was living in the United States. Illegally.

Yeah, when he was sent to... So there's this... An El Salvadorian citizen. It's a nuanced situation as opposed to... He's a citizen of El Salvador. Just picking somebody off the street of El Salvador and being like, send him to America. But regardless, the precedent is a slippery slope.

To ask a foreign leader to turn over any citizen... I think we're setting up a lot of precedent right now. Like you mentioned, Phil, like this is the president. You said that he should steamroll the judiciary and that then someone brought up Abraham Lincoln arresting or threatening to arrest a Supreme Court justice, which kind of falls under the definition of steamrolling the judiciary. Use the threat of force against all of the. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Just ignoring that is different than my mouth. Don't put my words in my mouth. Steamroll the judiciary, you use the threat of force against all of the judiciary. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Just ignoring them is different than steamrolling them. Don't put words in my mouth.

Don't put my words in my mouth. You said steamroll the judiciary. What do you mean? Yeah, I meant, so when I said steamroll, I meant ignore them. I'm not saying that we should arrest the judiciary. Don't make it out like I'm saying we should throw them in jail. But Phil, why not? Because there's no reason because the judiciary has no enforcement.

Indeed. It's the one of the handful, like the entire executive branch. Every single part of the executive branch has an enforcement arm. That means men with guns. The judiciary has no enforcement. The judiciary's enforcement arm is supposed to be the executive branch. Yeah. And sometimes the judiciary makes mistakes or sometimes, like now, we have a politically motivated portion of the judiciary that is making decisions that are upholding illegal behaviors of a previous administration.

And again, this is not something where the American people are really split 50-50 on. It's an 80-20 situation. This is my issue with what you said, though. The American people have been so wrong on issues in the past. Like, we cannot say override checks and balances, override the judiciary because the American people think this is a popular thing to do right now. We should. We absolutely should.

I'm comfortable risking. We absolutely should. Hannah, I'm comfortable risking. We absolutely should. And whatever puts that cat back in the bag. The next time the Republicans... What do you mean cat back in the bag? It's not like this is...

It's not unprecedented. What do you do if the cat's already out of the bag? I think Congress needs to step up. I mean, i'm going to keep going back to this i understand that they have been completely neutered but that is what's supposed to be happening right now what do you do so let's let's let's let's just be reasonable um you know 10 years ago i would have been saying the exact same thing that you did and then they tried to arrest donald trump on false charges they created a new law so that Trump could be falsely accused of rape. They arrested his lawyers in numerous states.

And they started going after basically anybody who was supporting him in any fashion. I mean, they literally put they leaked information to put some of his cohorts in prison. His associates were threatened with prison time. So the cat's been under the bag for a long time. Congress is completely dysfunctional and can barely pass a budget. They just jam CRs through every week. And even after Matt Gaetz goes to war over continuing resolutions, they still do it. Congress is never going to get anything done. And it's split down the middle. The judiciary is running roughshod over the executive branch right now with more universal injunctions than any that I think I could be

wrong. But I believe Donald Trump has more universal injunctions with which are unconstitutional, by the way, than any other president in this short a time frame. I believe that Trump's first and second administrations already have over one third of all universal injunctions ever issued. The judiciary is acting outside the confines of the Constitution by engaging in rulings that go beyond the scope of their of their court cases and those present. This has been widely accepted. We have we have two choices. Donald Trump can say the judiciary can do and say whatever they want, or he can say

at this point they are acting unconstitutionally and I must uphold my oath to the executive branch of the Constitution to ignore unconstitutional orders. Here's a question I have for you. If a district court judge in Guam ordered Donald Trump to shoot a man in the head, should he do it? Absolutely not. Why not? Because it is unethical and morally wrong. Just moral.

There's no legal issues. There's obviously legal issues. It's illegal, right? Obviously. So if a judge orders Trump to do something illegal, he should refuse. Yes. And that's where we are right now with all the district courts. Universal injunctions defy the Constitution and have sparsely been challenged. The way the courts are supposed to work is that if a party comes and says, I am aggrieved, then the judge can issue relief to the party. Instead, what's been happening is district courts have been issuing universal rulings, decreeing laws over the United States

based on a single individual's complaint, completely unconstitutional. Donald Trump's only recourse is to say there's a rogue judiciary that must be defied. To what extent, though? Because ask the judiciary why they're violating the Constitution. Well, I think that I'm not going to argue with you about the judiciary being problematic. I spent four years doing criminal justice reform in this country. Like, absolutely, there are so many problems with our justice system. It will turn your hair. But the issue is, at the end of the day, if we keep going down this pathway, we end up with an executive that has pretty much unilateral power because, again, Congress has neutered itself and is not going to take any action. And my concern is what comes next, because the ante

will just keep rising and rising and rising. And we saw what they tried to do during COVID. We saw how close they were to getting away with the vast majority of it. If we do not have a court system that's able to check some of those things, and if everybody just disregards the laws that they don't agree with or that they think are wrong, where we end up is a very scary place. Do you think that if Democrats were restored to power, they would never again do a lockdown like they did in 2021? I think they'd absolutely try to do it again. Don't get me wrong. Full disclosure, Trump is the one who initiated that two weeks of slow spread.

That being said, red states quickly turned around and started reopening. Florida became a vacation destination for Democratic politicians like AOC. So here's what I think. If Donald Trump had lost, Democrats would be gearing up for the next lockdown, whatever it may be, climate lockdown or otherwise. The FDA under Joe Biden, his his holdovers fast tracked new mRNA vaccines for bird flu. And there was recently a falling out. I think RFK Jr. is not too happy about it.

I would just say if we were to right now go, guys, guys, the escalation is getting out of hand. Let's stop right now. Do you know what would happen? What do you think would happen? I mean, I assume you think they would keep going and they probably would. But is the answer. where do we end up? Do we end up in a civil war? Where do we end up if this keeps going?

Now you're talking our way. I mean, really. We're familiar with that phrase around here. Hopefully it forces Congress to act. Drink, chat. I mean, seriously. I'll tell you where. Let's jump to this story from time.

Can a U.S. citizen be deported? Trump's comments raise legal alarms. So Trump said it quite a bit, to be completely honest. He said he wants to send the worst of the worst to El Salvador. He said, quote, we have also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways that hit elderly ladies in the back of that with baseball bat when they're not looking. They're absolute monsters. Trump told reporters inside the Oval Office, I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country. This is where we are going. And this is worrying. I did a poll on X and I asked,

should the U.S. should U.S. criminals be housed in foreign prisons? And it was dead 50 50. I saw that 50 50. And there are a ton of staunch mega people being like, no, absolutely not. That's a line we can't cross. And there are a lot of others saying the cat is already out of the bag. The actions that were taken against Trump and Trump supporters, the Jay Sixers, have shown that there is an unscrupulous enemy that seeks to destroy you in the worst imaginable ways, not to mention the moral shortcomings that we've been fighting against, like sterilizing children. This is the split that is already happening. And it is terrifying because unfortunately. I don't see a I don't see an answer for this country. The only thing we can hope for is that

Trump has amassed such power with the popular vote win and and in this year with the termination of USAID and the Department of Education and the slush fund from the Department of I believe it was the Department of Energy getting rid of these resources used by Democrats to get uniparty. And it wasn't just Democrats 20 years ago, but it is largely now. There's still some Republicans there that are uniparty. But gutting the deep state's resource mechanism and their cyclical resource machine, they may not be able to wage any meaningful war. And this may be the end of the conflict, meaning the escalation might die down because Trump won. And I'm hoping that's the case. But considering we are still seeing Democrats rallying, they're arguing, I see online when you follow this stuff, that April 19th will be the biggest protest we've seen. This is what

they're arguing. The left is saying the 19th will be the biggest protest across the country we've seen since like the Iraq war. Or what? What are they Trump? Just a 501. And they're I don't know, but they're using this story as their launching point, saying Trump disappeared a Maryland father who was legally in the country to a foreign gulag. That's the narrative they're rolling with. And I am not being cute. Go on Reddit. Read what the default news page is saying about this. That is what they are saying. Well, this guy, he's given them ammo. I mean, Trump says he wants to take American citizens that are violent criminals and deport them to foreign prison. That's what he just said that out loud. This is our commander in chief saying that he wants to. I got a question for you.

If you were sentenced to death and then they came to you and said, or you can go to El Salvador, which would you choose? I'd go to El Salvador. Well, it depends. I'm saying what's the choice? Is it go to or go to

a mega super prison in El Salvador? These El Salvador prisons strike me as cruel and unusual punishment for U.S. citizens. I think if you're the worst of the worst in our country, you're better off getting capital punishment.

I want to give you capital punishment here before I'm sending you off to some El Salvadorian prison with 50 beds in one room and you're going to live there for the rest of your life. I'd rather not send. I feel like I wrote this is what I get to know this for. The justice system gets it wrong all the time. It politically persecutes people

and they put people in jail incorrectly all the time here even with due process so to then say we're going to ship these people off to this kind of prison with these kinds of savages is i think beyond the pale how bad of a margin of error does it need to be is it just one person one person one person will make it bad person so yeah i'd rather i'd always rather err on the side of letting 100 there's unfortunately i don't think we'd be able to get anything done in our country. Don't worry. We are nowhere close to that line. Like, that's my line.

But we are nowhere close to it. I mean, I feel like it almost projects onto the earlier story about sending the gangsters, the Trend de Aragua gangsters back to El Salvador because it's like worst case scenario. They they wrongfully sent an illegal migrant back but 99 plus percent of the people who they did deport to this el salvadorian prison were trend de aragua gangsters and if that means we have to occasionally send one or two illegally illegal migrants incorrectly there too or we can't send any to begin with you won't be able to get any policy done because in our country we will always get policy, you know, it's always going to fail at some point.

I do think that people who are here illegally should have due process in the habeas corpus. My line is not as stringent for them. If you get deported, and if you get deported in this country for being here illegally, and you are given due process and are found to be guilty,

and let's say you're innocent and you get deported, that's no longer really our fault. That burden's not on us. But there's a margin of error even in due process, isn't there? Even if they do go through all of the courts. No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that my line is more for citizens when I say that we should not be. But I also think she's saying that the line is for due process, right?

When you say like how many people is too many, if one person is wrongly sent to a gulag, it's cruel and unusual punishment. That's a violation of the Eighth Amendment. That's why I say no to Trump doing this Trump doing even if we have due process, people will still be wrongfully convicted. Indeed, but they'll go to American prisons with the right of appeal and and certain safeguards and protections and human rights protections. We shouldn't be off like offshoring our prison and crime problem in our country. Again, if Trump's talking about the worst of the worst, we should bring back some capital punishment and clear some regulation about having to inject them oddly.

