Fauci Docs DROP, Tulsi ACCUSES Fauci of LYING About Lab Leak w/ Noah Wall & Jacob Wehmeyer

Summary

Podcast Summary: Timcast IRL – Fauci Docs DROP, Tulsi ACCUSES Fauci of LYING About Lab Leak w/ Noah Wall & Jacob Wehmeyer

Date: June 20, 2026
Host: Philabonti (for Tim Pool)
Guests: Noah Wall (State Leadership Initiative), Jacob Wehmeyer (State Leadership Initiative, Red States Lead), Ian Crossland, Carter Banks

---

Overview

This episode centers on several explosive new developments in US politics and culture, including:

• The release of government documents by (former DNI) Tulsi Gabbard highlighting Dr. Anthony Fauci and the origins of COVID-19.
• Allegations of CIA suppression of whistleblowers regarding Fauci’s congressional testimony.
• Extended debate regarding presidential pardons, accountability, and the limits of executive power.
• Current and future power dynamics in American politics, from voting rights (especially in California) to structural federalism.
• The Israeli-Iran conflict and its implications for US foreign and domestic policy.
• Economic disenfranchisement, growing radicalization among the youth, and barriers to housing.
• Technological futures: nuclear power, data privacy, and AI threats.

The panel, maintaining an assertive and uncensored tone, dives into controversy, speculation, and often sharply critiques both Democratic and Republican leadership.

---

Key Segments & Insights

1. Tulsi Gabbard’s Document Dump & Fauci’s Role in COVID Origins

[04:54 – 15:21]

• Tulsi Gabbard, in her final act as DNI, released emails and intel implicating Dr. Fauci in potentially misleading Congress about the COVID-19 origins and federal virus research. The documents also allege CIA efforts to suppress whistleblower complaints.
• Panel agrees the release is significant, both for challenging the legitimacy of Fauci’s pardon and exposing intelligence community malfeasance.
• Notable quote:

  “What was revealed in those documents was that all of these intelligence assets...trying to go through the normal, legitimate, codified whistleblower process were prevented from doing so or pressured against doing so.” – Jacob Wehmeyer [06:38]

• Discussion about the ethics and legality of presidential pardons—especially those possibly signed without Biden's direct cognizance (“auto-pen” controversy).
• Speculation over limitations of statute of limitations for Fauci’s alleged crimes and whether the pardons can/should be challenged.
• Notable exchange:

  “We need to really look at opportunities to undermine...the legitimacy of his pardon.” – Noah Wall [09:26]

2. Presidential Pardons: Precedent and Abuse

[11:26 – 16:29]

• In-depth debate on whether presidents alone must sign and be aware of every pardon, and the legal/constitutional ramifications if staff or AI signatures are used.
• Concerns that if the right challenges the legitimacy of Biden’s pardons now, Democrats may weaponize the same arguments against Republicans in the future.

3. Power Dynamics: Democrats, Republicans, and the Use of Authority

[16:29 – 22:17]

• The panel argues Democrats will aggressively use any lever of power once in office, while Republicans are hesitant—epitomized by the Curtis Yarvin quote:

  “Republicans look at power like a wine snob looks at wine, and Democrats look at power like an alcoholic looks at alcohol.” – [16:29]

4. CIA, Deep State, and Political Weaponization

[22:17 – 23:53]

• Insights into the Arctic Frost documents reveal aggressive DOJ and intelligence community targeting of conservative organizations, using confidential informants and surveillance.
• Panel warns that previous radical overreach foreshadows what a future Democratic administration will do—with broad investigations and attempts to suppress conservative voices.

5. Radicalization, Housing Crisis, and Regulation

[24:27 – 34:32]

• Stark generational divides: Youth are most radicalized due to economic hardship and lack of opportunities—amplified by uncontrolled immigration and regulatory burdens.
• Notable quote:

  “Young Americans are the ones going crazy because they are poor…because they can't afford homes. And this is only fueling worse and more radical politics.” – Jacob Wehmeyer [24:27]

• The high cost of regulatory compliance is blamed for stifling new home builds ($100,000 per house in 2021 per one cited study), exacerbating the housing market crisis.

6. Blame for Economic Woes: Top 2% vs. Bottom 2%

[25:42 – 29:59]

• The panel debates whether working Americans are more harmed by elites (bankers/the rich) or the underclass (crime/uninsured).
• Discussion includes the role of the Federal Reserve, fiat currency, and the financialization of the US economy post-gold standard.

7. US Foreign Policy: Iran, Israel, and the Neocon Agenda

[40:34 – 56:56]

• The Iran-Israel conflict and the US role is dissected—panel largely places blame for ongoing entanglement on “neocons,” not Israel per se.
• Claims that Trump resisted pressures for ground war, instead pursuing a deal to end conflict and avoid global crisis, despite pushback from some US/Israeli interests.
• Notable quote:

  “The foreign policy establishment...has a permanent vested interest in us toppling Iran. It is part of a project that they have, like, deemed important for decades.” – Noah Wall [50:01]

• Discussion of Trump’s legacy: Panel asserts he’ll be remembered for domestic (not military) policy, such as housing affordability and industrial re-investment.

8. Nuclear Power & Technological Futures

[56:57 – 62:29]

• Excitement over rapid US advances in portable and small nuclear reactors—framed as crucial for powering future AI/data centers and supporting a new industrial era.
• The “nuclear waste problem” is debunked (metal rods, not green goo), and the panel argues modern US nuclear is safe, efficient, and endlessly recyclable.

9. Domestic Policy: Voting Rights, California, and Non-citizen Voting

[74:54 – 103:00]

• Panic over LA’s plan to grant non-citizens voting rights—even as panel contends “there is literally no difference” in practical enforcement already.
• Jacob Wehmeyer (“I used to live in LA...they literally averted their eyes and looked away” [77:12]) describes no-ID, instant registration, “no checks” voting system.
• Strong argument that California’s current governance model is unacceptable for the federal union; multiple panelists suggest federal intervention, reconstruction, or outright breaking up large states as solutions.
• Concern that Democratic policy in CA will set the national standard if left unchecked.
• Homage paid to low-tech/high-confidence electoral practices (“dip your finger in ink” [97:33]).

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On the Deep State’s role during COVID:

  “The Deep State used Covid to make sure Trump could not win his second term. Fauci...pushed [for] this entire agenda in a way to trap Trump into like...they forced his response to be in a way that hurt him most politically.” – Noah Wall [09:26]

• On economic disenfranchisement and radicalization:

  “People are in a much, much worse economic situation than their parents…and this is only fueling even worse and more radical politics.” – Jacob Wehmeyer [24:27]

• On failures of government regulation:

  “Every federal project has NEPA review problems…to pass NEPA clearance, it takes seven years.” – Jacob Wehmeyer [36:29] “California’s...laws are completely antithetical to our American way of life and our way of government.” – Noah Wall [81:48]

• On non-citizen voting in LA:

  “There literally isn’t [a difference]...” – Jacob Wehmeyer [77:12]

---

Timestamps for Crucial Segments

• Tulsi Gabbard Document Drop & Fauci Discussion: [04:54 – 15:21]
• Presidential Pardons Legitimacy Debate: [11:26 – 16:29]
• Comparing Democratic & Republican Power Use: [16:29 – 22:17]
• DOJ/Deep State Overreach & Arctic Frost Docs: [22:17 – 23:53]
• Radicalization & Housing Economics: [24:27 – 34:32]
• Debate: Who Oppresses America Most?: [28:42 – 29:59]
• US Foreign Policy & Iran/Israel Analysis: [40:34 – 56:56]
• Nuclear Tech & American Industrial Comeback: [56:57 – 62:29]
• Voting Rights, California Policy, & Reconstruction: [74:54 – 103:00]

---

Themes & Tone

The discussion is candid, combative, and unapologetic in critiquing political opponents and institutional failings. The hosts and guests advocate for aggressive pursuit of transparent governance, restoration of domestic industry, strong defense of civil liberties and election security, and skepticism toward both bipartisan elites and government overreach. Panelists are frequently incensed about the direction of Democratic-led city and state governments and urge assertive federal and local-level interventions.

---

For Listeners: Takeaways

• The Fauci story is about more than just COVID origins—it raises foundational issues about whistleblower protection, Deep State power, and executive accountability.
• The crisis in housing and inflation is linked, in their view, to government interference, immigration policy, and a loss of national focus on young Americans.
• Tech optimism (portable nuclear, AI capability) is matched with warnings about privacy, the need for a digital Bill of Rights, and the risk of centralization or foreign influence.
• Voting integrity remains a primary concern, with dire warnings that California-style ballot practices may spread unless checked at the federal level.

---

For a deeper understanding, listeners are encouraged to reference the specific timestamps as outlined above for direct context.

Transcript

[A]

Hello, everybody. Welcome to Tim Cast Live. My name is Philabonti. I'll be hosting tonight on irl. We've got a bunch of big stories for you yesterday. Dni Tulsi Gabbard has released a boatload of papers and information that spotlights Fauci knew about the origin of COVID There's also some information that the CIA tried to quash complaints against, against Fauci for lying to Congress. Now Rand Paul was really big on this, so I'm interested to see if there's anything that'll come out over the weekend or beginning of next week from Rand Paul, some kind of statement, but we'll talk about that. We've got information on obviously the Iran deal. The. It seems that the Iran deal is kind of in limbo now because JD Vance was heading to speak with, I believe, heading to Switzerland, I think, to. To speak with the Iranian representatives and they got called off. There were strikes in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Obviously it was Israel that was carrying out the strike. So it looks like it's kind of in limbo. We don't know if it's actually going to happen. So we'll talk about that. There is a. In LA to allow non citizens to vote in citywide elections. Now this is coming to California more broadly eventually, should the Democrats get the way they get their way. And honestly, if the Democrats could, they would make it nationwide. So we're going to get into that. There is a. There's also a bunch of hubbub from the San Francisco Giants Pride Night. Right. Like they had to have the, the, the Pride flag on their logo and now the DOJ has a probe into it. We're also going to, if we have time, we'. The, the, the problems that young people are facing because one in three adults under 35 are still living with their parents. And then Supergirl's kind of being a jerk on the media trail and this worked so well for Brie Licen that she's. For Brie Larson that she's like, I'm going to do that. So yeah, we're going to just jump right into it. Joining us tonight to talk about all this, we have Noah Hall.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Noah Wall, President, founder of State Leadership Initiative at Noah Wall on X.

[A]

And Jacob Waymayer.

[D]

Yeah.

[E]

I'm the chief of staff for the State Leadership Initiative just at Red States Lead. That's the State Leadership Initiative.

[A]

Awesome. Ian's here.

[C]

Hi.

[A]

Hey, everybody. Not change the weather with his mind.

[B]

Well, that's a, that's a bold claim. That's saying there's no God.

[A]

That's probably the most mundane thing that I could possibly.

[B]

I'm more agnostic on the issue. I don't know if it is or

[D]

is it 11:56pm the other day you were like, it is.

[B]

I felt the rain trickle.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

So that cloud was passing north and you were right. There's a huge cloud that you can watch the weather like it's like pulsing. It actually looks like it's rolling, but you only get a two dimensional look on the radar. But it looks like it's rolling towards. It was going north. I meditated and focused and then drew it towards us. So we got that rain yesterday.

[D]

Let's get into it.

[A]

No, let's. Carter's here. Yeah. So. Hi, Carter.

[D]

What up, dude?

[A]

We'll get into it.

[D]

Welcome.

