Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1064 AOC Files To IMPEACH SCOTUS Justices Alito And Thomas w/Joe Kent

Episode Date: July 11, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, & Ian are joined by Joe Kent to discuss AOC filing articles of impeachment against Clarence Thomas & Samuel Alito, the vote to hold AG Garland in contempt failing, Democrats voting against requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, and a Democrat senator calling on Biden to drop out. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Guest: Joe Kent @joekent16jan19 (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has filed articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, as she has promised to do. Now, hold on. It's not because of their rulings. She's saying it's over misconduct. Sure. We'll talk about that. It's a big story. But then we also have Rep. Annapolina Luna's bill

to hold Merrick Garland in contempt, failing as several Republicans defected to join Democrats in, for some reason, protecting Joe Biden. I am very clearly not happy about this if you watched my earlier morning segments. And then we have some funny news and some serious news. Ben Shapiro testifying before Congress. Some funny quips that we'll highlight. But serious news. Advertising networks, major media buyers were trying to collude to shut down conservative channels like The Daily Wire, citing the Breitbart model. They even targeted Joe Rogan. And head over to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member to support our work directly. We're going to have an awesome members

only uncensored call-in show coming up for you at about 10 p.m. That's where you as members can submit questions and actually join the show and talk to us and our guests and be a lot of fun. But also click that banner. We've got the RNC Milwaukee 2024 show July 18th. Mike Lindell, Luke Rutkowski, Hannah Claire Brimelow, Libby Emmons. We're going to be there. You're going to be there. You're going to be hanging out with us in the audience. We're going to do live Q&A. It's going to be a lot of fun. So we're going to enjoy this trip up to Milwaukee. I don't know how many tickets are left, but go to TimCast.com, pick up your tickets, and also become a member. Don't forget to also smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with all your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is

Joe Kent. Hey, Tim. Thanks for having me. How's it going? Doing great, man. Appreciate you having me back on. Yeah. Who are you? What do you do? So, Joe Kent, running for Congress in Washington's 3rd District. Retired Green Beret. Did a little bit over 20 years in the military. Got a new book out. It's about my late wife who was killed fighting ISIS in Syria. The book's called Send Me. It's available everywhere you can buy books. Right on. Well, thank you for hanging out. Yeah, thanks for having me. Ian's here.

Hi, everyone. Hey, Tim. Good to see you guys. Hello, Hannah Clare. And Joe as well. Always good to see you, man. I'm back. I play music. I'm an actor. I do a lot of stuff. Happy to be here. It's fun to have you both here. I'm glad you could join us. Joe, I'm Hannah Clare Brimel. I'm a writer for SCNR.com, Scanner News. Let's get started. Real quick before we do, I must stress YouTube's back end is down and tons of people are freaking out. But I managed to duct tape a way to get the stream going anyway. And so hopefully it can affect anything.

I don't know. I mean, so YouTube blocked us from streaming one minute ago or OK, so five minutes ago before we got started. And I tried inspecting to remove the Java that was blocking the, you know, I seem to have figured it out. But everyone's tweeting like youtube's down we can't get in the back end i can't access any of our videos or analytics or anything it's all busted but we're live so let's talk about the news we got this story from the

post-millennial breaking aoc files articles of impeachment against supreme court justices samuel alito and clarence thomas aoc claimed claimed that Thomas and Alito refused to recuse themselves from cases where they had a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. The important thing to stress here is that this is completely pointless. And like the SAVE Act, we'll do nothing. It won't go anywhere. She's going to file this. Republicans are going to throw in the garbage. Senate's not going to pick up anything like this. It's not going to happen. As for the SAVE Act, too, which also passed the House, and we will talk about that later, that's going to die in the Senate. It's not going anywhere. Biden won't let it happen as it is. So all of this is virtue signaling as the Titanic is sinking.

But here's a story. New York's own Rep AOC made good on a promise on Wednesday to file articles impeachment against Supreme Court Justice Alito and Thomas. And, you know, it's kind of funny because they're the most based. This comes as senators seek to engage in a new round of lawfare against Thomas over alleged ethics complaints regarding vacations and trips. A reporter for MSNBC said that AOC was not actually filing impeachment charges over opinions because she couldn't. But due to, quote, conduct around the office, she accused them of not properly disclosing financial benefits and gifts they were given by donors or others. She also claimed that Thomas and Alito refused to recuse

themselves from cases where that a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party when asked to force a justice to recuse himself from a case. Chief Justice Roberts said that absolutely he would not do that and spoke to the independence of justices and the court itself. Clarence Thomas and Alito, they're like the best we have in government right now. And it's not surprising to see with all of the problems we're experiencing, right? We have Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in jail, Merrick Garland flouting the law and the DOJ refusing to hold him accountable. And the one thing we have, the one thread we have are these guys at the supreme court doing their best and ruling correctly so of course aoc wants to go after them but like i said all this is is

her throwing red meat to her base in her district it will have no impact on anything i think that's part of it you know sorry i don't want to cut you off no go ahead i would say i think aoc knows to certain extent it won't go anywhere and even if it did go somewhere, what is she hoping will happen? That Biden will get to appoint someone before he's voted out? I mean, realistically, I think Claire and Alito and Thomas are great, but likely they will retire within the next four years.

And so there's panic over who's going to replace them. To me, it seems like either she knows it's not going to go anywhere or she's delusional to think that she could somehow get Biden to appoint Supreme Court justices before the year's over. And that's just not going to happen. See, this is this is where I'm kind of at an impasse. Rep Luna introduced her inherent contempt resolution against Garland and four Republicans defected, joining Democrats to stop accountability. And I hate the Republican Party. And so my attitude at

this point is kind of like, as predicted, the Republicans won in 2022 and did nothing. They're complaining that they don't have it's a slim majority. You see what happens when these defectors they do this thing. OK, I don't I don't know how you're going to get me to care. And this is the challenge. If Trump wins and Republicans take the Senate and the House, we can expect that if Alito and Thomas retire or retire and then Trump gets to name their successors, we're going to get some pretty good ones. And that's what's at stake. But boy, is are the Republicans in the House trying everything in their power to set the whole thing on fire? Trump came out supporting Luna.

Speaker Johnson was like, I don't know about all this. And then four defectors shut the whole thing down. I'm at a point where I'm just like, I don't know if I care to support this party at all. Who defected? I don't have the list pulled up. We were trying to find the total vote list, but the independents reported it's four. We'll get into that story next. To go back to the Supreme Court, though, my point is this is going to be the most consequential election not because donald trump versus joe biden but because the supreme court these are people who are going to be serving for decades

40 50 years maybe depending on how old they get so concerning and that well that's why we need a full sweep across the house uh the Senate and the presidency to make sure. I mean, look, I guess if you win the House, somehow win the House and the Senate, but not the presidency, they're not going to get anybody in. Or Biden might try to pack the court or Biden, whoever it is, we don't know. But this is this is the conundrum, I guess. This is a preview of what will happen if the Democrats take the House. They will go all in. They will go to war with pretty much every effective Republican. And so AOC is just showing exactly what will

happen if the Democrats take charge and take control of the House, or if we only have a thin majority in the House. Democrats will keep up these types of maneuvers. But I also think AOC doing this move this week, it's a diversion tactic because Democrats are having a really, really bad week. So she is trying to show the Democrat base, hey, we still are fighting. Focus on the Supreme Court. Vote for us. We will fight for you. But to your point, Tim, and I'm sure we'll get more into it, this is why Republican primaries are so important. If you're not happy with the way Republicans are caving right now, you've got to participate in Republican primaries. And when Republicans cross the aisle and they don't do what they campaigned on,

you have to primary them. It's unpleasant, but you have to do it. Last time I ran, I took down a 12-year incumbent in a primary, and it was very unpleasant, but it needed to happen. But a lot of these primaries already happened. Yeah. So, you know, looking at, you know, Brandon Herrera, it's disappointing to see that people don't turn out

it's very disappointing and then when it comes to november you end up with these crackpots who do nothing now again to be fair to be fair republicans could do very little here right right uh but again we're going to get into that story in a second as it pertains to what what what everything we see be it democrat or republican right now it's mostly just red meat it's look at me i mean and and you know this everybody knows this when you see those videos of members of congress and it's a tight shot and they're yelling like we gotta pass this bill there's nobody in there the chamber's empty it's the whole chamber's empty and they're yelling so they can get the clip on c-SPAN and then spread it around. And they're elected later.

That's all it is. Fundraise. Fundraise. Look at me yelling. It's like nobody was in the room. Part of the purpose of these people is red meat or at least like it's to not you're not supposed to do a lot. They're supposed to oversee the process while the private sector runs the show. And they're just making sure stuff doesn't go haywire.

They want to make sure monopolies don't pop. They're supposed to make sure monopolies don't pop up in the private sector. The president's not really supposed to be making all these direct actions and all these official proclamations and changes. He's supposed to be overseeing things and vetoing the crazy stuff and just making sure stuff is business as usual and then run the military. But instead, we've got these intense, like judicial attack mechanisms that have been going off and then Congress is still gridlocked. It's it's it's that's the disturbing part is that the executive branch is doing too much.

Well, too much. Yeah. And unfortunately, Congress has given them that power. I mean, Republicans put forward a lot of different measures that would have restored the power of the legislative branch when it comes to government regulation. Luckily, we had the Chevron ruling that's going to give a lot of different measures that would have restored the power of the legislative branch when it comes to government regulation. Luckily, we had the Chevron ruling that's going to give a lot of power back to the legislative branch away from the administrative state. But you're 100 percent right. If we don't have Congress that's going to actually show up and fight and follow the Constitution, then the president, the executive branch is going to be able to take us off the war, levy taxes and turn the administrative state, the judicial system against the American people.

Is it the Patriot Act, basically, that set that in motion? I don't know when it all began. In terms of the national security state, for sure, but the Chevron ruling. That was a while ago. Was it like the late 70s or something? It was the late 70s. Yeah, the late 70s. So that basically said that administrative branches could determine,

interpret their own rules. So this allowed for a lot of wacky things, notably the pistol brace ban, where the ATF is like, you know, we've just decided that pistol braces are stock, so we're banning them. You can't have, well, you can't have them if it makes your pistol into a short-barreled rifle if it is a stock. And it's like, whoa, you made that up. Yeah. You unilaterally decided to make something illegal. You can't do that in this country. That's insane that that was ever allowed. Now they really can't.

Now the Supreme Court said no. So that's why AOC, of course, look, AOC is an evil person. All right. And I don't use that word lightly, but more and more that word's been popping up, especially in my vocabulary. What is the goal that she is doing? She's never going to succeed in impeaching Alito or Clarence Thomas. There's no real grounds for it. It would never pass the House. It would never get enough votes in the Senate. It's just going nowhere. Plus, there's a different procedure, I think, for impeaching justices than a president.

So it's pointless. What she's doing is tricking stupid people into giving her money. That's what she's doing. And that's what the majority of these members of Congress do. Yep. And I mean, but if the Democrats had it, had the majority, I think they would do everything they could to actually impeach or at least jam them up and destroy their lives and destroy future Republican nominees for those positions. Because that was the whole thing with all the lawfare they've done against President Trump. I think they knew in their heart of hearts that most of it was going to fail. But the process is the punishment. And so they throw it at us. And then we have to use a lot of resources to defend against it.

And so at the end of the day, it does become a war of attrition, and the Democrats are not afraid to fight on that front. Yep. But I don't see this going anywhere. It is funny that she did decide to actually file the impeachment. Woman of her word, to be fair. There you go. There you go. Of her crazy, crazy word that we can all see. But it is wild what I hear in the wilds from regular people about what they think is actually going on. They listen to too much MSNBC and CNN and they live in this crackpot reality. That's just not true.

Yeah, it's disturbing. The Agenda 2025 thing. My mother, Project 2025. And she was like, oh, and that Trump 25. I was like, actually, he came out and said he didn't know anything about it, didn't support it. And she was like, no, no, no, they didn't. That's not. Are you?

I didn't hear that. That I didn't. You only hear one side of the story. But this is the crazy thing about the left's position. Tucker Carlson's in Australia. A journalist asks a question and he and she says, you've stated that in Europe and America, white citizens are being replaced by foreigners. And he goes, did did I say white? I don't believe I said that. And she goes, well, you did. He goes, no, I didn't. And I challenge you to quote me because I never said that. He said there are black families in America that have been there for 400 years. Their interests are just as valid as any white Americans. I've said American citizens are being replaced with immigrants. And she said, well, you said this. It's been reported. And it's like, well, hold on.

The man is standing in front of you saying, I disavow that. Right. But the word I disavow, I never said it. Right. It's like I reject that premise. So it's fascinating, especially when Trump comes out and says, I don't know what Project 2025 is. Some of the things are OK. Some are really bad.

I have nothing to do with it. I wish them luck. And then I hear from people, they go, well, Trump's lying. You know, why? Who is he lying to? Like, I don't get it. So he's trying to get elected on something he doesn't actually want. Like you, you, it's just strange to me.

It's just a game. So that would mean, that would imply that Trump supporters don't support Project 2025. Is that what you're saying? Because if Donald Trump disavows it to earn votes, the implication is his constituents don't want it. No, no, they want it. They're all lying too. It's like you live in a crackpot reality. The man is telling you what he wants.