But I think that liberalism follow libertarianism is largely what we refer to as liberalism. But the terms have been bastardized over a long period of time. Classical liberalism today is basically modern libertarians uh i think this is a cute concept that really only exists in times of peace because uh as much as the founding fathers very much entertained enlightenment principles and classical liberalism that didn't mean nothing when the revolutionary war started oh yeah ben franklin spoke as if they were at peace his entire life he acted as if it had already worked out and that was his that's that's how i try to live in a lot of ways and it looks stupid in the middle of heat because you're like yo bro, bro, put the fires out.

And I think when the fires are out, things are going to be. I think the important thing to understand is that the Revolutionary War wasn't declared. British troops came to Massachusetts and said, turn over your guns. And the men at Lexington and Concord said, yeah, right. We're not listening to you. And nobody knows who fired the first shot, they say. But the war started. And it wasn't until 13 months later they signed the declaration of independence

they didn't want war war happened and so people have this in in similar things for basically every war people act like war is a thing where two sides look at each other and they're like we're gonna fight aren't we all right uh All in favor of war? Charge! When in reality, something happens. Right? Nobody thought that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was going to bring the entire world into the most bloody conflict in human history. My point ultimately is this. When you argue things like, we can't do this because the executive has too much authority. I'd like to just imagine a scenario where you have two factions vying for control of a single system.

One side says by any means necessary. And that's a quote. The other side says we can't because it would be wrong. Which side wins? I mean, traditionally throughout history, of course, the evil people win. I think America has stood out because we did. And yes, you're right. Did we compromise our principles at times?

Did the founders sell out as soon as one of them became president? Did they abandon many of the things that they'd said? Yes, of course. Our corrupts people. Absolutely. But what has made America different is that we have had a higher set of ideals that we have tried to live up to and that we have gotten closer to over time. And I think my concern right now is that on the right, that's being abandoned and not even just

abandoned, but mocked. I reject that, actually. I think it was abandoned by the Democrats first and the right's reacting. Well, I don't think the Democrats were ever holding themselves to those ideals, right? It's always been the conservative ideology, libertarian conservatism that was striving towards those end goals. I completely disagree. You really think the George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'm talking long before that.

But you think the left has ever been striving? I mean, under what administration? Right now, I said Democrat, right? So obviously, the left is a bunch of crackpot lunatics. The Democratic Party over the so the Republicans and Democrats have largely been a uniparty marching in lockstep with the D.C. legal machine funding their fake politicians. Donald Trump wasn't supposed to win, and then he did, and now you've got a populist uprising. Bernie Sanders wasn't supposed to win, and they stopped him.

Don't you think that that's – just to clarify, you're talking about like post-World War II, right? Yes. Okay, just making sure. Yeah, post-World War II, the liberal economic order basically just took the world over. They said we won the Great War. We have jurisdiction over anything. And they built the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, Bank of International Settlements, the Swiss payment system. Israel. Ian knows quite a bit about. And these these are things by which they can put nations in debt to then say it's effectively like kneel before me and I will make you rich. And some countries say no. What we have now is if the argument is. Which side is upholding itself to the Constitution, it's the right,

even to this day, Donald Trump has been slammed with all of these universal injunctions and he keeps listening to them. And then in one instance, this instance with El Salvador, he says it's an El Salvadoran man in Salvadoran custody. I'm not going to get him back. They lose their minds. Orin McIntyre says the side that wants to win will always defeat the side that wants to be left alone. And so right now, what are we looking at? Donald Trump ran for office. He announced it in 2015. They immediately lied in every which way about him to make him look like he was a far right white supremacist evil guy, despite the fact that he was a beloved celebrity by all of his people, including Oprah. And when he got in office, they accused him of treason, argued that he was a spy for a foreign

enemy. And they launched investigation after investigation against him and hamstrung him for the first basically the entire time. And it was only after he won, actually, he wasn't even the midterms. It was, it took a couple of years for the Mueller report. It was only when he brought in Bill Barr that it actually gets shut down. And he actually had some versatility in his first term, but he was locked up the whole time. Then you get in the second, in Joe Biden's first term. They falsely accused him of crimes. They falsely accused him of fraud. They try to put him in jail.

They raid his home. They raid his child's home. They arrested his lawyer more than one. But Jenna Ellis, all she did was draft a letter on at the behest of Donald Trump to challenge a an election proceeding, which anyone in this country has a right to do. So they charged her with two counts of RICO, to which she bawled her eyes out on TV and pleaded guilty to, which she shouldn't have done. And they went after several of other lawyers,

completely unconstitutional actions, complete lies and manipulation. And Trump rolled with all of it and didn't defy any of it. And I'd been saying the whole time, Trump should go to Florida and go to go to Mar-a-Lago and say, come and get me. I refuse to answer to these false charges and put put it on Ron DeSantis to determine whether or not Ron would allow federal authorities to come and arrest the front runner for the Republican Party. Trump wins and they are still playing this game. If Donald Trump were to stop now and say, you know, I don't want to whatever the courts say, I'll do it is over. The deep state wins. This country falls. Right now, we have six hundred and seventy seven district court judges that are acting unconstitutionally and issuing illegal orders.

One, they ruled that Trump as commander in chief cannot determine who serves in the military. In this order, they issued universally anyone can enlist, including bipolar paraplegics. That's nuts. This is an insane ruling that's completely unconstitutional. They tried to do it anyway. Trump's only course of action at this point is to say, OK, that's an illegal ruling and we ignore it because if they were if it was overt and not in the minutiae, like we order Trump to steal a car, he'd say, yeah, I'm not going to do that. That's a criminal offense in this regard, ordering the commander in chief to engage in foreign policy actions, unconstitutional, ordering him to allow individuals suffering from DSM five mental disorders to serve in the armed forces is unconstitutional. If Trump were to obey unconstitutional universal orders by which they have no authority to issue, he would be in violation of the Constitution. So, in fact, I argue, for Trump to uphold the Constitution, he has a sworn duty to defy the courts right now.

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

Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. I mean, I got no problem with it. I'm saying just ignore them. It would be like upholding aspects of the Constitution because I don't think there's a perfect solution if you're going to be like okay i'll uphold the aspect of the constitution that says the judiciary can tell me no then that's a problem but you uphold the other aspects of which say the executive has the authority but like tim was saying universal injunctions are actually an innovation that the framers never

intended with the internet it's weird how much access a georgian local no no no not not no judge has not with the in real time also no not with the internet it started it started in the 60s well there were a few way before then pardon me there were a few in the early 1900s very few but they weren't but they weren't i don't think they were they were nationwide were there yes really okay well the whole uh the whole federal uh the whole fdr administration when he did completely and totally um things that were obviously unconstitutional that went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court did find unconstitutional. There were no universal injunctions, nationwide injunctions by just a district court. It's a whole it's a wholly created idea.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says one court can stop the president from acting specifically for when it comes to foreign policy. Definitely there's nothing that gives a court that power. What's that? So from 2000, I just I pulled it up just from 2000. George W. Bush had six, of which half of them were issued by the opposing party. Obama had 12, of which 58% were by the opposing party. Donald Trump had 64 in his first term only, of which 92% were issued by the opposing party, judges appointed by the opposing party. Biden had 14.

All of them were issued by Republican appointed judges. And let me get 2025's numbers. Ignore them all. by Republican appointed judges. And let me get let me get 2025 numbers. Ignore them all. It's all political. As of 2025, Donald Trump has in a second term. He's been there have been 17 universal injunctions against Donald Trump. Ignore that is last one of them. That is in three months.

Donald Trump has had just about as many injunctions as Joe Biden did in four years. And that's three times as many as George W. Bush had. And almost three times as many as I'm sorry, one and a half times as many as Barack Obama for his entirety. If the 09 to 2017, if the judiciary expects the executive or the American people to take them seriously, then they need to behave as impartial as an impartial judiciary and not as a political arm, period. Let's jump to the story from the New York Sun. Congresswoman claims high ranking Navy officer fired for refusing to hang picture of Trump. No care. The Pentagon confirms that Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield has been removed from her role at NATO. Democrats are taking the Trump admin for the firing of one of the highest ranking

females in the military, with one claiming it was because she wouldn't hang up a picture of the president. There's another story that was posted by at Amuse on X. We don't know. We haven't confirmed it yet, but it's another one. I believe she's a colonel. And there's a photo of Trump and Hagseth and J.D. Vance flipped backwards or the portraits where they should be are backwards. Some have argued that this is because she has not yet received the portraits, portraits. But the the rumor, as reported by a muse, I'd say unconfirmed reporting is that she is outright refusing to show the images of Donald Trump. This is beyond constitutional crisis levels. You've got the judiciary issuing more injunctions against Trump than basically, I think there was like 200 universal injunctions ever issued.

And Trump has something like 80, what is it? 81 of them so far. So he has over almost one half of all universal injunctions ever issued, which are unconstitutional. This is what they refer to as a judicial coup. The judiciary is seeking to obstruct the executive branch, asserting authorities they do not have. You now have stories starting to emerge where high ranking military officials are openly defying the president, outright saying we will outlast him and we will defy him. I mean, that is i don't remember the specific specific article but there is an article in the ucmj the uniform code of military justice that is the law for the military that says that if you are doing these type of things conduct conduct

unbecoming uh insubordination things that that uh um in i forget the wording so i'm not going to try and get into it but this is actually actionable by the military legally but let me i have a question for you guys with this individual who was removed arguably because she would not show trump's picture showing a i believe that shows a disdain for trump but whatever and this and the support this other woman do you believe that there is a possibility that if Trump were to issue a lawful order, they would disobey it? Yes, completely. Some of them for sure. But I'm referring to these particular high ranking officials who refuse to show his picture. I think there's a good chance. Yeah, just lawful. And I think it's fine to fire them. I mean, I don't see any. There's no gray area here. You work in the military. You serve

at the pleasure of the president. That's clear cut to me. My concern is not that Trump can't fire them. Of course he can. And he did. My concern is that we are seeing growing cohorts of individuals in high and high ranking levels of government that are an active defiance or usurp usurping of power. Well, that's always been the case, right? I mean, that was true in his first administration. Absolutely. Like the deep state, the intellect, the, the, uh, I would, I would argue that if we go deep on it, the deep state was in complete control and Trump was the upstart bringing back some kind of constitutional order in 2016 when Trump got elected. That was when an element of constitutional republicanism actually returned to the government. Yeah, I think that that's I think that's true. I wouldn't argue that. And then I think it regained a lot of power under Biden. I think the bureaucratic state's out of control. It's got to be reined in.

