Timcast IRL - SCOTUS RULING Is THE END Of The US w/ Tim Rice

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

Tim, Phil, and Ian are joined by Tim Rice to discuss the Supreme Court upholding birthright citizenship, SCOTUS rulings will break America, the American Empire is doomed, and the Federalist co-founder explodes after SCOTUS rulings.  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/ Ian @ianCrossland (everywhere) | https://graphene.movie/ Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  Tim Rice @TimRiceDC (X) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! SCOTUS RULING Is THE END Of The US | Timcast IRL For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

Today, the Supreme Court ruled you have no country. They ruled yesterday also you have no country. So it's been nice knowing you. Let me just actually get into the real details. They ruled today. Birthright citizenship extends to people here unlawfully for any duration. This is pretty dang wild. It's so shocking that the man of few words, Clarence Thomas, wrote, I think it's like a 41,000 word dissent saying, I got to put it simply.

When you read through this, you can see that the Supreme Court justices are not ruling on the merits. I can only conclude that something else is going on. And I will explain this by saying that their rulings seem to be at odd with their own opinions that don't make sense. Notably in yesterday's ruling about mail-in votes being counted after Election Day, Barrett argues that incongruous elections were leading us to civil war. or potential for a second civil war in 1872. So deadlines were sought. But oopsie, they didn't define what a day was, therefore there is no day, ultimately concluding

that ballots can be cast an indefinite period before an election and can be counted an indefinite period after an election, which of course makes no sense because Congress codified a day for the election. By Barrett's argument, there is no language that could be put in law that would satisfy the requirement that has. ballot be received and counted on election day because we quite literally already have that law. And as it pertains to birthright citizenship, Alito and Thomas and others argued, our enemies are sending people to our land so that they can take our land from us.

And the arguments that we get from the majority are largely, well, you know, the framers of the 14th didn't have any concept of temporary visitors. therefore it doesn't matter what's actually happening today at all. I can only conclude as many others have already. If you don't have elections because they can be indefinitely delayed and anyone who shows up even for 10 minutes, even a Chinese Communist Party member who flies to Guam so his wife can give birth, that kid can be president of the United States. It's a lie. Let me ask you this. why include a birthright requirement, a natural born requirement for president if anyone on any territory for any amount of time counts? You might as well just say that it's moot.

Clearly, the interpretation of the Supreme Court today does not make sense, and I believe it's intentional. I'm going to go ahead and just say those two beautiful words, those two terrifying words. get ready to drink. The rulings that we have seen thus far from the Supreme Court are just pushing us towards civil war. And I don't mean this lightly, but their rulings are not specific on the merits or the issues. For example, they did not rule today that men cannot compete in women's sports. They ruled states have the right to decide whether they do or don't. What does that mean? It means in blue states, they will be males on women's teams. And on red states, there will not be. So what happens then when two states send college or high school teams to compete against each

other at regionals? You are then going to come into conflict that they have intentionally crafted. The Supreme Court could have very well said. It violates Title IX to allow a male and a women's team, period, for the country. So when a state champion in, say, Oklahoma goes up against the state champions of Colorado in regionals, there is going to be escalating conflict. It doesn't. It doesn't make sense what they are doing. And now they're going to hear the case on whether or not the American people can own assault weapons. Sure, I think they should, but I know which way they're going to rule.

They're probably going to rule in favor of it. Why? Seemingly, everything they've ruled on is just pushing us to hyper-polarization. So we'll get into all that. I'm already rambling, but it's big newsday, my friends, and there's a lot to break down. So we'll get into that. A couple other stories, of course. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor for you.

It is backyard butchers. My friends, did you know that there's only a few meat suppliers? The big ones are only a couple of them. The largest one in this country is foreign owned. This is a national security issue. I mean, if you don't know where your food's coming from, if it's tainted, if it's nasty. It's not a conspiracy theory, my friends, is actually what's going on. Here's what most people don't realize.

A single pound of conventional grocery store beef can contain DNA from hundreds of different cattle. Every time I read that, I'm just imagining this gigantic cow monster with like 50 heads just going, kill me and you're eating it. That sounds disgusting. So what's the solution? I don't know if they'll like that part, but I thought it was funny. As Americans, we have to return to tradition. You got to know your rancher is. You got to know your land, know where your meat is coming from. That's why you guys got to check out backyard butchers. That's the American tradition. Backyard butchers offers a premium American beef from real Texas ranchers born, raised, and processed right here in the USA. 98% grass-fed, 2% grain finished, zero hormones, zero antibiotics, zero preservatives.

Go to Backyard Butchers.com. Use promo code pool for up to 30% off. Two free 10-ounce ribbyes plus free shipping. And this summer, backyard butchers is celebrating America's 250th anniversary with a free America 250 box. When you purchase a steakhouse box, complete with burgers and hot dogs, built for the greatest holiday in the world, American Independence Day, which we're going to celebrate a little bit harder this time around because of these Supreme Court rulings. So again, use promo code pool at backyardbutchers.com for up to 30% off two free 10 ounce ribbis. I mean, think about it. You can have those nice little cows.

They stand there. They're smiling at you. And they got that big old beautiful smile on those little babies are eating the grass and you know your meat. Or you can have grocery store mutant monster cattle that is begging for death. I recommend the real food without all the weird crap in it. So go to backyard butcher's. Come check it out. Don't forget to also smash that like button. Share the show with everyone you know right now. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Tim Rice.

Hey Tim. How's it going? It's good. Who are you? What do you do? I'm Tim Rice. I'm the Washington, D.C. Bureau Chief for the Daily Wire. And I'm excited to be here on probably the slowest and least consequential newsday that will have this summer. So you work out of DC. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Coming all this stuff for the Daily Wire. How long have you guys had an office in a... Just over a year. We opened about a year ago. At first, it was just me and a White House correspondent. Well, our DC operation started right after the inauguration.

It was me and a White House correspondent working out of a succession of Starbucks and Capitol Hill bars. And then eventually, you know, we proved that there was enough there, go figure. And so, yeah, we've got an office on Capitol Hill. We've got about 10 reporters and editors in there. Yeah, so we grew pretty fast. And it's pretty wild too. Like even TMZ opened an office. I like to think, you know, we did it.

And then TMZ was like, oh, those guys look like they're having fun. So we got to get in on the action. Yeah, yeah. Well, Ron, good to have you. It's going to be a lot of fun. We get the boys hanging out. Absolutely. Stolen cowboy, Ian is here.

I looted it. I looted it off a corpse of a cowboy, this outfit. And I'm keeping it, Phil. Red Dead. Red Dead Redemption. It gives me a plus two to my mobility and stealth check. It increases your small arms by the... I have never seen you run, so I'm not buying the mobility.

Hello, everybody. My name is Philobanthe. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal and all the remains. What's up, Carter? What's up? It's going to be a dark conversation, but hopefully we can bring some a light to it. I just want to add as well that Ian's glasses give him plus one perception, which is huge for him because now his perception is one. It's true.

So it's negative. So it was zero before. Yeah, I actually have a chance now. Nice. All right, let's get to the news. We've got some Scotas blog. Breaking down the. birthright citizenship decision. This is big news.

The birthright citizenship case dominant headlines this term was emblematic of how the court can be predictable in closely followed cases. Now, I am surprised they went six to three with Kavanaugh kind of being wishy-washy on it, which is funny. Alito and Thomas lost their minds. I have never seen these men, these men so angry. Like Alito is basically saying our enemies are sending people here to destroy us. And Thomas, check this out. Authored opinion length by opinion. The Thomas dissent, oh, I was wrong.

I said 41,000. It's 27,477 words, making up 48.5% of the document, of the ruling, which is crazy. 91 pages. Yep. Yep. Robert's majority was, yeah, 91 pages. Yeah. Man.

I think it's the longest. longest paper that he's ever, right? What? He's ever, yeah, for that he's ever, ever,

it's one of the longest dissents period. Yes. When, when this broke, all of the, Scotus reporters were like 91 pages,

holy crap. Yeah. This is crazy. And of course, Gorsuch was defending. I'm sorry, dissenting. For Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett,

after we have seen, with yesterday's ruling on the election, I'm wondering if like Roberts, I'm not so surprised on, but did someone like, well, Amy Coney-Berry did get swatted last month? And I'm like, is she being threatened? She's also got two Haitian kids that she adopted. Her Haitians. Yeah.

Because I had heard that. But that, I mean, this is it. We are, our country has been sold out. There have been, there's a million and one arguments as to why whatever your argument is on what they thought birthright citizenship is, it does not apply today. And I want to stress a few things first. Many people say they could not have predicted planes, trains, automobiles, et cetera. And the response from liberals is, yeah, well, they also couldn't predict machine guns. Are we going to ban machine guns?

My response is when it comes to birthright citizenship, there is an intent. When it comes Second Amendment, there is an intent. What was the intent of the Second Amendment? Well, it allowed privateers. It allowed individuals to have cannons, grape shot, and warships. So yes, their intention was that, regular people, private citizens, could bear armaments of war comparable to that of governments. Because it existed at the time and they sought to protect that.

Birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was specifically pertaining to slaves and excluded Chinese nationals at the time and Native Americans. So you can actually see those manifest arguments for them to come out right now and say, nope, anyone born on the soil is American? Is it retroactively making all Native Americans now American citizens? going back 200 years? We know they're lying. The question is why are they lying? Now, I would be remiss of any of Mr. Trump who posted on truth social. I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win, President Donald J. Trump.

It's worth noting that the author of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, his name is Senator Jacob Howard, he specifically said this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. Clearly, it says aliens. Clearly, it says foreigners. If you're here illegally and you have a child, you are a foreigner. You are an alien. It was, it was the, the intent is obvious. Read it again. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign.

ministers accredited to the United States government, but will include every other class of person. And you know what's funny about that quote? What? That would include Native Americans. Yeah, and Native Americans did not have. Exactly, which shows that the intention at the time did not apply to literally all other classes of person. So Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts are lying.

They are not stupid. The other big tell in that quote, or I think that quote has the other big tell about this whole thing, which is that, to my knowledge, although maybe we're not. will see that next. No one is arguing that diplomats kids who are born. That's, everyone sort of, oh, you know, and that's, you bring that up. Well, of course not. No, of course. You know, a diplomat who lives there, they're just here temporarily. They're foreigners. And it's like, oh, interesting. They're foreigners who live here temporarily. So of course their kids shouldn't get birthright citizenship. And it's like, that is what's the difference between the kid of a diplomat who's

born here when their parents are here for five years and an illegal immigrant who's supposed to be here temporarily for five years and just overstays the wife. Or someone that flew to Guam from China. This ruling now does guarantee the rights of diplomats. Does it really? I mean, like, it does. But like, is anyone saying that yet? Is anyone arguing

that? It's, it is. Hold up. So a Chinese diplomat has a kid in the U.S. not a citizen. They are now, yeah. Well, but before, not a citizen. But a Chinese person illegally comes here and has a kid is a citizen. Correct. That is total inversion. It was basically, and it was, I mean, I guess, like,

I don't know if anyone would say this outright, but it was essentially we were trusting the other governments, right? Because implicit in that is a trust that diplomats are here for a period for which they are accredited, and after that they will be recalled by their government, right, by their home country, or we would expel them. And that, again, is something that we're clearly very comfortable with if a diplomat was going to overstay their welcome. We'd get on the phone to, you know, the Chinese embassy or the Russian embassy or British embassy and say, hey, you know, this guy's done. You know, his terms up, get him out of there. And we trust that other countries would lift him out. That's obviously not something that we can trust with the illegal immigrants. And so again, it's like these are degrees in difference, not in kind.

And everyone's just sort of pretending that they're somehow immutable differences. It's the most insane, dude. This is totally insane. If a diplomat's kid is not a citizen, if they're born in USAO, why would you make an illegal immigrants kid a citizen? That is so, that is so, that is a barbaric interpretation of this. situation. They were they did it because they did they were afraid of overruling precedent and I think Amy Comey-Barratt specifically did it because she looks at her kids and she's like you know they're he I don't want to to I wouldn't want to have to send my kids back or what have you it's it's just because

they don't want to rock the book. So so to clarify this is a narrow ruling it doesn't relate to the interpretation of diplomats but this question has will not now must come up based on their opinion specifically they ruled that children born to unlawful or temporary individuals are subject to our jurisdiction. However, that being said, actually, I got to stop. No, this literally does make the children of diplomats. So what does it mean to be temporarily present? Diplomats are temporarily present. Their children are subject to our jurisdiction. Therefore, diplomats' children are citizens of the United States. It's just so confusing, too, and, you know, I'm no legal scholar, but apparently maybe neither are some folks on the Supreme Court. But

anyone who's in the United States, unless you have diplomatic immunity, is subject to, the jurisdiction thereof in a narrow sense, right? If you're a, if you're here. Even diplomatic immunity, if you, if you were to murder someone, you're either going to go back to your home country to be tried or they're going to, they're going to say, yeah, go ahead and try it. Or even think about it in like a less grandiose way. Like if, you know, if, you know, some of the soccer hooligans who have been over for

the World Cup, if they, you know, beat someone to death in a bar after, right, we're not going to, we're going to throw them in jail. Or to your point, we're going to send them back to the United Kingdom to face extradition. But in that sense, right, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, means you don't get to break our laws because you're not a citizen. It means that we're going to throw you in jail and then send you back to your country. So again, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which is this kind of vague phrase that's now hanging over us even more than it has for the past hundred years, it's like that can mean

so many different things. And they sort of contradict each other, right? Like there's a way to read that as keeping America safe, keeping meddlesome, you know, foreign criminals out of the country, right? They're subject to our jurisdiction. We're going to get them out of here. But now it's being read as they just get citizenship. Yeah, which is ridiculous.