Yeah. Yeah. And in what world would a campaign say that this outside group speaks for me? 100%. I mean, no campaign would say that. I wouldn't say that as a candidate, even with groups I'm generally ideologically aligned with. If they're putting out statements on my behalf or someone says, well, this group says this, do you support it? I would say, well, no, I speak for me. If you have a question, why don't you ask me? But that's why most of the time these attacks, they come not directly to your face because they don't want to give you a chance

to respond. All they want to do is smear you with the barrage of like 2025 racist whatever yeah i don't know if there are any but i know a lot of people who will be in the public eye and they'll get attacked for something and in the article it'll say you know they didn't respond to comment or whatever else and actually they requested comment 20 minutes before they published the story so then everyone gave you a chance to respond to it. Like Trump has to go out on his own and be like, I don't know what this is and I don't want it because there's no mainstream media trying to talk to him about it. In my from what I can see a lot of the time. I mean, so much of everything right now is just sort of political theater.

AOC is launching this to say to her voters, look, I'm doing things that even other Democrats aren't willing to do. I mean, Joe Biden just gave the Medal of Freedom to the NATO Secretary General. This guy is from Norway, and he's like, you're doing a great job with NATO. Here's our top award. It's just to seem like they are able to celebrate things in a way that other people can't. They're better at this than even their own colleagues.

It's kind of gross. I want to jump to the story from The Independent. Attempt to hold Garland in inherent contempt of Congress fails with four Republicans joining Democrats. Democrats criticize stupid resolution from Republican Anna Paulina Luna of Florida. Let me give you the simple version of the story. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are in prison. Steve Bannon was instructed to turn over documents. However, he was also instructed by Donald Trump not to, citing executive privilege, putting him in between two branches of government. Congress saying we want them.

The executive branch saying executive privilege don't. Who does he defy? Eventually, Trump relented and said, OK, Bannon, you can hand over the documents and testify. And Bannon said, OK, Congress said too late. We're putting you in prison. After Joe Biden was found to have committed crimes pertaining to classified documents in his home and office and other locations, there was an with this investigation. It was determined by Robert Herr he would not be prosecuted. He had a conversation with Joe Biden determined that Biden is a sad old man with a bad memory. So effectively, he is not competent to stand trial,

as many people have interpreted it. The Republicans wanted the one of the audio tapes of that of that interview of that meeting. So they for a lot of reasons, one, what's Biden's mental state? Was he able to communicate effectively? And is there anything omitted from the recording? They subpoenaed Merrick Garland saying, turn over the tapes. He said, no. They said, you are now in contempt of Congress. The deal that he said, so what? It was referred

to the DOJ for criminal proceedings, and the DOJ said, try us. Too bad and did nothing. So Rep. Luna said, then we will use our enforcement authority, which is inherent contempt, to at first arrest Merrick Garland. That was shifted to a $10,000 fine per day. $10,000 fine per day. That died in Congress because four Republicans defected. I'm a Democrat now. I'm going to vote straight Democrat across the board. Joe Biden's my guy, and I'm voting only Democrat. I can't stand party politics. That's my biggest problem with all of it is—

Democrat all the way. Even calling them defectors was like, what are they defecting? I can't stand party politics. Vote your heart. But who are, because they're supposed to be, we're supposed to get equality under the law. But my view now is there's only one political party that's willing to wield power and it's the Democrats. So I should just be on their side, right? At least then I can advocate for arresting people and maybe it'll happen. maybe, just maybe, the only reason that the country actually functions in any capacity

is because while Democrats are constantly trying to set the curtains on fire, Republicans are slapping their hands away. And the moment the Republicans stop, they'll just torch the whole place to the ground, and maybe then we can rebuild something without them in it. We need a stronger majority of Republicans that are actually going to stand up, so that these four, five who always tend to cross the party lines, that their votes don't matter, that we can cancel them out. Right now we have a slim majority, so when we try to do bold actions like this, who always tend to cross the party lines, that their votes don't matter, that we can cancel them out.

Right now we have a slim majority. So when we try to do bold actions like this, we're going to fail because we just have to realize that some people, they're not going to do what they're supposed to do. They're not going to do what their constituents

actually hired them to do. That's a primary issue that should be sorted out in the primary, but we've got to have a stronger control of the House of Representatives so that Speaker Johnson isn't always having to, or whoever is the next speaker, isn't constantly having to play this like, well,

do I have enough votes with the majority? We need to have people who are ready to use power effectively to hold people accountable. This isn't partisan politics. I mean, what Merrick Garland has done, basically since he's been ahead of the DOJ, the DOJ has been prosecuting Americans outside the boundaries of the law. That's got to be reined in. Republicans should have defunded the DOJ a very long time ago until they stopped going after grandmothers that were protesting abortion clinics, parents at school board meetings. That should have all been handled a long while ago. But this right here was a great effort by Ana Paulina Luna to actually get some real accountability. So we've got to hold Republicans accountable in primaries, and we've got to get a stronger majority i understand the frustration we have every right to be frustrated

2022 yep republicans win and do nothing yeah mccarthy plays the same old dirty games he gets booted out that's the one good thing i think we got burning a billion dollars in ious was hilarious but nothing changes nothing changes we are i i I'm afraid I have to say say it this way. I, you know, I already saw someone super chat asking, for what reason would anyone obey the law? When Democrats do not? Why would anyone else decide to play a game that no one else is playing? So what I see is, with Steve Bannon in prison, and the Republicans unwilling to actually uphold the system. What we have seen here today with this ruling, with with the vote in Congress, not that it would go anywhere to be. Well, it's contempt of Congress, meaning Congress could act

unilaterally in this regard. If they voted for it, it doesn't need to go anywhere else. They would hold him in contempt. It be done. What we are seeing here, there's no system. There is no law. There is no legality. It doesn't matter what's on the books. If the Democrats decide to put someone in prison, they do. And the Republicans will block you from getting equality. I don't care what Steve Bannon did. I don't care what Merrick Garland did. I care that I can look at the news and say there is a logical system in place that I can look at the news and say, there is a logical system in place that I can understand. Right now, I can understand what that logical system is. It is that Democrats will imprison whoever they want, and Republicans will help them. And then Republicans will block you from

upholding equality. I'm not asking for retribution. I'm not asking for revenge. I'm asking that we actually see the system function as intended. It does not. They've proven that today. Republicans have just taken a dump all over the floor. And for that, it's going to be really hard for me to cast a ballot for any one of these people. Sorry. Hate to say it. Because a lot of people are going to be like, but Tim, if we get the majority and Trump wins Supreme Court and we get justices and retirements and I'm just kind of like, yeah, I don't care anymore.

I literally don't. There is no system. There is nothing that I look to. There is no there's no logic. There's no one one plus two equals three. I don't see any of it. I see Democrats bashing the walls, burning everything down and Republicans holding their hand to my chest and laughing while they do it. Jamal Bowman pulled the fire alarm in the congressional building and didn't go to jail. And they say to me, but Tim, you just got to vote Republican harder, vote Republican harder, and then maybe we'll do something about it. I'm like, nah. I'm kind of a glass half full guy.

We are making progress. I mean, Ana Paulina Luna is a freshman. And for a freshman to put forward something this bold a couple of Congresses ago, even with a Republican majority, this never would have happened from a freshman. And we're also seeing a lot of progress on things like national defense, the way that the Ukraine aid package went. And just in the course of like two years, when the Ukraine issue first flared up, you had the vast majority of Republican caucus that were all on board, send Ukraine billions of dollars. But within the course of just two years, we've moved it. So now we have a majority of the majority against more endless wars, against more of that funding. So we are making making slow incremental progress. I totally understand the frustration. But we do need people to participate in those primaries vote Republican up and down. Otherwise, it's going to be more

Democrats coming back after us and destroying the country. That's a great point. Because this it's a dark, deep, tangled web that we live in. And it's been like this for probably 100 years, probably since 19, really, since the Federal reserve and the bureaucrats tried to take over the country so like we're just now seeing it and for the first time like the the government was in total control like george orwell style in the 90s and in 2005 george bush freaking dick cheney the amount of power those guys wielded and then signed into law with patriot act and stuff so it is frustrating to witness that, to see this broken oligarchy. But like you're saying, people are stepping up and people are getting

brave and coming together and working. I don't know if working from within the system. We need both. We need from within the system, but we really need a private sector that's willing to say no and be disobedient to a corrupt government and work outside the bounds of that system. Yeah, absolutely. I want to, real quick, just give a shout out to our good friends, John Duarte of California,

Dave Joyce of Ohio, Tom McClintock of California and Mike Turner of Ohio. These men should never see another penny in contributions from anyone. Now, to be fair, these guys in California, they're probably far left as it is, and they don't count as Republicans. So it is a slim majority. As for Dave Joyce and Mike Turner in Ohio, mark my words, I will take every political lever that I have and I will do everything in my power. I will whisper in every ear I can do not support these men. And we must do everything in our power to make sure that they are either we're not going to we're not going to expel them from Congress. It's not likely to happen. But I will do everything I can to support any and every primary challenge that comes their way.

In fact, I may even personally fly down, hold an event and stand in a soapbox and call them out personally and scream about how these guys are. They don't they don't belong in Congress. They have personally set the matches aflame, struck the match and threw them on the floor to say to the American people, there is no law. None. As long as Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro in prison and Merrick Garland is free, there is nothing. And it's their fault. And all of them, I just checked their Twitters really quickly that none of them have put out a statement addressing this.

I mean, that's sort of my concern. If you don't like a bill and you're in Congress, OK, but give me an explanation. I mean, I'm not a constituent of any of these four men, but I think that they should have to say, like, look, I voted against this for this reason. This is what the explanation was, because even if I don't agree with it, that should be the transparency that they have with their voters. And unfortunately, in the internet age, you can get that out immediately. So it does create a pressure where they have to respond sooner rather than later. They can't say, oh, well, you know, business and this and the other like they could

have they they probably knew how they were going to vote on this for a long time. They should have had a prepared statement that went out because I think, you know, again, if you don't if you're voting against this, I think I should know why. And again, I talk about the Mayorkas impeachment vote, a vote frequently when I'm on here, because there were only three Republicans who defected and voted against it. But all of them were like, look, I think this is a misinterpretation of the law or whatever. I don't necessarily agree, but at least that they were they were explaining what their word was and why they were standing by it. I think that's sort of the challenge here, which is like, if you are not going to address

it, you're hoping no one knows why you didn't vote against it. We're in the Internet era. People are going to be able to find this out, you know, immediately. But I think you're right. It is fascinating that this was a move by a freshman. I think Anna Paulina Luna is really brave and she's definitely of a class of Republicans that are bold in what they choose to do. And I hope that is a trend among a lot of politicians, both on the state and federal level, because I think it's a it's a new day and we need to see some more creative actions taken. Yeah, for sure. We definitely need the bold new leadership. And so I understand the frustration, but the glass is definitely, I think it's half full. I think we're making progress. To your point, when these people vote

and they don't talk about their votes and they don't share their votes and you have to dig it up, that just shows you how little that a lot of these representatives respect their constituents because they know people aren't paying attention. So they think they can get away with a lot of these really bad votes. I'm a really big fan of what Tim Burchette does. He basically goes live right as he's walking off the floor. I frankly don't see why there isn't 435 members of Congress doing that. Every single one of them do. I'm going to tell you what we just did in here because you're paying my paycheck. It was the first time I had ever seen Tim Burchette, who we were able to have on last night,

was through one of his videos walking off being like, here's what we voted on. Here's why I did what I did. I mean, for the most part, all of these congressional members have staffers. They know what's coming down. They kind of know what legislation is coming up that day. They're not totally surprised. They should hopefully be able to use the Internet, their outlets to give an explanation to their voters. I think that's why it seems like you can't trust politicians, even when you supported them, you donate them, you elect them, because it's like once they get there, it all goes behind closed doors and they're kind of moving behind the scenes.

And you don't know if that person is the same person that you maybe met at a rally or, you know, gave five dollars to or whatever it was. The Supreme Court's got to do. I don't know if they have to, but they write opinions after they do a vote. I would like to see Congress do that, but I'm with you. I don't think, I think they should do videos because we're in the 21st century. Walk off the floor and do it. Use the best technology on earth or become the secondary power on earth. Like if we want to be the strongest authority on earth, we need to use the best technology

to do that. I mean, governors do this too, where they'll, they'll release a statement when they're like, okay, I have signed a bunch of bills today. And, you know, sometimes they have lengthy explanations for one bill, why they're supporting it or why they're against it. But sometimes it's just like, here are five bills that I signed into law. Here's what it is. I'm against them for it. You know, you could do quick summaries. This could be the way that the system leverages the opportunities that they have to communicate. Because again, if you live in one of these people's districts, I think you do want to know why Merrick Erland isn't being held accountable when defying a subpoena if other people do

have to comply with these congressional subpoenas. I hear I hear a lot of people say, you got to understand optics, you know, oh, you know, Joe Biden's in such disarray. That was Johnson's argument. Yeah, these tapes would have exposed more of that. So why block it? It's basically a national security issue at this point. I mean, like there's a strong case being made for the 25th Amendment.

I mean, who's answering the phone at three in the morning when there's a crisis anywhere in the world? And the other issue then is people saying, but these guys in California, these guys in Ohio are in, what someone just say? Soft red districts. Democrats have a problem with that. And I think Democrats in swing districts will if if if Nancy Pelosi or Hakeem Jeffries goes to them and says that they want them to literally just scorched earth swing district Democrats do it without question. They do it. The Democratic Party is unified even in vulnerable districts and the Republicans are not. I'm going to need a strong argument because I'm not seeing it. I see an argument for Trump. Trump came out in support of Luna. But for Republicans in Congress, I can only tell you this. We got Riley Moore. I'm excited about Riley. Riley's a good dude. So we're good where we're at. I can't speak for the people of Ohio, but that's the real question, the real answer. The real issue, I suppose, is if you live in those districts, you need to get on the phone and you need to ask them why they betrayed the rule of law in this country.

