Timcast IRL - Trump Says US Will TAKE OVER GAZA & OWN IT, Says Palestinians LEAVE w/Natalie Winters

Episode Date: February 5, 2025

Phil, Ian, & Chris are joined by Natalie Winters to discuss Donald Trump saying the US will take over the Gaza strip & own it, FBI agents suing the DOJ over "retaliatory" January 6 list, Democrats calling for shutting down the Senate in protest of Elon Musk & DOGE, and META considering moving their HQ out of Delaware. Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Natalie Winters @nataliegwinters (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

About a year and a half ago, Tim Poole, myself, and Ian Crossland were having a discussion following the October 7th attack in Israel, and Ian came up with the idea that maybe the United States should make Gaza the 51st state. Now, Tim and myself balked at that idea, but apparently Donald Trump was watching and he thought that was a great idea because today Donald Trump has presented the idea of the United States taking possession or taking control of Gaza. So that is an interesting development that I'm sure is going to have plenty of people up in arms. X is considerably apoplectic about that, I guess, is a good way to describe it.

So we'll talk to that. We'll talk about that tonight. We're going to talk about the FBI has sued the DOJ over unlawful and retaliatory January 6th list. This is not a surprise, but it's something that is going to happen, I think, more regularly. You're going to see more agencies suing the administration, trying to prevent the actions of Doge and the president trying to consolidate and downsize the government. We're going to talk about Elon Musk taking aim at Reddit. There's a tweet going around or a lot of tweets going around from Reddit lies and a few other locations where they just had a slew of really grotesque tweets and comments on Reddit

about how they should find the people in Doge. They should go after Elon Musk, his family, his person, go after the people that are working for Doge. And it's really unfortunate that this is where we're at. But honestly, it's not really a surprise from the left. So we'll discuss that. We've got a bunch of tweets about that, actually. We're going to discuss delaware uh the governor has responded to companies leaving because when elon musk uh had the i guess the court case i'm not sure exactly the uh the way to describe it but there was a court case surrounding elon musk compensation package for

tesla and the court the the judge said that it was not legal. And so there's this big, big compensation package that Elon Musk was supposed to get if he did some miraculous things with Tesla stock prices. And when he did, the court stepped in and said, well, you can't do that. So we'll talk about that. Meta said that exploring, incorporating in different states. So that's one of the companies that's looking to leave. Multiple companies are leaving now. So we'll talk about that. And then again, US Donald Trump is talking about the taking over, like relocating all Palestinians, which I don't see how that's going to work. But before we get into that go buy some coffee uh casbrew.com you can go buy some of your favorite blends we're out of ian's graphene dream but i believe that they're actually going to have more coming in stock uh they talked about ordering more so you can go go i think can you reserve

if you pre-order no there's no pre-order no pre-order so keep checking back but you can go and still get appalachian Nights. You can get Rise with Roberto Jr. You can get all of your favorites other than Ian's Graphene Dream. You can still get Two Weeks Till Christmas, which is the brew with me dressed up like Santa Claus in a, I guess, a festive design. Then you want to go to head on over to TimCast.com and join us. Become a member. You'll have access to our members only after show.

You'll be able to call in. You'll be able to discuss the topics of the day. You'll be able to talk to our guests. You'll have access to our Discord, which is full of like-minded people. There have been marriages in the Discord. There have been pre-shows. There have been after shows. There are shows that been pre-shows. There have been after-shows. There are shows that have actually started to get some real significant traction.

Roman Nations, one of the standouts that got their start in the Discord. So join TimCast.com and become a member. So here tonight to talk about this and a whole lot of other things, we've got Natalie Winters. Hi. How are you doing? Thank you so much for having me back. Always an honor to be with you guys. Who are you and what do you do We've got Natalie Winters. Hi. Thank you so much for having me back. Always an honor to be with you guys. Who are you and what do you do?

I am Natalie Winters. I am the co-host of Stephen K. Bannon's War Room podcast. I always say the best thing on my resume is that I held it down for the four months he was in prison hosting that show. And just last week, you may have seen the articles, I joined as a white house correspondent too so i have my press pass so i do a lot of hits and reporting from there um so it's been very uh shall we say eventful just this past week to to be there to be on campus awesome uh ian's here hi everyone i'm glad i'm here for the uh the announcement about making gaza the 51st state uh i was kind of saying it as a joke but in a way it was like,

well, what's the least worst outcome here? Because I can't stand seeing the bloodshed. So maybe this will end up turning into something more diplomatic than it seems. We'll see. But we also have the legendary Chris Carr. Yes, returning show of favor. Thanks for having me tonight, guys.

Thank you for coming to hang out. Of course. So let's get started. The Daily Mail is reporting, Trump says U.S. will take over Gaza Strip with troops if necessary. President Donald Trump outlined an extraordinary new plan for the Middle East on Tuesday with the United States taking control of the war-torn Gaza Strip while its Palestinian population is moved to neighboring countries.

It is the latest evolution in his plan for rebuilding a territory devastated by Israel. His words will sow fear in the Palestinian population, but Trump insists it was time for a new way of thinking. I don't know that other countries, the surrounding countries, are going to be receptive to the idea of taking in Palestinians. And the reason I say that is because there have been significant there have been multiple opportunities where that was was on the table you know getting Palestinians out of Gaza people that that are opposed to the Palestinians leaving they would consider that a genocide they would say oh that's part of the

genocidal plan because if you if you remove a people from their land, they'll consider that a genocide. I don't know that it's an actual viable option, but Donald Trump is a guy that'll just try some S and see how it goes. It's an old war tactic. They call it repopulation. If you look up repopulation, it's literally like something you would do with a defeated population is you would take them and you would ship them off to a different Siberia or something you'd repopulate the people and it's a pretty horrible thing to do to people but you know so it's blowing them up and you know ultimately I think Trump wants to build hotels he's probably like it's a beautiful area we're

gonna have the most beautiful Gaza Strip the world's ever seen all we got to do is move all of palace all the Palestinians. And I know Egypt is maybe as recent as last week said they don't want them. So I don't know. Nobody wants them. And I certainly think, obviously, the story is just breaking. And obviously, President Trump is the master of the art of the deal. I think like we saw with the tariffs, sometimes the broad, bold proclamations, they're not

actually the thing itself, right? It's sort of a leverage or a mechanism to bring about some other form of change but i think the only thing that i would certainly stick to my guns on would be absolutely zero palestinian or gaza and whatever you want to call them refugees coming in to the united states and i don't know maybe we should turn it into what just the world's largest gas station the gaza strip i'm in agreement the united states should not be taking in any like a mcdonald's gaza i mean i don't shower what i think no matter what well what do you think chris do you have do you have a have strong opinions on what the u.s and whether or not the u.s should be even involved in the the situation in of course not of course not i

don't think so but i mean this is another example of trump being a bloviator i mean i think that he's serious about this policy but i don't know what the details are going to be and he doesn't give he's not strong on details up front like this so i'm curious to see actually how this is going to play out what does he mean that the u.s is going to seize control that are we going to send in troops and then have the troops forcibly remove palestinians to countries that don't want them like how is this going to play out exactly i think it'll be interesting too to see how the mainstream media latches on to this as someone who watches way too much msnbc as they try to grovel and have their sort of i actually love it there's their struggle sessions about you know how to cover trump because i think they recognize the sins

sort of of the first administration where the resistance movement was sort of i think too overly engaged right too many protests they sort of took the bait on every single thing President Trump did. So there's a conscious effort if you watch their shows that they can sort of they're like, we don't want to take the bait on everything, right? We're going to cover what he does, not just what he says. So I'm curious if this will sort of, you know, pass muster or be something that they will actually want to cover. I think they will. But if they do, then I think that's sort of brilliant. Not that I necessarily think the press over what's going on at USAID is bad. I think most Americans don't want to be sending our tax dollars to foreign countries. That's some of the best press for the president and the administration. But I think that this will sort of, again,

it's flooding the zone. I know the media always says it with a pejorative connotation. I think it was Steve Bannon who sort of originally said that. But flooding the zone is how you keep these people on their toes in the same way that they're doing with the confirmation hearings. Right. Just jamming these people through. Congrats to Pam Bondi for just getting through as we were going to air. Breaking news. So that's what I mean. I feel like these stories are not isolated things. Right. They have, I think, obviously a geopolitical significance. But there's also sort of an evolving information warfare landscape in terms of like just flooding the zone so i say go for it

yeah they're also flooding it on the weekends which is kind of new elon particularly doesn't want to take weekends off he said that it's it's as if you're playing a game against somebody and they just sit out the game for two days a week and you're able to get two days ahead of them so like the zone is flooded come Monday. And yeah, I guess that is kind of what they're doing is they're just doing as much as they can as fast as they can. I think Joe Biden made that very easy for them. Right. There's so many EOs that they could overturn. There's so many problems that they needed to fix. But I think also, too, and we'll get into this, I'm sure, with the FBI stuff.

But they essentially have no really meaningful form of resistance coming from a governmental perspective, right? There are no levers or institutions of power that they control. So the concept that they've sort of come up with is both civil society, of which media is sort of a crucial component to that. So that's why I think their sort of conception of how they push back against stories like this, it's so focused on how the media is going to cover it and engage with it. Because what are they? I mean, all these Democrats are standing on the steps of USAID, giving these like weak, disgusting, groveling, you know, disgenic statements while they're standing there like we're going to win. It's like, no, you're groveling on the steps of USAID. How far you guys have fallen. I mean, the reason that they're on the steps of USAID is because they're in such complete disarray.

If they actually had, you know, cogent strategy and actually had a base that was behind them and all had policies that they were looking to, you know, looking to implement and looking if they actually had any semblance of power, they wouldn't be just sitting out on the steps saying, oh, we're going to stop Trump. They've really they've really made it their goal to just be the the the resistance almost again. It's just if Donald Trump says we're going to do this or he wants to do this, they're going to automatically say, no, this is a bad thing. They're coming out against, you know, waste, fraud and abuse, essentially. And that's never like the American people are even even the waste, fraud and abuse are amorphous and really ambiguous frame terms. The American people are never against getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse. Those are ubiquitously bad things, according to, you know, the American people. I think the waste, fraud and abuse paradigm is certainly valid and

obviously we don't want to fund the what like transgender musicals in kazakhstan or whatever the american people look at that as a wasteful but i think that the elon musk angle too i mean if you look at what he was tweeting about they sort of started off this whole thing by talking about how usaid was funding the covid gain of function research at the wuhan institute of virology i think there's a much darker and more sinister underbelly to what USAID has been doing. It's not all just, you know, woke drag shows. It's frankly trying to destroy the United States as weaponizing, whether it's a censorship stuff. But to the point that you were making, I think, about these Democrats like sort of standing out there, you know, they went from what trying to impeach

President Trump every single day. And I would argue that's what they're trying. They're laying the groundwork for being able to impeach him should they take back the House two years from now. But I also think that why they're so triggered about the USAID removals. If you go back, there's this coalition, it's called Democracy Forward. And it's sort of the new like hotbed of resistance 2.0. It's a collection of 120 plus far left activist groups like the Mark Elias types, the Norm Isens. And the one thing that they did before President Trump was sworn in, they set up an institution called Civil Service Strong. And it was basically like a response crisis network for a lot of civil servants saying that like, hey, this is how you can be a whistleblower. This is how you can sue. This is how you can stay in your job if you're being pushed out. And I think that they

really wanted to have effectively embeds, right, within all these agencies. They wanted to be able to whistleblow. They wanted to be able to leak using the media as an outlet to do that because that's really their only path for resistance. So that's why they are melting down so intensely over this USAID removal stuff. In part, it's about the USAID stuff. But more broadly, I think the variable is that they're realizing that they're not even going to have the ability to leak because they're not even going to be inside those rooms. Yeah. So I want to get back to the situation with Gaza.