That's why I was talking about the Reigns Act. We're trying to pass the state level and the federal level. But there's got to be something done to strip the bureaucrats of their power. I think. But to the point you were making earlier, you were saying that the escalation is making things worse. The escalation with the judiciary. I think it's a problem to ignore the checks and balance system. I think the checks and balances are important. I think we need to reform the justice system. I'd like to see it raised to the ground and restructured. I mean, I could go all day about this. I hate many elements of the justice system, but we have to have it. It's a necessary evil in a actual free country that we have a justice system and that we have those kinds of checks

and balances. So I think the question needs to be, what do we do to reform it? What do we do to get it back under control? What do we do to make sure that our country still has our constitutional system that it was structured to have versus just saying we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have no constitutional means of doing what you're asking. We do. We just have a bunch of weak politicians who aren't doing their jobs. What is the constitutional means? I mean, the means is, again, Congress taking action. We need to pass laws that would rein in the bureaucratic state.

But again, I understand that. But that's a pipe dream. It's not a pipe dream. I mean, we were passing this at the state level every day right now. Why can't we pass it federally? It's inexcusable because Congress is split basically 50 50. Well, because the American people aren't doing their job. They're not holding their feet to the fire. They're not demanding it. They're not breathing down their necks like they should be. But we can get things done. And we did have a huge ruling last year with Chevron deference getting overturned. That's going to be really important for trying to rein some of this back in as well. But we need to be pursuing those kinds of activities.

And I think that the mentality I see happening right now is like the left is really bad and they don't follow the law and they're throwing it all down the river. So we're going to do the same thing. And that ends us in a place that's very bad. I really do think that could end us in an actual civil war. I think that could create a huge chism in our country where it maybe doesn't exist anymore. Whereas if we actually found ways to organize and work together and actually put pressure, I do it. Well, that's what Trump's victory is. And to some extent, that's a good thing. There's many things that I like about Trump. There's many policies I back him on. And I think if he pursues those kinds of mechanisms for reining in the judiciary, I'd back him. But to say we just throw away the checks and balances, we no longer have any check on the presidency, that's not what he's

saying, but that's what some people are saying around him. As we've already determined, the judiciary... I don't think he has to act in this case. I was saying earlier, I think the Supreme Court's ruling on this case is very mushy. They said he had to facilitate the return legally. That doesn't mean he has to go and get this guy. It just means he has to cooperate if they want to return him. So I actually don't think that he's legally in the wrong right now. We know the judiciary is acting outside the confines of the Constitution. Often, literally, universal injunctions are unconstitutional. And Trump has almost half of all ever issued in 250 some odd years or whatever. He just doesn't have to listen to the judiciary at all the rest of his presidency.

If the if the courts tell Trump to do something illegal, he must defy that. If the courts are acting unconstitutionally, Trump must uphold the Constitution by stopping those actions. That's what the executive branch makes the question, though. Who decides what's legal? So the issue is the judiciary has been unchecked. How should the executive branch check the judiciary? I would say it would be by lobbying and organizing and working to pass laws that would rein it in. But that's Congress. You're talking about Congress. Congress is a separate.

There's three branches. The president has a lot of control over Congress, especially right now. I mean, he could be doing it. a separate. There's three branches. The president has a lot of control over Congress, especially right now. I mean, he could be doing. Hold on. There's three branches. Each can check each other. Right. What is the executive branch mechanism for checking a rogue judiciary?

They could nominate judges. Well, now it's full, but that's the executive's check on the judiciary. Their ability. There's other checks. I think that's the main one that they get to nominate judges. And people would argue that Trump nominated three. Supreme Court justices. Yeah. their ability there's other checks i think that's the main one that they get to nominate judges and people would argue that trump nominated three supreme court justices yeah trump can instruct the executive branch not to listen to any other branch he's the head with sole executive power

and this is what executive orders are and he can't do that and it's only by trump playing fair or being nice in agreement does he do anything otherwise. So typically we have in this country is an unasked question, I suppose, for hundreds of years of if each of these brands are independent and equal and they check each other, then. How is it that a president can issue an executive order to federal law enforcement not to enforce the law? Isn't that the legislative branch putting a check in the executive saying you have to do this? Would the judge then say, no, you have to do it?

But the president could just say no. And that's exactly what happened with DACA. Obama just said we're no longer going to enforce the law. That's in defiance of the judiciary and the legislative branch because the executive has sole authority over its executive functions. The executive naturally is arguably, well, actually there is no most powerful because the Supreme Court issues rulings that affect the entirety of smaller and lesser jurisdictions. In this regard, the check is quite simple. When the courts are rogue, you do not abide by them.

That's it. But then how do you decide that as the executive? Who decides that if the judiciary is roped? Does the executive decide that? It's a constitutional crisis in which I said it's a largely unasked questions over nearly 250 years. Right now, universal injunctions are plainly unconstitutional. The way the law is supposed to work, English common law particularly, which we are based off of, is that a judge can issue a ruling pertaining to the parties before him. Class action lawsuits exist so that he can affect larger groups of people. But the class action is still pertaining only to those individuals party to the class action. Instead, what's happening is nearly all Democrat judges, nearly not all, but nearly all are saying

Trump wants three individuals transferred prisons because they're men in women's prisons. Now, from now on, all prisons must have, you know, anyone who's trans. What? That's a sweeping unilateral decree. Judges don't have that authority. No one is stopping them. Now, the problem is we can't rely on Congress. They're dysfunctional.

And there's no there's no argument of, yes, but they shouldn't be. Well, of course they shouldn't be. But they are. The only hope we have then is an executive branch with executive authorities to be like, we're not going to abide by unconstitutional actions. Or like rectify Congress. You know, the Romans fell apart when they gave up on Congress, basically. How do you rectify Congress?

There's a lot of, I mean, there's a lot of laws we could work to change, especially around financing. Congress is not going to do that. Congress polices itself in that regard. They give give themselves raises but never bar themselves from serving multiple terms or being restricted on how they how they campaign that's true but even god police don't police themselves as it were right that's true but that's because nobody is pressuring them you have trump who has the biggest bully pulpit in the world he has unprecedented levels of support he has a cult like following if he were to come out and say, we are going to campaign, we are going to work to get Congress

to pass this law, and I'm going to work to get people to primary. They could barely pass a CR. But nobody puts it. Seriously. Yeah, they could barely pass a CR. They have a two-seat majority with squishy Democrats and Republicans, so both sides are And Thomas Massey acting like a leftist. So I don't even... Easy.

I don't even know how you square this. I don't think he could get all of the Republicans on the same page. But I think the key here is if Congress delegates enough of their power to the executive branch, eventually they're going to have to try to claw it back and the executive will just be more powerful. I think a quote equal branches is a myth. And throughout the United States history, we've always seen some branches take more power and become more powerful than the others in a kind of a cyclical way. Right now, it seems as though the executive branch is growing. The power of the executive is growing. Not only mass media, but so long as Congress is dysfunctional,

they will continue to atrophy. And if they have slim majorities one way or another, their power will atrophy because they won't be able to pass stuff. And if they have slim majorities one way or another, their power will atrophy because they won't be able to pass stuff. And that's just really what it comes down to. Because if they can't exercise their power with majorities in the House or the Senate, you can't get anything done. I want to jump to this story here

to continue the conversation. This is from the Daily Mail. Luigi Mangione copycat unmasked as his mother reveals why he turned up at UnitedHe United Healthcare ready to kill. Did you guys catch this story? We briefly mentioned it, but the news has now come out. Ian Stanley Wagner, 26, was arrested after he arrived at the United Healthcare HQ at Minnetonka with a gun threatening to shoot it up. His mom, apparently they say that he had no known motives

against them. We don't know what this is. so it is clear. This is just somebody who was inspired by the likes of Taylor Lorenz, who said she gains a big audience by defending Luigi Mangione. And she said that women view him as morally good and handsome. What do you think this guy is thinking when he hears this on CNN. So why does Luigi Mangione do what he did, allegedly, and why are leftists supporting him? Well, as Taylor Lorenz laid out, they view the system as largely dysfunctional with no means of rectifying any of their perceived problems. Now, don't get me wrong. I never said they were smart. No one ever accused him of being as such. Shooting a random guy who happens to be the CEO of a company who just got hired like a year prior literally changed nothing. So not only was Manjani very dumb, he's also particularly ineffective at bringing about

change. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is nonviolent and bringing about tremendous change. But the reason I bring this up in the context of the greater conversation, as you mentioned previously, your fears of civil war or the potentiality of one, not that you were saying was going to happen. So I would just posit this. Who in this country, which political faction has driven us to the brink of civil strife and generated the fears of a civil war? The Democrats arrested Trump's lawyers. That is unconstitutional. They claimed it's justified because they're criminals. Sure, that's what dictators do. They falsely accused him of crimes.

They tried to prevent him from running for office. They argued he was ineligible, which is a lie. You look at what these similar elements do in Europe. They remove Marine Le Pen and what's his name, Georgescu, Georgulescu or whatever. Yeah, that's. President's name wrong. In Romania, they say he's ineligible. You can't run.

They are actively trying to strip the rights of the people. Outside of that, at the lower tiers, they are firebombing Tesla stores. They are attacking private Tesla owners. They're shooting up cars. They are murdering people, cheering on more. If there is a risk of civil civil war or strife or whatever is going on, the escalation is purely from the political left wing, which includes liberals. It includes socialists and communists, et cetera.

People like Luigi Mangione make me actually consider wanting to send criminals to places like El Salvador. And on this Taylor Lorenz thing, something that I think she said that is extremely telling was that, oh, look, I gained a big audience as a result of my coverage of him. Online people, personalities are so susceptible to audience capture or perceived audience capture. One of her main points is, oh, why is this an important thing to cover?

And why is this an important thing to continue supporting? Because I get support online. That is one of the reasons that she actually supports this and i think that's a large reason why a lot of influencers um online in conservative or liberal spaces support what they do support so that's all to say i think a lot of this stuff is astroturf to anybody who supports luigi mangione clearly has something wrong with them in the head and i think that of taylor lorenz i also think that of the people who platform tay Lorenz like CNN. I hear you, but this is like, what is it, like 70% of the left supports Luigi Mangione to some degree? So I think it's leftists, not liberals, who generally support Luigi Mangione. I don't think that's true.