[A]

So from Fox News, Gabbard spotlights Fauci Covid origin questions in final act as intelligence chief amid succession fight. So most people know that yesterday was Dni Gabbard's last day as the chief. She is leaving to go spend time with her husband who's fighting cancer. So Fox News reports, just before leaving office, amid a contentious battle over who will secede, her director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard used one of her final acts atop the US intelligence community to spotlight dot Dr. Anthony Fauci's role in discussions surrounding the government's COVID 19 origins review. While much of the material is familiar, Gabbard released, Gabbard's release underscores her effort to make questions surrounding Fauci Covid origin and federal support for virus research part of her closing legacy atop the intelligence community. As Gabbard fired her, fired her final broadside. Bill Pulte, who has received bipartisan criticism over his lack of intelligence expertise, is set to take the reins at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence while Trump's permanent nominee remains stalled. Jay Clayton, an attorney and former SEC chairman who Trump nominated to permanently lead odni, has seen his confirmation process delayed after the president said he was holding up the nomination pressure Congress to pass a voter identification measure. Does this actually matter? Foushee has been pardoned. So there's nothing that can actually be done. Generally, at least among our viewers, everyone kind of is like, well, duh, right? They knew, according to, like I said, according to our viewers, they, they believed that Fauci had a hand in it. All the evidence that come out seems point to Fauci having, having some kind of involvement. Now, whether or not this was something that CIA was involved, we'll talk about a little bit. What do you guys think? Does this actually matter?

[C]

I would say yes. So what she released were a lot of the emails between Fauci and the intelligence community. So we have new information we did not have about the level of coordination in that opinion. And very clearly, I mean, she demonstrated that that was an op. And what I would add to this too, you know, yes, he was pardoned. This, I think, gives, you know, there's a lot, you know, the folks over at the oversight project, Mike Howell and many others have been talking about, you know, were these pardons legitimate? You know, was this an auto pen pardon? You know, there's a lot of questions, I think, about the legitimacy of the pardon. And this may give us the ammunition that we need to be able to further that along.

[A]

Isn't there a statute of limitation on this stuff?

[C]

Some of it. But, you know, I mean, so like, the, the statute of limitations, I think particularly applies to like, the, you know, the depositions to Congress where, you know, he was. Where actually those emails show that he lied to Congress knowingly and talked to the intelligence community about that. But what I would say is, you know, alleged.

[A]

He's alleged to. Admitted to intelligence community that he lied to.

[C]

Yeah. So one of, you know, in Tulsi's overview of the document, she talks about how that was one of the, the items that she released were documents that, you know, back and forth about that congressional testimony. So what I would say is, you know, depending on, you know, this evidence, if it's admissible, I think that this could give us kind of the ammunition to maybe try some of those, you know, because we're not only alleging that his crimes were, you know, lying to Congress. I think that there's a lot of other potential crimes there may not have the same statute of limitations. This might give us what we need to be able to challenge the legitimacy of his, of his pardon.

[E]

Yeah. And what's like, more concerning or not? Maybe not more concerning, like, you know, given the part of the Fauci and everything, what was leaked in those docs or not leaked, what was revealed in those documents was that all of these intelligence assets that were trying to go through the normal, legitimate, codified whistleblower process were prevented from doing so or pressured against doing so. In the video, she references how, like, people that wanted to come forth anonymously, which is like, by federal statute, what they have to do, they were, for whatever reason, like, they weren't allowed to do so. Like, they had to whistleblow under their name and the Other aspect was if they did come forward with, like, concerns over what Foushee was saying, they were told that this would directly impact their career. So there's all sorts of, I think, also opportunity to go after the intelligence community that actively pressured people from not doing this and also seemingly violated certain federal statutes on, like, what the whistleblower process even is.

[B]

I'm going to steal Man Fauci for a minute.

[D]

Who?

[B]

I'm not a big Fauci fan, but if I was the president and we were working on a secret bioweapons program, which, dear God, I hope everybody is, if the enemies are working on one, we should probably have one too. And I tell my scientists, wouldn't it

[A]

be better if we're working on cures?

[B]

Cures and diseases and all the above? Yeah. Weapons and cures and all this. And I have my scientists lying to the public about it on purpose because, you know, that's at my command as the president. Either they lie or they get fired. And so they lie for me. Are they really to blame, then? Are they the ones that get the book thrown at them when everything comes out? Or was it the guy instructing him to lie? I don't know. Or was he not even instructed to lie? Is this all a Fauci plan? I can't imagine that a bioweapons thing is a Fauci thing. It seems like it would go up to the military.

[A]

I mean, well, to your point, like, the buck does kind of stop at the president. Right. But there's also, there's also, you know, we were talking about how top secret programs work and compartmentalization. So the president may be aware broadly that something. Something's going on for this particular issue. But the president might not know about the ins and outs. Not that the President can't, because like, like our guest was saying last night or maybe two nights ago, you know, when it comes to secret compartmentalized information, you might know about it or know that something's going on, but not really have all the details because it's not pertinent to your day to day job. So whether whether it should go all the way to the president, whether it be President, President Trump or President Obama or President Biden, it really depends on, you know, how likely is it that it was a directive from the president or whether it was just like, hey, Mr. President, we're working on biological stuff. And the President's like, okay, yeah, we need to do that, and kind of just, you know, goes about, goes on to the next topic.

[C]

You know, I Mean, from my perspective, the Deep state used Covid to make sure Trump could not win his second term. Foushee, like, he, he, he still, he pushed this entire agenda in a way to trap Trump into like. So what I'm trying.

[A]

Is it your opinion that it was released intentionally?

[C]

No, I'm saying that it was used.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

You know, I think that he, you know, they created a situation. One of the one, you know, some of the emails that, that Tulsi, you know, talks about that they released were such that, you know, how, you know, what are we going to say the cause of this is they talk about, you know, the fact that they lied about, you know, the actual origins of it. You know, they made it so you couldn't discuss China as being, you know, where all of this stuff originated from. So I mean like they created a situation to box Trump into a corner and they forced his response to be in a way that hurt him most politically. I think Trump has every cause in the world to go after Foushee and I think he absolutely should. And I think that, you know, I think they should be really looking at opportunities to undermine, you know, the pardon. I really think that that's an aspect that we need to go after.

[A]

So, so say to push the legitimacy, the legitimacy issue as far as they can. That wasn't a legitimate pardon because Biden used the auto pan. You don't know that Biden actually directed it. It could have been one of his, his subordinates or something.

[C]

Yeah, I think that we, it is not established that Biden, I think from the perspective of the people who've looked into this on our side, they have not, you know, they are not convinced that Biden knew that everyone was getting pardoned, got pardoned. There was a staff led decision. If that is the case and that can be shown, I think that there's a very strong case to make that those pardons are not legitimate. This is, could be our opportunity.

[A]

There have been, there has been reporting that, that a lot of the, the actual day to day operations were staff led, that Biden wasn't really there. Biden wasn't, you know, cognizant of, of all the decisions being made. And so then that does bring into question like what did Joe Biden actually know, you know, about whether it be pardons or whether it be national security or, or foreign policy or what have you. You were going to say something.

[B]

Well, have there been examples over time of pardons getting like undone after the fact?

[D]

Yeah, I don't know.

[C]

I mean my understanding is almost no, like, I'm not gonna say that it's never happened, but this is a new field of law, and it's new because this is the first instance we have where a president is signing pardons. Well, his signature is being used to sign pardons that he was not cognizant of. The law is very clear. President can pardon anyone for anything. Like, it's a pretty wide blanket. But if it's not him doing it, it's a different issue.

[A]

This kind of makes me wonder if that's actually a good precedent to send to set because, you know, for a fact, and this is something we talk about, Democrats are going to be going after the entire administration once they get back into, into power. Right? Excuse me. Should, should the Democrats in, in 28 win the House, the Senate and the White House? It's not going to be just, you know, okay, we're going to start, we're going to take over from here and we're going to fix things. There's going to be investigations. There's going to be attempts to put Donald Trump and a lot of the people that are in his, in his administration in jail. They're going to go after conservative pundits, they're going to go after podcasters. It's going to be like Covid days, but on 10, because they're going to try to consolidate power. They're going to do all the things they talk about when it comes to expanding the court. They're going to do all they can about to make D.C. and Puerto Rico a state. I mean, look, there are people that, if they could do it, they would dissolve the, they would either expand the court or they dissolve the Senate, you know, entirely. Say that it's unnecessary, it's a vestige of the past. And look, they, there might be an argument for it because with the, with the popular election of senators, their actual constitutional role has been completely dissolved. They, There is, if you, if you've got popular elections of senators, Senators are supposed to represent the state legislatures, not the, they're not supposed to represent the people. You know what I mean? So it's possible that this becomes a real thing. So do you think that that's a good precedent to set?

[C]

I think that I'm not an attorney. There's a lot more smarter attorneys are dealing with this than me. But what I would say is a narrow opinion that someone else can't sign pardons on the president's behalf doesn't, you know, ultimately affect the president's ability to sign pardons. Trump's Just going to need to film himself sign in every pardon that he signs going forward, which I think he basically.

[D]

Now you got like a video so, like, you know that it was really him.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Because you could use Digital. There's like DocuSign. Yeah. So technically you're not the one signing it, even though it's. Because you're. You're using a computer to put the marks on the paper instead of your pencil, which I don't know how big of a difference. Then there's. You could have an AI sign things for you at your command. And it's like, well, if you're having your pen do the signing for you, there's a line about is it a tool that you're using to have it signed? But I think the argument, like you said earlier, is more about what's he aware that the signatures were going forward.

[D]

Yes.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

And so I think that you would need to be. The precedent that you want to avoid is a limit on pardon power as a result of this pushing this issue. But if you are able to make it clear that the President has to be aware of the pardons that he's signing, I think that that is, you know, I think as long as they're careful on that front, I think you're okay. If you use, you know, the Foushee issue as a way to go after.

[E]

On the pardon front, to the credit of like, should we do something or should we encourage something, like, to be the first to do it and then Democrats are going to come back and do it again. It's like we're already seeing the radicalism. So in the federal government, there's all like, there's a lot of talk and not a lot of show yet, because they don't have that power yet. But in blue states, you're seeing the absolute most insane thing like California will get into. Virginia is probably the best example of this. When they, when the Supreme. The Virginia court ruled against them, what was their first reaction? We're going to mandate that every person over 50 has to retire from the court and appoint new judges. This is like the first thing they want to do. The. The. What they actually, like, want to do

[A]

over 52, like, that was.

[C]

That's like a really specific age.

[E]

It was like 54. It was something dumb like this. They just wanted to get rid of the entire court. And there was like, some that were giving pushback, but for the most part, when you look at blue states, they're just so radical that they are now like California is the model gets exported to other states and this becomes like the federal mandate for Democrats and the Fed. So I wouldn't be surprised if they do use, you know, God forbid 20, 28 goes bad. They use every single lever they have.

[A]

Oh, yeah.

[E]

And it doesn't matter anyway. So, yeah, you know, I'm probably, I'm a bit more bullish on Just do it anyway.