And we're going to go to TimCast news said president trump says he sees the u.s having long-term ownership of gaza so we get this clip here territory what authority would allow you to do that are you talking about a permanent occupation there redevelopment and mr prime minister do you see this idea as a way to expand the boundaries of Israel and to have a longer peace, even though the Israeli people know how important that land is to you and your citizens, just as the space is inherited by the Palestinians as well? I do see a long-term ownership position, and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East. And everybody I've spoken to, this was not a decision made lightly,

everybody I've spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land, developing and creating thousands of jobs with something that will be magnificent in a really magnificent area that nobody would know. Nobody can look because all they see is death and destruction and rubble and demolished buildings falling all over. It's just a terrible, terrible sight. I've studied it. I've studied this very closely over a lot of months, and I've seen it from every different angle, and it's a very, very dangerous place to be, and it's only going to get worse. And I think this is an idea that's gotten tremendous, and I'm talking about from the highest level of leadership, gotten tremendous praise. And

if the United States can help to bring stability and peace in the Middle East will do that. Bibi? I mentioned again tonight our three goals. The third goal is to make sure that Gaza never poses a threat to Israel again. President Trump is taking it to a much higher level. He sees a different

future for that piece of land that has been the focus of so much terrorism, so many attacks against us, so many trials and so many tribulations. He has a different idea. And I think it's worth paying attention to this. We're talking about it. He's exploring it with his people with his staff i think it's something that could change history and it's worthwhile really pursuing this

avenue this is a terrible idea yeah the more the more he actually talks about it the more insane it sounds like what they would have to have u.s if they set it up as a u.s territory first that would be a territory and then maybe they would vie for statehood if they wanted. I don't think that I don't think that's actually what they would end up doing. I think that you're not going to make a state in the Middle East. It might be like you might have U.S. forces there. But the goal is put U.S. forces in there, probably get rid of the Palestinians, move them out to somewhere else, and then eventually have Israel take back the Gaza, the Gaza Strip.

That's the the that's what i hear them talking about i don't i don't it's not going to be you're not going to make you know you're not going to have the congressman for congress but you know the senators from gaza that's not but i tell you man it is the horrible thing about it is if there's american troops there and then there's some sort of attack like rockets rockets come in from wherever, maybe Iran, so to speak. Maybe we think it's like, oh, how lucky for us that we now we get to invade or we have Cass's belly to go into Iran. Like, it's just what a the least worst outcome for stability like it's like looking at someone that's been suffered a traumatic injury being like we're gonna need to amputate their arm this is the moment when they're like all right we do need to amputate and it's like the blood is draining out of my stomach thinking about like we have to do that now like accepting that moment of like yes we're gonna have to amputate like it's horrific to in

the person getting the news it's like but if you don't amputate the whole body dies so that's kind of originally what trump said was sorry what he said was finish the job that's what he told bb you know i didn't know that the unspoken part of that was finish the job so we can go in and clean it up and claim that territory and like station up in the middle east and it's it's permanent it's permanently occupied like ownership i don't understand Middle East and it's permanent and it's permanently occupied. Like, I don't understand that. Ownership. He said ownership.

Yeah, he's going to own it. Yeah. Long term. I don't see how that in any way is a positive for the United States. Well, he is making bold moves. Like, just since he's taken office, he has like really staked his reputation on making bold moves. This is a bold move and I can appreciate that, but it's also, I think, insane.

Yeah, I mean, just like, you know, like Ian was saying, that the idea of having American troops there almost guarantees further war in the Middle East. I tell you, though, in 50 years, it's going to be beautiful. No. It's going to be gorgeous real estate. It can't get much worse. No. That's true.

Yeah, it can't get much worse. No. That's true. Yeah, it can't get much worse. Look, if the United States were to do this, it absolutely will lead to war with Iran. And Bibi would love that. Yes, Bibi would love that. Yeah. You know, I don't see anything, I don't see any way around that, right? Like, the Iranians will fire missiles into Gaza. They fired missiles into Israel already. They'll fire missiles at Americans in Gaza.

Americans will die. The United States will look at that as, you know, we're going to retaliate. It likely would happen during Donald Trump's presidency if it does happen. And, you know, he would retaliate. It is possible that another president would pull them out. But if you set up an American base in there, presidents don't like to close down American bases. They don't want to do that at all. So, like, I don't see any kind of sane policy coming out of this.

This is the first thing that Donald Trump has done where I coming out of this this is the first this is the first thing that donald trump has done where i'm just like this is absolutely nuts and i i have no idea how this could how this would work i just don't know if it's actually about gaza in the sense of i think it's sort of like the tariff paradigm right it's asserting i think united states power or global hegemony that we haven't for a while. I don't really think that President Trump, who I think is not necessarily expansionist, I mean, not to go with the mainstream critique of him, that he is, you know, more, you know, nativist or kind of just folk protectionist here at home. But I think in the same way that he's using this, like how he used the tariffs, right,

to get Mexico to put 10,000 border patrol agents. He used the tariffs to get, what, $1.9 billion from Canada. I think you guys are taking the bait, like the mainstream media. I don't think it's really about this. And I think I'm sure it will resolve itself. I don't think, I mean, even, you know, I think I was a little hesitant about Marco Rubio at first, right, given his kind of neocon past. But I do think that what he was talking about, right, sort of this rules based international order, the idea that we're the world's policemen. I think there's a very firm rejection of that coming from the White House. I mean, we're shutting down frickin USAID.

I don't think a same administration that's shutting down USAID is about to start adding or annexing a 51st state. So I would say give it like two days and i think it will resolve yeah i mean i'm i'm interested to hear where this goes because so far he told netanyahu to like it just seems like trump just kind of said it which honestly kind of mad respect telling not just china canada mexico but now you're telling israel like hey actually long-term ownership i mean that's extremely bold yeah for any president too i don term ownership. I mean, that's extremely bold for any president. I don't think historically that's that's ever been done if you're picking up on put down. But I mean, it's negotiating from a position of strength.

And I think it's just something we haven't seen in a while. And it's. It's a narrative shattering, shall we say. What do you think he wants? I don't know. I guess I'll have to ask President Trump in the briefing room. I mean, that does sound like a pretty good idea, seeing as you're going to be in there in the next week or so. Yeah, make sure you ask him, hey, what's the end goal here?

Are you just looking to have more resorts? Newton, for like a Trump Tower in Gaza? Is that the goal? I think that is what he wants. He wants one in North Korea too. He keeps talking about it. He's like, they have beautiful oceanfront problems. I would say we should build a Hooters because I've been told I dress like a hostess in a Hooters.

That was horrible. The White House. Well, maybe it's an extreme ploy to guarantee the bombing stops. For sure. I don't even think guarantee the bombing stops. For sure. I don't even think that the bombing is going to stop, though. I wonder if the protesters outside the White House are getting more mad or less. Like, what the reaction is. I mean, the reaction is on X.

I'm seeing, like, far-left socialists. I'm seeing libertarians. And I'm also seeing people that are new to the MAGA movement being very angry about this. But you're saying he's doing this. This will basically make Israel stop bombing. Yeah, if they're there, if the U.S. takes that over, then Israel's not going to bomb the U.S., so maybe that's the

crafty ploy. That's why I said we need to make it to 50. It was like, that was just an extreme way of making Israel stop bombing it. Hey, you put it out there, man, and it just like, hit him somehow. Unreal. You're responsible for this one and then liberate it but talking about repopulating the people is like well i mean you're you're gonna have to there without well i

don't know that you're gonna have to but if you leave the the people that are in gaza the palestinians that are in gaza they're not just going to assimilate they're not they don't consider themselves american they're not going to be americanized they're not going to assimilate. They're not, they don't consider themselves American. They're not going to be Americanized. They're not going to be westernized. They're not going to hate Israel less. I think that it's pretty clear that when you do polls of the people of Gaza, they really, really, really hate Israel. And I don't think that having the United States go in is going to make, you know, make them feel differently about Israel or differently about the United States. I don't think that having the United States go in is going to make them feel differently about Israel or differently about the United States. I don't think that there's no way that I could conceive of this being the United States being looked at as liberators or anything. It's definitely swinging for the fences.

All right. But I think we're going to jump to this story now. From Newsweek, FBI agents sued DOJ over unlawful and retaliatory January 6th list. So a group of FBI agents brought a class action lawsuit against the Justice Department on Tuesday, accusing it of carrying out an unlawful and retaliatory directive from President Donald Trump to purge the Bureau of Agents who worked on the January 6th, 2021 Capitol riot probe in the classified documents investigation into Trump. Newsweek reached out to the White House and Justice Department for comment via email. I think that this goes back to the idea that there seems to be a question, does the executive actually run the executive branch or does the bureaucracy run

the executive? The president should be, in my opinion, the president should be able to fire whoever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason, as long as they're in the executive branch. If they're in the Justice Department, if they're in the whatever, if the president decides this person is not carrying out the policies and the prescriptions that I have for the government, then the president should be able to fire them. And I think that this might turn into court cases. Obviously, they're suing, but I could imagine this going to the Supreme Court. This was essentially the same kind of argument we discussed when it came to the 14th Amendment thing, when Donald Trump said, oh, we're're gonna take a look at the 14th amendment and see uh if this is actually something that the the the founders meant can you can the can the people that are are essentially anchor

babies is that was was that the intent and it's it seems like donald trump is trying to use the courts to get clarification on these things. What do you guys think? Well, it's the whole, I think, concept of the unitary executive theory, which is what there's been a lot of back and forth over once they knew President Trump won. But even before it, of course, just in general, the Supreme Court's been been doing, of course, the mainstream media depicts that. I think they get the limited hangout version where it's like, oh, evil, you know, democratically elected dictator. Trump wants to subsume all three branches of government. But the unitary executive theory paradigm is just the idea

that he is the chief magistrate. And I think for so long, they've been pushing that the DOJ is an independent entity, which, of course, oversees the FBI. So that's why I think even in some of the media coverage of this, they're already sort of starting to invoke that the concept of having an independent, you know, judiciary and the rule of law, it's also important. We know, it's all complete BS, President Trump will win. And I think there's a lot of brilliant conservative legal minds who've been working kind of preemptively on strengthening and bolstering the unitary executive theory. But I do think you're very right, this is going to end up working itself through through the courts, probably all the way up to the Supreme Court or something to that effect. Yeah, this is another one of those things that

Trump is doing where it is going to probably wind up the Supreme Court, they're going to make some really difficult decisions about how legal this is. In my opinion, I agree with you, I hope that he does have that power, and he can maintain that power. Because, you know, I mean, the founding father's vision was to have the checks and balances to keep, you know, to prevent some sort of monarch monarchists taking over the government. But we're at a point now where the bureaucracy is so corrupt and so demented and so obfuscated behind this notion of democracy that you actually need somebody to have monarchist or executive powers.

Yeah. You know, I'd like to see that from Trump. I've been thinking about that all day, actually, because it's like Doge, this department Doge, it's the U.S. It used to be called the U.S. D.S. Digital U.S. Digital Services. Obama started it in 2014 and it's under the executive. And so there is an administrator. And now when Trump took over, he renamed it. And I can't tell if there's even an administrator for the company, but it looks like it's being run by Elon, who's a guy in the private sector who has businesses.