You think it's liberals? Maybe not a majority of general liberals, like moderate voters, but I believe that maybe a third. I'll look it up to Fact Check. AOC supporters, yes, cory booker supporters no if that's it seems like a pretty hard hard line communist type position because if you're a left as you're an eat the rich and this goes along with like medicare for all 47 percent of very liberal individuals according to you gov had a had a favorable view of luigi mangione 31 of very liberals uh let me let me pull up the full report actually december uh does it say what percentage of mental illness because i'd assume it

was most of them again you truly i really think it can't be overstated how sick of an individual you have to be mentally to support something like this it's the vigilante obsession with vigilante ism that I think is driving it. And if you don't know what's actually happening at the echelons of finance that are controlling the flow of money with the healthcare system

and the food industry, if you don't know, on its face, it looks like pharma bad, pharma CEO worse. And I love a good vigilante. There's people thinking like John Wick's a hero.

Wow. John Wick? Yeah, he goes full vigilante and starts killing just indiscriminately a bunch of people. So 28% of liberals are favorable or some very favorable or somewhat favorable to Luigi Mangione.

30% don't know. 16% of moderates are favorable. 15% of conservatives are favorable and 6% of very conservatives are favorable. Is there a gender breakdown as well? let's see i don't i don't know there's a there's a whole lot of this going on there's a lot there's an age breakdown but the age largely aligns with political ideology as well it seems as though women are it's not just luigi mangione but it's it's this type of like i don't know murderer where women feel very drawn to them and write letters to them in jail.

No. Maybe you could explain to us. I actually listened to a really good podcast on this recently, and I'm so mad I'm blanking on what it was, but it did a great deep dive into the psyche behind this of women being attracted to criminals. And I think that on a surface level, we were actually talking about this in the green room, if you identify with a victim or you identify with somebody in the the case you know that can cause a lot more interest as a woman so if somebody my age is murdered or something happens to somebody who has similar

background to me i have more interest in that case or more attachment to it but when you get into the women actually being attracted to the murder so past this the passing interest in true crime that is according to the podcast i listened to i thought this was a good theory is women being attracted to the power that men have like the brute force that men have and wanting to inhabit it for themselves to a degree he's a bad boy he's a dangerous man of course but at an individual level yeah that's why an individual who murders lots of people has a carnal kind of power so so you guys, most of you guys have heard of home math, right? No. Oh, yeah.

There's this, there's this one that he, there's one, uh, tick tock or whatever they mean. And it's not really about him, but it's about the girl that he was, he was talking about. This woman was saying, I just want to meet the guy that takes his sword and puts it under my chin and lifts it up. Right.

Because the point is the dude just like the, the fantasy is he just slaughtered the village and she's the one he leaves. And instead of killing her, he picks her. And what it is, is he has the power to do absolutely horrific violence. And it has massive power, but he chooses not to for her so she has him under her thumb well

well i don't know about it i'm not so much sure it's the control but he has chosen her so he doesn't do violence to her he protects her and that's what people think when women look at louis mangioni he's an attractive guy that has the ability to go and commit violence and this is why the over overwhelmingly young women are sexually attracted to Donald Trump. Because of his meekness? Do we have that on that? That's not correct. That phenomenon is called meekness.

What you said, the meek shall inherit the earth. It's the one that's very powerful, but knows how to not use it. Oh yeah, that's not what he's saying. That's not what meek is. Meek is someone that's very strong and dangerous, but they choose not to use it. No.

Check it out. That's not what Phil is saying either. He's saying that the guy that murders the town has the ability to kill the woman he chooses. Quiet, gentle, and easily imposed upon and submissive. Yeah, that's not what it means. You should keep reading about it. Well, I just pulled it up. That's what it says.

It comes from the Old Norse mjörk, mjöker, which means soft and gentle, which evolved through modern English to myok, which means courteous. It can be implied to patience and endurance in the face of injury, but the common understanding is that you're quiet and docile. That's the misnomer. In the Bible, meek specifically refers to what you're talking to.

Yes, the Bible. No, no, no. The Bible's strength under control. That's what they say in the Bible. That's what they're talking about. The strong ones that know how to not... Yeah, you know, total annihilative strength, but you know how not to exercise it unnecessarily.

But again, that's not what Phil was saying. Well, he's saying the guy slaughters the village, but then he chooses not to slaughter the woman. That's not meekness. I think it is. I think you know when to protect and you know when to destroy. That's what makes someone meek. No, it's not meek.

The point is she likes him because of his exercising of power a meek person has power and doesn't exercise it that's what makes them me or they know when to exercise it well i mean maybe but the context that we're talking about like that's to call a guy that just slaughtered a whole village meek is an error of use of definition i wouldn't if he hadn't chosen to protect the woman after he slaughtered the village, I wouldn't have called him meek. But that's the aspect that's meekness there. Is that, I mean... You are misunderstanding.

Need I go on? I don't know. Yes. What Phil is referring to is that a man who massacres a ton of people has chosen to exert his strength over everyone else to the point where he's ended their life. And then she is spared.

That's not meekness. Meekness would be a barbarian king like Genghis Khan comes to the village and says I will spare all of you for this beautiful woman I get I get where you're coming from I don't agree with you guys by the way I mean I want to argue about this and it but yeah it doesn't matter so let's do this Luigi Mangione will be acquitted he will be acquitted because far leftists are going to riot outside the courthouse and they're going to they're going to they're going to stalk the jurors and the jury is going to enter court surrounded by men with rifles. And they are going to know when they go home, the juror's wife is going to say, if you put him in prison, they're going to

kill us. And he's going to say, I'll just say not guilty. I'll just say not guilty. And he's going to get acquitted. That's the country we live in right now. And even if Donald Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy law enforcement, whatever jurisdiction they're trying him in, you cannot escape 200,000 people across the country and every 10,000 people in every big city smashing windows and burning things down. When Derek Chauvin went to court, the defense argued, the defense had a guy on cross and said, was he justified, Derek Chauvin went to court, the defense argued the defense had a guy on cross and said, was he justified Derek Chauvin in using a greater degree of force? And they said, yes, the continuum of force training in Minnesota allows for Chauvin to have escalated to impact

weapons, not just restraint. He chose not to escalate, even though they argued that the jury still convicted him. The feds still went after him. Why? When a jury is being brought into a courtroom surrounded by men with guns and they can see all around them far left terrorists threatening to murder them, they're not going to cross him. So Luigi Mangione literally shoots and kills a guy and he's being celebrated by Colbert. He's being celebrated. I should say the people on these shows, they've celebrated the Tesla terror attacks. It is going to be painfully obvious to anybody who's on the jury when they look at these polls that overall you have 21 percent of all U.S. adults who are favorable towards Luigi Mangione. 21%. It only takes 10 crazy people.

If you are known to 10 crazy people, your life is in jeopardy. But when you have Taylor Lorenz on CNN laughing it up with Donnie O'Sullivan, he's so handsome. This juror is going to be like, oh my God, not guilty. I don't know how Mangione can get a fair trial. He's too public. Like, what do you do? It's the same thing with Chauvin. Like, you couldn't give that guy a fair trial. He's going to be found not guilty. He's not. My understanding is he's not taking a plea agreement.

I could be wrong. I'm just saying. Did they offer him one? I don't know where we're currently at with this. I am saying that... Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer.

From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun.

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. I mean, tell me if you think I'm wrong. If you're in the chat, tell me if you think I'm wrong. Will leftist rioters threaten the lives of jurors in the Mangione case to force them to rule him not guilty?

I still haven't. I haven't seen anything lately that makes that leads me to believe that there is that energy that we had in 2020. I think it was the lockdowns that pushed that. You don't think that like the firebombing over 50 different. I'm sorry. Firebombing of Tesla locations, which includes over 50 different terror attacks on Tesla vehicles and facilities, doesn't show that energy is here. When you say 50 different terror attacks on facilities and vehicles, are you talking about individual vehicles? Are you talking about individual vehicles and by – So the report –

50 different places where they were. The report is that there have been 50 incidents of terror attacks on Tesla pertaining to Tesla vehicles and facilities. I feel like that probably does include individual vehicles. I'm not entirely sure. That was just the report. That's over 50. I guess my question is how many people are carrying out those attacks? I mean, having a few crazy people doing terrorist things doesn't mean that we're going to see what we saw. If you had one stalker, would you be terrified?

In 2020, we had... If one person... I think the question is, is the energy where it was in 2020? And I don't feel that it is either. Is that required to convince a jury to rule not guilty? I don't think the pressure campaign's going to get to that point. I think there's a lot of people

online talking trash and doing this whole thing, like, when the pressure campaign is going to that point. Has there ever been a lot of people online talking trash and doing this whole thing? Like when the billionaire died, going to see Titanic and all the people on TikTok were like, yeah, Titanic, send more billionaires down. Are they people who express themselves in this kind of way? And is that awful? Yes. But does that mean these are actually violent people who are going to carry out violent actions and threaten people or commit illegal acts?

I don't think so. I think there are a lot of pissed off people who are angry and they're angry at the elite and they're expressing that through these kinds of polls. 2020 riots were about lockdowns, not about George Floyd. I agree. So without something as infuriating as being locked in your home for several months, I don't know that we ever get to riots that were just random wanton destruction. However, we have had protests, what, every single weekend for the past three months escalating.

We have had 50 attacks on Tesla to whatever degree that is. I know that 15 of them were serious arson and shootings because that was that was the report back last month. That was where the guy firebombed the charging station. One guy shot up a Tesla dealership and we had a bunch of those instances. There was about 15 of them. I don't know about the remaining 35 that may just be on vehicles, individual vehicles, but I'm not sure if that's the case. The left right now is organizing for a for an April 19th nationwide protest, which they're arguing and all over right, they're saying will be the biggest that we've seen in this country in years or since the Iraq war.

That'll be your bellwether. But to me, it feels like the wind has been sucked out of the sails ever since Trump's election. I hope that's the case. I feel like people feel very demoralized. I feel like they feel like it was such an overwhelming victory that I feel like it's actually gone quiet, if anything. And I mean, I'm somebody in the middle.

I'm very independent. I'm not really a Trump fan. I've never voted for Trump. I like some things Trump does, but I don't see that kind of energy, that kind of resistance, that kind of organizing. And that's the real key, right? That's what was so dangerous about 2020 was the organizing factor. You had actual intentionality, people who understood ground

games that were behind those protests. I suppose it's I will say this. I hope you're right, because my argument in the election was that if Trump won the popular vote, too many people would be like, I don't want to be on the wrong side of history. And so they immediately back off whatever the shenanigans was going to be. That being said, spring has only just sprung. It's been, we're about a month in. It's starting to get nice out. And so the question is going to be, how big do the protests get in the summer, which is riot season?

