Timcast IRL - Mamdani's COMMIES SWEEP NYC, CIVIL WAR! w/ Alex Berenson

Episode Date: June 25, 2026

Tim, Phil, Brett, and Ian are joined by Alex Berenson to discuss socialists scoring massive wins in NYC, Tim Pool says Trump needs to send in the feds to save NYC, the constitution is dead, and a Babylon Bee sketch jokes about a new civil war.  SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Brett  @PopCultureCrisis  (everywhere) Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Alex Berenson @AlexBerenson (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! Mamdani's COMMIES SWEEP NYC, CIVIL WAR! | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Last night, the DSA trio swept in New York City. They're calling them Mamdani's commies. And the fascinating things that one of these candidates has explicitly called for bringing violence to America to destroy the American Empire. Now, I'll be careful. There's an organization she was a part of a couple of them that said that their explicit goal is destruction of Western civilization to bring violence to America and to destroy the American Empire. Literally got the receipts will show you it's absolutely insane. The fact that these people are now effectively being elected to Congress,

because it's a Democrat default district is insane. And I don't know how anyone in this country thinks that the right and the left of these totally divergent moral worldviews can ever live together. And I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or anything, but do you think, honestly, guys, right now, you can comment, do you believe we as the United States can have a member of Congress who stated explicitly they are here to bring violence to America to destroy the American Empire? What do you think their intentions will be in Congress? Do we think it'll be the betterment of this country or of New York City?

Well, my friends, Democrats are certainly learning and they're freaking out saying, we didn't mean for this to happen when they backed all these squad members and far leftists. So New York is going full commie. And the funny thing is, even Jesse Waters on Fox was talking about how it's, what is it, 40% foreign born? Or no, no, yeah, some massive number. So you have massive voting blocks that do not. like America, do not want to support America that are now voting for representation in our wealthiest

city. I don't think this bodes, well, even Donald Trump has issued a warning. So we'll talk a bit about that. And this is not so political, but major earthquakes struck in Japan, California, and Venezuela. Venezuela was hit by two, a 7.1 and a 7.5, almost back to back. So people are kind of freaked out about all this. But we'll talk about that. And then I guess the, Well, we got this story about a woman, the DEI hire. You may have seen where she dumped out the NIC's trash can, spilling all the garbage in the street. My attitude, my view, she represents the left perfectly. She's fat.

She's a woman of color. She's marginalized women to call it. She's dumping trash into the street to steal from the public. And I'm like, is that not the left these days? So we'll talk about all that. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor for you, my friends. It is Gaia. G-I-A-a.com.

You know, Guy? Gaia is a streaming platform dedicated to exploring consciousness, disclosure, alien disclosure, ancient wisdom, and the deeper nature of reality. Rather than treating disclosure as a single event or official announcement, Gaia examines a broader perspective, one that asks whether it's also connected to human awareness, perception, and consciousness itself. They got documentaries, interviews, original series. They're exploring questions around extraterrestrials, hidden history, unexplained phenomena, humanity's place in a much larger reality. like to say that if DMT were a streaming service, it would be Gaia, but we're big fans. Their content investigates the idea that disclosure may involve more than government documents or public confirmation. It may also involve expanding how people think about themselves,

each other, and the universe around them. For those interested, check out Gaia. They offer a unique library of content designed to challenge assumptions and encourage deeper exploration. Visit Gaia.com to learn more about disclosure through the lens of consciousness. Discover why so many people are exploring these ideas as humanity enters its next chapter. Don't forget my friends to also smash that like button, share the show, become a member at Timcast.com. Joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Alex Berenson. Thanks for having me. Who are you? What do you do? Some of your viewers may know me from COVID when I sort of became known as a skeptic of

lockdowns and school closures and then I questioned the MRNA vaccines pretty thoroughly. got kicked off Twitter for that. Soothed my way back on with the help of a lawyer who represents us both, the great James Lawrence. And now I have the unreported truth substack, which is my main form of communication. I've got a couple hundred thousand readers who, you know, generally, I'm generally writing about health and the slow motion collapse of the American medical system. You're winning this lawsuit over censorship and stuff is still ongoing. It's still, yes, it's still ongoing. I'm suing Pfizer now.

So I sued Twitter. They put me back on in July of 2022 before Elon bought it. As far as I know, I'm the only person ever to have forced my way back on after a ban, rather than being let on like Elon kind of let everybody back on. And then in 2023, I sued the federal government and Pfizer over, their role in coercing Twitter to ban me. And that lawsuit, I've settled the federal portion of it. I settled it last month with the federal government and received the payout and

an acknowledgement that the government had put what they called substantial coercive pressure on Twitter to ban me in 2021. But I'm still suing Scott Gottlieb, Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Dr. Albert Borla. Scott Gottlieb is the former FDA commissioner under Trump One, who, moved, he's back in sort of private industry. He's on the Pfizer board and he helped coerced Twitter to ban me and Albert Borla is the chairman of Pfizer. So yes. So this is going to be pretty interesting. Yeah. Thanks for hanging out. We have a lot to talk about. It's good to have you. We got the boys hanging out. What's going on guys twice in one week. How you doing? It's Brett.

Normally doing PCC live Monday through Friday at 3 p.m. But let's get into politics. How you doing, Phil? Hello, everybody. My name is Philibonti. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band, all that remains. Ian Crossland cannot change the weather, but he's here. Oh, that's a deep, that's a very bold claim.

No, it's not the, you say you can make it rain as a boldly. It's so mundane. I seek to, you got to uncover why you believe that if you're going to make a because people can't. Carter Banks. He said, probably watches nothing but Gaia.com like all day. I got this outfit off of a cowboy that I looted.

I was just waiting for a moment to make that. This is a rude, dude. The Rand. Palsh charge and his dust. Dead cowboy. All of it, dude, I just looted it off a cowboy's corpse. I'm not a cowboy. Where did the hat come from?

It's stolen valor. Probably a thrift. Goodwill. Dude, Alex, stolen cowboy valor. Originally, I wasn't scheduled tonight, but Alex, your stuff is like some of the, it's like the tip of the spear, dude.

Because we're headed towards this corporate governance future. It seems like that's, in one way or another, we're either going in Trump's vision or in the World Economic Forum's vision. And your ability to resist the corporate tyranny was exquisite. I guess it's still on. going so you can well i'm i'm hopeful that the so the second circuit of uh appeals which is the which which is overseeing my case uh will hear oral arguments in this later this year and i'm very very hopeful that they will say the suit can move forward and that we can get discovery meaning

that fyser will have to turn over some documents and that will we be able to question these folks under oath and because i think you know not to go to you know covid is done no one wants to hear about it but I think five years ago, there was a lot going on at the White House and with Pfizer with the Biden administration in the summer of 2021 that I personally would like to know about. And I think it's relevant to my lawsuit. I think it'll be relevant to a lot of people. Agreed. Should be good. Let's get to the first story. We've got this from the New York Post. Democrats stunned. After anti-Israel, anti-capitalist socialist sweep New York City primaries, the dancing days of the dirt bag left. I've got this tweet. Let me see if I can pull this one up. Joe Walsh. You guys know who that is? He was a conservative guy, and then Trump got elected, and he says, I'm going to be a Democrat now.

And, oh, boy, is he regretting it? He tweeted, yes, most Americans don't know what socialism is. I agree. But last night, Democrats elected candidates who want to abolish prisons, defund the police, who believe deporting even violent criminals who are in this country illegally is wrong, who believe America was to blame for 9-11, who believe capitalism is evil, who believe Israel is evil, and who want to eliminate all private health insurance. Most Americans know what socialism is, but most Americans don't support issue.

like this. Now I'm going to, I'm going to let you guys in a secret. These candidates aren't really socialists. They're anti-American. Their intention is the destruction of America. Socialism is a vehicle by which they're attempting to do that. So why do they want violent criminals to not be deported? Because it's kind of like letting loose, you know, a bunch of wolves into the city. They're going to run around rampaging and causing damage. Why don't they, you know, why do they want to abolish prisons so they can have a bunch of violent criminals rampaging through your society? city. These are people who have explicitly stated that they want, let me see if I can pull up this tweet. I got something right here. This is from A.L. Yacobi. Daria Liza of Avila Chevalier is a founder

of CUAD, which is Columbia University of part-high divestment. The organization stated intention is to undermine and eradicate America through the use of violence in America, explicitly stating, divestment is not an incrementalist goal. The true divestment necessitates nothing short of the total collapse of the university structure and American empire. itself. It is not possible for imperial spoils to remain so heavily concentrated in the Metropole in its high cultural repositories without the continuous oppression of all populations that resist the empire's expansion. To divest from this is to undermine and eradicate America as we know it. Stating at the end, we act in full support of the Palestinian resistance.

This action is first and foremost an effort to extend the successes of the Palestinian resistance to the heart of the empire itself to translate their resilience. in Gaza to unrest and violence in America. And these people were just voted the Congress. So I propose panel, she should be barred. Members of Congress Republicans should refuse to swear the speaker should say no. She should not be allowed to take a seat in Congress. So we were talking about this before the show started, and I don't agree with that.

So you say nay. What say you, Brett? Bar her. Bar her? Yeah. Phil said, I already know. response he's going back deport next. Yeah, Carter, what do you think?

Stripper of her citizenship and send her back. Yeah. Same is Phil. I got to further investigate these statements. Can you explain why? I guess my logic. But just real quick to Ian, Ian, I'd like to know further. Did she write that?

So that was, she was the founder of an organization. There are two organizations. I don't know if she's the founder of both, but she's an activist and a leader in both. One's called Columbia University of Partite Devastment. One is called the National Society. What is it, National Society for Justice for Palestinians? I think the NSJP. And that was the NSJP statement for which she is a part of that.

That's her movement. As for CUAD, they wrote their goal is the eradication of Western civilization. So her specific quote as a leader of CUAD is to destroy Western civilization. And as a member of NSJP, the eradication of America, as I read. She said, she specifically said she wants to destroy Western civilization. Those are her words? Let me see if I can. grab the quote if I have it pulled up here. You know what? Did I, do I not? At the very least,

does the government not have the right to ask her? Like, look, you have a, you have a formal connection to a group like this that has language like this. Can you either retract what you've said or divest yourself from this group? No, I don't think so. I mean, she got elected, or she's not been elected yet, but let's assume she's going to be elected on the Democratic side. The organization, the organization stated this for which she is a founder. We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization. Yeah, I mean, she's an idiot. It's idiotic political rhetoric.

And like, that's what politics is these days. There are plenty of people on the left who thought Donald Trump shouldn't be alleged to run for president in 2024. That was equally ridiculous. But if someone clearly states that their goal is to destroy the society, it is perfectly reasonable for the governing body of that society to say you're not allowed to sit in the position to represent the people of whatever district she's in. I would even argue that if the idea was that she said that she wanted to radically change the society into a vision of her own making, that's different from the idea of destroying the society itself.

I mean, look, part of the Communist Control Act is still in, could be still used. Like it hasn't been taken off the books. part of the Communist Control Act, the Supreme Court has said, is unconstitutional, but there are parts that are still, you know, still could be enforced. I don't see a problem with enforcing the Communist Control Act personally. I'm trying to understand. She's a Westerner who wants to destroy Western society. How does that even make sense? It doesn't, which is strange. It'd be like destroying your own body. No, she would like to see. She doesn't believe. I'm going to, I'm going to make assumptions here, but likely she thinks that we should have direct. direct elections, get rid of the electoral college.

Likely, she thinks that we should abolish the Senate. Not likely, she does. Okay, so I'm saying that I'm, I haven't read anything specifically where she said that. I'm guessing at what she's, what she means because of the typical person that is on the left, the typical things they want. Get rid of the electoral college. So it's a direct election, popular vote all the time, and get rid of the Senate because states don't need representation, which, I mean, arguably, since the, I think it's the 17th Amendment when they made it a popular election. for senators. Arguably, the Senate doesn't perform the function that it used to perform prior to the 17th Amendment, but the proper solution is to get rid of the 17th Amendment,

not get rid of the Senate. I think she's part of a group that has made some extreme statements. So I don't know, and she was one of the founders even, but if I founded a company that then they went off and published something and I was like, what I mean, I'm not, I didn't say that, you guys. Like, that's those people at my company said that. I can't. But I'm saying even if She says this stuff directly. It is political rhetoric. There's political rhetoric on both sides that's offensive to the other side. And I don't want to be in the position of telling people in New York or Texas or anywhere else,

you elected this person, but I'm not going to seat them. You're not in Congress, so you don't have to be in that position. The question is, is there a point at which you would feel there is a threat to the United States continuation? From her? No, no, no. No, no. In general. like what would a person have to do for you to be like okay this is this is a threat to our country's existence

well if the president of the united states started saying he should have a third term unconstitutionally i'd find that a threat to the united states but you know what he stopped saying that but that actually that well that doesn't threaten the united states we have had presidents in the past that have had more than two terms granted we did okay so we had a president that had more than more than two terms and that's why they made the amendment so and that didn't destroy the country the goal of people like her. And I understand that you're saying that her as an individual

doesn't have the ability. But say a political movement, say the DSA overall. At what point do we say the DSA is actually hostile to the United States? Its stated goals are to change the United States

through revolutionary action. At what point do you say this is too much for a political party to be allowed to be in position? I would never say that. Ever. What if there was...