And like if you're going to head a government department, you've got to quit your job. You're not supposed to. I don't know if you're supposed to. There's no law that says you have to quit your job. They just do it then. They just do it. And they can't have they can't control their stock portfolio. He's essentially an advisor to the president.

He's not technically the administrator of Doge. There isn't one that I can tell. So but it's like I'm like, well, sometimes you got to break the law to do what's right. Like I'm thinking of when they suspended habeas corpus after the civil war and they just went full martial law to reinstate order. And that was apparently the right thing. And it's like, whoa, well, the constitution was toilet paper for a moment. And like, is that where we're at right now that we need? It's terrifying. Yes. The constitution is toilet paper. It is. I mean, even today, we don't have those rights. It could go real bad, real fast if we treat it like toilet

paper, though. It's been treated like toilet paper. The idea that the 10th Amendment is in full effect, I think that everyone around the table can agree that the 10th Amendment only holds power when the federal government feels like it. And the 10th Amendment is pretty clear. Any states not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people. And that that expressly delegated means that are specifically said in the Constitution. But the federal government has said, oh, well, the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause essentially are blanket powers

over anything that we want to do. And the federal government has taken that to mean that they can regulate and pass laws about you farming on your own property or you growing feed for your animals on your own property. I forget the name of the court case, but that was an actual case that went before the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court found that because of the Commerce Clause, because this farmer was growing feed for his cattle on his own property because he was not buying it from the open market, the federal government could actually regulate what he was and was not doing on his own property.

That kind of overreach, which it is clearly overreach, anyone that listens to that, of course they think it's ridiculous. Any normal person, the only people that don't think it's ridiculous are the people that want access to that kind of power so the the 10th amendment is no longer fully functional then that is that is it's been papered over so just like chris said it is toilet paper nowadays the second the second amendment you can't get any more clear than you know shall not be infringed the fourth amendment your your right to to be left alone your person your papers the the the police constantly uh perform what they call civil uh civil asset forfeiture which is they just take your shit and they just sell it or they'll they'll

auction it off these things are expressly prohibited by the bill of rights by the you know by the second the fourth amendment and and they're routinely ignored so the idea that the constitution actually prevents things the way that it was intended that ship sailed a long time ago it seems like because the bureaucracy has kind of commandeered the government that if you try and play by the rules that they're violating you're not going to be able to undo the the control mechanism that you have to go outside of the rules that they're violating, you're not going to be able to undo the control mechanism that you have to go outside of the rules to do it. It just, I...

Well, it's actually worse than that, I think. I mean, you've heard of the concept of the cathedral, right? What is it? So the cathedral is really what runs things. It's this loosely connected affiliation of academia, Hollywood, the federal government, big corporations, big tech. They all sort of tacitly agree because they've all been put through the federal government, big corporations, big tech, they all sort of tacitly agree because they've all been put through the university system, and they

know what the appropriate way to act is, the appropriate things to say and not to say. So you have these giant institutions, many of which are non-governmental, they all pretty much agree on the status quo. So when you have the cathedral, then you don't really effectively have the First Amendment because you're self-censoring. And you can pay big premium prices for saying something that goes against what the cathedral would have you say. I also just don't buy their performative activism and selective outrage over like constitution. Absolutely.

100 percent. Spare me, right? Also, I'm sorry. The same people, it's like when they're like, oh, the American consumers are going to be screwed by the tariffs. I'm like, you guys lied about inflation for four years. Spare me. But I did just want to bring up one semi unrelated thing, too, but in a similar vein, the one of the attorneys who's right, it's like the Center for Employment Justice, something like that, who's representing, I believe it's nine anonymous agents. While I was driving here, I had gone through her Twitter to see what she had been putting out about just in general MAGA, you know, and she's tweeted repeatedly about how all of MAGA needs to be fired from the federal government. Quote, America needs industrial strength disinfectant of the MAGA bacteria in our institutions. Clean the wound, Mr. President.

Fire them all. Quote, if we are to remove MAGA at the ballot box, then you must, must, must remove MAGA from our institutions. Fire DeJoy, fire Flynn, fire Wray. And then my favorite, she's all saying this to Biden. It is time for the Biden admin to remove MAGA from our government. So the idea that these people are being pushed out over political retribution, it's not. President Trump is allowed to have, I know I can't say it, but loyalists. And these people are such hypocrites. So I just, I don't even take them at face value. It's like,

shut up. You're a bunch of liars. And by the way, what was it? The 5,000 agents of the like 16,000, it's like upwards of 30% were all weaponized and deputized to do the January 6th stuff. But, you know, the January 6th is so critical, right, to their whole regime narrative. Like that is where they just derive their state power from. And they will sue because they have to. I mean, they even they go so far as, you know, I mean, everyone's familiar with the argument or the non-argument that it was an insurrection, even though nobody on that day was charged with insurrection. Insurrection is an actual law that you have to, there are qualifications, there are things you have to do to actually be considered to actually have

engaged in insurrection. Nobody was charged with insurrection. Donald Trump clearly wasn't engaged in insurrection by telling people that they should, you know, peacefully protest. But yet you still hear that narrative. Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. There were people that were saying right before the inauguration or between when Donald Trump was reelected and when he was inaugurated on January 6th, they were saying, oh, we need to have the vice president say that donald trump isn't actually the the he can't be

confirmed because he actually engaged in insurrection and the 14th amendment says etc etc making the argument even though they're ignoring the fact that without due process you can't be so be told be said to have actually engaged in an insurrection you have to be found guilty of insurrection to have been involved in an insurrection. You have to be found guilty of insurrection to have been involved in an insurrection, and he wasn't found guilty of insurrection. So you can't, so the 14th Amendment clearly doesn't apply. But again, they don't care about what the Constitution says. They only care about exercising power. And so they'll use parts of the Constitution to exercise power when they can, if they're allowed to and they they'll ignore other

parts of the constitution so i do think it's super important to get this stuff in front of the courts i like the idea of these these people suing i like the i like the idea of the laws being questions and brought to the courts because i think the court will come down and say look we have an elected official donald trump the president is elected by the American people, and he has a platform that he ran on. And the American people said, these are the policies that we prefer as opposed to the other option. And if that's the case, then he needs to have the authority to hire people that will implement the policies that he ran on and if you have just like you were saying the the you know loyalists that you need to have people that are going to carry out the policies because you actually were elected for a reason if you have people that are obstructing the president then you actually have people that are obstructing the will of the american people because they

voted to have donald trump as the president they want to see the policies that he proposed on the campaign trail. They want to see those put into effect. Unless the president goes crazy and then you need people to be like, hold up there. But that's what the 25th Amendment's for. Where the VP comes in and takes over. If the president goes crazy, the 25th Amendment. If the president and vice president go crazy together, then the people are supposed to be like, stop. We can't let you do this.

Well, if you're talking about the people, then you're talking about the second amendment. And that's something we should be discussing. Just, just bureaucrats. This like dis disallowing what the, the orders and stuff like that,

like civil disobedience. No, because it is, it is a slippery slope that if you get a dangerous demagogue into the president, I'm not saying that's what's happening, but this is the rationale for why they would, they would oppose his will you know you don't always want to just bow down to the executive's will because he's the executive you got to make sure that it's good and

right we have the the house can impeach if those things are going on the house has the power to write up articles of impeachment while the president's in office and the senate can impeach you know the house has to write them up and then the Senate will try them and see if he actually did violate the law. And if that's the case, there are means, the Constitution has means to deal with all the things that you're going to, that you're talking about, right? Like the Constitution does provide a means to get rid of a crazy president. The Constitution has a means to get rid of a lawless president, whether it be the impeachment or because he's crazy, the 25th Amendment. So the things that you're worried about, it's not good to say, well, let's have the bureaucrats just ignore it.

Use the actual Constitution. Use the laws that are written in the Constitution. Use the process. So that way it's legitimate, because if the if you're just saying, well, he seems crazy and it's a more expedient to have the bureaucracy just not listen, then you're going to have the next president say, well, I don't have to listen. I'm going to get my people in and we're just going to ignore the law. And you're you're making the country more lawless. You're making the Constitution more toilet paper. You're you're only adding to the problem by doing those things which is the argument that conservatives usually give they're like look we try to do things the right way because this is the process that works the left tends to say we want the results and the

process is less important which is why people on the left will do things like we're discussing they'll ignore parts of the constitution sometimes and and they'll say oh this is super important part of the constitution this time but next time it's not because they're not worried about the process because the result is what they're after but the process matters because if you don't and that's why like leftist like you see all kinds of like basket case countries that had socialist governments because they don't care about the process they only want the result that what they're looking for is the government to just make things happen for the people in the way that they want and that's not how anything works like that you can't just magic up results you have to have a process that works so okay were you gonna say yes well like to that point

i was just like remember there was what democrats sitting on the steps of USAID demanding we need to shut down the Senate and we are at war. But I do think it is interesting because they said that they said we need to shut down the Senate and we're at war. Yeah. I forget. I forget who said that. But yeah. Yeah. I liked it better when Andrew Breitbart said war than some disgenic Democrat outside of USAID. But I think it's an interesting, I think, from a narrative perspective, because if you watch, I know I watch a lot of MSNBC, but like Jen Psaki yesterday, right, was calling what Elon Musk was doing a quote-unquote hostile takeover of the United States government.

And yes, we can parse out the Elon Musk issue. You know my show. You know Steve has been critical of some of the stuff that he's done. We're not like full- Elon simps. But I think that that framing of it is sort of interesting. And I think it plays into, I would argue, sort of the color revolution matrix, color revolution theory of the people like Norm Eisen, and these people who overseas, whether it was like Ukraine in 2014, but have sort of used certain tactics like the concept of civil society to bring about regime change and now they're using those same tactics

here at home one of the like seminal textbooks or just papers that they put out was called the democracy playbook back in 2019 it came from the brookings institution it was written by norm eisen who played a really intimate role in what happened in Ukraine and the Czech Republic and a bunch of Eastern European countries. They just put out a newly revised edition on January 17th. No coincidences, no conspiracies, but talking about how they were sort of cross applying those tactics to prevent Democratic backsliding here in the United States. And I just sort of reject the premise that a democratically elected president who's delivering on campaign promises is an autocrat or is an authoritarian. And I think that they're very keen on that messaging because then it gives them the sort of extra constitutional mandate and power to oppose anything that he's doing because he's a dictator

he's an autocrat if we don't stop this democratic backsliding is happening and the country is going to cease to exist it gives them their raison d'etre their reason to exist so that's why i just think even this discussion you can see how it creeps in you know what i mean but it's such an interesting i just think psychological way to like look at he's delivering more or less on campaign promises and occasionally says things that are i would argue more art of the deal as opposed to like actual concrete policy but they view it as like a hostile takeover of the united states government the american people elected trump elon played a very visible role right on the campaign trail. They said they were going to create Doge. They said they were going to cut spending. If anything, they haven't cut enough spending. So it's just an interesting

framing that I think if you really look why they're doing it, it's because they want to do what they've done to foreign countries in terms of the color revolutions. They want to do that to us here at home. You said they printed a paper on the 17th of January? Yeah, it was called it's called the Democracy Playbook. It was written by I think Jonathan Katz and Norm Eisen out of the Brookings Institution. The first edition, I think was put out in 2019. The second one was like early 2020 time. And then they put a revised third edition out January 17 2025. And they go through like the seven priorities of how to prevent democratic backsliding in the United States. Step one is like securing elections, preserving

civil society, having a strong media, basically outlining the resistance. And just on the USAID point, I do think it is very interesting because one of the things that they were advocating for in this paper, and for what it's worth, Norm Eisen was the guy who sued Doge initially within three minutes of the Trump administration. Norm Eisen's state democracy defenders group has collaborated with Mark Zaid, who is one of the lawyers that was behind the first impeachment of President Trump, to also sue the FBI. There was a big story in The Huffington Post yesterday about that. So these are like very key players. They're not just some random people. But I was reading through the report today. We're talking about it on War Room.