[A]

Yeah, I mean, that, that's, that's something we talked about a lot around here is like, it's kind of baked into the cake that when Democrats get back into power that, like, they're going to do this. There was a, that was a conversation that was used, brought up a lot when they were talking about getting rid of, rid of the filibuster. It's like, oh, should we get rid of the filibuster? And it's like, well, you know, if we do it, then what are the Democrats going to do? It's like the Democrats are going to get rid of the filibuster the instant they need to. Absolutely. There's no question, like, Curtis Yarvin has a great, great quote. Republicans look at power like a wine snob looks at power, and Democrats look at power like an alcoholic looks at power. And it's a great quote because it really is, it really is demonstrative of the way the Democrats and Republicans act. The Republicans, you know, the base wants all these things and there's so many people that watch the show and that call in and stuff. They're like, oh, you know, Donald Trump hasn't done this and Donald Trump hasn't done that. I'm, I'm turning my back on him, blah, blah, blah. And it's like, honestly, if you look at the things that Donald Trump actually has done, think of the, the power that the President actually has. He's been incredibly successful. Right. Whether or not he's done all the things that you wanted him to do is not the question here. It's how much power does the President actually have? And he's done a lot of things through executive order. He closed the border, which is the biggest thing, in my opinion. And it looks like they're making moves to really, to really push to get, you know, to, to, to deport more people and stuff. And I think he's doing it in a fairly smart way because if he had, if you constantly had ice raids like Minnesota over the winter, you'd constantly have protests and you'd have all this push back and, and you would really change the opinion of the voter. Like, people don't have a strong Stomach. They don't want to see that kind of stuff. But if you can manage to do things that change the law, make it harder for people to stay here, stuff like that, go after business owners that actually employ illegals, which is. There's some. That's happened. I don't think it, it needs a lot. I think you only need to go after a few people and business owners to be like, that's not going to happen to me. We'll get these guys out of here. I think that, that actually will be, will be pretty functional. So Donald Trump has been pretty successful. But when the Republicans in Congress or the Republicans that don't like Donald Trump are presented with something like the SAVE act, they're like, oh, I don't know. You know, that's kind of, that's kind of a big deal. And, you know, the states are supposed to be able to do their, their elections however they want. That's not what the people, what the Republican base wants. That's not what, you know, conservative Americans want. Whereas when you get the Democrats, they're just like, do whatever. They're like, I don't care. They'll, they'll literally create things that a whole cloth. They'll accuse people of things that are, that are totally. Douglas Mackey comes to mind. Right? They, they put him in jail over memes because, oh, look, he said he made a joke. I mean, he, he put this meme up and he was trying to, trying to disenfranchise people and et cetera, et cetera. And they'll sit there and they'll say that with a straight face, and they'll act like they take it seriously when really all they're trying to do is punish a guy for mocking Hillary Clinton and, and, you know, making jokes about Hillary Clinton.

[B]

The thing he did that stepped over the line legally was he put a phone number on the, on the meme. He was like, if you want to vote for Hillary Clinton, call this number, which is technically illegal. You're misleading people because they thought they were actually getting their vote through.

[A]

Yeah, but the point that I'm making is nobody that saw that actually thought it was real. Everybody realized that it was just a meme. And. But that's why I said Democrats act like it's serious. They will look you straight in the face and say, no, this is real. This is actually serious. Look, this is what he did, and this is to stop. And this is why he's got to go to jail and we got to prevent this, even though it was blatantly. Obvious to anyone that saw those memes that they weren't real.

[D]

Yeah. It's kind of ironic that because I'm sitting here looking up like has there ever been an instance of a, a presidential pardon being overturned? And I'm looking at these like, you know. No, there's never been a clear. But like we've seen instances of stuff that has never happened ever before done by the Democrats over the last six years.

[B]

So kind of Republicans too. They bought 10 of Intel. I've never seen the government buy 10 of a private.

[A]

The government literally dumped a boatload of money into ford and a GM in the. In 2008.

[B]

Did they buy it? They just bailed them out. They didn't get a percent thing.

[A]

They bought it. They bought a. Their per. They put money. And it's the same thing if you're purchasing stock, especially seeing as if the United States purchases stock of intel and the stock goes up, the government actually makes money. They didn't take a controlling interest.

[B]

I know that's the argument for it, but it doesn't. It's the government buying private companies.

[A]

It's not. But they didn't buy the whole company. They bought stock, they bought an interest in it. They didn't buy. The government bought stocks. They didn't purchase the company or nationalize it.

[B]

I'm just looking up if they bought Fannie mae in the 2008 bailout. I know they bailed them out. I just don't know if they, if

[A]

they, they bought Fanny. The. The government. There is plenty of precedent of the government either taking control of companies or. Yeah, you're right.

[B]

They took over the Fannie Mae. Yeah, the.

[E]

I think that's what bonds, like FHA loans. It's all done through.

[A]

Yeah.

[E]

Fannie Mae, I believe.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[D]

I wanted to.

[B]

Just to reiterate your point about how you argue the Democrat think you said. Who was it, Curtis Yarvin, that the Democrats will treat it like power, like an alcoholic treats alcohol, whereas the Republicans will treat it like a wine. Stop. Because I can see the Republicans like consolidating all these potential explosive power things. And then they're like, let's do it. And they're like, no, no, no, no. That's a 75 year old vintage. We're not going to touch it. Where's the Democrats going in there? Like drink it. Drink. Take that. Make. Change that, change that. So the Republicans are like buying stock and things. They're creating a technocracy behind the scenes. They're getting all their bottles aligned and like, if an evil guy comes in, dear God, they have the Patriot act and the ndaa, but the Democrats have

[A]

the Patriot act in the NDAA too, if they're in the, in the government.

[B]

And the concern is, who would, you know, who would misuse it? I mean, you probably the alcoholic would, would tend towards misusing, you know, your, your array of alcohol.

[C]

You know, all you have to do to see kind of the extent that the Democrats will go last time or will go next time based on what they've done before, is if you look through the Arctic Frost documents, it's one of the most incredible things. So all of these documents, you know, the prosecutions against all of, like the conservative organizations in D.C. hundreds of subpoenas. They were monitoring bank accounts, they had wiretaps, they had, you know, confidential informants. And you can go read this confidential, you know, informant email correspondence. They have the names blocked out, so you don't know who it is, but you see all of it. Friend of mine runs, he's CEO of the Conservative Partnership Institute. It's like Jim Dement, Mark Meadows organization. He is mentioned many times in Arctic Frost. They were investigating cpi, they never found anything. But the confidential informant documents are so crazy. Accusing him of treason, trying to say that he's like, like recruiting a militia to overthrow the government. Like, this is Looney Tunes stuff. Like he does trainings on Senate procedure is like what his organization does. And they're like accusing him of this. The point being, you can look at what they've done before. They will twist and turn and use every single. And lie overtly because, you know, if you look through all of these, if you know the people involved, you know, every single aspect of it is a lie and it's sloppy. So, like, it's very clear what they'll do next time. I think that our side just has to move forward. And I think, you know, to his credit, that's exactly what President Trump's doing.

[B]

Feels like, like you were saying, someone was saying how radicalized the Democratic Party seems to have become, but it seems like the government in general has become like the Internet. I know it's been a long time, we've been boiling in it, so it's tough to feel the temperature, but like the whole system has become hyper radic. Not maybe not hyper radicalized, but intensely radicalized. The way things, the way, I mean, the Fourth Amendment's gone, like search spying. These things are all spying on us right now, fervently, like constantly. And it's a technocratic, I mean a coup essentially of our rights.

[E]

I, I don't, I mean, this is part of the reason why, like, the domestic focus matters so much because people are only going to go more crazy. The worst things are here. Like, I think a Federal Reserve just put a report that under Biden, like 30% of all increases of mortgage prices were because of illegal immigration. So we have essentially priced out all of the, like, young Americans out of homes. Young Americans are the ones that are radicalized to. It's not the boomers. The boomers are chill, they have the 13 foot ceilings, they have their boats and their RVs. They're happy. But the young Americans are the ones going crazy because they are poor. They're on Klarna and affirm, like they're affirming Walmart purchases. Like people are in a much, much worse economic situation than their parents were, their grandparents were, and this is only them fueling even worse and more radical politics. Obviously the Internet, like mass communication makes this worse, but if things don't improve domestically for young people, then you're going to continue seeing this sort of type of violence. I think the reason why we see it on the left so much more than the right is to the right, there's the broader culture of like, personal responsibility. You need to go work, go get a job, try and be productive. So then all the people on the right, they're like actually trying to do it. And then on the left you have these people that go, they're over educ. Underemployed. They went, they got their $80,000 degree from God knows where and who knows what, they can't get a job. And then they freak out.

[A]

And when you go to college, you're taught nothing but Marxist power dynamics. You're taught, you're taught entirely that. You know, the reason that our society is so terrible now is because the billionaires I saw, I think it was Asman Gold posted this. And other people have actually made it in a, a, made the argument in a much more, much less succinct MANNER. But as McGold was saying, you know, you're not oppressed by the top 2%, you're oppressed by the bottom 2%. Right? Like the people that are gonna steal your car, the people that are gonna smash your windows, the people that are going to act out, they're the people that have nothing to lose, right? The people that are billionaires, the people that are millionaires, the, the, the wealthy people in society, they're the people that, that, that possibly could give you a job, right? Like you go and you fill out 100 applications or 200 applications, it's a pain in the ass, I understand. But that 201st application where you get a job, the guy that owns the business, he's not a vagrant, right? He's not a guy that's, that's out rioting and throwing Molotov cocktails at Teslas because he's mad at Elon Musk. He's not a guy that's going to strong arm, you know, commit a strong arm robbery. He's not a guy that's going to, going to be in the point. The way I made the point was like Elon Musk isn't going to be in line in front of me at, at Walmart losing his mind because he can't put Zins on an EBT card, right? Like that's the kind of stuff that affects your day to day life, right? For your average person, as much as they want to blame the rich, right, Blame the people that have money, blame Elon Musk for being a trillionaire, blame Jeff Bezos, etc. All of those people have, have material, materially improved most Americans lives. Everybody loves the fact that you can get stuff delivered by drone from Amazon a places, right? Like you, you can get same if you live in most suburbs for of big cities. You can get same day delivery from Amazon. That the idea like that was completely. I'm not that old but I'm an old guy and when I was a kid the idea of getting same day delivery everything that I ordered when I was a kid, six to eight weeks, you know, six to eight weeks, it'll be there in six to eight weeks. Now it's like if it's not there in two days you're like oh screw this, you know. And so it's true that like the wealthy people in, in the world actually don't make your lives worse. Well that's the, the, the, the lowest common denominator that denominator that are most likely to make your life worth. They're the people that if you get into a car accident they don't have insurance. You know, they're the people that, that, that are going and filling up the, the emergency rooms because they don't have health insurance. Now maybe it's not their fault, right? Maybe it's not the, maybe they fell in hard times and stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that you interact with people that are, when you're interacting on a day to day basis you're more likely to have someone in the bottom 2, 3, 4% of the, of the country that materially impacts your life than you are to bump into some rich guy that makes your life.

[B]

What I disagree in that I think it's both extremes are oppressing what's happening to most people.

[A]

And the point Elon Musk do to you?

[B]

Well, it's more about the people that run the banks that are commanding compound interest because our debt, we have to, we borrow money from the Federal Reserve, our government does, and then we have to pay it back with interest that doesn't exist. So we're constantly in this Ponzi scheme of stress of, of falling behind the economic order and we're constantly being baited and kind of being controlled by the banking establishment.

[A]

You don't have to go into debt. I mean, you probably have to go in debt to get a house, but if you don't get a house, you don't have to use cred credit cards. You don't have to go into debt to these, these bankers that you're worried about.

[B]

The government to create money literally goes into debt from the Federal Reserve. They take a promissory note from the Federal Reserve in order to create a dollar, promising that they're going to pay the reserve back with interest.

[A]

Is it your argument that a gold standard or a standard, actual physical precious metal monetary system would be better? And if so, why?

[B]

It would be less corrupted in this way. It would probably have problems of its own because then there'd be a limited supply and some people would literally have zero like at this at least they can print it out and give you your 200 bucks a week, you know, universal basic income and try and slow down the explosive, then this is just

[A]

the least bad system.