So violent uprising? What if there was like the kill the Jews party? And they were like, their political position is if elected, they were just... I mean, the DSA is kind of the killed the Jews party. Well, I'm making a metaphor intentionally, like... I'm not explicitly saying the DSA has come... But I do believe that if you go to a private meeting of the DSA, they're going to be saying things very much like this.

The point is, if a political party emerged where they were... Let's say the neo-Nazi party of America emerges, and they're like, if elected, we absolutely will start massacuring and... Genocide people. Would you be like, that's fine? I would not like that, but I would not say that they aren't allowed to say what they can say. I mean, no, no, no, no. We're not talking about saying things.

We're talking about stated intentions. If they're going to try to carry out the genocidal murder of Jews and they're elected, then we're in a very dark place. What does the destruction of the American Empire end up with? It doesn't end nonviolent. I have no idea. She's a loud mouth. So like, I'm just, there's no circumstance where, someone stated intentions would move you to be for or against them?

No, no, that's not true. The question is whether or not they should be banned and whether or not their elected representatives should be. There's no point at which a person stated intentions would cause you alarm to think we shouldn't give a gun to this person. No, that's not the same thing either. I mean, if somebody shows up outside my house threatening to kill me, I'm going to be alarmed by that and, you know, take action. What if this person is like, I'm going to run for the chief of police, then I'm going to come back and I'm going to shoot you in the face. Would you be like, well, we should let her be the chief of police, I guess.

No, I would not want her to be the chief of police. But, I mean, again, so that's a specific threat, right? If she said, I'm going to run for the chief of police and I'm not going to enforce the laws anymore, okay? Abolish the police? Abolish the police. Which is what they're saying. Yes.

Okay, that, you know what? Okay. If people are foolish, you have to elect that. We got it. I got it. I got it. Okay. What if she said, so obviously if she said she was going to shoot you, you'd be like, no, that's a no-go.

Right. That's a direct. What if she said, I will position several armed, angry people high on methamphetamines with rifles outside of your house for the purpose of destroying your home when I'm police chief? Would you, I'll still allow her to be police chief? I mean, that's crazy, right? Could she even really pull that off? Again, I think we're getting, we're crossing the line to a direct threat there. So the, but I think, I think saying you want to destroy America through violence is a direct threat to this country. Is it? Is she, is she in a position? She's literally. a direct threat. In Congress, yes. I think that focusing on one person is this person in particular or specifically any of the individuals, I think that misses the point because we had three people elected. The DSA had a great night. There was a boatload of people that the DSA endorsed that were elected.

And it's more than just a person. It's this movement that is absolutely a threat to the United States. So what's the threat to the Democratic Party? I don't know if it's a threat to the United States. Let's say there's a cruise ship, right? And they've got, what, several hundred employees, maybe more. And you're there about to board for your vacation. When a guy shows up as an employee and he says to the guy in the boat,

hey, can you hire me to work in the engine room? And he goes, what's your qualifications? I'm going to blow it up. I will do everything in my power to destroy it through violence and destroy this cruise ship. And he goes, sure, would you be like, that's okay, it's just words. What if he was like, leave it up to a vote among all the people? Or even worse, he was. What if the point is, sorry?

No, no, no. The point is she was elected. And the question we have now is. should we let this person into the engine room who has stated she's going to blop the engines and sink the ship? Is there political rhetoric that bans you from being elected? Right, that's the broad question, right?

And I think the answer to that is essentially no. Well, the answer is absolutely yes. It's in the 14th Amendment. Waging insurrection against these United States. How can you swear to support and defend the Constitution if your stated goal is to destroy the United States? Those two things are mutually exclusive. I got to come back to what you said.

I mean, we, I got to come back to what you said. You said, insurrection, right? That's exactly what the state of Colorado tried to do to Donald Trump, right? And it went to court. And it went to court.

And they lost. And they lost, as they should have. It was absurd that the state of Colorado was... And that's because it was absurd because Trump did not stage an insurrection. Okay, but there are many people on the left who believe he did. As far as you guys believe...

But they're lying. They're absolutely lying. Okay, but they think you're lying. No, no, but listen, listen, we're right. That's it. And, no, no, no, but hold on. I can cite for you decades of years. decades of history and structure as to why they are lying, how they're lying, what they're doing,

why they're doing it, why we're right. And I think you know full well, especially based on COVID and the vaccines, what those people were intending to do to all of us and how they try to stop you from exposing them. We know they are lying. So when they come out and they say, we want to bring violence. And we already have, we've got an anti-for guy who shot a coppin that get 100 years in prison. And they say, but they're just activists. They're lying. When they say, elect me, I'm going to burn this country to the ground. They are not lying. We know what their intentions are. And Trump never said

that he was going to destroy the country, that it was an interaction that he was trying to overthrow the government. These people have specifically said their goal is not just to their goal is not just to destroy Western society. They're specifically saying to use, bring

violence to America. So this is the, let's not say apples and orange. It's this one group that she was a part. Okay, that organization. But the DSA hasn't disavowed that. They don't disavow that at all. I mean, they've got state reps now.

It's not just these three members of the Congress. Yeah, absolutely. People like these idiots. And I think the reason they like them is actually quite simple. When you have 40% of the city foreign born, and they're going around saying, we're going to burn this country to the ground and steal their stuff.

Yes, non-Americans are celebrating and voting for you. Tim, what was the greatest gift the left gave the right in the last 15 years? Cancel culture. Cancel culture. You can't say it, you can't think it. I disagree. Do it.

This is the right, trying to do that to the left, and we'll have the same. It was trans women in women's, it was trans women in women's bathroom. That was another gift. I do not agree at all. I don't think that lines up at all. Why not? Most people in this country don't like being told that men should be allowed in women's bathrooms. Sure.

So when they were silencing people, regular people were terrified. They would lose their jobs for saying naughty words. and that created a big problem for them. Them now engaging in violence is still a big problem for them. My question is here, this is about destroying the American Empire. Brett, you made up a good point. If they said deconstructing the American Empire, for instance, that doesn't sound like a violent act.

Now the question is like, okay, firstly, America is not an empire. It shouldn't be. It didn't say the American Empire, though. Did it say the American Empire? Okay, my bad. I apologize. I understand the idea the ideal of like, like, hey, let's scale back, not be world police.

We don't need an empirical state that's run by corporations and banks. Can you pull the statement up again? Yes. Because they also specifically said Western civilization. Here's one from CUA of the American Empire. C-U-Apartite. We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication.

I just look, I'm going to say like, I think I understand what you're saying, that basically you believe that the concept of the election is sacrosanct and it needs to remain in place. It's not something that we're willing to shove off for the sake of getting rid of political movement. When I see the words, like, total eradication of the Western civilization, like, I understand the idea is like you don't want to let your,

you don't want to be so open-minded that you let your brain fall out. Like, to me, that's where for me, it's just like, when we've gotten to the eradication of civilization, I'm comfortable with exercising power. But what does that mean? Does that mean she's not allowed to, like, take the office that she's been allowed to? Yes. Yes, she can't. Absolutely.

She can't, again, she can't take the, she can't make the oath. She can't make the oath. She will be. So you're telling, so you're telling, you know, 800,000 people in New York 13, your decision does not matter. Oh, I'll go further than that. I think, I think Donald Trump should send in the federal government for federal management of New York City and New York State. It's not that bad. I live there.

I would argue that the question of how do you define how bad something is, that, like, Let me put it like this. After the Battle of Fort Sumter, we historically say a civil war began. No one in the United States thought a civil war happened. In fact, nobody in the United States actually used the phrase civil war publicly and officially for years. And after Fort Sumter, in which we all agree the civil war started, they had picnics at the Battle of Manassas because they thought there was no civil war. They were oblivious to the things that were happening around them. I think when you take a look at the fact that over the past several decades, New York has fundamentally transformed and now has a mayor who explicitly says he will use the power of violence and law enforcement against the American people and the federal government, it's time to send in the feds to shut that down.

We should not allow our cities to be taken over by foreigners who explicitly state they are here to fight the American, the American voter and the American will. I mean, that's, look, he was elected. I don't live in the city anymore. I live upstate, but he was elected by the people of New York City. Okay. And he has not done anything. Let's play got that.

I mean, I'm not even sure he said anything like that. He did, and he is. He said, what, that he wouldn't support ICE? There's a lot of people in here. He said he is going to shield illegal immigrants from the federal government. Okay. The American people voted for immigration enforcement, and he said he'd use the weight of New York's power and law enforcement to stop that from happening.

Look, as a practical matter, and I very much... That's insurrection. It's not insurrection. Yeah. Okay. I don't know. I don't agree with that personally. So let me just ask.

Local cops resisting the feds is an awesome part of our culture. So if somebody is elected, okay, and everything they do is legal, they don't take any actions outside of legislation, they wait for their legislative body to pass the law before enacting things. But things are getting serious to that point. Like, let's say Mamdani gets city council to pass the Immigration Protection Act in which police are instructed to, if necessary, use force to stop ICE. would you believe he should then be removed? I mean, I don't know what the details of that are. I don't think that, I don't think it's smart for the city of New York not to support ICE,

but if that's what they choose to, I'm talking, I'm not talking about, I'm not talking about, I'm not talking about, I'm not talking about like the containers. Specifically, specific hypothetical. Mom Donnie says, so right now, ICE comes in and arrests a guy, and Mandani says, we do not have the authority. We have, do not have the laws right now in place to stop ice from doing this. Right. City Council convenes, Mamdani speaks before them and says, pass this bill to

empower New York police to use force if necessary to stop ICE from kidnapping our neighbors. That would clearly be illegal, right? That's illegal. How is that illegal? Because you're telling your police officers to shoot at federal agents? I didn't say shoot to use force if necessary. What does force mean? Hands. You inferred lethal force. I never said that. I think that that. That's It's just words, by the way. He should be allowed to do it, right? He's not actually saying shoot and kill cops. He's just saying, you know, sometimes forces need to protect people.

But this is all hypothetical to him. I know. And I'm asking you what? I'm asking you in that scenario, would you think the feds should intervene and remove him? Yes, in that scenario. But that's not a real scenario. But I'm asking you this to understand your moral worldview, specifically because you've stated he's not doing anything that has crossed the line.

But if he tries to codify it, he's crossed the line. Listen, political rhetoric is political rhetoric on both sides, okay? That's what I'm saying. Telling your police officers that they can interfere with federal law enforcement officers is not rhetoric. They're doing it right now in New York and California, Oregon, and Washington. Should they... No, they're not helping. Gavin Newsom, California passed a law, Newsom signed, saying they will arrest federal agents for wearing masks.

Should the feds go in and say, you can't do that, you can't say law enforcement? I don't think the Fed should wear masks. I don't. That's not the question, though. The question is, as you stated, If he tried to codify empowering police to use force against feds, that's illegal? Okay, so Trump should send the feds in and go arrest Newsom. Okay, that's, so now this is like really tricky issues of federalism, right?

Like what state laws should be? What, when federal laws, Trump's state laws, who has the power of law enforcement, which in the United States is supposed to be the states, not the federal government, okay? The federal government is supposed to handle borders, military. States are supposed to handle law enforcement. Not since 1865. I know. Technically, 1876.

Things, right? Things have changed, right? But there is a federal state pull. It's not the same in West Virginia as in Texas, as in New York. I like that about this country. It's a big country. That's what I was thinking is I was driving down here today. You know, I was driving New York to West Virginia. It's 300 miles. It feels like a long drive. It's barely the country's barely starting. Okay. So it's crazy, right? So that's why it's good to have different policies in different states. I understand, but we're trying to understand the moral framework we exist under. Gavin Newsom and the state of California passed a law stating that federal agents may not wear masks and the police are empowered. State troopers and local police are empowered to use force if necessary to arrest these men. Is that okay? Is that what the law actually says? Yeah, they made it illegal. I mean, I don't know.

And then the feds responded with don't obey, wear the masks. Right. So that's where we are, right? So has the question is, from a moral point of view, or from, from, from, from, I'm trying to figure out where your line is because I got to be honest, you don't seem to have one. When should the federal government say you have passed illegal laws, you are in violation of the Constitution, and we are sending in law enforcement to stop this? Okay. If the federal government, if the Department of Justice believes that that California law is illegal, then it should go to court, federal court, and get it overturned.

Okay? It shouldn't, it shouldn't escalate. It's not, the federal government doesn't have authority over state laws. Ultimately, the Constitution controls, okay? And if federal courts say, if the Supreme Court says that states do not have the right to regulate federal law enforcement that way, that will control. So let's do it properly. Let's do it legally. Okay. So let's say Mayor Zoran Mamdani passes, goes to city council.

They pass a law saying that the police can use any and all force necessary to stop ICE. And then ICE comes in to try and arrest some pedophile. And the NYPD stops them. Trump should let the pedophile stay in New York City until the Supreme Court next year might hear the case. I don't think it would take very long. I think that... I think it will because we have questions of birthright citizenship, voting rights

that have been sitting with the Supreme Court for over a year already because the Supreme Court doesn't just issue opinions like that. They come together, they consider them, they have to write their opinions out. It takes a long time. If there were an active conflict between federal and state law enforcement, I didn't say the Supreme Court would get involved. The cops stopped the feds from arresting the pedophile. So the feds leave.