And USAID is mentioned dozens of times. The report's like 158 pages or whatever. And one of the things that they mentioned was like in order to have a strong resistance movement, we have to have international partners and allies to push back against president trump and so to me when i hear when i hear what's going on at usa id i'm like oh you guys wanted to launder a bunch of money to a bunch of international resistance groups in the name of democracy and that was how you were going to resist president trump because that's what they called for in the playbook by the same guy who's suing. Right. So these are all the same act like this is, you know, I know the deep state is a very nice, cutesy term, but like this is the deep state. Right. Like if there's a face to it, it's actions like this and they have their finger in the

lawsuits and everywhere. But from just a narrative perspective, and to that point, last thing I know I'm talking about. That's why you're here. I've been told I'm a DEI hire. No. But you know, last night, Rachel Maddow does a 25 minute monologue, you would think that she probably would have covered USAID or the confirmation hearings. What does she spend the 25 minutes on? Going on and on about the power and importance of independent and alternative media and how it's under assault and how on the day that USAID is getting crippled, which I would argue was going to be the linchpin in funding a lot of these resistance efforts, which was sort of contained to this sector of society that was civil society and media because they have no governmental power to see Rachel Maddow imploring her audience, go donate to independent media, go support left wing media. It's an

interesting thing, right? Like the the timing so that's why i think they're in such meltdown um and removing these people from these buildings also removes a bunch of sources right for msnbc and by the way they're still having these inspector generals all these doj people they're still having them on msnbc but their chyrons are not you know this is the role and i'm leaking it's like former fired inspector general yeah and there was a long time where they were there they were just considered leakers or or whatever there is nothing that the establishment establishment media hates more than losing access that's one of the things that i've been i've talked about multiple times you don't need to have

um direct payments when you can offer people access inside information and access because that's that if you can if you have someone in the you know high up in the bureaucracy's phone number that's the same thing as having power if you can call that person and say look i need a favor can you get me information that that kind of power that kind of access is the whole point of money a lot of times um i want to go to this from tim cass news um you natalie had mentioned um they were calling for the shutting down the senate so i'm not sure who this this person is actually talking here but we can listen to this shut down okay shut down the senate shut down the senate shut down the senate i hope there's more news

that's right my name is sydney camlogger and i am from los angeles and we are still trying to recover from the devastation of the fires across LA County. And I can tell you something for sure. No one elected Elon Musk to make any decisions about getting my county, my city, my state aid to help us rebuild. There is an economic coup happening right here in the Treasury and right there in Trump's White House. But there's a revolution happening right here on these streets. It's always the same type of phrasing. It is total corruption for an unhinged, unqualified, unvetted billionaire like Elon Musk and his sycophants to come into our treasury to try to take control of our government to have access to our social security numbers, our social security payments, our medical benefits, all of the information that we use when we are trying

to get a motherfucking tax return. Pardon my French. And you're going to take our money? Homie, don't play that. Living color shout out. Damon Wayans in the house. Very good. I'm going to blame you for making me, for etching that into my brain there, Phil. That woman's voice.

It's terrible. Firstly, lady, you use a microphone so you don't have to yell. That's the point. You don't scream into the microphone. You just talk loudly in the microphone. Thank God. Sorry to interrupt. You were saying?

That's all right. So this is something that I hear the left talking about, the scare tactic of saying, oh, Elon Musk is going to go after your Social Security and go after your Medicare and Medicaid. The only thing I have to say to that is I hope so, because if the mandatory spending is not addressed, then the federal government is going to become insolvent. As much as everyone loves to use this as a scare tactic, this is what drives the debt. I love what they're doing with Doge.

I love the idea of shrinking the bureaucracy. I love returning the power to the elected officials and to the executive, making the bureaucracy smaller because there's less impact that the bureaucracy can have on the average person's life that way. And the people that vote for the president and for Congress, they should be the ones that are actually exercising power. And as long as the bureaucracy is just making rules as they see fit, then the people don't have the ability to fire their representative to have an effect on what laws are created, because the laws are created by faceless bureaucrats. But that doesn't change the fact that the thing that drives our debt is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Those are the things that make the U.S. insolvent.

They could they could shrink the the discretionary spending by half and it would not change the long-term projections for the U.S. debt and for our deficit. It just wouldn't. Since 2008, since the financial collapse, they were saying Obama kicked the can down the road by bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bro, Ronald Reagan kicked the can down the road. This is like the end of the road. This is where the can is no longer being kicked. This is the moment where they're like, we're going to stop kicking the can, everyone. And they said it was going to hurt.

So people lose Medicare. Like if people lose their Social Security, old people, and then they go homeless. Like that's the end of the road. But the energy just just bear in mind, the option, right, is not you get rid of social security and medicare or you don't get rid of it it's you you try to fix it and do your best you can to fix it or else the whole country loses it so what's elon doing with it anyway well elon hasn't actually touched anything he hasn't done a thing with it this is all about a scare tactic the whole thing that she said about bringing up social security and stuff like that, it's all scare tactic. And they're saying, oh, he's going to do this. He's going to do that. Because right now, the stuff that he's focused on is only the discretionary spending stuff like the even if he were to go after the military budget, the military budget, still discretionary spending that doesn't affect the actual long-term forecast for our economic problems.

There are people on the left that are always going to say, oh man, we're spending so much money on the military, and if we just stop spending money on the military, everything would be fine. That is absolutely false. That is absolutely false. As much as I don't want the U.S. to spend money on foreign aid, foreign aid is not going to make the United States go broke. The money that we send to Ukraine, it's not going to make the U.S. go broke.

It is a drop in the bucket compared to the spending that we do on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And until we fix those policies, until we fix those problems, they can holler all they want, but it doesn't change the long-term outlook. This is just a scare tactic because they don't want to lose the money that they're getting from discretionary spending, from the pork that they put into the things that they can, the bills that they can put the garbage stuff into. They don't want to lose that slush fund.

That's why we need Maha. I mean, I love this idea as well. When we talked to RFK at the Libertarian Convention... Shut down the Senate! Oh, this again. There's a third surge playing with my mind. Oh, there's a fourth time.

I mean, to be fair, I would kind of be down to shut down the Senate, but... What does she mean exactly? Shut down the Senate. Also, what does that even mean? Wait, to talk more about Maha, you were just bringing up RFK. We talked to RFK at the Libertarian National Convention. I asked him, I said, hey, you know, what is it?

What is your plan? Because he was still running for president. He wasn't on board with Donald Trump yet. I said to him, look, the biggest problem, the only existential threat that actually faces the United States right now is mandatory spending, is Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. Those are actual existential threats. There is nothing else, in my opinion, maybe nuclear war is an existential threat but that's it that's the only existential threat that we face is the the the unfunded liabilities and so i asked him i was like hey you know what do you plan to do with do about these situations and so he i don't think that

he was quite prepared for the the the question um because i think the people don't tend to ask that much because it's such a third rail question but he did say he's like look we need to make america healthy again we need to get people off these this terrible food we need to make we need to lower the obesity rate we need to get rid of we need to get people that that are developing we prevent people that are developing diabetes from developing diabetes he's and he's relating all of these illnesses that people are getting that are unique to our society and to our time. And he's saying these things will actually affect the cost of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security in the future. And while i don't think that's a a comprehensive repair or fix he there is validity to the argument that the fewer people you have that are sick when they're

older because they end up getting onto some kind of for the rest of your life medication the better it is for the the it is funny to me too that they're melting down about what unelected people and billionaires controlling the government like have you ever seen a better case of projection their entire party is run by billionaires and unelected bureaucrats i would argue our billionaires are better and our unelected bureaucrats are better but all this stuff like the entire joe biden presidency joe biden was not running yeah he was exactly he was dead infuriating he could have been and it really wouldn't have been a different but I also do think anytime I like

what we're talking about how just horrible right the status quo is when it comes to all things health care or just fiscally how irresponsible we are I remember in 2016 when President Trump controversially right he told black people he was you know, what do you have to lose? And I kind of feel like in some ways that approach has now metastasized to like every corner of President Trump's approach to this administration. And I think it's very valid, right? It's like fiscally, what do we have to lose? It's not going well. You can't, you don't have the moral superiority or the fiscal solvency superiority to say that oh no no you got to stay out of this building you don't know what you're doing it's like actually you guys have had the keys to the kingdom the castle for a really long time

and you guys have screwed up for a really long time same with the health care stuff so i i think it's like what does america have to lose i mean yes obviously a lot but on the other hand a continuation of what the status quo is also it's not going to doesn't work. Well, the continuation of the status quo ends up exactly what she was saying. Musk would do right. She's saying, look, he's going to take away your Social Security. He's going to take away your Medicare. He's going to take away your Medicaid.

Well, if we continue down the path that we're on, then the U.S. becomes insolvent and those programs end. So they go away. So either way, either there is an attempt to fix it by some administration at some point and it's going to have to take changes and I don't claim to know how to fix it, but either there is an attempt to fix it and there's going to be serious changes or it actually goes away because people stop lending the united states money and the united states the the value of the dollar goes away because people don't believe in the value of the dollar anymore

because the u.s is like the dollars backed up by nuclear weapons yeah rubio said in five years we're not even gonna be talking about tariffs because the u.s dollar is not going to have that kind of influence anymore he said that i think a couple days ago or yesterday so, we should have at some point a Medicare or Medicaid expert in the room, because I have questions like how much of the money that we're – our tax money that we're giving to Medicare and Medicaid end up in pharmaceutical hands or in health insurance company hands, like private industry hands? What percentage of that revenue? All of the – the government doesn't provide health insurance – or, I'm sorry the the government doesn't provide health insurance

or i'm sorry the government doesn't provide health care the government doesn't provide drugs the government doesn't provide doctors the government doesn't provide any of that it's all the private industry that does that so the government just pays for it that's all that universal health all universal health care would be is the government writes the check for people. And if you don't have a market, then that just means that the government pays whatever the the companies say. Yeah. How much of it is overspending is over expenditure. That's what I want to know. I want to look at the books and be like, are we are we spending through Medicare? Eighty dollars for aspirin like it because we just can print the money and it makes everybody rich. And then the person gets their free aspirin. Like, that's not good.

That needs to be changed. I don't see how that would even hurt the American citizen getting the aspirin. It would just derail the insurance companies or the medicine companies or something, which obviously is another third rail. You heard at the hearings or the RFK's hearings, you know, everybody that is against RFK was coming down on him. And then if you look at the people that were funding these senators, their candidacies, they were all getting tons of money from pharmaceutical companies. It shocked me when Elizabeth Warren expressed concern that if RFK gets in, that he's gonna

end up suing vaccine companies she wants that was a bad thing she wants to prevent him from suing any pharmaceutical company that's what she was looking for you she wanted a commitment from him that he would not sue any pharmaceutical pharmaceutical company for any reason we need the next eight years our government needs the ability to sue private companies and they can go to court and they can win the suit if they're in the right and we assume them the lawsuit will fail and they will not get anything from them but it needs we need that ability so that was like just mind-blowing that those guys are are pro vaccine companies right now after may i don't know man man, I guess you said they're getting paid.