It's not about party. I don't care about the—I don't like the Republicans. Ask them why it's okay that Steve Bannon's in prison right now, but Merrick Garland is not, and why they think criminals should be allowed to walk free, and ask them why do they support Democrat policies which result in criminals being free? Yeah, I think that's also one of the responsibilities we have as voters, which is to know who our elected representatives are and to be active in pursuing answers from them. I think so often people are like, it happens far away from me, but really, you know, we've talked about this a couple of different times on the show, but like you send one email and that might actually be that

100th email they've gotten about it. It might really have an effect or you're pointing out something that they're not aware of, right? If you're in Congress and you think nobody in my district cares about that, then it really matters. If someone reaches out to you and says, I care about this issue, this matters to me. That's a lot of times what they're banking on is that nobody's paying attention. Like my opponent has voted in lockstep with the Biden administration. She comes back to the district and she speaks like a moderate. So we've actually had to start an entire website where we track her votes so people can be aware of how she's voting in lockstep with Biden. It's mariewatch.com or it's on my website, jillkentforcongress.com. You can find

it there. So we've had to track that because she never talks about it. Well, wouldn't it be interesting if that's what the responsibility of the local paper was? And maybe there are some local people that do that, right? But they had one beat reporter that just tracks how the Congress, like both on the state and federal level, how those people vote and what it is. It's just like one line summaries. They voted yes on this. They voted no on this. You know, there might be things you have to look up for more intense explanation, but somebody should keep a record of how people who represent you are. And I think that is sort of, you're right, what people are hoping, that they can not talk about what they voted no on and just talk about what they're

working on. I mean, I get that there is a lot going on in Congress, and I understand that maybe not every voter is going to be super informed on every issue. On the other hand, you should have an explanation ready when someone says, why did you vote against this? Is there is what are the rules on spending money on billboards and stuff? Like, do you know, like if I were to if I wanted to, say, spend like 100 grand putting billboards in their districts in Ohio saying that they have sold out their country and betrayed the American people? Is there a restriction on that? Or aren't you allowed to do it, right? If you start a super PAC, you can spend an unlimited amount of money.

But even like me as an individual, can I just? Yeah, you can do it. As an individual. The only red line is if you're coordinating with somebody, like a primary challenger, if you're coordinating with their campaign, you can't do that. There's a limit on money for you to do that. But if you do it independently as a private citizen, it's on you. Do targeted ads by location.

On YouTube requires you to do this weird verification thing. I think billboards would be more effective. No, all of it. Doing election ads on social media is very difficult. It's very challenging. So even when I tried running ads on YouTube, the mere mention, the word Trump flags you as a political ad.

You could say, well, you know, pizza Trump's whatever, and using the word Trump as literally Trump, political ad. Like you could say like, well, you know, pizza Trump's whatever. And like using the word Trump as literally Trump. And then she's like, nope, that's political. It's you said Trump, it's election year, whatever. So, but I'm kind of feeling like maybe we should put together some kind of ads and launch it in their district.

I don't know. It's a question. You know what I think? I think I want to do it. And I don't know if it matters all that much. Maybe I'll just do it in the next couple of weeks. I'll call my broker for billboard ads. Because I don't really care how this will impact. I don't think it will impact anything related to the upcoming election and the primaries are over. So I more so just want to insult them because they are bad people. That you can do. The problem with getting a guy out of office

is any press is good press for the most part. So an ad that says he's a horrible guy, don't vote for him, is just giving that guy free media attention is making him famous. Yes and no. Unless you have a candidate that you can run against him

that you want to promote, but that then becomes you need a pack. Yes and no. For celebrities, there's not just thing as bad press. For politicians, bad press just has to be done in a certain way, right? So you could praise him for refusing to uphold the law. You could say, you know what, sarcastically, it's a good thing that he voted to allow criminals to walk free. And then people are going to say, you know what? Sarcastically, it's a good thing that he voted to allow criminals to walk free. And then people are going to say, what does that mean? And make them ask the question and then make him say whatever he wants to say to counter it. But these are bad people there. I'm so I'm so sick of these people in Congress.

There's only a small handful of good people, you know, and they've and they've come on this show and they talk to us about it. But these other scumbag rhino establishment shills will sell this country down the river and then buy the stock on China so they can profit as it's happening. Yep, gone on for too long. But I do think when you get the right candidate and the right messaging, people are starting to wake up. People are getting more engaged. I mean, that's how you get Ana Paulina Luna. That's how you get Matt Gaetz and a lot of good guys in the Freedom Caucus, Tim Burchette. So we're slowly making progress. We just need people to stay engaged. I mean, that's how you get Ana Paulina Luna. That's how you get Matt Gates and a lot of good guys in the Freedom Caucus, Tim Burchette. So we're slowly making progress.

We just need people to stay engaged. And sometimes bad people do good things. Good people do bad things. Like, I wonder about the founding fathers, and I've just got such like an idealized version of them in my mind. I think they're all like great men, just paragons of virtue. And Ben Franklin's like an alcoholic philanderer, had sex with women out and kids out of wedlock. God knows the horrible things he said to people and did to people behind curtains. But because of what he did for society, he's lauded as a hero. And I think we're just seeing a lot of the maybe good people doing evil, doing bad, or sometimes their horrible behavior is getting propagated like

trump people went after him for his behavior because he said rosie o'donnell was a fat pig so they but the things he was doing was like keeping us out of wars in the middle east for the most part he was trying to end the wars in the middle east so that like history would look at that as a good president trying to end the wars get get America out of the war, if that the wars are deemed unjust. I think it is a spin issue. I mean, this is when Jim Imhoff, the senator from Oklahoma, died. Washington Post ran this thing that was like anti-climate whatever, and actually

he has a really long history. He served in the Senate for an incredibly long time. I don't need you to love everything he did, but if you make everything about your own personal vendetta against people, you're actually completely slanted in your presentation of history. Let's jump to this next story from the New York Post. Ladies and gentlemen, the House has passed the bill to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and 198 Democrats tried to block it. Yeah, interestingly. The House approved

a measure Wednesday to require proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, a measure strongly opposed by top Democrats. A majority of 216 Republicans. citizenship when registering to vote, a measure strongly opposed by top Democrats. A majority of 216 Republicans and five Democrats voted to pass the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act with swing district reps Henry Cuellar of Texas, Vincente Gonzalez, Jared Golden, Don Davis, and Marie Glucenkamp Perez among those crossing party lines. Now, for those that are watching live, I will say I stand corrected when I said Democrats march in lockstep with their party. In this instance, swing Democrats actually did defect, but it wouldn't have mattered anyway because Republicans were definitely going to pass this. And also it wouldn't matter anyway because it will die in the Senate or actually

I'll never make it to the Senate and Biden would veto it anyway. With those five that crossed party lines, just before that, those five voted with all the Democrats to keep that bill off the floor. So my opponent's one of those five, but when the bill came up for the procedural vote to put it on the floor,

every single Democrat, including those five, voted against it. And then once it was going to be on the floor, leadership approved the five swing districts who are vulnerable right now. I'm up in the polls. Let them vote with the Republicans, because like you said, it's going to die in the Senate.

Yep. And that way they can go home and say, look, look, look, look at the things that I do. He's lying about me. I don't want illegal immigrants to vote in our elections. It's interesting because it would be nice to see authenticity on this issue because I think it does affect all Americans. I mean, we talk about illegal immigration in terms of crime. It does. It affects every American in terms of the crime. You talked about the drug trafficking across the border, the effect it has on the area you live in. There have been reports that, you know, African-American voters are saying, hey, this is actually disproportionately affecting me because you're making it so I'm having a harder time with employment. There are challenges that I'm facing because of this. I mean, I think people have a

more nuanced understanding of the complexity of allowing illegal immigration to flood across the border. And so we actually behoove a lot of Democrats to say, hey, we take the verification of who is participating in the election seriously because we know it really could affect you and affect your life. I don't think that has to be like some sort of weird race issue. I mean, even the White House, when they condemned this act, were saying one of their complaints was it'll make it harder for Americans to vote as if Americans can't produce some sort of ID or verification that they are citizens. I mean, it's just so ridiculous that it's obvious why they

want this bill to go through. But when you are registering to vote, typically most people through the DMV, you have brought your piece of mail, your birth certificate, your Social Security card and your credit cards with you to get your ID in the first place. The idea that you could not produce any of that to register to vote, but you have to to get an ID, it's just it's just bonkers. It doesn't make any sense. That's how threadbare the defense against it from the White House was. And again, it stands to reason that there are Democrats who, you know, I think you're right. They probably all were like, well, I really need to vote for this because of my constituents.

But hopefully there are at least some of them that can see the logical thread of like, no, it's worth verifying who is voting in the elections. Asking for proof of citizenship isn't a racist act. It's just, hey, you should be a citizen here to vote in the country. That's who gets to vote here. Yeah. You know, like two years ago when we said that Biden opened up the border to flood the country to skew the census numbers so that they could get more allocation of U.S. House of Representatives seats, they could get more electoral college votes, they could eventually get these people to vote. They said that we are conspiracy theorists, we are racist, we are horrible. This is the second vote where they've proven exactly what

their intent is. A month ago, the Republicans put forward a bill that said only American citizens would be counted in the census and only American citizens would be counted when it comes time to allocate U.S. House of Representatives seats, electoral college votes. All the Democrats voted against that. So this is now the second time the Democrats have said they basically want illegal immigrants and non-American citizens voting in our elections, completely and totally disrespecting American citizens and our ability to choose our own government. I've been thinking about it a little bit because the White House had said at one point when they condemned this act, they were saying, oh, well, it's already illegal for illegal immigrants to vote in our elections. But then we talk about the HAVV, the voter verification system, and how many people come up as a non-match. And it makes me think like,

OK, well, if you think it's if you believe the laws reinforced, this shouldn't offend you. And then also you should think it's good because someone who doesn't speak our language, who's trying to get a driver's license or whatever, may not understand that they are being registered to vote and then you're setting up for failure. I mean, it's just it's so illogical that they would be opposed to this unless they're just going to be direct about what they want. My response when they said it's already illegal for them to for noncitizens to vote. Why make the law?

And I said, you're right. Murder is already illegal, too. Why ban guns? Right. Exactly. Why talk about it? Great. There we go.

So we're so so you appeal the NFA and then we won't worry about this one, I guess. I don't know. Do you think it's good that they brought this to the floor anyways, even though it'll die in the Senate? You think, yes. Yeah, it's very good. It's very good to show exactly what would happen if the Democrats get control of the U.S. House, of the if they continue to control the Senate and if they get control of the executive branch and to put them on record. They're on record right here. And I really encourage people to look at the procedural vote because procedure really dictates and a lot of times trumps policy. If you can control procedure, you can control policy. And every time the Democrats put forward pieces of legislation, they vote in lockstep on the

procedural vote. And anytime they go to block anything the Republicans are doing, like closing down the border, stopping inflation, preventing illegals from voting, the Democrats will vote in lockstep to attempt to kill it before it goes on the floor. Yeah, I think it's good, too. And the reason procedure is more valuable is because deciding what gets seen, because people are going to vote yes on whatever they see, if they're going to vote yes at all. So you say they'll get lockstep on the procedure to try and make sure things don't come to

the floor. But then if they do, they're like, well, we'll get lockstep on the procedure to try and make sure things don't come to the floor. But then if they do, they're like, well, we can send like nine of our guys to vote yes on that because we can afford it. So it's a pretty big deal when you vote against the rule vote that your own party puts forward. And you never see Democrats do that. Democrats will always vote in lockstep. If Republicans go to put a bill forward and the House leadership or the House leadership, the minority leadership in this case says don't vote for that, all the Democrats won't vote for it. Same thing when they have the majority. I mean, Pelosi had an iron fist. She made sure everybody was voting for all her rules. You don't see that as much on the Republican side. There's a lot of Republicans, the Freedom

Caucus types, a lot of types that you guys have on this show. They will vote against the procedural vote to jam it up if they don't agree with the bill. They won't vote straight party line. They will vote with their conscience and with their district. You know what? I just saw this really great super chat from Gary Marks. He says, you can't even buy Sudafed cold medicine without ID. Combine that statement with the Democrats' arguments against voter ID. Which is?

Well, you can't expect people to have ideas and know which people them just whichever we can't say. What's the what's the Democrat argument? Disenfranchised poor people. The Democrats are the Democrat argument is that predominantly Latino and black people don't know how to get IDs. How can they get Sudafed? So then think about these jurors, these cities that have banned the sale of Sudafed without

ID and what they're trying to say. Democrats, what are you implying about the minority community when you require them to have IDs to buy cold medicine? Yeah. They're making a very, very interesting statement by doing that. Yeah. I mean, you can't apply logic to it. It's right up your face. They basically want illegals to vote.

Anytime you make a logical argument, they're like, yes, but the border's open and we're trying to flood the zone. Yes, but this is how we'll be voting on this issue. Stop talking about it. Exactly. Because I think that's the other part. There's a lot of we don't want to continue to have to have these conversations. And I think even four years ago, you could have been like, they would have thrown out

racism, right? They would have been like, you're a racist. If you vote for this, this is able. And there wasn't that kind of complaint right now. It was like, this is ridiculous. Even I saw a couple of quotes in the Independent article we had up earlier. The minority leader, when she was asked about Annapolina Luna's bill, was like, it's just a waste of time.