I think that the actual issue is less the protests and riots and more the fact that the left seems to have people or a fewer amount of people willing to do more than they were willing before. So there were two attempts on Trump's life. You have people actually firebombing Tesla dealerships. Now, there was destruction of property and stuff during the Summer of Love, but it was not targeted. We had the swattings. Pardon me? Swattings this year. We had 20 swattings. Pardon me? Swattings this year. We had 20 plus people swatted.

It's attempted murder. Owen Schroyer taking a shirt off and walking backwards at gunpoint. So I think that there's something to that. The fact that they're willing to go, there are fewer people that are involved. So you don't have the average normie. The people that have to go to work

are going to work as opposed to being caught up at home with nothing to do or the people that have to go to work are going to work as opposed to being you know caught up at home with nothing to do or the people that are motivated to have something outside of political activism or political rioting or whatever they'll they're not going to be involved but i do think that there is something to the intensity of the few people that do act the intensity levels that actually the political extremism within the fringes is perhaps more volatile and i think the left and i think communism as a. And I think the left and I think communism as a whole is an inherently violent ideology. And I think as those extremes on the

left move closer and closer to true Marxism, you're going to see more and more of that. And I think to some extent that the right and the entire MAGA movement has been in response to that growth on the left. And that's, you know, horseshoe theory repeating over and over. So and that's where my fear comes in, because if the right says they're doing this, so we match them and we just keep doing this, that ends up in some very scary places ultimately. Yes. But if you don't match them, you get a communist revolution. And this is something communists are knocking on your door, trying to break it down. And the argument is, do we push back or do we just sit back?

This is something that we talked about a little bit here on the show before. Look, if there's going to be some kind of political uprising, I want it to be when the conservatives are in control of the apparatus of the state. Because if the left is in control of the apparatus of the state, you're going to see things that will turn into an abolition of property rights or the significant problems that the left causes

in countries around the world. Those kind of things will come here and that will cascade globally because if you don't have solid property rights here in the United States, that's going to be a massive problem for investment here. And there's a problem for investment here that cascades globally. So I think those kind of problems are something that

we need to avoid. And if that means that the revolution should happen when there's a conservative in charge, so they control power, then I'm OK with that. Let's jump to this story from CBS News. Trump cannot revoke legal status of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Judge rules. Well, Joe Biden's administration unilaterally just decreed they were going to let people come and not enforce the law. And now that Trump is saying you got to go back, a judge is saying he can't. Which is insane.

And once again, a universal injunction, which doesn't pertain to a single individual, but to any and everyone, which is 532,000 individuals. Now, let me explain for those that don't know why Democrats did this. When they bring in illegal immigrants, the census eventually happens and they will add congressional seats to their blue states, which give them more votes in Congress and more votes for the president. If we were to remove every illegal immigrant, Democrats would likely lose. I believe the number might be like 12 congressional seats and 12 electoral votes if there were no illegal immigrants. Now, we've talked about this quite a bit. Some people ask, but how does an illegal immigrant give them more votes? Congress is a congressional seats are apportioned based on

total population size, not citizenry. So when they do the census, they don't care if you're a citizen or not. You will have a congressional rep even if you're an illegal immigrant. And there are some districts that might have 50,000 illegal immigrants in them, meaning they get federal representation despite not being citizens. And that means their voice is a vote. Now, the second class citizens, but the Democrats still get extra votes. So when we look at politics in this country and the left likes to argue, we are winning these elections and this proves we're more popular, blah, blah, blah, whatever. No, it's actually that they're cheating and they've been

cheating the whole time. If Trump does not deport these individuals, when the census comes around, if he doesn't do this, Democrats are going to bolster their numbers. And they require substantially less political pressure on the American population to win elections. Yeah. He tried to make citizens – you had to be a citizen to be counted on the census. No, he simply asked on the census if you were a citizen. The Supreme Court barred him from doing it. And I didn't like it at the time. But now I'm starting want – I just didn't want to give more information than I had to. But now I'm starting to see maybe a potential value of it.

I mean, come on. You don't count noncitizens. That's so ridiculous. They do. That shouldn't happen. I'm sorry, guys. It shouldn't happen, man. that know if 20% of their district is illegal immigrants, they cannot vote against them, and they can't vote for laws to deport them. It's like holding Congress hostage.

It's not non-functional. I don't understand. Where does it come from? Why would we do that even in the beginning? Who's the judge? Where does he rule from? That's what I want to know. Who is this guy?

It's a singular district court judge indira talwani where the hell is that let's find out his name judge indira talwani where is that what district talwani is a woman that's all you need to know indira is a woman's name all right indira and uh she is for the district of massachusetts I'm sorry. Oh, boy. That tracks. One individual judge out of six hundred and seventy seven can issue a universal injunction on the entire executive branch. Why can't that be challenged? Why can't they appeal that? Why doesn't that keep going up? They do appeal them. And that's the problem. This is this. OK, when the Republicans appeal unconstitutional decrees by a rogue judiciary, they're basically saying, we recognize your authority to do this.

We're going to ask your buddies if we can do something else instead of being like, no, you can't do that. So what's unconstitutional about it? There is no authority granted in the Constitution of the judiciary to issue universal decrees over the entirety of the nation. How has this been happening then for so long? It hasn't. You said since early 1900s, it's been there were a few in the early 1900s that everyone kind of rolled their eyes at and said, whatever. They were unconstitutional, though, still. Yes. Jeez. But there's a lot

of unconstitutional things that have happened in this country. And you choose your battles. Yeah. And slavery was unconstitutional. Blasphemy laws were unconstitutional. They all existed. What's happened is we have seen an increase in universal injunctions since the 2010s. Trump has almost half of all of them. They real time now where somebody in Massachusetts can hear what the president said and immediately issue a response than the executive authorities before it took days for the president. No, it took months for the newspaper to come out on Sunday, maybe then you'd see it. And now, you know, someone in Massachusetts would hear two months later that in Congress, they passed a law that did a certain thing that affected his business. And then he would draft a lawsuit, which would take months to send back to D.C. And then it would take months to organize a court. And in the meantime, when they passed the law,

nobody in Massachusetts was abiding by it because the word doesn't travel. Now that it's all lightning speed, it's all light speed. A law is declared and instantly you must abide by it. Imagine living in California in the late 1800s. And then some dude rides up and says he's a marshal at the U.S. government. They just banned guns. You'd be like, what? They did that in Do Something about it. Tombstone.

That's what set off the Tombstone. The movie. They want to take the guns from the guys. They try to take the guns in town. And then there was a shootout. And you're in the middle of the Wild West. You're like, bro, I don't know you. OK, you don't live here.

Like back then, a lawman would show up and they'd be like i gotta be honest bro if you fell in that ditch and died right now ain't nobody coming looking for you that was the wild west these days everything everything is light speed and this is one of the reasons i think we're seeing this this conflict escalate so rapidly yeah there's got to be now a response like an immune response what's the response to this just trump saying no yeah so you could immediately say no you could allow it to exist for an hour and then it disappears so you get a one hour injunction but we're talking about military apparatus you know you can't if the minnesota judge is trying to stop trump from doing some military exercise puts a stay you can't wait an hour to be like no in that instance you're

like sorry executive authority trump just start deporting all of these people and they're like but we told you you can't he can say oh unfortunately for you you issued a universal injunction which is unconstitutional so have a nice day enforce it and the chief justice has made his decision now let him enforce it here's the issue no matter what trump does democrats will say it was illegal so either trump does nothing or Trump does, Democrats will say it was illegal. So either Trump does nothing or he does something they will call illegal. All of Joe Biden let either 10 or 20 million illegal immigrants into this country in violation of our laws, of our Constitution. He facilitated child sex trafficking. Donald Trump is now sending criminal human traffickers, drug dealers back, and they're calling it illegal. They are lying about a man in El Salvador who was ruled by two courts to be an MS-13 gang member who had two orders for deportation.

And when Trump deports him, they could they could be honest, right? They could. They could say, hey, the guy had to stay. You can't do that, Trump. Instead, they said he's a Maryland father who was here legally. Those are all lies. But that is literally what these members of Congress have said. He was here legally. No, he wasn't.

They lie. No matter what Trump and his administration do, they're going to be told it's they're going to say it's unconstitutional. It's illegal. And that's the only thing you're gonna hear from the corporate press. So Trump has two choices. Use his executive authority, which is he could deport these people under the executive branch. That's what he can do. Ignore universal injunctions for which there's no constitutional authority granted. And they're going to call it illegal no matter

what he does. Yeah, I mean, and there's also something that we haven't really touched on that that really is the heart of this. This is the establishment trying to stymie the outsider. And as much as I know people are going to have a problem with calling Trump the outsider, but Trump is the guy that was elected saying, I'm going to drain the swamp. The swamp is not is going to fight back. And this is the swamp fighting back. That's the vibe I got. Oh, well, that's exactly what it is. The reason they're doing these things is to stymie the power of the executive

because as of right now, Trump has put multiple things in motion that will actually have a significant effect on the power of not only the quote-unquote deep state, the entrenched bureaucracies, but also the Democrat Party, which has been

totally in cahoots with the government to fund its own programs. You saw it through the USAID stuff. It's been the NGOs that were all Democrat. They were full of Democrats. The funding to multiple media outlets, the funding to NPR, all of these organizations, they were all part of an apparatus meant to further leftist ideology and leftist programs. Trump is trying to disassemble that. And so what you're getting right now is the pushback against that attempt.

I got it. None of this matters. Arguing minutiae and law. Ian, I want you to close your eyes. I want you to imagine you're 11 years old. It's Christmas morning. You're running downstairs. You can smell fresh, fresh cinnamon buns in the oven that mom's making. You run down to your living room. There's the Christmas tree. Sun is just coming up. There's some candles lit and all of those presents. They're right there for you. That's Donald Trump's America. But then a Democrat comes in and kicks your tree over and he starts putting up communist fists on the wall. The Democrat, my dad. Oh, man, not again. That was that was 1992 all over again. Well, that's what it feels like. My main point is the America that Donald Trump is espousing is the Christmas morning white picket fence, fresh pancakes. That is not to say that he's a perfect guy. That is the idealized vision of what Trump supporters see when they imagine making America great again.

Families. And it's not a race thing. They lie about Tucker Carlson. And he had an epic response when he's like, what? The interests of black Americans are the same as all Americans. He's not he's not talking about race. He said the illegal immigrants who are coming and displacing these communities are negatively impacting the black families the same. The problem is white liberal women. That's what he said. The left is advancing some deranged, fractured, pseudo multicultural world where everybody is isolated. People are ranked by race.