Yeah, well, I mean, they all have donations from pharmaceutical companies. You said, Natalie, this is like a lot of projection, saying that we're in some sort of economic coup right now, because it's very plainly we suffered an economic coup in 1913, and it's been ongoing. The Federal Reserve was an economic coup. They tried to actually stage a real coup when they did the business plot, and they wanted to march hundreds of thousands of soldiers on Washington, D.C. in 1932,

33, whenever the business plot was. Legit, these banksters have been formating a coup for like 100 years and it's just time that that ends. Not just that, we need to create something better. We can't just end it. If we end it, it's over. You need to create something better we can't just end it if we end it it's over you need to create something better and that's hopefully that's what's happening nothing too

big too fast that's i'm a little concerned that things happen too big too fast but oh they're slowed down maybe it is time to do some some big drastic things i don't know i'm not behind the scenes on raffine standard instead of the gold standard yeah yeah. We're entering the carbon age. We're going to go ahead and jump on to this next story. From Newsweek, Elon Musk takes aim at Reddit. Elon Musk has taken aim at Reddit after some of his site's moderators introduced on

Blinks2x, formerly Twitter, in protest over his alleged Nazi salute during an event for President Donald Trump's inauguration. Newsweek has contacted Reddit for comment via email. It comes after the billionaire and self-proclaimed free speech absolutist took aim at Wikipedia after the online encyclopedia's 2023-24 annual report showed 29% of its budget had been spent on equity and safety and inclusion why does a a an online encyclopedia

need 30 of its budget spent on equity and safety and inclusion because it's really that important that's why like you have no idea how important it is super super because they're probably hiring a bunch of like unqualified people to do it so they have to hire like 300 people it's it's as it's about as left wing as you can get the the i think people who want to work in the fields of equity it's probably self-selecting for shall we say not the brightest i imagine so i'll take but true um let's see the part of the reason why so this is this is what um red or newsweek is saying about the whole situation with Reddit. But the actual situation stems from, if I understand correctly, people on Reddit have been trying to attack or advocating people attack the people in Doge attack Musk himself. Indy 100 says they have broken the law.

Reddit page banned after facing criticism from Musk. They go on to say a Reddit page, which Elon Musk called out over threats of violence to staff members at the Department of Government Efficiency, has been temporarily banned. Taken to a social media platform, formerly XTwitter, the billionaire reshared a post from the account RedditLies, which gathered a number of screenshots from the white people Twitter subreddit, where users called for the public execution of Doge software developers. Some of the screenshots say, Muskrats Doge henchmen have been identified. It's time to do more than dragging names.

Let's drag their necks up by a large coil of ropes. Time to hunt. I'll say it. This Nazi stooge needs to be. I'm not going to say that. And other comments sharing a similar sentiment. This is this is typical of the left. We saw we see the way that the imagery and comments are made about Donald Trump, whether it be his first time in office, the actual attacks on his life after, you know, when he was on the campaign trail and this kind of stuff now being thrown about Musk.

The left is completely prepared or completely comfortable with making threats and carrying them out. A lot of people like to blame the right and say the right does this and the right does that. violent attacks from the left. There have to be hundreds and hundreds when you consider the 2020 summer of riots that happened. So, I mean, this, it shouldn't be something that is normal, but it is something that's become normal. I'm sort of an absolutist with the First Amendment. So like this,dit's a private company and they can ban whoever they want at any time for any reason which okay fine

technically from what i understand about making threats if if it's an imminent threat meaning that there is a place a person and a time then that is illegal otherwise if you say we should go commit the thing against the person like that's legal, you're allowed to do that as horrible as it is like pull up the guy's name and say we should do the violent thing. That's legal. But it can definitely lead towards an incision of the action, which is a problem, obviously. And that's what social media administrators constantly wrestle with is like how do we stop this from getting out of hand you know you these little fires are okay but the big one the imminent call to violence well there's there have been two you know there were two attempts on donald trump's life just this you know just last fall or last summer and fall so the this is a real what was that no i was gonna say i am glad though that the um the media is really now opposed to censorship. That's a newfound sentiment.

I didn't know they were so mad about Reddit communities getting banned. But I think you even see it in that headline that you almost or just had up. But the way that they're framing it, right, is that basically Reddit is cratering to Elon Musk because he dared to expose it. And I think that that's sort of the broader news cycle, which is the idea of what they call it on the left of anticipatory obedience, where these sort of left wing media outlets are settling with President Trump or all the big tech oligarchs, the overlords, right, are giving in to President Trump. They're sort of bending the knee. And I think that this story, the only reason that they're really covering it is because it's like, look, another tech platform is, you know, falling victim to evil oligarchic Elon Musk, which we can debate the legitimacy of that. But I don't think they really care about a Reddit community.

No, no. This for context, I brought up the the actual Reddit lies post in question. But, you know, you can see these are, shall we storm the White House? Storm the White House. Storm the White House. Angry mob enters the White House. Let's storm the White House. These kind of posts are the kind of thing not be surprised at all if the Secret Service makes some phone calls and these people get a phone call and a visit from the Secret Service. probable cause kind of thing because it's not you can't go arrest someone for saying that on reddit

i know legally but these are the kind of rooms that reddit will ban frequently people that talk like this on reddit those those pages get shut down because they read it doesn't tolerate that kind of crap for the for the most part but you think it's reasonable for like the secret service or the fbi to put like a bug on someone's phone and they talk like this online i'm not saying that it's reasonable. I'm saying that's what will happen. I'm not making a call about whether or not they should. I'm saying that they will.

They have done that in the past. This is the kind of thing that will get their attention. I mean, two assassinations, one on the president and then this online, you'd be stupid not to put an eye on the people. And there are constantly people that are saying things. Arresting someone like every other day at DCA, choose your weapon, trying to kill, and then choose your cabinet secretary. It's absolutely insane. But they're doxing like young kids, young boys, the pictures, their faces.

But even too, I forget what media outlet it was, but they put out a long form article too. I think that was sort of the genesis of a lot of this. So it's not just like random, you know, Reddit anonymous accounts. You know, we love anonymous Redditors, but some legacy media outlet, I forget, but published the story kind of initially doxing them,

which obviously they dox people all the time. But I think the mainstream media also has some blame for this too, right? They put, they turned the heat on Doge. First, they've made people think that Doge is like the evil authoritarian like jen sake was just saying hostile takeover of the united states of america so of course these people

who've drank all the you know democracy kool-aid they can't foment like they were doing during the election season over oh we must get trump we must get trump so now the next best the next greatest enemy that they can go after and that's probably more proximal and i think like an actual entity that they think they can probably have a victory against because in their eyes it's you know unconstitutional it's extra legal there's all the lawsuits going on right now they're like very very focused on Doge and I think they just have Elon Musk derangement syndrome um do you think that part of the reason why they're so focused on Doge is because Doge is so has been so quick to act and so successful? I think the Doge paradigm, I think it's two main factors. One, I think it's actually a really smart issue that Republicans have sort of seized

and really won on the messaging side of things, which is the waste, fraud, and abuse, but also the really evil, sinister, nefarious spending of, I don't know, funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology over in China. That's something that the American people don't want to support. You'd be hard pressed to find an American citizen who doesn't want to keep more of their tax dollars. So that's a winning issue. So they have to take it away from us somehow. And the way that they do it is by smearing like what we were talking about before, this idea of the democracy playbook, the authoritarian playbook, where they have to sort of reorient Doge through the lens of, oh, it's not actually about cutting government spending or

saving you tax dollars. It's about giving Elon Musk and his super wealthy buddies, you know, more government contracts or getting their tax cuts, which is sort of, I think, the newfound iteration of, oh, Republicans only represent the rich. They just want to get your tax cuts. And I just I reject that framing. I personally, again, the Elon Musk issue is complex and you can have that debate. But I think they have to put it in the category of this man is an authoritarian. This man was not democratically elected because it's such a winning issue for us. Right.

And like even to you see it, like Democrats are trying to get in on the Doge caucus stuff. Cause they know it's very like politically salient. But then the media is like, no, no, no, this is all a scam. It's all a racket to complete president Trump's authoritarian takeover.

But again, I reject the premise. I reject the framing. Elon Musk was a very visible on the campaign trail. B they've been talking. Dozier's like probably the most tweeted and talked about word the entire election cycle. So it's not like this is something that President Trump is springing on the American people. It's literally what the American people voted for. Yeah, I get the sense that you don't get you might not even donald trump in the white house again if it were

not for the efforts of elon musk no i think that that rationale is twofold one and again just because he played an instrumental role it doesn't mean that he's the shadow president of the show it gives him a voice at the table right like it does that anyone who's played a significant role but i think one is obviously the ground game in Pennsylvania. And I think his mind and the people around him realize that, you know, we're not just going to waste a bunch of money on ads. It's about knocking on doors to actual mobilizing grassroots. But Scott Pressler. Right.

It's that kind of stuff. But then there's the ideological component, too, which is bringing on the Doge stuff. And again, but I think the Doge stuff is particularly unique because it's not just about the tired trope that congressional Republicans have been doing for decades, which is, oh, we're going to cut, you know, the sending $10,000 to fund a musical in Afghanistan. It's like, yes, of course, that's bad.

But that's not the root of the issue. The root of the issue is that we have a horrible, horrific health care system here. And we're subsidizing and bankrolling the pension funds and the public health care systems of the entirety of Europe. Well, they're not giving anything to NATO. And we're being forced to pick up the bill. Right. It's an entire reorientation of not just the economy here at home, but internationally. And that's why President Trump's tariffs work so beautifully in that sort of like, you know, Monroe Doctrine-esque reversal of the idea that let's use economic warfare. Let's use our economic, you know, heavyweight prowess to actually wage war on behalf of the American people and not against the American people like Joe Biden and Democrats and establishment Republicans have been doing for so long. Yeah. I heard you kind of make a, I guess,

not really a caveat, but question whether Musk is a good thing or a bad thing. Steve Bannon is actually kind of critical. On a bit of a war path, shall we say. What was that? On a little bit of a war path. You saw his interview with the New York Times. Well, look, I think his business, you know, conflicts of interest with China is a staunch CCP hawk. That's something that I don't particularly like, knowing how China operates their kind of financial markets

and their industries as a tool to influence and kind of infiltrate the United States or people who they're doing business with. So that's, I think, concerning. And to some extent, you know, like I don't necessarily think that we need to be subsidizing Elon Musk's, you know, space adventures. Right. Like like you were saying, there's issues that are more, I think, important here at home. And frankly, I just sort of reject the transhumanism angle of it

too, which isn't just unique to Elon Musk. I think it's just kind of the Silicon Valley ethos. I just think it's a little like, and frankly too, the H-1B stuff, we were very staunchly against that. The H-1B visas predicated entirely on a lie. We are not a importing the best and brightest at all.

Look at the numbers. It's 80 percent are in the tier one category. They're making less than the 50 percent wage mark. And even if you set aside the best and brightest, there's no shortage in the same way that the idea that I know we're on YouTube. I caught myself. But in the same way that a lot of the propaganda that we are fed from Congress is all lobbyist white papers that's then presented as factor. Oh, well, the Brookings Institution of the Atlantic Council put out a paper. So it must be true. It's all BS to push an agenda. The idea that we even had a shortage of workers that we need to import a bunch of people from backwards countries that don't even speak English is also completely bogus at face value. We have, I think, one in two people who graduate with STEM degrees will never actually work in STEM. Now, I bring up all those points just to say that the facts are conclusively on our side on the H-1B visa debate. So it's not a fact thing.