[C]

Well, what I would say to your point, because, you know, you can look at what's happened since we went off the gold standard. What has happened is everything in our economy has become financialized to an extent that has never existed before in history. So, you know, there's a lot of, there's a lot of speculation that the reason that all of this financialization of the economy again, you know, the top industry in America is finance. Like, you know, we used to be manufacturing economy, we used to have, you know, now it's finance and real estate. And part of the reason, one of the big drivers of that was financialization of the economy after we went off, you know, the gold, you know, our smartest people in America all go into finance. That's not necessarily a natural thing. That is a cause and consequence of us just making A decision to move to fiat currency. So there's a lot of, there's probably, you know, I'm not saying that we need to go back to a gold standard. I think there's probably other financial solutions at this point. But the fact that our economy's so financialized is a decision that policymakers made is not necessarily a natural order of things.

[B]

This is where I start to align or at least understand the communist mentality of like seizing property from the wealthy. Because if we, there's like to the right, the extreme right is corporatocracy where the corporations own all the property and you're basically. If you say the wrong words, they'll, they'll take away your house. They'll take away. Then to the far left is nobody owns any property. We all own it together collectively. Which you know how that fails into vanguardism, small groups of people. So like if BlackRock buys up 80% of the houses, of course the people have a right to overthrow that system and take their housing, take their land back. Like good God, it's a human right.

[A]

But I mean we were just talking about how the, the housing market is, is actually the driver of the prices as illegal immigrants. You know, the, the reason that the prices have gone up, up so much is because of how many illegal immigrants are in the, in the U.S. well,

[E]

it's not just that. It's also, I think it might have been the Realtors association or it was a national home builders association. They've been doing these studies on the impact of regulation on building homes. And now I think the last one they did that I saw was like 2021, $100,000 in 2020. 1 of the price of your of new build home was, was only for regulatory compliance. So we've made it super, super difficult to build a house. We've made it super expensive, regulation speaking. And, and then we imported like 20 million people and then we gave them free FHA loans, 0% down payments at like super low Covid rates. So we've totally destroyed the housing market by essentially just giving it to like a bunch of people that just walked up the southern border.

[C]

I mean government is the problem in most cases in what we're talking about. You know, you mentioned blackrock. Why is blackrock such a behemoth? Because every, you know, every retirement system in America places a massive percentage of those retirement funds into BlackRock. It is a government, you know, is a government fueled monopoly. And you know, there's been federal courts now that have called blackrock a monopolistic Actor. And you know, so I mean like, I think that you know what you're saying, like I'm very sympathetic to the view that like, you know, we have all of these problems with these monopolistic actors. Every single monopoly in history has been a creation of government intervention. So you can go to BlackRock and look where they've got 10 trillion in assets. Where do they get those 10 trillion in assets? It's pension funds. So both red Republican and Democrat states have something like two or three trillion dollars invested in BlackRock. So foreign governments too, because it's a global monopoly. But they, the point being there are solutions to this. And the solution in this particular, I'm not like a libertarian, but in the solution in this case is, you know, whether it's regulation or artificial migration that is facilitated and encouraged by government, like we've got to solve these problems. And in most of the cases the root causes of all of this have been government interventions into the marketplace that have, have absolutely wrecked, you know, life for the average American.

[B]

Well what then like a solution would that be? Just people just decide we're gonna going to build houses here and then the government will try and stop them and be like, what are you doing to me?

[C]

Well there's regulation.

[A]

That's the way regulation works. It'll be like I want to build a house. And the government says, well you have to have these permits. And then to get the permits you have to get, you know, you have to have inspections or you have to do surveys, you have to do studies on the impact that it's going to have on the environment. You have to do all sorts of things. And that's from, that's you know, regulation.

[E]

Yeah, even, even like left wing projects. So like I think the biggest one was under Biden might have been like build back better. It was like a huge infrastructure project. Ezra, or yeah, I think it was Ezra Klein talked about this and he sort of went viral where he went over all of these projects that were supposed to be funded by the federal government through this like trillion dollar spending act. Turns out almost none of these have been built. And the reason why is because the, this one was for the like 5G across all of America. So they wanted every single square inch of America to have Internet connection and for you to put down like a cell tower for Internet connection anywhere in America you had to go through a 14 step process of like applications and reviews with the government. And it turns out none of this got built. And this is sort of the process for just about everything like the best, one of my favorite examples is the wildfires. So when we see these massive wildfires happen across the country, you think, well, why didn't we like do a prescribed burn and do the normal thing that we do for forest mitigation, for fire management? And the reason why is because to pass NEPA clearance, it takes seven years. It takes, the average is seven years. So a forest management guy goes into a forest, sees a fuel load. There's all sorts of stuff on the ground. There's like pine cones and all sorts of crap. And he's like, okay, we need to do a burn because this is going to build up, it's going to tank the entire forest. So he goes and he writes a thing, sends it to the federal government and it takes seven years for them to get back and eventually say, okay, fine, you can burn. And by that point the fire's already happened, it's burned down the palace.

[A]

One lightning strike.

[B]

Why does it take so long?

[A]

Because that's what the government does.

[B]

But what's nepa?

[E]

NEPA is a national Environmental Protection Act. Yeah, this is passed under Nixon.

[C]

Yeah, 1970. No, he was patriot. But Congress at the time, super Democrat, they went through and passed and yeah, I mean, so you can go through. Pretty much every federal project has NEPA review problems. It makes these things. I mean, you know, there's other reasons corruption wise, why the, the bridge in Baltimore hasn't been rebuilt in five years. Haven't even like really broken ground on it yet. I mean, it's NEPA reviews are huge portion of it. So any federal, any project that takes federal money at all is part of nepa. Trump is in process. I think he's, he's gotten part of that dialed back. But I mean, you know, there's so much more he's got to do. He's working on it.

[A]

The government, like every, every regulation that the government has, it's, it's also one, you know, small chunk of whatever the funding money is that gets taken away. So if you get a trillion dollars to do a big thing. Right. Part of the reason why it doesn't ever, it actually, a lot of projects don't get done is because every organization that gets some kind of say in it gets their cut of the money. So that way they can do the paperwork that's necessary so they can say, well, we're doing this, we're doing that. It's not like these organizations, they, they don't have people that are there volunteering. They all go ahead and they get their cut of the, of the money that's, that's being spent. That's part of the reason why California has never gotten their, their, their high speed rail building. I think they've made 150ft of it or something like that. And they've spent like 58 or whatever billion dollars or maybe it's 85. But they spent billions and billions and billions of dollars trying to make high speed rail and they've built something like 150 or 200ft of it because all of the funding that it goes to actually build the thing gets eaten up by the, the EPA or by the, the, by all of the regulation stuff.

[B]

So I imagine regulations are in place to prevent corruption. So that you don't.

[A]

No, no, no environmental stuff. It's not to prevent corruption, it's to prevent environmental corruption.

[B]

All sort forms of corruption. Like you don't want to build a house that's oil into the river, which is that.

[A]

Okay, so you're, I think, I think you're, I think you're changing the meaning of corruption in this context.

[B]

Aspects of environmental corruption, political corruption, economic corruption, you know, they're different kinds of corruption and they're trying to prevent destruction of different types. But then what's happening is it is a corrupted system because it is taking so long to try and prevent the errors it has become an error is what it feels like.

[E]

What's the last big massive patriotic American infrastructure project you can think of that's happened in the last 30 years? And you really can't. You think of Hoover Dam, you know, Golden Gate Bridge, the interstate highways. All these massive projects were pre the 1970s. And like Thiel wrote about this, why everything sort of stopped in the 70s. Big reason why is because our environmental litigation has made this almost impossible. And the other secondary consequence of all these laws is that it opened up for a proliferation of like NGO groups to come in and endlessly sue every single project to prevent anything from getting done. This has been, this is the case for literally everything.

[B]

This was the Trans Pacific Partnership. I don't know if you guys were following it 2012, Obama was going to sign us onto it. And there's this clause in it called the investigator or state dispute settlement clause. Whereas an investor is like a Malaysian oil company. It's like this globalization. Trans Pacific Partnership. So if a Malaysian company, the investor had a dispute with a state, say the United States for. They call it discrimination. You're not buying our oil. So we're gonna, the investor could then sue the state, the corporation could sue America and then the taxpayers would have had to pay them back, would have to pay the corporation with tax money. And that's why I voted for Trump. Trump. That's why I was going to vote for Bernie Sanders. He spoke against it and why inevitably I vote for Trump. Day three he got in 2016, he shot down that. I don't know why I brought up that, that particular policy.

[A]

I do. Because you wanted to go to foreign policy. And we're going to jump to this story from the BBC. US Iran talks postponed as Israel launches deadly strike in Lebanon A new round of direct talks between the U.S. and Iran have been postponed after Vice President J.D. vance delayed a planned trip to Switzerland. The White House announced Thursday that Vance would not be traveling to the talks and the logistics had not been simple or predictable. It comes a day after the US dropped its naval blockade of Iran and after the two countries signed a deal aimed at ending the conflict. While the deal also said fighting should end in Lebanon, the country's health ministry reported. Israeli. Israeli strikes had killed at least 47 people overnight and into Friday. Israel's military said it had targeted the Iran back group Hezbollah and that four of its own soldiers had been killed. Hours before the White House issued its statement, Hezbollah linked Lebanese media reported that the talks had been suspended due to ongoing Israeli strikes. Is Israel trying to derail the peace process?

[C]

I think Israel has a strong national interest and I think that their interest in this case is not the same as our interests. I think that President Trump had, you know, I think he went into this war, I think that he thought that there was going to be the possibility of a quick, you know, of a quick resolution to it that didn't happen. And I think he spent the last two months trying to find an exit ramp. I think he found what he thought was acceptable, took the best deal that he could get to be able to avoid, you know, a global cataclysmic economic collapse. And, and I think Israel has just, in this particular case, a different set of priorities. And like, that's okay. It's okay that foreign countries have different priorities than us. My problem and who I blame for all of this are the American neocons who have. Are obsessed with Iran. They've been obsessed with Iran for decades. This has been on their list to do, and they are just hell bent on keeping us in this war. So I don't blame Israel. I blame the neocons.

[A]

What do you got?

[E]

Oh, man, I. Yeah, I think it's so unacceptable. It just sucks. I mean, there's already the concern of like the global oil reserves going out and there's obviously a case to be made that the war for us is like, you know, the positioning with Venezuela and Cuba and that we're going to become the global oil exporter. So it's good for the American, American economy and like us geopolitically, less bad

[A]

for the US than anyone else.

[E]

Yeah, like, and I think, I think marketedly it's like obviously less bad because our biggest concern is like, oh no, our gas went up by a few dollars for a few months. Like that's like, so sort of like the biggest consequence for us for the most part. But the notion to like trying to make sure you don't find peace is, is really unfortunate. I. Yeah, I mean it sucks.

[B]

It seems like this is what the Likud Party has wanted since they wanted a two party solution in the early 2000s and then they were basically like, no, we don't want a two party solution. We want to make sure that we can conquer all the territory. So put a bunch of, you know, just seed the, seed the area with problems so that we have something to destroy and then we can use that as an excuse to take it over. And like, if I was talking about

[A]

the Greater Israel Project, I'm not sure.

[B]

Maybe I don't know because I don't.

