Timcast IRL - Fauci Docs DROP, Tulsi ACCUSES Fauci of LYING About Lab Leak w/ Noah Wall & Jacob Wehmeyer

Episode Date: June 20, 2026

Phil, and Ian are joined by Noah Wall& Jacob Wehmeyer to discuss Tulsi Gabbard exposing Fauci, a top pro-Israel newspaper accuses Trump of betrayal after the Iran deal, and Los Angeles moves to allow non-citizens to vote.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts: Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) | @trashhouserecords (YT) Guest: Noah Wall @NoahWall (X) Jacob Wehmeyer @JacobIWehmeyer (X)  Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Fauci Docs DROP, Tulsi ACCUSES Fauci of LYING About Lab Leak | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Hello, everybody. Welcome to Timcast Live. My name is Philibanti. I'll be hosting tonight on IRL. We've got a bunch of big stories for you. Yesterday, D.N.I. Tulsi Gabbard has released a boatload of papers and information that Spotlights Fauci knew about the origin of COVID. There's also some information that the CIA tried to quash complaints against Fauci for lying to Congress. Now, Rand Paul was really big on this. So I'm interested to see if there's anything that'll come out over the weekend or beginning next week from Rand Paul. kind of statement, but we'll talk about that. We've got information on obviously the Iran deal. It seems that the Iran deal is kind of in limbo now because J.D. Vance was heading to speak with, I believe, heading to Switzerland, I think, to speak with the Iranian representatives. And they got called off. There were strikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Obviously, it was Israel that

was carrying out the strike. So it looks like it's kind of in limbo. We don't know if it's actually going to happen. So we'll talk about that. There is a measure in L.A. to allow non-citizens to vote in citywide elections. Now, this is coming to California more broadly, eventually should the Democrats get the way they get their way. And honestly, if the Democrats could, they would make it nationwide. So we're going to get into that. There is a, there's also a bunch of hubbub from the San Francisco Giants Pride Night, right? Like they had to have the pride flag on their local. And and now the DOJ has a probe into it. We're also going to, if we have time,

we'll talk about the problems that young people are facing because one in three adults under 35 are still living with their parents. And then Supergirls kind of being a jerk on the media trail. And this worked so well for Breilicen that she's, for Brie Larson that she's like, I'm going to do that. So yeah, we're going to just jump right into it. Joining us tonight to talk about all of this.

We have Noah Hall. Yeah, Noah Wall, president-founder of state leadership initiative at Noah Wall on X. And Jacob Waymair? Yeah, I'm the chief of staff for the state leadership initiative. You're just at Red State's lead. That's the state leadership initiative. Awesome. He is here.

Hi. Hey, everybody. He and the guy that cannot change the weather with his mind. Well, that's a, that's a bold claim. That's like saying there's no God. That's probably the most mundane thing that I could possibly say. I'm more agnostic on the issue. I don't know if it is or isn't.

11.56 p.m. the other day you were like, it is... I felt the rain trickle. Yeah. So that cloud was passing north, and you were right, there's a huge cloud that you can watch the weather like it's pulsing. It actually looks like it's rolling, but you only get a two-dimensional look on the radar, but it looks like it's rolling towards. It was going north. I meditated and focused and then drew it towards us, so we got that rain yesterday. Well, let's get into it. No.

Carter's here, yeah. So hi Carter. We'll get into it. Welcome, Gary. So from Fox News, Gabbard Spotlights, Fauci, COVID-Oregon. questions in final act as intelligence chief amid succession fight. So most people know that yesterday was DNI Gabbard's last day as the chief she is leaving to go spend time with her husband who's fighting cancer. So Fox News reports, just before leaving office amid a contentious battle over who will secede her, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard used one of her final acts atop the U.S. intelligence community to spot like Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in discussions surrounding

the government's COVID-19 origins review. While much of the material is familiar, Gabbard released, Gabbard's release underscores her effort to make questions surrounding Fauci, COVID origin, and federal support for virus research, part of her closing legacy atop the intelligence community. As Gabbard fired her final broadside, Bill Pulte, who has received bipartisan criticism

over his lack of intelligence expertise, is set to take the reins at the office of the Director of National Intelligence while Trump's permanent nominee remains stalled. Jay Clayton, an attorney and former SEC chairman, who Trump nominated to permanently lead ODNI has seen his confirmation process delayed after the president said he was holding up the nomination pressure, Congress to pass a voter identification measure. Does this actually matter? Fauci's been pardoned, so there's nothing that can actually be done.

Generally, at least among our viewers, everyone kind of is like, well, duh, right? They knew, according to, like I said, according to our viewers, they believed that Fauci had a hand in. and all the evidence that come out seems to point to Fauci having some kind of involvement. Now, whether or not this was something that CIA was involved, we'll talk about a little bit. What do you guys think? Does this actually matter? I would say yes. So what she released were a lot of the emails between Fauci and the intelligence community.

So we have new information we did not have about the level of coordination in that op. and very clearly, I mean, she demonstrated that that wasn't op. And what I would add to this, too, you know, yes, he was pardoned. This, I think, gives, you know, there's a lot, you know, the folks over at the oversight project, Mike Howell and many others have been talking about, you know, were these pardons legitimate? You know, was this an autopin pardon? You know, there's a lot of questions, I think, about the legitimacy of the pardon. And this may give us the ammunition that we need to be able to further that. along. Isn't there a statute of limitation on this stuff? Some of it, but, you know, I mean, so like the statute of limitations, I think particularly applies to like the, you know, the depositions to Congress where, you know, he was, actually those emails show that he lied to Congress knowingly and talked to the intelligence community about that. But what I would say is, you know, So he's alleged to admitted to the intelligence community that he lied to. Yeah.

So one of, you know, in Tulsi's overview of the document, she talks about how that was one of the items that she released were documents that, you know, back and forth about that congressional testimony. So what I would say is, you know, depending on, you know, this evidence, if it's admissible, I think that this could give us kind of the ammunition to maybe try some of those, you know, because we're not. only alleging that his crimes were, you know, lying to Congress. I think that there's a lot of other potential crimes there may not have the same statute of limitations. This might give us what we need to be able to challenge the legitimacy of his, of his pardon. Yeah, and what's like more concerning, or maybe not more concerning, like, you know, given the pardon of the Fauci and everything, what was leaked in those documents, was revealed in those documents was that all of these intelligence assets that were trying to go through the normal, legitimate, codified,

whistleblower process were prevented from doing so or pressured against doing so. In the video, she references how, like, people that wanted to come forth anonymously, which is by federal statute, what they have to do, they were, for whatever reason, like, they weren't allowed to do so. Like, they had to whistleblow under their name. And the other aspect was, if they did come forward with, like, concerns over what Fauci was saying, they were told that this would directly impact their career. So there's all sorts of, I think, also opportunity to go after the intelligence community that actively pressured people from not doing this and also seemingly violated certain federal statutes

on what the whistleblower process even is. I'm going to steal man Fauci for a minute, who I'm not a big Fauci fan, but if I was the president and we were working on a secret bio-weapons program, which dear God, I hope everybody is, if the enemies are working on one, we should probably have one too.

Wouldn't it be better if we're working on cures? Cures and diseases and all the above, Yeah, the weapons and cures and all this. And I have my scientists lying to the public about it on purpose because, you know, that's at my command as the president. Either they lie or they get fired. And so they lie for me. Are they really to blame? Then are they the ones that get the book thrown at them when everything comes out or was it the guy instructing him to lie?

I don't know. Or was he not even instructed to lie? Is this all a Fauci plan? I can't imagine that a bioweapons thing is a Fauci thing. Seems they could go up to the military. I mean, well, to your point, like the buck does kind of say. stop with the president, right? But there's also, there's also, you know, we were talking about how top secret programs work and compartmentalization. So the president may be aware broadly that something

something's going on for this particular issue, but the president might not know about the ins and outs. Not that the president can't, because like, like our guest was saying last night, or maybe two nights ago, you know, when it comes to secret compartmentalize information, you might know about it or know that something's going on, but not really have all the details because it's not pertinent to your day-to-day job. So whether it should go all the way to the president, whether it be President Trump or President Obama or President Biden, it really depends on, you know, how likely is it that it was a directive from the president or whether it was just like, hey, Mr. President, we're working on biological stuff. And the president's like, okay, yeah, we

we need to do that and kind of just, you know, goes about, goes on to the next topic. I mean, from my perspective, the deep state used COVID to make sure Trump could not win his second term. Fauci, like, he, he still, he pushed this entire agenda in a way to trap Trump into, like, so I, what I'm trying to see is. Is it your opinion that it was released intentionally? No, I'm saying that it was. used. You know, I think that he, you know, they created a situation. One of the, one, you know, some of the emails that, that Tulsi, you know, talks about that they released were such that, you know, how, you know, what are we going to say the cause of this is? They talk about, you know,

the fact that they lied about, you know, the actual origins of it. You know, they made it so you couldn't discuss China as being, you know, the, you know, where all of this stuff originated from. So, I mean, like, they created a situation to box Trump into a corner and they forced his response to be in a way that hurt him most politically. I think Trump has every cause in the world to go after Fauci. And I think he absolutely should. And I think that, you know, I think they should be really looking at opportunities to undermine, you know, the pardon. I really think that that's an aspect that we need to go after. So say to push the legitimacy issue as far as they can.

That wasn't a legitimate pardon because Biden used the auto pan. You don't know that Biden actually directed it. It could have been one of his subordinates or something. Yeah, I think that we, it is not established that Biden, I think from the perspective of the people who've looked into this on our side, they have not, you know, they are not convinced that Biden knew that everyone was getting pardoned who got part. It was a staff-led decision. If that is the case and that can be shown, I think that there's a very strong case to make that those pardons are not legitimate. This could be our opportunity to do it. There has been reporting that a lot of the actual day-to-day operations were staff-led, that Biden wasn't really there.

Biden wasn't, you know, cognizant of all the decisions being made. And so then that does bring it to question, like, what did Joe Biden actually know about whether it be pardoned? or whether it be national security or foreign policy or what have you. You were going to say something. Well, have there been examples over time of pardons getting like undone after the fact? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, my understanding is almost no. Like, I'm not going to say that it's never happened, but this is a new field of law.

And it's new because this is the first instance we have where a president is signing pardones, well, his signature is being used to cite in pardons that he was not cognizant enough. The law is very clear. President can pardon anyone for anything. Like, it's a pretty wide blanket. But if it's not him doing it, it's a different issue. This kind of makes me wonder if that's actually a good precedent to set, because you know for a fact, and this is something we talk about, Democrats are going to be going after the entire administration once they get back into power, right. Excuse me. Should the Democrats in in 28 win the House,

the Senate and the White House, it's not going to be just, you know, okay, we're going to start, we're going to take over from here and we're going to fix things. There's going to be investigations. There's going to be attempts to put Donald Trump and a lot of the people that are in his, in his administration in jail. They're going to go after conservative pundits. They're going to go after podcasters. It's going to be like COVID.

days but on 10 because they're going to try to consolidate power. They're going to do all the things they talk about when it comes to expanding the court. They're going to do all they can about to make DC and Puerto Rico a state. I mean, look, there are people that if they could do it, they would dissolve the, they would either expand the court or they'd dissolve the Senate, you know, entirely say that it's unnecessary. It's a vestige of the past. And look, there might be an argument for it because with the popular election of senators, their actual constitutional role has been completely dissolved. If you've got popular elections of senators, senators are supposed to represent the state

legislatures, they're not supposed to represent the people. You know what I mean? So it's possible that this becomes a real thing. So do you think that that's a good precedent to set? I think that I'm not an attorney. There's a lot more smarter attorneys that are dealing with this in me. But what I would say is a narrow. opinion that someone else can't sign, you know,

pardons on the president's behalf doesn't, you know, ultimately affect the president's ability to sign pardons. Trump's just going to need to film himself sign in every pardon that he signs going forward. Well, I think he basically... Now you've got like AI videos, so like... Yeah.