There's a shift in narrative being like, well, it's ridiculous. The White House saying, oh, the SAVE Act isn't necessary. It's going from, and they don't do this on everything, but on some of these issues, it's less about attacking you to make you feel bad and feel scared to vote for it. It's more about like, well, actually, you guys are just wasting time. This is ridiculous. Again, I think it's to kind of distance themselves from the conversation entirely. And to just be dismissive of it. Like, oh, no, this isn't a real thing. That's not really happening. And it's like, well, then why did you guys open the border up? Yeah. Is there are there any other issues? I like what you said before that, like now we have on record who is voting

on this and how they voted. And to your point, the procedural vote might be more indicative than the actual vote. Are there any other issues like this that you would like to see brought before Congress to see how how how representatives shake out before the election? I think that we should continue to vote on HR2, the Secure the Border Act. I think that should be brought up pretty much every week and put people on record because the Democrats right now are in full retreat mode from the Biden agenda. After the debate, the Democrats were all like, they're distancing themselves from Biden after voting in lockstep with the Biden agenda. So it's kind of like, what's the deal guys?? Were you following Biden? Or did you know that he was mentally

declined? And what's your excuse for following him? But I would like to see HR2, the Secure the Border Act, put forward basically every single week to put people on record. Like, we have an invasion on our southern border. What is your excuse for not addressing that? People are dying in my district and throughout the country from fentanyl. What is the excuse for no action and i think they should tie it to funding i think that's worth shutting the government down over saying hey we're not going to fund this this government one penny until the executive branch actually secures the border if you need extra tools here's hr2 it's sitting on schumer's desk sign it tomorrow yeah you're saying your district in washington you guys it's is it coming across the canadian border is it coming across the Canadian

border? Some is coming across the Canadian border as far as illegal immigration goes. I don't think we've seen an uptick from like the fentanyl and narcotics trafficking. That's all coming from south of the border, San Diego area. But basically the I-5 corridor is the fentanyl expressway because Washington, Oregon, and California all have very, very lax drug control measures. They're all sanctuary states as well. So the amount of illegal activity that takes place on that corridor, in particular, the trafficking of fentanyl, it's just off the charts. We've seen a skyrocketing numbers of people dying from fentanyl overdoses in our district. I've done ride alongs of all our different county law enforcement, talked to the DEA

task force, and they say all of it's coming right from across the southern border. When you say secure the border, are you concerned about the Canadian border? No, I am for sure. Because of the CBP1 app, basically the ability to fly into the U.S. directly or fly into Canada and then cross the Canadian border, a lot of people from China, from Southwest Asia, are coming into Canada, to Vancouver in Canada, and then coming across the border that way, because they can basically book their travel through the CBP one app to get access to the country and declare asylum. That's another big thing that HRT closed, it closed the asylum loophole. Because basically, under Trump, you had either remain in Mexico or go to the first safe

third country, you couldn't come directly to America. Biden got rid of that. That's why if you look at the footage from the border, I've been down there twice, the people that are coming into the country illegally, they're not running away from the border patrol, they're running to the border patrol so that they can claim asylum right away. That automatically then gives them a legal status inside the U.S. That's why you hear AOC say, well, it's not illegal to declare asylum because we're basically granting these people a legal status almost immediately. It's like subsidized immigration in some way because you say asylum and they're like, okay, well now you can stay. It's going to make it harder to deport them. Is it like a random guy with no ID comes across the border, a 27 year old guy, speaks Spanish. You don't know who he is, where he's from. And he's like, I'm running away from

the Venezuelan corruption. And you're like, okay, welcome to the United States. They know exactly what to say. And here's a work permit and a social security number. And a lot of them will ditch their IDs. When I was down there in San Diego, we did a whole video on it on my social media. There is just a massive amount of ID cards from all over the world that are getting thrown right on the Mexican side of the border or right on the U.S. side of the border. So these guys will come. They'll ditch their documents.

They'll go. They'll claim asylum and say, hey, I'm being persecuted in my home country because of my political affiliation, my sexual orientation, my race, any, they know all those buzzwords to say. And that gives them a parole status in the country. But if without documentation, without an actual ID card of knowing who they are, it makes it even harder to vet them. But they've already been given a legal status into the United States. They could have a fake name. Oh, 100%. Yeah, the Mexican government is issuing temporary IDs to Chinese nationals.

So we found a lot of Mexican ID cards down there at the border that actually have, you know, you can tell. You can look at the picture and you can look at the name. It's a Chinese person. But they've been given that ID card to give them a temporary status in Mexico as long as they're transiting through Mexico across the border. The Chinese or the Mexicans are doing that? The Mexican government is giving these ID cards,

these temporary IDs to Chinese citizens. I think they pay a couple hundred bucks for it. And as long as they have a limited amount of time they stay in Mexico and they're transiting through to come to the U.S., that gives them a legal status inside Mexico. Those ID cards are useless to them once they get into America, so they ditch them.

There's guys down there who are ranchers along the border that have entire walls full of these ID cards. It's wild how abused the system is in large part because people know they can cross into America. And especially under Joe Biden, they know that the way he's positioned himself and the way his government works, they're going to allow you to stay. Because once you declare asylum and they're like, great, we're going to vet you. Here's some paperwork. Come back later. And maybe some people come back for their appointments or further hearings up, but like probably not. And so you have people who have this claim to asylum, but are not actually going, not completing the asylum process or the asylum dates are years and years out. And it just becomes

this terrible system. And then you'll get, you know, to Democrats, especially being like, well, we need better cameras and more judges. And really, we just need to stop incentivizing people to illegally enter the country. Yeah. None of the Democrat proposals have fixed the asylum loophole. Only H.R. 2 fixes the asylum loophole. And that's something we've got to get our hands around. Otherwise, we're going to continue to have the invasion. Let's jump to the story from The Washington Post. The opinion of Democratic Senator Peter Welch. Biden should withdraw for the good of the country. The stakes this November could not be higher.

He says, I have great respect for President Biden. He saved our country from a tyrant. He's a man of uncommon decency. He cares deeply about our democracy. He has been one of the best presidents of our time. But I, like folks across the country, am worried about November's election. The stakes cannot be higher. We cannot unsee President Biden's disastrous debate performance.

We cannot ignore or dismiss the valid questions raised since that night. Blah, blah, blah. He basically was going to say, for the good of party, you get the idea. I want to stress this as we enter this segment. In 2020, March of 2020, The Atlantic published Stay Alive Joe Biden. Democrats need little more than you, than your corporeal presence. Little more from you than your corporeal presence.

There were questions about whether Biden was too old and whether he was dying, whether the plates in his brain would negatively impact his ability to do the job. And that conversation was four years ago. We have since then seen so many videos. Trudy Nash, shot, but a pressure. It's bad to calf care.

Next, no rest. And whatever it is, he's he's muttered. So we know those of us that have paid attention. So so has Peter Welch. Peter Welch knows this. There is not a reality in which a senator who is more embroiled in politics than we is not aware of these videos and what is afflicting the Democratic Party because it affects everybody down ballot for him to come out now and say, we are shocked to have seen this. He's spitting in your face and he's laughing at you as he does. Democrats right now that are acting like they did not know

they are lying to you because they are evil, especially Senate Democrats who worked Joe Biden for years and years and years. Right. So there are people who were elected around the same time and who are still in office who are saying, like, everything's fine. I don't see a problem. That's just that cannot be true. Right. If I worked here. I mean, I do. I work here every day. And if I stopped being able to speak correctly, not that I'm super articulate as it is right now, everyone in this room would notice. I mean, it's just not possible that his colleagues in the Senate are not aware of what's going on, especially because he's such a public figure. There's that phenomenon where if you hang out with somebody every day and they're getting fat, fatter and fatter, you don't notice it. Whereas people that haven't seen them in a long time are like, whoa, you've gained 15 pounds of fat in your face. So people might that might have been happening with Biden.

But that just indicates that they're stupid and they're not perceptive. Right. And they worked with him intensely for years in the Senate. Then he became the VP and he took some time off. He still hangs around Washington and they're still seeing him. I mean, to your point, yes, maybe if every single day you see someone, you don't notice all of the changes, but they are familiar with him. They knew him at his prime, so to speak, and they have still been exposed to him. They can't tell, you can't tell me they don't see any change at all. That's just lying. I think Peter, I think Peter Welch is interesting because he's the first senator to come out and say you should step down because they're I mean, it's like what nine members of the House who have said something to that

effect at this point. But I don't know how you feel about this. I really don't think Biden is going to step down. I think he's going to continue with both the current presidency and his efforts for reelection. I think we can't let it matter whether Biden stays or not, because these Biden policies are destroying the country. So we can't let the Democrats do a bait and switch right now. Like, look, if the country was on a good track or even just like, I don't know, it's kind of a toss up. The Democrats wouldn't even be talking about switching out their guy, no matter what he said on the debate stage, they would actually have something to run on. The Democrats have nothing to run on right now. They're not going to talk about the border because they're destroying our country through illegal immigration and through

fentanyl. They're not going to talk about the economy. Americans are getting destroyed right now by Bidenomics and by this economy. And the list goes on. We're on the cusp of World War III. The Democrats won't run on any of this. All they're trying to do is fearmonger about Trump, about Project 2025. And they're going to try and use this Biden bait and switch to give them a pass for voting for all these Biden policies. They all need to be held accountable. I mean, my opponent, Peter Welch, all these guys. OK, if you guys knew or you think that Biden is declining, why were you voting for his policies? Oh, and better question is, who's creating these policies? Because it's evident after watching that debate performance, it's not Joe Biden creating these policies. So who is it? That's what Congress

should be trying to get to the bottom of right now. Who is making the key decisions in the Oval Office during the Afghanistan withdrawal, during the Ukraine crisis? Who just authorized American missiles to be shot from Ukraine into Russia, putting us closer to World War Three than we've been since the Cuban Missile Crisis? Because it's clear it wasn't the guy that was on the debate stage. And he's the people he's the person that ostensibly the American people elected to be the commander in chief. So we can't let the Democrats skate with this theater. I don't think it matters who they put forward. We've got to hold them accountable for the damage they've done to the country.

Yeah, I think you're right. I think that they're, again, Timbershop, who we had on last night, was saying we just can't get complacent because it's not just about the presidency. It's about the down ticket races and having a Senate, House, and also, I would argue, state level offices that are willing to, they want to pursue policies that are really for the American people. And I think some of the downside of constantly being in a news cycle that's like, what's going on with Biden? Is he dropping out? Is that there are lots of things happening that we are not paying attention to.

That being said, it is fascinating to see how many people are starting to feel comfortable enough to say like, oh, no, he's not the same. Maybe George Clooney just penned an op-ed where he was like, the man who was at the fundraiser I was at three weeks ago was not the same one as 2020. Sir, why did you not say something three weeks ago? Like, exactly where have you been this whole time, except for the fact that you obviously have some sign of clout as a as a Democratic fundraiser? Yeah, I think they're not getting complacent is key. Because Republicans, we did this in 2022. We said, Oh, it's gonna be a big red wave. Things are trending so badly in the country, people make a different decision. Look, the Democrats know how to do very, very tricky things when it comes to getting enough ballots across the finish line.

That doesn't mean they won the argument politically. That means execution-wise, their machinery was able to get ballots across the finish line to get them to the top of the ticket. And so I fear they're doing that right now behind the scenes. We know they already are. And Republicans are going to get complacent and think, well, this is in the bag. There's no way that Trump and the Republicans lose. So stay focused. I got bad news for everybody. David Joyce is in a safe Republican district. He had no reason to block the subpoena of Merrick Garland. In the past two elections, it's been two to one Republican and Democrat in his district. He is in a safe Republican district.

So he just sold out for no reason. He just burned it all down for no reason. That's why I think you should have a statement ready to go. If you're going to vote against something like this, you should be like, here is my reasoning. I may not agree with it, but you should be prepared to publicly say this is the decision I made before someone has to say, you know, send a reporter or someone in your office to say, why did you vote that way? Again, maybe there's a statement I haven't seen. I checked everyone's X account. Maybe they have something on their website, but typically X is the fastest way to get statements out. And I didn't see anything. You force them to read the bill because if you can't make a statement, it'd be challenging to make a statement on something you didn't read.

That's like me in college in mid-class. I somehow got through the class, but I didn't run for office. I mean, they should read the bills they're voting on. But in this case, you know, if you know the gist of the bill and you're like, well, I'm voting against it. You know, I don't want to hold Merrick Garland responsible for anything. Same deal for Turner. Turner won the 2022 midterm 61 to 38. Same margin as Joyce. These guys are in safe districts.

They just burnt it down because they hate you, because they are scumbags. Pieces of trash. I want to know the rest of their voting record, too. I mean, I don't know anything about them, so it's hard to say, like, what else or why they would be appealing. But again, like, if this is the only way I'm learning about you on sort of a national stage, I really wish that you had posted a statement because I think we should know. Is it a single bill, like a single topic bill? It was a resolution. And it was unilateral authority of Congress, meaning it didn't have to go to the Senate or anything.

It was literally just he has defied Congress. Congress will now fine him money until he complies. And it was for information that could potentially be damaging to Joe Biden, which everyone seems to want. This makes literally no sense. These guys, I'm willing to bet, sabotaged this because Johnson was like, don't let it pass. Did Johnson vote against it, too? He was against it from the get go and was like, look, I'll vote on it if it comes up, but I don't know why we're even doing it. Like Biden's doing bad enough by himself. And the sentiment was typically reported as that if Biden's in this scandal already,

we don't need to make Garland the boogeyman. And if Republicans want to go to Congress and play politics instead of upholding the law, it's exactly why they suck and why everybody, it's why people don't like them. It sounds like they got some bureaucrats that are in safe districts assuming they're going to get reelected because their constituents are heavily.

