Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #960 MAYORKAS IMPEACHED, GOP WINS, GA Deploying National Guard To Texas w/Michael Tracey

Episode Date: February 14, 2024

Tim, Ian, Libby, & Serge join Michael Tracey to discuss Alejandro Mayorkas being impeached, Joe Biden accusing republicans of playing politics over the impeachment of Mayorkas, the Georgia National Guard being deployed to Texas to assist in the border crisis, and rich leftists housing migrants in exchange for free labor. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a historic moment, ladies and gentlemen, the Republicans, by one vote, have successfully impeached DHS Secretary Mayorkas for his failure to uphold the law on the border, as well as many other issues. And this is tremendous and great news. Why? Because now nothing happens. That's it. Nothing happens.

It will be passed off to the Senate and McConnell will throw it in the garbage and we can all pretend like something got done. But I will say at least there is something symbolic, I suppose. I'll take it, I guess. The reality is nothing will happen of this. However, look, with a slim majority in the House, there's not a whole lot more you could ask for other than public statements, symbolic victories. And I do think the fact that Republicans are pushing back against the fails on the border is tremendously good for Republicans in an election year, considering even Democrats have begun to say invasion. Now, in terms of real news today, the governor of Georgia announced that they will be deploying National Guard troops to Texas to assist with the border crisis.

Now, that sounds a bit more substantial. So we'll talk about that. Plus a bunch of other stories. But my friends, before we do, head over to eyes of advice dot com and you'll be redirected to iTunes if you're using your Apple device or if you have iTunes installed on your on your computer. You can then preorder the new song we are putting out called Eyes of Advice, which will be released on the 23rd.

This song has a message of sorts, I suppose. And the music video took a lot of work. It's the most amount of work we've put in a music video. And it is very, very, I just described as an art song. I don't expect this to be like a pop wonder, but I think it's really, really amazingly done in terms of CGI. Shout out to Kent. Again, eyesofadvice.com if you want to pre-order the single on iTunes. And by doing so, you'll be supporting the work we do, and we can build more cultural efforts and expand our cultural endeavors. But also head over to

timcast.com, click join us, become a member to support our work directly, and you'll get access to the members-only uncensored show tonight and every Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m. Additionally, you will also get access to Timcast IRL Super Tuesday tickets in Martinsburg, West Virginia. It's basically the D.C. metro for those that know where, but it's also about two hours from Pittsburgh. So it's a wide range of where you could be and easily have access to this. Powered by Good Ranchers, shout out for sponsoring the show. We are very grateful. And we're just now announcing it right now. So we'll still have many more shout outs

for the event. But you have to be a member to get tickets because this is a private event and that's very important. It's at our private club and only members are allowed to show up if you bought tickets. There's also going to be more announcements

for elite members. So stay tuned. But you'll also get access to our Discord server where you can hang out with like-minded individuals and if you're in the discord you can submit questions call in and talk to us and our guests on the members only after show so smash that like button subscribe to this channel share the show with your friends joining us tonight to talk about all of this and more is michael tracy hello you want to go who are you what do you do? Good question.

I never really thought about it. You're a journalist? Yeah, I am a journalist. I was here in November of 2020. I looked it up just to confirm the date. That's crazy. It's my second time. Yeah, it's been a while.

It was just after the 2020 election. But I guess you kind of fit in this space that's similar to, like, I guess Matt Taibbi and, you know, to try and maybe Barry Weiss. Not that you guys agree on everything, but you're considered maybe like, I don't know, anti-establishment or how would you describe your reporting? Like maybe actual journalism? Well, I don't want to be too pompous or self-aggrandizing. Anti-establishment, I mean, depends how you define establishment, I guess.

I don't associate actively with any establishment. But yeah, I mean, there was a time where there was like a formation of people in the media landscape who were seen as maybe a bit more heterodox or were being ostracized more and more from liberal milieus liberal media milieus where that i had once comfortably inhabited that i was maybe considered amongst i think uh one of the the one of the best pieces of uh best some of the best work you've done one way to put it was when you traveled around the country and went to all the smaller towns that have been affected by the summer of love riots yeah the george floyd riots and there was this narrative

that it wasn't bad it was peaceful protests and then you actually wrote this really long piece showing photos from even small towns that were massively impacted by by vandalism and destruction and so i thought that was good and course, it really angered more establishment actors and maybe like Democrat personalities who don't want that narrative coming out. But I suppose the easiest way to describe it is you actually just did journalism, irrespective of any kind of power structure. Yeah, that was a big one.

That was so simple too. All I did was just take a nationwide car trip to small, medium, and large-sized cities where there was some rioting or protest activity underway that had been very conspicuously undercover. Like, just to give you one example of plenty that I could give, I just happened to be passing by Fort Wayne, Indiana. Probably not a place that most people would make a point to stop at just because it's not that noteworthy or remarkable nothing against it but it's not like a major landmark right and i went and it turned out that there had been the biggest riots in the living memory of people who lived in fort wayne indiana that i just you know came across same with like green bay and places where you had any you wouldn't even hear that there had been riots but sometimes there had been the most wide-scale riots in the city's history in a lot of different places.

So yeah, I went to that and like a lot of people thought that I was trying to actively undermine- You're a Trump supporter or something. Yeah, no, which was never my intent. Ironically, one of the women I found in Minneapolis who had her beauty shop burnt down, this was in North Minneapolis that is heavily black um it was a older black woman encounter encountered her uh she was talking about how she had been getting all ready to start up her beauty parlor after covid had shut it down for

a couple months remember this was like may june of 2020 so it's just when some states were beginning to allow businesses to resume activity. And like the weekend that she was going to reopen, it got burned out. Wow. And the conservative media was also so derelict on that story because it fell to me to write a column about this woman. It actually was in the Wall Street Journal. And then Mike Pence referenced her in the vice presidential debate with camel harris

and they flew her out they flew this woman out to be like attendees at the debate wow um so even though i wasn't trying to like proffer material for the republicans necessarily there were so few people doing that basic journalistic work that i was ended up as a source and that's another big story today too uh i think it's paramount just announced mass layoffs which includes a few prominent journalists like Catherine Herridge. So she's been a big thorn in the side of the current administration and establishment. But we'll get into all that. Thanks for hanging out.

We got Libby hanging out. I'm hanging out. How's it going, guys? Nice to see everybody. You too. And you are. I'm Libby Emmons. I'm with the Postmillennial.

I'm glad to be here. And I'm back. I'm back from Cincinnati. I did a wild debate with Destiny over the weekend. It was awesome. Really? It's on his channel. Yeah, it was super cool. I worked with Progressive Victory. They were canv't we didn't have time to get too deep into anything and um at points i was like i feel like i'm the guy i'm like but dude i got an idea blockchain like i started to become that guy and i was like i gotta lay off this blockchain rhetoric because they kept asking me questions like well go deeper on the damn like i don't i can't go deeper most people don't know what it is but i want to back up our voting cincinnati this is in cincy yeah and the concept was if we how can we improve voter integrity i was like well if you have a backup

all these blockchains as backup anyway we can go to go watch the debate do it later yeah we got surge pressing the buttons yeah it was good big fan yeah good work uh yeah i'm surge.com uh thanks for coming man uh let's get this roll i did a few like a three hour online three hour stream with destiny once and then it was about like mostly ukraine and i didn a few like a three hour online three hour stream with destiny once and then it was about like mostly ukraine and i didn't realize until the three hours were up that he had been playing video games the entire time yeah i didn't know that was a thing he had an organ on stage they never turned around and played on i didn't know he developed like a like an incredible multitasking muscle to just be constantly playing video games no matter what else you're doing yeah

yeah let's jump into this first story we had this from from CNN. House impeaches Alejandro Mayorkas, first cabinet secretary to be impeached in almost 150 years. Wow. They say the results came one week after the stunning loss House Republicans suffered when they tried to impeach Mayorkas

and GOP defections and in absence sank the initial House floor vote. Last week, the absence of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and the initial House floor vote. Last week, the absence of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and the surprise attendance by Texas Democrat Al Green, who had just had surgery and was wheeled into the chamber to vote, denied Republicans a majority. However, we now have the victory here. Only one cabinet official has previously been impeached in American

history. Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876 did not know that the embarrassing initial defeat of the mayorkas impeachment effort was quickly followed up by another floor failure over a standalone israel aid package only crystallized the gop's year-long struggle blah blah blah we get it we get it the good news is after this following the banging of the gavel celebrations from republican house members they will handily hand over their resolution to mitch mcconnell for which he will promptly put it into the shredder walk away and go back to selling out the united states to foreign uh adversaries and this is what i'm wondering and war machines etc etc you guys said nothing's going to happen from it and michael you specified because they needed two. You guys said nothing's going to happen from it. And Michael, you specified

because they needed two thirds in the Senate for this to go through. And you just think that's DOA. To convict. But hold on, hold on. Not only do they need two thirds, they actually need the speaker or they need anyone to actually bring it to a vote.

So it's likely going to be thrown in the garbage. That's it. So first the Senate. Chuck Schumer would have to affirmatively schedule a vote or schedule hearings. And it's not even clear that there's a constitutional obligation for him to do so. It's uncharted territory. So there'll be a lot of debate over what's actually required of Schumer at this juncture. Um, cause it's a little bit different as far as I understand it from a presidential impeachment. Like there are

less mandatory steps that kick in once the impeachment takes place although there was even debate that when trump was impeached the first time and republicans control grab your mic oh and the republicans control the senate that mcconnell might not even be obliged to hold impeachment hearings in that eventuality so it's like it's open-ended as to what is required of anyone here nothing's gonna happen no i mean it's really it's it's what's been going on in the House this whole time. They can pass anything they want, but it's never going to get taken up. It's never going to go anywhere. I will.

I will be fair. OK, we can't expect that much. They have a very slim majority in the House. They don't have the Senate nor the White House. So I don't know what more anyone could expect. That being said, in an election year, Republicans getting this declaration that we are actively trying to do something, whether it's effective or not, or whether it's just politicking, is still going to be good for Republicans. Because you've got Democrats in every major city freaking out about the illegal immigration crisis. And to the point where I think it was, was it Al Sharpton called it an invasion? Yeah. point where i think it was was it al sharpton called it an invasion yeah so so when when when you've got uh man it's getting bad in chicago the black community coming out specifically

criticizing the mayor over what's going on with illegal immigration they don't care about the democrat republican they're just like why is this happening why are our community centers and schools being handed over why aren't you doing anything about it that's happening in boston too it's really pretty bad and in chicago too did you see the uh the mayor came out and he said 17 million dollars is going specifically to black and brown businesses to uh feed the illegal immigrants and shelters he's like but i'm giving you money yep yeah it's still not enough amazing but what is impeaching the homeland security secretary due to subsequently address any of that? It doesn't have to actually do anything. It's as simple as this.

The average person who is experiencing hardship does not follow the news, does not know who Mayorkas is, does not know what his job is, but they will hear breaking news that Republicans have impeached him over the border crisis. And they're going to go, wow,

well, at least someone's doing something. And if you go to the average person and ask them what was maricus's job i mean many conservatives i don't know and if you go to the average person who's complaining about illegal immigrants they're going to be like don't know don't care i mean look i can tell you i can put it this way with all due respect to the average person who may hear this passively and it may change their mind. I don't expect the majority of the United States of the average working person to know the full details of what the DHS secretary is supposed to be doing, what he should have done. This is why they vote for people they trust. It's a, it's, it's representative constitutional Republicanism. And so when they say, I don't know the intricacies of Mayorkas's job.

What I do know is that he's supposed to be the person working the border. He's not. It's really simple. You fired the guy. Okay, well, guess what? Republicans can come out and say, we tried to fire him. And the Democrats would not follow through because it takes the House and the Senate to move forward with the impeachment. And Democrats in the Senate said, we're not interested in firing this guy.

So if you're concerned about immigration, vote for us. We're trying. But Republicans also say that Mayorkas is simply implementing Biden's immigration policy. So you could swap out anybody to preside over the Department of Homeland Security, and it wouldn't change the ultimate policy if it's coming from the top down. Fair point. They should impeach Joe Biden, too. They should do.

But the only, but there's a political reason why they're not going to. Joe Biden, with his brain turned to jelly. How do you how does he win? I mean, Jon Stewart came out with his new daily show, his return to the daily show yesterday. It's being praised by everybody. Well, actually, no, I'm sorry. Democrats are furious. So they don't like it.

Republicans are cheering. They're like, he spends the first half of it. He does rag on Trump. But boy, does he really roast Biden from a broken brain? So they don't want to impeach Joe Biden because they think they're going to beat him at the ballot box. They do. But they have an open impeachment, Democrats might go, no way, don't. And then Schumer is going to come out and be like, I think it's only fair that we actually hear what our senators have to say about this. And then he gets impeached. That is an anti-Semitic accent you just did. I'm just doing it.