I would know that it was really a hand. Because you could use digital. There's like doc you sign. Yeah. So technically you're not the one signing it, even though it's... Because you're using a computer to put the marks on the paper instead of your, pencil, which I don't know how big of a difference. Then there's, you could have an AI sign things for you at your command.

And it's like, well, if you're having your pen do the signing for you, your command, like there's a, there's a line about is it a tool that you're using to have it signed? But I think the argument like you said earlier is more about what's he aware that the signatures are going forward. Yes. Yeah. And so I think that, you know, you would need to be, the precedent that you want to avoid is a limit on pardon power as a result of this, you know, pushing this issue. but if you were able to make it clear that the president has to be aware of the pardons that he's signing, I think that that is, you know, I think as long as they're careful on that front, I think you're okay if you use, you know, the Fauci issue as a way to go after on the pardon front.

To the credit of like, should we do something or should we encourage something, like, to be the first to do it and then Democrats are going to come back and do it again. It's like we're already seeing the radicalism. So in the federal government, there's all like, there's a lot of talk and not a lot of show yet because they don't have that power yet. but in blue states you're seeing the absolute most insane thing like California will get into Virginia is probably the best example of this when they when the Supreme the Virginia court ruled against them what was their first reaction we're going to mandate that every person

over 50 has to retire from the court and appointing judges this is like the first thing they want to do the the what they actually like want to do over 50 too like that was ridiculous like a really specific age it was like 54 it was something dumb like this they just wanted to get rid of the entire court and there was like some that were giving pushback, but for the most part, when you look at blue states, they're just so radical that they are now, like California is the model, it gets exported to other states,

and this becomes like the federal mandate for Democrats and the Fed. So I wouldn't be surprised if they do use, you know, God forbid, 2828 goes bad, they use every single lever they have. Oh, yeah. And it doesn't matter anyway. So, like, you know, I'm probably,

I'm a bit more bullish on just do it anyway. Yeah, I mean, that's something we've talked about a lot around here is like it's kind of baked into the cake that when Democrats get back into power that like they're going to do this. There was a conversation that was used brought up a lot when they were talking about getting rid of the filibuster.

It's like oh, should we get rid of the filibuster? And it's like, well, you know, if we do it then what are the Democrats going to do? It's like the Democrats are going to get rid of the filibuster the instant they need to. Absolutely. There's no question. Like Curtis Yarven has a great, great quote. Republicans look at power

like a wine snob looks at power and Democrats look at power like an alcoholic looks at power. And it's a great quote because it really is, it really is demonstrative of the way the Democrats and Republicans act. Republicans, you know, the base wants all these things. And there's so many people that watch the show and that call in and stuff. They're like, oh, you know, Donald Trump hasn't done this and Donald Trump hasn't done that. I'm turning my back on and blah, blah, blah.

And it's like, honestly, if you look at the things that Donald Trump actually has done, when you think of the power that the president actually has, he's been incredibly successful, right? Whether or not he's done all the things that you wanted him to do is not the question here. It's how much power does the president actually have? And he's done a lot of things through executive order. He closed the border, which is the biggest thing, in my opinion. And it looks like they're making moves to really push to get, you know, to deport more people and stuff.

And I think he's doing it in a fairly smart way because if you had, if you constantly had ice raids like we had in Minnesota over the winter, you'd constantly have protests and you'd have all this pushback and you would really change the opinion of the voter. Like people don't have a strong stomach. They don't want to see that kind of stuff. But if you can manage to do things that change the law, make it harder for people to stay here, stuff like that, go after business owners that actually employ illegals, which is there's some that's happened. I don't think it needs a lot. I think you only need to go after a few people and business owners would be like, that's not going to happen to me. We'll get these guys out of here.

I think that that actually will be pretty functional. So Donald Trump has been pretty successful. But when the Republicans in Congress or the Republicans that don't like Donald Trump are presented with something like the Save Act, they're like, well, I don't know. You know, that's kind of a big deal. And, you know, the states are supposed to be able to do their elections however they want. That's not what the people, what the Republican base wants. That's not what, you know, conservative Americans want. Whereas when you get the Democrats, they're just like, do whatever.

They're like, I don't care. They'll literally create things at a whole cloth. They'll accuse people of things that are totally... Douglas Mackey comes to mind, right? They put him in jail over memes because, oh, look, he said he made a joke. I mean, he put this meme up and he was trying to disenfranchise people and et cetera, et cetera. And they'll sit there and they'll say that with a straight face and they'll act like they take it seriously when really all they're trying to do is punish a guy for mocking Hillary Clinton and, you know, making jokes about Hillary Clinton.

The thing he did that stepped over the line legally was he put a phone number on the on the meme. He was like, if you want to vote for Hillary Clinton, call this number, which is technically illegal, you're misleading people because they thought they were actually getting their vote through. Yeah, but the point that I'm making is nobody that saw that actually thought it was real. Everybody realized that it was just a mean. And but that that's why I said, Democrats act like it's serious. They will look you straight in the face and say, no, this is real. This is actually serious.

Look, this is what he did. And this has got to stop. is why he's got to go to jail and we got to prevent this even though it was blatantly obvious to anyone that saw those memes that they weren't real yeah it's kind of ironic that because i'm sitting here looking up like has there ever been an instance of a a presidential pardon being overturned and i'm looking at these like you know no there's never been a clear but like we've seen instances of stuff that has never happened ever before done by the democrats yeah over the last six years so Republicans too

They bought 10% of Intel I've never seen the government Buy 10% of a private company The government literally dumped a boatload of money into Ford and a GM in 2008 Did they buy it? They just bailed them out They didn't get a percentage

They bought it They put money and it's the same thing If you're purchasing stock Especially seeing as if the United States Purchases stock of Intel And the stock goes up The government actually makes money They didn't take a controlling interest

I know that's the argument for it but it doesn't, it's the government buying private companies. It's not, but they didn't buy the whole company. They bought stock. They bought an interest in it. They didn't buy, the government bought stocks. They didn't purchase the company or nationalize it. I'm just looking up if they bought Fannie Mae on the 2008 bailout.

I know they bailed them out. I just don't know if they, if they, they bought Fannie Mae now. That's a government. The government, there is plenty of precedent of the government either taking control of companies or. Yeah, you're right. They took over the Fannie Mae. Yeah.

I think that's what Batson funds, like FHA loans. It's all done through. Annie Mae, I believe. Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to just to reiterate your point about how you argue the Democrat, I think he said, who was it? Curtis Yarvin, that the Democrats will treat it like power like an alcoholic treats

alcohol, whereas the Republicans will treat it like a wine snub. Because I can see the Republicans like consolidating all these potential explosive power things. And then they're like, let's do it. And they're like, no, no, no, no, no. That's a 75-year-old vintage. We're not going to touch it. Yes. The Democrats go in there like, drink it, drink, take that, change that, change that.

So the Republicans are like buying stock in things. They're creating a technocracy behind the scenes. They're getting all their bottles aligned. And like if an evil guy comes in, dear God, they have the Patriot Act and the NDAA. But the Democrats have the Patriot Act in the NDAA too if they're in the government. And the concern is who would, you know, who would misuse it. I mean, probably the alcoholic would tend towards misusing, you know, your array of alcohol. You know, all you have to do to see kind of the extent that the Democrats will go last time,

or we'll go next time based on what they've done before is if you look through the Arctic Frost documents, it's one of the most incredible things. So all of these documents, you know, the prosecutions against all of like the conservative organizations in D.C., hundreds of subpoenas. They were monitoring bank accounts. They had wiretaps. They had, you know, confidential informants. And you can go read those confidential, you know, informant email, like correspondence. They have the names blocked out so you don't know who it is, but you see all of it. friend of mine runs, he's a CEO of the Conservative Partnership Institute,

like Jim DeMint, Mark Meadows organization. He is mentioned many times in Arctic Frost. They were investigating CPI. They never found anything. But the confidential informant documents are so crazy, accusing him of treason, trying to say that he's like recruiting a militia to overthrow the government. Like, this is loony-tune stuff. Like he does trainings on Senate procedure is like what his organization does.

And they're like accusing him of this. The point being you can look at what they've done before. They will twist and turn and use every single and lie overtly. Because, you know, if you look through all of these, if you know the people involved, you know every single aspect of it is a lie. And it's sloppy. So like it's very clear of what they'll do next time. I think that our side just has to move forward. And I think, you know, to his crisis, that's exactly what President Trump's doing.

It feels like you were saying, someone was saying how radicalized the Democratic Party seems to have become. But it seems like the government in general has become the, like the internet. I know it's been a long time. We've been boiling in it. So it's tough to feel the temperature. But like the whole system has become hyper-radicalized, not maybe not hyper-radicalized, but intensely radicalized. The way things, the way, I mean, the Fourth Amendment's gone. Like, search, spying.

these things are all spying on us right now, fervently, like constantly, and it's a technocratic, I mean, a coup, essentially, of our rights. I don't... I mean, this is part of the reason why, like, the domestic focus matters so much because people are only going to go more crazy

the worst things are here. Like, I think a Federal Reserve just put out our report that under Biden, like 30% of all increases of mortgage prices were because of illegal immigration. So we have essentially priced out all of the American, like young Americans out of homes.

Young Americans are the ones that are radicalized too. It's not the boomers. The boomers are chill. They have the 13 foot ceilings. They have their boats and their RVs. They're happy. But the young Americans are the ones going crazy because they are poor. They're on Klarna and affirm.

Like they're affirming Walmart purchases. Like people are in a much, much worse economic situation than their parents were, their grandparents were. And this is only them fueling even worse and more radical politics. Obviously the internet, like mass communication makes this worse. But if things don't improve domestically for young people, then you're going to continue seeing this sort of type of violence. I think the reason why we see it on the left so much more than the right is the right,

there's the broader culture of like personal responsibility. You need to go work, go get a job, try and be productive. So then all the people on the right, they're like actually trying to do it. And then on the left, you have these people that go. They're overeducated, underemployed. They went, they got their $80,000 degree from God knows where and who knows what. They can't get a job. And then they freak out.

When you go to college, you're taught nothing but Marx's power dynamics. Yeah, that's true. You're taught entirely that, you know, the reason that our society is so terrible now is because the billionaires. I saw, I think it was Asmund Gold posted this. And other people have actually made it in a, made the argument in a much more, much less succinct manner. But Asman Gold was saying, you know, you're not oppressed by the top 2%, you're oppressed by the bottom 2%. Right? Like the people that are going to steal your car, the people that are going to smash your windows, the people that are going to

to act out they're the people that have nothing to lose right the people that are billionaires the people that are millionaires the the wealthy people in society they're the people that that possibly could give you a job right like you go and you fill out 100 applications or 200 applications it's a pain in the ass i understand but that 2001st application where you get a job the guy that owns the business he's not a vagrant right he's not a guy that's that's out rioting and throwing Maltoff cocktails at Teslas because he's mad at Elon Musk. He's not a guy that's going to commit a strong arm robbery. He's not a guy that's going to be in the point. The way I made the point was like, Elon Musk isn't going to be in line in front of me at Walmart losing his

mind because he can't put Zins on an EBT car, right? Like that's the kind of stuff that affects your day-to-day life, right, for your average person. As much as they want to blame the rich, blame the people that have money, blame Elon Musk for being a trillionaire, blame Jeff Bezos, et cetera. All of those people have materially improved most Americans' lives. Everybody loves the fact that you can get stuff delivered by drone from Amazon in a lot of places, right? Like you can get same, if you live in most suburbs of big cities, you can get same-day delivery from Amazon. That, the idea, like that was completely, I'm not that old, but I'm an old guy. And when I was a kid the idea of getting same-day delivery. Everything that I ordered when I was a kid,

six to eight weeks. You know, six to eight weeks. It'll be there in six to eight weeks. Now, it's like if it's not there in two days, you're like, oh, screw this, you know. And so it's true that like the wealthy people in, in the world actually don't make your lives worse. Well, I, that's the lowest common denominator that denominator that are most likely to make your life worth. They're the people that if you get into a car accident, they don't have. have insurance. You know, they're the people that that are going and filling up the, uh, the emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance. Now, and maybe it's not their fault, right? Maybe it's not the people, maybe it's, they fell in harm times and stuff,

but that doesn't change the fact that you interact with people that are, when you're interacting on a, on a day to day basis, you're more likely to have someone in the bottom two, three, four percent of the of the country that materially impacts your life than you are to bump into some rich guy that makes your life. What I disagree in that I think it's both extremes are oppressing what's happening to most people. What it Elon must do to you? Well, it's more about the people that run the banks that are commanding compound interest because our debt, we have to, we borrow money from the Federal Reserve, our government does, and then we have to pay it back with interest that doesn't exist. So we're constantly in this Ponzi scheme of stress of falling behind.

the economic order and we're constantly being baited and kind of being controlled by the banking establishment. You don't have to go into debt. I mean, you probably have to go into debt to get a house. But if you don't get a house, you don't have to use credit cards. You don't have to go into debt to these bankers that you're worried about. The government to create money literally goes into debt from the Federal Reserve. They take a promissory note from the Federal Reserve in order to create a dollar promising that they're going to pay the reserve back with interest. Is it your argument that a gold standard or actual physical precious metal monetary system would be better? And if so, why?