And because if they did it in a soft red, then the populist base would say later, we're not voting for you. And then the Democrat would win. But you get a couple of guys in safe red. They can betray the voter base. They can betray the rule of law in this country, and they'll probably end up winning anyway. That's sort of because the bureaucracy is tangled with these dudes financially, and they don't want to disrupt the power structure yet. They're waiting until they can do a swap, like an Indiana Jones style. They need the idol before they can take the sack of gold, or they need this bag of sand. So they're like, no, it'll destabilize things too much if we put this through, if we lose our Merrick Garland goes to jail.

That's unprecedented. We can't we can't allow that kind of disruption. Mike Johnson went into the what do you go? He went to the skiff or where did he go with the deep state? He got the briefing and he comes out and he's like, you know, I used to agree with my colleagues on the issues and the excess excesses of the FBI. But, you know, once they brought me in the back room, I kind of understood where they were coming from and now I'm on their side. And it's like, what did they smack you up with a sock full of oranges or something? That was confusing to me. Massey said he was in the skiff with them and Johnson basically lied.

That whole story was a makeup lie. I don't know. Do you think Johnson will get reelected as Speaker? I don't know. Do you have an opinion? It's hard to say. I know you're not there day to day. If you look at how challenging it was for McCarthy to get elected, 20 plus votes or so, I think it's going to be a fight.

Because, look, I mean, I know some Republicans don't like this, but Republicans aren't afraid to have their own internal wars out in public and say, hey, I don't support leadership. I'm going to go against this. That can be frustrating to some people sometimes, I think it's a good thing because we're actually saying, hey, we are elected to represent people back in our districts and we're going to be accountable to them regardless of what our party says. So I think it's key that we take a strong majority and we have a good strong majority of people that are on the new right, populist right, whatever you want to call it, that are actually going to wield power properly and stand up to whether it's Merrick Garland or standing up to the guys in the SCIF.

I mean, I worked in SCIF for most of my military career and some time in the CIA. And it's like, the people that they send to the Hill to give briefings, they're not just analysts that are giving briefings. Those guys are ops officers. They're trained at handling people. They're trained at pushing an agenda, and they have an agenda that they're pushing. And we need to understand that going into it. And Congress's entire job is to hold them accountable. Otherwise, no one else will. And so that's very dangerous when you have people that are just going to listen to whatever is put out in the skiff. Yeah, I'm a bit demoralized after this. I'm not sure how I feel or what's going to get me over

that hill again. But if two deep red Republicans are going to take a dump on the floor of the House, it's going to take a lot to get me back on track to actually want to vote for any of these guys. Look, like I said, what am I going to do? We got Riley Moore and we got Trump. Those are our options here in the Senate race. I don't know if I care about West Virginia Senate race. I'm probably going to abstain. I don't give a crap. But of course, I'm voting for Riley Moore. In fact, I don't even need to. He won. You know, he won the primaries in deep red, and I'm hoping he can do some good. But in terms of the sentiment, wow, the party is weak, ineffective, spineless, jellyfish losers. They are out of touch with the country. They don't know how to lead effectively. The leadership is a bunch of crackpot tyrannical morons like McCarthy

and now Johnson's taking a dump all over the floor. These people are trash. So I'm just like, I mean, look, I know Riley, so I know at least we're good here, but that's not confidence building for what anyone else is supposed to think. It's a tee up.

It's Congress's authority to do this. It is equality under the law and they said no so i'm just i'm over it i guess i can see why it's discouraging but i i feel like it would it makes me want to be more careful and pay more attention to who i'm voting for uh because i think again you have to really know who you're sending and especially if i again i don't know anything about these republicans so it's hard for me to comment on their career or their record or anything like that but hypothetically if if you have a Republican or Democrat who's in a district that knows they're going to get reelected, they've been in office

forever. It would be easy for the voters and for the candidate to become complacent, to take that for granted. And it would mean that you have to stay more on top of what they're doing. It's I think so often we get we get sort, we're so angry with the federal government and then we should be, but we have the option to try and change it. It's so easy to be like, well, I forgot you guys, I'm not going to do anything,

but then it continues on. Like you have to sort of be active to be a part of it. We have to make sure that these guys in Ohio and the guys in California too, I guess, but it's California. So what can you expect from California? But Ohio? Safe red districts? They need to pay a very

serious political price. What they have done is one of the most infuriating things, one of the most egregious violations that I've seen in a long time. I've seen a lot of stuff. Adam Schiff, what a scumbag. But these guys, you know, there's a reason why the lowest level of hell is reserved for traitors and the disloyal. Because Adam Schiff's a scumbag.

But he tells you, you know. You know where he stands. Right. As long as you do your research, you watch the news, you know the man is evil and he's lying to you. But these guys are supposed to represent the rule of law and the opportunity for us to vote in a new group of representatives who are going to actually uphold the law. And like I said, you want to argue Bannon should be in prison? Fine.

That means Merrick Garland should be as well. But they do not uphold the rule of law. So whatever that political price must be, I am sick of the political gamesmanship. Whatever the argument is where, you know, you mentioned in the SAVE Act, these Democrats try to block the SAVE Act. But as soon as it hits the floor, they get permission to vote in favor of it so they can go back to their districts. This must stop the lies, the manipulation.

So whatever the deal was, Johnson going to these guys and saying, just vote to block it. It'll die. And you're going to face no consequences. You will face consequences. We are going to make you pay a political price. I am going to put up billboards in these districts. And I'm thinking maybe it just says, you know, they're corrupt. That's it.

That's all it says. They support corruption. Corrupt individuals. I'll see how much money I can sink into this. And maybe other people will as well. Maybe I make some phone calls and ask some people if they agree. We should just put up and just call them corrupt. They're not going to lose their elections,

but maybe the guy selling hot dogs in the street corner will tell them to F off and won't sell my hot dog. Or say that they don't want people to have IDs in order to vote. In Ohio, that will swing hard. This was not holding Garland in contempt for defying congressional authority. Maybe they should just come on Culture War and explain themselves. I mean, I think that's one of the interesting things about this platform

is that you could talk to them directly about it in a way that a lot of people who are as frustrated as you are would want to hear. They're not going to do that. These guys don't even post on X. But we don't know until we ask. What do they do? A lot of people... They don't even post on X. They're active on X.

They just haven't really stayed. Not in months. No, I looked up their accounts. They barely ever post their their their rep accounts are active. They're both promoting bills where they have a staffer doing it for them. Call Staffner, book them in, have them come to come sit in. I mean, that's what's interesting, right? Like we are in a position where we being people who are on the Internet, we're interested in the Internet.

They're able to sort of find information in ways that traditionally you had to just go through the press secretary. You had to wait to see if Fox News had them on. And for a lot of congressmen, you know, I hate to say it, but they're just not high enough profile to necessarily get an automatic call from from a major outlet. But this is a different era. You have a lot of journalists that would take interviews with people about issues like this when maybe they wouldn't in the past. I do think you got to take a look at how your representatives vote. You have to actually do the hard work of digging through the congressional record, which is challenging. I mean, even if you follow it every day, it's hard to find who voted on what. The resolutions are a little more clear cut. You got to look at who's funding them. That's another big thing, too. It's publicly available,

but you have to dig for it as well, how their individual accounts, their individual reelection or election campaigns are funded, the PACs that support them, because that's going to tell you a lot about how they're going to vote or how they do vote. I also think it says a lot when these people are very, very buttoned up

and they only speak through press releases or they'll only go on Fox or CNN for a canned 30 second hit where they know automatically what the questions are going to be. The people that won't do in-person town halls where they answer any question from anybody, like my opponent, when she does a town hall in the district, you have to submit the question to the staffer ahead of time. It's pre-screened and she communicates through press releases and the candidates and the politicians who won't come on podcasts. There's so many podcasts out there right now. It doesn't even have to be a big one. I try to not say no to a podcast because there's so, so much sound

bitiness out there. When you get a chance to actually explain things and just have discussions with people, I think if you're asking to represent the district or, you know, even bigger than that, a state or the rest of the country, you should be open to long form discussions to show people exactly who you are and how you think. I think people are scared of long form discussions. Oh, they are. For sure. They can handle it. I mean, you should talk about this because you've done so. You have really been active online, but I think it's not as intimidating a platform once you kind of get into it, unless I guess you're really trying to hide something. If you're confident in what you believe in, then it's good. I view it as a good thing. A lot of political consultants will say you should never go on a podcast right now.

And I'm sure a lot of political consultants in D.C. would point out like 10 things I probably done wrong tonight. But I think that's an old arcane way of thinking. I think the younger voter base and then just the way that the country's consuming media now, they want to see that. I think there's a reason why, you know, Tim's done so well, why Joe Rogan has done so well. I think people are social creatures. And I think people are really craving the interaction that you get from podcasts where you can actually get to know somebody and how they think and where they stand. And so I think people who avoid those platforms, I feel like that silence is becoming more and more deafening.

Yeah. It indicates that they're afraid in that either they have secrets and they don't want them to slip out or that they've done, and I guess they've done some horrible things and maybe those would be secrets that they want to keep. Yeah. When you're free and open, man, it's the easiest thing in the world is to sit and talk to people. Yeah, for sure. That's from my experience anyway. And it's interesting because you could be selective about it too.

Like you could still want the Fox interview, the five minutes on whoever show. But there are lots of local podcasts, like I'm sure in whatever state any any politician is in, there is someone who has a local podcast that is specifically interested in the political happenings of their state. And potentially, like your congressman coming on that podcast would really assist them and also give you access more directly to your constituents in a way that being on Fox News doesn't really. There's sort of another step in between national TV and local TV now because you have these Internet based platforms that can be either national or local. International. It's global. This technology, like you want to, if you're a musical artist, you put your stuff on the internet, the entire world sees it. Like you're a

politician, the entire world knows who you are now. I get a lot of young people now at my events that will come up and they've just got their phone and they're like, hey, I have a podcast that has 50 followers or whatever. And you know, I try not to say no because I appreciate the opportunity to reach people that I normally wouldn't reach otherwise. And I think it's awesome. So I don't say no to most podcasts. Let's jump to

this story from the Postmillennial Pew poll finds young Americans are flocking to the Republican Party. Forty seven percent of respondents to the poll in Newsweek reports were either Republican or leaned in that direction. And that's the important distinction here, leaned in that direction, because I assure you, many of them probably don't know what party they are, but their politics align more so in this direction, which is why it's very important that we get rid of the rhinos and bring in people who actually will inspire these young people leaning in this direction so we can win. And personality. You got someone like Donald Trump, who like up against Barack Obama, he probably looks like a crass old man, but up against Joe

Biden, he looks like a young, spry, hilarious comedian. So like they're leaning kids that are like 16, 15. They're just looking for the coolest dude. They're going to lean towards Trump if Biden's the other option. So the Democrats really have got to put their pedal to the metal and get a charismatic candidate in front of the camera immediately or they're going to lose the entire youth base. And so they don't have to do that, right? Like, it's OK if they don't have a charismatic candidate and they use the loop, like, let it go. I want to play a video for you so you can understand why young people are flocking towards Donald Trump. Please take a

listen. That's supposed to be a little bit Democrat territory, but we're leading in Nevada and a waitress came over, beautiful waitress. And I never like talking about physics. She's beautiful inside because you never talk about a person's look ever. You never mentioned the other day. I got very angry. Some man called Chris Christie fat. And I said, sir. And then he said he was a pig. I said, sir, Chris Christie is not a fat pig.

Please remember that he is not a fat pig please take it back and the guy's looking at me like really no we have to defend people you can't call people fat so i said about nine times he is not a fat pig that's supposed to be a little bit different look i'm sorry some like young kid watching that and he's laughing his ass off. Yeah, we would do that joke. It came out when we were, like, 16 or 17. We figured out you could go, I'm not saying you are an idiot. That's not what I'm saying is that you are a freaking idiot, dude.

I'm not saying that. So he's kind of, it's a celebration of that joke. Because we don't say physical. Just beautiful on the inside. Oh, come on, do we? He's we fat pig we've all heard the stories of trump you know and the rumors where it's like you know he hires these beautiful women for these jobs and like in his office you know or whatever and then you know

why he's doing it right see he's not saying that privately you know what he means when he says that and when he says you can't call chris christie fat pig, he just wants to yell fat pig, Chris Christie. You know what I mean? It's really funny. I mean, I would actually love to see an Obama-Trump face-off because Obama has the charisma and sense that he's like cool, I guess. But Trump is very witty. I mean, it is actually funny watching him kind of like go back and forth with someone. So it would be a great face-off.

Not the same for Biden. Biden doesn't have those skills. There's nothing better than Trump off the teleprompter, I think. Just Trump up there freestyling for an hour or so is pretty awesome. Do you think charisma for young people versus older people is different? And then also for Democrats and Republicans, like when you say someone is charismatic or charming, are you looking for different things? I think there's definitely a different way that the two sides communicate. I think that Trump has really tapped into something that he's very funny. He's very witty. I mean, not everybody's going to be, you know, the personality that he is, but he's authentic.

Like, you know where Trump stands, like, you know what he's saying without him even saying it. But I think that authenticity on the Republican side and in particular with younger voters who feel like they've been betrayed by the ruling class that's talking heads on TV like we were just talking about, I think they immediately bite on the authenticity. I mean, somebody reading off a teleprompter in a suit to them, I think regardless of what you're saying, is going to be a major turnoff. But if you're up there and you're just talking, you're presenting who you are, I think you're going to be much more appealing to that younger demographic. I do think the Democrats kind of communicate in a lot of just kind of grievances. They're kind of guilting you into voting.