[A]

Because I mean, I understand the, what you're laying out, but I don't think that, I don't. I think the reason I don't agree with it is because, you know, Israel hasn't significantly expanded its borders. Right. Like since the Seven Day War. They gave the Sinai back to, to Egypt. They haven't, they moved, I think they moved into Lebanon a little bit. But that's, that's partially the Golan Heights. But that's partially strategic. Right. The Golan Heights basically is a raised area over Tel Aviv. Is it?

[C]

No, it's over. It's Haifa in the north.

[A]

Yeah. And so, so it's really, it's really like they, they want the Golan Heights. So that way they're not, you know, they don't have raised positions to shoot at, shoot down at an Israeli city. But they, they don't have, they haven't really done like, there's a lot of people that talk about the Greater Israel Project and I don't see Israel, you know, doing, making moves to expand their territory.

[B]

You know, the Gazan, I mean, the slaughter of those people and the corralling and that, that's, it's pretty, it seems like that's the Plan. I don't know. I don't know. I don't.

[A]

But the Gaza's already, like. Like Gaza is already kind of part of Israel. And like, they left Gaza in like, 2005 and. And they kept them corralled.

[E]

But, like, Gaza is a complicated situation because Egypt does not want the, the Palestinians. Neither does Jordan, and neither does Jordan and neither is Israel. So they've sort of been stuck. And the reason why is because the Palestinians have had all these sort of like, various revolutionary movements in, like, the past. Like, I don't, like, 40 years that like, toppled certain princes. I think there was an assassination attempt. There's a lot of really bad blood. So none of them really want any of them. So they've kind of all just said, no, you stay here. And then obviously October 7th happened. So then the reaction to that, I think the biggest probably expansion that's always been very controversial is the west bank situation with like, all of the, like, suburb developments where they just, like, move Israelis in. But I mean, the Greater Israel thing is more of like the American sort of early 2000s projects in the Middle east where, like, we took out Gaddafi and Saddam and then now, like, Syria and like, Assad's out, like, in hiding or whatever. And there was this idea that after we sort of topple these nations, like, Israel will expand. That's like, sort of the theory. I think there's other explanations that are a lot more plausible and reasonable when it comes to Iran. Like, there's obviously an existential issue of Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Israel has supposedly, supposedly a nuclear weapon.

[A]

So, like, if they can neither confirm, they can neither confirm nor deny, but we can confirm if you come after. After us, and we're. We have an existential threat, we will use a nuclear weapon.

[E]

So, like, there's a very valid argument. And the war has been great for Bibi because, like, I think his approval ratings went up. Like, he sort of likes this for him, like, politically and like, peace is probably, maybe looks bad, worse politically for him. But even then, like, if there's a peaceful solution for the sake of everybody, it's preferable that a peaceful solution is met rather than like, total annihilation, like between the two countries.

[B]

What was, you know, Netanyahu, he was like, being investigated by their Judiciary right before October 7th.

[C]

And then everybody, I mean, still is. I mean, so like, Israel has this massive problem with their judicial system that a lot of, A lot of countries around the world have where the judiciary is incredibly far left. And they've been investigating him. My Understanding is he still has to go into like testimony, judicial process hearings like two days a week, like even now. So like he is like, you know, absolutely swamped by the Israeli judicial system. That has been a massive problem for a very long time. So yeah, I mean, you know, I think there's a legitimate claim that, you know, that judicial system has been very politicized against him.

[A]

Before we get into like the ins and outs of, of politics inside Israel, I want to point to, to, to this piece here from Newsweek. Trump blasted by and blasted a newspaper owned by top donor. You betrayed us. And this goes to the, the question of, of how Bibi is kind of, you know, looks at the war and wants to see it going on. A newspaper owned by billionaire Republican mega donor has published a blistering opinion piece accusing President Donald Trump of betraying Israel over his deal with Iran to end the war. The critical op ed was published by Israel Haom, the Israeli newspaper owned by Miriam Adelson, one of Trump's biggest financial backers and one of the most influential pro Israel donors in Republican policy politics. Adelson, a dual US Israeli citizen with an estimated fortune of tens of billions of dollars, has been a major force in shaping conservative support for Israel, has close ties and has had close ties to Trump for years. In the column, Israel Haman journalist Danny Zakin praised Trump's past support for Israel, but said the president has made a colossal mistake by signing what he calls a surrender agreement with Tehran. In a piece headlined you could have been the greatest president of all but you failed, Zakin wrote that Trump had missed an opportunity to be remembered among America's greatest presidents and warned the deal could damage US Interest in Israel's security. I think that's crap personally. Like the idea that, that doing something that benefits Israel primarily. I have my own thoughts about what the, what the situation in, in Iran is. I personally, I wrote a piece in my, on my Patreon on the day the strikes initiated. I think that it's mostly about China or at least a good portion about China. But, but this guy's take that, that an American president that does something that the Israeli hawks like makes him the, the most memorable or the, the, the greatest American president. That's crap. That's garbage. Israel is its own country and they have their own interests, but the United States is not a client state of Israel. I don't care what anyone says like Israel's influential. Sure, they've got, you've got a pack and you've got all this, this, this, you've Got a lot of people that are Jewish in the administration, they have a lot of influence, but the US still calls the shot. So this, to me just smells of a tantrum that the, the, the United States isn't carrying out strikes when Israel wants them to.

[C]

Yeah, I think, I think the biggest problem here is, you know, so first of all, Trump is clearly his own man. He has made decisions that have upset every possible interest. So the idea that he's doing something on behalf of just one group, I think is nonsense. So my biggest problem with all of you know, is nothing like, I don't know all that much about Mary, Mary Madison Adelson herself, other than she gives a lot of money. But the idea, to me, and the biggest problem that I have is, you know, the foreign policy establishment, you know, essentially neocons and people sort of associated, they have a permanent vested interest in us toppling Iran. It is part of a project that they have, like, deemed important for decades. They've been wanting every president to do this. These are domestic actors, you know, it. I mean, these are people who, I mean, you know, these are the folks who got us into the Iraq War, Afghanistan, and kept us there for decades. And the point that I think that, you know, which is where I give so much credit to Trump, he is not interested in that. You know, he may agree, you know, tactical, you know, we need to, you know, stop Iran, whatever. The folks who are pushing Trump that are, you know, having temper tantrums on Twitter about Trump signing this deal, they, when you push them, they will not be happy with anything that doesn't keep us in Iran for the next 20 years. There's no off ramp that they will be acceptable with that they will find, you know, in any way tolerable other than us being there in a ground invasion and staying there for the next 20 years. They just won't.

[A]

Do you think that they actually, the people in question, the neocons in question, do you think that they had a sense that that was going to be the situation? And, and the reason I ask this argument is because if you look at the build up, it was clear that there were going to be strikes.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

But leading up to the war, and, and another reason why I was, I was thinking about this is because there were so many people on the right, libertarians, anti war people that are just like, we're gonna have boots on the ground forever, et cetera, et cetera. They were so afraid that the neocons were going to get what they wanted. And I, you look at the situation you're like, this looks nothing like the build up to going into Iraq.

[C]

Right.

[A]

They were not moving, moving troops and they were moving in air assets. It looked like there was going to be big strikes. But if you looked at what was actually happening, look, I've said this before, like no ground infantry goes in unless there is a trailer with a Burger King attached to it right behind them. And that just didn't happen.

[C]

Right.

[A]

You know, you didn't see that kind of stuff. You didn't see the buildup of, of, of ground forces. You didn't see the logistics build up. And they were swearing up and down, oh, you wait, it's going to happen. You wait, it's going to happen. You wait, oh, it'll happen in a couple weeks, it'll happen, blah, blah. But it's like I didn't see it and I, it looks like I was right. Like we're trying to get out of it, right? There's not going to be a ground war. Did the people that were the neocons, do they think that they could push for that? Kind of, that kind of.

[C]

And the reason that I think that. So I know a lot of these folks in D.C. you know, friends with a lot of them, they're actually, you know, great patriots. They love America. I just don't happen to want us to be in forever wars. They may have a different opinion. The, you know, so the, the reason that I'm very confident that they want, that they thought that they would eventually get Trump into a ground war is because prior to Trump striking, they, you know, they were the folks claiming the Iranians will rise up, the Iranians will rise up. You know, we can do these strikes. We can be done real quick. Their goal was simply, and you saw this after like the thirteen day war, whatever last year, the minute the strikes started, their goalposts immediately shift their goal like, like on a dime. The goal wasn't, okay, we're going to take out their nuclear capacity or we're going to take out the air Force or their navy. Immediately their standard shifted to we need a different regime in Iran. And like it's like clockwork. They changed, you know, the goalposts immediately because their strategy was, let's just get started and then we'll deal with it from there. Again, I don't even think this is like, this is not me blaming the Israelis. This is the foreign policy establishment, Washington D.C. that has, you know, it's the same folks in the Ukraine and wanting us to, you know, keep getting involved there. It's Just part of their nature. They like these, you know, conflicts and they like them to continue. There's a lot of different reasons for it. But the bottom line was the reason I'm so confident in the fact that, that they thought they could trap, snare Trump into something long term, into something that included ground forces, was because they immediately shifted the goalposts. And that's when you started to see, like, okay, let's go into Carg Island. Let's just take like one island, just real small. We can just take that. Their goal is to get ground forces there. And Trump to his, you know, and this is what I love about him, he completely resisted that. And because he saw once you get forces in there, you know, maybe you lose some people, you got to go and, you know, Trump's going to defend the American, you know, the American military. If we have losses, he's going to make sure that we are there to defend them, to back them up. So their strategy, I think, was to get us in over time rather than, you know, but they're, right now, they're, you know, their temper tantrum about Trump signing this deal is they want to make sure that this keeps going.

[E]

Yeah. I mean, even the framing of this article, it's like, like he would have been the greatest president of all. He would have been remembered. It's like he's going to be remembered for his domestic policy. He's going to be remembered because of, like, what he does for the people here, for people who, like, can't afford houses right now, who can't afford cars or whatever.

[A]

There hasn't been a president remembered positively for a military action since World War II.

[E]

Exactly. Yeah. Like, he's going to be like, even we just saw there's this, like, new truck company. It was like Rio. They announced like a under $25,000 gas truck, 600 mile tank, all wheel drive, manual, automatic, available. Like, it's like. That is a direct response to the repealing of CAFE regulations and cave regulations, which totally destroyed the truck and even, like, the greater automobile market in the country. Like, if he could get a new car available to young people, which is like what most boomers got to experience. If he could get that available to young people, that's what he's going to be remembered for. He's going to be remembered for that. He's not going to be remembered for for some war. He's gonna be remembered for making housing affordable, for mass deportations, for making things cheaper, making the America, like, the way of life in this country better. That's what he's gonna be remembered for. Not for you know a three month long campaign in Iran and especially not for if that like if it goes even worse.

[A]

Yeah, yeah.

[B]

I'd love to see an industrial revolution on the domestic soil. I push graphene like it's my job.

[C]

I was just one of my job. I was just re industrialized earlier this week out in Detroit. It is incredible what is happening Mlr Atomics just like they just hit criticality. Criticality yesterday.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Does that mean they.

[C]

They're building like portable nuclear reactors that work?

[B]

Criticality? What's criticality?

[A]

Critical means that they're. It reaches the point of the reaction. Yeah.

[B]

They're they're fusion or fission.

[A]

Fission.

[C]

Fission.

[A]

They don't. They haven't figured fusion react. Yeah.

[C]

These are like size of this room.

[A]

Yeah. Really?

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

I'm on a truck.

[C]

Like they're you know the nuclear future we could have had if it wasn't for the environmentalists in six exact we're going to have that now. Like there is amazing things happening on the re industrialization. Trump will be remembered for that. Like you know, I mean like he's making this possible. We have been able to build in this country since the 60s. Yeah.