It would be less corrupted in this way. It would probably have problems of its own because then there would be a limited supply and some people would literally have zero. Like at this, at least they can print it out and give you your 200 bucks a week, you know, universal basic income and try and slow down the explosive. So then this is just the least bad system? Well, what I would say to your point, because. you know, you can look at what's happened since we went off the gold standard. What has happened is everything in our economies become financialized to an extent that has never existed before in history. So, you know, there's a lot of speculation that the reason that all of this

financialization of the economy, again, you know, the top industry in America is finance. Like, you know, we used to be manufacturing economy. We used to have. have, you know, now it's finance and real estate. And part of the reason, one of the big drivers of that was the financialization of the economy after we went off, you know, the gold, you know, our smartest people in America all go into finance. That's not necessarily a natural thing. That is a cause and consequence of us just making a decision to move to fiat currency. So there's a lot of, there's probably, you know, I'm not saying that we need to go back to a gold standard. I think there's probably other financial solutions at this point.

But the fact that our economy is so financialized is a decision that policymakers made is not necessarily a natural order of things. This is where I start to align or at least understand the communist mentality of like seizing property from the wealthy. because if we there's like in to the right the extreme right is corporatocracy where the corporations own all the property and you're basically if you say the wrong words they'll they'll take away your house they'll take away then to the the far left is nobody owns any property we all own it together collectively which you know how that fails into vanguardism small groups of people so like if blackrock buys up 80% of the houses of course the people have a right to overthrow that system and take their housing take their land back like good god it's a human right but i mean uh we were just talking about how the housing market is actually the driver of the prices as illegal immigrants. You know, the reason that the prices have gone up so much is because of how many illegal immigrants are in the U.S. Well, it's not just that. It's also, I think it might have been the Realtors Association or it was a National Home Builders Association. They've been doing these studies on the impact of regulation on building homes.

And now, I think the last one they did that I saw. all was like 2021, $100,000 in 2021 of the price of your new build home was only for regulatory compliance. So we've made it super, super difficult to build a house. We've made it super expensive, regulation speaking. And then we imported like 20 million people and then we gave them three FHA loans, a zero percent down payments at like super low COVID rates. So we've totally destroyed the housing market by essentially just giving it to like a bunch of people that just walked up the southern border. I mean, government is the problem in most cases. In what we're talking about, you know, you mentioned Black Rock. Why is Black Rock such a behemoth? Because every, you know, every retirement system in America places a massive percentage of those retirement funds into Black Rock. It is a government, you know, is a government fueled monopoly. And, you know, there's been federal courts now that have called Black Rock a monopolistic actor. And, you know,

So, I mean, like, I think that, you know, what you're saying, like, I'm very sympathetic to the view that, like, you know, we have all of these problems with these monopolistic actors. Every single monopoly in history has been a creation of government intervention. You know, so you can go to BlackRock and look where, you know, they've got 10 trillion in assets. Where do they get those 10 trillion assets? It's pension funds. You know, so both red, you know, Republican and Democrat states. have something like, you know, is two or three trillion dollars invested in Black Rock. You know, so foreign governments, too, because it's a global, you know, monopoly.

But the point being, there are solutions to this. And the solution in this particular, I'm not like a libertarian, but in the solution in this case, is, you know, whether it's regulation or artificial, you know, migration that is facilitated and encouraged by government, like, we've got to solve these problems. And in most of the cases, the root causes of all of this have been government interventions into the marketplace that have absolutely wrecked life for the average American. What then like a solution would that be just people just decide we're just going to build houses here and then the government will try and stop them and be like, what are you doing to me? That's the way regulation works. It'll be like, I want to build a house.

And the government says, well, you have to have these permits. And then to get the permits, you have to get, you know, you have to have inspections or you have to do surveys. You have to do studies on the impact that's going to have on the environment. You have to do all sorts of things. And that's all from, that's, you know, regulation. Yeah, even, even like left wing projects. So, like, I think the biggest one was under Biden might have been like build back better. It was like a huge infrastructure project.

Ezra Klein, or, yeah, I think it was Ezra Klein talked about this. And he sort of went viral where he went over all of these projects that were supposed to be funded by the federal government through this like trillion dollar spending act turns out almost none of these have been built and the reason why is because the this one was for the like 5G across all of america so they wanted every single square inch of america to have internet connection and for you to put down like a cell tower for internet connection anywhere in america you had to go through a 14-step process of like applications and reviews with the government and it turns out none of this got built and this is sort of the process for just about everything like uh the best

one of my favorite examples is the wildfires. So when we see these massive wildfires happen across the country, you'd think, well, why didn't we like do a prescribed burn and do the normal thing that we do for forest mitigation, for fire management? And the reason why is because to pass NEPA clearance, it takes seven years. It takes, the average is seven years. So a force management guy goes into a forest, sees a fuel load. There's all sorts of stuff on the ground. There's like pine cones and all sorts of crap. And he's like, okay, we need to do a burn because this is going to build up. It's going to tank the entire forest. So he goes and he writes the thing. sends the federal government, and it takes seven years for them to get back and eventually say,

okay, fine, you can burn. And by that point, the fire's already happened. It's burned down the palisade. One lightning striking along. Why does it take so long? Because that's what the government does. Yeah, but NEPA. NEPA is a National Environmental Protection Act. Yeah. This is passed Nixon. Nixon. Yeah, 1970. He was a patriot. No, he was Patriot, but Congress at the time, Super Democrat, they went through and passed. And, yeah, I mean, so you can go through pretty much every federal project. has NEPA review problems. It makes these things, I mean, you know, there's other reasons corruption-wise why the bridge in Baltimore hasn't been rebuilt in five years, haven't even like

really broken ground on it yet. I mean, it's NEPA reviews are a huge portion of it. So any federal, any project that takes federal money at all is part of NEPA, Trump is in process. I think he's gotten part of that dialed back. But, I mean, you know, there's so much more he's got to do. he's working on it. The government, like every, every regulation that the government has, it's also one, you know, small chunk of whatever the funding money is that gets taken away. So if you get a trillion dollars to do a big thing, right, part of the reason why it doesn't ever, and it actually a lot of projects don't get done is because every organization that gets some kind of say in it gets their cut of the money so that way they can do the paperwork. necessary so they can say well we're doing this we're doing that it's not like these organizations they they don't have people that are there volunteering they all go ahead and they get their cut of the of the

money that's that's being spent that's part of the reason why california has never gotten their their high speed rail build i think they've made 150 feet of it or something like that and they've spent like 58 or whatever billion dollars or maybe it's 85 um but they spent billions and billions and billions of dollars trying to make high speed rail and they've built something like 150 or 200 feet of it because all of the funding that it goes to actually build the thing gets eaten up by the the EPA or by the by all of the the the regulation stuff so i imagine regulations are in place to prevent corruption so that you don't no no no not not when it comes to environmental stuff it's not to prevent environmental corruption all sort forms of corruption like you don't want to

build a house that no force oil into the river which is that that okay so you're i think i think i think I think you're changing the meaning of corruption in this context. Aspects of environmental corruption, political corruption, economic corruption, you know, physical corruption. They're different kinds of corruption. They're trying to prevent destruction of different types. But then what's happening is it is a corrupted system because it is taking so long to try and prevent the errors. It has become an error is what it feels like. Yeah.

What's the last big, massive, patriotic American infrastructure project you can think of that's happening in the last 30 years? And you really can't. You think of Hoover Dam, you know, Golden Gate Bridge, the interstate highways. All these massive projects were pre the 1970s. And like, Teal wrote about this, why everything sort of stopped in the 70s. Big reason why is because our environmental litigation has made this almost impossible. And the other secondary consequence of all these laws is that it opened up for a proliferation of like NGO groups to come in and endlessly sue every single project to prevent anything from getting done. This has been, this is the case for literally everything.

This was the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I don't know if you guys were following at 2012. Obama was going to sign us on to it, and there's this clause in it called the Investor State Dispute Settlement Clause, where an investor is like a Malaysian oil company. It's like this globalization, trans-Pacific partnership. So if a Malaysian company, the investor, had a dispute with a state, say, the United States, for, they're called discrimination. You're not buying our oil, so we're going to, the investor could then sue the state.

the corporation could sue America and then the taxpayers would have had to pay them back would have to pay the corporation with tax money and that's why I voted for Trump. Trump, that's why I was going to vote for Bernie Sanders. He spoke against it and why inevitably I vote for Trump. Day three, he got in 2016. He shot down that.

I don't know why I brought up that particular policy. I do because you wanted to go to foreign policy and we're going to jump to this story. From the BBC, U.S. Iran talks postponed as Israel, his deadly strike in Lebanon. A new round of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran have been postponed after Vice President J.D. Vance delayed a planned trip to Switzerland. The White House announced late on Thursday that Vance would not be traveling to the talks and the logistics had not been simple or predictable.

It comes a day after the U.S. dropped its naval blockade of Iran and after the two countries signed a deal aimed at ending the conflict. While the deal also said fighting should end in Lebanon, the country's health ministry reported Israeli strikes had killed at least 47 people overnight and into Friday. Israel's military said it had targeted the Iran-back group, Hezbollah, and that four of its own soldiers had been killed. Hours before the White House issued its statement, Hezbollah-linked Lebanese media reported that the talks had been suspended due to ongoing Israeli strikes. Is Israel trying to derail the peace process? I think Israel has a strong national interest, and I think that their interest in this case is not the same as our interests. I think that

President Trump had, you know, I think he went into this war. I think that he thought that there was going to be the possibility of a quick, you know, of a quick resolution to it. That didn't happen, and I think he spent the last two months trying to find an exit ramp. I think he found what he thought was acceptable, took the best deal that he could get to be able to avoid. a global cataclysmic economic collapse. And I think Israel has just, in this particular case, a different set of priorities. And like, that's okay. It's okay that foreign countries have different priorities than us.

My problem and who I blame for all of this are the American neocons who have, are obsessed with Iran. They've been obsessed with Iran for decades. this has been on their list to do, and they are just hell-bent on keeping us in this war. So I don't blame Israel. I blame the neocons. What do you got? Oh, man.

Yeah, I think it's so unacceptable. It just sucks. I mean, there's already the concern of, like, the global oil reserves going out, and there's obviously a case to be made that the war for us is, like, you know, the positioning with Venezuela and Cuba and that we're going to become the global oil exporter, so it's good for the American economy. like us geopolitically. It's less bad for the U.S. than anyone else.

Yeah. And I think marketedly it's like obviously less bad because our biggest concern is like, oh, no, our gasmen apply a few dollars for a few months. Like that's like sort of like the biggest consequence for us for the most part. But the notion to like trying to make sure you don't find peace is is really unfortunate. Yeah, I mean it sucks. It seems like this is what the Lekud Party has wanted since they wanted a two-party solution in the early 2000s. And then they were basically like, no, we don't want a two-party solution.