Christmas is called holiday. And they take away the American tradition, the memories we have, what built this country up and made it good. And they're an open defiance of the law and the Constitution. On the ground, they're burning things down, killing people and committing acts of terrorism. At the corporate level, they're burning things down, killing people and committing acts of terrorism. At the corporate level, they're lying to the American people. At the legislative level, they are engaging in what I would call a coup. When they accused Trump of being a spy, working for a foreign adversary, effectively of treason, that was a soft coup attempt. Now you've got a judicial coup.

The worldview presented by Democrats is decay war and destruction you mentioned the the commune i think it's gracious to call the technocratic you know brain rot communist i think it's much more dangerous than communism what it's like the communist ethos with technology a real id baby uh crypto track your money kind of thing anyway that thing is i find grotesque and it does feel like they're coming to say we want to destroy your american way of life we want to destroy the system and and the response is if the person's going to do anything to destroy you and you just want to be left alone they're eventually going to do it so you have to step up and prevent it you have to fight back in a sense or at least push back but the problem is how do you do that without actually destroying the system in the process because they'll they'll win if they beat you or if you lose.

They're happy to see you fail and mess up your attempt. And they're also happy to just take it from you. So it may be that every four generations, there is a great period of tumult. This is what I was talking about with libertarians. It's an ideology that I feel largely only exists in times of great peace. The idea that I can say I shouldn't have to, I can do what I want only exists when you're not facing a threat, because I'll put it this way. During Occupy Wall Street, the police asserted they had the right to declare frozen zones. They would look at any protester and be like, that's that's frozen. You can't stand there. And you go, what? You can't

just decree I can't stand on the sidewalk. That was their authority. And the act, the activists there said authority doesn't exist. That's what they argued. They said it's all BS. And I said, no, authority does exist. Authority is when a man collapses in the street in front of a crowd of people and everybody runs over to try and render aid. looks at you and says, you on the ground now, hold hold down on a pompous chest. Every do what I'm telling you. You say, yes, sir. Ninety nine percent of people would be like, OK, a man says he's a doctor. You trust him. We trust each other. We tend to maybe he's lying. He's probably not. He needs your help to save a man's life. That's authority. He says, I need you to save this man's life. And, you know, you must do it. That's real authority. So what I feel we are largely dealing with is through periods of peace, largely after World War II, you get great prosperity and everybody kind of chills out. There's no bear threatening us. But what would happen if there was? Or maybe there is. Russia, right? Yeah, that's funny. What if you were in a campsite, Ian,

and you were with Jocko and all of a sudden a bear approached. Jocko Willink. If a bear came up, what would you do? First thing I would do is glance at Jocko. And you'd ask him, what do I do? I would definitely want to know what his plan was, yes. You have no freedom. He's like an ex-military, Navy SEAL badass. Yeah, Jocko's got the front range right now.

He would look you in the eye and say, do what I tell you. And you would. Absolutely without question. In times of threatened danger, we look to great leaders who we believe can help save our lives because we are not the experts on all of these things. That doesn't say we're a perfect period. But the point is, if a bear strolled up to your campsite and Jocko said, everyone, listen to me right now.

I need you to do this. And you went, hey, man, you can't tell me what to do. He'll say, OK, and then you get eaten by the bear. I fully agree. This is libertarianism. Libertarianism is fine when the country is secure in your safety bubble and you have no great threats. See, I push back to that. I actually think back to your point you were making, that if you fight the left with their own tools, look at what happened during 9-11. This was the same mentality that took place after that event where we said anything goes. The Constitution gets thrown out. We can't pick liberty. We have to pick safety. We have to pick strongmen. We have to get rid of these rules. We have to get rid of these pesky restraints and we're going to fight them. And what happened is exactly what the hijackers intended to happen, where America destroyed itself in that process. We undid our constitution. We put ourselves in debt. We lost tons of lives and we didn't make the world any safer, but we did ruin our country. We've had tension ever since. So who is the aggressor?

The aggressor is a terrorist, but we played into their very game by doing what they wanted us to do, which was turning on our principles and selling out. In the context of the United States stripping the rights of individuals and declaring wars, the aggressors against us were those who exploited a terror attack. Now, it's fine to say I agree the terrorists were the aggressors. Following this, the Bush administration lied to us to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. And we let them because we said, this isn't a time for libertarianism. This isn't a time for our constitutional principles. This is

a time for security. And this is a time for us to trust the people in charge. And this is a time for us to put the safety of our country before our rights. And what did we get for that? But that doesn't change the fact that in true wartime, this is why false flags exist. I'm not saying 9-11 was a false flag. I'm saying this is why governments throughout history have used false flags like the Gulf of Tonkin, specifically because they know that the average person is not equipped to deal with war and needs specialists to do it for them. Now, this I could agree with you on. Is the average person going to be attracted to libertarianism? Do they even want to live under true freedom? That's a great debate.

That's a great debate. I would say absolutely no, that most people don't want to actually have freedom. And that is probably the actual fatal flaw in libertarianism is that the vast majority of people don't truly want to be free, don't want to be adults, do want to have a parental figure looking out for them. One of the things that the biggest problem I see in libertarianism is this there's it's it's something that that that is is all americans and all people kind of uh are guilty of this but there's always talk of liberty but there is no talk of responsibility every single freedom that you have comes with with responsibilities attached to it you do not get the liberties without the responsibilities,

and libertarianism never talks about the responsibilities. So let's clarify what this really comes down to, though. During 9-11, when the buildings were collapsing and fires were everywhere, would you agree that if you were doing relief efforts on the ground, you would do as you were told? If they said, I need you to go over there and start moving that box and doing this? I mean, yeah, if I'm a first responder, am I going to follow the- No, what if you just lived in New York

and they said, listen, I need you to go over there and do this. We need help. Would you say, no, get someone else to do it? Or would you be like, okay, I can- Yeah, I probably would have just gotten the hell out of there if I'm being honest. If I'm being completely honest

and there's an emergency, a catastrophe happening, I'm going to find the quickest evacuation route and get out of there. Even if someone, so like, let's's i understand that makes sense in the event but i'm saying in in the in the response after the buildings have collapsed if someone said you ma'am come here i need your help you'd say no i mean yeah but that's partly let's be clear i'm a woman so my instincts are not to come when somebody asked me for help because they're probably trying to lure me into a trap so i find that actually surprising i'd imagine most people in most women actually and that's why women get killed because they're probably trying to lure me into a trap. I find that actually surprising. I'd imagine most people. Most women actually.

And that's why women get killed. Because they're too nice. They refuse to help? No, because they're too nice. They offer to help. They follow somebody. They go where they're asked to go. They get the guy.

I'm not talking about walking through a dark alley. I'm saying the buildings have collapsed. You're standing there on the ground. That impulse is deadly for women oftentimes. And so I have trained myself to not adapt to that. If a man approaches me in a parking lot and says I need just to clarify in the aftermath of 9-11 with people who are dying and someone said ma'am please help me you'd say no yeah most likely if I felt like my life was in danger in that anyone else and they're calling you over and saying come over and do this is a

woman thing would you guys say no I would have helped that day I'm not saying I'm not saying they're telling you to like go go jump go jump into a fire. Oh, I have a fantasy about saving a little kid from the middle of the street. In fact, I did that in New York City one time. There was a burning house and I walked out into the street and stopped traffic. I'm not saying anyone's telling you to run into a burning building. I'm saying it's the aftermath. The buildings are down and someone says, please help me. Oh yeah. And there's a dude on the ground bleeding a hundred percent. Yeah. I think this might be a male female divide. Honestly, I wouldn't make that make sense. So in the context of the ground bleeding. 100%. Yeah, I think this might be a male-female divide, honestly.

I would. I mean, that makes sense. So in the context of the Jocko thing with the bear, I'd liken what you're describing with 9-11 to two scenarios. One, a bear comes and mauls a bunch of people to death. So then Jocko says, guys, bears are attacking us. We need to take precautions and set things up. And we go, makes sense. Like, we should listen on how to prevent bear attacks. The second scenario is a guy in a bear costume that Jocko hired things up. And we go, makes sense. Like we should listen on how to prevent bear attacks. The second scenario is a guy in a bear costume that Jocko hired shows up and then goes rawr and then kill somebody says, oh boy, you better listen to me. Evil people exist and evil people

do do these things. But in the context of human civilization, we typically would respond to our leaders in times of war and conflict with tell me what to do and i will do it that's why conscription exists so we brought up a false flag this is all about uh false flags and getting people you're saying to get all about false flags it's all about this conversation started you the conversation libertarianism oh oh yeah only exists in times of peace it's a a luxury. It is a luxury item. Libertarianism doesn't exist in our country at all. It's idealistic, and people who are libertarians don't need to deal with the real-world policies

that exist and really don't deal with the politics in a serious manner. You just get to be very principle-based online, but they're never in power in government to have to compromise their value. So they have some influence in some of the Republican Party, but it's a fairy tale. And libertarians online, it's all a fairy tale. never in power in government to have to compromise their value so there they have some influence in

some of the republican party but it's a fairy tale and libertarians online it's it's all a fairy we gotta go to chats we're gonna go to your chats before we do my friends make sure you smash that like button share the show with everyone you know and check out fastgrowingtrees.com slash timcast shout out to our second sponsor we really do appreciate fast growing trees is awesome they deliver trees to you you can get plants like all these different kinds of plants, ready to go. Did you know that Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the U.S. with thousands of different plants and over 2 million happy customers?

They have all the plants your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and more. And maybe you need fruit trees because the Civil War is coming, and maybe you want to plant your own food so you don't die. I'm half kidding. Only half. Fast Growing Trees makes it easy to get the yard of your dreams. Order online and get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days

without ever leaving home. Plus, their Alive and Thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy. Super difficult and annoying to shop for plants in person. To be completely honest, I would never be able to do it. And so for me personally, we've actually been trying to figure out which fruit trees we do want to plant here.

Yes. What do you got in mind? I don't know't know man we got to figure it out for the climate and uh you know be great to plant them over by the chicken coop lemon trees are beautiful that's the first one i was thinking of lemon we love lemons i love a lemon but fast fast growing trees my friends so they got a resource center it's got plenty of advice uh from their plant experts to help you learn more about your yard's needs maybe we can talk to them about that you'll know what plants and trees will thrive in your area and in fact fact, they did hit us up like, which plants do you want? And we were like, really excited. We're going to get some fruit trees, man.