The argument that you're making, if I'm understanding, this scenario would end up in this way. So there's a pedophile in New York who's from Guatemala, who's raped a bunch of kids. ICE shows up to arrest him and NYP intervenes. He should be arrested by the state of New York for doing that. Sure, but they're not doing it. As we already saw Darya Lisa said, violent criminals here illegally should not be deported. Of course, that's ridiculous.

And we agree on that. So if ICE tries to stop him, but the NYPD says, you can't do this, you're going to have to leave and come back later. we need a judicial war whatever the case may be under your system the pedophile shall remain in new york until i don't i think even in california and new york they aren't as a practical matter trying to stop violent criminals from being arrested and incorrect is that true they're absolutely even violent criminals not just like rago garcia yeah i mean the lengths they've gone to protect a guy who beat his wife who is who is already caught smuggling people admittedly who was adjudicated twice as a member of ms 13 and they have lied about it endlessly, yes, they're absolutely trying to keep wife beating human traffickers in this country.

So at a certain point, you have to ask yourself if you are a man of action or if you are going to sit by as everything burns down around you. And, you know, that woman... Nothing is burning. Nothing is burning. What does that mean nothing is burning? I mean, nothing in New York City is burning. Maybe the trash can got... Do you think... Do you think... I'm not a fan of rhetoric that is...

Do you think during the American Revolution? everything was in chaos the whole time? Of course not. Yeah, nothing was burning. So why have it? Why have the revolution? In fact, the revolutionary period was over 20 years, and they didn't sign the Declaration of Independence

until a year after the war already began. Nothing was burning. Why bother, right? It's worth making the argument that the consequences, historically, of these kind of people being in positions of authority or having a majority has been disastrous for countries. So the actual question is, At what point do you actually say we're not going to allow this to happen to our country

and take some kind of some kind of legislative action or some kind of law enforcement action to prevent this stuff from turning into what they're literally calling for an actual revolution. Like let's let's just go Godwin's law, full Godwin's law. Should Hitler have been prevented from taking office? I mean, obviously in Rochester. Everyone's going to say yes. And so the argument. the left likes to make is that Trump is Hitler and for this reason he should be prevented from taking

office. That's because there are no principles, only morals. And I understand these people have morals that I find to be detestable. They are liars. They lie for political power. The right certainly has some people who are lying for power and griffers. Just because they say it doesn't mean it's true. They claim I was paid by Russia. They made it up. Merritt Garland and Joe Biden fabricated a criminal case against two people who nobody knows exists targeting a Tennessee-based company with zero evidence and they use that as a weapon to try and destroy us because we're we have no investors we have no funding we have no connection to the trump administration we are regular people who are speaking out in pubs and bars angry at the tyranny of the establishment machine that you know exactly what they were doing as they

let me just throw in throw in something to the mix did you read the Stanford report on the mrne vaccines from from December that said that men 30 and under had a one in 16000 chance of getting myocarditis which shortens your lifespan on average seven years, and they lied about it, telling young men to get something that they knew. One in 16,000 is not a rare side effect. That is a terrifying side effect that was not disclosed, and they knew and lied.

So when these people are trying to make billions of dollars off of something they know as a side effect, they won't disclose, and then they lie about me, yes, they say a lot of things about me, but we know they're lying and we know they're evil. And your point about, oh, well, you know, they say the same things about you. you. To Tim's point, they are lying about what the right says and what the right wants.

They're specifically saying. They say that, oh, Donald Trump is a fascist. He's a threat, et cetera, et cetera. He's going to do this. He's going to do that. And there's no evidence. None of this stuff has materialized. He was in office for four years. He was out of office for four years. He's been in for two years. None of the stuff that they talk about is actually materializing. These people have presented legislation to defund the police. These people have presented legislation to expropriate property. These people have presented legislation. They're actually trying to enact

the things that will destroy this country. So I understand that they do say, oh, hey, you know, Donald Trump is this big bad guy, but these people are actually taking action to do it. Why do you think it's okay to take away someone's vote? Because that's what you're doing if you're supposed. They're trying to take away people's property. Well, hold on, hold on.

Welcome to Tim Kest, IRL, where I think, like, more than half the people here are in support of disenfranchising a lot of things. I think that universal enfranchisement is an absolute error. So who's getting disenfranchised? I would give, if you could promise me that the Constitution is actually sacrosanct and the rights protected in the Constitution are actually untouchable,

I would throw my vote away in a second. In a heartbeat, I have no illusions about what my vote means. There is 330 million Americans. There's something like 175 million Americans that can actually vote. my vote doesn't actually mean shit. And we lie to people and tell them, your vote so important,

it's so important that you vote for this and blah, blah, blah, blah. And then we allow people to think that if you elect a president, you're electing a king and he's just going to come in and fuck and blah, blah, blah, blah. And this is on the right too because there are people that are pissed off at Donald Trump because he hasn't done things that they wanted him to do that he never had the power to do. I will say with respect being the Timcast, IRL foil. I appreciate you sitting here as we're all, you know, angrily debating. But let me, let me ask you some questions.

Let's say we're going to have an election on who should be in charge of this property, right? And you're here too, and you say, I'd like to be in charge. Or, you know, I won't have a vote, right? So today will be the vote. And everyone in this room will cast a ballot. We'll put it in the box. And then we're going to count those ballots to figure out who's going to be in charge. Oh, but, but, but, but, wait.

I think it would only be fair because there's other employees that after, today we get seven days in which we can wait to see if their votes will come in. And we just kind of mailed them out to a bunch of houses in the area. They can be hand-dated just because we're expecting them to be honest. And their signature can be a picture of Mickey Mouse. Would you consider that to be a real election? Would I consider to be a real election? Again, that hypothetical, I mean, obviously I know what you're saying.

You're confusing the procedure that, let's say, California is using, which is stupid. and bad with the fundamental underlying right to vote. No, no, no, no, no, I'm not. I'm asking you a question so I can get to there. Is it a legitimate election when you can receive about seven days later, hand-dated, it's got a picture of Mickey Mouse as a signature, and it requires two independent adjudicators to disqualify with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that a real election?

And don't forget, we've mailed hundreds of thousands of bouts to random homeless shelters and various NGOs. It's not the best procedure, but I don't... Oh, come on. That's not an election. No American thinks the election means we sent 185 belts to a homeless shelter where Nithia Raman gave $600,000 to. Listen, you can draw Mickey Mouse as their signature. The New York Times, okay, you know I used to work there a long time ago, they would not

piss on me if I was on fire. Okay? Truth. And like if the whole building blew up, they would not rehire me, okay? So I'm not saying this as like a friend of the New York Times. They hate me. They wrote an editorial saying, how bad. bad California's procedures were a week ago.

Right. Everyone agrees about this, but it doesn't mean, but you're, you're deflecting from my question, which is who gets the vote. I'm getting there, because I'm laying out the problems we have that lead us to the question of enfranchisement. So let's start now, understanding we have a system where ballots are sent to every address, doesn't matter if you wanted one or not. This means homeless shelters get hundreds.

Signatures can be a doodle, which is unverifiable, and they can be hand-dated. And when a hand-dated ballot is delivered, it's not supposed to count, but only two independent officials who can prove under reasonable doubt that it came after the election day can disqualify it. We ask then, what is the majority of people voting this way and should they be allowed to do this? So the beginning of the question of enfranchisement is not women can't vote. It's you can't vote in this way. That's phase one. We then have to ask ourselves, let's say we clean everything up and we then get to, there's no more universal mail

voting. There are no late ballots. Watson v. R&C. We're fingers crossed. It's going to be ruled on tomorrow. Let's say next year, or 2028, election day is election day. All ballots must be received. They cannot be mailed out. They have to be. So it's one, one day. But then we have people who are homeless walking down the street and an NGO says, hey, hey, hey, I'll give you five bucks to go vote. And they say, okay, and now you are once again in asking yourself the question of, is this country better when people who don't want to vote, don't know who to vote for are enticed, coerced, or paid to vote. So encouraging people to vote, paying people to vote is not the same as encouraging people to vote. But here I would say that's why I didn't say that. But here's what

is offering money, coercing or otherwise. I think the Republican Party should think a lot about this because there's been this notion on both sides that low, you know, what are called low propensity voters, people who don't vote very often, right? They might vote in a presidential election and nothing else, are going to go Democratic, right? Turns out that that's not really true. I don't care about the Republican Party. I mean, I come out function. So I think we should be encouraging everybody to vote.

So the analogy that's often used is your plane is in the air and the pilot has a stroke and dies. and the co-pilot says, I'm going to take the plane, I'll land it. And everyone's, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we're in a vote and figure out who should fly this plane. That has nothing to do with a Democratic election for the president of the United States. Why not? Because someone's been trained to fly the plane in case the pilot dies. Who gets trained to be the president? What?

Who gets trained to be president. No one. That's why the analogy does not hold. I disagree. I think the point would be. if you had a pilot trained to fly and you had a four-star general with decades of military experience, public service, charismatic, and the vote was only held by a certain subset of learned individuals who have active participation in the country. And this could be a broad. This could be almost

everybody. They're going to say the guy trained for governance and military leadership should be the president. Instead, Donald Trump is president because he's charismatic. Now, I like Donald Trump. He's far from perfect. And if I had a choice of a president that I could choose from literally anybody, it's not going to be Donald Trump. Right. But in the system that we have, because people who don't know anything about anything vote, Donald Trump is the best we can get. I do consider him to be a net positive, especially nuking USAID. Hillary Clinton is miserable. And the system we have in place because everyone gets to vote, instead of being honest, politicians lie about everything because they want to maximize the lowest common denominator. I would love it. I would love it. But what I've proposed is in order to vote, you have to sign up for selective service. So men and women, when you turn 18, you go to the DMV, you fill out, you get your license, and you check the box, I would like to vote and be eligible for the draft. Then they say, you're a voter. I think that would solve 20, 30% of the problem overnight.

Low propensity, ignorant voters who are manipulated, coerster otherwise, who don't know who they're voting for and don't know why, we'll stop voting. And you will then have, again, a plane is being flown. The pilot has a stroke. The co-pilot says, I should take over. I am trained to do this. And then a guy stands up, slicks his hair back and says, look at me, huh? I'm a better pilot. Let's go. You know me. I'm funny. Everybody loves it. And they go, yeah, we want that guy. He's funnier. So in this country, there are people who have the experience to be president. And certainly when Donald Trump ran, he did not have experience. I would argue that the structure, of this country was to destruction.

It was like Hillary Clinton and the Republican administration, the Uniparty, were destructive to this country. And that's why Trump wins. I don't think you even get to that point if you just stop universal enfranchisement. If you say there are some criteria about which you were allowed to vote. You want a more elite selection? Yes. When you don't like the current elites running the country that Donald Trump ran against?

Agreed. There are elites that are elected out of universal enfranchisement. They're elite because USAID was funneling money to various NGOs, propping up people who did not work, funding basically everybody in like Fairfax and Loudon, who have exorbitant salaries because they're lawyers or they work for NGOs because USAID gives them money for BS reasons. Lee Zeldon found a nonprofit was formed after one month was given $7 billion. So these people are elites because they trick stupid people to vote for them. They cheat these systems through ridiculous codification. Then once they get in government, they cement themselves as a uniparty machine. In what world do you think the guys running Pfizer and Exxom Mobil and OpenAII and Goldman's

X are not going to find their way into this system that you're proposing? Of course they will. But the criteria by which someone gets through it that I'm describing is not that you're wealthy. I'm saying that if you eliminate low propensity, ignorant and easily manipulated voters and universal mail-in voting, it becomes increasingly more difficult. So the reason why, like our audience, for instance, you can't lie. to them. It just, it's not going to work. If I say something wrong, the chat blows up and they say, Tim's wrong about this. You're wrong. And they, they go off. But if you go look at these liberal

channels and these liberal podcasts, oh, come on. Again, as it pertains to COVID, you know exactly what they were doing. Marching like Lemmings off a cliff. Yeah, absolutely. So when you have Lemmings who are willing to march off a cliff because they hate, and that's all that matters to them, criminals and the corrupt will exploit that against the good. But here's the thing. On the right, you have disparate factions that are constantly fighting. The libertarians have turned on Trump. They're mad over the war. You've got the, I guess America First anti-Israel faction, also angry.

And what made up the mega coalition has broken. Mahas increasingly angry with them too. Absolutely. So maha is out. They're all fractured. But none of these people like the Democratic Party, which is consolidated even when what they say makes no sense. And I'll give you an example of a tweet that I put out the other day.

I tweeted medical assistance in death. is a good thing. It's the white privilege. That's the problem. We need to prioritize LGBTQIA plus people and black and brown bodies for made. In fact, white people shouldn't be allowed to have this until the point I'm making with that is

the insinuation is horrifying, but the left doesn't apply that way. When it comes to medical assistance in death, the overwhelming majority of people who get it are white. Despite the fact it's a medical treatment that should be given to the marginalized. But you ain't never going to see a liberal advocate for medically,

assisting suicides of black people. They won't do it. The point being, these are easily manipulated people who have no, you know what, let me give you a better example. I agreed with San Piker. He criticized Mr. Beast because not so much Mr. Beast, but America. Mr. Beast paid for a bunch of cataract surgeries, 10 grand. And he said, why do we have to have a game show help people get a simple procedure to restore their vision? It's not like it's the craziest cure they can literally go in and remove the cataract. I made a video saying, Hassan's correct. 100%.