It's an ideology thing. And I think that moment was very clarifying in the sense that they view the goal of, I think, their movement is to sort of maximize the profits of their companies, their corporations, which is fine for them. It's not necessarily good for the American people. But more acutely, I think that they have sort of an ideal where they can like terraform the workforce here in the United States. And that citizenship and that American identity doesn't matter. Because if they think that, oh, well, we can maximize productivity by replacing every legacy American with some, you know, Indian person who doesn't speak English. Well, yeah, you probably maybe I still I would reject the science on that, that it's going to be better.

But yeah, I'm sure you could maybe have a more productive society. But it's not all about productivity. There's something unique about being an American. And I think that moment sort of encapsulates the tension that we have with like the Elon Musk brigade. But that being said, it's not like Elon Musk is coming in and like commandeering it, right? He has a seat at the table, Steve Bannon and Bannon world, like everyone has a seat at the table. The MAGA movement is a very diverse,

in a good way, tent coalition. So we can have these debates. But I do, I think their framing takes it too far, but you can still criticize Elon Musk. And we have. With the product argument, the productivity is not the end goal, that it's not always good just to maximize productivity. We used to joke, a friend of mine in college, about efficiency.

He'd be like, oh, that's very efficient, like the Nazis, because they were extremely productive and efficient. But you saw what that led to. Well, it's good that they're being efficient with our tax dollars. Yes, that's a paradigm where efficiency matters. Again, the variable being what they're using it for sure i would argue they're quite efficient at weaponizing right the government against us like they had no issue there they just seem to not be very efficient with actually putting out policies that put put the american people first um but i i think my my just bigger issue more more broadly with the whole Elon things in terms of this paradigm of efficiency is just – I don't know how to put it, but I just don't – I don't think that the issue at the end of the day when you're looking at what it means to be an American is like how can we drive the profits of multinational corporations? I would rather

live in a town and a community where, okay, maybe my like DoorDash driver is not totally automated and a robot's not bringing me food, but at least I know my neighbors and I'm not like living in a bug pod with a bunch of people from every other country except the United States that doesn't speak English that again, I would argue they're not even necessarily better at the job that I'm doing. And also, too, I think to the other point, this idea of efficiency, which, again, I'm not a Luddite, though, like I guess I kind of am. But what has Silicon Valley become really efficient in? Like, OK, they're now using AI to engage in like social listening for the World Health Organization so they can censor us more effectively. Like, again, I'm not anti technological advancement and development.

But, you know, I'm so glad that Pfizer has become really efficient in creating more vaccines. Like, I'm so glad that we've become really efficient in what pandemic prevention while they didn't really do a good job of that a few years ago. So I just think that sometimes we cede a lot of ground to them on the idea that like, the tech bubble is something that needs to be allowed to flourish freely, which is what Obama did, right? They were like, look, we're not going to regulate you, you can get away literally with murder, we'll give you all the money you want. Just Hey, don't use that money against us, right? Be our biggest fans. And they they have been Larry Ellison, who's the well, he's the chairman of Oracle now.

He's like one of the founders of Oracle, fourth richest man in the world on paper. He he's one of Trump's, you know, three AI advisor guys that they paid 500 billion for. They're paying, you know, this this what is it called? Project Stargate, where they're like supercharging the AI. He's like, we're going to use AI. Larry Ellison is like, we're going to use AI to, to watch everyone. And so criminals will be afraid to commit crimes, and people will be afraid to deviate from doing what they're supposed to do. And like, in the name of efficiency, and I agree with you that like life, and the glory of being

human is not about being the most efficient you can be. It's about a lot of it is about the exploration of reality. Like you don't have- Well, it's very authoritarian and totalitarian, like in a weird way, like a roundabout way. It's very like, for lack of a better word, like Chinese, like you're living in China, right? Like you're living in your like crappy government housing and you're, you know, there's, it's just all dark and gray and gross. I've been to China, like, and it's, you exist to further the state. There's no

independence. There's no autonomy. And frankly, too, I also think I would take the other angle of like, this country was founded on the idea of the importance of community and the importance of Christianity and religion and like having a full life, right? The idea of community was always something that was very, very important. And of and of course arts and culture just look at the american literary can't right and that's the american experiment in the american experience so if anyone vivek included wants to go and sort of dictate to us what it means to be an american as more or less i'm sorry but like of a foreigner. It's like you don't get to tell us what you were born in Ohio. I was this sort of immigrants. I'm just saying, like, you know.

You don't get to tell people who've been in this country for 200 years, like what it means to be an American when you're a newer generation American, especially when what you're saying is extremely insulting to the founding principles of this country. And if you want to do that, if you want to go maximize profits and not have sleepovers and just focus on your children being like little bug men who all they care about is, you know, getting good grades so they can, what, go to a really elite institution where they're not going to learn anything and then become a slave at a tech company that would replace them in a second and they're going to what code programs that destroy this country then like fine i'm not saying go do that in your home country i'm not trying to go viral but like go do that in a country that has that as their tradition that's not what this country is about and I think that's the sort of fundamental tension.

And I'm not going to be lectured by people who, I'm not going to say are less American than I am, but I'm just saying by people who have a really perverse view of what it means to be American. It's like, it's as offensive as when the, you know, DACA dreamers stand up there and like demand, we're American. You have to give us this. You have to give us citizenship. You have to give us citizenship. Excuse me.

Like, where do you get off telling me what to do? You're not American. Have you always been a Luddite? Me? Yes. OK. You're referring to Vivek's tweet that kind of got heat at the end of December. I do.

Yes. He wrote that long tweet about basically making children more efficient, making them more like business minded and in the math and science. And like he literally said, less sleepovers on the weekends, more more math class. I don't know how he how he worded it. And I think maybe not necessarily go do that in your own country. Come on, not sleepover. Human, the food, you know, like math tutoring. Oh, OK. Like I say say do that in your own family. That's the thing about the United States. If you want to have a family of math and scientists, do that.

And then I could have a family of artists that take three times longer to get anything done. But that's kind of what makes life worth living in a lot of ways. You know, the beautification of things, the wisdom of taking your time and maybe making a mistake. You need to make room for error in systems. If systems always work all the time, they can be heavily utilized to destroy. You need room for corruption in systems. You need failures to happen for gross, evil systems to break. It's the only way. And I think that's kind of what the arts is. Anyway, I digress. Alright, well I think that we've got time for one more. Hot enough takes for you guys?

Very hot. Meta, so there's been a lot of talk about Delaware. Meta has said from the New York Times, Meta said to explore incorporating in a different state. The owner of Facebook and Instagram is incorporating in Delaware, but is incorporated in Delaware, excuse me, but is considering a change.

Its corporate headquarters would remain in Silicon Valley, people with knowledge of the matter said. This all stems back to the issue with Tesla. Let's see if they talk about it. Let's see. Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, is considering changing where it is incorporated

from Delaware to another state, two people with knowledge of the matter said. The company is looking at Texas and a handful of other states, said the people who were not authorized to speak on confidential discussions.

The process is at an early stage and no decision has been made, they added. Meta's corporate headquarters would remain in Melno Park, California. Meta has been going through a corporate overhaul under Mark Zuckerberg. The company's founder and chief executive, Mr. Zuckerberg, has spent the last two years making workforce cuts so that the company will operate more quickly and efficiently. More recently, he has aggressively courted President Trump and policymakers in Washington as they set an agenda for issues such as antitrust So, let's see, do they talk about it? I want to bring up, okay, right here.

Last year, Elon Musk's private rocket company, SpaceX, switched to its incorporation to Texas from Delaware. Mr. Musk made the move weeks after a Delaware judge voided his pay package at Tesla, the electric vehicle maker that he leads. That case was brought by Tesla shareholders who were challenging a stock options package that allowed Mr. Musk to acquire 304 million Tesla shares at a preset price if the company achieved certain goals. The judge ruled that Mr. Musk had effectively overseen his own compensation plan, valued at more than $50 billion at the time with the help of compliant board members. Of course, the New York Times is doing its best to misrepresent what's going on. The goals that Tesla had to achieve when Musk presented the idea to the shareholders, the goals were ridiculous and no one thought that it was possible.

And so Musk was like, I don't want to get paid at all unless we reach these goals. And when they did, everyone that was a shareholder was massively rich, right? Like they made a ton of money. They made a massive, you know, massive gain on their investment. And the only people that were against this are people that are actually against Musk ideologically. So there wasn't a lot of people that brought the suit against Musk. If I understand correctly, it was someone that owned a few shares, maybe, you know, maybe a couple hundred shares or something like that.

But it wasn't someone that owned a lot of Tesla stock. And this judge was also a Democrat appointed by, I think, the Obama administration. And essentially, it was an ideological situation. situation and now they're delaware is reaping the the uh the benefits of that which is people are beginning to leave delaware if if you own a business historically delaware has kind of been the place to go and incorporate even you know i have a few businesses that were incorporated or that are incorporated in delaware um for the the band And now people are leaving because you can't trust the government. One of the things that is absolutely vital for a functioning society is property rights. This kind of misjudgment or this kind of judgment against people that knowingly entered into an agreement with with must the shareholders

were all the board was fine with it. But this kind of you can't, you know, you can't, we're going to declare that this agreement is void, because a judge said so. That's the kind of thing that will destroy an economy. And when you see it, you're you see it right now that's why companies are leaving and granted these companies aren't doing considerable business in delaware but no one's going to be going to delaware to say hey we want to go in there and and set up our business there this is the same kind of thing that mr wonderful kevin leary i think is his name. Yeah, yeah. He was warning about when it came to the Mar-a-Lago case in New York. If your property, if you cannot rely on the government to treat your property fairly and adjudicate disagreements fairly, people will not do business. And this is why socialist countries that don't respect property rights, this is why they get into economic downward spirals.

Because if you don't respect people's property rights, if the government just takes your property for no reason, dictators do this too, then nobody that has any kind of money or any kind of value is going to put that money into your country or into your jurisdiction because it's not safe. People don't want to invest in an area if they know that they're likely to lose the investment. You know, I like that you like in property, you will use the word property. It's not just about land and houses and cars.

No, not at all. Money like your, your, your assets, your stock. That's a type of property. Every.

Yeah. I mean, so like from my perspective, like everything is about property, right? So your body is your property. So? So your body is your property. So your future is your property. The past that you lived, the things that you own are physical manifestation of things that you did in the past.

So that's what property comes from. Your future, if someone murders you, they take your property because they take your future. If someone takes you and kidnaps you and throws you in jail, they take your present, which is also your property. If people expropriate things that you have earned and worked for, they're taking your past. These are all manifestations in physical reality of your property. They're manifestations of your life. So that's how, to me, that's how property, you know, that's how I work out property. I've heard that the places to incorporate are Texas and Nevada. Is that right?

Nevada? I'm not sure. We're talking highly of it, I think. Definitely Texas. For whatever reason, I haven't looked into the corporate law there. I thought Wyoming looked kind of promising for crypto laws, but that was like five years ago i don't know how that's evolved in the last five years i don't know i don't have a lot to what do you i don't have a lot to say about this story except good for mark i'm glad that that they're they're waking up or at least they're taking taking charge and control and getting out of delaware i guess del Delaware is so 1980s. I mean,

I just think it's a cautionary tale to, to anyone that would, anyone that has a left leaning economic, like an emotional affinity to left leaning economics. There are reasons why things like property rights are vital for functioning societies. And if you don't have secure property rights, you are not going to have a functioning society. You see it in, I mean, you see it in all the people that are, that have moved out of California. Like if you have a business and people go and they steal your

stuff and the government doesn't do anything about it, businesses leave because their property rights are not protected by the government. Property rights are the foundation of Western society. People oftentimes don't think about them or give them the credit they deserve. But if you don't, if your government doesn't secure property rights, your society will fall. Your society will not stand for long. It'll turn into an absolute mine. And so I'm going to take this. So I feel like it. And you end up with dictatorships that are that are just they have horrible economies. You know, it's it's it's not pretty what happens when you have a government that doesn't respect property rights. And it's it is an innovation.