If you're not voting for them, you're a bad person. You're not compassionate. You might be racist. There was this great CNN segment where Jake Tapper was just annihilating Joe Biden. He's talking about the gaffes. And it was funny to have him actually state verbatim a biden quote because it's garbled nonsense and it was something like you know i not the it was the issue that the work i was uh my age that not the issue and like tapper reads it

like that i'd love to watch that clip that was and i'll yeah i'll pull up it's funny but tapper's reading a prompter he's reading a teleprompter you can tell he's reading a prompter and this is like this is this is the thing like young people can see that you are not a real human being saying things to them yeah they'd rather a guy says the wrong thing and then it's like oh that was wrong sorry i said the wrong thing there and then continue on 100 the uh they i think tapper maybe in that same segment, started referring to these elites in the Democratic Party that have had it with Biden. Flat out, in your face, saying there are elites now. It's like in the Romes, they had the plebs, which were the common man, and then they had the, whatever, the autocrats or the authorities. And now they're just telling you, yeah, there are people that are considered, they consider themselves elites, that they are better than you and that they weren't.

They run the show and decide it's pretty stark that it's right in your face. But this word elite's been getting thrown around for like 20 or 30 years. It's become normalized now. And it's like, bro, they're not elite. Elite means that you're good at what you do. It doesn't mean you're born with money. Doesn't mean that you have connections. I think it can, though, right? It can refer to people who have access to things that you don't,

either because of financial resources or because of social power. I mean, the argument that someone is elite could be skill-based or it could just actually be a way to reference them socially. I think you're right that there is an interesting pivot from someone like Jon Stewart being like the elites as I sit on my national television show, right? Like it's always someone else and it's always someone from the outside saying, you know, they're the elite. And I think that was the interesting difference with Trump. I think there was a level of him being like, yeah, of course I'm elite. I'm a billionaire, but people are abusing the rest of you. And I think I'm going to say something. I know Dave

Chappelle has a bit on that where he's like, he came from inside the house, told us what was going on, then went back into the house. Exactly. Well, I think Trump also, there's definitely that honesty factor where he's just like, yeah, you guys know who I am. I'm a billionaire, but I'm telling you, the rest of these guys are screwing you over. But I think Trump also harkens back to our old elites who actually built this country. Like you talked about the founding fathers, those guys in their time, they were the elites, they were the ruling class, but they felt that they had an obligation to the people of the country. And they felt that their names were directly tied to the country. I personally think that that's how Trump views this as well, because he could have just retired to his golf course, never come back, been a billionaire, but he views his success as being deeply intertwined with America's success. And that's the way our old elites, our old ruling class really used to view their duty to the country. And that went way

off the rails, probably since the end of World War II, or maybe even the establishment of the Federal Reserve, like you talked about. And our elites started basically just, you know, really only looking out for themselves, looting the coffers, abusing their power. And Trump's one of the first guys who came from the inside and said, hey, this is wrong and we've got to stop it. And I'll be the instrument to stop it. It was like the people that are elite are not actually elite. A lot of them are not like Ben Franklin was an elite human being.

Regardless of his social status, he discovered electricity. George Washington, or let's just go with Thomas. I don't know actually a lot about George Washington's personal life, but Thomas Jefferson could play music. He was a writer. George Washington married to Martha. Wanted to go back to Mount Vernon. Is that him? Wouldn't he?

He was like 6'6", and this brilliant charismatic warrior. So he was like an elite commander. Someone known for his leadership skills, and he was working from a really young age, surveying a lot of the country. I mean, he's an interesting person. So like the people in the elite positions were actually elite humans but now we've got people in elite positions like joe biden that guy has elevated himself to that level uh career-wise and it's like whoa how why was he

even on stage with obama in 08 it was like a pity i thought he was like a pity party guy like let's just put this old this because democrats won't outright vote for a black man. And I'm not exaggerating. The political strategy, which was widely acknowledged at the time, was that Barack Obama as a black man needed an old white man to convince a lot of the older Democrats to vote Democrat. Joe Biden was like, you won't believe how old I am. I can do this. That's right. I'm old. I'm white. I'm here. They said Barack will do better with the with skewing younger, but older Democrats won't vote for a black man. So you need Joe Biden to be that face of the traditional America white old president. They do say that with Kamala Harris, it's a similar strategy.

Joe Biden is what they're pitching towards Democrats. And then they're hoping the progressive younger people will go for, you know, I think you see this with the Republicans, too. And they were like, Trump must have a female VP. It's like, no, he does not need a female VP. I mean, if she if there's a lady VP who's good and some for some actual tangible reason other than the fact that she has a uterus, then fine. But there is this this identity politics that comes into it. They're like to balance out the rest of the ticket. We have to cover up for whatever fault you have, whatever, whatever. Like if you're if you're Joe Biden and you're old and white, then we need someone who is female and diverse and maybe younger.

Trick people into voting. If we had actual elite people in power, people that were of elite minds, I think that would send shockwaves of fear through the imperial strategists that are trying to control the country through bureaucracy, with this federal spy club that they've got going you ever do you know what myers-bragg personality tests are uh you know they have the letters the intj or whatever i can't remember what it was but i'll look it up uh there are there's a study done that the person there's a certain personality type that congregates in dc and it's the same personality type that it's very uncommon uh and it's what hillary clinton is i think it's intj i'll double check let's find out but like whether it's very uncommon. And it's what Hillary Clinton is. I think it's INTJ.

I'll double check. Let's find out. But like, whether it's elite in terms of like skill or IQ or something without, you know, maybe, but also, I think some of those people wouldn't want to go into politics, they would be like, I've got something better to do. I mean, like, Elon Musk is making no plans to run for governor of California, as far as I can tell. And he's, you know, he I would consider him a pretty elite person in terms of skill. Yeah, he is elite. But your hands get bound when you get into the political system. I mean, look at Trump.

God, look what happened to that guy. Got dragged through the coals. Who I was thinking of, Schwarzenegger, who an elite human being across the board. I don't know about his, obviously he's a brilliant, smart guy, but he's super, super famous. A brilliant, smart guy. A brilliant, smart guy. Just like a brilliant

dumb guy. Well, I was just assuming he was smart because he was governor, but that doesn't, you don't have to be smart to be governor. So maybe he's of average intellect. I really don't know much about Arnold's smarts. He's never like wowed me with his math theorems or anything, but very charismatic, hardworking, devoted elite man. I want to play this clip. CNN's Jake Tapper taking down Joe Biden. Ladies and gentlemen, you're going to play this clip. CNN's Jake Tapper taking down Joe Biden. Ladies and gentlemen, you're going to love this one. In reality, 72 percent of voters say that they believe President Biden is too old. That's according to CNN's most recent polling. Voters have been saying this for quite a long time.

The reality is that the Democratic elites are mostly late to acknowledge these age and ability issues. I want to pause real quick. Did you notice he's reading a prompter? When he makes those weird pauses, it's because the prompter isn't moving fast enough. So you'll see this a lot with cable presenters when they do weird things like exaggerating the way they're talking for no reason. But now I'll play the rest just so you you get that point. The rest of the public. The elites have been forced to reckon with it after the debate just 11 days ago. Look at my career.

I've not had many of those nights. It was a terrible night, and I really regret it happened. But the fact of the matter is, how can you assure you're going to be on, you know, faith that I can intervene on your way to go to work tomorrow? Age, age wasn't, you know, the idea that I'm too old. The fact of the matter is, how can you assure you're going to be out on, you know, on your way to go, you know, work tomorrow? Age, age wasn't, you know, the idea that I'm too old. Keep in mind, that soundbite is supposed to be reassuring to those Democratic supporters who have gone wobbly. Did you ever watch the debate afterwards? I don't think I did, no.

He doesn't think he did. He called into a couple of black radio stations where he said, among other things, this. By the way, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first vice president, first black woman, served with the black president. I'm proud to be the first black woman in the Supreme Court. There's just so much that we can do because together we,'s nothing look this is the united states america the first he's proud to be the the first black woman and even then we later found out later from the radio host that the biden campaign had given her a list of questions to ask president biden that is a huge no-no in journalism and the host was

fired for it, but it remains quite telling that in the Biden campaign's efforts to show that the president has not missed a step, his campaign felt the need to feed questions to the hosts for a call-in radio interview. And the president still, even then, failed to deliver in many of his answers. Now, many elected Democrats are expressing concern about this answer, too, although it was quite coherent. George Stephanopoulos asking him how he would feel if he ultimately loses to Donald Trump, which polls have suggested he will. I feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do. That's what this is about. As long as he gave it his all and did the goodest jobs I know I can do. That's what this is about.

As long as he gave it his all and did the goodest job he could do, that's what it's all about, is it? Apparently it is. When CNN runs through segments that are old. Okay, so like, wasn't the first black woman comment from before, was it from before the debate? No, it was after. It was after the debate.

This was part of his recovery, amazingly enough where where is jake tapper to go through i don't know like all of the cheap fakes they accused of accused us of posting all these videos it's only now that cnn is hopping on board with this i'll take it i guess but still i mean jake tapper's like fake outrage that he has there it's like hey man where was the outrage when 13 american soldiers got killed during the af withdrawal, when three more got killed defending the border of Iraq, Syria in Jordan under this commander in chief, when we decided that we were going to get us into essentially World War Three with this disastrous policy in Ukraine. I mean, the things that a commander in chief should be held accountable for, it's like crickets. But then all

of a sudden he has a bad debate and he stutters through some things and says some goofy stuff. Now the Democrats are super outraged and now Jake Tapper is really ready to hold them accountable. It's all just so fake. It's disgusting. Right. Was Tapper even outraged when Joe Biden said, no, American soldiers have died on my watch? Exactly. That was even closer. I mean, the other fascinating thing to me here is that Biden can't get any questions that were teed up to him correctly. And it's gotten so bad that George Stephanopoulos, who did the post-debate interview, I don't know if you guys saw this, but TMZ had this article.

Someone stopped him on the street and was like, do you think Biden should run again? And George Stephanopoulos was like, no. And then later had to be like, oh, I shouldn't have talked about it publicly. But you just sat down with this guy and you said that he can't do this. I mean, it's all falling apart, but it's not new information. I mean, the debate was was bad, but it it was already evidence that was out there. It wasn't like I mean, I know some people argue Joe Biden's got really bad in the last six months, but he was always seeming to have some kind of cognitive verbal issue. I mean, the gaffes were run-of-the-mill.

It would happen all the time. A lifelong stutter. A lifelong stutter. I'm so sorry I criticized that. How could I? You know what? The Afghanistan surrender and the lack of outrage, the route that commenced as a result of that rapid surrender

and attempted pullout, had it been like 700 American soldiers got killed, would there be outrage? If it was like... There was outrage that 13 out. Had it been like 700 American soldiers got killed, would there be outrage? If it was like there was outrage that 13 did some outrage, but not really outrage. There was some mumbling and grumbling and like, where is Democrats don't care? What if there was 6000 men slaughtered, American men taken hostage? What if there are beheadings, American soldiers beheaded on camera, then would there be outrage? What does it take? How much death does it take to get people to wake up? The issue, Ian, is that

if that were to happen, the progressive left would be celebrating in the streets. And the Democrats would have to contend with, do we put out a message that will cost us those votes? I am not exaggerating. When Hamas launched the attack on October 7th, we saw protesters in Times Square celebrating, and

Democrats didn't know which direction to go with it. Do we sacrifice the little youth vote we have, or how old are they? Democrats didn't know which direction to go with it. Do we do we sacrifice the little youth vote we have or how old they didn't they didn't know because they're trying not to alienate voters. And I mean, up to that point, we had lost nearly 3000 Americans in Afghanistan. We lost another 5000 in Iraq and people barely bat an eye because you had regime media like CNN, who benefits heavily from the established order and the ruling class in Washington, D.C., running cover for the entire nonsense up until Trump comes into office and Trump says, I want to end these wars.

The next thing you know, Trump is colluding with the Russians who are putting bounties on the heads of American soldiers, completely made up. They made the entire thing up and admitted it later on. But that's the way these people like CNN will run cover for the worst abuses of the U.S. government, especially with Democrats in control or establishment Republicans, the military industrial complex, basically just the establishment in Washington, D.C. These guys are completely disingenuous. Luckily, I think CNN is dying because they've just been lying for so long. And the same thing with most mainstream media.

Well, I mean, that was clear. That that was another he's trying to bring it back that was another big story that we didn't have enough time to get into but we'll we'll we'll round off the segment with cnn's laying tons of people off their their ratings are in the gutter real shame yeah hey they they they chose this yeah zucker came in and said let's take the cnn brand of news and turn it into reality tv garbage that hates donald and alienate half the country. His pitch was basically we're losing ratings anyway. Let's isolate a market and capture it. And they went for resistance, far left lunatics. And now they have one of the highest demographics in terms of their average viewer. And nobody wants to watch because they're not a news network anymore do you think their ratings would have been better if trump had served a second term like got gotten into the white house in 2020 because in some ways it would give them more to be mad about i mean that's almost one of the things that i wonder about that they they they have lost ratings under biden that's true i mean their ratings were way up under trump but

the issue is that we're at a point now where young people are moving towards Trump for a variety of reasons. The economy is bad. Biden screwed things up and now people are sick of it. So while they certainly could retain if Trump was president. They blame him for everything. And so they maintain that audience now. Now they're screwed because Biden got in. That's what they begged for. Burned everything down inflation is through the roof costs are through the roof and they're complaining and this is the anti-trump network yeah who's now going to tune in and be like let me hear there's no trump anymore

and the people who are watching because hated trump left and now they're going to try and come back and be like but biden's bad and people are going to be like i don't watch this and they got caught lying so many times i mean covid they just got caught lying through their teeth and they they haven't even made amends for it the joe rogan yeah exactly where he looked sickly like they desaturated whatever i don't know what they did but they were accused of like making him look green he doctored the photo for sure ivermectin or whatever there's a video of him saying that he was getting prescribed this and they made him look sickly and then when he had on, what did he have, like Fareed Zakaria? And he called him out and he's like,

oh yeah, so CNN doesn't deserve to ever come back. I think that using the word rating, it's kind of, it's a sigh up because when you give something, when you rate something, you're like, oh, how good is that? I'd give that a 10 out of 10. It's awesome.