It is insane that in this country, we have people who are blind only because they have no access to this service and a game show had to do it. In that critique, I mentioned, I do not support the military industrial complex, dumping money into Congress. So then they send weapons to all these foreign countries. Why are we giving Ukraine $200 billion? Hassan, he reacted to my reaction, mocking me. So first, so.

He agreed the military industrial complex. So basically what happened was he says in his video, the military industrial complex is bad, funding all these wars. I reacted to him saying, I agree with the son. The military industrial complex is bad. Ukraine's a great example. He then laughed at me saying, yo, bro, literally thinks we shouldn't support Ukraine.

Because these people don't have any actual policy positions or vision. It's literally, are you in or are you out? And what that leads to is politicians, like Adam Schiff, It leads to politicians like Zoran Mamdani. They're lying about everything. Their stated goal is destruction, but stupid people vote for them because stupid people are angry. Can I ask you a question? So it seems like from what your whole description earlier about what happened to you is just,

it sounds like a massive overreach on the behalf of social media companies, but as well as the government, right? Yes, absolutely. So I guess the question is like, in lieu of like what happened to you as an individual, shouldn't it give us pause, perhaps, that somebody would have such an egregious? to be fair, this lady did not make that statement herself specifically, but at the very least she hasn't withdrawn her support from this organization. Should it not give us pause that somebody with such an egregious claim as the eradication of Western civilization would be allowed anywhere near power

in a country that's already proven that even those less radical than she is have the capability of ruining someone's life. I mean, I just think it's a chance. I get what you say. as America. I get what you're saying about I get what you're saying about kind of hands off and it's

it's scary to do that. Yes. I mean, I think it's I'm fundamentally I mean, I'm like the last person like this. I'm a constitutionalist. I'm a process guy. I don't think I want to believe in the genius of this country

and the genius of the people who created it. I don't think that's true. You don't think that's what I am or you don't think I'm the last? Absolutely not. Okay, where am I? Let's play the game I play with everybody. Do you believe in the First Amendment? Of course. Do you believe the Founding Fathers' vision of the First Amendment is correct, and you want to adhere to it?

I mean, this is a trap question. Of course it is. I'll just say yes. Yeah, because the Founding Fathers thought that blasphemy should be illegal. And it was, I think we, currently we do have blasphemy laws in the books. And I think the last SCOTUS ruling was actually like 1956. So if you want to adhere to the Constitution the way it was intended, we should arrest anyone who says Christ is not king. As they did.

They did this. they also said that they well I don't know did they actually the federal government arrested people was that Christ is not king well there was one instance where a man said

not literally Christ is not king but he this was a famous case in Massachusetts and I think it was like 1828 I always get the date wrong where it was up it went to the Massachusetts Supreme Court where he said something to the effect of Christ is not our Lord and Savior he was a universalist or something and they arrested him and he went to jail for it

so we also had slaves right But we amended the Constitution. We amended the Constitution. We did not amend the Constitution as it pertains to the First Amendment. No, but the Constitution is still a living document, okay? So. I mean, that I can believe in its principles and believe that it's a living document.

But you don't believe in its principles. I do believe in its principles. I don't believe in blasphemy. Then you should be illegal. That was a founding principle of the First Amendment. They, the purpose. Again, I'm sort of taking your word on this one and you did quote this case to me, but I. Blasphemy was illegal in this country for a long time.

Because the Cotter's can't establish any religion, okay, no establishment of religion. And the purpose was to avoid internecing conflict. So you know George Carlin got arrested for swearing, right? Yes. Where's the First Amendment there? But that, okay, that was a mistake and it's been rectified. You can swear it. My point is, you couldn't swear it at any point before that.

That's right. It's a living document. We standards have changed. So you don't care about the Constitution. You care about your moral framework applied using the Constitution to back your other way around. I believe about the, I believe. So hate speech should be illegal?

No. But hold on. Democrats think hate speech is not protected speech. Okay. Is their view of the Constitution right or wrong? That is incorrect. That view... Well, they say you're incorrect.

Well, okay. How about this? The founding fathers... Under the framework that the Constitution provides. If you believe as an originalist, in the Constitution, in the Constitution, blasphemy should be illegal. Right. If you want that changed, you should amend the Constitution.

So I'm not like, I'm not a textualist in the Constitution's words from 17, you know. No, no, that's a, you said it was a living document. That's textualism. No. Originalism is what the intent was. Textualism is what it reads as. Fair enough. You're correct.

Yeah. So you're a textualist in that however the language applies today by our understanding of the words should be applied today. Yes. I would say that's correct. So when they change the definition of man or woman, it fundamentally changes the 19th Amendment. That's cool. It was John Adams to criticize these blasphemy laws and got the spurs kicked on to get them changed. Yeah, but they were arcade.

But it didn't happen. Yeah, but he spoke at the best. Even sedition was illegal and it was like, what was it? Was it Adams? Was it Adams who was arresting people for sedition? And then Jefferson was like, I'm putting to stop. But it has changed. I mean, it took 100, 200 years.

Like there was literally a period at the founding of the country where speaking out against America was a crime. Yes. My point is, I hear from so many people. They're like, look, I believe. the Constitution. Nobody does. No one actually believes in the Constitution. They believe in their moral interpretation of what the Constitution provides for them. And that's why liberals say hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and the right says it is. Because it's a different moral worldview. They're both claiming the Constitution belongs to them. The Founding Fathers

disagree with everybody. Like gun rights, for instance. Do you believe in the Second Amendment? Yes. So do you think that Virginia has a right to ban guns? No. The Founding Fathers did. The Federal Constitution only applied to the federal government at the time and states under the ninth and tenth were allowed to ban guns if they wanted to. And in fact, they did. And it wasn't until the 80s. This is fascinating if you take a look into shall issue or may issue permitting. In the, before the 80s, states did not have to grant you the right to keep in bare arms. It was it was culturally normative that people had guns and the state wouldn't arrest you for it. But it was actually quite difficult in many circumstances to get permits.

And only recently, did you know that the right to keep a gun on your person only exists in the United States as of 2010? I did not. Only 16 years. In fact, we haven't had national constitutional carry yet. So the Second Amendment doesn't even apply. The idea that the federal constitution applies to this country, the right to keep in bear arms is not even correct.

McDonald's, what is it, McDonald v. No, no, that was McDonald v. Chicago. So it was D.C. v. Heller, where they said the individual right to keep and bear arms extends, I think, to private ownership. Like, you are allowed to have guns in your house. And then McDonald's Chicago was actually you can carry them around. It's been steadily extended. So here's the point.

If we believe the Second Amendment was intended to say the federal constitution is supreme, you cannot ban people from having guns, then I could carry a gun across state lines whenever I wanted to. But you can't. You'll go to jail. You go to prison for that. So the federal constitution is still not even being upheld by any party or this country. And only in the last 16 years do we start to see the emergence of constitutional carry. Again, there is a tension in the United States under the constitutional.

between federal and state law. And that's as it should be. Well, that's why I once again challenge this notion that there is a constitution that people adhere to because if you believe the federal constitution is supreme, there's, how is there even a question that I would go to prison if I'm in, if you're in Pennsylvania and you cross the bridge on accident with your handgun, you are going to prison for four years. And it's happened. It happened to, there was an old lady and she was driving to Atlantic City. She was a permitted, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, had She's driving the 40-minute drive to Atlantic City when she gets pulled over for like some innocuous reason. Being a good citizen, when the cop asks her, if she has any weapons on her, she says, yes, I have my revolver on me and I have my permit for it.

And he goes, okay, step out of the vehicle. And he's like, can you show me the weapon? He's like, I'm going to take it from you. Is that okay? Put your hand behind the back. You're going to prison. This is a felony. And she had just crossed the bridge in New Jersey and was like, I have a permit.

He was not in Jersey. You don't. The only reason she got off, she had a good lawyer. and there was a case in New Jersey where some athlete was caught with a gun and they cut him a sweet art deal because he was famous. So they said, we're going to make a big stink about this because you're going after a little old lady when you let this football player go. So they cut a deal and said never come back. But there are many instances where people cross that bridge on accident and they're in prison right now. I know a dude who was from California.

He was driving to New York and he was driving through Illinois and he had like three or four long guns in his trunk. He exits the federal highway to get gas and a cop. walks up and says, I'm searching your vehicle, finds the guns. What was that probable cause on that? I don't know the fault of the case, but the dude ended up having to live in Illinois for the rest of his life. He got criminally charged for illegal transport of firearms. On the federal highway, they won't pull you over. He had to get gas. Now he's in Illinois. And they said, these guns, you can't. I think he had a couple long guns and some handguns. And they said, felony, you're under arrest. And what was supposed to be a move from California to New York turned into a 20-year sentence in Illinois.

So he didn't go to prison for 20 years. He went for like six or seven. And then when he got out, he was on probation and couldn't leave the state. And so he was like, I never intended to stay in Illinois. He was a black dude. And he was like, they're all racist. That's what happened. And I'm like, well, yeah, maybe.

But anyway, yeah, there's no constitution. Like that is not, that's a cynical argument. And it's not true. It's not a perfect document. Well, hold on, hold on. And we can argue about details and we can argue, but it provides a good framework for this country. Well, let's let's let's let's parse the semantics. Hyperbolicly, I would say, of course, as a constitution, we cite it all the time.

I am saying the message and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution do not functionally exist in the United States. They are only a basis by which people try to assert political authority over others. That's it. That's why you get a conservative Supreme Court. and they fundamentally change the understanding of the law. That's it. Whoever has the power can enforce it. Well, look, I got to really hope you're wrong

because I am bringing this case in the Second Circuit, New York, okay? It's a liberal circuit. And basically the law that I'm saying was violated in my case is a federal civil rights law. And what I'm saying is unvaccinated people, including me during COVID, were denied the right to speak and listen. I was denied the right to speak to them. They were denied the right to listen to me.

that was because of this federal slash Pfizer conspiracy, and there should be an action that I can take against that. Okay, my First Amendment rights were violated. The Second Circuit, the Second Circuit has extended this in a lot of directions. They actually said that this clause, which is called 1985, extended to Arab and Muslim suspected terrorists after 9-11. James Lawrence and I are arguing that the unvaccinated, the COVID unvaccinated were a sort of deeply disliked class in 2020 and 2021.

And in fact, you know, in New York City, you couldn't go into restaurants and various things if you were not vaccinated. And so we deserve protection. So obviously, obviously the Second Circuit is a liberal circuit. Liberals generally don't like this argument. So we are hoping that for once they actually take a principled stand. So let me ask you then, can you explain to the audience the purpose of venue selection? I don't, I can't, I can't venue select. I don't, no, no, no, no.

I didn't ask you if you could. Can you explain the purpose of venue selection? It's to find a judge who was appointed by somebody you think will be more favorable to you. So what actually is happening is you are bending the knee before a political magistrate saying, please, please agree with me. And not based on the merits, based on whether you are the right, whether you're willing to bestow upon me. I'm asking them. Venue selection.

principled about it. No, you're not. Yes, I am. Venue selection exists because every lawyer knows, you're really just asking the judge to grant you permission. Otherwise, if you had the option, you would not be bringing this case in a liberal court. No.

You'd go to West Virginia. Right. But I do. Why would you do that? Ironically, because you know they'll politically agree with you and grant you what you is. Ironically, you're actually wrong. And here's why. And in this case, you are wrong.

Most circuits. Procedurally, maybe? It's more basic than that. This law, 1985, was passed after reconstruction or during reconstruction, okay? Many circuits, including the fifth, which is the most conservative, right, Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, I think it's Texas, or maybe Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana. Texas and Louisiana, okay? The fifth says basically 1985 only applies to black people.

Only black people can have its protections. The second, because New York is liberal, has extended it in a lot of directions. sex couples, you know, disabled people. So if I were bringing it in a conservative circuit, if they were going to follow their precedent at all, they'd have to toss it immediately. It's because I'm in the second that I've a chance. So the procedural issue here is that a network of precedents are created specifically in this circuit and you are challenging the base, the foundational stone that if they rule against

you could disrupt the other plans they have. The point ultimately is this. no one is going to court on the merits. That's a lie we tell ourselves. It's a lie I'm telling myself, right now. Indeed, because I've been involved in more than enough lawsuits to understand that the first thing the lawyers tell you is we got to find the right venue. Why? Because we're looking for a judge who agrees with us morally and politically.

And then it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. In fact, I was dealing with a copyright lawsuit and I was explicitly told, listen, if we bring this suit in California where the record labels are, you lose in two seconds. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong. They are there in the pocket of the major labels, and they're not going to threaten their economy for some guy from West Virginia. If you sue in West Virginia, the inverse is true. The conservative people here are going to be like,

Tim Poole brings money to the state. We will give him whatever he wants. That's the nature of politics. And I think the idea that it operates otherwise is just to make regular people feel like we have a just system. I can only tell you, and again, I had a venue problem in Barence v. Twitter, okay, brought it in the federal circuit,

at the Northern District of California. The judge was a Clinton appointee, but he was a good, honest guy. He was an old judge, a senior emeritus, and he didn't care about doing anything except trying to, like, look at the case and realize that I had a case against Twitter. So maybe I'm biased because that happened. But again, what's being stated here is that I asked a man of principle,

a man who thought his job was right and just. The issue that we're going, we can go all the way back to Darya Eliza now, Chivalier, what do you think she would do if she was on a judge's panel? Yeah, I would trust you about as far as I could throw her, yes. Well, you'd go in before her and say, here's the case, and she'll go, uh-huh, contempt, lock them up. And she's going to be like, welcome to my court, baby, because we see this stuff happening. Look at Judge Dugan, who let a criminal escape. The issue ultimately is this, as we'll get into the next story.