We want to make sure that we can conquer all the territory. So put a bunch of, you know, just seed the area with problems so that we have something to destroy. And then we can use that as an excuse to take it over. And like if I was talking about the greater Israel project? I'm not sure. Maybe. I don't know. Because I mean, I understand the, what you're laying out.

But I don't think that I don't, I think the reason I don't agree with it is because, you know, Israel hasn't significant. significantly expanded its borders, right? Like since the seven-day war, they gave the Sinai back to Egypt. They have it. They moved, I think they moved into Lebanon a little bit, but that's partially, in the Golan Heights, but that's partially strategic, right? The Golan Heights basically is a raised area over Tel Aviv, is it? No, it's over, it's Haifa in the north.

Yeah. And so, so it's really, it's really like they want the Golan Heights. So that way they're not, you know, they don't have raised positions to shoot it, shoot down it in Israeli city. But they don't have, they haven't really. done like there's a lot of people that talk about the greater Israel project and and I don't see Israel you know doing making moves to expand their territory um you know the the Gaza and I mean the slaughter those people and the corraling and and that that's it's pretty it seems like that's the

plan I don't know I don't know I don't the the Gaza's already like Gaza's already kind of part of Israel and like they left Gaza in like 2005 and and and and they kept them corralled, but like... Gaza's a complicated situation because Egypt does not want the Palestinians. Neither is Jordan. And neither is Jordan and neither is Israel. So they've sort of been stuck, and the reason why is because the Palestinians have had

all these sort of like various revolutionary movements in the past like, I don't know, like 40 years that like toppled certain princes. I think there was an assassination attempt. There's a lot of really bad blood, so none of them really want any of them. So they've kind of all just said, no, you stay here. And then obviously October 7th happened. to then the reaction to that. I think the biggest probably expansion

that's always been very controversial is the West Bank situation with all of the suburb developments where they just move Israelis in. But I mean, the greater Israel thing is more of like the American sort of early 2000s projects in the Middle East

where like we took out Gaddafi and Saddam and then now like Syria and like Assad's out like then hiding or whatever and there was this idea that after we sort of top of these nations like Israel will expand. That's like sort of the theory. I think there's other explanations that are a lot more plausible and reasonable. When it comes to Iran, like there's obviously an existential issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Israel has supposedly, supposedly a nuclear weapon. So like if they can

neither confirm, they can neither confirm or deny, but we can confirm if you come after us and we're we have an existential threat. We will use a nuclear weapon. So like there's a very valid argument and the war has been great for Bibi because like I think his approval ratings went up. Like he's sort of likes this for him, like, politically. And like, peace is probably, it maybe looks bad or worse politically for him. But even then, like, if there's a peaceful solution, for the sake of everybody, it's preferable that a peaceful solution is met rather than, like, total annihilation, like, between the two countries. What was, you know, Netanyahu, he was, like, being investigated by their judiciary right before October 7th and then every... I mean, still is. I mean, so, like,

Israel has this massive problem with their judicial system that a lot of, a lot of countries around world have where the judiciary is incredibly far left. And they've been investigating him. My understanding is he still has to go into, like, testimony, judicial process hearings, like, two days a week, like, even now. So, like, he is, like, you know, absolutely swamped by the Israeli judicial system. That has been a massive problem for a very long time. So, yeah, I mean, you know, I think there's a legitimate claim that, you know, that judicial system has been very politicized against him. Before we get into like the ins and outs of politics inside Israel, I want to point to to this

piece here from Newsweek, Trump blasted by, blasted in newspaper owned by top donor. You betrayed us. And this goes to the question of how Beebe is kind of, you know, looks at the war and wants to see it going on. A newspaper owned by billionaire Republican mega donor has published a blistering opinion piece accusing President Donald Trump of betraying Israel over his deal. with Iran to end the war. The critical op-ed was published by Israel Ha'om, the Israeli newspaper owned by Miriam Adelson,

one of Trump's biggest financial backers and one of the most influential pro-Israel donors in Republican politics. Adelson, a dual U.S. Israeli citizen with an estimated fortune of tens of billions of dollars, has been a major force in shaping conservative support for Israel and has had close ties to Trump for years. in the column Israel Hayleman's journalist Danny Zacken praised Trump's past support for Israel but said the president has made a colossal mistake by signing what he calls a surrender agreement with Tehran in a peace headline you could have been the greatest president of all but you failed Zachan wrote that Trump had missed an opportunity to be remembered among America's greatest presidents and warned the deal could damage U.S. interest and Israel's security

I think that's crap personally Like the idea that that doing something that benefits Israel primarily, I have my own thoughts about what the, what the situation in Iran is. I personally, I wrote a piece on my Patreon on the day the strikes initiated, I think that it's mostly about China, or at least a good portion about China. But this guy's take that an American president that does something that the Israeli hawks. like makes him the most memorable or the the greatest American president. That's crap. That's garbage. Israel is its own country and they have their own interests.

But the United States is not a client state of Israel. I don't care what anyone says. Like Israel's influential. Sure, they've got you've got APEC and you've got all this. You've got a lot of people that are Jewish in the administration. They have a lot of influence. But the U.S. still calls the shot. So this, to me, just smells of a tantrum that the,

the United States isn't carrying out strikes when Israel wants them to. Yeah, I think the biggest problem here is, you know, so first of all, Trump is clearly his own man. He has made decisions that have upset every possible interest. So the idea that he's doing something on behalf of just one group, I think is nonsense. So my biggest problem with all of, you know, there's nothing like, I don't know all that much about Mary Aedlinson herself, other than she gives a lot of money. But the idea to me, and the biggest problem that I have, is, you know, the foreign policy establishment, you know, essentially neocons and people sort of associated, they have a permanent vested interest in us toppling Iran. It is

part of a project that they have, like, deemed important for decades. They've been wanting every president to do this. These are domestic actors, you know, it's, I mean, these are people who, I mean, you know, these are the folks who got us into the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and kept us there for decades. And the point that I think that, you know, which is where I give so much credit to Trump, he is not interested in that. You know, he may agree. agree, you know, tactical, you know, we need to, you know, stop Iran, whatever. The folks who are pushing Trump that are, you know, having temper tantrums on Twitter about Trump signing this deal, they, when you push them, they will not be happy with anything that doesn't keep us in Iran for

the next 20 years. There's no off-ramp that they will be acceptable with, that they will find, you know, in any way tolerable other than us being there in a ground invasion and staying there for the next 20 years, they just won't. Do you think that they actually, the people in question, the neocons in question, do you think that they had a sense that that was going to be the situation? And the reason I asked this argument is because if you look at the buildup, it was clear that there were going to be strikes. Yeah.

But leading up to the war. And another reason why I was thinking about this is because there were so many people on the right, libertarians, anti-war people that are just like, we're going to have boots on the ground forever, et cetera, et cetera. They were so afraid that the neocons were going to get what they wanted. And you look at the situation, you're like, this looks nothing like the buildup to going into Iraq. They were not moving troops and they were moving in air assets. It looked like there was going to be big strikes. But if you looked at what was actually happening, look, I said this before, like no ground infantry goes in unless there is a trailer with a Burger King attached to it

right behind them. And that just didn't happen. Right. You know, you didn't see that kind of stuff. You didn't see the buildup of ground forces. You didn't see the logistics build up. And they were swearing up and down. Oh, you wait. It's going to happen. You wait. It's going to happen. You wait. Oh, it'll happen in a couple weeks. It'll happen, blah, blah, blah. But it's like, I didn't see it. And it looks like I was right. Like, we're trying to get out of it. There's not going to be a groundwork. Did the people that were the neocons, did they think that they could push for that kind of military? And the reason that I think that, so I know a lot of these folks in D.C., you know, friends with a lot of them, they're actually, you know, great patriots. They love America. I just don't happen to want us to be in forever wars. They may have a different opinion. The, you know, so the, the reason that I'm very confident that they want, that they thought that they would eventually get Trump into a ground war is because prior to Trump striking, they, you know, they were the folks claiming the Iranians will rise up. The Iranians will rise up. You know, we can do these strikes. We can be done real quick. Their goal was simply, and you saw this after like the 13-day war or whatever last year, the minute the strikes started, their goal posts immediately shift. Their goal put, like, like on a dime, the goal wasn't, okay, we're going to take out their nuclear capacity or we're going to take out their Air Force or their Navy.

Immediately their standard shifted to, we need a different regime in Iran. And it's like clockwork. They changed, you know, the goalposts immediately because their strategy was let's just get started and then we'll deal with it from there. Again, I don't even think this is like, this is not me blaming the Israelis. This is the foreign policy establishment in Washington, D.C. that has, you know, it's the same folks in the Ukraine and wanting us to, you know, keep getting involved there. it's just part of their nature. They like these conflicts and they like them to continue. There's a lot of different reasons for it. But the bottom line was the reason I'm so confident in the fact that they thought they could trap snare Trump into something long term, into something

included ground forces, was because they immediately shifted the goalposts. And that's when you started to see like, okay, well, let's go into Carg Island. Let's just take like one island, it's just real small. We can just take that. Their goal is to get ground forces there. And Trump, to his, you know, and this is what I love about him, he completely resisted that. And because he saw, once you get forces in there, you know, maybe you lose some people, you got to go. And, you know, Trump's going to defend the American, you know, the American military. If we have losses, he's going to make sure that we are there to defend them, to back them up. So their strategy, I think, was to get us in over time rather than, you know, but right now, their, you know, their temper tantrum

about Trump signing this deal is, they want to make sure that this keeps going. Yeah, I mean, even the framing of this article, it's like he would have been the greatest president of all, he would have been remembered. It's like, he's going to be remembered for his domestic policy. He's going to be remembered because of like what he does for the people here, for people who like can't afford houses right now,

who can't afford cars or whatever. There hasn't been a president remembered positively for a military action since World War II. Exactly. Yeah. Like he's going to be like even, we just saw there's this like, like new truck company. It was like Rio. They announced like an under $25,000 gas truck, a 600 mile tank, all-wheel drive, manual automatic available. It's like that is a direct response to the repealing of CAFE regulations, which totally destroyed the truck and even

like the greater automobile market in the country. Like if he could get a new car available to young people, which is like what most boomers got to experience, if he could get that available to young people, that's what he's going to be remembered for. He's going to be remembered for. He's going to be remember for that. He's not going to be remembered for some war. He's going to be remembered for making housing affordable, for mass deportations, for making things cheaper, making the America, like the way of life in this country better. That's what he's

going to be remembered for, not for, you know, a three-month-long campaign in Iran and especially not for if that, like, if it goes even worse. Yeah. I'd love to see an industrial revolution on the domestic soil. I push graphing like it's my job. I was just a re-industrialize earlier this week

out in Detroit. It is incredible what is happening. Philara Atomics just like... They just hit criticality. They just hit criticality yesterday. What does that mean? They're building like portable nuclear reactors. That work.

Criticality. What's criticality? Critical means that it reaches the point of the reaction. Yeah. Their fusion or fission? Vision. Vision. They don't, they haven't figured up.

Yeah, these are like size of this room. Yeah. Really? Yeah. I'm on a truck. Like they're good, you know, the nuclear future we could have had if it wasn't for the environmentalists in the 60s. Yeah, exactly. We're going to have that now.

Like, there is amazing things happening on the re-industrialization. Trump will be remembered for that. Like, you know, I mean, like, he's making this possible. We haven't been able to build in this country since the 60s. Yeah. These nuclear reactors are likely going to be the key to powering the data centers that everybody's, you know, concerned about. And, you know, like area denial, lasers, things that can knock drones out of the sky, too.

You'll be able to move them around. Well, I mean. Glassed. They were already on, you know, aircraft carriers, which have nuclear power. Yeah. So, like, terrestrial, like, land-based or even sky-bath? I mean, you could probably fly those reactors in, like, in sky machines, you know, airplanes and satellites. Oh, we could get the airships.