It's just a New York accent. That's a New York. And then and then they're going to bring in Newsom or somebody else. Like, I don't know. Kamala Harris will be like, I'm not here to, you know, I stand by Joe or whatever. And something happens. Republicans don't want to give them the opportunity to swap out their brain dead president. I think there are potentially some reasons to be worried or to raise concerns about the House of Representatives in particular, increasingly resorting to extreme methods of registering disapproval so this is the first impeachment

of a cabinet officer since what was it 1876 1876 democrats under trump as we remember did two impeachments um they tried many more well they did i think they were i think they were pretty satisfied with getting to no no no presidential term of trump i mean a presidential impeachment of trump there were there were several attempts at presidential impeachments that failed um yes trump yes i think once democrats took the house after the 2018 midterms they basically immediately launched into a precursor impeachment investigation they're a full-fledged investigation there were several several attempts under the democrats but pelosi was like no no no and they kept getting defeated yeah there was a push after the muller report but they actually introduced articles of impeachment several

times oh yeah yeah individual i mean individual members of congress right all the time and there were votes on it and it kept failing until finally right ukraine but the point is you have that you have congress using more and more often censure resolutions which used to be pretty rare remember the democrats in what was it 2021 censured paul gosar for tweeting a meme clip of aoc and biden like in an anime thing which is ridiculous they claim that it was like literal violence and then what happened well republicans reciprocated by passing censure resolutions against uh you know rashida talib got it in november for basically being against critical of israel yeah but but more and more and then you had the expulsion of george santos in december which was without any due process right so the house is resorting to more and more extreme and frequent

indications of these previously rarely used powers that's just going to become this endless tit for tat and i think it's almost a sure thing now that democrats will retaliate against this sure and impeach you know a republican cabinet official and the problem is it is a pendulum swing with with no way to stop it right because if the republicans say we're gonna take the high road and just keep acting normally the democrats will just keep beating the crap out of them so the republicans respond with okay well then we'll we'll we'll swing back. We'll give them a tit for tat, because if you don't, I mean, this starts with Democrats. The investigations, the lies, the smears of Trump and Russiagate, the Trump era was the beginning of the psychotic behavior. You I mean, granted, Russiagate started even before Trump got elected. They went nuts. The pushback of the pendulum is the people themselves, because if Congress starts to go crazy, if they really start to do that, it's our job to make sure that that doesn't happen as a people.

We are in control of our government. We are the government. They're representing us. And if they get haywire, then that's bad for them. We got to vote them out. We do have to vote them out. Every single one. I think they forget that all the time.

I think they forget that they're ours. I think. We don't serve them. They serve us. Anyone who voted to expel Santos has disqualified themselves. 100%. And it's not because I like Santos. It's because he was not convicted of any wrongdoing. And by all means, maybe he will be. But if that's the case, I would accept if they said, look, he has been indicted. Therefore, we will suspend him pending an outcome. OK, that's fine. If someone gets charged the crime and it's a serious offense, we will put them in jail pending the outcome.

I'm not a big fan of locking people up who can't like, you know, I actually am a fan of bail reform. I just don't know that the way New York handles it is the appropriate way to do it. But I think it's a simple argument that if someone is indicted on a crime, depending on the severity of the crime, we can put them in a box and close the door and lock it until we actually resolve this through a trial. It's supposed to be a speedy trial. That being said, in this instance, I'm not saying Santa should be locked up. I think it would have been reasonable

if they voted for temporary suspension of committee. They do that in the Senate. Like Robert Menendez, who was indicted a few months ago, he was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is one of the most powerful positions in the Senate. And he then had to step down once who was indicted a few months ago he was the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which is the most one of the most powerful positions in the Senate and he then had to step down once he was indicted because that's a that's a matter of Senate rules I don't know that the house has a comparable rule but I'm sort of wary of even imposing any punishment on Santos when he's merely indicted that's just a set of accusations by the government that's still

imposing a punishment on him absent due process I agree I agree I think they should have done nothing and said prove it or else and by the way this one goes for menendez because he was indicted by the doj a couple of years ago but my plan went to a hung jury so my point is it is absolutely unreasonable to expel him the compromise could perhaps be in suspending pending an outcome of the indictments and i equate that to a guy is accused of murder. We lock him up until the resolution of the trial in which many people get found not guilty and are released. I mean, Kyle Rittenhouse spent two months in jail. I don't like the fact that it turns out innocent people end up doing time while we're trying to figure things out. My point is, in my personal opinion, Santos should be still in Congress and he should say prove it or else.

But my point is, it is completely unreasonable to remove him. Yeah, you get my point is it is completely unreasonable to remove him yeah you get my point yeah and his alleged offenses are comparatively trivial you know in relation to what other members of congress could be theoretically punished for because santos was the first member of congress who was expelled without first being convicted of a crime and like most of those in the past when there was a conviction had to do with like literal treason against the country meaning they were confederates who yeah were in a state of literal legal rebellion i mean in 2000 i think two i think it was james

traficant was the congressman who was previously expelled before santos and he was actually convicted of a crime um so if you're gonna for some reason make this that one ohio i was ohio okay if you're gonna i mean that guy was that guy was a character too he died in a truck tractor accident um but if you're gonna sweep aside all precedent and expel santos without him first being convicted of a crime and for the conduct to be that he like lied about being on a college volleyball team, you're cheapening the tactic. So now it's just going to be used even more commonly for lesser and lesser grave offenses. To simplify everything, check which district you're in.

Look at who voted to expel Santos and campaign against them. That's just it. I think. Well, it's the New York Republicans who basically generated that whole process. Sure. But you got people in Ohio because they felt that he would be a political albatross for them when they're running again in 2024, you know, because they were there in marginal marginal districts. There are some Democrats and everyone that voted to ask him, I think, is ineligible. But you're not going to convince Democrats or the Republicans

need to organize. But let's jump to the story. We have this tweet from Justin Baragona, a statement from Biden on the Mayorkas impeachment. History will not look kindly on House Republicans for their blatant act of unconstitutional partisanship that has targeted an honorable public servant in order to play petty political games. That one's amazing. He says he continues Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas, a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. with his family as a as political refugees, has spent more than two decades serving America with integrity in a decorated career in law enforcement and public service. From his time in the DOJ as a U.S. attorney to his service as deputy secretary and now

secretary of Homeland Security, he has upheld the rule of law faithfully and has demonstrated a deep commitment to the values that make our nation great. This impeachment already failed once on a bipartisan vote. Instead of staging political stunts like this, Republicans with genuine concerns about border, about the border, should want Congress to deliver more border resources and stronger border security. Sadly, the same Republicans pushing this baseless impeachment are rejecting bipartisan plans Mayorkas and others in my administration have worked hard on to strengthen border security at this very moment, reversing from years of their own demands to pass stronger border bills.

Giving up on real solutions right when they are needed most in order to play politics is not what the American people expect from their leaders. Congress needs to act to give me, Mayorkas, and my administration the tools and resources needed to address the situation at the border. The House also needs to pass Senate's national security supplemental right away. We will continue pursuing real solutions to the challenges Americans face, and House Republicans have to decide whether to join us to solve the problem or keep playing politics with the border. Let me just simplify all of this politically for you guys to understand what's happening. They want to open the border to thousands of illegal immigrants every day at a time when even Democrat strongholds have communities in uproar over the illegal immigration crisis.

They want to send $60 billion to Ukraine. They want to send, I think it's what, $14.7 billion to Israel, as well as a portion of that to Taiwan. $20 billion of the dollars in the original bill would not go to securing the border. It would go to facilitating the invasion. Well, that's what it is. It's more judges. It's more border agents.

And it's all designed to get people in faster. The bill gives Customs and Border Protection in certain circumstances the ability to issue work permits and adjudicate asylum claims without a court. That's insane. And of course, that's the thing about the asylum seekers, right? Asylum seekers get work permits faster. They get access to basically federal and state aid faster. And as Joe Rogan pointed out just about a week ago, there are certain jurisdictions

that are trying to give illegal immigrants with work permits the right to vote in municipal elections. Joe Biden. That was struck out in New York last year, but they can do it again. But it's currently in the courts. It's under appeal. Joe Biden is doing exactly what everyone predicted. The moment this security bill would be introduced, Republicans would notice that it was it was the opposite of a security bill. And when they refused to play along, the Democrats would come out and say, aha, they oppose their own security bill. When in reality, that bill was playing politics with the border, trying to call it a border bill, but giving 74, what, 70% of the money goes to Ukraine and Israel. It's not a border bill.

It's an Israel-Ukraine war bill that they called a border bill. That's playing politics with the thing. He said, don't play politics with the border. They just did it. It's a Ukraine-Israel bill. Good. Thank you. Thank you for topping that off.

That's like the, what was it called? The Inflation Reduction Act. And I was just reading today in Variety, it turns out that the Inflation Reduction Act made it possible for Travis Kelsey to produce his first Hollywood film with federal credits from the Inflation Reduction Act. Well, good for him. Yay. It raised taxes on pretty much everybody.

But, you know, Travis Kelsey gets to produce a film. The reason this bill was even structured in the way it was in the first place meaning the bill that was abandoned last week the bill that was abandoned last week that included the immigration component was because in september or october of last year republicans in the house kept saying and some in the senate kept saying that although we might support in principle sending additional funds to ukraine israel and taiwan we're prioritizing the border and immigration policy above all else so that is a required element of any bill that we would vote for so it was biden was proposing that as an accommodation to republican complaints no no and then the then this the senate republicans

designated james langford who is one of the more conservative members of the caucus or was seen as one before last week who came up with a bill that if you compare it to previous attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform and i'm kind of neutral on that anyway like i don't care one way or the other that much but like in 2013 in the 2007 when there were these bipartisan attempts to do immigration reform they included a lot more liberal or democratic priorities including quote-unquote pathways to citizenship this included none of that it was strictly border enforcement so biden ironically was willing no way biden was willing wrong biden was willing definitely not accurate biden was willing to totally, you know, spit in the face of the more hardline progressive immigration activists within the coalition and just go along with almost entirely Republican priorities.

And Republicans chose to do. Did you read the bill? Yeah, I did. How could you possibly call it anything other than progressive? Eighty five hundred noncitizens allowed in per day. CBP getting in certain circumstances the right to adjudicate asylum claims outside of the courts, the granting of work permits. The problem right now that Democrat voters in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other major Democrat cities are complaining about is a massive influx of non-citizens sleeping in our airports, in our schools. So when they when they say it's a security bill that facilitates thousands, million, a million plus per year, that's not what Republicans are complaining about.

That is Democrat gift giving. That is the only outcome of that proposal was that it would be said that the bill is dead on arrival. And then Democrats get to come out and say the security bill was rejected by Republicans. Well, what the lead Senate negotiator, James Lankford, who I've actually spoken to in the past about Ukraine policy and other stuff, seems like a relatively normal conservative. I'm not saying, I doubt he would be doing the bidding of the Democrats just in some, you know, mischievous or nefarious way. Seemed like he was pretty sincere in what he was trying to negotiate,

although I stand open to be corrected on that. And he was saying that what it would have changed, and again, I don't really, frankly, care that much whether or not about immigration policy. It's something I'm kind of agnostic on, for better or worse. But he was saying that the status quo now

is that as many as like six or seven or 8,000 per day, migrants approach the border. And this would be creating a new authority where if it reaches that number on any given day or over the span of a week then they read claims aren't even being processed anymore at the border so he was he said that within the past six months there would have been only three or four days where the inflow would have been low enough that they would even be processing assignment asylum claims in the first place they were saying that this was going to create authority that trump had sought that the

let congress hadn't even enacted that would have given him the ability to actually shut down the processing of asylum claims which is otherwise mandated and redirect them to ports of entry for an additional 3 500 which is not what any any person who's been complaining about the border had asked for and all it was doing was creating a legal path to facilitate the illegal activities they were doing. So when we take a look at the what Texas is doing with the National Guard and why Texas is doing it, it's because there is an invasion. And those are the words of I believe it was Al Sharpton, an invasion on our border. And you've got New York, as I mentioned, all these major Democrat cities saying

we are being invaded. If this bill were to pass, it would turn the illegal actions for which Mayorkas has now been impeached into legal actions. Overwhelmingly, in fact, a large portion of the people coming through give false ages. We know this is a problem. Large portion. I don't know the exact number. I'm not saying it's 90 percent. It could be three percent or four. A large portion, meaning there are thousands of individuals who

are between the ages of 20 and 30 who claim they're 17. The bill explicitly stated that if an unaccompanied minor came, it would not even count towards that allotment they would allow in. How about this? If Texas thinks the problem is so egregious, they have lined their border with shipping containers covered in concertina wire and have sent in the National Guard to bar CBP access, whatever bill they tried proposing, which would actually strip authority from Texas, should be DOA. And that means Lankford and anybody else absolutely sabotaged any effort at border security. And it was predicted by basically every pundit that said

when they actually propose the border bill. And we talked about on the show, here's what's going to happen. It's going to be garbage as it always is. I'll put it this way. There's a great meme and it's from a progressive and they're like introducing the free ice cream for everyone act. And it's like, oh, wow, I'll vote for that approved. Now, where's my free ice cream? And they respond, what do you mean? This band's owning dogs. This is what they do every single time with every single bill. They call it the border security bill when, in fact, it would allow 8,500 per day.

Oh, I'm sorry. After 5,000 non-citizens breach the border and Texas and other border states are unable to stop it, they redirect 3,500 to a port of entry for the same thing and to alleviate the courts because there's too many. They would give CBP certain jurisdiction issue work permits. Then you've got certain jurisdictions across the country, including Maryland. New York tried doing it. They got jammed up in the courts. Grant and California, Sacramento is doing it on San Francisco, granting non-citizens the right to vote in municipal elections and making various excuses why they're allowing them to do this. We have to say outright, maybe we should just stop allowing thousands

of non-citizens to pour in through our border every day. And but I'll give you this. I'm glad all of it's happening because now I can say very plainly to Gen Z, if you're wondering why it is you can't afford an apartment, why it is that eggs are costing you 10 bucks, why you have to live in a shoebox with no bathroom with two other people. Just take a look at the non-citizens who have been given luxury hotel rooms in New York City and debit cards with $3,000 on it. And maybe if we stop spending that money, you might have a better future. And now they have a curfew in place too. Adam said to

put a curfew on the migrants in those hotels. So from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m., they're not allowed to leave or come in. So that's a thing. And also one of the architects of the bill, Chris Murphy from Connecticut, he said that under this bill, the border never closes. And he said that was pride. We meant that in terms of commerce, like economic transactions over the border. Yeah, but he also meant that in terms of migrants getting shipped from one port of entry to another, like they would close one and open something else.