I'll say that all judges are unethical, or to claim that not. None of them are ethical. Well, let me finish my point, so you can understand. If you go back to the 90s, you'll find that the political leanings of Democrats and Republicans are almost identical. There were a few wedge issues that disagreed on, like, how much taxes we should have progressively and what are the limits on abortion? But when you look at Pew's research, which has famously been analyzed a million in one times,

ad nauseum, you can see that the peaks for each party overlap, and they're only slightly different. Today, you can see left and right are completely divergent. So the simple question is this. If a person came into your courtroom who was in a lawsuit and the goal of winning the lawsuit was to sterilize and castrate a bunch of little boys, are you going to allow that person to do it as a judge? I tell you this, a conservative judge is going to beg it's not happening. To be fair, a lot of conservative judges will be like, I am constrained by the law because I'm a man of principle and they let the left do whatever they want. I'd imagine if you were a judge, you'd say it's unfortunate that you have the legal right to sterilize and castrate children, but I will.

let you do it. Because I see that as your moral worldview in the instance of Dari Eliza, we have a more strong moral stance in. If someone's explicit goal is to kill or destroy my country, my people, and the things that I've supported, we will not allow them to take office. Your position is, they're voted for it, so they should be allowed to do it. Like, I get it, because I'm more wishy-washy in a lot of ways as well, but I guess the idea is like you said- I don't know this wishy-washy. No, for me, for me, specifically, I'm not a hard, I don't have a lot of hardline stances on a lot of things, but for me, specifically in this, you mentioned you want to, you consider yourself a constitutionalist.

I do she see, you know, assuming that she believes what was said in that statement, she hasn't disavowed it, she doesn't believe in the Constitution. She believes that as an enemy of the United States or somebody who wants to end Western civilization, that she would theoretically have a problem with the Constitution. Why would we trust? Doesn't mean she agrees with it. She doesn't agree with it. She thinks, she, she described the United States as evil, white patriarchal, settler colonialism that needs to be destroyed. If she said, yes, it's an opinion. The question is, does she believe in the Constitution?

When she calls it evil settler colonialism, the answer is, no, she does not. I mean, that's a complation of ideas. No, it's not what? I mean, America has become a dominant military, grotesque form in a lot of ways. Now you're arguing something totally different. Well, it's not the same United States. You're arguing for constitutionalism. She's arguing that the bureaucracy is too big and it's controlling the world.

No, she's not. She argued that. Alistine. All that bullshit. She argued that white Europeans coming here was an explicit evil that needs to be stopped. You're gonna need to pull up exactly what she said because we started this clip off

with a conflation of a company she's connected to, making a claim. No, he didn't. And then we start talking as if she's the one saying it. And she's the founder of CUAD who issued the statement. Whatever, you got a lot of employees. You know that if they go out in public and say stuff, it does not reflect on you.

If the Timcast Corporation issues a press release, it's approved by me. If you're one of the 10 founders. Ian, Ian, for people founded that company that made a statement. Is she even involved? with them? Look, I got question. For context, the thing she's called for abolishing police, police,

prisons, and borders. She clarified her position on defunding the police by writing that her vision means ending police full stop, no more police ever at all. She retweeted, literally abolished the border. All deportation is wrong. She called the United States a fucking disgrace, referred to the U.S. as

occupied Native American land and joked about wiping her dirty hands on American flag. She wrote favorably about communism, wrote, seize the means of production, called for nationalizing utilities, pharmaceutical companies, and seizing all properties from landlords, wrote that pyromania associated with anarchism is very intriguing to me.

She called Joe Biden a rapist and a war criminal and said she wouldn't vote for him. She said F. Kamala Harris and criticized Bernie Sanders and AOC for being too pro-Israel. And she wrote that black and Arab men fetishize ugly colonizer women. You said that she said to steal all land

from all landlords? She said, let me make sure that I'm actually saying it correctly. Seize all prop, seizing all. all properties from landlord. What was her claim? What did she say? She said she called for the seizing of all properties from landlords.

That's what was the statement? I, when did she called for, that's the statement. That's a quote. That's a quote. I'm looking at it, dude. Here's what we can do. Yes, Ian, you're looking for specific quotes and we're giving you a broad overview of a political organization.

It's a whole other conversation with what we've been having to. I'm kind of finished with a handful of quotes. Now, if you take issue with like the executive statements, the literal statement from CUA. And out of context quotes. I wanted context. Indeed. So right now, if you are unprepared to have that debate, instead of saying, I'm angry

and don't believe you, you can leave. Show me the context. And my point is, when you pull up, like, if a journalist reads the book, or like, I read the manifesto, right, from the Montreal shooter, and I can tell you that he did not hate women, he actually loved women, but he hated modern society, capitalism, hypergamy, you would say, what did he say specifically? And I'd say, I am paraphrasing from reading 104 pages. If you want his quotes, go find him or tell me you don't trust me.

Don't bring up his quotes if you don't have them. You can talk from memory if you want. And that's what he did. And you're mad about it. My point is... I just one more info. I mean, great. Indeed.

It is not an argument to say, oh, you found a list of things she said. I want you to prove it more than you already did because I don't know. It's like, okay, you can go in the other room and you can look it up and then come back with those quotes and we'll talk about it. But right now, telling Phil that the work he did pulling quotes and paraphrasing is not adequate is not an argument. That's true. I mean, I'm not trying to denounce the value of what you brought up. I want to know more.

Bro, she has a tweet where she said my hands were dirty. I know napkin, so I turned around and wiped my hands on the flag. It's not illegal to run for office and get into, for any of that stuff you said, you can get elected. Pretty sure desecration of the American flag could be, you can poop on something. Like an ethics violation or something. Well, yeah, possibly isn't an ethics violation. Guys, we're ragging on the left so much. I think we got a rag on the right.

So I'm going to do this. We've got this from the Babylon B that I want to play for you guys. They wrote, we asked AI to simulate if the U.S. had a second civil war. And I'm going to play this video for you guys. It was late 2026 and political conflict was coming to a head. The right was not giving any ground. And the left decided it was time to take action. We had to do something.

The Republicans were using every trick in the book, mainly voting to take. take over our country. It was finally time for war. The left began to quickly make preparations to take the country by force. It's not easy to start a war. It involves a lot of talking on the phone, which gives many of us anxiety. An initial target was settled on, a lazy suburb that served as a symbol of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. But this small neighborhood was not caught by surprise. Doreen's son goes to one of those fruity colleges on the west coast, and we got word from him war was coming. The invading army descended on the small neighborhood,

but the attack did not go as plan. In the city, we're used to being able to burn down a target and no one does anything. I guess it's different in the suburbs, though. The suburbanites had an ace up their sleeves, firearms. One of the big issues is how we hate guns, but the right loves them. I guess none of us considered, how big a disadvantage that would put us in a civil war.

A single warning shot was fired, causing half the invading force to have a panic attack. The rest fled for their lives. The second American Civil War was over. Everyone said I was crazy owning six AR-15s. And I guess they had a point since we had a full civil war, and I barely needed the one. The left signed a statement of unconditional surrender.

The right was now fully in control. of the country. As part of the surrender, we technically own California. We're seeing if it's possible to just push it off into the sea. Many of the losing combatants fled to the far north. Starvation was rampant among them from lack of access to DoorDash. Still, not everyone saw what happened as a total loss for the left. I think we won by showing we will stand up to Republicans.

But haven't you been exiled to Canada? It's great! I love it here! Great. I love it here. Gavin Newsom was soon eaten by a moose. Cringe boomer slop. I understand the jokes. But yeah, cringe boomer slop is the perfect example. The first question is, how many left-wingers have been killed by conservatives?

I think, oh. Is it zero? How many right-wing individuals have been killed, maimed, or otherwise injured, attacked, terrorized? There's like three attacks on the president, Charlie Kirk. Aaron Danielson was killed Trump supporter walking down the street got shot twice in the chest by a leftist for no reason

There are people that had gone to That were intending on killing Supreme Court justices over the Right There was also the Planned Terror attack on UFC Where they were going to launch drones And then shoot civilians fleeing There was the obviously the ICE

Terror facilities where a cop got shot in the neck There was the incident where the sniper shot into the van Shooting a couple of the migrants thinking they were federal agents. There was, of course, the attacks on all the Tesla facilities where a man showed up with a rifle and unloaded. There was the guy in Spokane, Washington, who showed up with a rifle, a ghost gun,

and Maltaub started firebombing a nice facility and unloading. Fortunately, no one got shot. This Babylon B. Bush stopped. Luigi Mangione. Yeah, Luigi Mangione. And the perception of your one-of-the-mill conservatives is like, the left hates guns. Even though the left is ardently pro-gun.

And they have the John Brown Gun Club, the Red Guard, just for some examples, and they march around taking over blocks of their cities. There's the autonomous zone in Portland. There was for two years an autonomous zone, George Floyd Square, where a guy on a roof had a rifle on a tripod aiming at people. And the Babylon B and these run-of-the-mill conservatives are sitting there being like, aren't we so smart? So I tell you this, my vision of what a Second Civil War would look like, at least based on how they view it, is that far leftists would show up with a bunch of AR-15s and switches, like Glock's with switches, and they instantly take over the small suburban town, seize the guns from the sleepy suburbanites who have them, and then kill a bunch of

people who resisted, and you will get a conflict. Then the Republicans are going to go, now, now, everybody, there's not much we can do. I mean, this is a local matter, so the federal government's not going to get involved. And then the Democrats in the state where it happens, let's say it's Illinois are going to be like on TV. But these are peaceful protesters. You need to understand. And not just that. If one of them does manage to get arrested, somebody running for president for the Democrats will put in their bio about how you can donate to the fund to get them out.

Yeah. It's fascinating to me that we have had for nearly a decade left-wing extremism to a psychotic degree. And conservatives to this day, not all of them, but many of them maintain the left are weak, can't fight, have no. guns and I'm like, remember when the leftists unloaded 300 rounds into the SUV in Portland? Or yeah, yeah, was it? No, Seattle, sorry. And they're like, oh, I didn't know that happened. Remember when they firebombed the White House? They did. Remember when they shot Aaron Danielton twice in the chest and killed them simply walking down the street with a with Trump gear on? I think there's also like a fundamental like gap between people who think of like the pink-haired

liberal and the militant leftist, which are different things and they're kind of conflating the two, which is something you should do to your own detriment. There's also constitutionalists and Trump lovers, like Magadudes. Those are the right, you know, like it's not the same. It's not a monolith. My question is this. How do we coexist with this Chevalier in Congress? This girl?

Yeah, she's going to go to Congress in January 3rd. Winning the primary is effectively winning because it's a Democrat district. So how do we in this country coexist with with, with, with, with enemies? Better ideas, usually is my tactic. Better ideas, putting their ideas on blast and debating them. Okay, so let's try this.

A guy outside, let's say there's a black outside, screaming, all white people must die. The next white men I see, I will kill. Are you going to have an idea to change his mind, perhaps? No, that would be disturbing the peace. You'd get arrested. No, I'm, you're, you're... Guy on the street corner screaming that people need to die

should be arrested by the cops. Okay, so, so what do you think happens when those cops show up? They will arrest him for. disturbing the people. He's armed. Am I the king right now? Is this my world? No, I'm asking you what you think will happen.

I think he will be arrested and detained for... He's going to lay his gun down and say, up, you got me. Oh, he's got a gun and he's screaming. He's going to kill people. The people need to die, he'll probably have guns pointed at him and hopefully that escalate. I thought you had ideas that could stop that. You asked me about this girl in Congress. How do we coexist with enemies?

You said better ideas. You said the girl's name. How do we coexist with this girl and people like this? And then after that, I said, how do you coexist with your enemies? And you said better ideas. Now you're asking how I coexist with... I changed the goalposts before you interjected. I said better ideas with the girl in Congress on the house floor if necessary.

Okay. You said now there's a guy on the street corner screaming with a gun. Okay, so let's slow down. I said, how do you exist with someone like Chevalier? You didn't say anything. I then said, hold on. No, you didn't. I then...

You play the tape, brother. Yes, I did. I was talking about her. I'm not talking about the crazy gunman there. You guys all heard that, yeah? Tell me out here. No, I think you did say that. Let me try this again.

In the order of operations, I said, how do you exist with Chevalier? You said nothing. That's not true. Then, will you stop? Let me finish. Okay, what do you remember? I said, how do you coexist with someone like Chevalier? I was then asked what that meant.