It'll be great. This spring, they have the best deals. You can get 15% off their first purchase when using the code TIMCAST. That's an additional 15% off at FastGrowingTrees.com. Using the code TIMCAST at checkout. Again, FastGrowingTrees.com, code TIMCAST. I hope that's on top of the 20 they're already offering on the link when you go there maybe there's two codes you can use otherwise i guess

use a 20 off one but shout out we really do appreciate it all right let's get to uh your chats my friends and read what y'all have to say we'll start over here with some rumble rants evan for us says all trump needs to do to stop this pro-terror sentiment is just say quote this this manji guy is quite violent but he's also quite handsome and the left will immediately drop him yep like wow they would so many people would heck mate yep if if he did an interview where he said you know these insurance companies i get it people don't like him so you know uh i don't think it's good but um you know someone had to do something and so maybe we'll take a look at that we'll take a look at that then they're gonna be oh, why is he defending that guy?

Allison was telling me and my wife that she was watching this video of a woman who moved to Sweden to escape Trump's America. And she was talking about how she initially wasn't sure about some of the things they do in the country. But then she started to come to terms and understand and appreciate them. And she was mentioning things that trump was doing like she fled america and went to sweden and then they have they have certain policies in place i can't remember which ones i think some pertaining to like politics and schools and stuff and she started praising all of these things and alice was like but it was weird because she was describing things trump was doing like what do you what are you running from there you go it's the orange man that There you go. It's the orange man.

That's what she didn't like, the orange man. All right. Indeed. Eugen says, I don't care if they are a school teacher. They broke the law in coming here. Send them all to prison in El Salvador for all I care. Yeah, sounds about right. Don't come to the United States. I don't necessarily want them to go to prison in El Salvador.

I just want the send them part. Send them somewhere else. Get them out of the United States. Send them back to where they came from. Just send them elsewhere. Not here. You're not supposed to be here. Send them.

Bye. Shane H. Wilder beating us all to the punch. Saying, I want to take a moment to wish phil a happy birthday and offer my felicitations to him and sarah on expecting a little labonte that is that's on me thank you very much you said today is your 50th birthday today is my 50th you heard your 50th son's heartbeat for the first time yeah today today is my 50th birthday i tweeted this earlier today is my 50th birthday and and today sarah and I went and listened to our son's heartbeat for the very first time. And it was moving.

It was cool. You know what's really cool? What's that? Our kids are going to be friends. They're going to hang out, man. They're going to hang out. When you posted the thing, it was like on Instagram, right? Yep.

And I showed Allison, and then she smiled, and then I was like, our kids are going to be friends. Wait, you just had a girl, right? Yeah. Boyfriend, girlfriend. They are going to be friends. Wait, you just had a girl, right? Yeah. Boyfriend, girlfriend. They're going to be married. How many parents go through that where they're like, our kids are going to be married one day? Well, I mean, what's going to end up happening now is when they're both in their late teens, someone's going to show them this episode, and they're going to be like, ooh.

That's weird. Pepper and Theodore. Is that his name? Yeah. Oh, wow. Nice. All right. David Bricken says, who is this? What have you done with the real Elad? Pepper and Theodore. Is that his name? Yeah. Oh, wow. Nice. All right.

David Bricken says, who is this? What have you done with the real Elad? What's different? The suit? Have you been humbled since you've been working at the White House? It's a great experience and great privilege for Caroline Leavitt to have her new media initiative. And it's a good learning experience. The White House Correspondents Association is

very upset with what's going on there, but we can talk about it another time. Oh, their tears. They bring me joy. The salt is an electrolyte. The elites. I went to a big news conference in Morocco called News Exchange and I was sitting on the stage talking about like new media and stuff and everyone's wearing suits and I'm just like this. And it was probably like several thousand people in this big room. And I said, you should all be fired. I was like, you lack the technical skills and the understanding of the modern media environment to actually report the news at the speeds that are required of it. And I was like, and if you run a newsroom and your people don't understand mobile technology and social media, fire them now because you can hire some 24 year olds at half the cost who are twice as good.

They did not like me saying that. It's probably why they don't like me but you spoke truth honestly yeah it's extremely true indeed let's grab some more chats from y'all jump daddy says only service should guarantee citizenship mandatory inactive reserve every time you register to vote joining the military without reporting to any unit until war is declared. I asked on X, should only people who give public service be allowed to vote? And it was 80 percent. No, I said only military veterans, 80 percent. No. And then I said, what about only net taxpayers? And that one's like 70 percent. Yes. However, most of the people who did respond didn't understand what a net taxpayer was. One person was like, I paid $200 in taxes so I get to vote. No, you don't. I think you have to pay something like $35,000 for the year before you're a net taxpayer. Is that what

it is? I think most people are net drags. They are indeed. Only the top 20% actually pay taxes. So that means you do pay taxes, but you get more than you're paying. So you are taking, you're stealing, actually. Did you guys know that Waluigi's a libertarian? No. I'm not kidding. Yeah, there was a viral meme that's from, I think it's Mario Party or something like that, I don't know what it's from, but Waluigi

said, a tax office, you mean an office for stealing my money or something like that. Wait, you mean like the Mario Brother? Yes. I thought you meant the murderer. No, Waluigi. Yeah, Waluigi's like Pizarro World anti-Luigi guy. Yeah, Waluigi Mangione

would be like this really peaceful church-going man who loves his neighbors. Libertarians can't deny the fact that there are a lot of people that are libertarians. I'm not saying all, but there are a lot of people

that are libertarians because they have terrible opinions or they have terrible things they want to do and they just want it to be legal so yes i believe there's no denying that the libertarian party exists for one reason it's a consortium of people who want something disgusting to be legal and i'm not kidding the mises caucus is like the largest faction that's the actual libertarian party because the rest of them are just like, I can tell that you want to do something gross.

A Trojan horse for the left, so it feels. And I wanted to say, in the Mario world, Bowser is the true communist, because when you land on the Bowser space and get a Bowser revolution, everybody's coins get split up equally. Oh, brutal. You guys don't know the Mario Party?

No. The economics of I gotta be honest there's some kind of weird economic system in the Mario world. Basically the economics of the Mario world is that you run around and there's money just floating in the air and you just punch bricks to get paid

and then upon collecting 100 you just get to live twice. You're not understanding Tim. You're mining. They mine the coins and it happens in reality, too. They're floating in midair. Yeah, you hit bricks in real life, and then other minerals come out. And, you know, you look for rare earth minerals that we're struggling with now because of China. Do you know what the actual story of Mario is?

No. When King Koopa, which is his actual name, invaded the Mushroom Kingdom, he transformed a bunch of the Mushroom people into bricks. Indeed. Really? All the bricks? Are those all Mushroom people? Oh, brutal. And Mario's just smashing them to bits. I think what actually happened was they just made something up for the structure of the game. Like, they made the game and Mario can

punch bricks and they explode and they're like, wow. It's the Mushroom people turning to bricks and giving Mario items, I guess. Yeah. I wonder what those coins represent. Is it like manna from heaven that you get? If you go on chat GPT and ask it to make a picture of someone punching bricks, half the time it will refuse because it keeps trying to draw Mario. I said, draw a picture of Donald Trump with a red hat on punching bricks. And it kept saying this violates copyright infringement.

I always thought he did. And it half renders the image and it was Trump with a Mario hat on punching bricks. And it kept saying this violates copyright infringement. I always thought he had it. And it half renders the image. And it was Trump with a Mario hat on and white gloves. But I did finally get him to make one where it's just Trump at a brick wall punching it and bricks are going flying. I thought he always headbutted the bricks. And it was years later that I realized having his arm up like this. And you know, when he throws fireballs, his hand goes up like this.

Yeah, it's like he's throwing them. When I was little, everybody thought he was spitting them. Yep. Because they come out where his mouth is. But his hand goes up. Like this. Yeah, it's like he's throwing them. When I was little, everybody thought he was spitting them. Yep. Because they come out where his mouth is, but his hand goes up like this. He's throwing them. Alright, Michael, what's his name? Cicirelli? Is that how you say that? Hello, people. Thanks, crew,

for all the hard work. Also got my boonies boards over the weekend, and I'm very hyped about it. Having just discovered Andy Anderson, I know, I'm old, and worked and stopped skating in the 2000s uh be a friend tell friend something nice very cool uh glad to hear andy anderson is in fact one of the best he's a very good pro skateboarder and i'm a big fan and uh we got some we're doing some new boonies graphics and i figured we'll just make a molan labe one yay i know i was like can we be as provocative as we can but also as based as possible? I was like, we need to come up with a good Molon Labe board.

Provocatively based. Yeah. Because the 20th Amendment sold out. Oh, I'm loving this so much. Skateboarding is largely dead. But there's this online rumor mill publication called Shredder. And they wrote about me. I don't know why.

And they said that despite the tariffs, Booney's boards are still 55 bucks, which is true because we make them in America. And then you get comments from people being like, he ain't selling none of those. I am. I am. I got to tell you guys, we have sold hundreds of thousands. In fact, our best month was like $100,000 in board sales. The 20th Amendment skateboard, which is chickens being necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep a bear and breed chickens shall not be infringed. We sold those out like two or three times over. And that's because people,

because chickens are awesome. You like chickens. Indeed. And then I was like, we have the right to arm bears, which sold out several times over. And Step on Snack and Find Out is our top seller. And we sell those out like crazy. So I'm glad people are getting skateboards. I hope people are riding skateboards. It's also totally acceptable if you hang them up because they're cool as well. But it's going really well on this end. And I'm actually, we were, you know, it's not the most profitable business, I would argue.

We do make a good amount of money. It costs more money to run, but I'm hoping that the way things are going, it's going to be good. And I will announce, as soon as we wrap this show, the park is being completely redone. How so? The construction crew is already here. Oh, wow. What are you doing? They're redoing the whole skate park.

You have a plan. Obviously, you have a plan. You have a design. Designed by Cody McIntyre himself. Oh, yeah, dude. It is going to be one. julia julia brockler and cody both uh design this and it is going to be one of the best little uh it's a small ish but it's going to be a really great i mean i thought it was really cool coming in so i can't imagine next level i was really impressed it's going to be bigly done bigly all right hitman zarelli says if el salvador does the he he ha ha i'm just gonna say it one trillion as a thank you also congratulations phil saw your

instagram post just wanting uh just waiting for uh for ian now yeah well come on buddy uh that that that that jack's post was funny i agree with Democrats. I believe they should all go to the El Salvadoran prison as a good one. All of them. Riley Moore went Riley Moore went and toured the prison. And, you know, we've been actually trying to get a sit down with the president of El Salvador because we are huge fans of Nayib Bukele. President B. President B, man. First of all, just on the technological front with Bitcoin, masterfully done.