I think he more meant that in terms of goods being transported over the border, but I don't know for sure. Maybe he meant it differently. I don't know. John Thune, who's the second ranking Republican in the Senate, said that this is a list, this bill contained a long list of long sought Republican priorities in terms of border enforcement, and that they would never be able to get Democrats to budge on half of these in a Republican administration.

He was saying that there was much more progress made under a Democratic administration. It's like a Nixon going to China thing, right? Only Biden or only a Democrat can actually give some concessions to immigration restrictionists in a way that will lead to sort of muted opposition among Democrats. Because if Trump was in power, then Democrats would be screaming fascism, and this is going to lead straight to concentration camps and whatnot. But with Biden, their opposition is a bit more muted and tempered. And so the political logic seemed to me to make sense that Thune was laying out in that this is the best Republican restrictionists could hope for in terms of a compromise in the Congress.

Now, if people still don't like it, I get it. I don't particularly support it. What's the number? Like 1.7 million non-citizens per year? It's record-breaking. How is that a compromise? It's record-breaking now. They're going to reduce the inflow. How about you reduce the inflow by just putting razor wire on the border and using CBP saying, get the out?

Well, I mean, they have, I mean, as Lankford explained, I actually didn't quite realize this until maybe it was last week. Even the places on the border, I think most of Texas where there is wall or where there is fortified border barrier, the barrier itself is like a quarter to a half mile inside United States territory. So once a, quote, migrant even approaches the wall, they're on United States territory. And then according to existing law, their asylum claim has to be processed. territory so once a quote migrant even approaches the wall they're on united states territory and

then according to existing law their asylum claim has to be processed so what lankford and others who were promoting this bill were saying was that they're going to increase the threshold for a valid asylum claim so they'll be able to turn away more people at that exact point than they're able to now so they're saying the status quo is six or eight thousand encounters a day and somebody coming in x amount coming in to be processed this will give us the authority to turn away more but that was the argument and so the issue is this is exactly what we predicted would happen because it gives the excuse to democrats to claim we tried to secure the border but there is not a single reasonable person from i mean conservatives know what's happening they're paying attention they're furious but now you're getting democrats in major cities lighting up and not a single reasonable person from I mean, conservatives know what's happening. They're paying attention and they're furious.

But now you're getting Democrats in major cities lighting up and not a single one of them is saying, I wish there was slightly less people storming our borders. No, they're saying stop all of it. All of it should stop. But it's never been stopped. Trump never stopped all of it. I mean, that's why they're getting additional. But that's not what I'm talking about. But hold on.

That's an aside. That's moving the goalposts. I'm saying people are asking the government to propose a bill that provides security to I'm talking about. But hold on. That's an aside. That's moving the goalposts. I'm saying people are asking the government to propose a bill that provides security to stop the influx. Not whether Trump did or didn't or whether he could have done a better job. The issue right now is a record-breaking influx causing damage to our cities that Joe Biden himself, what, 20 years ago called, what did he say? It was turning the cities into ish holes or whatever? Yeah. The point is they were they were seeking. The Senate was attempting to give the president additional authorities to stem that influx,

including authorities that Trump sought and was not able to receive because it would have given greater ability to stem the flow. So the bill. So right now it is illegal what they're doing. The bill would have created a legal path for the invasion. Right now, when a single person crosses the border, it's a crime. And CBP opening the barriers and bringing them in is a criminal act because they know coyotes and cartel members are the ones facilitating this. They should outright say no.

U.S. policy as it pertains to kidnappings overseas is not to negotiate with terrorist organizations. If someone gets kidnapped in the Middle East, and I don't know if this is true under Biden, but this is true under Trump, Obama, and as is, you know, basically my professional career, you get kidnapped. The United States will not negotiate with terrorists. This meant that typically Americans would be ignored. German citizens and Spanish citizens were prized possessions for kidnappers in the Middle East because their governments pay up instantly and negotiate with any terror group who kidnaps their citizens. The United States would have a helicopter flying over your compound where a bunch of guys in all

black with rifles would come out, kill everybody in the compound and rescue the Americans. The American policy understood that if you negotiate with criminal factions and terrorists, you incentivize their behavior. So the best course of action is to tell them all you touch an American citizen, you die. Now you have CBP in the Biden administration telling the cartels you bring in trafficked humans. We take care of it for you. That is that that I think that's a criminal action. I think we can we can we can say, OK, fine, impeach Joe Biden, whatever, whatever you want want to say but the idea i see a video of cbp lifting up razor wire to bring these people in as coyotes from and cartel members with rifles are shuttling them into the country i'm like we have a humanitarian crisis we have atrocities being committed the amount of young girls being raped by these these

gangs and cartels and cbp makes it all possible with smiles on their faces to help make it happen. And the NGOs that get funded by the federal government as well. And the Biden administration says, let's codify this and make it all legal. And I say, no, let's put a bunch of shipping containers on the border. Let's float things in the river and tell the cartels, when you bring a person

if a human being is standing alongside a coyote and a human trafficker, we consider them to be a part of your gang. You want to pay them $3,000 to traffic you through Central and South America and Central America, through Mexico and to our border. You are working with enemies of the United States. Instead, it's compromise, compromise, compromise, rollover, rollover, rollover. And Biden has the ability to close the border. I mean, he could just do it.

He had the ability to close the border i mean he could just do it he had the ability to open it well the same same authority he used to issue all the executive orders to blast it right open in his first days in office but that's what i'm saying trump even trump did not have the authority to close the border why was it why they used why was it less than half a million people in 2020 they used well because covid reduced migration flows across the world i mean there was a record even if you go back that 2019 was a record year when trump was in office and i think he probably would have closed the border if he had the authority available to him i don't know if it was an all-time record but it was way over the maybe preceding 10 years or so when uh in 2019 so i mean yeah i mean it was a million point one

right which is a lot of people well it's not 2.3 i'm not saying yeah it's less than the current inflow but it was still a lot the point being there was no authority to just quote close the border that's what they were trying to give to the president with this bill that's not even in favor of the bill i actually think this gets to why house republicans really ought not to be commended for doing this theatrical impeachment of mayorkas because we've agreed i I think, that it's purely symbolic. It will have no substantive impact on the policy grievances that you're laying out rightly or wrongly. Right.

It's a political stunt. I mean, it's a political ploy. It's a political ploy. It does not address the underlying substance. And also, by the way, it's accelerating the passage of this national security supplemental bill with the immigration part severed off that is ukraine israel and taiwan which will already passed 70 to 29 in the senate and it has majority support in the house so now they can now the house Republicans can say

oh yeah maybe we let we use like a legislative maneuver to get this mammoth uh you know 89 billion dollar or however many billions it is national security bill passed but we also you know mollified some of your concerns base by doing this meaningless impeachment of a cabinet official let me let me pull the story this the wall street journal ladies and gentlemen in the wee hours of the morning pre-dawn the senate passed the 95 billion dollar ukraine israel aid package sending it to the house in uh you know, I the way I described it early in the morning is that while we were sleeping, the Senate took a blade and pressed it firmly against the back of the American people and then just applied pressure. But I think that's unfair because that

would imply the Senate was on your side at any point. So I guess the easier way to explain it is you were walking down a peaceful street with flowers abound when a member of the Senate showed up and said, I'm going to take all your money and give it to Ukraine and then pulled the knife out. So it wasn't that you were being betrayed. It's that they were stealing from you in plain view. So here we go. 70 to 29 marked a victory for proponents of the muscular role in for the U.S. in foreign affairs. For the moment, elbowing aside, isolationist forces in Congress. I love isolationist, they say. Me? Let me tell you guys, I'm not an isolationist.

I think we should spend as much money as we can. Every single penny that we can on every country on the planet. Every single one. You name a country, bang, money. Just make it rain. And what I said was, all the money we can. And all the money we can is all the money we can is all the

money we have left over after our roads are fixed our schools are fixed or abolished our borders are secure health care is solved the problem working class have places to live with maybe once we solve all those problems we can then say we're so wealthy let's donate but with fiat we can print infinite that's the problem there will never be all we can can always be more in the stupid system hold on and up and i hear what you're saying and that's that's 70 i would say 75 correct but i would add when they mass print money or when they issue loans creating money upon the issuance of debt they are stripping the buying power of americans when you have an insecure border where people are flooding across

and they're providing debit cards and they're using taxpayer dollars to facilitate these people into big cities, suppressing the labor market, you are creating economic conditions where there is extremely limited supply with tremendous demand, making housing unaffordable for the average person, especially the younger voters, which is no surprise why they're leaning towards Donald Trump. When they say, we're going to create, you know, however they end up doing this, right? People need to understand that they don't take your tax dollars to fund war. They create money upon the issuance of debt.

So they just, they create a debt. Spend the money, and that means these corporations and say Ukraine, where the money is spent in the creation of weapons, paying personnel and PMCs, that gets spent back in the United States.

And this suppresses the buying power of the average American citizen, drives prices up. You combine that with a porous southern border, and it is almost like they are intentionally destroying this country. I hope Gen Z wakes up fast enough to realize it, to do something about it come november one of those amazing parts of this bill is that in the israel section it actually goes out of its way to specifically exempt the appropriations to israel from congressional oversight it specifically allows the secretary of state when he approved some of these transmissions of armaments and stuff to simply bypass ordinary congressional notification requirements. Say what you will about Ukraine funding. I've been a huge

skeptic and critic of it from the beginning, but they actually have been coerced into at least nominally implementing some oversight mechanisms like Inspector General and other IGs that have been part of this consortium to at least do some oversight the funny bit with israel congress just falls over itself to say do what you want with this money we're not even going to check anything it's actually pretty amazing the total vote count on this bill 70 to 29 actually undercounts the extent to which there is a consensus on this issue meaning a consensus behind just a never-ending disbursement of these war expenditures into conflict zones ukraine israel taiwan um because you had a set at least a couple of republican senators who are some of the most

ardent interventionists in the entire Senate, like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Tim Scott, they voted actually no, not because they oppose the underlying substance of the bill. They're all staunch supporters of funding Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. They probably even wanted more of it, frankly, if they had their way. It's because they're still making a political point or a procedural point about the lack of prioritization of the southern border aspect but in voting no you'll notice it didn't actually hinder passages of the bill so it's a perfect situation for them politically they can technically register their supposed discontent with the passage of the bill absent some border provision but their preferred policy still gets put into place anyway do Do you think they take turns doing that?

Like they're like, this time I'm going to vote no. Let's just make sure it gets passed. I'm going to say no on this one. The next time you get to say no, I'll make sure it gets passed. That way we both look like a good guy. I think they do that. Oh, for sure do. Yeah, they definitely do that.

Yeah, they have. That's what their conference is about. It's to coordinate and structure their voting patterns. So if somebody needs, for political reasons, to vote no, even if they support the underlying policy, they can ensure that there's a trade-off where somebody's voting yes for it so it's like canceled out it's gonna pass anyway because those people i all mentioned they all firmly were in favor of this bill passing on a substantive level that they felt they had to make an answer is that is that the bill and the votes for it yeah this is the vote total if you want to see it yeah how can i pull that up i want to pull

up the source i tweeted earlier so you can look at my account or i'll send it to you i will pull up your twitter yeah it's how long ago did you tweet it it's from 1 15 p.m today 1 15 p.m today let's pull up this uh okay here we go this is it right here yeah so these are the yeas oh no sorry sorry sorry um no this is that's an older one that's an older one go to 1 15 that was me replying to somebody and proving them proving them embarrassingly wrong because i pulled up one from 2022 keep going keep going down keep going down keep going down yeah yeah keep going there this one okay here we go the uh this michael tracy tweeting the huge ukraine israel bill got 70 votes which they can hardly ever get for anything and several voting nay are huge interventionists who only voted nay for political reasons yeah so this is a really

good point knowing it wouldn't impede passage that's right key point so uh some people are pointing out too because i think it was um lindsey graham didn't have an epiphany and now opposes funding ukraine it was uh uh mullen i think who had been reported i could be wrong but i saw a report that he was uh he had been discussing a discharge resolution i looked into that i'm not sure how well sourced that was that seemed like a rumor i mean it's, but he actually voted no on the final vote. He voted no. And a lot of people are saying that voting no was the right move,

but he's being accused. And again, this may be unwarranted of only voting no because he knew it passed. And so he'd score political points by claiming he opposed it when he really was in favor. That might be true. Cause he did vote aye or yay

on a procedural vote, like a day or two ago that led to this final vote early this morning. So just insidious. I mean, it's why we vote as citizens in one day. So we don't know what the vote tally is when we go in. They're not supposed to know ahead of time. If I can get 700 more votes,

my guy will get it over the edge. You just go and you vote for what you believe. That's the idea. Yeah. I don't think that's ever been the case though. I think, you know, practice versus theory. So Steve Daines, Daines from Montana. Was that a no vote?