I said, how do we coexist with our enemies? And you said, better ideas. And then I said, okay, so let's say there's a guy outside. Let's say he's a black guy screaming, I'm going to, I hate white people, they should all die. The next white person I see, I'm going to kill. do you have ideas for that? What is going to happen? My point is,

you thought you were responding to the Chevalier question when I had already changed the point broadly to talk about enemies coexisting in a similar space. He's not saying he's saying what didn't move the goal post. Similar but different questions back to back

and just like berating me for answering one of the two? Like what do you want? Because yes, when I try, this is a ridiculous, like Ian, you're arguing semantics out of the question. I'm not going to tell you. telling people to debate an armed gunman. I'm telling you if there's a girl in Congress you disagree

with, you debate her on the house floor. So there is a person in Congress saying, I'm going to vote to kill you. What do you do? That's hyperbolic, obviously. She's literally said she wants the destruction of your way of life. Are you going to change her mind? I understand the American Empire concern. I understand that. I understand wanting to deconstruct the empire. But so let him. I don't want to. But that's not what was said. It was eradicate. That's what that thing, that company she was involved. Yes. The one that she was a founder.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying that it's not a quote that came directly out of her mouth. I understand what you're saying by that. But the reason I, the reason I brought up the question

about a black guy screaming I'm going to kill a white person is to create a clear, flat moral picture. We're not having, in the context, we're not having a debate and we're in a physical conflict.

And I'm not saying this in relation to Chevalier, I am saying in a literal circumstance, and there is only one obvious answer. And the point is, again, see, I'm going to tell you, Ian, homie, I am not work yourself up. I am listening.

I am not asking this question to trick you. What I am doing is I am laying out a scenario that leads us to more questions. Well, ideally, you debate it early so it doesn't get to the armed. And the issue is your concern is that because you are wrong, you are trying to semantically navigate around the question. No. No. He's saying that you are conflating two things that really aren't.

the same at all. And you are. Because I'm not. Because what I'm doing is, here's a flat moral scenario in the extreme. What happens in this flat moral scenario? We agree. Now we're going to move backwards and broaden the moral scenario to include variables. This is a method of understanding in conversation. But when you interrupt me because you don't want to answer the question because you think it's a gotcha, you are just disrupting the point. I don't assume that's not what I'm doing. I just thought literally, I thought you were asking about Chevalier. That's why I... And when I tried to explain that you were wrong,

you kept interrupting me saying you were right. Well, you changed it. And I told you I changed the goalpost. You had a different meaning I didn't understand. And I said literally after Chevali, I made the point to broaden the... To do a flat, hard moral scenario. You know why I did that?

Because there's only one answer to an armed man screaming, I will kill you. The police aren't going to come up and say, sir, please, let's have a conversation. They're going to shoot him. That's it. Without the hardline moral stance, like, what do you guys think? And I understand your point here, is that what do you think the odds are that somebody with political positions that extreme is open to the idea of having her opinion changed on stuff as fundamental as like the America as a country, right?

Like, I understand the idea you go to the House floor, whatever, to argue policy or to argue legislation. Somebody wants to pass this law. Somebody else doesn't. and then you go back and forth about it. You'd have a whole argument about whether that's effective anyways, all that. But when you get down to the brass tax and the person doesn't even believe that the country she's currently representing should exist as it stands today, how do you get anywhere with a person like that? And I'm not trying to make this a moral gotcha question. It's literally I'm just saying like, what are the odds that there's going to be any type of constructive dialogue?

So to continue my moral framework, as intended. He just said without getting it moralistic. Right. Well, I was asking you a question like how do you think that what do you think the odds are that you can make in life? I don't play the odds. I'm Han Solo. And this is why. And debate. If you haven't done it yet, you should

because it's not as hard as you think it is. The reason why I presented a moral framework with an analogy was so that I could advance it to the next question. A man wants to kill you. He is armed. What happens? The police will come and try to stop him and he's intent on killing. It will result in conflict. Now let's say the man is screamed. outside holding up a sign saying all white people should be murdered, nothing will change my mind.

Your intention is, I need to figure out how to coexist with this guy. His intention is I will kill him the first chance I get. What happens in that scenario? Personally, I will avoid the guy. We have to live with him, right? This is like New York City. You know, I just walk on the other side of the street. You have to live with him, though, right? That's racist. Maybe, yes. I don't have to, like, share a bedroom with them, but, you know, I... I actually think. that's what conservatives would largely do. And that's why we are in this position where someone like Aaron Danielson took two bolts to the chest. Because people like you are like, I'll just avoid those that are... What would you do? I think someone who's saying I'm going to murder people should

be arrested. What would you do? If I was in a field, in a small town, and it was my town, I'd probably get a posse together. And I'd say, it's time to get this guy out of here. New York City. Right. So the, I bet I were talking about is... So what would you get a posse and go do what? Right. If we're talking small town, get a posse together or the local police and we say, this guy can't be here anymore. He's threatening us. So you get the cops to arrest him. And we'd remove him. I wouldn't negotiate with him. I wouldn't let him take a seat in city council. I would say anything he says is a lie intended to destroy us as his explicit stated intentions. The problem we have right now is conservatives who are doing one of two things. I'm going to ignore this

and hope it goes away, which it hasn't for decades. And the others, which are saying it is my intention to be principled and find understanding. And the other guy sitting there with a smile on his face being like, what an idiot. I'll stab him the first chance I get. So choose to live with these people. But, you know, that 19 year old girl who was butchered in New York City by that roving gang, a band of gangs, or the dad who got shot and killed while carrying, walking his daughter across the street. This is the world that we have gotten because of this idea of just let these people do what they want and ignore them. I see, I am sick by people bearing their heads in the sand. I think people should have YouTube channels.

So you wouldn't avoid the guy. What? So you shouldn't avoid the guy. Well, I wouldn't walk up to him and walk in his face if he's threatened to kill white people and looking at me. No, but you. I'm going to eye contact, cross the street, move fast. But would you take action in somebody to stop him? What?

You take action to stop him, right? If he was violently threatening people, you'd have to call the cops. Saying white people should be killed. I think we don't allow that. I think this, uh, you know, we've talked about the Tweedled-D-Tweedledum death threats. And this is the perfect example of weak men. And I am just tired of weak men. So a tweet-de-de-tweedled on death threat would be, I say,

anti-vaxxers, you know, should be, you know, Epstein, right? I'll try to keep it vague because, you know, I don't want to actually have that quote. But let's say I said, anti-vaxxers deserve the death penalty instantly on the spot, right? That's a protected statement, right? First Amendment, I'm allowed to say that. Yeah. Then Ian points at you in front of a mob and says he's an anti-vaxxer. Neither of us broke the law.

but someone shoots you. Should we... So I believe those two people should go to prison. Yeah, I mean, that may be incitement. Like, that may be a... It's not legal. And so what's happened consistently is this happens all the time

is the principled conservative judges say neither of them created an imminent threat so you can't charge them. I think we're talking to something that's very fact-specific. Okay. And by the way, Charlie Kirk, who I'm looking at up there, who was a true American hero

who died believing in free sense. speech, okay? It's the right that has made everything about his death, about nothing except what it's actually about. In other words, Charlie Kirk was shot almost certainly by a guy who did it for his, you know, transgender girlfriend because he didn't like Charlie Kirk, right? Yep. So why are we talking? Why have people on the right spent the last year talking about some weird conspiracy? Because they're idiots. They're retarded. Yeah. It's called the retard right. None of us are on that true. I'm really glad to hear that. My argument is advocating for death and destruction is not free speech. The idea that you can advocate for killing people, I think, is not free speech. Are you saying,

okay, let me give you an example. Do you think it should be allowed? Specific people or like parasitic, you know, capitalist CEOs or whatever. Like, I'm allowed to say, I think that those people should die. I mean, as long as I'm not naming anybody specifically, I think that's a politically protected there's a line, I suppose, but should die. What I mean to say is, I don't think people should be allowed to say something like, someone needs to go kill them now. Oh, yeah, I mean, again, and it's not, that's, that's free speech right now.

That's, that's protected. Well, are you naming a specific person? Nope. Okay. So right now, as it stands with death threats, this is how we have the Tweedledum, Tweedledee thing. Somebody will yell at Antifa. Nazis need to be killed on the spot. And they say, he's not creating an imminent threat. He's targeting nobody. He's giving an opinion about Nazis. The guy next to him points to Charlie Kirkland says, that's a Nazi. And then a guy pulls his gun up and

shoots him. And they say, no one incited it. Have you seen an actual case of that? Because that's, yes. That seems like incitement. It's not protected incitement. So we've been dealing with this for a decade as it pertains to Antifa because this is how they do it. They don't. explicitly say, they don't go on Twitter and say, everybody come to this spot and commit a crime. They break the sentences up so that no individual is responsible for the direct threat. They did this in Colombia with Jewish students. And then when a Jewish student showed up and everyone started attacking them, it was like, well, they got their marching orders, but no one had to tell them who to go after. We can't exist in a country where we allow fragmented death threats.

So I don't believe that You know, I I believe that There's an interesting question on the on the flag burning stuff To expand the free speech conversation Trump says flag burning should be illegal Obviously stealing someone else's flag and burning it It should be simple property crime

I believe if you own it, it's your You can do whatever you want So that's free speech As long as you're not burning it in an illegal way Like the left will light a fire in the middle of the street That's illegal you can't do that Right. But when we get to the point where people are advocating for the murder of other people, and just because they're not saying, go right now and kill person, does not mean what they're saying should be considered free speech. So Charlie Kirk, and like with Trump right now, every single one of these Gen Ziers who goes on TikTok and says, someone needs to do it and then clicks off, arrested. You know, again, if you're naming the president. No, no, they didn't, though.

Hassan Piker at an event said, if I said someone should do it, everybody knows what that means. They all laughed. Yep. So if somebody goes on TikTok, here's what should happen. You see all these young women, largely young women, some young guys, they sit there and be like, why isn't anyone done it yet? Someone right now, go do it. And then turn it off, that person should be arrested. Now, what will be required is proving that what she was saying was related, was political.

because if she had a video before it where she was like, I wish I had a tip of cookie dough, can't someone go buy it for me? And the next video was, someone go do it, do it right now. Then the context is clearly not assassinations. But we know most of these people have political profiles are posting about how they hate Trump, and then they say, go do it, lock them up.

Unless, of course, cookie dough is a dog whistle for Donald Trump. I know. It's a whole other thing entirely. I view the world as in, there was a point in this country where we were one country, and rights applied to those of this country who disagreed, But we are no longer one country.

We are two countries. Wait, so you don't think rights apply to people you disagree with? That's a fact. It's a fact. You think that Obama gave Anwar Al-Aliaki his rights? He was an American citizen. You think he gave Abduraman Al-Ali-Aki his rights? He was an American citizen, too.

We're talking about blowing up members of Al-Qaeda? Abdurman Al-Lal-Lakki was not a member of Al-Qaeda. He was a 16-year-old kid from Boulder, Colorado, a group in San Diego, who was visiting his family in Yemen, and Barack Obama bloop the restaurant he was eating food at. He was the son of al-Qaeda. He himself was not. He was never a judd. Do you think that if an American espouses ideals of terrorism, we should just kill him on the spot? No. That's what Obama did. So the obvious reality is this. It is, there is obviously an area of contention in the United States where we have two distinct nations within the borders of one country. But there are two institutional mechanisms in place by which you can't just go around killing people because this is what a civil war ultimately is. But it is a fact that we do not grant rights to people of other countries. People of other countries?

Yes. No, they are not protected by the First Amendment. They don't have constitutional rights. Within the borders of the United States, there exist two different countries. There is a multicultural democracy and a constitutional republic. But what you just said is people you disagree with, not people who are not constitutionally protected because they're not American citizens. I think you're conflating from what I said to make it be about me arguing with a guy. What I said is there are two different countries in the, two different nations in the borders of this country.

And as a fact, the United States and all countries do not grant rights to people of other countries. I mean, nor should they, right? Like, they're not American. In which case, the question becomes, at what point do people of the United States recognize there are two distinct, what is it? I keep mixing the words, nations within the borders of the same. So the country is the borders and the nation is the people, I think. Is that? I guess it's.

I always mix them up. Yeah. It's a good country. So there are two nations within the borders of one country. This is how civil wars begin. And it is a fact. This is not an opinion statement. Anybody who I think fairly assesses the political worldview of the left and the right

would find that they are incongruous with each other and disastrously so. Look, we're in a state that exists because of the civil war, right? Right now. Okay. And the country responded to that and recovered from that. So I refuse to believe that this is going somewhere that cannot be fixed. So when you have a Congress where, like, let's look at like Ilhan Omar, for instance, you have massive fraud stealing from the public coffers and smuggling that money to Somali.

Are we saying Republicans don't do this all the time? I'm not saying they don't. What does that do with it? Well, so what? So Ilan Omer is a Democrat? So she's stealing? She's smuggling money to a foreign country. We think.

Well, we know that Somalis in Minnesota have been caught with big payloads of kids. We know that she has explicitly and publicly stated she is here for the benefit of Somalia and to bring resources to Somalia. She stated that. So we also then know that I think at this point it's largely known. She married her brother illegally to grant him immigration benefits, which is immigration fraud. She's in our Congress. But I'll give you a simpler example. I don't know.

You don't consider yourself liberal or conservative. I mean, as I said at a speech a few weeks ago, I don't get invited anywhere anymore. by either side. Do you consider yourself pro-life or pro-choice? If you had to categorize me, you'd categorize me as pro-choice. Do you think that a woman should be able to get an abortion at nine months? No. What would you do to stop her? I ban the procedure as they do in Europe.

No, but I mean like a woman is walking past you laughing saying, you can't do anything about it. I know it's illegal. I'm going to do it anyway. What would you do to stop her? Well, if you're characterizing it as murder, which to me... I'm not... Which to me it is, okay? There's a line of fetal viability. You can set Yeah. They're abortion is so complicated. I know. And that's why I use it.