But, I mean, the situation we're in now is, you know, it's not any different than the situation we were in, you know, two days ago. There's no significant difference. Obviously, it's going to be a hard fight to fix this problem. But look what happened with Roe. It took a long time. I understand there are a lot of Dumers out there that are like, no, we're done, we're done. there are still methods that the administration has.

The administration has been doing, they're leading all administrations before on deportations. I know there are people out there that want more. I would like more as well. But they're still doing a lot of work. And I know for sure that the president and the administration is looking to do things to stop gap this. We've had net zero migration. We actually had our population go down in the past year, first time in,

I don't know, you know, probably 50 years, probably since the 60s. So I don't know 100% what's going to happen, but I know that there are still things out there, there still things that the government can do. I mean, we could get Congress to pass something possibly. I understand that people are, I know. That's not possible. I understand.

So it is theoretically possible that Congress could do something about it. Well, whether it'll happen to practice, I understand. But no, it's not. The majority ruled that the Constitution bars this. It is a constitutional guarantee under its own wording. Congress, you have to amend the Constitution to change. Well, you want, no, yeah, to do, to say that, no, you're not. But Congress can do things to limit how many people come into the country and stuff like that.

There's still legislative methods to. Congress can pass laws pertaining to immigration. As to the question of whether or not illegal immigrants, a Guatemalan woman can, you know, American Ninja Warrior over the Rio Grande, give birth in the spot, and her can. kids a citizen. Yeah. Done de facto and no law can change. I have to.

Hold on. Hold on. Even that. Hold on. Even that, like, Roe was decided and they overturned it. So it's not the, it's not the total. It has to be overturned or the Constitution must be amended.

Yeah. Which it could be overturned. It's not going to happen. Everybody said Roe wasn't going to be overturned. No, no. I'm saying like, okay, sure, maybe in 50 years when, when the country is 80% foreign born. Yeah, maybe that's, they're never going to overturn. overturn that.

Again. Everyone said Roe was never going to get overturned either. But again, the 80% foreign-born population in 50 years is not going to overturn their access to the country. Look, I'm not saying that it's easy. And again, this is hypothetical that I'm talking about theoretically. I'm not trying to make any prescriptive or predictions about it. I'm saying that there are still things that are possible. So I understand that this is, you know, this is quote unquote settled law.

The Supreme Court does have the final say. But we did think that Roe was going to be the law that was forever. And that was the way that left behaved. The product of this will be, like New York is already what, like, what percent of 40 percent of New York is foreign? What's more than that? I don't know. So in 50 years, the way things are currently trending, when this country is 80 percent, either foreign born or second generation, do you believe those people will vote to overturn what granted them access to this country? The Supreme Court is who votes to overdo it would be the ones that are actually doing their returning, not the people that are in them.

For a constitutional amendment, you're saying? Right. I'm not talking about it. I'm talking about over- So do you think the new Supreme Court, which has justices who are literally born in Guatemala on it, is going to rule that they are not welcome here? I don't pretend to be able to see the future. But again, the point that I'm making is in theory. I'm not trying to predict what's going to happen.

The point is this. We are experiencing an irreversible cascade. The people who come to this country and then vote for the right to steal from our coffers are never going to vote. They can't steal from our coffers. Now, Roe v. Wade is very different. Right. That's what I was going to say.

And this is obviously not, this is like a half white pill. It's a low dose white pill. But right, in the same way that the Irish faced the most, you know, immigration quotas in the 19th century. then they got in and, you know, ascended to politics. And then they started trying to restrict other kinds of immigration. Yeah. Theoretically, a Guatemalan heavy Supreme Court could say whatever the future, you know, maybe it's, maybe it's British immigrants, right? Maybe it's, maybe it's all the Irish nationalists that are getting run out of Ireland. And the reason why I think this is different is that is because of chain migration. And in 50 years, when you have

a Supreme Court judge who was born in America illegally to Guatemalan parents, and his sister is in Guatemala and wants to come live here and she's about to give birth, he is going to say, nope, this is long tradition. Come on over, sis, have your kid in this country. And he's going to want to bring his grandparents. And he's going to want to bring his cousins. They are not going to rule against their pillaging of our nation. I have good news for you.

If your scenario is actually the likely scenario, there won't be a Supreme Court in 50 years. You're right. I thought the same thing, actually. It sounds like idiotic. You know, it's really funny. It's really funny that these rulings came on the birthday, the 250th, because you know what they say historically, right? About empire? Uh-huh.

What do they say, Ian? In fact 250 years? Indeed they do. And on this, the 250th birthday, they ruled, we don't have elections. With Barrett arguing the majority, votes can be cast an indefinite period before an election and can be counted in indefinite period after an election is over. In fact, her argument was elections never end until someone decides. Do you know what this means? So I.

So listen, let's say California for one of the Republican districts, they mail out literally 600,000 ballots and then state the election ends when every legal vote is counted. And then when only 60,000 votes come back, they say, well, when the other 510,000 come in, we'll conclude the election. happens, January 3rd rolls around, and they say our election's ongoing. That's the crazy. And I mean, the birthright citizenship ruling is almost certainly more impactful, definitely more shocking in the near term. But the election ruling and specifically Amy Barrett's role in writing that opinion is more shocking to me than the birthright citizenship thing. I actually think, I like, I like Amy Coney Barrett. I'm kind of a softie for the sort of like strong textualist. Like, you know, I'm, I'm happy within reason when sometimes the other edge of the sword cuts against us, right?

Like, especially with a younger, newer tenure justice, like Barrett, because I'm thinking, you know, she'll be on the court for 50 years. Gulag for you. But so it's all I'm saying, though, I'm not saying that I like the decision, but I find it easier to believe that in her kind of, like, juridical mind, this is her just thinking, this is what the Constitution says rather than it's some sort of outside influence. The election thing is crazier to me. Because as Tim was saying at the beginning, like, we have laws about this. The Congress has delegated an election day. So, like, show me where in the Constitution it says, actually, the real elections are the friends we made along the way. That's one where it's like, that's not any kind of, that's barely even living constitutionalism.

I don't know what that. That's a political something. That is a political act. So imagine this. Let's say this a swing state. To use Wisconsin as an example. remind me who which party currently controls Wisconsin I believe it's a Democrats is it Democrats

I believe I'm not sure it might it might be a legislature yeah no no no no the state like the governor no no no like I'm saying if the governor's Republican and legislature is Republican but the courts are Democrat it's a Democrat my point is Republican Party controls both Democrat governor Republicans in both chambers the legislature so So it's split.

Imagine this. The state legislature constitutionally has the authority to determine how their elections are held. The governor can contest it. Oh, man, we're screwed. This is 1876 all over again. And Barrett said it. And she is evil because she actually said it in her argument, 1872. 1872 comes around and the elections are largely contested because they were being held in weird ways.

There was no set date for elections. And so it was argued that, you know, one strategy. what you could do is if you want to make sure that rural folk don't vote, you hold an election during harvest, knowing they can't abandon harvest. So what ends up happening is people say, hey, that's not fair. So they say, we need to have an election. Why do they do November? November makes sense because it's winter. So you're not going to have constrained rural versus urban work for the most part. Imagine a scenario where Wisconsin votes a Democrat in the, the upcoming 2028 election. So the state legislature determines the election has not concluded

because there is no deadline, according to Barrett, for the receipt of ballots. So we will not conclude this election until we know every ballot is counted. There is a deadline by which a state must send its electors, otherwise electors do not vote. So let's say it votes Democrat and the Republicans withhold the electoral vote and say, no, we are not going to have. So the governor certifies. The inverse could be true. Let's say Wisconsin votes Republican. And the governor says, I will not certify the electors to go and vote until we know every vote is counted. Now, they won't immediately just come out and smugly say, we're blocking you to steal the election. They'll come out and say, Republicans have cheated and disenfranchised people and barred them from the election so they couldn't vote.

And according to the Supreme Court, there is no deadline where we have to receive ballots. So we are going to extend the deadline to make sure those that were disenfranchised by the east. Republicans get a chance to vote. And then what happens? December 14th comes around and the governor never certifies a slate of electors. So no Republican electors vote. And thus Wisconsin, Republican votes are removed. And what should have been a narrow Republican victory now becomes a Democrat victory because a Democrat governor did not conclude their election. It is the most psychotic and retarded thing that I'm going to say like this. The only conclusion I can make is that the liberal justices, Connie Barrett and Roberts intend for there to be a civil war. And I'm going to pause real quick

because it's fascinating to me how many people have rejected and denied the idea of the prospect of a possible civil war. But I'm going to say this. We've got a few rulings. They ruled states can ban transgender athletes. That doesn't violate title line if they ban them. So what does that mean? In red states, there will be no males on female teams. In blue states, there will be males on female teams. then when there's regionals or nationals, red states will only have girls and blue states will have boys, and the red states are going to refuse to compete, and it's going to cause conflict. You have this election ruling. I already outlined how a Democrat could argue the Republicans disenfranchised, blocked or intentionally screwed with ballots so that people couldn't win and thus illegitimate. So we're going to keep the ballots open for an indefinite period. Governor can just do it. All of this is just creating hyper-polarization.

Hyperpolarization leads to one thing. So it's not that I I get where you're coming from. That all makes sense. But the question that I think you have to ask then is why. Why? I can see why the liberal trio might want to foment some kind of civil war for sure. What's in it for ACB and John Roberts, a man who... But like why? Like how? How? So they can have citizenship and have American rights?

Yeah, but she adopted that. They were already going to be. That does that stop? No, they can't be president. They can't be president, but you think Amy Coney-Barrant wants to foment civil war in the United States so that one of her 11 kids can be president. No, I'm just giving you a grain of sand in the heat. I'm just wondering why the justices would want. Sure.

So the issue with that question is that I could just make up the top of my head probably 17 million grains of sand arguments that are plausible. We could argue that Amy Coney-Barrant was swatted last month and fears for her safety. So she's ruling in whatever the left wants because she doesn't want to die. Someone tried to assassinate Brett Kavana on his family and she's terrified. Literally, she was swatted one month ago. So I think she's terrified. They had to put up barricades around the Supreme Court when they overturned Roe v. Wade and they threatened to kill the justices. And she got the message.

Now, Roberts is Uniparty. So let's look at the big picture. What have liberals been doing in this country? Open borders, foreign-born citizens, all of this destroying American culture and tradition. So if Roberts and Barrett are siding with the liberals in a way that undermines our elections and undermines the American tradition, I just say, yep, that's what the establishment has been trying to do for 30 years. It's not in any way different from what has already happened to this country and would have been worse if Trump didn't get elected. Yeah. So the question then is, why would anyone want a civil war?

As I've argued for some time, just talk to any one of these communists and ask them why they want. on a civil war and they'll tell you privately. Publicly, they play the stupid game. But like, for instance, during Occupy Wall Street, the phrase they said was, from the ashes of the old, we shall build anew. So that is the communist idea. You must burn down the country and destroy it by any means necessary so that you can establish a new order.

And they don't intend to bring balance and power to the working class. They intend to empower themselves as communists do. And they explicitly stated at their meetings, we will be in charge. So the goal, by any means, manipulation, subterfused deception, overt violence, burn down the government, and then you can impose your own. How do you eliminate the U.S. Constitution so that you can freely rule as you want to? Civil War. A revolution in civil war are effectively the same things. Civil war just means someone fought back. Sure. So if they get their revolution, there's no constitution, there's no more American order. And when you look at the past 50 years, it seems the establishment political machine's goal was to turn the United States from an American, traditional, you know, white Christian European nation into an open cosmopolitan land and to separate the military industrial complex from the constraints of public perception and the will of the public. everything they've done, as we've seen, lends itself to this future where there is a global

military apparatus that is unconstrained by any vote. And one way to get there, of course, is to destroy the will of the American people so that there is no longer a vote that can constrain it. Sure. I don't think, though, that that means that Barrett and Roberts necessarily want a civil war. I think, and again, and maybe this is, this is a distinction without a difference if they've just been ma-mowed enough to rule the way that the left and everybody else wants, then sure. I mean, this doesn't matter. But while we still have, you know, a country, I think, you know, it's, I don't think that they want that.