It was a nay vote. So he's the chair of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, which is basically the campaign apparatus for the Senate Republicans. in the political maneuverings around individual states senate races and he was objecting he was uh justifying his no vote on the basis of wanting to ensure that republicans who are running in contested senate seats this year can still say that you know they're against the bill in principle because it didn't do the border components so he was outlining the political rationale and it's the same for like a tim scott i mean tim scott ran for president right from south carolina and go back and look at some of the debates he would give these fulsome declarations in favor of oh there's a roach in front of me or no that's a stink bug okay stink bug either way yeah i'll chill out the marmorated

no it's a big difference whenever i go anywhere i'm just surrounded by bugs. Maybe I have to look inward to see the reason for that. No, that's not true. So I want to clarify something, though. Tim Scott would give these like soaring oratories in favor of Ukraine funding and Israel funding, etc. But now he's voting no. Why? Because he and several others of these people who voted no are like a bridge to Trump within the Senate Republican caucus. Trump is at least nominally opposed to the bill.

And so they're kind of trying to, you know, play this game where they're weighing different political considerations and trying to come to a happy medium that is most to the advantage of Senate Republican candidates in November. I want to clarify something too, because we have a super chat from Brett Tesl. He says, keep in mind, the Senate bill contains a provision that should Trump be elected president, he attempts to stop spending the money on Ukraine. It'll trigger immediate impeachment of Trump.

That is not true. What what J.D. Vance was saying is that the bill funds Ukraine into the Trump administration into the first fiscal year of a Trump administration. And should Trump try to stop the funding in negotiations to end the war, it would warrant or give Democrats a reason to impeach. That is, the funding goes until September, I think, 25th. Imagine Donald Trump gets elected. And in February, he says, we're ending this war now. Now, I made the prediction that and it's not necessarily a prediction, but more of like a point that the day the news comes in, Donald Trump will be your next president. He is president elect. The war stops. There's immediate ceasefire because Ukraine knows their funding's done and Russia knows Trump is going to negotiate and it's going to clean everything up.

And Putin's not going to want to go up against Trump on the issue. Trump would get on the phone as soon as he's president and say, we're ending this. What needs to be done? Ukraine would lose territory. Russia would end up effectively winning what they wanted, but it would end the war. I think with this bill that nullifies that pseudo prediction, because now funding is secured through September. And if Donald Trump stops the spending that was congressionally approved, they will argue, as they did in the first impeachment, the president has no authority to halt spending that was congressionally approved. But that means that Donald Trump will not be able to say to Vladimir Putin,

the U.S. will no longer fund Ukraine in this conflict. We want an end to the war. Putin will say, you have no authority. Congress has already approved the funding and you can't stop it. They'll impeach you. I saw what happened. It is completely undermining our ability to negotiate in regards to this. Could they still fund Ukraine in sort of a reconstructive effort with that money and still end the war and still send the bills?

Well, that funding mechanism is one of several that's used to arm ukraine so that one that you're talking about pre-existed the 2022 invasion and as you mentioned was in effect when trump was in office so trump or any president would be in a sense bound by whatever congress decides to appropriate to that particular authority but that's only a minority of the overall ukraine funding which uses a variety of different authorities. There's definitely no automatic impeachment trigger. And I'm not sure how much it would really hamstring Trump, because I doubt that even if there was some ideal negotiation that he came up with,

that it would involve 100% cutting off all funding to Ukraine. I mean, you would probably want to still keep Ukraine within the American orbit. You're still basically subsidizing their entire military military trump has never on principle come out against all ukraine funding he actually increased funding he gave him weapons yeah he's yeah yeah he he acceded to the lobbying of lindsey graham and john mccain in 2017 and of poroshenko the previous president of ukraine and started for the first time sending javelin missiles and then when the war started in 2022 trump would go on like sean handy show and brag how many of his javelin

missiles were being used to kill russian soldiers so this idea that trump is just gonna you know magically end the war i think that's a lot of wishful thinking he won't give any specifics about what he's actually going to do on a policy level all he says is the war never would have started if i was in power which is unprovable counterfactual and number two the war will end in 24 hours because i'll just get everybody to agree and start loving each other i don't know i don't know that that's necessarily i don't realistic proposition i don't agree with uh uh counterfactual i suppose you can argue we don't necessarily know what's definitionally counterfactual it didn't it's an alternate timeline right my point is the crisis in ukraine had been bubbling up under under obama and the the ousting of yanukovych

but it ended no not at all so i'm so in 2013 you're my dad protests erupt the conflict between the trade agreement with ukraine either eu or the loss of the trade agreement with russia the ultimate ousting in 2014 of yanukovych and the riots and separatist movement. By the time Trump had become president and I returned to Ukraine, going back to Kiev, it had simmered down to the point where the locals said, we don't call this civil war. No, it's mostly done. There's just some fighting in the east now. Yeah. So under Obama, dramatic escalation, civil war to the point where journalists were kidnapped

by Russian separatist forces. Several two years later, Trump is president. I go back to kiev everything seems to be fine now we don't really talk about it because it's over this is what i'm told by locals there was low-grade fighting in the dombas but it mostly weakened in 2014 it was terrifying but trump fueled the combat by sending lethal weaponry for the first time and for whatever reason that was denounced by the kremlin when it happened and they said there was it was make going to make it more likely to precipitate war which they was correct and they waited until trump was out of office and then under biden we get this massive explosion of war and conflict a resurgence of troops in the middle

east i do not think i think it is fair to say that if you look at the actions of the trump administration in terms of no new wars timelines timelines for removal of troops from the Middle East, trying to get our troops out of Syria, despite being lied to and Abraham Accords, as well as other attempts at peace negotiations, the likelihood, be it 51 percent or otherwise, is that there would likely not be war in Ukraine if Donald Trump was president. He also did give an indication of what he would do in when he spoke to Maria Bartiromo in July. And he said, you know, you could say that this is vague, which it is, but he said, I would tell Zelensky no more, you got to make a deal.

I would tell Putin, if you don't make a deal, we're going to give them a lot. We're going to give them more than ever we got. Right, so he threatened to give Ukraine more weaponry than ever before. Right, so what he said was that he would stop all funding to Ukraine if Ukraine didn't make a deal and increase it if Russia wouldn't come.

Right. Which is just basically saying he's going to negotiate with them. But that was his plan. That's the most that he has said. But there really is huge continuity. And I've done pretty in-depth research reporting on this. There is a huge amount of continuity between the Trump administration and the Biden administration in terms of Ukraine policy in particular. Not on every foreign policy issue. We can get into that if you want separately. But in terms of Ukraine policy, there's a huge amount of continuity. I'll just give you one very important example.

In early 2020, Mike Pompeo, who was then Secretary of State in the Trump administration, went to Ukraine, met with Zelensky and Ukrainian leadership, and they agreed upon what was the initial iteration of this new strategic partnership that was going to become relationship where it was gonna be enhanced bilateral military ties and support and uh provision of technology and arms and so forth so basically increasing the extent to which ukraine was becoming a bastion of u.s military power that was pompeo and then in november 2021 three you know three or so months before the war started in february the following february blinken pompeo's successor secretary of state go also goes to ukraine and codifies that strategic partnership agreement which among other things locks in a u.s commitment that ukraine will ultimately formally join nato so that was state you know reiterated by pompeo in 2020 reiterated by uh blinken 2021 and that's a core grievance of putin in launching the invasion a lot

of that occurred under the trump administration perhaps tucker should have asked vladimir putin specifically on the issue of trump and biden but let's uh we'll move on to this story here because we i want to cover this one from savannah morning news georgia national guard to send members to U.S.-Mexico border, Brian Kemp announces. Between 15 and 20 members of the Georgia National Guard will travel to the U.S.-Mexico border this spring to assist Border Patrol agents in Texas, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp announced on Tuesday. They will join the 29 members of the Georgia National Guard who are currently stationed in Texas to help set up a command post at the border. Kemp's announcement comes in response to a Republican lawmakers in both chambers of the Georgia legislature are calling a national immigration crisis. Kemp's announcement was delivered shortly after resolutions decrying federal immigration policies and pledging support for Texas Governor Greg Abbott passed in the House and Senate. Georgia's more than 800 miles,

blah, blah, blah. No one can claim there isn't a crisis federal crime data indicates yada yada yada here's the question right now they say though the tech the georgia national guard members will be traveling to texas camp said they will mainly be assisting with engineering and mechanical issues the command center our national guard is not going to be arresting people we don't have those powers we'll leave it up to the texas authorities so this is this is this is the interesting thing they're going to be assisting border patrol agents okay federal border patrol agents because they're facilitating the human trafficking and smuggling it sounds like what this actually is is not too dissimilar to what we saw with alaska georgia camp is not a trump guy is going to be sending national guard to help

the federal government facilitate illegal immigration. Trump endorsed a primary opponent to Kemp in 2022. Who didn't win. Is this unclear whether they're going to assist the feds or the state, local state? The story says they'll be assisting Border Patrol. Border Patrol are the ones facilitating human smuggling. National Texas National Guard are stopping it. So, for instance, Taylor Hansen, who has been in this show and reports for Tenet Media, said down there during CBP control, thousands of illegal immigrants, criminal aliens every day. As soon as Texas takes over four or five, four to six.

And I said, thousand. He goes, no, no, no. Like four, like four people. I was like, wait, wait. Single digit for. Yeah. If they're going down to assist the federal government. That's not what he said.

Kemp said the crisis on the border is a national problem. It demands a national solution. But if the Biden administration continues to fail the American people, then we have no choice but to step in. Therefore, in addition to the Georgia guardsmen already stationed at the border, we will send reinforcements to Texas this spring who will assist with the construction of a forward command post on the border with Mexico. The question is this this is from uh savannah morning news and i think what you just said still does not make it clear we need to know exactly who he will be working with texas or the feds this says border patrol this does not say texas national guard he says arresting will be up to texas you got so my issue here is we we don't exactly know based on this individual report else we can find more details specifically on what kemp is saying to me it's it's it's vague well

he acknowledges texas's right to uh make arrests so there's that yes but this could this could just be like oh yeah you know we we support texas and abbott and then he goes and he works with the feds to try and keep things simmered down. Tough to tell. We got to get Kemp on the show. The report says supporting border patrol agents. Wouldn't any bi-state pact or agreement between, in this case, Georgia and Texas, also probably necessarily include some federal component in that it would become an interstate enterprise and therefore some kind of federal jurisdictional authority kicks in?

I don't know the specifics, but that would be my intuition as to what this would entail fox atlanta's reporting that he is assisting abbott's effort to control illegal crossings on the u.s mexico border as abbott pursues a showdown with the biden administration so again allocate resources and assistance to the protection of the southern border does not actually explain who they will be working with now to be to be fair uh kemp was one of 13 governors who joined abbott at eagle pass so it i honestly have no idea i have no idea this is what happened when the alaska announcement came out that at some point in 2025 alaskan national guard would be deployed to assist the federal federal authorities here a lot of

people immediately saw that and assumed this meant alaska would be deploying national guard to to help texas at a state level however when you read further it's no to assist the federal government and people were like that is not very based so the question now is who you know who where which which command will these individuals fall under will it be to act what we know right now the biden administration border patrol wants to open the border and allow thousands of non of criminal aliens in every day the texas state government has made this illegal and wants razor wire blocking these individuals and will not allow will not allow cbp in who is brian kemp going to be assisting in this we don't know it's conflicting reporting

yeah i'd like yeah there's an argument i mean i've heard the argument made that any law enforcement activity that takes place in conjunction with the border is necessarily within the purview of the federal government because it's a national border and it transcends state jurisdiction so that could be what people are referring to and so the issue now is when texas national guard came in and secured the area the argument from the feds was you do not have the authority to do this they did it anyway is camp going to which side is he on there's a there's a showdown i mean it's a legal showdown yeah i think you're right it's conflicting reports because most of what we've been seeing is um helping texas guard at the border

that's mostly maybe they just inadvertently called them border patrol but this is assumptive language yeah it's it is it is intentionally vague vague language and they're not heading out till or piss poor reporting yeah the other thing is which is possible every ambitious republican governor or maybe even some non-ambitious ones end up sending a contingent of whether it's state police or national guard to texas or something to engage in certain border enforcement activities does it make that much of a difference ultimately i mean i guess nice headlines out of it well so if they have an inconvenient republican primary challenger or something maybe it kind of fortifies their position but i don't see what impact it makes we have a quote from kemp saying their

contributions will be outlined by the official request made by the texas guard to our own guard and director uh james stallings at uh gemma that clears it up that clears it up a lot that so this does sound like kemp is reinforcing abbott's position against joe biden yeah that would make sense yeah i mean i think clearly they're there it's a an attempt to have a bi-state arrangement with Texas because they see themselves as an opposition to the national government, at least on this policy. So what does that mean then? We now have several states, I believe 10 states have sent law enforcement, National Guard and law enforcement to Texas to secure the border in defiance of the federal government. And we had Trump saying, everyone who can, go ahead and do it.