The airships as well. I post about this on our account all the time. Nuclear airships? There's a dream. It was Adams for Peace. This is under, I think, Eisenhower, and they had all this propaganda for, like, we had the Ford Nucleon. This is a concept car for a nuclear-powered car. We had the nuclear airship.

there was this ideal, this future of the American nuclear future that was robbed from us by scared boomers. It's your... Coranium's pretty dirty, but if you have thorium, it's... Yeah, the sodium, salt reactors. They just don't melt down. This is a little bit off, not off topic, but it's a little bit of tangent. There's one thing that drives me nuts

about the way that people talk about nuclear waste. And I don't know for sure, but I think that it has something to deal with the teenage mutant Ninja Turtles, right? The goo, right? Everybody thinks of nuclear waste as this, this sludge that's hard to contain, blah, blah, blah. For people that don't know, nuclear waste is metal rods. And they put them, they encase them in concrete and then encase them in a steel tube, right? It is the, it is, like they've transported nuclear waste all across the country on the highways.

They've had accidents, car accidents, where the tubes have gotten knocked off and stuff. there's never been a significant nuclear spill of nuclear rays. And that's another thing. They say spill. Like a metal rod can spill. It's this implication of an oozing liquid that you can't contain and it's hard to clean up. They're literally metal rods. It's like big pieces, they're not made of steel, but it's like these big pieces of steel

that they encase in concrete. And when I say in case, I don't mean they put them in a box. They literally just fill up a container full of concrete. So it's concrete with metal tubes in it, like rebar. Corium. Then they bury them in the ground. And like, this is a massive country. Like, you, we have plenty of space.

So, like, yeah, no. I mean, and this is why, you know, I want to keep going. Like, Trump is going to be remembered for this amazing, you know, all of the amazing things he's doing, you know, reindustrialize, everything on this front. it can't happen if we keep, you know, bombing the rest of the world. We've got to save this country. The nuclear, it can all be reused that nuclear waste. They call it waste right now because they haven't really figured out what to do with it. But they have, actually.

I interviewed Yakezkel Moskowitz, a great interview. He has a company that is, he's like, dude, there's 98% of our nuclear waste can be reconverted back into fuel. The whole system is recyclable. It's just a matter of putting the tech in place. We have just made it impossible to build nuclear anything. and there's so much future of this. I mean, you know, the guys at Valar, like, these things are safe. These things are, you know, they are, like, the more we do it, the more we're going to

have experience doing it. We can reuse the waste. We can make sure that these, you know, we can have, we can have a future where power is just, it's not, you know, we're not going to be free, but it's going to be just, almost free. Almost free. That was the argument. That was the promise during the nuclear age. It was like free power.

They're going to be able to generate so much power that you're not going to have an electric bill anymore. It's going to go away. And there is a new argument being made about AI and data centers. If you have a data center, they're using so much power at these data centers that the town down the street becomes a round. The entire power need of the town down the street becomes a rounding error. So it's good for, it would be good business and good community outreach for the data center to say, you know what, we'll power your town for free. everybody nobody has an electric bill anymore because really we're spending you know whatever a hundred million dollars a month or whatever it is a hundred million dollars a month

paying for power for this place what's another 10 million dollars to cover the power for the town down the street that's that is something that is actually a possibility in the future yeah called nuclear reprocessing that's the but okay so my concern is it seems like domestically we're on track technically to rebuild phenomenally obviously you know chaos and fighting and all that is always a threat. But geopolitically, how do we, what this, this like is, I don't know if you guys want to go back to it, but the Israeli-Iranian thing, I don't even think it's an American problem, like, how do you, what do you do? Because if we lose the, the, you handle it, what's that? You handle it by not handling it. But if we don't do anything.

It's not our problem. Suez Canal is our problem. The Suez Canal is not near Iran. It's an, well, it's, yeah, it is. It's right there. Shrain and Horamuz, you're thinking. No, I'm thinking of the Suez Canal. We need trade from the Mediterranean. training to the Pacific. Yeah, okay, yeah. So we need, that's the whole point. I think it's why they set up Israel where they set it up 100 years ago is to protect that area of the world so that we can control global trade routes.

If we, so that's kind of why we're tied in. It's like we need to maintain the Suez and all those little gulfs and things that's way of Kuwait. You know, Kuwait was our oil bridge out into the Indian Ocean, basically. I mean, how do you, without militarily, without like, the only way out is through, I don't know, like blowing our way through this, like exploding a hundred million people doesn't seem like the right answer. Um, I just don't know how to stop them, the Israelis. Like, my, my deep concern is that the Israelis are completely cut off geopolitically, diplomatically, and then they're like, we have no

choice, but to nuke everyone now. See, you pushed us to this. We're like, bro, I can't hold your hand. If you're going to threaten suicide over and over, like at some point, I'm going to let you do it. I don't know what to do. Like, I can't, I can't force you to be good. Yeah. So, so, So my thing with Israel, I think that they, you know, I have absolutely no problem with a strong alliance with them. I have absolutely no problem with them defending themselves. I think it's their, like, it's their duty to do that as a country. We need to make very clear that we're not the world's policemen. We cannot be going to do these wars anymore. When you say world's policemen, there's one, I do want to get your opinion on this. I think the United States, as the guarantor of the sea lanes is a good thing. And I don't think that that counts as World Police. Some people would say, oh, you know, the U.S.

with all the Big Navy that we have and spending all this money on the Navy and et cetera, we don't need that kind of stuff. I don't, like, I think the U.S. has been a net positive for global trade because the U.S. guarantees international trade via the seas. Is that, when you say, when you say World Police, are you talking about? I think that Trump is rebuilding. the Navy, like, you know, something that's really, you know, so we've got something like 10, 12 aircraft carriers, groups. During World War II, we built 150 aircraft carriers in four years. We can barely

build ships now. Like, to me, like, we should be, like, I think that the future of America guaranteeing world trade, and I have no problem with that. I don't consider that world police. I consider going in, ground invasion, you know, taking out. Like, I think that a future, you know, I think the stuff that the Anderle guys, like, you know, I don't want drones flying over my house, like police drones. I want, I want like drone ships policing the seas, preventing piracy, preventing. Like, you know, we need dominance in, you know, we need naval dominance that of with future technology that we have companies currently building. like the future where we do that isn't going to be secured by, you know, current generation ships. Like we're seeing the limits of that right now where, you know, we are trying to keep the straighter

or more moves open or were, you know, before we signed the deal. Like they were just flying $500 drones into the straight. Like we need a future technology to be able to help us do that. But to me, like, that's more of like we need to be focusing on, yes, making sure that the various sea lanes are open, making sure that, you know, the Panama canals controlled by Americans and not China. Like all of this is, that's totally possible without invading a single country. You say you don't want drones flying over your house, and I also identify.

But what if they're so high up, you don't see them? I care less, the less I see them. Even if they're equally as lethal? Well, because satellites are already. going around the planet all the time. And I mean, you may not, I'm not sure exactly the resolution quality you can get with satellites, but I'm fairly confident they can, you know, I know that just the stuff that I see on Google Earth is fairly impressive, you know.

So whether it be a drone or a satellite, the concept is essentially the same, right? Well, what I'll say about drones and what I'll say about that, you know, I actually think, I think that a future of the Second Amendment, for instance, involves Americans owning their own drone swarms. We actually work at this at our organization. We want to make sure that states in trying to write a law of Americans to be able to use drones for self-defense. Like, that's like actually like a real thing. I'm sold. You should act, like Americans should absolutely have drone swarms defending their home. Like, you know, so like, like, I want to make sure.

You mentioned the Fourth Amendment earlier. I absolutely agree. We need to have Americans need to be able to have, like, be able to have, implement high-level encryption. That's the type of thing that there are government actors right now trying to make illegal for Americans to have high-level encryption technology. You know, so there's a lot of things we need to do to get back to on the civil liberties front. I'm a very strong believer. I think America has like this long tradition of people who care about privacy for its own sake. You're not trying to hide anything. It's just your right to think and behave and be private is something we do need to get back to. And that's, I mean, that's really a cultural fight. Like, we need people to care about that. I think a lot of people just assume they're being spied on so they don't care. We were just talking about this yesterday. This is actually more a generational fight than anything because Gen X, I'm sorry, Gen Z.

They don't conceptualize privacy the same way that, like, I do. I'm a Gen X. I'm 51. one. Like when I think of privacy, I think of nobody's watching, nobody's listening, and I can do whatever I want with no one knowing. They don't have the same concept of it. In a day when you tap, approve, on a new app, and you're giving them access to your camera and to your, to your microphone, and they can literally listen to whatever is going on. And it's likely that the phone could possibly send out an ultrasonic tone that you can't hear that will map your room, you know, and map the

way the interior of your houses. That's become just, well, something that people that are younger just expect. And it's, you know, I think that the argument about, I like, I agree with you. I like the idea. If you want privacy, you should be able to have it. But I think people have given up privacy, you know, and given it up. for the convenience and the benefits that modern technology. I mean, everyone knows that, not everyone knows,

but for people that don't know, your Wi-Fi router itself can map the interior of your home. Now, they have algorithms that can take, can measure the reflection of Wi-Fi signals inside of a room and can literally map out the inside of your room. It's like the dark night. It's like the technology, that Batman, that Lawrence Fox had to destroy at the end of Batman,

because it was too much power for one man to have and turns out, well, guess what? Now everybody has it in their home and all it took was the right algorithm to read it. Yeah, I mean, there's always like the polling between privacy and convenience, like you said. Like on my phone, you know, I'm Gen Z. I was born in 2000. I remember a time when I had a flip phone when I was like, you know, like 12, 13 years old. And back then, like we had either pictures that were physical or I had like a few pictures on my phone. and then now, like, I would say probably 80% of the pictures on my phone are in Apple servers.

Yeah. Like, they're all just stored there. And, you know, I was looking into like, well, what's the cost of having your own little data center, like your own data server in your own home, and the amount of work you have to do to go through all these programs that can sync then to your phone so you can have your own little little personal client that runs 24-7 in your home? It's a lot of work. Like, it's a little bit easier than you might think, but it's still a lot of work.

And for most of us, like, yeah, we were just born into a world of, of a mass convenience at the expense of our privacy. And implicitly, most people, I guess the market has determined that people are willing to give up their privacy. Like, I know there are times, like, you know, I remember I was talking to my fiance about going to do a vacation like Idaho. And the next thing you know, the next day, on Instagram, I'm getting Airbnb ads for the town that I was talking about in Idaho.

And I'm like, this just like, what am I going to do? Get rid of my phone? I need my phone for work. Like, I can't do that. I think it has to be a cultural issue. You know, the good analog to the privacy in my mind is the Second Amendment. Like, the idea that you're going to take personal ownership of your security is a cultural thing. So we have the legal right in the United States to defend ourselves with firearms.

But the actual act of owning a gun is not simply going to buy a gun. You have to, like, actually decide, I need to train with the gun. I need to make sure. The same thing, we need a culture of privacy that probably, you know, I imagine over time, you know, it'll go back and forth. You know, maybe at some point, Gen Zia wake up, say we want privacy. And we need the legal ability to be able to do that if you're willing to take on the work. Because clearly, we have decided as a country, it's an essential part of our culture that we say we want the ability to defend ourselves. And that is an outs. Like, we have. are taking ownership of something. We're not just going to rely on the police. We're going to say we, you know, we're going to go buy a gun. We're going to train with the gun. We're going to make sure that we have thought through, like how we're going to use the gun in certain situations. Like that's, that to me, it's a very strong analogy to privacy. But we need the ability to do that. And so, you know, we want to make sure that we keep that. This is why I demand, like I do believe our rights are extrapolating to a digital realm of some sort of. First Amendment is your right to access the source code. of any tech you're using. Now, that's a wide net. And people have said, like, well, then that's going to mean all the security protocols in

the software are now open, and it can be hacked. So you've got to be careful. But if you have a drone swarm, you need access to the code to know that it's not coded to destroy you. If you have, because I think another aspect of the Second Amendment digitally is everyone has a right to a personal AGI off grid that can help control the dorm swarms that can, but you need the access to the source code to know that it's not connected to some central server or been coded to destroy you secretly in three years.