Right. As somebody who has three kids, like abortion is murder. I wrote about this in 2022. Abortion is murder, but it has to be legal because there's absolutely no game. Within restrictions. But again, let's say, so you think it should be illegal for a woman at nine months to get abortion. Absolutely. Let me ask you another side question.

And we'll come back to this one. If you were walking down the street in New York and you were walking down the street in New York and you saw a man on his knees crying and another man was pointing a gun at his head and you had a crowbar in your hand, would you intervene to save that man from getting shot in the head? Yes. You would try and stop. Like, let's make it more explicit. Like the guy's on his knees saying, please, please don't kill me.

Just take my money and let me go. And the guy says, I'm going to rob you and steal from you because I can and no one can stop me. And then you're going to die. You would intervene if you could. I would. You'd shoot that guy with the gun. Yeah, hit him with the gun. Whatever.

If you had a gun in your hand, you'd shoot that guy. Yeah, I think so. Most people would. I'll give you the more morally direct and obvious answer. Let's say you're walking, you leave here, and you're in West Virginia, and you cross over into Virginia, because we don't like Virginia. And West Virginia is best Virginia. And you're driving through a feet, like you're driving through the countryside. And all of a sudden you see two people in a field and one guy's on his knees and the other guy's whipping him.

So you pull over and you walk up and it's a black man chained up. And there's a white man whipping him with a gun in his hand. And you're like, whoa, what's going on? and the black man screams, he's kidnapped me, and he says, I'm a slave now. Please help me, he's going to kill me. And the white guy yells, I own him now, and I'll kill him if I want to.

And then he cocks the gun. Would you shoot that white man to save that black man? I'd do it in two seconds. Yeah, sure. As presented, sure. I'd do it in two seconds. I think most people would. Sure.

So the reason I give you the scenario is there, there's no moral ambiguity to defending another life. If a woman was about to get an abortion and a doctor had the forceps and he looked at you, dead in the eyes and says, and now I kill the baby by stimping at spinal cord. Would you shoot him? I mean, to be consistent, the answer is yes.

Most conservative say no. I mean, yes, I think even the sort of really hardcore pro-lifers, and this is why you have to make practical compromises in the real world, even the hardcore pro-lifers blanch from we're going to imprison doctors and women for abortion. So the issue, the issue... That's the problem, because we know intuitively and inherently that this is something that you really can't stop women from doing. No matter what.

Let's say there's a woman in Oklahoma. Oklahoma is completely banned abortion. But let's just say it's not even about it. She's eight months pregnant. Let's say that she calls an Uber, gets in, and calls up her front on the phone saying, I'm leaving my husband, I want to get an abortion and I don't want to be with them, so we're going to drive to Colorado. Should the Uber driver call the police and say she's about to commit a murder, it's a felony and this is illegal, you can't do it. I'm going to stop her. You're saying she's eight months pregnant?

then yes, in my opinion. So what happens if, so let's, let's entertain these ideas. Like, let's say she's sitting at a diner. And she's with a woman. And the woman's like, I'm going to drive you to Colorado and we're going to abort this baby, abort it dead. And she goes, I can't wait to get this thing out of me. I hate this man. And a cop is sitting behind her.

Should he arrest her on the spot? Conspiracy to commit abortion? We're talking, we're talking eight months, okay? Yeah, absolutely. So in my opinion, those abortion should not be legal anywhere. I know. So it's not about Colorado versus Oregon. No, Oklahoma.

I'm sorry. Where it's illegal. I'm just saying in Oklahoma, it is illegal. Yes. So the cop should stop her. So she's violating the law. The cop has the ability to enforce the law. What if she,

what if she crosses the border in a Colorado before they could stop her? Now what happens. Well, now it's not illegal. It should be. Is it kidnapping? Of the unborn fetus? I mean, that baby is viable and that husband,

that's his child. Yeah. And she's going to kill it. Is the layer of flesh between her and the baby a moral distinction between whether she kidnapped the baby. Yes, it is, because it's her flesh. This is the problem. My, we'll never convince a woman.

My question was, we'll never convince a woman. I'm not trying to. My question for you was, she's not a layer of flesh. She's a person. My question to you was not whether she's a person. It was that is the layer of flesh between the baby creating a moral distinction between the life of the baby? Yes.

If she kidnaps a baby to murder, what do we do? I agree with you in principle. But what I am saying to you is that this This is one where you have to exist in the real world. You must exist in the real world. And what does that mean? It means that there are, you will never convince a majority of women. I'm not talking about that.

That's not an argument that I'm trying to make, nor is it relevant to conversation. You're just throwing out hypotheticals to get me to agree that there's- I'm not trying to get you to agree. I'm trying to ask you what your morals are. And I can ask you more questions to understand your worldview. But again, because you're thinking there's a gotcha here, you're refusing to answer the question. changing the subject. No.

Let me finish my point. Okay. Then I will come back with a... Because this question has nothing to do with abortion. It was to figure out what your morals are so that I can provide for you a scenario and understand what you would think would happen and what we should do about it, which is, I don't care if women want or don't want abortion to be... This is not what we're talking about.

What we're talking about is a man whose baby has been taken by the mother and is about to be killed. And what do you think that man will do to save him? his child. So, so you, there are, there are arguments that don't have any right answer. There are moral positions that cannot be squared. Okay. I'm gonna, can I just stop you? Yep. You are going off in the wrong direction. No, no. I'm gonna stop you. I'm gonna stop you again when I'm talking about abortion. What we're talking about is, we're talking about a framework of questions. We are talking about a scenario I'm presenting to you so that you can explain how you see the

world. So I'm going to ask you the final question in this scenario that pertains to civil war, not abortion. What would a father do if a woman took his baby at eight months in a state where it's illegal to kill to cross state lines to kill? I don't know what he would do. You don't have any idea of what a dad would do to save his child? Here's what I'm saying to you. There are two kinds of questions in the world. Questions that have actual answers. Okay. How effective is the MRI vaccine? okay, it's this effective for this long. That's a question that you can test and you can answer. Yep, okay?

And then there's a question of which is more important? My autonomy not to get the vaccine for some collective good that exists if we are all vaccinated and can't transmit COVID, if pretending that the vaccine worked, okay? That those, the question of individual freedom versus collective good has no answer. And it's not what we're talking about. Yes, it is, okay? It's not. You said that you didn't see a scenario in which this country could get to that point. I am giving you some scenarios to consider your moral worldview on so that we can come to the final question of. Do you think it's possible a 35-year-old man would use violence to save his eight-month, eight-month, just-ed, viable child from being killed?

Yes, I think there's a scenario where that happens. What happens in a scenario where you have a country where states bordering each other have hyper-bifurcated views on these things? where a woman committing a felony is not breaking the law in one state. And you have state law enforcement trying to stop her. In fact, I think it might have been Mississippi that sought to charge him with conspiracy to commit abortion because she was planning to flee the state. My point here is the moral distinction between the multicultural democracy and the constitutional republic are at such extreme ends that neither can coexist. At a certain point, the bridge breaks. A woman says, I'm going to get a nine month abortion so I don't have to live.

with this man and the man says she's going to commit a felony kidnapping my child. The liberals say it's not a child, it's a fetus. The conservative say it's a child. Now you have a breakdown where the police in Colorado will protect her because she's not committing a crime and they will not allow another state to come in. Right. And a father who says, I will get every man who will stand by my side and we will stop anyone who dares to kill my child. We're not there yet, but we are dangerously close when states like California, children for sex changes. When Washington passes a law saying a stranger on the internet can kidnap a child from Arizona, bring them to Washington for a sex change, and the state will

protect them having done it. We are at a dangerous point where these laws are only recently passed. But what happens when a mom and dad, their 14-year-old daughter goes missing? And then they find out a 46-year-old man, a pedophile, picked her up in his car and drove her to get her sterilized to give her puberty blockers and testosterone. And Washington says what he did is heroic. Do you think those parents are going to be like, guess our child's gone? No, I don't. So my point is not that right now there's going to be people shooting each other.

My point is, in Congress, we have a woman who says she wants to destroy this country. She's not in yet, but she will be. We also have foreign-born individuals who have explicitly stated they're going to extract money for the baddiment of their home countries to their own people and their constituents have been smuggling money out of the country. We have seen massive fraud in Minnesota, Ohio and California, in the Somali community. This country is being extracted. And there is an ever-shinking population of American traditionalists, constitutional

republicanists, I guess you can call it, who believe in the founding fathers, their vision for the Constitution, the evolution of the Constitution through amendments, and other individuals who are either communist ideologues or foreign-born and want to destroy this country. These two forces can't coexist. And I can give you a really easy example. when Dan Goldman tried to buy coffee and they threw him out. Right. He can't even buy coffee in his home city.

So how are we supposed to coexist as this escalates? It's not possible. Okay. Since, again, we're in the free state of West Virginia, just over the border was the slave state of Virginia, there was a big argument for 1860 about slavery, right? Whether it was moral or not. The North increasingly believed it was actually immoral,

and I know there's an economic component to that, and I know, you know, North was industrializing, the South was more dependent on cotton, et cetera. But ultimately, I do believe there was a moral argument that led to a war. West Virginia wasn't technically, it wasn't a free state. But it split. It split because the fighting age men who vote

went to war in the east and south, and the people who remained didn't want to fight so they voted not to fight. Fair enough. Yeah. It's pretty wild how, like, Virginia called up all of the men from the area. that was known as like the Connoir region, which they wanted to name the state, West Virginia.

And when all those men were no longer there to defend their state or their values, the remaining individuals broke the state off and ran. Remarkable. It's remarkable. Not that Virginia was good, you know. But we fought a war, okay? And the North one, the union did not break. And now I don't think anybody would disagree that slavery is immoral. Okay, that argument actually changed.

There are no longer two sides. There's no longer a group of people saying, I mean, maybe there's a few, saying, you know, the Bible gives me the right to own, the children of ham. There's a lot of people who think slavery is fine, but I think it's based on, I think most Americans, their immediate view of slavery is based on chattel slavery and like farmwork. And the people who agree, at least to a certain degree privately, but maybe they don't want to publicly say it, publicly say it, the arguments they tend to make is that slavery, as depicted in media, is not actually how slavery was. and only 3% of Americans in the South own slaves. It's fine. I thought you were going to go somewhere else and say that most of the people in the United States who believe in slavery now are from Africa. No, no, no.

Saudi Arabia places like that. If you talk to a lot of southerners about the issue of slavery, they'll usually default to, no, no, like we don't think slavery should be allowed. But, and then they'll say things like there were slaves who earned a living, made money and worked as cobblers. They just couldn't leave, right? they had a they they they they're their their their slave owner directed their their livelihood i think the consensus is that slavery is wrong and the far i i i i i i think you need to go down to georgia i think you need to go down to some of these places and and they'll they'll they'll they're like you'll find people who don't but uh but the the question i have for you on the issue i don't know

if you want to hit a point before i go into the the point was is that now the the far left the similar to what this lady is espousing here believes that almost that same thing exists, except for its CEOs, and they keep you trapped via economic means because nobody can get out. Yeah. So my question for you is, do you think the North was righteous? Were they correct and moral? Ultimately, yes. And I know that's going to be a controversial opinion. But yes, I think the War of Northern Regression was necessary. And I believe in what Lincoln said in the second inaugural. Do you think, would you consider Lincoln to be the good guy? Yes. Oh, yes. Would you be mad if Donald Trump suspended habeas corpus?

If there were a civil war? There was no civil war when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. There was a civil war on the horizon, Tim. That's a different question from there was a civil war. The fact that Abraham Lincoln, in fact, I could argue that suspension of habeas corpus made the civil war happen, right? You are not going to convince me about this. And I know quite a bit about the history of the civil war. Okay, so before the civil war, right?

So let's get the fact straight. Battle of Sumpner happens, and the American people do not believe a civil war is happening at this point. The Battle of Bull Run... I say that, but that's not really true. That is absolutely true. Do you know when the first instance of the phrase civil war was used, officially? It was 1863. Officially?

Okay. Do you think that by 1863, with armies marching up and down this ground in Pennsylvania and Maryland, people didn't, weren't aware that there was a civil war happening? 1863, they did. Yeah. But they did not call it a civil war. Maybe they didn't call it that. Okay. So you get Fort Sumter and nobody says there's a civil war.

In fact, they don't even say there's a rebellion. They don't even say there's a war in the states. At the time, the South seceded. Okay. When did they secede? The state started seceding? Yeah. In 1861, did they not?

So which states seceded first? Oh my God. Are we really playing this game? No, no, no. Let's not go to needy-gritty for no stupid reason. Seven states seceded. And it was after Abraham. Abraham Lincoln suspension of habeas corpus and the calling above troops that four other states joined in.

Virginia initially did not secede. Virginia got freaked out. In fact, Virginia was two to one against a session until Abraham Lincoln crossed the line. Then they freaked out. The Confederates opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12th and then 10 days later. Are you sure about that? My understanding is no one knows who fired first. April, so it's two weeks later. My understanding is that there's not a historical record on who opened fire first. Let me ask you a basic question. Seriously. Do you, do you, are you in the camp that says the Civil War was not about slavery? It was about slavery. Okay. So we agree about that. They wanted to put it in their constitution. They put it in their constitution.