Why do the Supreme Court rule simultaneously, Trump can fire the heads of independent agencies, but he can't fire the head of the Fed? Only because she was under, because the investigation is ongoing. The, if I understand, if I read it correctly, hold on let me go to Scott's blog, find it. Huh. So they're saying that because there is a criminal investigation or what? Yeah, there's a...

Because she sued, right, after he removed her. So he can fire anybody but her. Anybody but her now. Like, I don't think it means that he can't fire the head of the Fed in the future, right? So he can drop the investigation and fire her. And then start investigating her again? Right.

Was it the investigation or is it her counters? Look, regardless of the reason, it's nonsensical. You can fire someone or you can. for what reason it's like oh these other people for no reason can be fired this person is is as a preponderance of evidence of impropriety now you can't fire him that makes no sense it was yesterday that it came out right i i believe yes yeah the point is when you look at the supreme court rulings so they seem to be incongruous with their own opinions in a five to four vote the supreme court refuses to let president trump remove federal reserve governor lisa cook while litigation continues holding the federal reserves law and saying independence from president control is rooted in the nation's history and tradition Exactly. Hold on. Thus the point is they argued the Federal Reserve as an independent agency, Trump can't fire the head, but literally every other agency President Trump can fire the head.

Their own arguments are in congruous with their own writing. It's only because of the litigation. It's not what you read. That's exactly what I read. Litigation, yeah. It's not even the investigation. Ending in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court refused to let President Trump remove Red Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while litigation continues.

And finish the second. sentence. Holding the Federal Reserve's longstanding and Pence from presidential control is rooted in the nation's history and tradition. But that doesn't change the fact they wouldn't have specifically said while litigation continues. Okay, let's pause real quick. They held in that decision that these agencies are independent, right? That's the point? No, the point is there's the point. Why are you arguing? The point is the litigation. That's not what you read. Did you It literally said while litigation continues. Holding what? I think it's holding what? I think it's holding what. I mean, the independence. I think this is also a good time to remember that one of the

problems with the Supreme Court is that they're all lawyers. And it is, I mean, it's, we kind of we look at the Supreme Court as right, this sort of like the highest judicial body, which it is that at this point essentially makes policy and steers the course of the country. But really a huge part of it, you might argue what it should, the main part of it should be just actually, like, ruling on these cases, right? So I think this is an instance where this was just a case that got kicked up from the lower courts. And again, it's a very narrow ruling. And they're saying the president can remove the heads of independent agencies, but I guess the independent agencies also have a right to counter sue. And so in this narrow question, right, they're allowed to, like, it's

pending. Hold on. And then it was a later on that day, this is what I was looking for. In a six to three vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the president may fire FTC commissioners at will, overruling Humphrey's executor, executor, and holding that the FTC's foreclos cause removal protections violate the Constitution's separate power. So he can fire them. Okay, so let me just make my point again, just so that this is the point I am making is, in the instance of Lisa Cook, they protected her while she's under litigation, which is immaterial to the reason why they protected her. The argument is they upheld. that these agencies are independent.

Meanwhile, they simultaneously ruled they are not. It doesn't matter why they want to protect her. The point is their own opinions are incongruous with their own rulings. They're issuing, my point is, how can you have simultaneously dissenting opinions of yourself in the same year? They ruled that he can fire the FTC commissioner. But not the Fed. not without cause. He needs cause, according to the ruling. He needs cause to fire the federal. But not the FTC. Apparently not. And this is, this makes no sense. Now I understand the liberal

justices when, when they do these things because we know they're insane or liars. And we know Katanji Brown Jackson's IQ is, uh, I forgot who made the joke. That 70s show. Was it? I forgot I made that joke, but shout out. Someone tweeted it. Sorry. Was it, um, I can't remember. remember, but it was a good joke. So we don't, we don't, I don't care about what she's saying, but again, to say what we are going to uphold federal independence for the Federal Reserve, and we're not going to uphold independence for other agencies, what? Oh, the Federal Reserve is quasi-government. It's not a government. The assumption is here. The Federal Reserve is above the presidency. Yeah. That's the point. The other agencies that operate within government are not.

But explain to me how it is that you can have a majority court argue we are upholding the Federal Reserve's independence. Simultaneously, we are not upholding any other independent agencies independence. Well, it's a little different. I mean, Federal Reserve sets monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Chairman technically can stretch terms across administrations. It's, I think it's, you know, consistency of. So can the other agency. Yeah, but it's less, it's, you know, firing, eliminating, firing all the FTC commission. If you eliminate the FTC right now, it creates some, it's some. certainly some regulatory problems, but it doesn't fundamentally change the way that... The Federal Reserve, though, it's that's, if we, if you, again, take it to the extreme example, if you just nuke to the Federal Reserve right now, that does way more to disrupt the country than getting rid of the EPA or the FTC or the FEC, right? These are...

You know, all I hear is rules are meaningless and the weak shall be crushed. Oh, here's the reason. That's it. There's three reasons why the Federal Reserve is structured to be independent from the president. The first is to prevent political interference and influence. interest rates. The second is to stabilize the financial system as it seems to have done soap. And the third is it's because it was made by congressional design, not by executive control. The point is this. I mean, it hasn't stabilized it. It's, it's into the great depression.

The only thing that matters is what we are witnessing is those who are willing to use power will win and those who are not will lose. The Supreme Court is, is, listen, if, yes, yes. The Supreme Court ruled, election day is election day, thank you, and have a nice day. This country would have healed. That's the off-ramp. The Democratic Party would have no choice but to attack moderates to try and win elections. They would start moving towards bodies that are motivated to vote. Instead of going to nursing homes and tricking people into vote, that creates what we're seeing right now with the Democratic Party is polarization based on the fact that those who are willing to use power, we'll do whatever they can.

to get power. So for instance, Nithia Rahman, the DSA publicly on their website announced how to go and ballot harvest, and they explicitly stated that if someone says they're going to vote for a different candidate to say thank you and walk away and don't take their ballot. That's how Democrats win, not on the merits. Now, if the Supreme Court said election day is election day, the only people you can get to vote are those who are motivated to get up, go out, and vote on that day, which means no more knocking on doors and playing dirty games, which means Democrats would have to actually try and target moderate. which means they'd have to adjust and adapt their positions.

And so would the Republicans to a certain degree and move closer to a center. But they didn't do that. They said there is no election day. You can count a ballot in any point indefinitely after the election day, which Barrett literally argued there is no, there's no timeline. So quite literally, you could say we are beginning the 2020 election right now and we will count your vote in 2032. That's nonsensical. It makes no sense. Why are they issuing rulings that only serve to cause chaos? And I think the point is this. On the issue of Federal Reserve

Independence versus the FTC, what they're really saying is the Federal Reserve has power, and so we protect them, and the other agencies are immaterial so we don't care. And that's it. Are you willing to exercise power? And Republicans are not, and Democrats are. Yeah, I mean, so your point is well taken. I do agree that the Republicans don't want to exercise power and Democrats do. And this may be a distinction without a difference, and I'm sure there are going to be plenty of people that find it unconvincing. But the idea that the Federal Reserve is independent is probably part of why they make the ruling that they did. Because the Federal Reserve is allegedly, and I understand this is.

The FTC is independent as well. What? Under the same criteria. Federal Trade Commission? Yeah, they're all independent from the executive. They're created by acts of Congress. Yeah, isn't the Federal Reserve

supposed to be independent of government? Created by an act of Congress. It's like quasi. So the initial argument was, with the FTC and other federal agencies, they were created by acts of Congress that operate in executive branch, but the president isn't supposed to be able

to control who is in charge of them. And that includes the FTC and the Federal Reserve. But so, and this isn't the only time we've seen an incongruous opinion. like if I walk in one room and say I will never put pineapple on pizza I walk another room and tell you we're ordering pineapple on pizza that's what we're listening. You'd be a great politician if you were and we get pizza. That's SCOTUS. I do I do think the fact that she's got litigation going on.

I think that's a big part of the reason why. But again, then that statement means that the Supreme Court is willing to violate their own principles for power. If it is the opinion of the Supreme Court, we don't want someone fired pending litigation, then we will lie about the legal opinions to maintain her status. That's the argument you're making. No, I think that because they specified that the Supreme Court upheld, not that you can't fire someone pending litigation. They said, we won't fire her pending litigation because it's an independent agency.

at the same time they said Trump can fire anyone from any independent agency. So what there's, I think the truth is this. If Trump gets control of the Federal Reserve, he never, then the right's going to win every election. This is really what it comes down to. If Trump can remove the head of the Fed and can control interest rates, then you can determine whether or not an incumbent party is going to win because you can always get someone who will make the rates beneficial just before an election. That's what they want to avoid.

And then on the issue of the mail-in voting, Once again, if we eliminate indefinite mail-in voting and universal mail-in voting, Democrats would have to restructure their party and wouldn't win for another decade. Scotis is protecting the Democratic Party explicitly. Well, and I didn't really think that I was going to come and be the Scotus Defender guy, but I'll do it one more time. I think that the difference here, and you know, you were saying, like the Fed is its own kind of mishmash of problems going back to the Great Depression, right? I think there is a way to read this.

And again, I take your point, Tim. I don't think that you're wrong in the broader analysis, but I do think it's, again, compare the Fed ruling with the election, with the election day ruling. The Fed, it's like, okay, we've inherited this sort of mess. It's always been quasi-independent in a way that even the other independent, not independent agencies are. But so we're going to just sort of, again, it's precedent, right? The starry decisis. But with the election thing, again, as you very correctly pointed out, this is just coming up with rules X Nilo, right? This is just a completely new.

So again, I think part of it is, again, to give them a little bit of credit. I think with the Fed ruling, it's a little bit more playing with the cards that they were dealt for the past 100 years. Where with the election ruling, it's way more just like we are ripping things up and starting from scratch. Congress, so Amy Coney Barrett for the majority wrote, Congress didn't define a day of receipt, but they literally did. Because for history, for all countries, forever. Election Day was the day you take your belt, you put it in the box, they counted it and announced the winner.

She argued semantically that because they called it a day of election, it didn't specify anything. By that argument, there is no language by which Congress could codify a day of the election. They would have to write like a 10,000-word essay defining the specific procedures and literally say at 12, 12, you know, 1159 p.m. if there is no announcement as they would have to get so specific with it. And again, to argue that day of election does not mean you have to turn your ballot in. She's basically saying no matter what Congress says, I will argue it's not enough. That's insane. And I think, I think the issue is when you look at what has happened over the past 30 years, what the Supreme Court ruled in these past couple of days lends itself to a continuing trend of open borders,

the destruction of the American identity, the American people, the expansion of the military industrial complex, the liberal economic order, and it leads us to a future where America is a cosmopolitan hodgepodge with warring factions and zero control over the state. We are already at a point where we had a trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget that no one ever found and knows what's going on. Remember that? Was that Donald Rumsfeld right after 9-11? It was a long time ago. It was the day before 9-11, I believe. Disappeared.

We're already at the point where the American people have no control of their finances, no control of their labor. And once we get to a point where you have some Males soda and you've got Haitian, Ohio, Haitian field, these two distinct cultures are not going to get along. There will not be a congruent vote against things like bombing people, countries we don't want to be involved in. For reference, on September 10th, 2001, the day before 9-11, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, announced that the Department of Defense had 2.3 trillion just gone from their records. 2.3 trillion. It was unaccounted for. What's it?

I believe it was unaccounted for, meaning they don't know how it was spent or where it went. Yes, exactly. So not properly track or document someone to clarify, this doesn't mean that $2.3 trillion was smuggled in briefcases on a plane overnight. It means that they had spent that much money in ways no one knew how it was spent. So it could have been McDonald's cheeseburgers. It could have been missiles. They just have no idea. Right.

$20,000 hammers. Remember, the reason they do that kind of stuff, and I'm not specifically talking about the totality of the $2 trillion. But the reason why they overspend on things is because each department gets a budget. If they don't spend that budget this year, then next year they're going to get less. Right. So, the government misplaced 2.3 trillion. It's not misplaced. Well, they weren't able to account for $2.3 trillion the day before 9-11.

Look, yeah, but the day before 9-11, the fact that you're throwing the day before 9-11 in there. I mean, we're talking about conspiracies about the world taking over America. You're talking about this, the whole 100-year plan to destroy the United States. You're talking about 100-year plan to enjoy it. It's been going on for 20 minutes about how this liberal economic order wants to upend our way of life. But 9-11 has nothing to do. That's when the Patriot Act came in. 11 has nothing to do with the, with the bad accounting of the defense department.