That was crazy. That was wild. Donald Trump said, anyone who could should do it. And now Kemp is on board. Well, how much in defiance is it really just by dispatching these groups of... National Guard? Well, Texas deployed... They're not actively opposing. I mean, they're not like they're not you know actively opposing i

mean they're trying to engage in enforcement activity they're not proactively like blunting the influence of the national the federal government i mean you can say it's like a political statement against the current federal government policy but it's not like actively opposing the authority of the federal government what do you what do you mean um i mean when you say so like the the texas national guard yeah is according to the biden administration in violation of federal law right so if like uh greg abbott were to rob a bank and kemp said i'm gonna send some guys to help you you'd be like well he's not actually working against the government you know i mean what's he really doing but going into we don't know that the georgia national guard are going

to be engaging in activities related to border enforcement that the biden administration says are illegal i mean there could be other activities they could engage in that the biden administration hasn't said that about i think the way that i would put it simply is if a person is robbing a bank and you do anything to help them like even bring them a cheeseburger you're an accomplice so if you do anything to help the texas national guard at all well that's assuming that what they're doing is like hand out water bottles or something like yeah the federal i don't think you'll support i don't think the federal government has the authority to allow 8 000 illegal immigrant economic migrants in every day they don't have aliens yeah why would

they have that authority to to allow that that doesn't make any sense why would they have the authority to allow our country's military to surrender to an incompetent force they don't have that kind of authority you strip them of command if they're trying to ruin us if the if the argument is that texas does not have the authority to remove cbp from an international border and they're violating federal jurisdiction the only real issue is like we have a a national level conflict of law enforcement in a way we've not seen in a very very long time you know a lot of people like to bring up the bundy ranch stuff and i'm like yeah but that level conflict of law enforcement in a way we've not seen in a very, very long time. You know, a lot of people like to bring up the Bundy Ranch stuff.

And I'm like, yeah, but that was private citizens versus a federal agency. Yeah, that's totally. We're looking at state National Guard armed troops who have been deployed with weapons to repel Border Patrol agents from the border and to place border barriers in front of what the feds are declaring as their jurisdiction. And now you have camp announcing the deployment of 15 to 20 troops to assist Texas in this effort. What do you think would happen if you, Michael, went up to a federal law enforcement agent, say FBI, and told them, get away from this border right now or else with with and with guns like you and your buddies got guns, walked up and said, all of you FBI guys have to leave now or else with with and with guns like you and your buddies got guns walked up and said all of you fbi guys have to leave now or else i think you would be violently arrested and you'd

go to jail for a long time oh i think i have a very friendly encounter with the nice agents and everything would work out fine the only reason that's not the case right now is the dramatic escalation that would ensue should federal i mean let's just let's just we'll slow down to anybody listening if a group of uh militiamen like just like a bunch of locals who called themselves the border guys or whatever showed up to the border and started putting up razor wire told cbp to get the f out their jurisdiction no longer applies you know some wild ish would go down it really depends on the situation because like if you were had a burning city and people were burning to death and the, and the, the militia guys went in, they're like, we're going to help all these people

survive. But the feds were there being like, no, you can't go in there. And they're like, get out of my way. We're saving these people. And they, and they did it. That would be like, the feds bite back off in that case and be like, all right, all right. There's more of you. You do need to save them morally.

Let's clarify. Your city is burning down and the feds are setting the fires and a bunch of militia guys come in and say we're shutting this down yeah i would i would think maybe the command is is giving the feds weird orders but that the men themselves would be like this is what we're doing here is unreasonable there's more of them than there are of us and they're they're righteous right now so let's back off like i'm pretty sure if non-law enforcement citizens of texas showed up with guns and tried repelling federal agents you would have bloodshed and violent arrests and it would be like a j6 national news story i guess my instinct is that brian kemp is a pretty milquetoast republican middle of the the road, not rocking the boat that much.

As you mentioned, opponent of Trump or Trump opposes him and tried to get him primaried actually in 2022 based on 2020 election administration stuff. So I'm a little bit doubtful that Kemp would take such, you know, adventurous action to really engage in any kind of open defiance of the federal government you expect that more of a different kind of cavalier republican unless other than kemp and kemp's just like a business oriented chamber of commerce republican unless you're taking a look at the polls you're taking a look at national sentiment and you realize biden's on the wrong side of history has there been illegal immigrants being shipped into georgia into atlanta i would imagine, yes. They're going everywhere.

That'll change a governor's mind. Well, the Biden administration is flying people everywhere. Right. Now, so I look at it this way. If someone in government does a bad thing and everyone says it was a bad thing, you will immediately start seeing politicians come out and being like, I was always opposed to bad thing. It's just the it's the tides. It's the it's the whims of of public discourse if kemp is seeing that national polling favors securing the border the body administration is grossly unpopular trump is is the is the front runner to win with the polls even among the youth vote he might be thinking to himself i don't want to be on the wrong side of history i better just

go along with this it doesn't matter what i think he's doing he's be thinking to himself, I don't want to be on the wrong side of history. I better just go along with this. It doesn't matter what it was. That's what I think he's doing. He's going along to get along. He's sending a nominal contingent of Georgia personnel to assist in border activity. And I doubt it'll be anything that really crosses the line to open conflict or warfare between the states and feds. Because at that point you might potentially alienate some of those more median voters who do agree about the border issue at this point, but don't necessarily want to be too crazy about it. With this, now that we've cleared this up and it does appear clearly that he is going to be working directly with the Texas Guard in defiance of the federal government. I think when you look at the polls, when you look at

the national sentiment, if the Biden administration made any move to defy texas in terms of force they would get they would get crushed instantly you know you like like we mentioned john stewart ragging on joe biden's brain they are not it's not a popular administration they are i mean one poll just came out showing a national election i think by was like 38 percent this is not including rfk jr trump was at like 38%. This is not including RFK Jr. Trump was at like high 40s to like Biden's 38. And I don't know how true that is. I'm going to Brian.

We love. I would like to add real quick. Biden's approval is the lowest of any president since the second term of George W. Bush when it was at a historic when Iraq was the most unpopular. I'd also like to take this time to point out the worst websites in the world are local news websites because they automatically reload to generate ad revenue yeah but anyway local news reporters are also among the dumbest people i've ever encountered like i'm sure they're well-meaning but they just like take pr and marketing in college

yeah and then they can read off a teleprompter and they have no original thought about anything well it was fascinating too because i knew someone a long time ago who wanted to be a broadcast journalist. And I was like, so you want to stand there and read copy? Like you're not, that's the most brain dead job imaginable. Like weird vocal intonations, like tonight on such and such and such, I have to talk like I'm a crazy abnormal person

and not communicate with you regularly. I once asked, it was a kid in college that I knew and they were like, I want to be a broadcast journalist. And I said, why is it that you talk like this tonight? We saw a dog run across the street, Jim. And I'm like, why do you talk like that? And they're like, we're trained to.

And I'm like, why? Yeah, they teach it. Why? Nobody talks like that. They teach standard American speech. Yeah, but it's not standard American speech. It's like news broadcast dialect. It's a specific thing where. It's like news broadcast dialect. It's a specific thing where-

It's like cartoonish speech. A dog was seen running across the street. If you met somebody at like a cafe who was talking like that, you would think that they're out of their minds. Actually, Howard Stern became popular because on the radio, he mocked the radio version of that theatrical style of intonation and just sounded like a normal person more or less. So he was kind of you know

going against the grain and i think you know people who are our age now i mean the only people who watch these local news stations are like petrified 65 year olds who don't know how to fully work the tv remote so this is all they can come up with at like 6 30 in the evening this is you said it there it's theatrical that's the problem with this vocal intonation is they're talking with great enunciation and the tone also is a form of enunciation. So you can hear it like from a distant in a theater. You can discern what they're saying and when the when their emotions are changing, even if you're like 7000 feet away, but on TV, it doesn't translate.

The fact that I'm talking like this sounds like it gives me non-existent journalistic authority authority back to you can maybe it radio. Like from back in the day. Wow, this show is weird now. This show? This show is weird now. Everyone's talking like this. I think it's like an attempt at making yourself seem authoritative by speaking in a way that people associate with, you know, if you talk that way, you're official.

Also, it's heightened. Like, you know, whenever people do performances, performances performances are heightened that's what you do like you go on stage and you speak you know carefully and with specific intonation that's always what you do when you give a presentation i gotta be honest like could you imagine turning on like your local news station and the guy's like uh i'm standing here at the corner of 47th and cicero a man earlier had crossed the street and a car hit him and said a man earlier dude crossed the street and a car hit him. And said a man earlier crossed the street. I would watch that. In college, I did journalism for TV2 at Kent State, and I was like the special reporter I got hired on.

And they were like, all right, we want to move you to sports. And I was like, all right. So I was that guy. I'd be like, he hit it. It went out to the left field. That guy got it. And dang, he threw a far. You were just sports guy.

That guy went over to third base, too. I didn't know who they were. How many people were tuning into Kent State Sportscast? I didn't get the analytics. I'd love to third base too I didn't know who they were How many people were tuning in to Kent State Sportcast I didn't get the analytics I'd love to know though Dude that's great Yeah But I was like

I talk normal They're saying the Super Bowl Was the most watched Thing on television Did you guys watch it? Since the moon landing I thought it was ever I thought it was the most watched broadcast ever

Since the moon landing Since the moon landing they said That's crazy Wow 123 million Wow I actually did watch the Super Bowl with my child who was sick. Yeah.

And he was like, oh, I want to watch the ads, mom. And the narrative, the narrative. Wow, did you guys see the ending? The ending was kind of cool. It was exactly as we all predicted. Did you see Joe Biden's meme that came out right away? All part of the plan. But what I love the most about it is that we predicted with like 80% accuracy exactly what was going to happen.

The 49ers would be up in the first half. The Chiefs would slowly get ahead. But then it would, the 49ers would push ahead. It would end up a really close game. And then finally in the last second with the 49ers ahead, the Chiefs would turn it around. And that's literally what happened. They let the guys score the touchdown. Kelsey didn't get the game-winning touchdown,

which they engineered just so it's not two on the nose. No, no, no, no, no. The second to last play, they did get it to Kelsey. Kelsey got a big play toward the end, but he didn't get the game-winning touchdown. And they stopped him just before the touchdown

and then it went to Hardman, who ended up scoring. But let's check this out. I took that Biden meme photo with the laser eyes. And I tweeted it out saying, this is what every Palestinian child sees as their last thing they can see

before they're blown up with a US munition. Jeez. Yeah, someone was like, during the Haifa, blowing up Haifa. Didn't they blow up Haifa? Rafa.

Rafa. They were bombing Rafa. Everyone was watching the Super Bowl which is the one place in the far south of Gaza where they had- They bombed Rafa, the crossing?

Well, no, the city. The city, Rafa. That's the one place in're bombing out of the city. They bombed Rafa, the crossing? No, the city. The city, Rafa. That's the one place in the far south of Gaza where they had told Palestinians all this time to go to avoid being caught in the crossfire.

Now they're bombing that place. There's really no place left there. Well, they had hostages there. Let's jump to the story. This is a tweet. A story from NBC Boston. Jack Posobiec highlighting the rich white woman in New England who took in a family of Haitian migrants who says it's great.

It's like having your own personal chef. So let me play some of this story for you. Hi, Lisa. She says her daughter is very happy when she wakes up in the morning. She says, hi, Lisa. And everyone starts the day smiling. It's a delight and it's really fun having them what i realized is there's so much prejudice against refugees mostly because people don't know them lisa says she feels like she has her own personal chef as well don they loves cooking in fact her goal is to open up her own restaurant. All right, so the basic narrative here is a wealthy white woman with extra space took in a family of Haitian migrants where they cook for her. And it makes them happy.

And she does not pay them. I was writing about this today because it really seems like we used to have a word for things like this. When rich white people would open their homes and give you their extra space and not pay you anything and then have you do the household chores well but let's be let's be realistic that's that's what i was thinking but a bit worse than that i wrote about it today and i did use the s word you're making an allusion to slavery yes that's correct but these haitian migrants came here by choice and they can leave anytime they want and they can go anywhere they can leave and there is a perfectly fine dumpster

they can sleep in if they want or they can choose to live in the rich white lady's home and have shelter for their family so long as they keep you know giving exchange of their services right well yeah pairs come from like sweden and stuff in exchange for room and board and then taking care of the children? They get paid. And they have special immigration status. Yes. So a few friends of mine 20 years ago were all pairs.

And it's a program. You get paid. You are a live-in housekeeper who receives a salary or usually a salary. Stipend or something. And you have a special visa. My friends who did it got a weekly flat rate. So you call it a stipend but they're getting 500 bucks a week plus a room in the house and they just watch the kid and prepare meals for the kid taxable and so taxable oh yeah yeah yeah and but they were like 19 probably double taxable because

if you're from your home country oh right sweden's got like you know it's 55 income but then i also met uh the inverse too people who had came to the united states to be au pairs that's what i meant people who come from like scandinavia yeah both yeah yeah but that's a job yeah you could also do like teaching english and korea and stuff like that yeah yeah this isn't a job this is no these are people who came here illegally to live i think uh this woman this she's been in prison yeah well it's not just her i was writing about this for Human Events today. I did an op-ed and I started digging into what's going on in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts in August, you had the lieutenant governor telling Massachusetts, you know,

Bay Staters is what they're called pretty much. You had her telling everybody to open up their homes and let everybody in. They have a vast network of not-for-profits and NGOs that facilitate housing people in the homes of residents and working out whatever sort of arrangements. But you have to imagine that if you're essentially homeless in a foreign country and you're in somebody's house, you're going to do whatever you can to try and make it less of a burden for that person. You're going to do whatever the chores are. The only future I see for this country will have a very dark period because there's one of two things that can happen.

Donald Trump engages in a mass deportation program, which sparks insanity among the left or the continued erosion of the American community, which results in this country eventually just breaking apart into a million pieces. And I'll explain what that means. The analogy I would give is, you know, you live in a house with a roommate. And one day there's a guy sleeping on your couch. And you go to your roommate and say, who is this guy sleeping on the couch? And he says, this is Jim.