[A]

These nuclear reactors are likely going to be the, the key to powering the data centers that everybody's concerned about and

[B]

you know like area denial lasers things that can knock drones out of the sky too. You'll be able to move them around.

[A]

Well, well I mean last they're already on you know aircraft carriers which have nuclear power. Yeah.

[B]

So like terrestrial like land based or even sky. I mean you could probably fly those reactors in like in sky machines, you know airplanes and satellites.

[C]

Oh we could get the airships.

[B]

The airships as well.

[E]

I post about this on our accounts. There's a dream it was Atoms for Peace. This is under I think Eisenhower and they had all this propaganda from like we had the Ford Nucleon. This is a concept car for a nuclear powered car. We had the nuclear airships. There was this ideal, this future of the American nuclear future that was. That was robbed from us by. By scared boomers.

[B]

It's you pretty dirty but if you have thorium it's all reactors just don't melt.

[A]

This is a little bit off well not off topic but it's a little bit of tangent. There's one thing that, that drives me nuts about the way that people talk about nuclear waste and I don't know for sure but I think that it has something to do with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, right? The. The. The goo, right. Everybody thinks of nuclear waste as this. This sludge that's hard to contain. Blah, blah. For people that don't know, nuclear waste is metal rods. And they put them. They encase them in concrete and then encase them in a steel tube. Right? It is the. It is like they've transported nuclear waste all across the country on the highways.

[E]

They've had.

[A]

Had accidents, car accidents where the tubes have have gotten knocked off and stuff. They've. There's never been a significant nuclear spill of nuclear race because. And that's another thing they say spill like a metal rod can spill. It's this. It's this implication of an oozing liquid that you can't contain, and it's hard to clean up. They're literally metal rods. It's like big pieces. Not they're not made of steel, but it's like these big pieces of steel that they throw in that they encase in concrete. And when I say encase, I don't mean they put them in a box. They literally just fill up a container full of concrete. So it's concrete with metal tubes in

[C]

it, like rebar, corium, then they bury them in the ground. And like, this is a massive country. Like, we have plenty of space. So, like. Yeah, no, I mean, and this is why, you know, I want to keep going. Like, Trump is going to be remembered for this amazing, you know, all of the amazing things he's doing, you know, re. Industrialize everything on this front. It can't happen if we keep, you know, bombing the rest of the world. We've got to save this country.

[E]

The nuclear.

[B]

It can all be reused. That nuclear waste, they call it waste right now because they haven't really figured out what to do with it, but they have actually. I interviewed Yakz, Kal Moskowitz. Great interview. He has a company that is. He was like, dude, there's 98% of our nuclear waste can be reconverted back into fuel. The whole system's recyclable. It's just a matter of. Of putting the tech in place.

[C]

We have just made it impossible to build nuclear anything. And there's so much future of this. I mean, you know, the guys at Valar, like, these things are safe. These things are. You know, they are like, the more we do it, the more we're going to have experience doing it. We can reuse the waste. We can make sure that these, you know, we can have. We can have a future where power is just. It's not, you know, not going to be free, but it's going to be almost free. Almost free.

[B]

That was.

[A]

That was the argument. That was the promise during. In the nuclear age. It was like free power. They're going to be able to generate so much power that you're. You're not going to have an electric bill anymore. It's going to go away. And there is a new argument being made about AI and data. Data centers. If you have a data center, they're using so much power at these data centers that the town down the street becomes a. The entire power need of the town down the street becomes a rounding error. So it's good for. It would be good business and good. Good community outreach for the data center to say, you know, what we'll power your town for. But nobody has an electric bill anymore because really, we're spending, you know, whatever, $100 million a month or whatever it is. $100 million a month paying for power for this place. What's another $10 million to cover the power for the town down the street? That's. That's. That is something that is actually a possibility in the future called nuclear reprocessing.

[B]

That's the. But. Okay, so my concern is. It seems like domestically we are on track technically to rebuild phenomenally, obviously, you know, chaos and fighting and all that. That is always a threat. But geopolitically, what.

[A]

How do we.

[B]

What this. This, like, is. I don't know if you guys want to go back to it, but the Israeli Iranian thing, I don't even think it's an American problem. Like, how do you.

[A]

What do you do?

[B]

Because if we lose the.

[D]

The.

[A]

You handle it.

[B]

What's that?

[A]

Handle it. By not handling. But if we don't do anything, our problem.

[B]

Suez Canal is our problem.

[A]

Suez Canal is not near Iran.

[B]

It's an. Well, it's. Yeah, it is. It's right there.

[C]

Straight horror. Moose, you're thinking.

[B]

No, I'm thinking of the Suez Canal. We need trade from the Mediterranean.

[C]

Okay? Y.

[B]

That's the whole point. I think it's why they set up Israel. Where they set it up 100 years ago is to protect that area of the world so that we can control global trade routes. So that's kind of why we're tied in. It's like we need to maintain the Suez and all those little gulfs and things. That's why you have Kuwait. Kuwait was our oil bridge out into the Indian Ocean, basically. I mean, how do you. Without. Militarily, without. The only way out is Through, I don't know, like, blowing our way through this. Like, exploding 100 million people doesn't seem like the right answer. I just don't know how to stop them. The Israelis, like, my deep concern is that the Israelis are completely cut off geopolitically, diplomatically. And then they're like, we have no choice but to nuke everyone now. See, you pushed us to this. We're like, bro, I can't hold your hand if you're gonna threaten suicide over and over, like, at some point, I'm gonna let you do it. I don't know what to do. Like, I can't, I can't force you to be good.

[C]

Yeah, I, so my, my thing with Israel, I think that they, you know, I, I have absolutely no problem with a strong alliance with them. I have absolutely no problem with them defending themselves. I think it's their, like, it's their duty to do that. As a country, we need to make very clear that we're not the world's policemen. We cannot be going to do these wars anymore.

[A]

When you, when you say world's policeman, there's one. I, I, I do want to get your opinion on this. I think the United States as the guarantor of the sea lanes is a good thing. And I don't think that, that, I don't think that that counts as world police. Some people would say, oh, you know, the US with all the big navy that we have and spending all this money on the Navy and et cetera, we don't need that kind of stuff. I don't, like, I think the US is, has been a net positive for global trade because the US Guarantees international trade via the seas. Is that when you say, when you say world police, are you talking.

[C]

I think that Trump is rebuilding the Navy, like, you know, something that's really, you know, so we've got something like 10, 12 aircraft carriers groups. During World War II, we built 150 aircraft carriers in four years. We can barely build ships now. Like, to me, like, we should be. I, I think that the future of America guaranteeing world trade, and I have no problem with that. I don't consider that world police. I consider going in ground invasion. Sure.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

You taking out, like, I think that a future, you know, I think the stuff that the Android guys, like, you know, I don't want drones flying over my house like police drones. I want, I want, like, drone ships policing the seas, preventing piracy, preventing, like, you know, we need dominance in, you know, we need naval dominance of, with future technology that we have companies currently building like the future where we do that isn't going to be secured by, you know, current generation ships. Like we're seeing the limits of that right now. Where you know, we are trying to keep the straight of Hormuz open or were, you know, before, before we signed the deal. Like they were just flying $500 drones into, into the strait. Like we're, we need a future technology to be able to help us do that. But to me, like that's more of like we need to be focusing on. Yes. Making sure that the various sea lanes are open. Making sure that, you know, the Panama Canal is controlled by Americans and not China. Like all of this is, that's totally possible without invading a single country.

[B]

You say you didn't want drones flying over your house. And I also identified. But what if they're so high up you don't see them?

[C]

I care less the less I see them.

[B]

Even if they're equally as lethal?

[A]

Well, because satellites are already, you know, going around the planet all the time. And I mean you may not. I'm not sure exactly the resolution quality you can get with satellites, but I'm, I'm fairly confident they can. You know, I know that the, that just the stuff that I see on Google Earth is fairly impressive. You know, so whether it be a drone or a satellite, the, the concept is essentially the same. Right.

[C]

Well, what I'll say about drones and what I'll say about that, you know, I actually think, I think that a future of the second amendment, for instance, involves Americans owning their own drone swarms. We actually work at this, at our organization. We're trying like we want to make sure that states in trying to write a law of Americans to be able to use drones for self defense. Like that's like actually like a real thing. I'm sorry, you should like Americans should absolutely have drone swarms defending their home. Like you know, so like, like I want to make sure. You mentioned the fourth Amendment earlier. I absolutely agree. We need to have, Americans need to be able to have like be able to have. Implement high level encryption. That's the type of thing that there are government actors right now trying to make illegal for Americans to have high level encryption technology. You know, so there's a lot of things we need to do to get back to. On the civil liberties front. I'm a very strong believer. I think America has like this long tradition of people who care about privacy for its own sake. You're not trying to hide anything. It's just your right to think and behave and be private is something we do need to get back to. And that's. I mean, that's really a cultural fight. Like, we need people to care about that. I think a lot of people just assume they're being spied on, so they don't care.

[A]

We were just talking about this. Yeah, this yesterday. This is actually more a generational fight than anything, because Gen X, I'm sorry, Gen Z, they don't conceptualize privacy the same way that, like, I do. I'm. I'm a Gen x. I'm. I'm 51. Like, when I think of privacy, I think of nobody's watching, nobody's listening, and I can do whatever I want with no one knowing. They don't have the same concept of they. In a day when you tap approve on a new app and you're giving them access to your camera and to your. To your microphone, and they can literally listen to whatever's going on. And it's likely that the phone will set. Could. Could possibly send out an ultrasonic tone that you can't hear that will map your room, you know, and map the, the way the interior of your house is. That's become just, well, something that people that are younger just expect. And it's, It's. You know, I think that the argument about. I like, I agree with you. I like the idea if you want privacy, you should be able to have it. But I think people have given up privacy, you know, and, and given it up for the convenience and the benefits that. That modern technology. I mean, everyone knows that. Not everyone knows, but if. For people that don't know, your WI FI router itself can map the interior of your home. Now they have algorithms that can take. Can measure the, the reflection of. Of WI FI signals inside of a room and can literally map out the inside of your room. It's like the Dark Knight. It's like the, the technology that Batman, that, that Lawrence Fox had to destroy at the end of Batman because it was too much power for one man to have. And turns out, well, guess what? Now everybody has it in their heart. Home. And. And all it took was the right algorithm to. To read it.

[E]

Yeah, I mean, the, The. There's always like the, the polling between privacy and convenience. Like you said, like on my phone, you know, I'm, I'm Gen Z. I was born in 2000. I remember a time when I had a flip phone when I was like, you know, like 12, 13 years old. And back then, like, we had either pictures that were physical or I Had like, a few pictures on my phone. And then now, like, I would say probably 80% of the pictures on my phone are. Are in Apple servers. They're all just stored there. And I was looking into like, well, what's the cost of having your own little data center, like your own data server in your own home? And the amount of work you have to do to go through all these programs that can sync then to your phone so you can have your own little personal client that runs 24. 7 in your home. It's a lot of work. It's a little bit easier than you might think, but it's still a lot of work. And for most of us, like, yeah, we were just born into a world of a mass convenience at the expense of our privacy. And implicitly, most people, I guess, the market has determined that people are willing to give up their privacy. Like, I know there are times, like, you know, I remember I was talking to my fiance about going to do a vacation, like Idaho. And the next thing you know, the next day on Instagram, I'm getting Airbnb ads for the town that I was talking about in Idaho. And I'm like, this just like, what am I going to do? Get rid of my phone? I need my phone for work. Like, I can't do that.