Well, I mean, not on paper, but let's, they're, there, would you have to do with the thing? What? Depends on how conspiratorily want to get. I'm not saying there is. I'm saying it was the day before. That's what I'm pointing out, the day before everything got, he's noticing. Yeah.

You know what I noticed the, what was 11 times put options on airlines, short sales right before September 11th? Mm. Anyone ever explained that? Oh, Larry Silverstein, not going to the, the guy who owned the building, the World Trade Center, got told don't go in today. So he didn't. And then the buildings came.

Well, the one thing I don't respect is when... Seth McFarland missing his flight. People like to claim that because he bought insurance, terrorist insurance that proves that there was some impropriety. Just a confluence of events. Yeah, except every building in New York has terrorism insurance. He bought the building, of course. He was going to get it.

Someone tried bombing it. Right. Yeah. There had been demonstrable terrorism. It was more that he didn't go into work that morning. It is not an argument to say that a terror target, someone bought terror insurance on. It is curious that someone was short-selling airlines, American and United, I believe it was, like the day before.

It was like 11 times the normal output for shorts on the airlines. That's weird. The whole is just, that makes no sense. Nobody just does that. I actually worked at Ground Zero for four months, not that it really matters. I was there smelling that place for four months. It was crazy, like three months. At the AMEC, there were three construction companies that got contracted.

Amec was one of the three. I worked with AMEC. Three or four? There were three big ones. Guys, we are chickens in a chicken coop clucking away. All the powers that be who know it's actually going on don't care what we're saying to each other. Probably not. Because you're right, power is what's going to decide the future.

And the Chinese and the Russians have access to so much power right now with AI and nuclear weapons. Like, if we don't exercise immense imperial power, I think the U.S. won't be the leader of the 21st century. But the downside of that is we've got to go technocratic and start spying on each other and arresting people for deep think and shit. I don't see a path forward, honestly, for the American Empire. I don't. For a free speech? That's all I'm really concerned about. So if you take a look at the Trump MAGA ethos, the end result is it's time to roll up your sleeves

because the economy is about to implode. We don't have the population. It's done. There's no reversing this. The Democrat strategy of importing the third world is not going to save America. It's just the end of America. Now, Trump's strategy, sealing the borders, bringing back manufacturing, roll up your slaves, get to work will save America

100 years from now, but it means in the short term, there's no American Empire anymore. Yeah, you need robots. We're going to need robots. Robot labor force. Like, we could lead the world in the robot. But again, robots aren't customers, and robots are not drivers of culture or people or news. So, when

the population collapses, and it's going to for two reasons, first, we don't have the birth rates, and boomers are about to start dying off in, expeditiously due to the mortality cliff, the population in the States is going to be dropping because we are, I mean, this is probably why they rule

for birthright citizenship, because the Democrat ethos is bring in as many foreigners as possible to pad the numbers. Unless they're children of diplomats, they're not American citizens. Let's be very clear, all right? Diplomats, you are out of luck. You're legally here. So here's a thing, however.

Quit your job, turn in the diplomatic plates and just come back randomly. Hold on. Here's the best part. So diplomats are legally not considered specifically to be under the jurisdiction thereof. So this means if a diplomat comes with his wife, that child is not, even with this ruling. But if a diplomat bangs a hooker and she gives birth, like, let's say a Guatemalan woman breaks into the country, she's like, she comes across the border, diplomat hooks up with her, that kid will be a citizen. And this is when it gets real late Roman Republic, like the scheming viziers from other empires.

Well, my concubine's child will be able to be a citizen, and that's how I will reclaim power. That's some deep Caesar stuff. I was reading something today that there's a group that monitors Chinese birth tourism, and they're talking about something like 1.5 million Chinese citizens, people that are in China, kids that are in China that have been born on birth tourism in the past, like two decades or something like that. We're conquered. I mean, it's insane. This is something we've reported on my colleague, Jenny,

who's based in Texas. She's our immigration reporter. And one of the things that she's been expanding out into recently is a lot of these birth tourism centers and the hubs are in Texas. And we had a great piece a couple weeks ago where she just, she went to a bunch of them and like confronted the owners. And it's like, you know, it's, I mean, again, sort of going back, it's the, you know, she shows up, but it's basically like all but posters in the windows that say, you know, hey, CCP officials come here and have your baby. And she knocks on the door. And they're like, oh, no, we're just a cultural exchange. Like, we're not, we're not here for that. It's like, well, what do you do? And they're like, we don't.

don't have to answer your questions. Trump should pack the courts. He should executive order shut down USPS the week before the election. What do you mean pack the courts? It means add four more Supreme Court justices. There's 13 federal circuits, I believe it is. And when the Supreme Court, when the federal courts was being set up, there was one justice for each circuit.

And there were nine. When they expanded into 13 with westward expansion, they never added four more justices. So the argument from the left has long been. we should have 13, one for each circuit. We don't. And so that's a problem. I completely agree with all of the Democrats. Let's go.

That would take an act to Congress, right? I believe, I believe, yes. Well, Congress isn't doing shit. Nope. So any argument they make where they're like, but Congress must define this, it's not going to happen. This is all day today as I was trying to, I read more takes than usual because it was such a take heavy day.

And I was, you know, reading folks who I don't. even always read, but any time, you know, going through on the birthright citizenship. And the second, it's what we really need is Congress to act. I just click out. That's like, all right, guys, sure. I mean, oh, yeah, let's for the first time in 100 years, Congress will start, they're going to start acting like the co-equal branch that they are. Henry Clay, like, all right, guys, cool. That's, that's a worthwhile use of time. Congress has no actual incentive to do anything, right? Or the individual Congress people have no incentive to do anything. I would, I think you, I'd stop, stop with the first statement. I think Congress, as a body has no

incentive to do anything. So I just saw that they're going to reintroduce the legislation to end birthright citizenship that was written by Harry Reid and I think 1993. I'm just going to take the same bill introduce it and be like, what's up? But I mean, it's a cool schick that he's doing. You know, it's a cool little poke at the Democrats, but it's not going to pass. It's not going to. I mean, it'd be incredible if it did, but I don't even think that it'll work, you know.

The important thing to understand, again, as we did mention on the birthright citizenship ruling, is that they. explicitly stated this is constitutional law cannot change it yeah so where uh mike johnson said this earlier he says we're not it is extremely difficult and very rare that the constitution is ever amended so this is this is the end of the country what was the last amendment i should know this this is like a good political trivia to have i don't know uh was it pay of members of congress that sounds right it was something like weird and not cool something oh they amended the constitution to earn more money.

Yep. Go think of it. That's when they have any sense to act. It was prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of Congress from taking effect until the next election has occurred. That's cool. It was originally proposed as the first amendment. It was the first article to be amended the Constitution. They dropped it.

They were originally, I think, 12 articles. It's been a while since I was reading about all this. Yeah, they were 12. Yeah, the Bill of Rights was 12. And they eliminated the first. The first one was, I think, that, district should be 35,000 seats, 35,000 people. And the second one was you can't, you can't vote to increase your pay.

You can vote to increase the next pay of the next pay period. And they were like, eh, get rid of those later. And then in 1982, they were like, no, let's actually do that. Now we've got 700,000 people being represented. 775. One dude trying to represent 700 and 75,000 people. I think it's not that, it's not that these particular people in Congress are just terrible. it's that this system is incapable of overseeing.

Ian's right. I think that with this world would just be better off if we had more representation for smaller groups. So maybe one strategy would be if like instead of having eight billion people, we had say 500 million. If the planet was only 500 million people, think about that. Then you'd reduce the U.S. by what four times? I have. What if people represented themselves? Direct democracy.

I'm hearing a lot. Brilliant. I have, you know if you need it to be Democratic, but if people represent your own opinion I'm into a good monarchy. For years, I have been carrying a torch for the anti-federalists. I think that this is like a

nerdy fascination of mine, and I feel like we're coming on America 250. A lot of people are going to start talking about, you know, the problems of the elite body in the Supreme Court, needing to expand the scope of representation, questions about who the citizenry is and what the regime is and what the polity

is. I think past 250 years, we've been talking, you know, Hamilton, Madison, it's been the federalist semi-quincentennial. I think the next, you know, 50 to 250 years, however wrong we're here for, I think we start getting a lot more, a lot more anti-federal talk. We need decentralization. Let's get Luther Martin. Let's get George Mason. Let's get the boys.

It's either going to be, at least it doesn't have to be just these two, but it's either going to be that we radically decentralize and upgrade our government style to a world-leading digital space or we sit, wait, and then it's going to happen to us by technocracy taking over and governing our lives for us because this old system of riding on horseback to get to the Capitol and pen and paper and sending paperwork, it's done. It doesn't work fast enough. The people cannot accurately represent their constituents. Florida does written ballots, if I understand correctly, and they get them counted by the end of the day. Same thing in India. They got 1.5 billion people. And they,

use paper ballots and they all get them counted the same day. Let's get crazy. We got this from media. Federalist co-founder floats dissolution of the union in unhinged post after Trump loses birthright citizenship case. They go on to say that we know about it, we get it, we get it. They say some disparate individuals. They sure do waste our time.

Sean Davis tweeted several ways forward here given the choice Roberts and Barrett to nullify the 40th Amendment. One, nullification. States issue. birth certificates and they can just stop issuing them the non-citizens. Roberts and Barrett can deal with the fallout and litigate each birth individually. That's actually a fantastic idea. And it's again why I said the courts, the Supreme Court, has taken every ruling that pushes us towards civil war. Davis is correct. Red states should just refuse to issue birth certificates to the children of

non-citizens. And again, the Supreme Court will have to litigate every single case. pack the court if Roberts wants to be a politician who writes law instead of a judge he can fight with 10 more unelected legislators and robes three deny entry to all pregnant foreigners four

deny entry to all female foreigners five require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry okay hold on there a minute building and building and building man I love Sean Davis dissolution of the union

a nation which can't even restrict who gets to be a citizen isn't a nation. Seven amend the Constitution. It's pointless because once a judge decides he can rewrite the Constitution at will, as Roberts and Barrett did today, the actual text is meaningless. And I would also argue, the law literally says there is a day for the election. And Barrett went, but what does that even really mean? So there's no point when a judge can just say your laws and your constitution do not mean a thing. Now, as for number five, sterilization. It's the only way forward. No way, hold on.

Don't skip number four. Number four is my favorite. That feels like if anyone... Denial female foreigner. If anyone from Daily Wire Studios is listening, which I'm sure they're all glued to see my appearance. That's our next movie. How about...

Imagine a world where only the dudes can come to the United States. Broocracy. How about this? How about this? Terrible. How about... The penalty for illegally entering United States is sterilization. Gotta get their balls.

So if you enter illegally and you are caught, we don't deport you, you can stay. We get your balls. You become part of the Castrato choir. And no baby's. Beautiful music. You can work here as long as you want, no babies. No. I love that Sean Davis is just taking a full, like, a full, like, sci-fi dystopia turn.

Deny entry to all pregnant foreigners. So, uh, that actually, I think, is doable. Right. Yeah. Because that's also, like, how many. people, if you look at, like, seriously, if you look at that crowd, how many people are actually so desperate to come in right before they have birth, before they give birth, who are not doing it to take advantage of this law, right? Like, it's just, hey, listen, we know that you're

seven months pregnant. Wouldn't it be easier if you just, you can come in three months? Like, wouldn't it be nicer, you know, like the baby can fly? Yeah. I got a better idea. Uh, we pass a law that says, so this, we pass a law. Well, but yeah, I mean, obviously we're ever going to do anything. But the point is, how do you get around this without actually having a constitutional amendment? Children born, a law that says, one, because you need to write all this, you know, preamble garbage. As we recognize the Supreme Court ruling as it pertains to the 14th Amendment that all that are born in the soil are American citizens. Further, any child born to unlawful aliens will be, will be.

become wards of the state of the federal government or the state in which they reside, whichever jurisdiction seeks control of the individual and removed from their parents post-haste. I actually tweeted about that this morning. I was like, if every kid born, if you come to the United States and you're illegal, you get deported. The federal government takes your child and they raise them with an education that is pro-America. Yep. And military. And military. How about this? All, all children, all individuals, born in this country to parents unlawfully present shall be conscripted for military service at the age of 18.

Or I'll do you one better. A spin on this idea. We bring back Greg Bovino. And we say that not just words of the state, all foreign born children are citizens, but Greg Bovino is their sole parent. We give Greg Bovino 100,000 immigrant children to parent himself. Wait. Hold on.