Jim needs a place to stay. Come on, just let him stay. And you say, no, no, no. I never agreed to pay rent to let him stay. No, no, no. It's fine. It's fine. Like, he'll help pitch and he'll clean things up.

And you go, okay, fine, whatever. The next day, there's another guy sitting on the couch and his name is Bill. And you go, who's Bill? I never said Bill could come in. And they go, me and Jim vote that he can stay. And you go, no, no, he can't vote. Well, we both voted.

So now you can't do anything about it. Two to one, he gets to stay. Now it's three to one. One by one, they keep voting to add more and more people and eventually you're just some dude who's living in the basement in your own filth because they keep voting against you to take all your stuff so what's happening now is i keep wondering like in the new york election with uh to replace santos i saw this is very fascinating the polls closed

by the way right the republican who's running in new york is basically a liberal she's the most hilarious person the Republicans have ever nominated for any office. Mazzy Pelican. Yeah, she's a black Ethiopian woman served in the IDF. That's why the Nassau County Republicans

in New York are all right over here. So here's what's happening. The Republicans, instead of choosing somebody who says we should secure our borders, we should deport, deport, deport, MAGA, Trump, America first, they get someone in New York who's a liberal.

Why? Well, she supports Trump. She expressed support for Trump. Sure, sure, sure. But I mean, she's a relatively liberal person. It's a New York Republican. You're not getting a diehard MAGA. What happens is when Reagan, many people attribute California's turning from red to blue to Reagan.

Well, Santos actually was pretty right. I mean, Santos boasted that he had the most conservative record of any Republican in the House. Well, you know, and he was also weird, strange in other ways. But my point is, in California in 94, there was an attempt to pass a resolution that said they did pass it. Federal public funds cannot be given to noncitizens. And it caused massive revolt and protests among the left who were amplified by illegal

immigrants, creating such crisis in the state that a bunch of Republicans backed down. Democrats gained a majority and ended up winning. Simply put, when you bring someone into your country to live there and they bring their family and they expand and you end up with 10 plus million, they will exert influence on your country over a long enough period of time. They're not going to vote for your country. They're going to vote for theirs. One of the big problems in this country is remittances.

People come to the United States, do work, and then send the money immediately out of the country, which is bad. This is there were a few jurisdictions famous for their local currencies. Ithaca, famous for its hours, they called it. They've mostly fallen out of popular use, but they were very big. I think it was like in the 2000s. This was a local currency created by some dude.

Ithaca, New York? Ithaca, New York. They still have the Ithaca hour, but most people don't use it anymore. What happens is- Is it a legal tender? In the jurisdiction, yes. Huh, I didn't know that.

So here's what happens. US dollars. I often ask this when I go into any new city or I'm staying somewhere. I say, what brings US dollars into any new city or I'm staying somewhere. I say, what brings U.S. dollars into this city? I wonder. Often you'll find it's government or universities like money has to come from somewhere. In the instance of Michigan, when the auto manufacturing dried up and left, all of a sudden nothing is generating U.S. dollars into this region. And so there's no way to economically expand. People can't afford

the increasing cost of inflation because the state only has, let's say, a million dollars hypothetical number in circulation with no new dollars coming in. But dollars are going out through import purchases. When when you buy a computer from from a foreign country, that money goes to that country figuratively. It's spent in in the united states but it's utilized by them in their country that value leaves without money coming into an area it will start to dissolve and fall apart so local jurisdictions have you know they tried to create their own currencies to supplement local trade to prevent the issue of dollars leaving the area i think it's no longer in circulation in ithaca but it was mimicked in a couple other cities like wisconsin it was not just mimicked in circulation in Ithaca, but it was mimicked in a couple other cities like Wisconsin.

It was not just mimicked even before the Ithaca hour, but I went there like eight years ago and people were like, yeah, we have, and we don't really use them anymore. The guy who made it work, like, I guess,

I don't know if he died or what happened, but my point is this people come to the United States. They, they earn money at a store and then they send that money to a foreign country. Someone will then use those dollars to buy something, not United States, not facilitate American trade,

not facilitate American services. And it won't go into the hands of young working class individuals. And thus the economy gets depressed by the exporting of cash. You combine that with a mass influx of millions of immigrants

who begin exerting pressure against your interests and your country collapses. It is akin to inviting a stranger into your home and then letting him exert authority over how things are spent and who gets money over a long enough period of time. It's simply put the moment you and your roommate invite a third party in that third party will

subvert your interests, whether it's by just telling your roommate what to do or by actually getting a say for some reason and how things are done. As Democrats have begun the push to allow non-citizens to vote, and they are, Joe Rogan was talking about this like a week ago, New York's trying it, got help in the courts, many jurisdictions are doing this. Eventually, Republicans will have to pander to non-citizens in order to get votes. So in a city like New York, you'll have a Republican say, no, no, I will not give tax funding from American workers to noncitizens. There will be revolt. There will be people with with money and influence in the city who will then oppose that Republican.

They will never win. And the end result will be a Republican saying, I'm totally in favor of noncitizens voting, but I'm a Republican who believes in families. Yeah, noncitizens should never be able to vote in any election in the United States for any reason. And those who do have voting power who will say, if you enact policy that in any way makes it harder for me and my family, we'll vote against you. And you'll say, but your family aren't citizens. And they're like, you have to consider them now or else you lose. And also, they're going to be pushing the Democrats that you can be sure are going to be trying to push in some sort of amnesty for people.

That's going to be coming if they win. And I agree. But but I think the important thing to understand is amnesty is not not needed at all for one they'll be counted in the census but they could come at it from multiple directions right like if they can't get amnesty they'll get this voting thing i think if the voting thing they'll get the amnesty like they're going to push it through one way or another agreed but it's important for people to understand whether or not an illegal immigrant votes does not matter and whether or not they get amnesty doesn't matter what matters is they will be counted towards the census. They will create artificial congressional

seats and electoral college votes, and they will exert local pressure, forcing conservatives to say publicly, like, I'm in favor of illegal immigration because you will not win in a district that has a large percentage of non-citizens. Why? Some some 20 year old kid is like, I'm going to vote this. this his friend's gonna come to him and say hey man i'm undocumented i my parents brought me here and we're not citizens if you vote for the republican they're gonna deport me and he's gonna go okay i won't don't you think it's a bit of an overstatement though to say that any ethnic bloc that ends up getting a foothold within the american populace will inevitably work against the national interest. I mean, Cuban emigres have been a huge part.

Well, you said that they're going to work. You said that they're going to be a diversion with popular interest, right? Non-citizens. But they're naturalized Cubans who ended up being admitted to the country. But it's everybody else together. Where they were not citizens when they arrived. The issue is integration. And that's some of the most you know reliable right so the

thing what you're misunderstanding in florida i'm talking about mass influx unchecked migration where you have people who are not citizens and have no interest in what this country is represents or its history versus legal migrants who came here appropriately assimilated took a citizenship test and have family and connections to the country but cubans who came over in a boat didn't go through a standard regulated right naturalization process right so you can that's fair to oppose it it's been a controversial issue but the point is they became very well integrated into the wider american and so the ethic including voting overwhelmingly for republicans so what you're saying has no bearing on anything i just said because if people are integrated into the country they vote for

the interests of that country people who are not integrated vote against the interests of the country but they integrated even despite coming illegally what does that have to do with what i'm talking that was because they were talking about the lack of integration for people who come illegal because there's so many of it it's about how many can integrate over a period of time okay so it could be quantity yeah that makes sense right we're talking about millions of people over the past few years coming in with no ties to the community who are who are looking for buffalo wild wings that's an absolute quote from one of the migrants in the migrant caravan they want buffalo wild wings they're not coming here because they're like this country will give me free speech they're coming here because they're like i want playstation

quote that's a quote from the la. They interviewed someone in the migrant caravan. I want Buffalo Wild Wings. That's a quote. The people fleeing- Aren't they basically saying, I want more economic opportunity? So let's just say there's a big difference between someone fleeing- So there's a big difference

between someone fleeing Cuba because they're being murdered or gulagged and someone who's like, we're going to get free stuff. Yeah, economic migrancy is not refuge. You don't seek refuge for bad economics. It's only for political persecution things like that right that's what they wanted to raise the asylum standards so the people who are coming for economic refuge would not be eligible and she called them refugees

they're not they're migrants they're economic migrants i think well these are these are asylum seekers from haiti so they're so under current law asylum seekers what are they seeking asylum from it's from ha, which sucks apparently. But what sucks in Haiti is basically a failed state run by. I mean, wasn't the president assassinated? And to be fair, Haiti, I mean, in terms of the bordering nations or closest nations, it's an island. I mean, it's a portion of an island. It's one thing if someone comes from africa

through south america through central america to mexico and to the united states it's another thing if it's haiti oh yeah they're coming right from haiti then i misspeak then if they're coming right from haiti and there's gangs running it and murdering people in the street then yeah they are refugees but that's a different situation no no that's not necessarily true somebody from haiti isn't necessarily at risk of dying to a gang just because your country's bad doesn't mean we just give you stuff. How do you quantify that? How do you figure it out?

Whether they're actually, if they're just taking advantage of political upheaval to go to a better place or if they're actually fleeing from the upheaval. Well, like with Venezuela, like there's special immigrant visas for Venezuelans and the Biden administration directly flies Venezuelans to the US. And now there's this whole issue in New York with like Venezuelan gang being connected to like 63 robberies or something like that. And now there's some concern that they might be teaming up with MS-13.

I think that's another potentially Republican-leaning ethnic demographic because remember what they're fleeing, they're fleeing a left wing. I don't care about Republican-leaning or Democrat-leaning.

No, I'm just saying there's diversity in terms of the political inclinations of people who come to the country. it's not america and so so so no it's fact so maybe i'll put it mental but it hasn't america always been like a melting pot imagine you have right for people who integrate i'm descended from people yeah i'm descended from people who came from ireland italy who just weren't necessarily thinking so let's say oh i love the concept of america they were coming for economic opportunity because they were peasants

and there was and there was a restriction on how many could come and when they could come and what they had to do. And historically, these people came and were like, we're going to learn the language. We're going to go to school. And many of the migrants, stories that actually was recently told by a very elderly person,

their parents refused to teach them their native language. They said, you're only going to speak English, which is the opposite of what we're seeing now. So I think a better analogy- I think a lot of second, third, fourth generation Spanish speaking immigrants end up speaking English. A better, yeah, because of proximity, not because the parents are like, we're going to integrate. I think a better analogy would be like, if you have five members of your family and you invite, and this lady invites someone in the house, that person will begin to exert influence. That person's interests are not going to be the kid going to college.

It's going to be, what am I getting? Whether, whether they feel they're entitled to a lot or little, it will be, what do I get? This woman is, is cooking and clean. Let's just say cooking. I don't know, personal chef. And so she's going to eventually be like, look, I, I, I appreciate you letting me stay here, but I'm cooking food for you and I get nothing for it. There will be influence exerted. Let's now entertain the possibility. This woman, what do you think happens if her family of five invites four more people in? Now it's 50-50. Now there's going to be fighting over who gets to use the bathroom and when. Doesn't matter who's entitled to the bathroom, who owns it. It's going to be a problem. Hey, look, I got to wake up in the morning. You can't be in the shower for 30 minutes. I need to take

a shower. Plus there's five people waiting. It becomes cluttered. Eventually, there will be competing interests as to who gets what resources. Imagine they had five more Haitian refugees, as they call them. Now they're going to be like, yeah, you get out. We got too many people here. There's 15 of us and we vote you leave. That's just it. I guess the question is, when do they get squatters rights for her house?

I guess the question is, she's a resident like, when do they get squatters rights, you know, for her house? I guess the question is, when are the- Oh, she's a resident now. Yeah. She can't be evicted. When are their, the question might be, when are their finite resources?

Meaning, when does the share get smaller and smaller and smaller that when more people come in, there's too small a piece of the pie that it creates upheaval or- Well, so like, let's be clear.

It could happen slowly or it could happen all at once if the power goes out, if there's a power down- Well, no, it's right now. A grid down thing, it's every man for themselves.

It's right now when a carton of eggs is 10 bucks or a pack of salami. I've been complaining about this nonstop. 15 bucks. 15 bucks for salami? It's like 13.26. Okay, I'm rounding up. But it was like $6 a year and a half, two years ago. Yeah, for real.

It's getting nuts. And it's supply and demand. It's spending massive amounts of money and resources through our fractional reserve banking system on a tremendous influx of non-citizens who are being handed debit cards. Our tax dollars, figuratively, being spent to facilitate the trafficking of non-citizens coming through the border. It is not a boon on our economy. I'll put it this way. A viral video from Gen Z of a 5 by 11 apartment in New York City with no bathroom it has a sink in it and it's

$2,000 a month and they're like this is what Gen Z can afford these days if you're lucky they're putting non-citizens in luxury hotels paid for by the state and you get a TV a bedroom and a bathroom and an Xbox how about that I had a toilet in my kitchen once

the luxury hotels have bathrooms And an Xbox, too. And an Xbox. How about that? I'm lucky if you get a bathroom. No, no, no. I had a toilet in my kitchen once. Well, I looked at that apartment. The luxury hotels have bathrooms. Oh, that place, yeah. The Gen Z apartments don't. No, you got to walk down the hall. I've never even been to a hotel that has Xbox. What the hell? No, the shelters have Xbox.