[C]

I think it has to be a cultural issue. You know, the good analog on, you know, to the privacy in my mind is the Second Amendment Amendment. Like, the idea that you're going to take personal ownership of your security is a cultural thing. So we have the legal right in the United States to defend ourselves with firearms. But the actual act of owning a gun is not simply going to buy a gun. You have to, like, actually decide, I need to train with the gun. I need to make sure the same thing. We need a culture of privacy that probably, you know, I imagine over time, you know, it'll go back and forth. You know, maybe at some point Gen Z will wake up, say, we want privacy and we just need. We need the legal ability to be able to do that if you're willing to take on the work. Because clearly we have decided as a country, it's. It's an essential part of our culture that we say we want the ability to defend ourselves. And that is an out. Like, we are taking ownership of something. I mean, we're not just gonna rely on the police. We're gonna say, we, you know, we're gonna go buy a gun, we're gonna train with the gun, we're gonna make sure that we have Thought through, like, how we're gonna use the gun in certain situations. Like, that's. That to me, it's a. It's a very strong analogy to privacy, but we need the ability to do that. And so, you know, we wanna make sure that we keep that.

[B]

This is why I demand, like, I do believe our rights are extrapolating to a digital realm of some sort. Our First Amendment is your right to access the source code of any tech you're using. Now, that's a wide net. And people have said like, well, then that's gonna mean all the security protocols in the software are now open and it can be hacked. So you gotta be careful. But if you have a drone swarm, you need access to the code to know that it's not coded to destroy you if you have. Because I think another aspect of the Second Amendment, digitally, is everyone has a right to a personal AGI off grid that can help control the swarms, that can. But you need the access to the source code to know that it's not connected to some central server or encoded to destroy you secretly in three years. And that's about as far as I've got. I love the drone swarm concept. The concern, of course, is they're like, government's gonna be like, hey, if Joey B over there, Shout Out Joe has a drone swarm and can control it with his thoughts, he can conquer his neighbor who doesn't have a drone swarm. Although they have a right to their drone swarm, they don't have one yet. And then they're gonna be like, oh, that's a lot of power to give one man. But, I mean, the United States, having

[C]

10 ars in your home's a lot of power to too. Like, we, like, the whole point of America is you got to.

[A]

Told you that I have 10 ars in my house.

[C]

I was talking about someone else.

[B]

And it's kind of like, you don't have to trust me. I just have a right to do this. Yeah, learn to trust me.

[C]

I. I mean that. I think we have to have an America where citizens are trusted in that level. That's part of why, you know, I'm personally immigration restrictionist. I think we have to be able to trust the people we have in this country because, like, the entire point of America is you have to be able to. We give people. I mean, you're allowed to say whatever the hell comes to your mind, you know, and you're allowed to have a gun. Like, those are those a lot of power, that we trust in people. And I think we need to like citizenship is, is not just, you know, it's not something passive like you have to actually take it seriously.

[A]

All right, we're going to jump to this story here from ABC7. In Los Angeles, there is a measure to give non citizens the right to vote in LA city elections and it's going to go before voters. The Los Angeles City Council took one step closer towards possibly giving non citizens the right to vote in city elections. Agree argu agreeing to put the measure on the November 3rd ballot. The measure is part of a package of proposed charter changes that will go before voters this year. In a decisive 10 to 5 vote. The council on Wednesday approved a propositional introduct. Introd. Excuse me. Improved. Approved a proposal introduced by Councilman Hugo Soto Martinez to implement non citizens or residential voting for city and LA Unified District elections. Soda Martinez emphasized individuals with some form of legal status, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Temporary Protected Status Holders, legal permanent residents would be allowed to vote under such a program. This issue to me is really about fairness and representation, Sodom Martinez said. It just does not make sense to me that someone who moves to Los Angeles for a temporary job has more of a voice than a parent who has been here for decades raising their children through our public schools. I think this is a terrible idea for many reasons. You should not set precedent that people that are not citizens should vote. And furthermore, I think that we need to, to substantially limit the franchise that we already have. I'm. I'm. I'm a. I'm a. A not universal voter kind of dude. I think that MTV did a great disservice with Rock the vote in the 90s. I think it was a terrible idea. But I'm, I'm interested in hearing your take on it.

[B]

Well, what I think we should generally. This is a criticism for you, Phil. Take it or leave. It's unsolicited. Separate those two things because some people when they hear limit for enfranchisement of what we already have to scale things back, they flip out. But the idea of stopping from voting voting, that's not controversial. Foreign people should not be voting in, in domestic elections. That's insanity through and through, I think. I mean it seems like it.

[C]

I'm going to throw something out and trigger.

[D]

Trigger.

[C]

Jacob, what's the difference between LA's current voting laws and this?

[E]

I was going to say there literally isn't so I used to live in LA and I was, I was just amazed when I went to go vote in in 24 and I went There and I tried to show them ID because I heard these rumors that like they won't look at an id So I tried to show them my ID and they literally averted their eyes and looked away. It was the most insane, unbelievable experience I've ever had. And all they do, whatever requirements you think exist in Los Angeles, they don't exist. You walk up into the polling station, anywhere they are, there's like they're everywhere. And you go and you say my name is this, this. And then you just give them an address and they print you a ballot. There's no verification, nothing happens. They literally just print it right then and there. They register you right then and there to whatever address you want. They don't check anything. There's literally no check. Then you go, you go into the machine, you go and hit your buttons, prints it out and you give it to them. There is no difference. Like God knows who, who immigrated in Biden, who like walked up the border, he could go straight to LA and just vote. And this has been the case for years. And California is like sort of under this whole like the consequences. So back in 1994 was Prop 187 and this is when they tried to restrict public programs from illegal immigrants. This is a big anti legal immigrant bill. 60% of Californians supported this back in 1990s. And then a judge said no, it's actually unconstitutional. So then the immigration floods takes over the state. There's other propositions that are really red that, that got again like totally usurped by either the governor or the, or the judges. And ever since then it's just been under occupation and they've just increasingly flooded the state with, with non citizens and just made it easier and easier for them to vote. And now they just don't care.

[A]

Well, what do you think I saw, I didn't pull it up, but I saw a, a piece that was on Twitter, someone talking about Hollywood and LA may go the way of Detroit because a lot of people are leaving. The, the movie industry is no longer, it's not what it used to be in California. You know, how does, how does California, how does Los Angeles actually recover from the, the negative things that have already happened and continue to happen as businesses are leaving.

[C]

So what happened? What needs to happen to California? We've actually gone through this as a country. There is plenty of precedent. You know, we fought the Civil War. At the end of the Civil War we said that the system of government that was set up in the southern states was unacceptable. It was not up to the standards that our country, one, you know, was going to have. And we went through a process of reconstruction of southern states to reform their constitutions and to bring them into alignment with a standard that was acceptable to be part of the union. In my opinion, the state of California is, is way past the point where their standards for how their state is governed, it's so bad that it is not acceptable to just say, well it's California. They're their own state, they can do their own thing. I think California needs. And I'm a native Oregonian, Californians destroyed my state first. They all came up to Oregon, they took all the good jobs because they had fancy degrees from Berkeley and they ruined my state. And now they're doing the same thing to Washington and Idaho and Utah. But the point being California's lack of care or whatever you want to describe in terms of motive. California is conducting itself on the governance sphere in a way that is unacceptable to be part of the federal union. And I think they need to be. Be abolished and reconstruct. Like the government needs to be reconstructed from the ground up to fit in conformity with federal laws. Because, you know, Gavin Newsom likes to say, you know, Californians, the next exporter, you know, they, they give more federal tax dollars than they receive in federal benefits that like at the end of the day doesn't matter. California has made access to, to program to government programs to illegal immigrants and to really just. They have not enforced any laws on fraud. And forever like you can go down the list of governance issues that affect the entire country. California cannot be allowed to continue to govern itself in its current, in its current regime. That its laws are completely antithetical to our American way of life and our way of government. And that's my rant.

[B]

You, you mentioned Reconstruction, Civil war. I've heard a lot about it. I, I thought it was. They were rebuilding buildings. Now you now pointed out they were actually rebuilding their policy, their government constitutions. Yeah, through. So what happened? They, they, they all these states surrendered

[C]

and then they're like, yeah, all these states had laws saying that, you know, black people were not considered citizens. You know, like African Americans were not considered citizens. So they, they like, they went through and completely rewrote state constitutions after that and also like, and it made them come into conformity with federal law.

[D]

Law.

[C]

So yeah, I mean there was a whole series sequence of things and yeah, no, reconstruction was a political reconstruction.

[B]

So short of like a war that California loses, how would you see them actually abiding by or giving.

[C]

I think that you can do, I think you can do it simply through legislation. I think you can say that no state in America can allow noncitizens to vote in this instance. No state in America can allow, allow non citizens to be eligible for social programs that have received any dollar of federal money and all of California's do. So I think you can go through and just simply state, you know, if California wants to receive a single dollar in federal benefits, they need to you know, enact XYZ reforms. You can do absolutely do that. They're not enforcing laws across the board in California that we can just like you know, if you're not going to, if you're not going to police your streets, if you're not going to clean up, you know, if you're not going to, you know, clean up the homeless problem, like you can spend as much money on homelessness as you want if you're just not going to solve these problems. The federal government's going to create a national standard that every state has to conform to. I mean this is like, this is how you know, like every state in America adopted a 21, you know, age, drinking, drinking age because it was a federal standard to do so. The federal government's been been enacting standards that states have to comply to forever. I think we need to do it with California and how they run their government.

[E]

Yeah, California's in a uniquely awful position. It's Medicaid program I think went bankrupt last year or announced like it's near bankruptcy. All sorts of issues with that. Every one of the other big one was when the Palisades fire hit. They have a state run house insurance program where if and if there was this whole situation where when the Palisades fire happened a bunch of the houses in the Palisades were no longer being insured by like State Farm, these large insurance companies because California is already hostile to these firms. So a bunch of these non renewals kicked in right in January Palisades fire happened like the 7th or 9th of January and then when that happened all these houses were supposed to go on. I think it's called the Fair program and this was the state run run housing insurance program. The value of the Palisades alone being burnt to nothing was enough to bankrupt the entire state. So the entire state is run so poorly that any sort of catastrophic event can send the entire state into financial turmoil. And this is part of the reason why I think like 2030 is significantly, like 2028 is super important because we're Sort of at this precipice where all these blue states are committing economic suicide. You have companies pulling out of Seattle. You have California, like Hollywood's pulling out out. Colorado is probably the first big blue state that's actually hit a legitimate recession within the state, while other states are like, red states are like, uprising right now. They're all doing great economically. Colorado's in recession. They're losing tons of jobs. People can't even move out of their houses because the housing situation there. All of these states are kind of going under. And as they continue to go under, if we don't have control of 28 and like into 2030 and whatnot, then when these cities go under, which will then bankrupt the states and the federal government's going to, to be able bail them out. And this is a massive, massive concern that people aren't really thinking of yet. These states are, are huge liabilities to the solvency of America as a whole, and they're killing themselves.

[A]

And Ian, how do they bail them out?

[B]

Federal tax dollars?

[A]

No, they print the money. Oh, you were just complaining about it earlier. They just printed out of nothing.

[B]

Federal Reserve prints it for them and then they, they borrow it at interest

[A]

and then more and more inflation for the American people. People that. You do make a good point because this, this really is going to be something that, you know, it's going to be in conjunction with the, the Social Security going bankrupt. You're going to have states going bankrupt and the government is just going to start printing and they're choosing to do this.