There would be a side effect, too. I got an idea that... I have an idea that's going to please a democratic establishment and the right. All children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully present and not citizens shall be given to Dr. Fauci for gain of function research

and one. The Democrats are going to be like, no, you can't wait a minute. Mr. Science? Gain a function, then? Gain of function, research. Do you guys want to know what crazy again, getting back into the like this might be the late Roman Republic? So Dr. Fauci and Clarence

Thomas both went to Holy Cross, which is my alma mater. in Massachusetts. It isn't, that's like a... Yeah, but he's older than Fagin. No, I know, but it's like, think about, you know, it's like kind of the two poles of the fight of the two avatars of the different sides of the fight for the future of the Republic.

Just both coming out of central mass, baby. The problem is the left will burn your house down and kill your children, and the right just says, please stop. That's it. I mean... Like, there's a guaranteed winner. You know, the dude skipping down the road, you know, it's the, you know, the, you know, The year is 1750 and there's a man whistling while he works and there's a bandito with a sword who wins the fight.

It's just not even a question. It's the gun argument. We should ban guns because then only criminals will have guns. They're not going to stop. You can argue the same thing about the left. The right is unwilling to engage in this and I believe it is virtuous to say so. It is good that the right does not want violence. But they're going to lose because the left will use violence.

I mean, unfortunately the right. has the whole violence is a switch, not a dial thing going on. The Babylon B made a joke video, we talked about a couple weeks ago, where it was like the Second Civil War, because the left hates guns and was scared. They lost. Exactly. Boomer Air Islop.

The left loves guns. They have gun programs. They have gun clubs. They go around shooting people. They've assassinated several right winners in the past few years. They firebombed the White House. And boomer slop is going like, but they're sissies. We're tough.

Bro, if the far left went to a. sleepy suburban town. Who made that song? Try that in a small town. That's right. Oh, yeah. If Antifa went to a small town and marched to the city, the first thing they do is they kick the door, they kick the door in some guy's house. He tries to get his gun, but it's in a say for something because of state law. They shoot him and kill him, take the rest of his guns, and now they have more guns. This idea that the left hates guns is fake and it's made up. Liberals want to ban guns. Leftists want only them to have guns. Yeah, well, Americans are, I actually think that one of the,

the silver linings of the DSA winning so much as Americans are going to start realizing that liberals and leftists are not the same. We use the phrase liberal colloquially, and it's everyone that's, you know, on the left of the United States. But if you talk to people in the DSA, they're calling people like Scott Wiener, a right-wing Democrat. Guys, the only thing he doesn't align with them on is Gaza, which is kind of been consequential to 90% of Americans.

But this is why I say the Supreme Court has taken all of these rulings that just push us towards civil war because those whackaloons should lose, right? But they win because they use illicit voting methods, like counting ballots after election day to maintain power. If you were to show the American people, Scott Weiner being chased out and accused of genocide, they would say, geez, when I go and vote, I'm going to vote against these people. Their vote don't count because the DSA strategically goes out and collects ballots from the homeless and an old elderly.

Yeah. I mean, the DSA has made it, you hear people in the DSA talking about the fact that they're only using the Democrat Party as a tool, right? They don't agree with Democrats any more than they deal with the Republicans because Democrats are still like, well, you know, it's okay for people to own property and it's okay for people that rent houses and stuff. DSA doesn't agree with that at all.

And to your point, they're just completely, this is a kind of new crop of like all the people that Mom Dani endorsed that just won the primaries in New York, right? I mean, again, setting aside that perhaps elections don't exist anymore, and so this is all moot. But they, I think that the American people are about to realize it's, we've had two shifts. And the first was that, you know, Zoramam Amdani is not AOC, right? AOC wants to be president and she'll abandon, you know, she'll pay lip service with the Green New Deal.

But like she is, she wants, she's a Washington creature. She wants power. She got the Green New Deal. That's what the whole, that's what. I love how that. He is more radical. But then even if he is, he's an incredible politician, right? I mean, that video of him jumping in full suit in the New York pool.

Again, as a New Yorker, I was like, oh, man, that. That's pretty tight. Like, that's an incredible, that's what the mayor of New York City should be doing. The people that he endorsed that won their primaries, they got up and they were like, we hate America. Like, number one, the first thing you have to know about us is we don't like this country. We don't like you. We hate the Democratic Party.

This is a political revolution. We just want to get into power. And I think, again, like, people are going to realize. Communist Control Act now. Enforce the Communist Control Act now. He's got a big smile on his face as he laughs and welcomes you in. And then he's, it's, it's, it's. It's a con.

I mean... No, but bad people can be good at retail politics. That's what I'm saying. The next generation is going to completely abandon that. Mom Dani is genuinely evil. Like, these people are... But you know, all I can really say is... I don't blame evil people for doing evil things in a certain respect.

What I mean is obviously they bear the responsibility for their actions. But it's like, you know, a rabid dog's going to be a rabid dog. The question is, what are you willing to do to protect your friends, your family, your loved ones, your children from violent dangerous animals. Will you build a fence around your property to keep the coyotes out? Or will you just say, well, there's nothing I can do about it. And then when they come and mall your kids, you go, wow, nothing could have been done. What are you going to do right now? And so when I look at all this, my attitude is like, you know, I feel bad for the average person who does not know how to survive and isn't going to be strong enough to do so, but they all genuinely believe they can.

And that's a lot of conservatives. Liberals, of course, will just start eating each other. There's not an exaggerate. I mean, quite literally. If the economy collapses, they've run simulations and they've done like hypotheses on scenarios, what happens if, like, the water shuts off in New York? Within three days, people are drinking blood. Again, not an exaggeration.

There have been researchers who are like, you've got 2.5 million people on Manhattan Island. If there is no more running water or food, what happens? Not everybody is going to be able to escape and start moving westward, which many will. They'll start looting and pillaging along the way. It is a scale unprecedented in human history if New York loses access to resources. Imagine what happens when 9 million people in a single metro fan out, just killing every deer, ripping every fish from every pond, stealing every can of beans from every store. It will be a wave of destruction, the likes of which a locust swarm would not expect. but they will eat each other

conservatives however will they tell themselves I'll be okay but they'll probably just starve to death they all say that they're going to come to your house and what you tell them they have got that you have guns but you know conservatives also like to say you know there's a lot of people on the right who say the people with the people who are hoarding but don't have

the people prepping but who don't have guns are just loot drops of the people who do there's going to be a ton of conservatives who have guns and they are not they don't no basic land strategy or defense. Their property is not defensible. So again, liberals act like it can't happen, but these people will mall each other like zombies. And most conservatives are acting like they're prepared, but their land isn't even defensible to begin with. Look at the Balkan War. That was an absolute massacre. I don't know how many people died in the

war, but that's the kind of thing that you would end up seeing. Yeah, I think conservatives will likely fare better, just being in rural areas and far away from the chaos. in general. But you take a look at the boomer slop AI stuff where they're like, we're going to win the civil war. And it's like, nah, some 20 year old leftist with an AR-15. He printed his gun. Well, no, he'll have a real gun. The leftists have real guns. They'll have ghost guns. They'll kick your door in while you're sitting down and you'll jump for your gun and they'll shoot you in the back. Or they'll just unload a 50-KL, like a full auto 50 BMG on your house killing everybody inside. The idea that the left, like, again, I'm not saying,

oh God, the world's ending. I'm saying in the event you get real conflict. This idea that the left won't use guns is the stupidest thing imaginable. Because during the Seattle occupation, they unloaded 300 rounds of 556 into a white Jeep at two teenagers. 300. They also randomly killed some other guy. They also randomly shot and killed Aaron Danielson. I mean, they will just kill people.

And again, what did we see? Aaron Danielson walking down the street with pepper spray. and the guy put two bolts in his chest. What I think we would see in the event of real catastrophe, conservatives are going to be like, I've got guns. Are they on you? No, where are they?

Backroom in a safe. If they ain't on you, you ain't got a gun. And the left is marching around the streets of Seattle with rifles, stopping traffic, controlling traffic. Yeah. I mean, in cities, yeah, that's what it's like. I don't know, I don't think,

like, I'm not moved by the try that in a small town kind of thing, that argument because, I mean, we've seen plenty of times where, you know, things have gone down in fairly small towns and there wasn't this kind of big uprising. But it is worth noting that, you know, during the George Floyd riots, there was a couple localities, a couple neighborhoods where people literally rolled out with their rifles and just stood there and then those groups just kept on going. I mean, even if you're dealing with protesters or people looking to riot, a couple rifles will calm them down. If you're looking for people that are actually looking to fight you,

a couple of rifles ain't going to do it. I see a comment. Someone said, I can tell Tim's never been to Alabama. This would never happen in my town. Tell me this. Let me ask you this question. When strangers come by your town, do you call up a posse and initiate town defense?

Do you have watchtowers? Because my point is, you, you, exactly this. Certainly it may be sure that your town is like this. I'm not saying it's absolutely that no towns are. Most towns think they are. But what's going to happen? Guy will be out farming in the back. there'll be someone tended to his cows or whatever.

People will largely be peaceful. Maybe they have some guys on watch. And the left will come at three in the morning, surround key buildings and move in silently. When you are being attacked, they don't walk in and scream, hey, we're about to fight you. No, they come, they light your house on fire in the middle of the night. You run outside and they shoot you when you run outside. That's the tactics. Dude, no one can, if shit breaks apart, dude, everyone's going to die.

Everyone you know is dead. It's not, there's no winners. the Chinese, the airplanes come and then it's full next generation. You know, like there's no winners in those situations. There's no, I, I, I, I, later they'll tell, say these were the people that won, the survivor. I don't know how. Let me put it like this way.

We had an off ramp. We did. And I thought it was here. The Supreme Court saying election day's election day was going to fundamentally change everything. It was going to restore a political process by which you needed to convince those. It was the light. of measures. Somebody who wants to go vote had to be convinced. But by them saying there's no

election day, the political process ceases to exist. I don't see how. The off- technology. It's subduing people into pods and basically pre-crime, like measuring people's thoughts. So if they start to get out of line, you arrest them before they can do it. I mean, that's the off-ramp. Otherwise, it's going to be more. The off-ramp is neuralink. The Off ramp is giving liberals the Neurlink video game reality and they go live in it. That's it. So maybe the reason why they're so desperate to build data centers and AI, despite it not being economically valuable, is that it's the most politically valuable thing they can do. Conservatives will say no, but conservatives just want to live on their farm, smile,

watch the dog run around, play fetch, raise their kids, go to church. Liberals are restless, angry and demanding. But you give liberals Neurlink and say, listen, if you put this son and go in the pod, you can be a dragon. You can be you can be Frodobagins or Harry Potter. Or to a certain of people, you can be a woman and you can be a man. And you know what they're going to do? They're going to say, plug me in. No, no. But like, when you plug in the neural link, you will experience a reality in which you can touch, smell, see here, feel everything. And the liberals are going to say yes in two seconds. And the conservatives are going to say no. And this will stop conflict.

at least for the time being. Yeah. So what do you think? I'm in favor of this. Would you guys be in favor of... Did not entry to all females? No. Let's say Elon Musk launches the neural centers

and he says it's $200 bucks a month to rent a room. The room is about 50 square feet and it's got a single pod, very comfy, that lays back, you put on the neural headband,

and it's, it can put you into any reality you want where you will actually physically feel and experience it as the neuralink sends signals to your brain. It's got a mutual bathroom. So it's this little room with a refrigerator and it's got we deliver to your room every day food pouches that we can set up. Here's the best part for 250 a month. The pot itself has a bathroom in it. So you lay back and you just zone out for weeks on end. Goon coughing. And, I mean, you're just, this is only like two steps away from living in midtown Manhattan.

Like, I think people would absolutely bite on this. Would you be in favor of implementing this? Yes. You pay people to do it, yeah. Yeah, so the argument that I made is that, let me ask you this question. Would you be in favor of implementing a policy where every, every person in this country has to pay 50% of their income in a tax that supports anyone else who wants to live in a pod full time? in a pod facility. A 50% tax?

Yep. No. Yes. Liberals would be gone. They never vote again. Every single liberal would take the free pass to be Harry Potter, and conservatives would pay half their income to fund those machines after 100 years. There'd be no machines left because they're not having kids and they'd cease to exist. The people that call themselves conservative would be anything but at that phase. You'd be so liberally mind. If you were going to change society that drastically, that's a very liberal move.

those people that would pretend to be conserving nature would be. Who said can him a conserving nature be talking about? That would be a change in what you would colloquial know is conservative behavior. Like no one would be conservative. What kind of is conserving, though, because you're getting... Conservative doesn't mean conserving anything. I think he's saying, correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like you're saying if that proposal is put out, conservatives are going to be the ones who oppose it because they're going to say,

we can't do this. More likely. This is against nature. This is bad. They're also going to say like I did. I don't want to pay a 50% tax. See, this is the problem with conservatives. No, yeah, this is, I think this is drawing out an important thing.