Yes. Okay. So, so, so, okay. Because that argument is it crazy. Why, why did Southerners fight in the Civil War? Why did they fight? Yes. You're going to say it was to protect their rights? No. Okay. It was to defend their homes. Okay. The Civil War started for a variety of reasons. You can, you can lay it out in a bunch of different ways, but there's no real like one issue. We usually just say slavery because,

The South was, the southern states, the slave states were fearful that with Abraham Lincoln's election, despite the fact he said, we would not ban slavery, we would just not expand it. They believed he was lying. Right. Because the Republican Party's ultimate goal was the abolition of slavery. We had seven years of bleeding Kansas, so shooting and fighting was already happening in these territories. So when Abraham Lincoln gets elected, it's actually, I think it was January. Before he was even inaugurated, seven states decided to secede. In fact, Texas secession was hilarious.

They only seceded because of geography. Several state senators, I don't know the exact individuals, but they had written, we can't be attached to a union that we're not attached to. And for trade reasons, geographically, the Confederacy makes the most sense. Abraham Lincoln, then you get the battle of Fort Sumter. South Carolina says, get your federal troops off our land. They say, it's our land. You can't do this.

My understanding was no one knows exactly who fired first, but nobody died. I'm sorry, nobody died in the conflict. One person died accidentally from a... This says that the South. The southern general Pierre Gustav, Tutant Beauregard ordered the attack at 4.30 a.m. Okay. I could be wrong about this. I might be conflating this with Lexington and Concord.

I think I am. They don't know. That's the shot heard around the world. No one knows who shot first. So after the Battle of Fort Sumter, there is no civil war in the United States. Not a single person believes there is or even will be. When the northern forces are coming to Manassas to enter Virginia and southern forces move forward,

people are picnicking. Yes, I know. Yes. After the first Battle of Bull Run, there was still no civil war in the United States. We only look back with... Thousands of the people died at Manassas and Bull Run. And they still did not call it or believe there was a civil war. Right, but saying it was a picnic where people were picnicking...

They were? No, they were. They were. The point to say that they were picnicking is to point out that the people did not perceive a civil war to be happening. No, they perceived... They didn't have media, though, like we did. They foolishly thought, I don't know what they thought. I don't think they foolishly thought anything.

I think they think just like you do right now. We have, we have Antifa committing, I think, over 465 terror attacks in the last four years. You cannot compare the political violence in the United States in the last few years, which is ugly and has mostly been left to right. I agree. You can compare it exactly to Bleeding Kansas. See, I'm looking at Charlie Kirk. Like, are you familiar with what was going down in Bleeding Kansas?

It's basically identical. Oh, people are getting sick. scalped. Charlie Kirk got shot in the throat. That's true. Aaron Downson took two bolts to the chest. Trump sent Marines into a marijuana plantation that child slaves.

And the Democrats fought to stop them and fought with the Marines. We are at a point where we are very much in a, so academics describe what we're in as civil strife. Bleeding Kansas was civil strife. However, the civil rights error was also civil strife. Civil strife is academically defined as a period

when at least 70 people are killed for political reasons per year or something that effect. So we're well past that. The civil rights area did not end in a civil war. However, bleeding Kansas did. So we don't know exactly if this will result in a civil war or not, but the potentiality is absolutely there academically. What we're seeing, I would argue, to the point of Abraham Lincoln is, the people of this country saw a battle. But what about when Biden sent the feds against the Texas National Guard? Now, don't get me wrong, nobody was shooting each other, but it was getting tense and we were like, holy crap, like the Texas National Guard has now head to head with federal law enforcement, this could kick off in a very dangerous way.

I would argue that is dangerously close to a Fort Sumter moment. They weren't shooting at each other, but they were given laws against, they were given directives against each other. So that's why we're like, holy crap, one accidental discharge and we're in a civil war. Donald Trump took a bolt side of the head and people said we were two millimeters from a civil war. Abraham Lincoln suspends habeas corpus creating a corridor from Philadelphia down to D.C.

because Maryland was a slave state and the Maryland legislature was sympathetic to the southern cause. So Abraham Lincoln sent in federal law enforcement to arrest a third of the Maryland legislature to stop them from being able to vote against them.

He then arrested people without cause throughout this corridor and locked them up for years. It was only two years later that Congress, after he wiped out his enemies, approved retroactively the suspension of habeas corpus. My point ultimately is, one could argue, there would have not been a civil war had Abraham Lincoln not decided to fight one. The southern secession may have just been a secession,

and we'd have two different countries right now. There was a Baltimore riot on April 19th, and it's so close to the Capitol. That's why he suspended their rights and took it. Maryland was a slave state, so was Delaware. It was too close to the Capitol. And so Abraham Lincoln said, the Constitution be damned. He had no authority to suspend habeas corpus. That's a legislative power. He did it anyway. He had no authority to call up troops or do any of the things that he did. He did it anyway. Because as Trump said, a man who saves his nation breaks no laws. Napoleon said that too, right? Is that true? I think it was. That's crazy. He gets the quote because it was a big deal when he said it. You know what I mean? Everybody was like, I can't believe he said it. You always got to ask though, like, what am I trying to

preserve? Do I have to destroy this system in order to save it? Like, let's, we'll get some super chats in because I just, this is the Tim Rance about Civil War episode. smash the like button, share the show. Jay Dirtbiker says, Ian, my culture is not your costume, and I'm offended. Really? Omega Setsu says, Tim Pools for Alex.

The Nazis didn't say that they were going to bake the cookies until they did. How is it all hypothetical when Mom Dummy is saying that he will do the thing against the U.S.? Again, I don't think he's saying he will do the thing against the U.S. I think he's arguing over a federal law enforcement authority with ICE. which I don't agree with him about. I think that ICE does have the right to enforce U.S. immigration laws inside, you know, the 50 miles alone or whatever. They actually don't. That was the big issue of contention with Biden.

The argument, Texas was like, we can't deport or deal with these illegal immigrants or arrest them because it's a federal, it's a constitutional executive authority. Right. Congress designated that authority to the executive branch with the INA. Right. I agree with that. So Mamdani has no authority to interfere in that. Again, we're talking about insurrection. It's not insurrection.

There's no insurrection in New York City. I was just there. But this is why I brought up the Civil War stuff, because you're like, if it wasn't in a movie, it's not happening. Like, here's a question, right? When the Civil War was kicking off, do you think people walked outside their homes and there was fires and there was insurrection and people with pitchforks? The answer is there wasn't. Look, I've actually spent some time in war zones, okay? And most of the time, this is what I learned as a reporter for the New York Times.

in Iraq. Most of the time, in most war zones, it's peaceful. Just like New York is right now. Okay. That doesn't mean there's not a war happening. Doesn't mean there's not an interaction happening. It's not really about what's happening outside your door. Okay. There was a, there was, the northern states and the southern states were moving towards irrevocable conflict on the issue of slavery. And Lincoln, I don't think, could have stopped that in any way short of allowing the South to secede. As you said, that's what he could have done, right? Right? Yep. Okay. He chose not to do that. I'm glad he chose. Should Donald Trump choose not to allow Mamdani to block immigration enforcement?

There's no comparison. I'm not comparing the two. I'm asking you, should Donald Trump not allow what Mamdani is doing? Should he just be like, no? I think politically, Minnesota demonstrated, he would be making a mistake to escalate. Should federal law enforcement arrest local law enforcement if they interfere in federal law enforcement? Again, it's a hypothetical, and I think we haven't demonstrated. Well, that's not hypothetical. That's a question of law. Okay, fair. My answer is simply, I believe, yes, I don't care if you're a cop.

If you obstruct justice, you get arrested. Okay. Should federal law enforcement be running around trying to pull illegal immigrants off the street? Yes. They've committed no crime. Or would it be better? Hold on. You said illegal immigrants. Okay, fair enough.

If they've committed no crime other than being here illegally. Yes, absolutely. Or is there a better way to do it by denying them all the, you know, debanking? Debanking and de-welfaring and de-free transitioning and D-all the shit that the left says that they don't get that they do get. Would that be a better way to do this that wouldn't? 70% of the people they've gone after have been violent criminals. That's not true. It's not.

Those are the cited numbers. That's not true. Those are the cited numbers. There aren't enough violent criminals to make that work. and I think we can find that. I look on chat, GPT. Those were the number cited when they said Donald Trump claimed

he was going to go after only the violent criminals, but that's only 70%. 30% have been like... Can we find this? Because I don't think that's true. But what's the time frame that you're... Was this like the first month? I mean...

Well, like last year it was reported. So last... When the Minnesota, like into the winter, the reporting was that only around 70% were actually criminals and Trump was actually going after bakers and... I...

I voted for Trump, okay? And I'm glad he closed the border. And that gave him a way to do this that most Americans would agree with, right? Essentially by cutting off the flow of funds to these folks and making it uncomfortable for them. In pursuing this aggressive policy, he's undercut what he, public support for something that I think at baseline is highly supported. I'm more of a pragmatist. I think the Republican part. has been sitting on their hands.

I think the American people have been sitting on their hands. I think there's one simple question that needs to be asked by how do the American people benefit by bringing these people into our country?

Right, they don't. So let's not let them come in and let's get the ones who are in out in some reasonable way. But I'm talking about Ilhan Omar. Oh. This is just chat, GBT. It says in 2025,

roughly 70 plus percent had no criminal conviction in 2020. It sounds more reasonable to me. And that maybe that was a number. Three percent of ICE detainees had a violent felony conviction in 2025. This is it from ABC News. The other ones from the Cato Institute. No, Cato Institute's fake. Okay. Yeah, Cato Institute argues that if a white supremacist punches his wife, it's a political, it's an act of political violence. Oh, okay. Yeah, so I encourage you to do your own research on it. I'm using chat GPT. I thought it was the other

way around because and so I would I would just say I'll defer to the immediate fact check but my concern is not trusting these sources because what they like to do is claim Kilmar Obrigo Garcia was a Maryland father instead of saying he was an adjudicated MS-13 gang member this is that for 2025 ICE data and independent analysis show a very different pattern so who I'll try that's that's the point my we had a debate with some liberals where they said I can't remember who it was. They said only 70% have actually been criminals. The rest have been just run-of-the-mill, you know, undocumented workers and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. That could be where I'm confusing the number because I was debating someone and I assumed that that was right and it was actually wrong. But I think if you pull up ICE numbers, it'll probably do something different. And therein lies the big challenge. We're going to go to the uncensored portion of the show. Smash the like button. We'll swear as we talk about the same things. You can follow me on next and Instagram at Timcast. It's going to be at rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL. Alex, you want to shout anything out. Can I pitch my... Of course.

So this is the fatherhood manifesto. I wrote this For Father's Day. It is essentially a conservative defense of fathers and fatherhood and masculinity, which I can't believe that I'm the one writing and I can't believe that this has to be written, but it does because, you know, for 40 years, the left has been mocking fathers and fatherhood. Really, it started with married with children and it's never stopped. And so this is, you know, it's very short. as Charlie, who is not here, said to me,

he's going to read his copy on the bathroom, which, you know, I think you read it wherever you like. But it is sort of 20% philosophical defense of a conservative vision of fathering that's not gentle parenting, and then 50 practical tips. I was told by Bing Crosby, you got a beat to care out to sack of sweet Valencia oranges

because it'll shum who's boss, but won't leave a bruise. I don't. I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but it's actually not true. That's the theme. The bruise part. We'll leave the news. Yeah, yeah, no, like don't beat your kids.

No, punch them in the stomach. What's, don't hit your kids. Alex, what's it called again? It's called The Fatherhood Manifesto. And no, don't hit your kids. Where do people get the book? You can get it on Amazon. You can hear my, you know, dulcet tones on Audible.

Oh, cool. It's an audiobook. It is an audiobook. It sort of looks like the COVID booklets, and that's intentional. It's supposed to be very basic. But, you know, somebody said to me, how is this, you know, you were writing about COVID, how is this like that? I said, this is sort of, it's a cultural version of this. These are the truth.

The mainstream media doesn't give you. Let's go heavy on the COVID stuff in the uncensored portion. Sure. Because there's a lot going on still. And we've talked about it quite a bit. But what's up? Guys, if you want to follow me, I'm on Instagram and on X at Brett Dasevic on both of those platforms. You should check out PCC.

Pop Culture Crisis is live. Monday through Friday, 3 p.m. Eastern Standard. time. That is, of course, noon Pacific. Also, if you are a member of the Timcast Discord, I do shows twice a month on Saturday nights at 7 p.m. Another bonus episode. You guys can call in talk as well. It's a lot of fun. Thanks, guys. I'm just happy to be here. Thanks for having me. Thanks for allowing me to participate. I hope I didn't steamroll anybody. I really, really enjoyed that. So, Alex, great to see you. Tim, Phil, everybody. Good to see you guys. Brett Carter Banks. Thanks for coming.

Hey, man. Always welcome. Love you, Philibon. I am Phil that remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check us out on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Dezer. Don't forget, Ian Crosson cannot change the weather with his mind. Are you sure you can't? I'm not sure. That's the point.

My magnetic field is interfering with the Earth's magnetic field thus logically would dictate. There is some connection between your body and the weather. Yes. I'm Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, and that Carter Banks official everywhere else. Put a new music video out to The Song of God right now on Trash House Records. channel go check it out at Trash House Records on YouTube and also get the song and help me beat Lizzo. We're almost got to beat Lizzo. Not that hard. Her sales are on Osimpic. She's yeah.

You were waiting for that, weren't you? I tweeted it already. All right. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast. IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.