Yeah. He increased the GDP or the net worth of his citizenry massively. I think they all got like 20 bucks worth of Bitcoin. And Bitcoin's obviously only gone up. It's fluctuated, but they kept buying and they have their reserve, which is fantastic. I think he's a really good example. And I'm sorry to interrupt because it sounded like

you had a little bit more to say there or more. I was going to say that he cleaned up the streets. Yeah, he's an example of how you can use authoritarianism in a good way. From that right now,

looking at it, it looks like he's done some good things for society, but he used a very hard... The knock on him is that he... Constitutional rights or humanitarian rights, not all people got due process in El Salvador for the people that he arrested. But he justifies it by saying that the ends justify the means.

And they were the worst – they had the highest murder rate among the Americas and now have among the lowest. They, in fact, are one of the safest countries in the world now. I think his perspective would be invaluable for an American audience to understand the mind of someone that had to become authoritarian to to a system gone wrong, like Abraham Lincoln, kind of similar to Abe. So Nayib Bukele was dealing with criminal factions, gangs with international power, guns, et cetera, operating in his country and subjugating his people. And he said, we're at war. It's easy to say we should uphold all of these things and blah, blah, blah. And then insurgents come and bomb your house, kill you in your sleep like they do with the cartels and people try to run for office. When you are when you are at war and I'm not saying we're at war, I'm saying the El Salvador

was was in in some state of war with these narco gangs in Mexico. What do they do? We're going to run for office and then we're going to show you. And then the mayor's found strung up hanging from a streetlight. Nayib Bukele says we have no choice. We're going to crush these gangs, lock them up and save our country. And then he did. And it is it. We lament any innocent people who get wrapped up in a conflict. But it's. The unfortunate reality is there are certain circumstances where it's easy to say and hard to do in a country where criminal gangs will murder you for trying to legislatively stop them and they're subjugating millions of people, we can choose to do nothing or we can choose to save our country. Sorry, it is, I believe, infinitely naive to be like, no, no, no, no. We should just ask the gangs nicely. And then you wake up and there's a gun pointed to your head and they say,

nice knowing you. How many mayors were killed in Mexico in the past year? Some young woman ran for office. 36. There was a young woman. She was in her 20s. She ran in a small town, and she said she was going to stop the gangs. A day later, she was dead.

And there are people who have been like, well, but we have no choice. We can't violate people's rights. And it's like, indeed, we don't want to. Welcome to conflict. There's no easy reality. I wonder if Riley caught up with the Maryland man over there in El Salvador.

I wonder why it is that Catalonia just never seems to be able to get independence. Yeah. I don't know enough about their independence. Are you familiar with Catalonia? Not at all familiar. Really? Nope. They were one of the only, if not the only ever anarchist state.

And what did that last? A couple of years before they were crushed? It was Spanish. Spanish. Spanish came in and said, we're going to take over. And they were like, hold on. We're going to have a committee meeting to determine whether or not you're allowed to. And they said, okay, bang.

And then they would, now they own it. And they protest sometimes, but the state is like good luck napoleon said i saw the crown of france laying on the ground so i picked it up with my sword the point is i picked it up with my sword like you the idea like the idea that libertarians have is great but it's similar to the idea that communists have like right on the surface it's great but someone that disagrees that is willing to exercise force will take power so you don't says the the anarchist society to be fair not all libertarians are anarchist i'm not an anarchist not no you're you're 100 right i think you have to differentiate there i would agree with you if you get into full anarchy with libertarians it it's very – has a lot in common with communism.

Yeah. A whole lot in common. But, you know, the question then becomes for anybody who's seeking to secure a country or a people is you look at El Salvador and the criticisms that Nayib Bukele got, but he did it. Crime is done. People are living in peace. Yeah. I think that you have to have a national defense. You have to have a strong military.

You have to have a policing system. You have to have borders. Was Abraham Lincoln wrong to suspend habeas corpus in a corridor from D.C. to P.A.? I don't know the details of that to get super in the weeds with it. I think Abraham Lincoln certainly violated the Constitution at times. I think the biggest issue I have with Abraham Lincoln is that states should be allowed to leave. That was always the agreement is that this is voluntary. It's not in the Constitution.

It's not. It's not necessarily in the Constitution, but I feel like that is how we were supposed to proceed. And I think we'd be better off now as a nation if states could leave. You listed this. Grant wrote a great letter after the war, and he said that it is the right of all peoples to challenge who rules over them. But if you lose, then you will be ruled over by your superiors. And he went on to say that we of this nation sacrificed our blood and treasure to admit you to this to this nation. And you sought to steal that from us, notably with Texas and Mexico. It was a great conflict between the U.S. Texas breaks away. Obviously, Mexico's like, hey, what what the hell, man? You can't do that. Then Texas wants to join the United

States. And they're like, there's a huge risk to us if you do, because you were previously Mexican territory. Texas joins and then later is like, now we out. And they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. We sacrifice so much so you can make this move. And now you're going to turn on us. That's why they said you can't just leave. We've paid everything for this. And so there's a difficult question. Abraham Lincoln arrested about a third of the Maryland legislature. Was he right to do that? No, he wasn't right to do it. I mean, you could, I guess, argue that the ends justify the means in your book and you can make a case for that. And of course, when you are in times of war, it's very childish, I think, to suggest that people are going to always follow the rules or play by the Constitution

or stay principled. Obviously, that never happens in times of actual war. But was that absolutely necessary for him to do? Was he right in the means or the end goal that he was trying to pursue? I don't think so. I think the country, again, would function better if in order to join as a state, we have contracts. Sure. Like what you're saying with Texas, we have contracts, we have clawbacks, we have maybe fees and penalties you have to pay to leave. But should we be forced to coexist? Should I in Georgia have to coexist long term with people in California? Does that actually make sense for us to be a united country with people whose views are that vastly different, whose cultures are that different?

Is that plausible over time? I think it probably is not. The questions I wonder about that is, I wonder what would have happened in World War I and II if the United States was actually two different countries. It wouldn't have been the United States, or at least the evidence. It would have been the Confederate States and the Union. Well, there's there's there's a possibility that it wouldn't have even been that because there are there were other superpowers in the world at the time. After the Civil War, it's possible that the Spanish come over, France come over.

There's all kinds of of and they would have been independent countries and remained so, there's no reason to believe that history would have been totally different. And I don't think countries have a right to exist forever. I think that people should be able to overthrow their governments. They should be able to create new structures. They should be able to get rid of things that don't work anymore and seek out better arrangements. So I don't even like that whole mentality that because this country exists as it is right now, that that must be preserved at all costs. I think the interesting thing about politics and political philosophy is that there is no – it's not a zero-sum game. There's no end result. There's no reality by which any political ideology achieves

its nexus. Libertarianism in the way you describe it will ultimately lead to the destruction of a civilization the same way as fascism or communism or any other system would. Liberal democracies allow for evil to arise and then destroy it from within. Libertarian societies would break apart and then allow outside aggressors who are authoritarian to come in and crush them fascistic regimes authoritarian regimes ultimately crumble from within from not always the the the fascism that uh pinochet had that actually kind of dissolved by people being elected i believe he stepped he he left office because the the actual country was very successful under his fascism. He was brutal, and he killed a lot of people.

But after he left, the people went to a democracy, if I understand correctly. It seems like fascism is the most stable form of government. Not the best, necessarily, but the most stable. It's also the shortest-lived of all governments. Since the Federal Reserve, we've sort of been in this fascist system. No, we have not. It's peaceful fascism. What is fascism?

Fascism is a system of authoritarian rule with strong traditional moral foundations. And I'd say mostly state-run. There's also state-run. Authoritarian state-run. Yeah, and a lot of modern fascism incorporates the corporations. So it's the state and the corporations, lucrative merger of the state and the corporation. No, that's actually just a philosophical interpretation. Those Mussolini's take on it.

The actual function of fascism was nationalistic pride, traditional morals, and authoritarian state-run economics. And so it's one of the shortest-lived forms of government. Nazism overlapped quite a bit, which is also one of the shortest forms of Naziism but Naziism is like all fascist Naziism is fascist but like not all fascism is Naziism the principle difference is not nearly as bad as Naziism the principle difference between the communists and the fascists was

progressive moral ideology versus traditional moral ideology yeah but we're going to go to that uncensored call and show my friends so smash that like button share the show with everyone you know subscribe if you haven't already. Tell your friends about the show if you do like it. We're going to go to rumble.com

slash timcast IRL for that uncensored call-in show. You got to sign up. Use promo code TIM10 and you not only get access to the uncensored call-in show, you get the Green Room podcast every day, Monday through Friday,

except for, so not every day, just the weekdays. And that's up on rumble.com slash not every day, just the weekdays. And that's up on rumble.com slash Tim cast IRL in the playlist section. Don't miss our episodes behind the scenes. We're gearing up for the show. And we've got documentaries coming out. We've got two feature length already on our page. And we've got one coming out in June, potentially another coming out in the fall. We're covering border crisis and human trafficking and we're covering transhumanism and still more to come.

So smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Hannah, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, well, thanks for having me. It's been great to be here. People can find me at Hannah D. Cox on most platforms, Hannah Cox on YouTube. I need to get on Rumble, guys. I've got to make that happen. So fall on your footsteps, Tim. Do it. Right on. Hey, everybody. My name's Alad Eliyahu. I'm the White House correspondent here at TimCast. You can find me at Alad Eliyahu on Instagram and Twitter.

I wanted to say again, Phil, congratulations on hopefully Inshallah the child to be and 50 years old. Yeah. That's crazy because you look very young and handsome. Thank you, sir. For guys who are like 40, 50, you guys are young looking. You're just buttering me up because you don't want to talk about Israel-Palestine,

which we should have got into all episode. I don't like how you just dropped it in there earlier, too. I love you so much, Ian. I don't want to make everything about Israel. Also, I avoid asking about Israel

at the White House because I don't want to be accused of that by people like you, Ian. Okay, you did the right thing. Go ahead. Hey, I'm Ian Crossland. Catch me on the internet. Philly. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm of that by people like you. Okay, you did the right thing. Go ahead. Hey, I'm Ian Crossland. Catch me on the internet.

Philly. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains, a new record dropped on January 31st. It's entitled Anti-Fragile. You can check it out on all the streaming platforms and on YouTube.

Don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will see you all over at rumble.com slash timcast IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out. you