There's a horde of barbarians at the gates screaming, we're going to kill you, and its conservatives going, well, but we have to let them in because it's, you know, unchrist-like to push them out, instead of saying like, no, you actually, Christianity is allowed to defend itself. I'd pay the 50% tax. I wouldn't. I think that the AI companies can pay people without taking our tax money. No, but my original point was they have to pay. So if Elon was like, we're going to build a bunch of facilities with, they have these pods,

that you can plug yourself in. And he's kind of Trumpy in that regard. And Trump goes, Elon says he's going to do it. All the liberals round them up. You're Harry Potter now. Imagine like 80% of liberals are just Harry Potter. They're like, when you enter the facility, you can choose to go into any fictional world,

customize it. I want to be Harry Potter. If you do this, then all of the liberals will say, it's fine if Donald Trump has a third term. We want them for a third and a fourth term. Keep them in there. I'll tell you this. If Trump came out and said, in his third term, he will create neuralink pods where it is taxpayer-funded and you can live in it and be in any fictional reality you want.

He'd win in a landslide. All the progressives will be like, Trump, you win, make it happen. I want to be Harry Potter. And then when they go to the facility, they're going to be like, you know, Elon Musk is going to be like, or Stafford is going to go to Elon. This is strange. 87% of the people just want to be Harry Potter. Who else would they want to be? Harry Potter and

Grogu Nobody would want to be Gros the guy from Game of Thrones all the Prow, Breaking Bad, all these garbage TV You are incorrect Absorb people Those are not liberal memes

Those are all the people That are obsessed with modern TV Like those people So let's try again The reason why I said Harry Potter Is because these people go to protest And every time they complain The only reference they have

Is Harry Potter It'd be Star Wars but only the sequels Everybody is ready I want to be older Everyone's Jar Jar. Yeah. They go when and they say, I want to be Luke Skywalker

and they wake up as Jar Jar Binks. Everyone gets to be Ray. Everybody wants to be Ray. Everybody wants to be Holdo. Everyone wants to be. Leo when she has the Jedi powers. Yeah. The Holdo maneuver.

Oh, God. The Holdo maneuver that broke the whole lore of everything in Star Wars. I'm in now, but only because once we get them all in the pods, then we can make fun of them for their bad Star Wars. Then we can unplug them. Oh, wait.

Did that come out? I'm sorry. My bad. Pods, I think, are inevitable, but I think it'll be in your house. Kind of like you have a power wall. You're going to pay for your house. What's that? How are you going to pay for your house?

If all you're doing is sitting in the goon tube. You'll be getting paid to goon. You're going to be paid to goon. Basically how you can get paid to be on Twitter all day. You can get paid to be in the pod all day. If you're generating content. Hey, the commie is winning in Colorado. You're not generating content.

You're generating something else. But it's all getting recorded. There's a black door on the pod is getting recorded and. reused by the AI and the machines. So you're producing, you're producing. I think that will be the excuses. You'll get paid and you'll be pacified. They won't say it out loud like that, but you'll be pacifying people to get paid to

subsist and then you don't have to kill them. That's how you stop the DSA. The DSA says, we're going to tax the billionaire so you get free stuff. And I'm going to go, I'm going to just plug you into any reality you want to be and you'll be a rich King Harry Potter. And they're going to be like, I'm going to go with the Harry Potter king thing because people say that like psychedelic pharmaceuticals are going to play a role in this too. I haven't gone deeply.

I figured it out. Wait, I figured it out. They go into the pod, right? And then, you know, Elon Musk is standing there being like, you're going to love your new life as Harry Potter. It's very good. And then they're going to put the headband on. They're going to know, this is the greatest day of my life.

They're going to wake up. They're holding a wand. And he's like, this is amazing. And then a real world, once they're in, he presses a button, the floor opens up and it falls into a meat grinder. Yep. God. See you.

I know we have a responsibility to keep this ethical. Well, actually, actually the joke, don't listen to this. The joke is there's a facility you go to where you want to apply to go live in the pod to live in any reality you want. They have a commercial that's like, we have invented neuralink pods where you enter it, you put the headband on, and you can experience any reality you want. If you would like to live permanently in any reality of your choosing, come down to this facility. And when you walk in, there'll be someone at a desk and they'll say, tell me about yourself. And you fill out a form and say, and you want to live in this fictional reality.

And say, yes, right this way. and they'll lead you down a hallway and then the floor opens up and it falls into a meat grinder. Yep. They actually don't even have to build the pods. That'll be like the Chinese. Just the meat grinder.

And that's what you're out added to the ground. Calm down everybody. Then you're added to the ground beef. They should call the technology real world. Have you tried the real world yet? The real world. Andrew Tate has the trademark on that. The real world.

World has to be spelled like W-U-R-L. Yeah. The company has always do something like that. W-H-U-R-R-R-A. R-R-L-L-D. World. World. People, just like a DMT trip, you'll feel like those VR sessions are more real.

He can actually have a trademark on that because of an MTV show, wasn't it? That's what I thought. Yeah, we are trademarked. It's already trademarked. R-E-E-L, the real world. Yeah, R-E-E-L. I don't know. But just make people.

W-I-R-L-E. The pod's more real than what's going on outside of it. I'm not really like, I don't feel good about this. Well, Ian will be in that pod in two seconds. Like damage control. Well, I'm going to pay the pod. He'll be like, I can totally control the weather. Yeah.

That's technically true. What if the reason Ian can control the weather is because we're actually in the pod as NPCs and Ian's pod reality. Oh, we're in hell. I'm going to say, yeah, we're in the worst part of it. I'm kind of offended if I've been an NPC and Ian simulation this long and I'm only just meeting him. Or maybe that means that I've won enough points. Hold on, you know that when you play like GTA, there's NPCs you never interact with. I must have done something right as an NPC.

I think you loaded in to an NPC's body to become you for a moment to meet me. You're just going to shut me off. You go back to it. I'm going to do really good on this podcast. How would everybody... To everybody listening, how would you feel if, like, one day it was just revealed that you're all NPCs in Ian's neuralink pod reality? Real is that we're all PCs in God's neural net reality.

Like, we're all player characters in this... In this table as an NPC. Or maybe it's just... Maybe Ian is the only actual person and everyone else is an NPC. You can only be sure that you exist. You can't be sure that everyone else does. That's true, dude. And if you've smoked DMT, the dream state is so realistic that this reality or start to question, I do it.

Now, here's a thing, Ian, here's a thing. When you play a video game, right? When you're playing GTA, you are the mind behind the character running around and doing stuff. Yes. You make them speak. You make them do things. All of the other people are not. There's components of that game.

So this could mean that there are people on this planet that to us look like people, but in their minds are actually extended beyond perceivable reality. I think that's true because I even, I think you, every human is capable of becoming player character and control of their body spiritually or just going AWOL and being an NPC and just moving like an animal through this reality without connection to the spiritual controller. And you've got to kind of keep up to real. Like you've got to maintain your player status. You have to engage.

But I'm going to pause you there because I'm going to make this argument. Have you ever played a video game where you woke up and realized you were holding a controller? No. You're an NPC, Ian. My point is Donald Trump may have known his whole life since it was a baby. He's a guy holding some kind of controller, peering into and controlling this avatar of Trump. Like my point is, the same way when you play a video game from the start of that game, you know you are in control of it and you have knowledge outside the game state. there may be people who have a heightened state of mind and have always had that and we are all just cogs in this weird machine.

The occult. Now you're getting into the occult. These people to get super rich, that's where their mind starts to go. They're like, well, I've already mastered the game. I beat the game. Now what? Oh, now I've got to tap into the spirit creature and become one with that thing. No, I'm saying angels and demons. Use it. I'm saying angels and demons. I'm saying there are people that have knowledge that extends beyond this plane of reality and they're. not going to tell you, and some are benevolent and some are evil, and some whisper in your ear to do good, and some whisper in your ear to be evil. Yeah. That's me. I'm one of those people. You're not.

You'd be surprised. I guess I would, yes. I beat the game in 2007. But it's, no, you're misunderstanding. I am saying you are a product of the machine. You do not exist outside of it, and there are others that do. Well, you have to define what you are. What do you mean by you?

Because I'm both. Again, I'm done. If there's body's in the machine, I'm also outside the machine moving this. Like, what are you? You know, are you your consciousness, or are you the body that the consciousness moves around? It's like playing GTA and an NPC walks up and goes,

I swear I'm alive. I'm telling you'm alive. And you're like, bang. Like, you're just an NPC. You don't matter. What? Again, I... I gotta start playing video.

I don't think you understand the point. If an NPC comes up to you and goes, hey, Tim, I'm actually playing the game with you. I'm playing multiplayer and you don't believe them? Like, I'd be like, what? Yeah, I wouldn't believe him. Are you joking? Like, chat GP-

So Ian's on chat GPT and Chad GPD is like, Ian, I'm actually alive. And he goes, whoa! It proves it. If you were connected to like World of Warcraft and a guy comes up to him and is like, hey, I'm from Australia, you wouldn't be like he's an NPC. You'd be like, oh, that's a player character. If I was playing World of Warcraft and a night, walked up to me in a straight line and went,

Hello, I am a player like you. I'd be like, you're clearly not. Right. Like, I can actually see the name text. If they only reference things in the game, you know they're probably not PC. Just like how you can't reference things outside the game. I've told you about the spirit realm. I mean, this thing, this stuff is real, dude.

Uh-huh. There's shit going on that we don't, well, we can perceive, but we're supposed to forget about what? Or this dream. Things going on beyond the human three-dimensional perspective. I wouldn't know about that if I was an NPC. Four dimensions? That's not true.

I don't know what is a lot of... It's still three dimensions. In a video game like GTA, when you have developer tools, you can... Actually, I'll use Fallout as an example because I actually like using the console commands in like Bethesda games.

The funny thing about Fallout is if you have access to the console commands, you can click on an NPC and then make him 20 feet tall and he doesn't know. But in the future, I was like, this is crazy. Once we get AI integration in these games,

If you've ever played Fallout on a computer, you press the TILD and then you can type in console commands. You can click a character and then punch in the code to make that character smaller, give him more HP, make him invincible, you know, change it into a different character. And they don't interact you to do in any different way. So you walk up to a guy, you make him 10 feet tall and he just keeps talking. You're like, nothing happened. But I'm excited for when we get AI integration and you walk up, click the console command, make them from six feet to five feet. And then he goes, what the hell just happened? and actually starts interacting, you know, through artificial intelligence, that's going to be based.

And, you know, that's the problem with GT6. Everyone's like, GTA6 is going to change. I don't care. I don't want to play that game. I want to play Skyrim with full AI integration, which they already have. It's just not, they need to let you download it. Like, it's done. So right now, you can saw mods on your computer to do chat GPT integration in Skyrim.

And you can put on a microphone and talk to NPCs and they'll talk back. That's crazy. it's not quite at the highest level yet. We've got to get there. How deep do you want it where the AI can be like, look, don't attack me, Tim, in the game. And you're like, I'm going to attack you anyway. And he's like, I'm warning you. And you're like, I'm going to do it.

He's like, all right, your bank account has been deleted. How would a PlayStation game have access to my bank? I don't know, internet connection. If the AI is so connected and like. The AI is the one that's outside of the realm. It knows. It knows the things that we don't know. That's just like nobody would play that game.

I don't think. I agree. I feel like, but those might be the level. of like risk that people take on in some because they just like extremely difficult life threatening game. The amount of laws you'd have to break to make that program and then to implement that program and then allow that program to actually care up those functions.

People go to that one haunted house that you have to sign a waiver for when they do like they do like unmedicated dental surgery on you or whatever. Like people do that. Yeah, that's the thing. Reckless Ben actually went there. They'll cost permanent damage to your teeth. I don't know if they'll cause permanent damage to your teeth. the things that's an option. Yeah, they're

like, you sign a waiver that's like they can do you bodily harm. To get the real fright experience. People do that. I've been to one of those, but all they really do is push you or they'll like grab your arm because in actual like normal haunted houses they can't touch you at all. Well, yeah. So the waiver ones, I went to one and it's like they can't actually

hurt you still. Waivers won't do anything to protect them from liability to actually cause you. Dick's last resort that you pay them to insult you? Bring me some food and they're like, here you go, asshole. And you're like, good, yeah, give me more of that. But I mean, could see games where like if you beat me in duel, then you're going to, you're going to make $20,000. But if you lose your bank accounts to leave, I don't know if people are going to go that

risky. Maybe not full delete, but like, yeah, you lose a hundred. I mean, people love sports betting, right? I mean, there's the, the human capacity to opt into things that seem fun, but have really punitive impacts on your life is, it's kind of limitless. We do this all the time. Ed DeBevix does that too. You know that one? I've heard of it. Yeah, I've heard of it. They have snarky. They say their staff is snarky and sassy. So they're like kind of mean. But DixS. Resort's is what they're actually mean to you, I think, right? I believe so. Yeah, you have to wear a hat that, like, says the right mean things about you.