And that's about as far as I've got. I love the drone swarm concept. The concern, of course, is they're like, government's going to be like, hey, if Joey B over there, shout out, Joe, has a drone swarm and can control it with his thoughts, he can conquer his neighbor who doesn't have a drone swarm, although they have a right to their drone swarm.

They don't have one yet. And then they're going to be like, oh, that's a lot of power to give one man. But, I mean, the United States... Having 10 ARs in your homes is a lot of power, too. Like, we, like, the whole point of America is, We told you that I have 10 ARs in my house. I was talking about someone else.

And it's kind of like, you don't have to trust me. I just have a right to do this. Yeah. Learn to trust me. I mean, I think we have to have an America where citizens are trusted in that level. That's part of why I'm personally immigration restrictionist. I think we have to be able to trust the people we have in this country. because like the entire point of America is you have to be able to, we give people, I mean,

you're allowed to say whatever the hell comes to your mind. You know, and you're allowed to have a gun. Like those are, those are a lot of power that we trust in people. And I think we need to, like, citizenship is, is not just, you know, it's not something passive. Like, you have to actually take it seriously. All right. We're going to jump to this story here from ABC 7 in Los Angeles. There is a measure to give non-citizens the right to vote in L.A. city elections, and it's going to go before voters.

The Los Angeles City Council took one step closer towards possibly giving non-citizens the right to vote in city elections, agreeing to put the measure on the November 3rd ballot. The measure is part of a package of proposed charter changes that will go before voters this year. In a decisive 10-to-5 vote, the council on Wednesday approved a propositional introduction, excuse me, approved approved a proposal introduced by Councilman Hugo Sotomartinas to implement non-citizens or residential voting for city and L.A. unified district elections. Soto Martinez emphasized individuals with some form of legal status, such as deferred action for childhood arrivals, temporary protected status holders, legal permanent residents would be allowed to vote under such a program. This issue to me is really about fairness and representation, Sotomaynaz said.

it just does not make sense to me that someone who moves to Los Angeles for a temporary job has more of a voice than a parent who has been here for decades, raising their children through our public schools. I think this is a terrible idea for many reasons. You should not set precedent that people that are not citizens should vote. And furthermore, I think that we need to substantially limit the franchise that we already have. I'm a not universal voter kind of dude. I think that MTV did a great disservice with Rock the Vote in the 90s. I think it was a terrible idea. But I'm interested in hearing your take on it. I think we should generally, this is a criticism for you, Phil, take it or leave.

It's unsolicited. Separate those two things because some people, when they hear limit for enfranchisement of what we already have to scale things back, they flip out. But the idea of stopping a foreigner from voting. That's not controversial. Foreign people should not be voting in domestic elections. That's insanity through and through, I think. I mean, it seems like it. No, I'm going to throw something out and trigger Jacob.

What's the difference between L.A.'s current voting laws and this? I was going to say, there literally isn't. So I used to live in L.A. And I was just amazed when I went to go vote in 24. And I went there. and I tried to show them my ID because I heard these rumors that they won't look at an ID

so I tried to show them my ID and they literally averted their eyes and looked away. It was the most insane, unbelievable experience I've ever had and all they do, whatever requirements you think exist in Los Angeles, they don't exist.

You walk up into the polling station anywhere they are, they're everywhere. And you go and you say, my name is this and then you just give them an address and they print you a ballot. There's no verification.

Nothing happens. They literally just, print it right then and there. They register you right then and there to whatever address you want. They don't check anything. There's literally no check. Then you go. You go into the machine. You go and hit your buttons, print it out, and you give it to them. There is no difference. Like, God knows who immigrated and Biden, who like walked up the border, you could go straight to L.A. and just vote. And this has been the case for years. And California is like sort of under this whole, like the consequences. So back in that in 1994 is Prop 187. And this is when they try to

restrict public programs from illegal immigrants. This is a big anti-illegal immigrant bill. 60% of California supported this back in 1990s. And then a judge said no, it's actually unconstitutional. So then the immigration floods, takes over the state. There's other propositions that are really red that got, again, like totally usurped by either the governor or the judges. And ever since then, it's just been under occupation. And they've just increasingly flooded the state with non-citizens and just made it easier and easier for them to vote. And now they just don't care. Well, what do you think about? I saw, I didn't pull it up, but I saw a piece that was on Twitter, someone talking about Hollywood and L.A. may go the way of Detroit

because a lot of people are leaving. The movie industry is no longer, it's not what it used to be in California. You know, how does California, how does Los Angeles actually recover from the negative things that have already happened and continue to have. happen as businesses are leaving. So what needs to happen to California, we've actually gone through this as a country. There is plenty of precedent. You know, we fought the Civil War at the end of the Civil War. We said that the system of government that was set up in the Southern states was unacceptable. It was not up to the standards that our country, you know, was going to have. And we went through a process of reconstruction of southern states to reform their constitutions and to bring them into alignment

with a standard that was acceptable to be part of the union. In my opinion, the state of California is way past the point where their standards for how their state is governed is so, it's so bad that it is not acceptable to just say, well, it's California, they're their own state, they can do their own thing. I think California needs, and I'm a native Oregonian. California has destroyed my state first. You know, they all came up to Oregon. They took all the good jobs because they had fancies degrees from Berkeley, and they ruined my state. And now they're doing the same thing to Washington and Idaho and Utah. But the point being, California's lack of, you know, lack of care or, you know, whatever you want to describe in terms of motive, California is conducting itself on the governance

sphere in a way that is unacceptable to be part of the federal union. And I think they need to be abolished and reconstruct, like the government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up to fit in conformity with federal laws. Because, you know, Gavin Newsom likes to say, you know, Californians, a next exporter, you know, they give more federal tax dollars than they receive in federal benefits. That, like, at the end of the day, doesn't matter. California has made access to government programs, to illegal immigrants, and to really just, they have not enforced any laws on fraud and forever.

Like, you can go down the list of governance issues that affect the entire country. California cannot be allowed to continue to govern itself in its current regime. that its laws are completely antithetical to our American way of life and our way of government, and that's my rant. You mentioned Reconstruction. Civil War, I've heard a lot about it. I thought it was they were rebuilding buildings. Now you just pointed out they were actually rebuilding their policy, their government

constitutions. Yeah. So what happened? All these states surrendered and then they're like... Yeah, all these states had laws saying that, you know, black people were not considered citizens. You know, like African-Americans were not considered citizens. So they, they, like, they went through and completely rewrote state constitutions after that. And also, like, and they made them come into conformity with federal law. So, so, yeah, I mean, there was a whole series sequence of things. And yeah,

no, reconstruction was a political reconstruction. So short of like a war that California loses, how would you see them actually abiding by or giving? I think that you can do, I think, I think, I think you can do it simply through legislation. I think you can say that no state in America can allow non-citizens to vote in this instance. No state in America can allow non-citizens to be eligible for social programs that receive any dollar of federal money, and all of California's due. So I think you can go through and just simply state, you know, if California wants to receive a single dollar in federal benefits, they need to, you know, enact XYZ reforms. You can do, absolutely, absolutely do that. They're not enforcing laws across the board in California that we can just, like, you know, if you're not going to, if you're not going to police your streets, if you're not going to clean up, you know, if you're not going to, you know, clean it the homeless problem, like you can spend as much money on homelessness as you want. If you're just not going to solve these problems, the federal government's going to create a national standard that every state has to conform to. I mean, this is like, this is how, you know, like,

Every state in America adopted a 21, you know, age drinking, a drinking age because it was a federal standard to do so. Federal government's been enacting standards that states have to comply to forever. I think we need to do it with California and how they run their government. Yeah, California is in a uniquely awful position. It's Medicaid program, I think, went bankrupt last year or announced like it's near bankruptcy, all sorts of issues with that. The other big one was when the Palisades fire hit, they have a, state-run house insurance program where if there was this whole situation where when the palisades fire happened a bunch of the houses in the palisades were no longer being insured

but like state farm these large insurance companies because california is already hostile to these firms so a bunch of these non-renewals kicked in right in january palisades fire happened like the seventh and ninth of january and then when that happened all these houses were supposed to go on i think it's called a fair program and this is the state-run housing insurance program the value of the palisades alone being burnt to nothing was enough to bankrupt the entire state. So the entire state is run so poorly that any sort of catastrophic event can send the entire state into financial turmoil. And this is part of the reason why I think like 2030 is significantly, like 2020,

it's super important because we're sort of at this precipice where all these blue states are committing economic suicide. You have companies pulling out of Seattle. You have California like Hollywood's pulling out. Colorado is probably the first big blue state that's actually hit a legitimate recession within the state, while other states are, like, red states are, like, uprising right now. They're all doing great economically. Colorado's in recession.

They're losing tons of jobs. People can't even move out of their houses because the housing situation there. All of these states are kind of going under. And as they continue to go under, if we don't have control of 28 and like into 2030 and whatnot, then when these cities go under, which will then bankrupt the states and the federal government's going to bail them out. And this is a massive, massive concern that people aren't really thinking of yet. These states are huge liabilities to the solvency of a,

America as a whole, and they're killing themselves. And Ian, how do they bail them out? Federal tax dollars. No, they print the money. We're just complaining about it earlier. They just print it out of nothing. Federal Reserve prints it for them, and then they borrow it at interest. And then more inflation for the American people.

You do make a good point, because this really is going to be something that, you know, it's going to be in conjunction with the Social Security going back. You're going to have states going bankrupt and the government is just going to start printing. And they're choosing to do this. Like this is a choice of policy. This is the big thing, what's terrifying about California and even though fine, in California, this law doesn't really matter. And Los Angeles specifically doesn't matter because they already like don't care about checking anything. But that'll be a model for the rest of the country.

Exactly. Yes. Every, every blue state from California up to Seattle and then Colorado follows and then Illinois follows and then New York follows. and then they sort of create this secondary country where their policies then bleed out into all these other states and the effects of this then bleed out to the rest of the country

which is like the case for this needs to be handled. They cannot choose to kill themselves like this because if they do then they're going to take the rest of us with them. Yeah, this is an argument that we make a topic we discuss regularly. The things that are going on in California

when it comes to voting, that's what the Democrat Party wants to see nationally. So if California is allowed to continue to basically rig the system, and we talk about what rig the system means, right? Like, anytime you say to a Democrat, you say, look, they're rigging the system in California. It's bad. And the response is always, well, that's the law. As if the law implies legitimacy, right?

If you think, okay, only Americans should vote. And you think, well, you know, they don't let illegals vote, right? That's the thing. is if you're illegal, if you're here illegally, you can't vote. And again, you talk to any Democrat and they'll say, illegals can't vote, but then you go through the system that California actually has. There's no IDs. Anyone can go up and say, I live here, give me a ballot.

They mail ballots out. There's no, there's no chain of custody. There's no guarantee that the person that filled out the ballot was actually a legitimate voter or here legally. All of this stuff is enshrined in law. So it's legal. It's all. above board, but it's set up so that way it is not representing the people. It is representing people that are here legally and it is representing the Democrat Party. That's what they would love to do

in the United States. I mean, that's it's kind of what happened in the 2020 election, right? They mailed out ballots, collected the ballots. No one knows for sure if all the ballots that were counted were legal. But you get them, we get Democrats that come in here or left-leaning people and they're like and their refrain their common refrain is was the 2020 election stolen and the answer is no because it was legal and that's their that's what they say oh it was all legal and you can't you haven't shown me you can't prove and it's like no i don't have evidence of massive voter fraud you're right i don't have that evidence but when you mail out ballots and you have no way to verify that the people that were that were filling out the ballots were actually, you know, legitimate voters,

then you can't say that it was legitimate. Yes, it was legal. Yes, Joe Biden was elected legally, you know, but it wasn't legitimate. It was a, it was a completely novel way for the United States to carry out an election. And people say, well, COVID, COVID, COVID. You know what? The proper solution to COVID means that you just have a really low turnout. Yeah.