The shelters. But the question then becomes, why is it that American citizens who are trying to start families, get jobs, and get places to live on their own, have to live in five by 10 boxes and non-citizens are getting luxury. They had an easy growing up, Tim. They got a leg up. They can work. They can figure it out on their own. That's the mentality. I think this is the point of finite resources today. We do not have enough to give homes to our own children right now. Why are we giving it to non-citizens well yeah the other thing too is you hear the government officials in toronto and new york and massachusetts all saying to people hey if you have

extra rooms just open your homes open your homes to these you know immigrants and have them come live with you it's like who in toronto new york and eastern massachusetts has extra space rich people have extra space right i hope that the next thing we hear from this woman is that she gets into a dispute over residency with the migrants who claim that they're legal residents who can't be evicted and then because i'll look after i think 28 days you're a legal resident who can't be evicted no matter what they can then claim she doesn't pay rent and her argument is going to be i am a legal resident and our initial agreement included rent free. Well, and the NGOs

also that facilitate this kind of thing, they're saying, oh, you can decide how long you want these migrants to be there, but not really, not by actual law and not by tenant law in Toronto, New York, or Boston. She's going to be like, it was really great having you here. I think you guys should find a new

place now that you've been here for a long time. And they're going to say, we have nowhere to go and we're not leaving. Right. Why would they? Resources have always been finite. But my hunch is that there have been times in American history in the past where economic conditions were worse than they are today. And yet an inflow of immigration was still tolerated.

Look, I've never actually been ideologically in favor of immigration or really even opposed to it. Again, neutral for better or worse. But in the encounters that I have had with people who do immigrate, most of the time, if they're coming here, it's for relatively innocuous reasons. Not because they have some kind of nefarious intent to undermine the American project. A lot of them do want to actively assimilate it that doesn't mean you can't justifiably regulate those inflows of non-citizens to the country i mean i think that's perfectly reasonable which would be much less than two million but i wouldn't necessarily cast such kind of generalized aspersion on the people who do make that track a lot of times they tend to be

more industrious and more entrepreneurial than the average member of their society because they're making this epic journey to come to a brand new place i can find that in particular with the people from central and south america keep saying it and i hope you do and we can clip this and send it to every gen z kid who can't afford an apartment no i get it the advocacy of someone to say these industrious people are enriching the community and are going to get for free what you should have gotten. No, I'm not saying they should get for free what you've gotten. I'm just saying that in terms of their character traits.

They're good people. And you know, it's great that they're coming here and taking from you. The problem is it's tough to tell if they're industrious or not. But it's not them who's taking it. I mean, they're utilizing the opportunity. If there are 10 houses on a street and there are 10 young people and you bring in 10 non-citizen criminal immigrants, there is going to be a competition for those Gen Z Americans over which house goes to whom. Maybe the answer is just billboard houses. That is one part of it.

Who's going to do it? Where's the prices of wood and steel have been skyrocketing? Graphene. Government can subsidize it. So the government takes from everyone else to pay for the criminal aliens they allowed in? How about this? We say, hey, guys. I mean, the government used to create a huge amount of public housing.

That was like the housing boon after World War II. Let's stop bringing in millions of non-citizens and actually support the younger generation and allow them to live comfortably and inherit the American dream. I'm not a zealot one way or another on this. Yeah, I think you can't tell if they're industrious or not. That's the problem. A lot of people are. A lot of people could be covert military just acting like they're migrants there's no way to tell that's why we got to shut in my opinion shut down this illegal

border crossing what are we looking at tens of thousands of chinese nationals possibly i don't know at 600 what is the number 600 uh terror suspects or something was it 600 really but why why does being a chinese national automate automatically make you under suspicion they are not refugees from central or south america coming through our southern border why does being from china make you uniquely suspicious who's that an illegal chinese migrants are dangerous someone coming from the other side of the planet through our border is not a refugee no that may be true yeah i'm just saying they're a criminal alien okay i just don't think the fact that they're trying it doesn't necessarily make it doesn't mean that they're here to destroy

us but it does indicate that they're not which is an argument being made they're saying that the chinese communist party is infiltrating the united states through the southern border by sending all these okay all right but but we got to stop there because you keep doing this where you're making arguments no one made i think that i'm saying that argument has been widely made maybe you can make it we on this show are pointing out that someone who flew 8 000 miles to mexico or to brazil and came through our border is not a refugee or asylum seeker they're seeking to exploit a a damaged border and steal from the american people no that could be true it's a fact yeah yeah if you're coming to this i don't think it makes them

especially insidious threat like national security no it's it's the fact that if you came from china you are clearly not a refugee okay but yeah yeah i got that i'm talking about the it's not fair to make the claim that the chinese are more dangerous but i think that could be possible that claim is widely made look at republicans talking about the permeability of the border in terms of chinese nationals they do argue that it's a national security threat to the united states because they're in league with a chinese communist party and that the chinese are sending fat i've heard that they're sending fentanyl to the cartels that's a fact who are they're sending the ingredients to make the fentanyl and so that then they're sending fentanyl across the border they manufacture the core ingredient that's like

the poisoning of the american people it's more than that uh when people order drugs online through nefarious means it mostly comes from china so designer drugs uh notoriously coming from china and i've only ordered from india so uh you know there are websites that were around for a little while and designer drugs were this big thing where dark web yeah dark road was that so i don't know i don't know i don't know exactly where silk road it was like it could be from anywhere yeah but designer drugs is this big thing where i think they've closed the loophole because drugs were specifically regulated people could uh uh uh uh uh what could alter the molecular structure of certain drugs making

them a different non-regulated designer drug that's what you mean by designer drug they haven't changed loophole though it's just they just keep making you no some states have passed laws that say a substance that does these things right okay instead of a certain substance we gotta go to super chats so if you haven't already would you kindly smash that like button subscribe to this channel get your questions in now in the super chats we're going to be reading them as many as we can and become a member at timcast.com so you can watch the members only uncensored show and submit questions through the Discord server to us. We will now read your Super Chats.

Manipple says, happy 37th and 1112ths. Hey, congratulations. Because I said on my morning show, I was like, I'm 38. Okay, well, I'm not 38, but I'll be 38 in less than a month. So I'm like basically 38. But like, you know, like a 10-year-old, I am 37 and three quarters. I get to say that do these people have a these super chat people have like a calendar hanging up in their bedroom with your birthday marked out on it i bet some they check every box yes well no i quite literally said it

this morning that i'm 37th and if you made a calendar with your face on all 12 months i bet you'd sell a lot of them and then i gotta be honest and it freaks everyone out i think if we made a calendar of anything we'd sell a decent out. I think if we made a calendar of anything, we'd sell a decent amount. But I think if we made a calendar of you, we'd sell more. It'd be happy. You sweaty after you're working out, skating,

it's 12 different poses from 12 different days. I want to sell bikini pictures of you. I have to be honest. I think an Ian calendar would sell better than a Tim calendar. Let's get ripped and find out. You're like, people would be like, Tim's kind of boring.

Like, you know, I like hearing him. They love you so much. Yeah. But, but you're the, you're like the, the Cajun know, I like hearing him. They love you so much. Yeah. But, but you're the, you're like the,

the Cajun spice. You know what I mean? Like you're the weirdo. It's like, I can only, you gotta spices like for a little bit every, but you're the, you're the meal.

You're the buffet meat and potatoes. All right, let's read more meat. Jacob, Jacob parody says after listening to the Joe Rogan interview with Aaron Rogers recently, I realized that RFK jr. Would be the perfect VP pick for Trump. Joe Rogan would most likely endorse him.

We've entertained that in the past, that RFK Jr. is an independent. Considering what he's polling at, I'm inclined to agree, not that I want him to be the VP pick, but I think if Trump were to do that, I think it would crush Biden. I tweeted out a clip recently from a Trump speech

that RFK actually reposted and used it as a basis to directly go after Trump, at least more directly than I had seen in a while or maybe ever in terms of RFK attacking Trump. So I really doubt that's in the cards. I think both parties don't take fondly to independent parties or both two main parties don't take kindly to third party challengers, because especially in the case of RFK Jr.,

it's not exactly clear from which candidate he draws more support. Oh, it is clear. No, I think it's mixed if you look at the polling. Sometimes it's slightly more Biden, sometimes slightly more Trump. And it could vary based on the state. If you go through RCP's average and 538's polling average uh kennedy is pulling pulling two to one from democrats or more trump's trump's base is solid at like 40 to 44 percent yeah so any voter that's going to come out of that's not ditching trump unless it's like a swing voter as it was but it's

typically uh three to one or two to one Democrat. And I think it's mixed. I just, just, just, just track the polling. I don't have my, we can pull up right now. It's slightly more of a democratic lean in terms of who it draws from, but different polls show different things. And once polarization kicks in, when the election approaches, meaning people who are more reticent about supporting one of the two major party candidates end up quote unquote coming home because they don't want to so-called throw away their vote. Then you're going to see probably the third party support diminish across the board, not just RFK, but the other candidates. At least that's been a historical trend.

That makes a lot of sense, but I just don't, I don't see a reality in which Trump supporters are like, well, I might vote for RFK instead. No, I agree. Biden voters are like i don't want to vote for joe biden they don't really know what to do with rfk because the reason why he got so much attention within the past year or so was because he was at least ostensibly supposed to be running against biden the democratic primary so there's a lot of conservative media really giving him a lot of hype attention because they wanted to just stick it to biden right because there would be an inconvenience for for biden who wanted to run uncontested now he went independent, it's less clear like whose partisan interest

he necessarily serves. I would love to see RFK Jr. and Trump reconcile their positions on Israel though, because I think actually RFK is probably more stridently pro-Israel than even Trump, who boasts about being the most pro-Israel president of all time. Let's read more.

We got, yes, man. He says, skibidi toilet for president skibidi dom dom dom yes yes those videos are just completely insane by the way but i love i love the increasing unhingeness of what they are it reminds me of um remember how to basic yeah yeah and it's funny because like all the gen z people who are like ha skibidi, bro, you guys got to check out How To Basic. Do you know what that is? No. So it started on YouTube and it was like how to put toilet paper on.

And then it's like a hand, just a single hand filming, and it like takes the roll off and puts toilet paper on. That's it. Then it's like the next video is like how to, you know, clear a toilet. And it's just, you know, putting the plunger in, plunge, plunge. How to open an umbrella. It's like very simple. Over time, they became increasingly more and more unhinged until it was like how to yes i know don't don't and it's a guy going and he's smashing eggs and breaking

windows and knocking it what you gotta you get it's just like over a long period of time it got crazier and crazier it was brilliant yeah It was like the golden era of YouTube. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's, I think this is still in mind. Yeah. I know.

What's it called? How to, how to basic. It's like Max Mofo and those guys still make videos. I know that's for sure, but it was hilarious because you're like, wait, what?

He's like smashing eggs. Yeah. What's he doing? It's like the turndown for what music video that just keeps getting increasingly insane as it goes on. I don't know why that song, I remember that song i remember that song because it was in the super bowl it was yeah all right let's go kale says timcast crew with

crypto doing so well in the past few days what are y'all's thoughts on if elon would start using doge as a form of payment on x um let me let me let me check real quick what my thoughts are my thoughts are um elon please do it i have 9 000 doge how much is that it was a lot more before it is 728 dollars worth of doge and i don't know why i have it it's just i do and i bought a long time ago and i just didn't care i bought it was worth absolutely nothing it became worth a whole lot thousand one hundred thousandth of a cent at some point yeah what a trash, what a trash coin. I bought it when it was worth nothing. And then it jumped up to, what did it get to? It's 8 cents right now.

Didn't Elon tweet to buy it at one point? It was kind of like a culture jam. It's like a meme thing, right? There's nothing behind it. It's not a good token. I don't think it really has any value. What was it at? 50 cents? I mean, I could be wrong. If there's doge experts out there that want to clarify uh oh it was 57

68 cents 68 on May 7th of 21 I bought it a long time ago and I don't think I bought it at speak I think I bought it slightly after it jumped up and I just ignored it completely it went from two thousandths of a cent to 68 cents I mean what is that a 10 i can't uh didn't elon musk make the twitter logo briefly the doge icon or any remember that no i can't i'm just remembering that i think i i i will not give anybody financial advice but uh i was i i was in bitcoin when bitcoin was 70 cents and i like to tell the story about how i almost bought 6 733 bitcoin but my friend convinced me not to do it at the time it was 70 cents it was like five five some a thousand dollars worth of uh bitcoin i was going to buy back then in order

to buy it it was extremely difficult you had to basically meet someone in person and have them watch them do the transfer mining was substantially easier and uh when bitcoin reached around five bucks i got excited and sold and i had like a couple hundred bucks and i was like yeah this is awesome there's no reality in which i would have bought thousands of bitcoin and then not sold at 20 bucks it would have been insane i would have been like i got 50 grand this is crazy. What do I do? And if I had it now, I'd be like a billionaire or whatever.