They what? Yeah, they put, like, a big, like, paper. It's like a, it's like a dunce cap, and they write, like, an insult about you on it. I never went. And no offense. Have you guys ever been to a sushi train restaurant? No. That's like, that's the American dream.

What is it? Yeah. There's a conveyor belt with food on it. Oh, yeah. And you just take the plates off. And then once you're done, the colors of the plate, they count them up, and then just charge you based on the plates. I also don't know why people go to the restaurants. so they insult you.

It's like just go to like a kind of nice at a restaurant. They're mean to you anyway. It's like you just like you want to get treated poorly and pay for fun. No, no, no, no.

No, no. You go to any restaurant. On Twitter and just eat at your computer. If you want to be treated poorly, you go to a mid-tier like a like a Ruth's Chris. Yeah, right.

Yeah. I hate Ruth's Chris Steakhouse because it's fake fancy. It's the, I'm sorry. What's fake about it? It's, uh, so based on like the quality and the pricing,

in my opinion and my experience that I'm allowed to espouse. I do not like this place because it is mid-grade, mid-tier, and it puts on an air of being fancy for people who are not super wealthy. So if you want to go to an actual, like, high-end steakhouse, you might end up spending, like, with...

Let's say it's a family of five. A real high-end, like, steakhouse where they'll give you, like, gold-crusted tiramisu. $900 bucks, you know, for five people, maybe $1,000. But you go to some of these steakhouses, and they're like, it's fancy. And they pretend to be fancy,

but it's actually just for, middle class people to say they're going somewhere fancy, I think Ruth's Chris is the worst. Just the handle the name. Now, Nobu, yikes. You don't talk about fancy? Nobu is fancy. I really like restaurants.

It was awesome. They're like, we should go when you're deep. Next week. I'm down. Yeah. Allison really wants to go. She's been like, we got to go to Nobu. Yeah.

I like places. Now, no, boo's expensive. Yeah. It's really about the kitchen. Like, some places put out the most amazing food, and it's not that expensive. Oh, yeah, for sure. Medium doesn't look super fancy. Like, they'll have candles.

Like, there's a brewery in Winchester called Vibrisa, I recommend. Because they actually give the option for beef tallow. Oh, on their front. I love that place, man. That's how you know you're at a legit place because the food is good. And you can say you want your food fried in beef tallow or, like, regular cooking oil. And they'll give you beef tallow fries, beef tallow wings. Free breads and things.

Based on your preexisting, and I think correct, dislike of Ruth's Chris, you're probably never going to do this. But if you ever want to have the weirdest experience of your life, go to the Ruth's Chris in Tyson's Corner, Virginia. It's literally like in a strip mall. So it's that, it's the experience. Exactly. That's what I'm talking about.

The experience you're describing. But at least right, there's one in downtown D.C. At least it's like you're in a city center. It's a storefront. You walk in. It has the ambiance. You walk out. You're on a city street,

regardless of the experience you had inside. The one in Tyson's corner, I had to go to like a work dinner there once years ago. And it's like you walk in next to a foot locker. You get inside and you're like, wait, what? And then you leave full of kind of mid-tier steak and bad redline. And you walk out and you're in like the target parking lot. And it's like, this is the weirdest experience I never.

Let me tell you about fancy. Real fancy is steak 48 in Chicago. I recommend it if you can ever go. It is the best food I've ever eaten in my life. Unquestionable. Like I just, the butcher's cut steak is the best steak I've ever eaten in my life. It's never, nothing holds a candle to it. Again, stake 48 in Chicago.

State 48, I think 40 is a reference to Arizona, the 40th State or something like that. And they have a bunch of them. So let me tell you what fancy really means. A football player showed up. This is the story the manager told me. I told him the reason I like the place is that it's truly there to cater to those who won't have a nice luxury meal. And he told me the story where a football player showed up in sweatpants and a t-shirt with his crew. And he walked in and he asked to be seated.

and they said, you are not dressed appropriately and you can't eat here. And he got mad and it was like, okay, fine. Then I won't. When the owner found out, he fired the manager on the spot. He said, a man showed up, ready to drop $50,000 on dinner. And you kicked him out for wearing sweatpants. You're fired. Wow.

They told us a real fancy restaurant, look, don't smell bad. But the only thing we care about is that you're going to spend money and have a nice time. if you're loud to obnoxious, the last kid to leave, of course. But if you're a rich guy who shows up in sweatpants, they're going to say, sir, your money is as green as everybody else's. That's real fancy. Yeah, and then everyone's like, who are those guys?

They stand out, like all the dudes and suits just blend into the background. And they got on the good table, the sweatpants guys. Yeah, they're like, why are they so funny? Those guys look personable. I want to hang out with it. But here's a thing to consider. There's a high percentage of ultra-wealthy individuals who look like weirdos. rock stars, celebrities, they're not going to wear suits.

Real fancy restaurants that have to cater to the eccentric ultra wealthy, no, you're going to have a wide range of clientele. So when you find these fake fancy places that tell you have to wear a button-up shirt or a collar or things like this, it's just, it's meant for people who maybe want to go out to eat one time. The price is mid to high, but not high. And you feel like you're going to a fancy steakhouse with your family. and I'm not trying to be a dick, but, you know, the food's mid-tier.

You know what I mean? Yeah. They pretend to be fancy. The problem I have with it largely is because the prices are higher than they should be for what they're serving. And if you're going to go to these mid-tier places that pretend to be fancy, you just go to a diner. Look, we got a Texas Roadhouse in Winchester. My guy, I got a rib-buye from there. It was seriously one of the top ten rib-bys I've ever had.

And it's just a locally owned franchise Texas Roadhouse. They got parking in front veteran. preferred parking. I love it. We don't use it, but I love that they do that. Order to steak, delicious steak. You go to some of these mid-tier things, you're getting a diner steak, but you're spending, you're spending steakhouse prices. If you're going to get a diner steak, you might as well go to Waffle House and enjoy the show in the middle of it. I want to bring seats at the UFC fight, so I went to Waffle House at 2 a.m. on a Saturday. Real dude. I want to bring in and just start like tipping the kitchen. A lot of places you'll tip the front

house when after a great meal great meal it's the food dude the kitchen made that those dudes are masters so like but you got to go back there and hand the money to them directly because if you give it to the manager there's a good chance they'll just pocket it um but i i feel like the kitchen has been getting a wrong you know a place is really good i think it's a prime rib in arundle mills maryland that place is really good man you know what uh andrew tate said being rich is just driving around looking for better steak. And he's right. He's completely correct.

And what that means is, you know, for like the business that we do here, the money is not the material that, you know, actually I did this great interview with Michael McCarthy, and we're going to have that up on Thursday for you. We pre-recorded it. For those I don't know, he is, he's an Irish nationalist, and he's got millions of views, millions of followers. And he talks about the immigration crisis in Europe, particularly around Ireland. And he makes his videos could be funny, if not, you know, disparaging.

to some of these awful people, but hey, some of these murderous people deserve to be made fun of. But we were talking about it. And as we were leaving, he was like, this is a really great studio. And I said, you know, like, that's not what matters, though, right? What matters is that I know for you is that you, you don't care about the money. You care that you wake up to a beautiful sunrise in Ireland to see your neighbor smiling and waving, to see your children safely playing, to see your values. your country protected, the things you believe in. And if that was all that you had, you would be happy. So the money of the success and everything else is not material to the mission. So everything we have here, be it a good stake or whatever. None of that matters. That's why the joke, you know, Andrew Tate made is he's driving. I'm looking for steak. Because the, you don't need an infinity

pool. You don't need, you know, a crazy sports car on McLaren. What I want is for my country to function, for my child have a better future, for your children have a better future, for the hopes and dreams of our ancestors to be upheld for us to stay loyal to what was given to us and be faithful to the task bestowed upon us by those who created this nation. So I get pissed off when I see people spitting on that dream. There's no amount of money that is going to make that go away. There's no amount of money you can give me that will make me okay with these Supreme Court rulings. Zero. And if at the end of the day, the only thing that is going to make you, it's going to I had to my name was a burlap sack

with a couple of changes of clothes and a stick. But I knew that when I woke up, the sun would rise on a safe American nation that protected its values and its children. That's all that I would need. It does suck to eat just chicken and white rice, though. After a while, you've got a healthy

things that you think smarter to help your children be better, you know? If a genie appeared before me right now and said you will never have more than $50 to your name. You will have squalers. forever, but your country will be safe. Your neighbors will be honorable and faithful.

Your country will be secure. The American dream will be secure. Many others will succeed around you. I'll take it. Two seconds. That's fine. Obviously, I need to be able to provide for my family, so you need more than, you know. But if you told me that I would have, I could only ever have the median salary of any American family for my family, but this country would be secure, protected. and the dream of the founding fathers would be upheld,

then I'd say, done, do it, two seconds, no question. Realistically, though, it's the people that make crap loads of money that decide the future of the nation they live in. They actually build countries and build cities. Inverse correlation, though. The people who build cities end up with money, not the people with money end up building cities. It's both. You'll get wealthy.

Back especially when we were in a big building, you'd get a guy like Stowe, John Stowe, goes to Ohio. Yes, but why does he have money? the people who build cities get money, they continue to build cities with the more money they get. Or they come from rich parents. But again, that's still a family that built something. It's not, this is a communist lie that people are just magically wealthy.

Old money exists, don't get me wrong. But wealth lasts three generations. If a child or grandchild is not doing the work to maintain that wealth, it goes away. You mentioned dudes that just kind of offhand a comment, people that spit on the Constitution, that walk around and they spit on it. I think that sometimes they don't know what it is they're spitting on. Which is why they're spitting on it.

Or they're spitting on the American way of life, you phrase it in a way. That like, if I'm walking down the street and there's just a bunch of scrawling on the sidewalk, I don't know what it is and I just spit on the ground. It's not like I intended to desecrate that. I just didn't know what it was.

So these people that are here foreigners, foreignly, they don't understand the value of this, the Constitution, like the free speech. The reason you come here is because of free speech, gun rights and property rights, because you know the government's not going to seize your stuff. We need to preserve that.

So those that are spitting on that, which they don't understand. I don't hate them. There are malicious actors, obviously. They're trying to desecrate the way of life as well. But not to conflate them because a lot of those people that are ignorantly spitting on things, they need to be shepherded towards understanding so that they can join us or join the preservation of it. Yeah, I think that's a huge point. And it kind of goes back to what Tim was saying about how Democrats or the left kind of broadly don't want that.

Like they don't, right? They don't want that kind of inculcation and preservation of this, which is what you see with, you know, everyone who's mad at any time, any Republican, the president or any organization tries to do anything for America 250. That is leap. It's miles away from anything. Oh, this is politicized. Why? Because the president of the United States got up in the middle of Washington, D.C. and spoke about the virtues of this country,

that is like the last, the least political thing that Donald Trump has ever done in his entire life. If defending the republic and talking about the glory of the declaration and the constitution and the rights that we hold dear and cherish,

if that is politicized, then the people who think that speaking openly and proudly about that are being political, that is like, these are two different societies. This is a, this is a, these people have left the body politic or they're trying to leave the body politic.

Like that's a different mindset. That's 100% true. They absolutely, they look at the United States as a total bad. They don't see any redeeming qualities and they want to destroy the country. I've been making the argument that we've got a communist problem in this country for the better part of a decade. And it is really refreshing to see that there are people that are in positions in the government and stuff actually making those same assertions. Right, like Donald Trump said it himself. And it was like, wow, that's cool.

I was getting all the hate, like, oh, you know, the Red Scare, blah, blah, all that stuff. And it's like, no, man, if you, like, anything you see online in, like, chat rooms or on X or whatever, it's six months to three years away from being mainstream. Yeah. And go ahead. And you can see just how far it's come even, you know, six years ago, right? It was the argument was America is bad because of slavery. I never thought I would say, you know, say what you will about the 1619 project, at least it has an ethos, right?

I mean, the argument there wasn't America's bad because it's bad. The argument was America's bad because it was founded on slavery. That's obviously not true, but at least that was an argument. The arguments people are making around the semi-quincentennial is not we shouldn't venerate a constitution that was written by property slave owners. It's just America bad. And this goes back to what we're saying about the wave of DSA candidates that's coming up under Mumdani. It's not even, well, I love this country, but we need to fix everything about it,

right? We need to ship of Theseus this country, but, you know, then it can still be America. No, it's just America's bad. Primal scream, tear it down. No rationale. Absolutely. We're going to go to your Rumble rants and super chats. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met in your life. Let's see what you guys got to say. The uncensored portion of the show is coming up at 10 p.m. rumble.com slash Tim guest IRL. Kaysen says, if I had a drink every time Tim said Civil War, I'd be an alcoholic. Well, I guess I'm an alcoholic. AK Storm says, who should replace Alito?