Not to not mail out ballots, not make sure that anybody that's in the country of America gets to have a ballot. You just make sure you just say, oh, well, this particular election, we have a really low turnout, you know, because no one complains about the variance in in turnouts from election to election to election under normal circumstances. But when Donald Trump's going against Joe Biden and they want to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't get in again, well, then you figure out a way for it to be legal. to do unprecedented things. So you're absolutely right. What Democrats do is they create their masters at process. I envy their ability to just engineer process to get the outcome to be exactly what they wanted to be, which is what they did during COVID.

Completely changed election laws in a ton of states around. They made it election season in a bunch of different states that had never had that before. And, you know, so yeah, just because it's illegal doesn't mean. it's okay. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And it doesn't mean we shouldn't change it. And we have got to get to a situation in this country where we look at states like California, not just California, kind of across the board. I mean, I live in Virginia. They're doing this to my state right now. Just because they passed a law doesn't mean that we need to like accept this as, you know, how we're going to govern ourselves as a country. We have got to get to the point where we have the

confidence to say, no, you're not allowed to have any level of government in America that has a single non-citizen voting for it. Like, it's not okay. You're not allowed to have them vote, like, legally like they're trying to propose, and you're not allowed to let them vote by simply looking the other way. You, like, we need to have a system of elections that have standards and that have rules and that the rules are followed. You know, no one's perfect, doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to have a high degree of confidence, though. And we just have to get to a point where we're just confident enough as a country to say, we're just not going to tolerate that.

My concern here is if we were to, you know, initiate a reconstruction through the federal government into California and be like, you're going to be changing laws. And if you don't, you're going to lose government funding that they would go, well, we're not. And the Americans have betrayed, the American government has betrayed us. See everyone? China help us. And then China comes in and funds all their military. Then you send in the National Guard.

If they say China help us, which I think that that's a little extreme. I think that's a little extreme. But if there were any state that were to appeal to an adversary and say, hey, come help us. That's when you send in the military. And you forcibly remove the people in government. But if there's no appeal and then the Chinese help, whatever. But I see your point that that could lead to military conflict. So I think California is too big personally.

to govern. I think it should be cut in half, like North and South California. I'd be fine with that. The North is very different than the South. I think that there's, I think it's a big argument for a lot of states. Again, I'm from Oregon. Like, Oregon is completely dominated by Portland, but the rest of the state, you know, there's the I-5 corridor, which is all liberal. You know, it's, it's Portland and Eugene. It's the same thing in California. You have this, like, tiny little geographic area where there are all of the people, and they all happen to be leftists, but then there's the rest of the state, which are massive land mass, and the people who do live there are completely different. You know, I mean, like completely different culture. Like 180, you know, these are like, you know, small government conservatives in the rest of Oregon. Same thing in California. Same thing in a lot of these states. Like, you know, I think that there's actually, there are people talking about potentially breaking up California into states. The problem is the north and the south would be the most sensical thing would be to cut it in half. So like San Francisco takes the north, Los Angeles takes the south essentially to big as cities or whatever.

But the real differentiation in California is east and west. The west is all the liberal. That's what I'm more interesting. Yeah. And they control the seaboard, which is that's the value of California is the Pacific. And then all the people in the east are the farmers beyond the mountains. So like you wouldn't cut it laterally. That wouldn't make any sense.

That's more interesting to me because like you want. I mean, California, what are the political differences between San Francisco and Los Angeles? It's not really, yeah. The political difference and the reason that you would want is everyone kind of east, you know, of the state, like, they, like, you know, these are, these are completely different culture. Like, to me, it's more of, like, cultural compatibility. But the, like, the military value of California is the Pacific Coast access. Sure. It's part of why Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine.

is so they could get Mediterranean access. You take away seaborne access, you're begging for a war. We can keep San Diego. So there could be, I don't know. It's a big ask, but California is just, it just seems too big. The north is like the, what are they called, the redwood trees. It's a lot of forested area. The south is like mountains and desert.

Yeah. Yeah, Texas actually has, like, it's funny to talk about breaking up states. The ultimate Republican nuclear weapon is, I think, enshrined somewhere deep in the Texas Constitution. There's this hidden clause that it can break itself up to like seven or nine states. And this is the ultimate like we're going to take the Senate forever. We are going to break Texas up and then we will own the federal government, which I don't think will ever happen because Texas is like Texans love the shape of our state. But that is like there are these sort of options like breaking up some of the bigger Western states into things. But how

realistic any of this is is like harder to say. I think it's probably more realistic. So like you I do think, like, kind of getting back to the reconstruction, like, there's varying degrees of severity of it. So, you know, there's, you can do simple good governance legislation. Again, kind of gets back. The Senate doesn't do anything. And Trump, you know, that's why even today he's tweeting out, like, they must abolish the filibuster. You know, regardless of you agree with that or not, the point being this will require legislation. but we have to have standards that these states adhere to.

We have got to have, you know, you can't allow the level of like the level of just degeneracy that California has degraded into in how they're governing their state. Do I have mixed feelings? I sort of veered towards the Jeffersonian model of state's rights over the Hamiltonian model of federal authority. but the civil war sort of was like, you can't let that happen. I mean, if the country were to break in half into another conflict, that China would take over the world. The Russians and the Chinese would dominate the planet economically. They would swoop in and fund half of the revolution.

So they can't have. I don't want a civil war, to be very clear. I think we just need to assert that we're not going to accept behavior like, you know, what we're talking about with allowing it on. citizens to vote. Like, what you, I think if you were to clean up California's voter rolls, if that were just to be, if you want to receive another dollar more of federal funding, you were to clean up California's voter rolls, if you were to kind of going back to your point about too many people voting, I'm sympathetic to that argument, I think that vote by mail,

like I think you need to require, I think you need to have standards in place that make election counting happen overnight. Like people need to have results of the election the same night. I think you need to have a system where it's not election season. India has 1.5 billion people and they know the results of their elections

the same day or the next morning. I mean, every third world country can administer elections. And you know what their voter security is? They make you dip your finger in pink ink so that you can, that doesn't come off for a week so that you do know that that person is voted or not.

Like, there's low-tech solutions to this stuff. Like, that's literally, like, it is not hard to do. We have to. And my point being, though, going back to California, if you're a clean-up of the voter rolls, if you were to have election day instead of election season, if you were to make sure, like, all of a sudden, Republicans would start winning elections that they haven't won in 20 years. How do you feel about blockchain voting? Have you looked into it much?

I prefer low-tech to high-tech when it comes to election security just because, and I've seen all of these So, like, I love blockchain. I love the technology. There's like a lot of really cool stuff going on Wyoming with blockchain. But when it comes to elections, I think that voters inherently trust low tech over high tech. It's harder to cheat at scale. Like, again, I'm a huge fan of blockchain. I think, though, simple is better.

Yep. And, like, you know, so I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not, like, against it. but just as like what can we do right now? Paper ballots. Yeah. I kind of see a hybrid system where you put the paper ballot in the machine and then it goes to a series of like 19 different blockchains where then you can go online and there's a barcode that you can scan, punch in your, you know, your ID, your social and verify that your vote is being read as what you put it in as because not against that. All paper ballots, you could write one thing and then they can count it as another. No, and that's always, that's actually been a thing in Detroit for like Detroit, Chicago.

The blue cities, like, that's like voter fraud has been a thing in America for a very long time. It's existed for as long as the Democrat Party has. But, but yeah, I mean, so like I actually think that's interesting and certainly not opposed to it. But low tech is certainly possible and would eliminate a lot of the biggest problems that we have. Yeah, like even if I were interested in some solution like blockchain or high tech, we can't even get voter ID passed. So to have something like a complete revamping of the way we do votes when you can't even get, you know, get verification via ID. Yeah. I think that that's, I think that, I mean, to get what you're talking about, you need ID first because you just were mentioning, you know, you punch in.

everybody would have to have a number. And I think that you'd get resistance from both sides. You'd get resistance about having ID from the Democrats and you'd get resistance from Republicans saying, I don't want to have a serialized number that the government, you know, it would be one of those, you know, digital ID kind of arguments. So whereas I understand what you're saying for security reasons. I think the easiest thing is, look, you go, you get one paper ballot. I wouldn't mind if the United States were like, all right, you have to actually put your fingerprint on it, you know. Not that they should keep those records, but, you know, dip your finger in ink that doesn't come off for a week so that way, you know, you can prove you voted, but you can't go back

and vote again. And I think it's like to get to, you know, too many people vote. Like, I think you should have to care enough to show up on the day. You should have to care that much. 100%. Like, and it wasn't that long that that was basically the state. standard and as few exceptions as possible, but that's at least a minimum threshold to where you have surety that the people are voting and that you have like, you know, you have to have

a level of buy in that you're willing to show up on a particular day. Would you make a or be open to making it a national holiday? I mean, I think you can't. I don't think it's needed, but sure. There's a lot of people will argue they can't get to the voting polls because they work 12 hours. A lot of people would lie. I was to let you off, like, to go vote during work, at least in my experience. A lot of people would lie and say, oh.

It's never been a federal holiday. Somehow it worked. Like, I don't care. Like, I think that, I think that companies should be encouraged, you know, to, like, you know, make it easier for people. But I also, like, you know, like, if you wanted to trade Juneteenth for election day, sure. Which is today, isn't it? Yes. Today Juneeteenth, guys.

Most office is closed. Growing up, that was never a thing. Like I said, I'm 50, and I can't. This is like the past couple years of the first couple years where it's like, oh, everything's closed. I'm okay with it being a little bit harder. I had a hard time in L.A. getting out to vote, getting out to rock the vote personally, because I had to work till 630 and then the voting places would be closed up or closing.

And it was super angering. Like, I felt like I was being disenfranchised by the way the system was. set up. Sure. I mean, I'm sure there's a case we made. Like, maybe it should be open for the full 24 hours, maybe a national holiday, or like some sort of manner, like, hey, can go out and vote during workday. Like you can take a few hours off or whatever. But like you were saying, you know, Thune's already saying that, uh, that there are Republicans now in the Senate that are so opposed to Trump that they would never vote for save. So we're already, we're already running into all these roadblocks of like the rhinos in the Senate. I want their names. Yeah. They won't approve. They won't vote for an 80%

approval rating bill. Yeah. So the idea of, like, that's the, and that should be the minimum standard. This isn't something that's, that's some kind of off the wall crazy idea. I mean, you talk to people in places like Canada and they're like, you don't have to show ID to vote. You kidding me? What is missing in the SAVE Act? I haven't read it. Is it worth reading? Like, is there something in there that people are like, no, we can't let that. It's literally Republicans hate Donald Trump. So that's the more recent thing. A little while ago, the Senate, they took a vote to see, like, would you vote yes or no? Not a, we're voting on the bill, but would you vote yesterday on the bill?

And even then, I think they only... But they voted on this last summer. Yeah. And 50... Tellus ended up taking his name off, but they had 51 votes for a while. It was last June. They voted on this. So, like, Republicans...

The Republicans and the Senate are terrible. And they hate America. They hate Trump. like these are just kind of Republican senators are like the worst human beings on the planet. Is it like a type of omnibus bill? Is it just a bunch of stuff jammed in there that's irrelevant? No. I got to read it.

It's very sad. It's like two pages. It's not long. I think there was a draft of it that included some other things. But the very most most majority of the bill. Oh, because Trump wanted a few other things included in it. But that, you know, to me, it's neither here nor there. Like it's not, you know, the Save Act itself could.

just get passed by itself. I mean, at this point, Trump's like, I'm not going to sign FISA reauthorization unless they're safe as part of it. Like, Trump, to his credit, is really pushing this. And even then, like, I think one of the more recent criticisms that I saw when a lot of the save debate was happening a few weeks ago where a bunch of Republicans were saying, well, voter fraud really isn't that much of a big deal. We don't really need to worry about it.

It's a really small amount. This bill is unnecessary. Shut up. And it's like, what? So, I mean, you obviously have every. Every Democrat's going to oppose it because for them, like, this is their voters. And then you have a lot of Republicans who, frankly, it's not even just about hitting Trump. They also just can't stay in their own voter base.