But I will say this with no advice to anybody. I am happy. Despite the fact it hit a hundred dollars and everyone said, you missed the train. I was like, wow, a hundred bucks. If only I'd actually bought it. Now tell my friends,

I almost bought thousands, 6,000. Imagine where I'd be right at $600, had if i had bought it and waited then when it got to 10k i was like oh my god how much money would i have had it's almost so when bitcoin hit 13 i was like you know every time bitcoin jumps i say the same thing oh my god if only so i just bought a bunch now it's now it's at 50 000 and i'm like wow i think zuby tweeted out that he expects it to be at 1 million but that that 1 million will be worth what's worth 300 000 today because of inflation so that's so funny uh one bitcoin has eight decimal points behind it it is effectively going going to be a million dollars

i predicted this and i'm not the smartest guy on Bitcoin. Max Keiser has predicted, I think, more than that. Max has been predicting somewhere around 200K relatively soon. Something called the, what is it, the halvening? Happens every couple of years. It's happening in April, which means the cost to produce a Bitcoin is going to, I believe, double. Is that correct? Yeah. That means that the people who are utilizing this will have to spend twice as much money,

which means when a product costs more, has to be sold for more, the miners will then hold on to it. Then this will cause a strain on the market. People who are trying to buy or trade with it. El Salvador as a nation needs to do this, which means there is a weight to the value of Bitcoin. It will have to go up. Now, I'm not recommending anybody do anything because I have no idea what I'm talking about. All I can say is I bought a bunch of Bitcoin when it was at $1,300 because I was sick and tired of being like i missed the train i missed the train i missed the train how could i have been at bitcoin when it was 70 cents and i didn't buy it and now here i am looking at bitcoin at a thousand dollars thinking the exact same thing it's too expensive when it was 70 cents i said who cares it's worthless when it's a thousand

dollars i'm like it's too expensive i said no i'm buying it and i bought it i'm very happy i think that one thing people got to know about crypto is you don't have to buy one bitcoin you buy a percentage of a product that may or may not go up so if you buy two dollars worth of it and it goes up by a hundred percent then you make two dollars so it's just really about the percentage of growth that you're investing in i'm looking at el salvador as a nation using bitcoin as a national currency. Rumors, Argentina may do this under Millet. There will be an expansion of this.

It's almost like if the whole world decided Bitcoin was worthless, El Salvador as a nation would still be using it and it would still have value in El Salvador. So there's a weight tied to the value of Bitcoin now forever, basically. Does El Salvador, does it still tie its currency or peg its currency to the value of bitcoin now forever basically does el salvador does it still tie its currency or peg its currency to the u.s dollar because melee i know okay well in melee i know

made one of his campaign pledges to remain within the orbit or the ambit of the u.s dollar the u.s dollar that's like an ideological principle i think think, you know, what happens is every time Bitcoin does a big spike, it has a drop off. A point when miners and other interested parties are like, okay, the price is up. We're going to sell and pull our profits. And then it drops down again. I remember when it hit 19,000 and people were mortgaging their homes to buy a bunch. And then it dropped down to 10. And they're like, my life is ruined.

And if they just didn't sell, they'd be super rich. Unless they took out a loan on margin to buy it that's the problem people are taking out these loans on margins so they'll they'll borrow money and then they'll use that money to buy the bitcoin and then if the value of the bitcoin drops to a certain level they're going to call a recall on the loan and they're like now we're going to use your own crypto that's worth half as much to pay off the loan so you lose double your money very that's what happened during the great depression a lot of people have been buying stock on margin they've been taking out loans to buy stock and when the stock market crashed they had to pay all those back and they lost everything go to what what is it uh like uh what's the subreddit for stock

market gambling stock market bets or whatever it's called i don't know wall street bets wall street bets and you see people who are like well i lost two hundred thousand dollars of money i don't have yo those, those fools are crazy. But my favorite is when they're like, I will not pay this back and there's nothing they can do about it. Maybe Millay went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem a few days ago.

Did you see that? Where he's like tearfully up against the wall to pray for crypto. Let's read some super chats. Vincent Baker says, big L's for Vosh and Hassan this week. Yep. Why?

Oh, do you want to get into it? Oh, let's save that. Tell him the after show. The Vosh thing's got to be saved for the after show. Isn't Vosh's entire life an L? I mean, he's a millionaire, isn't he? Maybe not. Maybe I should take the L.

Everywhere I look, I see losers. Maybe I'm a loser. My two big streams with him were not very pleasant. If Vosh is not a millionaire, I would would be surprised considering his following uh he should be he does have a passionate following i enjoyed talking to him that's what i should say i don't know him very well i've been a couple times all right martin edgar says i may have to disagree on when the tit-for-tat started i believe it started with the impeachment of clinton i also see this as the beginning of the advancement of the what is that dfa i don't know what that is yep that's a good point i was actually thinking of

bringing it up that you could argue that the tit for tat in terms of employing increasingly extreme or dramatic legislative tactics arguably did originate with the bill clinton impeachment which was ultimately over a relatively trivial trivial offense i mean you could argue that he actually did commit a high crime or misdemeanor per the standard that was in use at the time but you know underlying the offense was basically having an extramarital affair with a white house intern whereas now you have people always threatening each other with impeachment over treason or you know selling out the country to russia or all these other kind of crazy, much more grandiose accusations. It was much more ticky tack stuff under Clinton,

but it did accelerate the process whereby Congress became more comfortable using these more extreme measures. All right. Void Raptor says, when the new studio is up, will we finally get Tim Kast in the kitchen cooking show?

So the studio is done completely. It needs decoration. And we're going to be putting up that Civil War flag that was done into us. Really excited for that. Going to get it framed. That looks so cool. Yeah, we'll get a glass frame for it. We've got to move a lot of the art.

We've got to put up the guitars. The room is much bigger. I think it's three times as wide. Significantly. Yeah, so it's a lot bigger. And we've got to test things out. It is what it is. We'll have to do testing cameras and depth of field

and how things are going to look. But it's pretty cool. Kitchen's there. Everything's done. But the skate park construction is starting on Thursday, which means it's going to be very noisy for the next two to three weeks. So we could literally go there right now

and do the show. And dusty probably. Oh yeah, a lot of wood, sawdust, it's going to be a big cleaning. So we're looking at three weeks. We were actually, we didn't know when the skate park construction was going to begin,

so we were actually planning on going. And then we would be like, as soon as the construction starts, we'll have to figure out what to do about the noise. But then we got the call that they're like, we're going to start the construction this week. And we're like, okay,

I guess we're going to wait. Yeah. Just let them work overnight. Are they going to work overnight? But we need, we need decorations in the kitchen. So we actually, in the meantime,

while they're doing skate park construction, we should have, uh, there's a, there's an additional studio underneath the new IRL studio, which is going to be like a lounge style, sofa style podcast room. So we need that to be designed and set up, posters, art, things like that. And that has to get done ASAP.

So we need someone to do it. But in the meantime, we are ready to go. I'm excited about it. And we may do a cooking show. I don't know. Maybe we'll just film Ian making lentils. Oh, that sounds good. Yeah. It's like every week, week a different lentil recipe but it's basically the same thing red lentils red lentils man let's grab some more super chats james lamb says my cousin's house just burnt

down her husband is sick and not currently working any help will be greatly appreciated give send go crystal day good luck sir sorry to. I hope everything works out well. Man, best of luck. The Sig P says, no need to halt the funding. Make Ukraine pay back all the money or we let Russia take all of Ukraine. You guys heard what Trump said, right? That some, you know, NATO president said, if we don't pay, will you defend us? And he says, no.

In fact, I'll encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want. Everyone freaked out. That was the most absurd freak out. It's so tedious at this point. People forget in 2016, in the 2016 campaign, there was an identical freak out that lasted months. I mean, it really flared up in the summer of 2016 and just continued in perpetuity beyond that,

where it was just assumed that Trump was going to sell out the NATO alliance to Russia, that he was going to abandon Ukraine, that he didn't actually believe in the integrity of the NATO collective defense pact. Trump didn't do a single thing over four years to undermine NATO at all. In fact, he brags that he used negotiating tactics to extract additional funding commitments from NATO member states. So Trump is brilliant for nato i

mean they should love him except but people are get wrapped up in this completely fact-free hysteria that's divorced from what trump actually did in office this just drives me crazy about this current trump campaign people who both hate trump and love trump are dealing with like a fantasy version of trump it's not 2016 we're all have to speculate about what he would do if he's in power he was in power for four years right he actually armed ukraine he extracted he strengthened nato he brags about it so the idea that you have like david from these think tank people flipping out because trump made some offhand remark recounting an anecdote it just doesn't line up with what he actually did when he wielded the power right trump is an american hegemonist and nato is a vehicle of

preserving and expanding american hegemony trump doesn't have the liberal pretensions of some of these european you know uh technocrats and stuff but trump is for maintaining american supremacy and nato is a means by which to do that so the idea he's going to abandon nato is ridiculous sorry about my rant let's read more rock bra says here in brazil to house someone in exchange for work is slavery by law wow that's crazy dreamcast night says massachusetts will probably make housing migrants mandatory after all no second amendment then three followed really fast i guess is really getting out of hand didn't it it's funny yeah no third amendment right the government's going to be like we're going to use your homes to quarter non-citizens but

they're not soldiers right i was thinking about that. That does violate the third. It does. It's still quartering. I believe the Supreme Court ruling on the Third Amendment, because we talked about this a long time ago, was that the general concept

of the Third Amendment is not quartering soldiers. It's the government using the private homes of citizens for its, you know, whims. Yeah, I think there's only been one ruling on the Third Amendment,

and it might have been the one you're talking about. It was a long time ago. The founders intended to prevent the government from using someone's private home for government purposes. What about their private business? Same thing? I'd assume, yeah. They do that in California.

They basically tell you you have to fork over your hotel. It's a pretty obscure area of american jurisprudence it might be interesting to see a more full-fledged decision on it all right noah r says i'm a 25 year old male in the northeast i can barely afford an apartment and my bills but sure michael let's keep bringing these people into the country i didn't say let's keep bringing them in i mean that's what people misunderstand i guess like i said that i'm not ideologically in favor of immigration but my point is the praising of people as industrious or good people well they could be industrious misunderstand i guess like i said that i'm not in ideologically in favor of immigration but my point

is the praising of people as industrious or good people well they could be industrious doesn't mean you have to you're obliged to therefore bring them in but they still could be an industrious person right the argument that you know my my my argument was basically like let's stop providing resources people they're creating a net detriment that will weaken and dissolve this country and you argued against that and i said i argued against that in the sense that i don't know that that necessarily could be fairly ascribed to most individual migrants like that they're seeking to dissolve the country i mean i don't really see much evidence i didn't say seeking to dissolve the country what'd you say that they're they will dissolve the country through their their their so i grew

up i don't think their presence i don't think there's much evidence to believe would result in the disillusion of the country. But there is copious. It's a matter of how many come in. Let's just start with step one. Remittance. Taking U.S. dollars out of the country damages an economy. This is why I talked about. That's been happening for ages.

That's why they were limiting. So when you bring more people in and you increase the amount of the U.S. dollars being extracted from the country, the further you will damage the economy. That's just basic math. That's why I brought up Ithaca hours and other jurisdictions that created local currencies to prevent the dissolution of their local economies when the U.S. dollar was no longer being was no longer coming into the region. There were times in the past where the percentage of the U.S. population that was foreign born was higher substantially than now. And so I don't think that resulted in the country being dissolved. Yeah, but they're legal. So I think it's a bit of an overstatement.

They're legal. They don't pay taxes. We pay taxes for them. It drains all of our money. Yeah, I think you're talking about drastically different circumstances. Yeah. We're talking about our government spending hundreds of billions at a time of like coming off mass inflation mass government spending the the transformation of savings accounts into checking accounts causing a huge spike in the money supply which freaks everybody up the cost of goods are going up i mean they're like triple where they were a few years ago young people can't survive and we're like let's bring in millions of non-citizens and give them taxpayer resources

i mean but what do you mean but what do you mean by dissolution of the country just like a lack of And we're like, let's bring in millions of non-citizens and give them taxpayer resources. I mean, what do you mean? But what do you mean by dissolution of the country? Just like a lack of social or cultural cohesion? Or are you talking about the actual American government apparatus being dissolved and becoming a failed state? I think when you have Marjorie Taylor Greene call for a, you have members of Congress say it's time for a national divorce. Yeah, she did say that. We're getting dangerously close to these lines. When you have California getting some estimates as high as five to seven extra electoral college votes and seats in Congress,

like you're getting to the point where there is shattered confidence in what the United States is and does. Like, when was the last time, honest question, when was the last time a National Guard defied federal agents and barred them in defiance of federal jurisdiction? I don't know. Interesting to look up. But we've got to go to the Members Only show, so if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends,

head over to TimCast.com. If you'd like to hear more, you can join the Discord server. If you've been a member for at least six months at the $10 level, or you sign up today at the $25 level, you can submit questions to call in to talk to us and our guests

and join the show. You can follow the show at timcast IRL. You can follow me personally at timcast. Michael, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, mtracy.net. I relaunched my personal publication sub stack thingy last week. So there's a couple to shout anything out? Uh, yeah. M Tracy.net. I relaunched my, uh, personal,

uh, publication sub stack thingy last week. So there's a couple of new posts up if people were interested. M Tracy with an E dot net. And then M Tracy on Twitter slash X. Right on. I'm Libby Emmons. You can find me on Twitter at Libby Emmons,

and you can check out the work we're doing at the post millennial.com and human events.com. Yeah. Check me out at Ian Crossland. And, uh, really that's all over the internet, dude. And if you want to see Tim sweaty and in a beanie 12 days, 12 months, a year in a calendar, put one in the chat. I'll see you guys later.

Oh, man, I love your ideas, Ian. That's good stuff. Yeah, Iamsurge.com. I am looking forward to the after show. It should be spicy. Let's get to it, Tim. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in about one minute thanks for hanging out you