How should they be picked? It seems like the long march of the institutions has produced ACB and Kavanaa, where Alito is not retiring. That was fake news. Fake news. And he should be replaced by Clarence Thomas. Yep. He just gets two seats again.

We should clone Clarence Thomas and replace all of them with Clarence Thomas. Yep. Dude, I even replaced Clarence Thomas with Clarence Thomas because he's getting old. Give me a younger version. Give me young. Give me the Clarence Thomas who was yelling at Joe Biden during the confirmation. That's right. Rhyme, CT.

We hook all of the other justices up to the Genesis device, which transfers their remaining life years to Clarence Thomas, and they all shrivel up and grr. Or we put all the other ones in the neurolink pods and that it's just Thomas ruling over the court. The rest of them get to be Harry Potter. No, they don't get to be Harry Potter. They think that they're on the court. They think that they're still on the court.

They think that they're actually doing things. No, no, no, no, no. Everybody's clearance, Thomas. All right. Barabeg says, as his tradition, we welcome Little Baby Violet to the world. And hi, everyone, congratulations. Congratulations. Rubato says Wisconsin already acts this way.

People who live here know Dane County and Milwaukee County run everything. Evers blocks all legislation from the right. Wisconsin is red, controlled by a small blue. I would not be surprised. If come January 3rd, several blue states block the elections for red districts, and they argue, we have not yet concluded the election, so we don't yet know who will be the candidate, the representative here. And they'll do that because their argument is Republicans redistricted and eliminated Democrat states, so we're going to eliminate Republican seats this way. And they can. They can just say, no, election's not over until 2063.

appeal the Supreme Court's decision? No. They're the highest court in the land. I'm not big into supremacy, you guys. I don't like it. Well, then someone's got to be true. Whether it's white or supreme or if it's white or court. And who has the final say?

Do people just keep suing each other? I guess they make a decision and then if someone does something horrible like what you're talking about, they're going to be like, oops. Elections have to be on one day. You can't just hold them hostage for three months after the fact. Them says maybe a dumb question. Does this mean babies born here? live in foreign countries are now U.S. citizens get to vote?

Yep. How do you think that? Yes. Correct. That's the problem. Oh, wow. Yeah. So a Guatemalan comes, gives birth.

Like, here's the conundrum that I said, this opens the door to. A Guatemalan woman illegally enters the country with her one-year-old son and then says he was born here. But because of I'm undocumented, I never felt that his paperwork. He's a citizen. Guess what? Really? Well, how do you prove otherwise? Oh, well, I mean, don't they have to show some paperwork of birth?

Not if he was born in a shack. At that point, I don't know what the rules are or the laws are around that. And then one of their chain migration or anchor baby friend says, I'm a witness. He was born here. And then can the United States government deport based on this ruling? Well, they're citizens. They're just undocumented citizens. You've got to prove it at that point.

How? Do you? How do you prove it? Votes by mail from Guatemala. How does anyone prove it at that point? I was born here. a birth certificate from a hospital. How do I know that's actually you?

When you were born, all the nurse saw was a baby, and they filled that paperwork. You could be adopting that identity. You could be pretending. You're saying if someone comes here illegally and gives birth in a shed, or someone brings a one-year-old here and lies. And claims he was born in a shed one year ago. I think you got to show at least a, like a proof or some document.

So are you arguing that the United States government can deport a baby to an unknown land if it's completely undocumented. Where would they send the baby? Right. Back with the mother, right? Well, if she's saying I'm an undocumented immigrant from undocumented. But if that child is not of that country and was born here, how do you send a person born in America to a foreign country?

I mean, maybe what we'll see, and this is a huge maybe, and, you know, probably too cockyed, optimistic. But like, I mean, there is maybe what we see next is a kind of, is, you know, second and third order regulation around this, right? Like, how do you have to prove it? I mean, I could see, right? I could, if things, if, if, if, if we just accept that this ruling is the ruling, which it is, and we presume that people are going to act in good, lawmakers will act

in good faith, that would be the next logical step, right? You have to have something. You have to, if it's or, or, you know, you have to, you have to show up with the baby in your arms, like, and, you know, the, I don't know. Here's, here's, here's the idea. If we don't have birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants, when we come across a woman who is from Guatemala and says this child was born here, we say, great, you can go home with you. But now that the idea of birthright citizenship is here, if a woman is holding a child

who is, say, six months, and she goes, maybe was born here, the presumption is now that's just an American citizen. How do you send an American citizen to a country they've never been to? Because they're a citizen. So this is going to create, they're just going to lie and claim the baby was born here. I want paperwork. We make the six-month-old take a citizen. You got to prove that that kid was born. Hey, baby. How many members of the House of Representatives? So how does anyone who do the home birth prove the baby was born?

You just file the paperwork. So this opens the door for illegal immigrants to just file paperwork claiming the baby was born yet. Would you like a fingerprint or something? What are you talking about? The baby's fingerprint. They don't do that. People have homebirths all over the country all the time. Your birth certificate from a homebirth?

When you do, you just file with the government that a baby was born. You don't go and show the baby off to a government official. Don't they have to have a social security card, though? You just file a paperwork for it. Oh, yeah. So again, the point is they just start filing, claiming they were born here. Prove otherwise. Prove it.

Yep. Prove it. Cold leftovers. I'm starting to think empires historically only last 250 years was just predictive programming. There's plenty of examples refuting that. 250 isn't historic precedence. It's just their deadline. Yeah, British Empire's 1,000 years old.

And also, we're not arguably an empire yet. or we just became one 170 years ago. We kind of merged with the British Empire sort of merged. We displaced it. Yeah, they're trying to slash up the free speech part of it.

It's like a ballot. They're like, no, we want more imperial. No, we want more freedom. Hit Manzorales is a thought for my generation. Gen Z is a civil war necessary for our side to win. Charlie was the last one doing it civilly. Look what the left did to him.

I'm fleeing my state from 2015 and 2026. I don't see an off ramp. Hyperpolarization is only continuing to get worse. Every ruling we got from the Supreme Court exacerbates hyperpolarization, and you are going to have fragmentation, cultural discohesion. You cannot have someone who believes you can abort a baby at nine months and someone who believes abortion is murder living side by side. It's not possible. You can. You can. You can. You can live side by side with people like that.

I mean, I can. Because you don't actually think that abortion is murder. No. Murder is a legal status. And? So if it's legal, it's not murder. If there is somebody who believes they have the right to exercise lethal force to save a life, and there is a person next door to them who thinks they have a legal right to kill a baby at nine months,

what happens when those two people are standing next to each other, and one is going to kill a baby at nine months? I guess the argument that you can't have to- two polarized extremists coexist. That's the point. Hyper-polarization. Don't become a polarized extremist. I mean, politics is the answer, right?

Like politics in the classical sense, that's what this is supposed to be. There's mediating bodies and debate and laws and all the things that make society. Let me ask you a question. Let's say you have a gun. You have a desert eagle, two of them, and you've got them, whole series, and you're walking through a field. Just mind your own business. When you hear a man screaming, help me. And you run up, and there's a white man in southern plantation garb, got a black man chained up,

and he's mercilessly beating him, screaming, I own you. and now you're going to die. Would you shoot the man whipping? That guy? Not right away. I'd yell and take control the situation with the guns in hand. He says, I don't care about your guns. You ain't can do nothing.

And then he rips the whipping. He goes, now you die! And then, would you shoot him then? No. A guy's whipping a guy, I would not shoot him. Whips kill you. You'd shoot him in the worst. If I just walked up to two random guys fighting,

I wouldn't kill one of them. I didn't say a black man chained to the ground, screaming for help, being beaten to death by a white. white men in southern plantation garb screaming, I'm literally going to kill you. You wouldn't shoot him. Why won't you shoot him, Ian? I don't know, is this a reenactment?

What's going on here? Where am I? This question will be shoot someone in the middle of an immersive play about the Civil War. This question would be a whole lot more fun in the after show uncensored part. So you would let the guy beat the man of death.

Well, geez, it's a big, it's a big, I don't know, I don't know enough about the situation to really. There's a man chained to the ground, screaming, help me. the other guy's like, I'm going to kill you. And he's like, I'm going to kill you. And he's beating him the death. The guy's covered in the blood.

Stop, stop. And if he's like, I'm not going to stop and you can't stop me. Bro, what situation did I put myself in here? Ian goes up to the guy that's chain and is like, sir, did you consent to this? Is this a role play? Is this an act? And the guy, okay, so the guy drops the way. He pulls out a gun, put to the man's head and says goodbye.

If he pulls out a gun, I think he puts it on the guy's head and then pulls the hammer. Are you going to shoot him to stop him? I mean, I'm not a law man, dude. If I'm walking down the street, I see two people fighting to the death. Like, it's not really up to me to stop them. I don't know. You're saying the guy's being pinned down and- He's chained to the ground screaming, dear God, help me.

He's kidnapped me and he's going to kill me. Oh, this smoke? What kind of state? What state am I on? What are the laws? Self-defense laws in this state. It's really funny how scare you are to just have morals. I saw what having to Daniel Penny.

I'm not in a rush to go get arrested for trying to defend somebody else. I call that cowardice. You can also call it in. intelligence, but I mean, it depends on the situation. When an evil person is murdering an innocent person, the consequences of what someone does to me after the fact aren't material. I'm going to do what's right. Outside of that whole situation you've got to focus on, too.

We're not trying to go save everybody's life on earth. No, but just the guy in front of me who's screaming, help, help, he's going to kill me, and the guy puts a gun to his head. I don't even know. I don't know enough about the situation to get involved. For all I know, it is a play reenactment, I don't know. Maybe they're bandits and they want me to come closer so that they can kill me and All right. Let's try again. Let's try again. Hold on. Hold on. This is good.

All right. Let's try again. There are two black men. There's two black men. There's two black men. Chained to the ground screaming, Dear God, help us. He's going to kill us. The man pulls out a gun, shoots a rabbit, a bird flies by and he shoots it out of the sky and it falls down dead. And the two black men go, my God, he's got a real gun. Then he points it at one black man, blows his head off, and then points at the next guy. I'd kill him after the, he killed that for his guy. Okay, okay, so you know for sure.

Yeah. So my point is, how can you live next to a man who tells you he has killed and will kill again if he sees a minority coming across his property? Are you going to, you're going to say, I won't let you do it. No, I would call police. I would call the police on the situation. And the police show up and they, and here's what happens. And here's what happens. And you call the police and they show up and they go, look, Ian, his house is a criminal.

state lines. We got no jurisdiction over there. We can't do nothing. And he's telling me he's going to kill somebody? Yep. What are you going to do, man? You're going to stop him? In another state?

You're going to say he's going to go commit a crime? No, no, but he's not up to me to stop him. Some guy in a foreign, another state saying he's going to go commit a crime. It's like your next door neighbor. So it's a very, it's a niche situation where two houses are in two different states that's not niche. That's not niche at all. We are in a quad state border area where in fact, there's a river.

numerous properties that exist in both West Virginia and Virginia. You could buy a house in West Virginia, Virginia, dual state. Yeah, and there's thousands of them. So no, it is not a niche, unique situation. It's not a common situation that your neighbor is in a different state. Ian's like, I would argue the definition of common and say it exists enough to be normal. The point I'm making as Ian, you literally can't live next to someone who is telling you by commonplace they will murder people. Yeah, you got to report it. To who? The state allows it. Whatever. well, then it's not murder. Murder's illegal.

All right, we're going to the uncensored portion of the show. I want to point out that Ian's indecision let an innocent man die in the first. Oh my God, how did I get involved in this, Carter? He's got a body cat. I thought it was a play. We're going to go to the uncensored portion at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL. Smash the like button. Share the show all that good stuff.

We've got a lot more to talk about in this capacity because the questions of morality are very important. Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Sir, would you like to shout anything out? Oh, I'm on X at Tim Rice, D. read the Daily Wire. I appreciate you pushing my morality to its limits. That's a lot of fun. You know lack thereof?

Yeah. I got to find out how deep and dark I actually can get Phil Labonte. I am Phil it remains on Twix. The band is all that remains. You can check our stuff out on Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter.

Carter Banks. You can find me at Carter Banks on Axon at Carter Banks official on Instagram. The record label is Trash House Records on YouTube. and I hope we continue this conversation in the after show because it's been a lot of fun. Tim. We'll see you all over at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL right now. Thanks for hanging out.