Not about how many people see the thing. There could be a hundred million people watch the show I'd give that a 10 out of 10. It's awesome. Not about how many people see the thing. There could be 100 million people watch the show and all give it a 1 out of 10 because they rate it a terrible, terrible. People hate watching CNN. Yeah, exactly. They have high ratings because a lot of people watch, but they're actually rated very poorly because the people can't stand watching it and they're afraid. They don't come out of it with a good feeling. The challenge is that CNN may die, but MSNBC lives on, right? I mean, there are more mainstream progressive or left-leaning news outlets than there are conservative or, you know, God forbid, we just have a centrist news platform that just gives information of the same size that bring in the same revenue and stuff like that. And I do think

ultimately, there can never be an exact competition because the internet has become so prevalent and the alternative. I mean, I don't want to say alternative, like podcasting is such a normal thing. Or, you know, having a YouTube based show or having Rumble or whatever else like these alternative ways of getting news out there are making it so that CNN, MSNBC, Fox News all have to compete with that. They all have started cultivating YouTube channels and putting out clips so that they can get the viewership that's never going to be on the TV. They don't even have cable subscriptions. CNN eight years ago should have started shows like this. Yeah.

And they should have said, we put the money in and we see where it goes. I actually think. Sorry. Go ahead. and they should have said we put the money in and we see where it goes i actually think sorry go ahead oh it's this mockingbird media out things where the cia started this operation mockingbird where they wanted to manipulate the the public through meds and control the mass media vietnam there was a lot of outrage during vietnam with the caskets coming back the american bodies it was like enough we we embedded journalists we saw how horrible it was and we stopped it as a society and they were like we can't let that happen again whoever Whoever this, this, uh, Imperial strategist, the Imperial, um, five eyes spy club controls

the mockingbird media. They were like, we got to take control of this media. And now what's happening is the media is competing with its own suffering. You can't, it's not that like Rogan's so good. Let's be like, that is like, we are just now it has become apparent how awful we are as a, as a, as a structure and holes are appearing within their system and spurting out the lifeblood of what they needed. Well, let me try and simplify this. The people who used to run the deep state had kids.

Those kids didn't start the deep state, the liberal economic order, but they did see their parents maintain it. So they kind of understood how to maintain it then they had kids and those kids saw their parents maintaining a thing but never building it and they don't exactly know the intricacies so we're in the third generation of the liberal economic order and holes have begun to appear and like the cartoon where the guy's trying to plug the holes in the ship they don't know how to make it from stop make it stop collapsing yeah exactly so the liberal economic order is crumbling call Call it the apocalypse, at least in the Bible. This great awakening, this unveiling. It means revelation.

It means to take away the blinder or something. I think apo means to take away and calypse is like a veil, means the veil, sort of remove the veil. Yeah, DMT, talk about seeing through the veil and stuff. We're going to go to super chats. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button? One like equals one hashtag free Bannon. I am really pissed off at the Garland thing because Bannon's

in prison right now and he shouldn't be. Or at the very least, Garland should be. But head over to TimCast.com. Click join us. Become a member to watch that members only uncensored call-in show where you as members will actually join us and we hope to see you there. It's also as a member, you are supporting the show,

making it all possible. I'm going to reach out to my agent and my lawyer to take a look at what kind of billboards we can run in these districts. And I thought about it, and I'm thinking something like, Mike Turner does not support law enforcement. I think that would be a good one,

maybe for both of them, because they will not support the enforcement of the law and how they a good one, maybe for both of them, because they will not support the enforcement of the law and, you know, how they tried to uphold it, the equality under the law. Let him deal with it. I don't know what it means or what it'll do, but it'll sure feel good to say, right? Other than that, become a member to support our work if you like what we do, and I will read your superchats.

C.T. Hampe says, I live in a small town near Milwaukee, Wisconsin. My dad and kids in town are raising donations to update our town's small skate park for the first time in 20 years. Go fund me. Hartford Skate Park Expansion. Best of luck, sir. We've got some news here on our front. I talked with the city of Martinsburg about the skate park expansion project, and they have not yet secured land. But should they, and they're going to begin fundraising, we have already made our pledge to them,

six figures to help support this skate park expansion in the area. I told the guy at the city, we want to make a world-class facility that attracts people from all over the place to come and hang out here if you guys are okay with that. And he said, absolutely. So that's exciting news. And we're going to talk to some big industry partners,

see if we can make a big park out here as well. But best of luck to you guys. CT Hampe. All right. Token Black Guy says, howdy, people. If Binden stepped down, wouldn't there be an issue giving away the direct donations he received? I believe the PAC donations could be used for any candidate, but I don't think the direct donations work the same. You are correct.

Is that your understanding? That's my understanding too. I think he could give them to another candidate. No, maybe it's a refund, I think. I think they can only stay with the Biden-Harris ticket, so like she could get it. Well, what I heard is that Harris could not take it. Really? Yeah. And it might depend on

some of the classifications of the donations too. Yeah. But the money stopped. That was the latest you see that? There was a report where it said the money has stopped flowing. I have gotten so many ads from Joe Biden asking me to give him money. And I really think that he should, at least for me, save your money. I don't think it's going to happen. I'll donate. Yeah.

Well, we are riding with Biden. I forgot. Never mind. We don't want him. We don't want to leave. Look, our most authentic president who's just being himself no matter who's looking at him. You can't be a primary election denier. That's right.

All right. Hunter's Lab says, I've heard from a detective in Illinois that said every state cop here has to report for duty in Chicago during the DNC. They think there will be massive riots and they may try to burn the city. Yes. That's why we are going to the RNC and we will not be at the DNC. Sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, we are going to the RNC and we will not be at the DNC. Well, there was. Sorry, go ahead. I was going to say, we're going to Milwaukee.

I'm not worried about that cheese and, you know, whatever else. And there was that protest that like sued to be able to like be inside the safety zone and they got struck down. They're not going to be able to do that. I mean, I think I think the RNC is going to be very boring in comparison to the DNC. Not that it won't be a great time. A big Trump rally. The other side's going to be chaos.

Yeah. comparison to the dnc not that it won't be a great time a big trump rally the other side's chaos yeah uh in 2016 at the conventions we all thought the rnc was going to be a massive protest and uh it wasn't with trump we were like it's going to get crazy and then it didn't i think it was where was that was that in cleveland and then ohio for 2016 yeah where was the dnc charlotte let me look because because the Because the DNC was nuts. Thousands of people were trying to tear down the barricades. They jumped over the walls and started running full speed to the convention. I was like, wow, because they nuked Bernie Sanders. Is this year the DNC expected to be Biden, Harris?

Are they going to go? Oh, yeah. And then other candidates that want to... It's going to be spicy. Yeah, Cleveland, Ohio for the RNC in 2016. I'll look for the Democrat now. I think it was Charlotte. I think so, too. I was funny. I met Zach Braff

when I was there. What about Zach? I met him. Scrubs? Oh, man. Scrubs was one of my favorite shows. Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. It was in Philadelphia? From July 25th to July 28th in 2016. Really? That's what the internet is on. Anything's going to be crazy in Philly. What year am I thinking about? Maybe I was in... No, wait, wait.

Am I thinking of 2012, maybe? I'll look. Might be 2012. Yeah, it was Philadelphia, wasn't it? Yes, you are thinking of 2012. Did you go to 2012? It was Charlotte, 2012. Ah, you see. Did you do that one? Yeah, of course. And then 2020 was... That's where I met Zach Braff. It was 2012. And then DNC in

2020 was virtual, which was also hilarious. But I met, I saw him walking down the street, and I was like, Zach, can I get a picture? And he was like, sure. And we took a picture, and then I shook his hand. So great, man. Scrubs is amazing. One of the best shows ever. Groundbreaking.

John C. Reilly. Wait, no, no. John McGinley. John C. McGinley. Yeah, who's Calhoun? I don't know that. They just mixed up. Are you a Scrubs fan?

No. John McGinley. Great show. It's a good show, yeah. They wove music in. Late 90s, early 2000s. Faison, Donald Faison was in it. When you're not campaigning or raising your children.

And of course, you all know that I'm a huge fan of Men at Work. So the episode where Colin Hay was playing Overkill on the street playing the guitar. And then periodically the song would kick back up. And I love the scene where he's hiding in the closet. And he just looks at he looks at colin hayes like just keep it down and that's when he hits the high point of overkill and he starts belting it's a good show yeah yeah it's a great song all right raymond g maga stanley jr says tim you've been on one today with your videos i second the calling out of terrible evil

and useless people no matter what side they claim to fight for and so this was basically like you know you know, I could grab a spicy headline and do a segment monologuing about the news and Joe Biden, this, that, or otherwise. But the Krasensteins, they're evil people. And I did a 25-minute long breakdown of how I define evil, why I think they are evil, what I think evil is. The simple version is that there is entropy and there's negative entropy in the world. Life seems to try to organize things into complex systems, and the destruction of that is anti-life. It opposes the function of life. So for people whose end goal is self-empowerment to the destruction, which would result in more entropy in the destruction of civilization and complex systems. That, to me, is what evil is. And it can be simplified by the Krasenstein's

intentionally lie to people, pull things out of context and misrepresent things to trick people into doing things that hurt them. They've been accused in the past of of harming innocent people. They were raided by the by the feds a long time ago, and they were never accused of any crimes or anything but these are guys who go on x and it's just one example because he tweeted something like trump's a convicted felon and how could we have come to this point challenging a man to a golf game blah blah blah and i and i said you're evil because a few things in there that are important pieces of context one biden challenged trump to a golf game first a little while ago then at the debate then

trump countered with okay i'll challenge you to a golf game for a million bucks. And then the Krasensteins are like, oh, how dare you? Biden did it first. But that's omitted from these people to trick those who are low information or ignorant or not smart enough to fend for themselves so that their resources can be extracted from them. And it causes them harm in the long run. If society functions in that way over a long period of time, it will break down and it will die. That is anti-life. It defies what life does. So I believe that properly informing people and giving them information so they can live a functional, better life, a rising tide lifts all ships. And then humans can expand.

So he's an evil guy. And I pulled up a post where he explicitly stated his intention was to play this it's a social engineering manipulation tactic where uh you state something as an aside so that it becomes an afterthought not part of the actual argument so that no argument can be made so you see this in media all the time where they say donald trump comma a convicted felon comma was recently seen buying tickets to a movie theater and you're like oh the convicted felon thing has nothing to do with the story. There's no argument, no context, no information. But they put these things in stories as a way to make sure the idea sticks outside of

that argument. So another way to explain it is if you go to someone and say, did you know Trump is a felon who did a bad thing? They'll ask you, explain yourself. What do you mean by that? But if you say, did you know Donald Trump was going to the store to buy a candy bar? And when he went there, someone yelled, you're a convicted felon. And we know he is. But the candy bar was actually three dollars. Can you

believe it was three dollars? There's no conversation about him being a felon. You're angry. This is what he's doing. This is what these Democrat pundits do. They omit the context of all of these claims and all of these charges. Harry Sisson does it. They are evil people. If they were to run cleanly through the political system, you'd have Soviet stock collapse in 10 years.

The Republican Party being as effective as it is, I think we're much closer to that now than ever. There's a reason why the Soviet Union only lasted 69 years. There's a reason why Rome lasted, what,

like a couple thousand? What was Rome? A thousand something years? A thousand years. A thousand years. And then a reason why Rome lasted, what, like a couple thousand? What was Rome? A thousand something years? A thousand years. A thousand years. And then eventually it began to decay, but it was strong early on, the Roman Republic at least, and then it turns into the empire. The United States has been around for several hundred years, and there's a reason for it. Decentralized meritocratic systems with a light nucleus. Over time, power coalesces, and then eventually you get crackpots who try to extract power and burn the ship down. You look at the end history of

Rome, and that's what happens. People begin to just extract for themselves, and it works. My take on Ed and Brian Krasenstein is that I think people are like pallets, and that they can do evil and good, and that if that cycle of evil is

replicated, if a human continues it over and over, you might say that person is evil, even though what's more accurate is that person commits evil and has done it 78% of the time. And if the evil acts perpetuate, then we're in dire straits. But those people can be turned and do good also. So I try not to alienate people by putting them in boxes of perception. Yeah, but after all this time, you know what I mean? It's so the point I'm making is when they when these guys post Donald Trump is a convicted felon and I can't believe anyone would consider voting for a convicted felon. How dare he challenge Biden to a golf game?

Like there's so much information missing from that that a person would need to be informed upon to actually improve their lives. And they're doing it intentionally. He knows he's he tweeted he was intentionally doing it like a manipulation tactic to just push people. He said, we're going to keep doing this and hammering it over and over again, knowing that the context is completely different, that the Trump never faced due process for any secondary crimes. He knows all of this

because he's evil. He's an evil guy. In 2018, the feds raided their home and seized half a million dollars in cash because their website was running ads, pushing people to Ponzi schemes and downloading viruses, according to the feds, that resulted in their bank accounts being drained. Now, I could play this game, too, and I could say Brian and Ed Krasenstein, the guys who were raided by the feds for fraud and for scamming people and destroying their lives and hurting innocent people, accused Donald Trump of impropriety by challenging Biden to a golf game. But does that really provide you with enough context as to who these guys are and what really happened? They were never charged with crimes. They were never arrested. That's important context I think people should know.