We were talking about the Magna Carta the other night. But that was one of the things in the Magna Carta that the Englishman demanded the king secure the right of property, the right to say this is yours and I'm not going to take it just because I'm the king and I want it. You know, Englishman, that was an innovation and it was something that made for Western society as we know it. Yeah, when you were saying the king can take all the property, I thought of Saudi Arabia and how. but then i thought of england and i was like it's a different kind of king that is a different kind of monarchy the kingdom in saudi arabia they could they don't but they could because they they don't because they know what happens they know that it'll destroy uh society but also there's so much money because of oil in sa Arabia. Like it is. Apparently the, the,

the Royal family's worth 1.4 trillion on, on the books. And that's like 15,000 people. I, there are 1500 or 15,000. I don't want to get that, that magnitude wrong. A lot of princes,

1.4 trillion. And the King's only worth like 3 billion or 6 billion on paper. I think the King can take the money from his family if he really wants to. If I understand correctly, and I'm not an expert on Saudi Arabia, but if I understand correctly, he does have like ultimate authority in Saudi Arabia. If he says, put that man to death, that man gets there, you know, that happens. If I understand, I could be wrong. I don't know a lot about Saudi Arabia, but it's a place where place where you know if you cross the wrong person you're gonna have a bad time you know he killed the one thing they had going for them which was

no women driving but to that to that point I do think this story is interesting much like you're focusing on like the the property protection angle I also think it's just in general, like the rule of law, right? The continued weaponization of the legal system. And I think there's a strong parallel when a lot of people were fed up with what New York, right, was doing to President Trump. And people were kind of like, we're over it. We don't want to be here. It's basically the same thing, which is the perversion, right, of courts,

whether it's against President Trump, against various companies. And I think President Trump kind of like he stood up to it right he represented like actually you you can push back you don't have to to take it um so it's from from the tech bros so i think you're usually a little a little weak um it's nice to see them standing up or at least trying to all right well we're gonna go to super chats i think uh smash the like button share the show with your friends go to timcast.com become a member we would uh love to have you uh schlip says did you see that mississippi federal court ruled the federal machine gun ban unconstitutional it is applied so don't go do anything stupid yet. Apparently, that is not only, that's not the first one, that's the second one, the second machine gun case that has been ruled unconstitutional under the Bruin, the Bruin finding.

It is definitely going to be an issue if you think, oh, I'll just go ahead and I'll make my machine gun myself. That is going to be illegal. You are going to get in trouble. But these kind of precedents possibly could lead to the repeal of the Hughes Amendment from the Sportsman Protection Act of 1986,

which Ronald Reagan so callously signed and took away our right to own new machine guns. So, yes, I did see it. That's a great thing. And hopefully they will rethink the prohibition on machine guns, because right now, you know, all over Chicago, there are crazy criminals with Glocks that are fully automatic, just rip roaring. And I want a fully automatic Glock, but I can't have one because I follow the law, which is what I have to do.

Anyways, Shane H. Wilder says, Hey, guys, can I get some prayers? My priest passed away last week. His vigil is tomorrow night and funeral is Thursday. Thank you all. And God bless. Yeah. So if I hear that, man, if you were a praying kind of person, Shane H. Wilder is a regular, you know, regular viewer and very active in the discord. And he actually is regularly popping into PCC.

So he's got a great X account to check him out. Follow him. Yeah. You should give him a follow Shane H. Wilder on a great X account, too. Check him out. Follow him. Yeah, you should give him a follow, Shane H. Wilder, on X. And, yeah, if you've got some prayers, share them. Notabot says, have you guys looked into the Moss Landing fire? Renewable Energy just had their Three Mile Island event. I have not.

Does anyone know anything about that? No, I haven't heard of that. I have not. I don't know anything about this at all. So, yeah, unfortunately, we I haven't heard of that. I have not. I don't know anything about this at all. So, yeah. Unfortunately, we'll have to look into that. Okay. Milo Hoffman says,

Nick Fuentes is more right every night than anyone on IRL has been all year. Serge, I don't know why you do this. Serge. Here's the moss landing fire is the vistra moss landing vistra power plant in monterey county california began on january 16th and burned for several days uh i don't know a lot about it yeah alex van roy said uh pam bondy just got confirmed for u.s attorney attorney general lfg yes and rfk was got through his first round of confirmation and so did tulsi yep very good promising just because i'm free says remember trump is famous for the big ass before

negotiations next there will be a peace deal between Palestine and Israel. Ah, look, man, I know that Trump is famous for the big ask, but I don't know that there's going to be a two-state solution. I don't think the Palestinians want a two-state solution. I don't think Israel wants a two-state solution. I would like to be proven wrong. Does anyone have some input on that one? The old Palestinian government before Hamas wanted a two-state solution.

I think it was Yasser. Was it Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Liberation Organ, the PLO? Yeah. And then they were kind of then apparently, as the news dictates, the Israelis propped up Hamas to fight against the PLO. And then they created division within that entity that wanted the two state solution. And then Hamas won out and they no longer wanted the two state solution, which played into the hands of the Israelis who also didn't want one. And now they're able to take it over. That's the way that the pro-palestine story goes well i think that i think that hamas the the sentiment that hamas has about not wanting

a two-state solution i think that that is is something that existed before uh israel kind of fed the fire that was hamas yeah i think so, they had, there've been a lot of attempts to get the, uh, to figure it out and, and whether it be the Camp David Accords or whether it be, um, I think it was the 90, I forget what it was, what it was in the nineties when, when, uh, president Clinton had multiple people. I don't think it was Yasser Arafat, but I'm not sure who was the, uh,i prime minister at the time but there's been multiple attempts and something always falls through and then both sides point the finger at each other and say it's your fault no it's your fault so but there's there's regularly there are regularly factions on both sides that don't want

a two-state solution and they tend to mess it up for everybody so it's going to be a 51st state solution i don't think so it's such a gross thing to joke about i don't like joking about it uh steve hotten says imagine being puerto rico and casa becomes the 51st or dc dc definitely should not be a state absolutely not as a dc resident i confirm it should not should not worst people live there should not be uh lurch 685 says how is giving israel everything they want new thinking and not the status quo well uh there's an angle that i'm seeing on x right now of netanyahu listening to trump talk you know say that he wants to own um gaza and he doesn't really look happy he might be people are saying that maybe trump was negotiating

in real time with the big ass technique live yeah yeah so um i i don't think that this is that what trump said is what they're asking for you know i think that i think that maybe even netanyahu was surprised by this and he did say some of the effect of that. He just said something bigger. That's way bigger. Yes. You know. Yes, he did. So, yeah, I don't think Israel wants this. I mean, I hope you're right, because I don't want it. I don't want to see the U.S. getting getting involved in that. Like, I mean, it's bad enough that we're we're sending money to Israel for their their war, especially when Israel can Israel can fund itself. It doesn't need the United States to pay for its defense or whatever. So I definitely don't want to see American troops over there. Jeremy B says, Screw you, Daily Mail.

Natalie has the right to bear arms. E-A-R-E. Yes. You know what? Kennedy, at least Hooters would hire me. Right to bear arms. E-A-R-E. Yes. No, the thing that bummed me out. You know what? Go ahead. Kennedy, at least Hooters would hire me. See, that's the thing that bums me out is like, I think, like, Kennedy is better than that.

Like, I've had interactions with Kennedy, and I was. It was disgusting. I mean, like, being a serious person. It was really bad. I was bummed. Taking the vapid out of it. Like, first of all, that was like three days after the initial story had come out it had blown over also i'm sorry this news cycle is so intense there's so many things

to cover and you're going to waste your weekly bi-weekly monthly op-ed in the daily mail to say that myself for wearing a literal black sweater up to my neck with a white collar like i looked very preppy that i was dressing like a hostess at hooters and then she refers to herself in the piece as as a fellow like hot journalist and the swear to god and the piece she's like she's looking trying to look like a barbie on the House lawn. It's just really cringe. But I also think more importantly, it's extremely disrespectful, not even to me, but to Caroline Leavitt and to President Trump, who wanted to put independent media in the press briefing room and shame on the Daily Mail.

Shame on Kennedy for reorienting that news cycle away from what should have been. How awesome is it that Bannon's war room is in the press briefing room and instead like, oh, let's try to, you know, mock the like dumb bimbo 23 year old, which I'm not. I got there off of my intelligence. I've broken more stories. I think that the Daily Mail has credited and not credited before than Kennedy ever has. And it's really it's really disgusting. And when they put that piece out, to be honest, at first I was kind of like, whatever, it's funny. But then I was like, this is like some level of like coordinated like media where they

want to make it very clear that like we are not welcome in the press briefing room. And it's just gross. Or maybe it's just women being women. But yeah, I was I was disappointed when i saw it uh when i saw that it was kennedy i actually commented and made a a tweet about it and then i saw that it was kennedy and i was like uh this is a drag so i actually deleted you took her side what no i didn't take her side i tried to defend me and then you deleted the tweet i did i did because i didn't want to because like i said i'm i'm i'm friendly with kennedy and so i didn't and i was a little

i was a little on the harsh side. So I was like, maybe I should just delete it. But I mean, I'm speaking about it right now that it was. I'm on your side. I think that I was really disappointed. I think we need a culture war with you and Kennedy. I would do it. How hot is too hot?

Yeah, do it, dude. About what we wear. I mean, John Fetterman wears sweatpants to work. Not only that, but like when it comes to. If I were a dude and I had worn that exact outfit or if I were obese or if I were trans, there would have been. Speaking of dudes. Front page coverage on freaking Vogue, Cosmopolitan, every women's magazine. Look at this powerful.

The last. Let's not use that word. Last year, there was a trans woman that had her boobs out on the lawn. And everyone on the left, for sure. And I don't know that Kennedy had said anything about it. I don't know if she actually had written a piece about it. I mean, look, your outfit was you know completely it was modest you had you had you had a skirt on but the you had a you know turtleneck and everything um and so i also just refuse to bend the knee to the idea like i love that politics is a very masculine

sphere it it should be i i don't want it to become like feminized. But that doesn't mean that I have to dress like a man or wear a pantsuit or like not be feminine. Like one of the ways that I feel like I have preserved my femininity in a rather masculine space, which I don't say that in a negative way, is wearing pink and dresses and skirts. And I'm not going to wear like frumpy pantsuits like most of Washington, D.C., like most of the people in that press briefing room. And that's just where I don't understand like the push. I'm like, so you guys would have been happy. Like what would have made it OK if I were wearing an ugly, ill-fitting outfit?