Are we on track? Do you use Dominion voting machines again for the next federal election? No, we got to we got to Discord. I guess we'll find out. So soon. Yeah, right. Let's see. What do we got here today?

We got callers. No, we're not going to call us. You got questions. If you all have questions, drop them in the Discord chat. Let's see. What do we got? Where are they? They should be appearing soon.

I think Olivia just put it on slow mode. Give it to me. Oh, Olivia, what are you doing? Slow down, everyone. I'm having a hard time following. Here we go. In regards to companies collecting data, the person clicking except cannot give approval

or everyone else around them in their contacts. And currently, this is how it, let's see. In regards to companies collecting data, the person clicking except cannot give approval for everyone else. around them or in their contacts, and currently this is how it is. I know. If someone blindly clicks that they accept

the children living in your home, your guests, and your family member who isn't on social media to not give approval, do you think that this is something that will ever face the courts or be written into law? Unlikely.

Unlikely, because I don't think that, I don't think anything is gone. I think he's kind of referring to like the shadow profiles that Facebook makes. So if you're not aware, if you have a phone number in your contact, list and it's mom and then someone one of your friends has a the same phone number in their contact list and it's you know sherry then facebook will say oh look this number matches this person's

name is sherry let's make a make a a person a probe for a profile for him and then if you go somewhere else and say i'm here with sherry and they see that it's the person somehow they see that it matches the matches some information on that sherry person and it there's a picture and you check in, they'll put the picture on it. So they'll literally build a profile. And it's, it's not particularly hard when people are sharing all their information. They'll build a profile for a person that doesn't even have a Facebook page that's never signed up for Facebook ever. And the more information they get, the more comprehensive of the profile will be. And I don't, I don't imagine that there's going to be any kind of legislation

about it. You know, this is, this is Facebook's business model. You know, they've never. courts have been so deferential to these companies that I just don't. I don't see that being an approach. I actually, I like the way you're thinking, though, because that ultimately is probably a type of legalistic approach that we're going to have to take against these guys. But right now, I just, I mean, the courts just let these guys run wild. And that's unfortunately the world we're living in right now. Let's see. Taylor Lorenza's ex-wife says,

Ian, you made it rain here in Texas, and it's 100 degrees. I'm blaming you. Can you guys riff on the guy in the UK who threw a three-year-old into a crocodile enclosure? What? Story from today just says,

man in Colter's Law. Well, yeah, I mean, look, if you have a person in your country that is not supposed to be there, they should be sent home regardless as to whether or not they have thrown a three-year-old into a crocodile enclosure.

If you find a person that throws a three-year-old into a crocodile enclosure, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law that the law allows, regardless of whether they are in your country legally or illegally. It's not necessary to carry out the most extreme form of punishment that the government allows to someone that is there illegally that is throwing the crocodile. Like they get, they get the worst just for throwing the kid into the crocodile enclosure. It doesn't matter if they're there legally or not.

And anyone that's there legally should be sent, illegally should be sent home. I mean, yeah, the UK is just, obviously we have our problems here, but man, the Rotherham, the Rotherham inquiry or the, the rape report, yeah. Rupert Lowe's rape report. It's like, 220 pages, 250,000 girls. And it's horrible.

It's, like, I mean, the accounts and, And all the, you know, people have been trying to, like, nitpick the numbers and whatnot. But the actual accounts of what's happened to these girls and how it was allowed, encouraged, covered up by police, by the UK officials. I mean, we have our- By care workers, by people that were in the hospitals. They were paying. Like, one of the most worst cases that I read when I was looking through it was that a girl would be trafficked. She would become pregnant. They, she would have the child.

And then the, uh, the, the traffickers that, like, raped her. would then get paid foster care money by the state to take care of the child as a result of the trafficking. Unreal. And to your point, like, you know, people are going to, they're trying to discredit it by saying that it wasn't done by the government. They're going after. They're saying, oh, it couldn't have been $250,000. And I made this, yeah, I know, I made this point on the morning show the other day. It doesn't matter if they increased the numbers by 100%.

If it was $125,000,000 girls, it is still. Make it 80 or 800,000. It doesn't matter. It is, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that they had a systemic nationwide problem, like, that every single aspect of government was in on it. They knew it was happening. They allowed it to happen. They encouraged it in many cases to happen. I mean, some of these, you know, some of these, you know, some of these care facilities,

they were using them to pimp out the Muslim men would wait out front for the girls to leave and they'd pick them up. Like every single, like, I am more mad at the government officials in the UK. And I'm even like, you know, obviously, you know, UK needs to do remigration, but they need to lock up every single person who is involved in any aspect of this. I mean, and I mean, there's, there's so many people that are trying to cover it up or that have tried to cover it up. The thing that really does kind of get me the most is the care workers, right? The people at hospitals. And the police officers. Someone asked me, you know, they said something along the lines of, that's going to happen in America.

And I brought up, that's not going to happen in America. This is a country where a father. went and his daughter was raped and he went and he took the law into his own hands he was tried for murder they found him not guilty then he ran for sheriff and won to be the sheriff

this is a country that celebrates Gary Plaschet day now this might be a little too online for some people but Gary Plaschet his son was molested by his karate teacher and as the man was being brought through the airport Gary Plasier took the law into his own hands, and everyone knows the story. And so this kind of stuff, like as much as, as much as, you know, terrible things can happen in the United States, I don't even think that law enforcement would allow that. Now, here in the U.S.

I'm going to disagree with you. I bet you it's already happening in places like Minneapolis. You think so? I bet it already is. A small scale, sure. But, I mean, you saw the reaction that Minneapolis had. kind of the crazed women involved in those, you know, ice riots like earlier this year, I bet it's happening right now.

And I mean, there, I know that there's... Most of America, I 100% agree with you. I think that places like Minneapolis, I think certain places in Michigan, I mean, we have, I mean, you know, there's cities in Michigan where they do Islamic call to prayer. Yeah. I would not be surprised if in cities like that, if it's not already happening. And even like going away from just like the Muslim thing, it was either in the city of Philadelphia or the state of Pennsylvania, I think. This is very recent.

I think this is yesterday. The Supreme Court had to formally ask, I think it was the attorney general of the state or maybe it was like the district attorney for the city. I'm spacing on which one to not lie to them because it turns out that that individual, that official, plus like their secretary were just straight up lying trying to get people off of death row. for like murder and like all sorts of other heinous crimes. This just happened like yesterday, I think. It was, uh, so it's like you're already seeing various amounts of law enforcement, try and sweep this under the rug. So I, I agree that there are problematic district attorneys.

Yeah. Right. Well, no, there are problematic district attorneys, right? But I don't think that for the most part, law enforcement is going to, like the actual guys that are, you know, your detectives, your, your cops that are beat cops and stuff. I completely agree that there are plenty of DAs, there are plenty of leftists that have been, you know, that have had their campaigns that were funded by, you know, leftist organizations or what have you that have been elected. And you see those, you've seen some of those people get recalled. And that's another thing that I, another reason why I think that it wouldn't happen on such a broad scale in the U.S.

And I think that's my point. And not saying that it doesn't happen, but like a whole systemic failure because I think, I think. that individual cops will not allow it. I think that detectives won't just turn a blind. I think that there would be a lot of people that would quit. They would whistleblowers here in the U.S. I do think in America, like in the United States, I do agree with you. If this was happening in a broad enough scale, there would be a cop. He would go on a podcast. Like, he would blow the whistle, and you would have higher levels of authority that would absolutely take that series. So I do agree with that. But I wouldn't be surprised if in Minneapolis, if the,

you know, if the foster care workers and stuff like that were, were already facilitated. Yeah, I would agree with that as well. It's possible that it would happen on a smaller scale. In the UK, I think kind of the point of the report was to show that didn't matter how high up you went. No one cared. Up to Keir Starrmer himself. Yeah. Up to the prime minister himself. All right. So who is this one? Leonard Leonard says Are we watching the greatest marketing scheme ever with Anthropic in their mythos

Fable 5 models? Or do you think they really built something that's truly dangerous? So like I was talking to Tim last night, the unique thing about fable is when you give, like the ability to hack is emergent because you give an AI a really, really comprehensive ability to reason and you give it a really comprehensive ability to code. Those two things together create an ability to hack.

It's not like they created it saying, we're going to make this thing able to hack, right? That ability, the ability to hack into computer systems, it takes reasoning and it takes a really deep understanding of code. I don't think that it's a marketing ploy. I think that Fable probably is incredibly good at hacking. I use Sonet all the time. with my AI, right?

Like I got an AI bought. Most of you guys know, I call him Tank. And he, I use Fable, or no, I'm sorry, I use Sonnet because it's not as expensive as the, what was the newest one. Anyways, Opus. Opus, yeah, it's not as expensive as Opus. And it's pretty comprehensive. Like, it's pretty good.

So I do think that it's probably as capable as they say it is. they didn't start Project Glasswing for no reason. I don't think that they would have given it to companies to test out if it was just about marketing. And if it was just about marketing, these companies would, someone in the companies would have been like, this is not a big deal. There would be people talking about it. And you're not hearing that. So no, I don't think that it's a marketing club. Do you guys have takes on this?

I've got an interesting riff of what you just said. And somebody I thought was very interesting in the Trump administration's response. So if you look at the, you know, I think it was Lutnik, I think it was a commerce department that put the restrictions on the product. What was really interesting about it is, and part of the reason they had to recall it, was that a place in export saying no foreigner could get access to this, including foreign nationals within Anthropic. What was really interesting to me about that, is that a model to force these companies to hire a, American? Because, like, if you're going to, if these AI models are going to be the point where we're not going to allow, is that an opportunity for the Trump administration to force these AI companies that are, in many cases, have CCP, like, known, I mean, like, you know, huge percentages

of these companies are foreign citizens. Is this a way for the Trump administration to force these companies to hire American? I thought that was just interesting little, little aspect of it that I thought got overlooked by a lot of people. You know what I'm looking at this common sense-wise. It's like, okay, the dam is breaking. The water looks like it's all going to spill out. And they're like, hold on, hold on, hold on. Fix that patch in the dam.

And I'm like, the dam's still breaking under its own weight. I think what are they, even if it's all Americans at Anthropic, why wouldn't the guy just drop box the code to like a Chinese? How can you stop this at this point? It was totally available for like two days. People made videos about like, yo, use this shit now because it's going to be, you know, it's probably going to be gone. People anticipated this would happen. My buddy.

My buddy works deep, deep military tech intelligence. And he's like, yo, bro. The people are freaking out about how to counter quantum cryptographic breakage. Things are figuring out at the quantum scale how to break cryptography. So they're trying to how to counter it. It's like, how do you counter a hypersonic tungsten rod that's coming straight down from orbit? So that's the thing about ballistics. They're kind of hard to counter, you know?

You're always kind of on your back foot. And the more explosive forward moving things kind of take precedence. I feel like that's what AI is right now. Jesus, I don't want to get dark-pilled on this right. All right. Well, smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends. Tell everyone you know that you want them to watch Timcast, IRL.

You can go to Timcast, Timcast News. Join our Timcast.com to join the Discord. There's no after show tonight. you can go to Rumble to join Rumble and watch the after show. There's no after show tonight because it's Friday, obviously. But during the week, you can join the Discord and call in. You'll be able to talk to our guests. You'll be able to ask us questions.

But for right now, Noah, where can people find you? Yeah. So it's Noah Wall at Noah Wall. I run the state leadership initiative. That's state leadership.org. And then just follow the state leadership account, which is Red States Lead at Red States Lead. Do you have a personal?

Yeah, my personal is Jacob I, Weymeyer, W-E-H, M-E-Y-E-R. It is a great conversation, guys. That was awesome. I'm at Ian Crossing. You'll find me at Ian Crossland all over the internet. Carter Banks. I am at Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, and at Carter Banks official everywhere else.

Juneteenth, everyone. Happy Juneteenth, released a song today. You can go to a live or dead song. Yeah, big day. Yeah, I'm pumped about it. I think it's going to be a bop. So we'll see. Awesome.

Anyway, let's go. All right, and make sure that you check out clips throughout the weekend, and will we be back here on Monday?