The feds made the accusation, but there was never any due process. But how about it? How about we play that game? And in every instance, I say this, tit for tat, is it the game you want to play, Krasensteins? In any instance you want to play this game, as you've stated you will, I will always preface with you were raided by the feds because you hurt innocent people. Their lives were destroyed, their money was stolen, and it's your fault. You know, my question is, can you use that manipulation tactic where you're seeding the premise into the question or into the statement where it's inarguable for good? Can you do that for good? Because I think it's just a solid manipulation tactic. I think you can do it for good. If people are in crazy evil state and you

like put good things in as a supposition that are unquestionable? The ends do not justify the means because you never meet the ends. If you decide that lying and manipulating and controlling people is the path towards your dream vision of what society should be, then you are the evil people. But if you just let the evil go by without trying to manipulate it into good. I believe that there needs to be some kind of light central nucleus that acts as some kind of restrictive force. But for the most part, you want a widely decentralized meritocratic system. So you look at the United States, a largely decentralized meritocratic system for a long period of time. But power does coalesce over a long period of time.

You get the centralization of federal authorities and it leads to a point where the machine just breaks. So there's a reason why the United States lasted longer than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a hyper centralized machine state that could not function properly. And then it just collapses on itself. It can't work. Communism can't work. Authoritarianism cannot work. They keep trying it over and over again. It doesn't work. However, you look at capitalist systems and the the the the coalescing of power into monopolies and government authority. Eventually it will break down. You get revolutions, you get social disorder and collapse. But again, to your point, if you think lying to someone to manipulate their behavior into doing something that you think is good, is good, you're evil. Yeah, but not lying. If it's just truly what i believe if it's like say all

these people think that cutting up other humans is the right way to do it and i'm like well the as we know that being kind to people is the basis of of goodness and what we all want you should do these things and then they don't even question that kindness is the basis of what we want these are two different points you said to anchor an idea removed from its context to manipulate them into doing good things. That's evil. But what is good is to do kindness. Because you are asserting your singular worldview over the decentralization of the system. No one human knows what the entirety of humanity needs. Is it like incrementally it's okay once in a while it's okay to do that but not to do it promiscuously? I don't think it's ever okay. I think sometimes we naturally may not include all relevant context because we just don't know.

That's a natural tendency, sure. But the idea that you would purposefully exclude information to force, to trick someone into thinking the wrong thing, that's evil. You are corrupting the system. You go to a person and you say, A plus B equals C. That's the point. That B is very important. It matters for a lot of reasons. And then you get these people who say, A equals C. And you're like, okay, that may be a true conclusion at some point.

The problem, B was peanuts and they were allergic to peanuts. And so then they're like, you say, in order to get to this place, you need only walk from here to here. And what you don't tell them is that they're walking through quicksand. You omit the context because you think it's better that this person does something that you want them to do without them knowing. No, people need accurate information. This is the point of journalism. It was supposed to be that you a well-informed population could run their country very well. And if someone says, I don't want to get, say, my doctor says that I'm high risk of Guillain-Barre syndrome, I should not be required to get this vaccine.

Well, these people would lie to you because it's better that the entirety of society, so say I, do this one thing. And then what happens? People get hurt because people need to get sound advice that fits their lives at a singular level. And then you worry about the rest. But we should read more super chats. All right. Jacob Pauly says, Tim and crew, why should conservatives even stand by the law if the left doesn't? Is it just too late? And should we say, screw it, let's play ball. I don't see any resolution here. I'm a classical lib, but I'm just done, man. The Constitution is dead. Well, let me just make this really quick and then throw it to you, Ian.

Because if you do, they won. Yeah. That is what they want you to do. Yep. They are hoping the law ceases to exist so that they can recreate it. The moment we stop believing in this system and the the Constitution, is the moment they say, finally, we've gotten their confidence broken. That's what I'm worried about with everything they're doing, the point at which people on the right say, there is no system. And that's why I'm

extremely angry and concerned about these Republicans who did not hold Garland in contempt because they just did it. That's a big part of what the left wants you to do, too. They want you to say, well, it's all rigged anyway, so I'm not going to vote. Or maybe you're going to, you know, Fed post on the internet or you're going to do something stupid. Then they can throw the full weight of the system against you. So don't fall for the psyop. If they already had control and they had already won, all their propaganda wouldn't be necessary. I see like the people in the government have to execute righteous lawfare. That's that's their purpose. But the private sector is enabled to disobey. This is called civil disobedience.

And if the system has gone awry, we have no choice other than to disobey the evil, corrupt system. But that's the independent. That's the private sector does that within the government. They're not supposed to do that. They have to remain lawful. They're supposed to. Well, I'll just break. This is like I think everything we're seeing with Biden and the chaos and Trump and all that. The system is broken and we are desperately holding the strands together, but it's it's busted. That's it. Democrats have completely broken it. They

keep screaming that it's Trump. But I'm telling you, like anybody who takes five minutes to do a Google search realizes, hey, they've been lying the whole time. The easiest way to explain this to your family members when they don't believe you, they're like, no, it's the Republicans who are lying. It's like who who who in the family told you that Joe Biden was ill? Was it me? And how long ago did I tell you this? And you didn't believe me. And then you watch the debate and you were surprised to learn that the media had lied to you, that Democrats had lied to you, the commercials, all of these things. They were all lying the whole time. And I was the one telling you the truth. Now, do you believe me? Maybe now people might be like. Yeah, maybe what's going on, you know, I don't know. It'll be hard for some people because it's painful to realize that they were on the wrong side,

that they were bad guys. But I tell you, you look at what these Democrats are doing and Joe Biden is the proof. You need not see like you need not get into great detail. They lied to you the whole time. They are evil. They are lying and they are shattering this machine. They're breaking this country on purpose. Hopefully Trump wins. Hopefully we can see some some remedy. Hopefully these guys in Ohio and California, these Republicans, they face some kind of political penalty at home. Maybe that means they lose donors. I don't know.

But we gotta right the ship. Alright, let's grab some more. Let's grab some more superchats. Next, The Slayer says, I was following Tim on X today. Seems like he woke up and chose violence. LOL. I don't know which tweet you're referring to. Maybe. You wake up feeling spicy today. I don't know which tweet you're referring to. Maybe.

You wake up feeling spicy today? No, I always tweet shenanigans. I saw you tweet at like 5 in the morning a couple days ago. No. Yeah, it was like 5 a.m. No, I don't think so. Maybe you didn't get sleep. Check the records. 5 a.m., I don't know about that.

I swear, because I was still awake. And I was like, what is he tweeting this early? Oh, I mean, we were in Vegas. Oh, there it is. Right. So it's not. Yeah, it was like 8. Gotcha.

8 something. Yeah. I don't know. It was like 2 a.m. your time. 2 a.m.? 1 a.m. or something, yeah. No, because we went to bed at 10 p.m. in Vegas. I'll have to review it then.

IDGAF.com says, Tim, if you get any pushback for calling OnlyFans models prostitutes, you are etymologically correct. Porné graphé, prostitute writings. Graphès, how do you pronounce it in French? Is also the origin of graphene.

There's a joke in there somewhere. What? No way. Is it really? Yeah, graph. Right? You know, photograph. I wish I knew everything about graphene, but... Come on, dude. What does that mean, graph?

You've got time to study up. What does that word mean? Probably means something related to visual representation. Yeah, like a graph is what you draw on in math. Telegraph? Photograph? Pornograph? Huh.

Mm-hmm. All right. Graph, photograph, pornograph. Hmm. Hmm. All right. NYBSFP says Bannon and the other, Navarro, turned themselves in. Maybe they should have ignored the Dems like Garland is ignoring them. I have less pity for them than I would have otherwise. No, it's because the DOJ went after them

and the DOJ did not go after Garland. There was no law enforcement to go and arrest Garland. They wouldn't do it. Graph apparently is a Greek suffix meaning to scratch, to scrape, to graze. Not to disrupt the super chat here. Probably a reference. Is there expanded etymology on that one? Let me look.

Because I bet it's like you would draw it. You know what I mean? Yeah. That's how pornography was probably originally drawn art. Writings. And photograph is photo, light, etching. You know what I mean? Yeah.

And to write, I mean, you'd be scratching something on people. There's also, it says, any of the possible forms of a grapheme with an M. I don't know what that is. I keep hearing good things about Ian's grapheme dream. Oh, I want to try some. I still haven't. Okay. Maybe take a bag if we got some here. It's Loicidity.

I think we have a bag. It's our Loicidity coffee. So try it. Ian's Graphene Dream. I think it's gasbrew.com. What are the benefits of Loicidity coffee? Well, if you ever get stomach nausea, you'll notice less of that from my anecdotal experience. I can handle a lot more in my throat.

It's great. Cool. All right. Citizen Seven said, the same people that called voter ID racist are the same people that wanted all of us to walk around with vaccine passports. That's right. And I have questions about why they're requiring vaccines for cold medicine when they know that will disproportionately affect minorities. What are they trying to say about that?

Huh? Racists. Viperman says, put this toward the billboards targeting the rhinos. No, that will disproportionately affect minorities. What are they trying to say about that? Huh? Racists. Viperman says, put this toward the billboards targeting the rhinos. Well, again, guys, like I got to call my lawyer first. And so everyone gets all excited. And I'm like, I'm going to call my lawyer. And there's going to be like, here are the laws limiting what you can do.

And it's like, okay, you know, then maybe we'll do something. But I do think a couple of billboards in each district would be cathartic. Mike Williams says, Buy a billboard truck that you could reuse whenever you want. That's a good idea. I like the idea of billboards, though, like right in downtown, just big ones. And in Ohio, in these districts, it probably wouldn't be that expensive. You've got to find, like, a high-trafficked area.

It might be, like, $3,000 for the month in these smaller areas, you know? You know, we'll see. And then, man, that'll be awkward for him, I guess. Yeah. Like, how do you answer that? Oh, there's this guy, he's mad at me because something. It's like, well, what's going on? What's with this billboard?

And he puts a billboard here outside the skate park. Yeah, I'm fine with it. No, I'm not. All right, let's grab some more superchats. We got time for a couple more. All right. The mayor of Serious Town says, Has anyone considered that having schools,

which are notoriously led by leftists who dislike tradition and Christianity, teaching children what the Bible is about, maybe this isn't the best idea? Right. I mean, like, you're talking about the jurisdictions where they want prayer or 10 commandments in schools and things like this. Yeah. I just think, um, we have to realize that we should not live in a world where we hand our children to the state. Amen. It's weird, right? Like how do we get to this point where the kids used to be with the parents at work? And this is the thing, like pre-industrialization, what was life like?

Mom and dad wake up. Mom helps the kids a little bit. Dad helps the kids a little bit. Depending on how young the kid is, mom may be nursing. Dad goes and tends to the cattle. Mom goes and tends to the chickens, churns some butter,

comes in, washes some laundry. Dad and the son may go out and catch some rodents for stew that night. Everybody was contributing what they could. Kids were there with their parents learning. And there were some schoolhouses at some point, but they were relatively small. A lot of stuff was done in the church. Then industrialization happens.

And now your kids are left. Here you go. Go to the state. Now the parents don't see their kids anymore. Their kids are raised by strangers. It's weird. Yeah, we started homeschooling about a year ago. And it's been awesome. If you can do it, I highly recommend it. There's a lot of different ways you can get into it. But I think pushing school choice at the local level and then maybe even eventually the federal level is the way that we break free from that system.

I'm just anti-school in general. Homeschool all the way, 100%. Pods, whatever you got to do. All right, everybody, if you haven't already, smash the like button. One like equals one hashtag free Bannon. And I really do mean it. Steve Bannon, he is a, he's a good dude and I have tremendous respect for him fighting the good fight, standing up for what he believes in and doing the right thing. He's a, he's a, he's a good guy.

He should not be in prison. These people who have locked them up there, they are, they're despicable people. So shout out to Bannon. Really excited for when he does get released, and we'll hear what he has to say. But go to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member, support our work. We need your help as members to make sure the machine keeps turning and keeps running. That's how we make everything operate. That's how we do the show. And we're gonna have that members-only call-in show coming up for you in about a minute. You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. Joe, do you want to shout anything out? Yep. JoeKentForCongress.com is my website.

Anything you can donate to the campaign is going to help me go make a difference in D.C. And then the book about my late wife is called Send Me. You can buy it anywhere that you buy books. What's the book called? Send to Me. Send to Me. Send to Me. Yep.

And you get that anywhere? Okay. Anywhere you buy books. Yeah, it's on Amazon. It's at Barnes & Noble. It's all of them. Thanks for coming, man. Thank you. At Ian Crossland, you follow me on the internet if you'd like to. And you just have a great night. Take already buy books. Yeah, it's on Amazon. It's at Barnes and Nobles, all of them. Thanks for coming, man. Thank you. At Ian Crossland.

You follow me on the internet if you'd like to. And you just have a great night. Take care of yourself. Yeah, it's been a fun conversation. I'm so glad you've come back and joined us in the new studio. I'm Hannah Claire Brimel. I'm a writer for SCNR.com. That's Scanner News.

Follow all of their work at TimCastNews on Twitter and Instagram. I'm on Instagram at HannahClaire.b, and I'm on Twitter at HannahClaireB. Thanks for everything you guys do. I hope you have a great night. We will see you all over at timcast.com in about a minute. Thanks for hanging out. you you you you you you you