No. Like Tucker Carlson says, I'm not saying like I'm beautiful, but I'm saying beauty matters. Aesthetics matter. Right. saying like i'm beautiful but i'm saying beauty matters aesthetics matter right and i'm not going to show up looking ugly because some like older women can't handle it and that's something that we've said on this show uh and also on pcc when i go on it's like we need to we need to lift up like aesthetic things lift up attractive people get rid of the people that are obese in ads that that are obese for the point of having obese people like in underwear ads like calvin klein calvin klein ran this this ad campaign where they literally found the most unattractive human beings

they could possibly find they were just they were just both disgusting. And that kind of stuff. I think that kind of stuff is it's it's not offensive in a way that where I'm like, oh, my God, I can't believe they did this. But it's it's just like, look, this is not it's not attractive. No one thinks it's attractive. And to be honest with you, like if you're looking to sell a product, why would you want to put a put your product in a person that is on a person that is repulsive you know so i think it's i think that we should uphold like uplift people that are attractive or try to look your best at something like like i don't i'm not out of shape when i get on stage for the band and stuff like that i want to be in good shape i want to look like aspirational i want people to be like yeah that guy's but do you know what the daily mail had to do because i obviously didn't just sit back and take it i uh let's say

had some choice words but um they had to take the author's name off the piece because she was getting so much pushback so i think uh daily mail zero natalie Winters, one. Or two, I guess, because the Kennedy piece, she gets ratioed all the time. Apparently. Why don't you guys write another article? We'll see how that goes. Raymond G. Stanley says, or Raymond G. Stanley Jr. says,

shout out Chris Carr. Good to see you on, sir. Thank you for that. Welcome back. Good to be back. Let's see what else we got. Let's see what else we got. Let's see. A. Jones says,

DJT nominated Neil Jacobs as head of NOAA. He was the Sharpie Gate. Sharpie Gate? Is that it? Sharpie Gate guy who stayed neutral, but the media crucified him for not trashing Donald J. Trump, and he got removed as acting head of NOAA in 2020. Another F you to the media win for Noah.

I'm not familiar with this particular issue. But hey, if it's trashing the mainstream media, then I'm all for it. Bridget May Alassar says, I'm going back to the CPI with my mother-in-law who had a heart attack and stroke last week only about 10% function we paid mine but struggling to come up with hers please share her GoFundMe heal nurse

Karen's heart thanks so it's a GoFundMe heal nurse Karen's heart if you can make a donation or give a little bit go ahead and please give if you can make a donation or give a little bit, go ahead and please give if you can. Let's see. The Real Doug Lane says, would love to see y'all interview Chris Hagne from the Innocent Lives Foundation.

Badass computer nerds identifying anonymous child as identifying anonymous child as sa predators online true superheroes that is uh that is a really really good thing some of your comments are so oh yeah i can see them oh yeah oh my gosh i'll go home after work and read them sometimes just laugh my ass off it's a chat. You have a great audience. Isaac Vanderbilt says, Personally, I support whatever Trump does. Good to hear. Just like, whatever, man.

I'm on it. Hardcase says, Phil, that new album slaps harder than Uncle Daddy on Whiskey Night. Tim, look into Indiana if y'all leave West Virginia. Thank you very much, Hardcase. I appreciate that. The Malcore? Is that it?

The Malcore says, hi, Phil. Can you shout out my GoFundMe? Help Joshua get back on the road. Could use so much help. Thank you. So I'm not sure what it is, but if you want to go check it out, the Malcore's GoFundMe is help Joshua get back on the road. You could have given a little more info to people. The Malkor.

Yeah. Hops and brews. Ian first controls the weather, now the president. Oh, Jesus. All connected. It's frightening. You're attached to a web of subatomic consciousness. Just tugging on it the more honest

you are the more aligned you become the more stuck to the web of reality you become so your movements affect everybody a little more tightly jimmy says constitutionally the president runs the executive branch but for the last 50 years the bureaucrats have been running it illegally for the globalists and you know there's a lot of truth to that content or to that comment. The idea that the government or that the president should be able to just say, no, we're going to fire you, fire this person, we're going to hire this person. That's what people assume goes on. But when it comes to unions and all of the hoops that the that the executive has to jump

through just to fire someone, I mean, it's hard to say that the executive has to jump through just to fire someone. I mean, it's hard to say that the will of the people is being carried out when there are multiple organizations and lawyers and unions that are going to do everything they can to stymie that will when it's executed by the president. I mean, the whole point of the president saying, I need to be able to hire and fire people, is he needs people that are going to carry out the policies

that the people voted for. I remember before the election, they were discussing firing all the bureaucrats. They'd say, he can't, he doesn't have the legal authority to do it. Vivek came in and was like, actually, what he can do is end certain departments and then all those people lose their job. He can't go in and individually fire one guy after another. I don't know how much where that starts and where that stops and if he overstepped.

I don't know. I do think that he should be able to, though. I mean, he's he is the executive. He's the guy and he's the representative of the people. The bureaucrats aren't voted on. You know, the president can hire the you know, he hires his his his cabinet. But beyond that, the bureaucrats that were there oftentimes stay. And if you can't get rid of the people, if you if the president can't fire them or the heads of the cabinet can't fire them, then it ends up being a situation where it's just the same people. And maybe they'll do some changes that the president wants. But the big policies kind of remain the same. And you've seen that.

I mean, just like this whole USAID thing, like USAID has been around since kennedy and it's been doing first it was you know ostensibly it was it existed to help fight communism and which i think is a worthy policy but once the the soviet union fell then you know there was no real use for it and it became corrupted and it's also quite sinister to the concept of like burrowing in so at the tail end of the biden regime the obama regime like a lot of the political staffers um even i forget most recently but someone who's very high up like very deep state they try to become in the final few weeks or whatever make the transition from political appointee to career civil servant so it's not just that you have like the evil, awful, horrible civil servants,

but then you have a lot of like the worst of the worst politicals who merge, merge into that. But obviously they're scared of schedule F. I think if you, well, schedule F is sort of what Vivek was talking about, but there's like other ways to go about doing it. That's like the tip of the iceberg. But I think if you really, I mean, drill down on why they're so opposed to the idea of Project 2025, it was basically giving President Trump authority over all aspects of the government, which they didn't have an issue when Joe Biden did it or firing people off of vaccine mandates, right? But the crux of Project 2025

really was in the Schedule F, like the people who had come up with the Schedule F executive order were basically all at the PPO office the first time around, who then sort of ended up at Heritage working on Project 2025. So that was like the ideological bedrock that I think sort of advanced the bigger narrative, which sort of goes back to what we were talking about, the unitary executive theory. But just talking about how President Trump is the chief magistrate, not just over DOJ, but over hiring people. putting in appointees who are, I would argue, loyal to the United States as opposed to loyal to him, that that's somehow like his cardinal sin, appointing loyalists, right? Like they say the L word, like it's a bad word. And it's like, well, no, I reject that framing just like in the same way.

It's not a trade war. It's not President Trump's trade war. China's been attacking us. We're not nativists for wanting immigration restrictions like they put the onus on us. They're victim blaming um there's nothing wrong with wanting to hire people who are i guess i would prefer loyalty to the united states as opposed to like the deep state it's like what bill crystal tweeted right he was like well i much prefer the deep state to the trump state like that tweet is so telling in so many ways yeah yeah you can have like loyal people that are very good and

you can have loyal people that are very evil um and you can have loyal people that are very evil. And you can have like people that aren't loyal that serve the Constitution over the man that are very good and also people like that that are very evil. So it's you know, you just as long as the people that are loyal are also good people doing the right thing. You know, I think that's that's all that really matters humble beginning says remember when trump said he wanted to take back the panama canal then sent rubio over to make a deal has anyone been watching trump for 10 years thank you natalie for common sense of course dems are going to fear monger i gotta say this about marco rubio i was a little reticent about him because i've been watching the guy for 15 years and I thought he was like a deep state just lifelong bureaucrat and I now elected he what's that he's

a senator obviously he's a senator I just thought he was like a big business kowtow to the business in 2012 you know when he in 2016 open borders amnesty what's that open borders shill yeah like strong on amnesty but I gotta say this guy's an expert diplomat, maybe a master diplomat. And his fluency in Spanish is key right now with the negotiations in Central and South America being right at the front of the table. Like, that is so great that we have such a good negotiator, a masterful diplomat as our secretary of state. I really liked the work he's done with Panama, with Mexico. I don't know if he was the one that negotiated with the Mexican president to get to 10,000 troops on the board. I think Trump did that directly, but Rubio's dude, Rubio's lit. In that position, like that was, that was a key position to put him in. So I'd like, if he was in a different position, it might not be as effective, but I mean, he speaks Spanish and he hates communism. So for that role, it's kind of ideal.

Son of Cubans. Great. Yeah. I mean, the fact that he's son of Cubans probably has a lot to do with why he hates communists. But, of course, that kind of attitude and that kind of, you know, understanding of the left is, in my opinion, you know, there's immense value in it. And he was definitely a great pick for Secretary of State. And I secretly want to think that his hatred for communism drove him to be really good friends with the fascist Bukele in El Salvador.

Yeah, we didn't mention it. They negotiated El Salvador taking a bunch of prisoners. We're basically going to pay them to take a bunch of prisoners into their super mega prison that they got down there. And we're going to help them with nuclear development in exchange. And on top of fees, small fees for the prisoners. Great. It's beautiful.

Send them to the worst prison in the world. Mr. Dinder says, my wife just gave birth right to our, what was this, birth right to our thirdest child, James, this afternoon. He's overjoyed. That's one heck of a comment. He's going to need one of them Ian Roberto Jr. screams, please. That was one for you, baby. And my love to James.

Let's see. He really screamed like that, that yeah i believe you it was crazy did they did it die it died yeah sad to see him go unfortunately kind of chicken chickens sometimes just do that though did he die did you die no he like went into shock or something yeah yeah there's no legal immigrant yeah uh james cotterdart has said natalie dropped the word chiron tonight a subtle reference to the classic atr track off of overcome well played phil well played you know uh we actually didn't plan that and to be honest with you when she said chiron she wasn't referring to the uh same chiron that i was referring to when i named the song

what's the difference well chiron is the thing at when I named the song. What's the difference? Well, Chiron is the thing at the bottom of the... What did I say? Pardon me? Yeah, Chiron, like on the bottom of the TV screen. What was the other meaning, though? I've never... Well, so Chiron was Achilles' teacher. Oh, okay.

Oh, the Greek? Yeah. Oh. And I wrote a song called Chiron because it was about the people that have taught me and influenced me in my life. And so... Nice. Yeah.

So she was talking about a different Chiron than I was talking about. But it's the same, you know, same pronunciation. So ADD hoarding procrastinator says continuity of government is no excuse for the continuity of corruption. Absolutely. I love to hear that. So smash the like button. Share the show with your friends. Go to TimCast.com and become a member.

Natalie, thank you for joining us. Do you have anything that you want to shout out? Thank you so much for having me. You can follow me on Instagram, Twitter, all the things, even though I'm a Luddite, at Natalie G. Winters for outfit pics that go viral. Perfect. Also, The War Room. I don't know.

People probably already know. You can always watch The War Room. Thanks for coming, Natalie. I'm Ian Crossland. Everyone, thanks for coming. Thanks for being know if people probably already know, but you just hold that down. Thanks for coming, Natalie. I'm Ian Crossland. Everyone, thanks for coming. Thanks for being here. Thanks for being a part of it.

Follow me at Ian Crossland all over the internet. I went really crazy on journalism over the weekend, really documenting a lot of these moves that are happening on Twitter. So follow my ex account for that. A lot goes on on the weekends. Elon does work the weekends where a lot of his the posing team goes home for the week according to him goes home for the weekend so he's got two free days to get work done Mondays are very

very active Chris Carr talk me out baby Chris Carr 17 on X come check out the feed I am Phil that remains on Twix I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram the band is all that remains our new record anti-fragile is available right now. You can go to YouTube, Amazon Music,

Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer to check out the singles. Forever Cold Let You Go, No Tomorrow Divine. They're all available. Stick around. If you're a member, the member show is coming up momentarily. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will see you tomorrow. you