[E]

Like this is a choice of policy. This is the big thing. What's, what's terrifying about California. And even though fine in California, this law doesn't really matter. Los Angeles specifically doesn't matter because they already, like, don't care about checking anything.

[A]

But that'll be, that'll be a model for the rest of the country.

[E]

Yes, Every, every blue state from California up to Seattle and then Colorado follows and then Illinois follows, then New York follows, and then they sort of create this secondary country where their policies then bleed out into all these other states and, and the, the effects of this then bleed out to the rest of the country, which is like, the case for this needs to be handled. They, like, they cannot choose to kill themselves like this because if they do, then they're going to take the rest of us with them.

[A]

Yeah. This is an argument that we make or a topic we discuss regularly. The, the, the things that are going on in California when it comes to voting. That's what The Democrat Party wants to see nationally. So if, if California is allowed to continue to basically rig the system and we, we talk about what rigged the system means, right? Like anytime you say to a, to a Democrat, you say, look, they're, they're rigging the system in California. It's bad. And the response is always, always, well, that's the law. As if the law implies legitimacy, right? If you think, okay, only Americans should vote and you think, well, you know, they don't let illegals vote, right? That's the, that's the thing is if you're illegal, if you're here illegal, you can't vote. And again, you talk to any Democrat and they'll say illegals can't vote. But then you go through the system that, that California actually has, there's no IDs, anyone can go up and say, I live here, give me a back ballot. They mail ballots out. There's no, there's no chain of custody. There's no guarantee that the person that filled out the ballot was actually a legitimate voter or, or here legally. All of this stuff is enshrined in law. So it's legal, it's all above board, but it's set up so that way. It is not representing the people. It is representing people that are here legally. It is, and it is representing the Democrat Party. That's what they would love to do in the United States. I mean, that's, it's kind of what happened in, in the 2020 election, right? They mailed out ballots, collected the ballots. No one knows for sure if all the ballots that were counted were legal. But you get them, we get Democrats that come in here or left leaning people and they're like, and their refrain, their common refrain is, was the 2020 election stolen? And the answer is no, because it was legal. And that's their, that's what they say. Oh, it was all legal. And you can't, you haven't shown me, you can't prove. And it's like, no, I don't have evidence of massive voter fraud. You're right, I don't have that evidence. But when you mail out ballots and you have no way to verify that the people that were, that were filling out the ballots were actually, you know, legitimate voters, then you can't say that it was legitimate. Yes, it was legal. Yes, Joe Biden was elected legally, you know, but it wasn't legitimate. It was a, it was a completely novel way for the United States to carry out an election. And people say, well, Covid, Covid, Covid. You know what the proper solution to Covid means that you just have a really low turnout. Yeah. Not to not mail out ballots, not make sure that anybody that's in the country of America gets to have a ballot. You just make sure. You just say, oh, well, this particular election we have a really low turnout, you know, because no one complains about the. The variance in. In turnouts from year, from election to election to election under normal circumstances. But when Donald Trump's going against Joe Biden and they want to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't get in again, well, then you figure out a way for it to be legal, to do unprecedented things.

[D]

Things.

[C]

No. So you're absolutely right. What Democrats do is they create. They're masters at process. I envy their ability to just engineer process to get the outcome to be exactly what they want it to be, which is what they did during COVID Completely changed election laws in a ton of states around. They made it election season in a bunch of different states that had never had that before. And, you know, so, yeah, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's okay. Doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't change it. And we have got to get to a situation in this country where we look at states like California, not just California, kind of across the board. I mean, I live in Virginia. They're doing this to my state right now. Just because they passed a law doesn't mean that we need to, like, accept this as, you know, how we're going to govern ourselves as a country. We have got to get to the point where we have the confidence to say, say, no, you're not allowed to have any level of government in America that has a single noncitizen voting for it. Like, it's not okay. You're not allowed to have them vote, like, legally, like they're trying to propose, and you're not allowed to let them vote by simply looking the other way. You've, like, we need to have a system of elections that have standards and that have rules and that the rules are followed. You know, no one's perfect. Doesn't need to be perfect. It needs to have a high degree of common confidence, though. And we just have to get to a point where we're just confident enough as a country to say, we're just not going to tolerate that.

[B]

My concern here is if we were to, you know, initiate a reconstruction through the federal government into California and be like, you're going to be changing laws. And if you don't, you're going to lose government funding. That they would go, well, we're not. And the Americans have betrayed. The American government has betrayed us. See, everyone, China help us. And then China comes in and funds all their military.

[A]

Then you send in the National Guard. If they say, china help us, which I think that that's, if they say, I think that's a little extreme. But if they, if there were any state that were to appeal to an adversary and say, hey, come help us, that's when you send in the military, there's no appeal. Forcibly remove the people in government.

[B]

But if there's no appeal and then the Chinese help, whatever. But I see your point that that could lead to military conflict. So I think, I think California is too big personally to govern. I think it should be cut in half, like north and south California, I'd

[C]

be fine with that.

[B]

The north is very different than the South.

[C]

I think that there's, I think there's a big argument for a lot of states. Again, I'm from Oregon. Like, Oregon is completely dominated by Portland, but the rest of the state, you know, there's the i5 corridor, which is all liberal. You know, it's, it's, it's Portland and Eugene. It's the same thing in California. You have this like tiny little geographic area where there are all of the people and they all happen to be leftists. But then there's the rest of the state, which are massive land mass. And the people who do live there are completely different, you know, I mean, like, completely different culture. Like 180. You know, these are like, you know, small government conservatives in the rest of Oregon. Same thing in California. Same thing in a lot of these states. Like, you know, I think that there, there's actually, there are people talking about potentially breaking up California into states.

[B]

The problem is the north and the south would be. The most sensical thing would be to cut it in half. So like San Francisco takes the north, Los Angeles takes the south, essentially the two biggest cities or whatever. But the real differentiation in California is east and west. The west is.

[C]

That's what I'm more interested in.

[B]

Yeah, and they control the seaboard, which is, that's the value of California is the position Pacific. And then all the people in the east are the farmers right beyond the mountain. So like, you wouldn't cut it laterally. That wouldn't make any sense.

[C]

That's more interesting to me because like, you want, I mean, California. What's that? What are the Political differences between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's not really.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

This. The political difference and the reason that you would want is everyone kind of east, you know, of the state. Like, they compare. Like, you know, these are. These are completely different culture. Like, to me, it's more of, like, cultural compatibility.

[B]

But the tech, the, like, the military value of California is the Pacific coast access.

[C]

Sure.

[B]

It's part of why Putin went into Crimea and Ukraine is so they could get Mediterranean access. You take away seaborne access, you're begging for a war.

[C]

We can keep San Diego.

[B]

So there could be. I don't know. It's a big ask, but California is just. It just seems too big.

[A]

Big.

[B]

The north is like the. The. What are they called? The redwood trees. It's a lot of forested area. The south is like mountains and desert.

[C]

Yeah.

[E]

Yeah. Texas actually has, like. It's funny, you talk about breaking up states. The ultimate Republican nuclear weapon is, I think, enshrined somewhere deep in the Texas Constitution. There's this hidden clause that it can break itself up in, like, seven or nine states. And this is the ultimate, like, we're going to take the Senate forever. We are going to. We're going to break Texas up, and then we will own the federal government, which I don't think will ever happen because Texas is like, Texans love the shape of our state, but that is like, there are these sort of options, like breaking up some of the bigger Western states into things. But how realistic any of this is is, like, harder to say. I think it's probably more realistic.

[C]

So, like you said, I do think, like, kind of getting back to the reconstruction, like, there's varying degrees of severity of it. So, you know, there's. There's. You can do simple good governance legislation again, kind of gets back. The Senate doesn't do anything to. And Trump, you know, that's why even today he's tweeting out like, they must abolish the filibuster. You know, regardless if you agree with that or not. The point being this will require legislation, but we have to have standards that these states adhere to. We have got to have. You know, you can't allow how the level of, like, the level of just degeneracy that California has degraded into in how they're governing their state.

[B]

Dude, I have mixed feelings. I sort of veered towards the Jeffersonian model of states rights over the Hamiltonian model of federal authority, but the Civil War sort of was like, you can't let that happen. I mean, I mean, if the country were to break in half into another conflict, that China would take over the world, the Russians and the Chinese would dominate the planet economically. They would swoop in and fund half of the revolution. The revolution. So they can't have. We can't.

[C]

I don't want a civil war. To be very clear. I think we just need to assert that we're not going to accept behavior like, you know what we're talking about with allowing noncitizens to vote. Like what you. I think if you were to clean up California's voter rolls, if that were just to be. If you want to receive another dollar more of federal funding, you were to clean up California's voter rolls. If you were to kind of going back to your point about too many people voting, I'm sympathetic to that argument. I think that vote by mail, like I think you need to require. I think you need to have standards in place that make elections counting happen overnight. Like people need to have results of the election the same night. I think you need to have a system where it's not.

[A]

Election is 1.5 billion people and they know the results of their elections the same day or the next morning.

[C]

I mean every third world country can administer elections and you know what their voter security is. They make you dip your finger in pink ink so that you. That doesn't come off for a week. So that you do know, know that that person is voted or not. Like there's low tech solutions to this stuff. Like that's literally like it is not hard to do. We have to. And my point being though, going back to California, if you were to claim the voter rolls, if you were to have election day instead of election season, if you were to make sure like all of a sudden Republicans would start winning elections that they haven't won in 20 years.

[B]

How do you feel about blockchain voting? Have you guys looked, have you looked into it much?

[C]

I prefer low tech to high tech when it comes to election security. Just because I've seen. So like, I love blockchain. I love the technology. There's like a lot of really cool stuff going on Wyoming with blockchain. But when it comes to elections, I think that voters inherently trust low tech over high tech. It's harder to cheat at scale. Like again, I'm a huge fan of blockchain. I think though simple is better.

[A]

Yep.

[C]

And like, you know, so I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not like, like against it, but just as like what can we do right now?

[A]

Paper ballots.

[B]

Yeah, I kind of see a hybrid system where you, you put the paper ballot in the machine and then it goes to a series of like 19 different blockchains where you can go online and there's a barcode that you can scan, pump, punch in your, you know, your id, your social, and verify that your vote is being read as what you put it in as, because not against that all paper ballots, you could write one thing and then they can count it as an another.

[C]

No, and that's, and that's always, that's actually been a thing in Detroit for like Detroit, Chicago, the blue cities. Like, that's like voter fraud has been a thing in America for a very long time. It's, it's existed for as long as the Democrat party has. But, but yeah, I mean, so like, I actually think that's interesting and certainly not opposed to it, but low tech is certainly possible and would eliminate a lot of the biggest problems that we have.

[A]

Yeah, the. I like, even, even if I were interested in some solution like blockchain or high tech, we can't even get voter ID passed. So to have something like a complete revamping of the, of the, the, the way we do votes when you can't even get, you know, get verification via id. Yeah, I think that, that, that's, I think that, I mean, to get what you're talking about, you need ID first because you just were mentioning, you know, you, you punch in everybo number and I think that you'd get resistance from both sides. You'd get resistance about having ID from the Democrats and you'd get resistance from Republicans saying, I don't want to have a serialized number. That the government, you know, it would be one of those, you know, digital ID kind of arguments. So whereas I understand what you're saying for security reasons, I think the easiest thing is, look, every, you go, you get one paper ballot. I wouldn't mind, mind if the United States were like, all right, you have to actually put your fingerprint on it. You know, not that they should keep those records, but, you know, dip your finger in ink that doesn't come off for a week. So that way, you know, you can prove you voted, but you can't go back and vote again. And I think it's a, like to

[C]

get to, you know, too many people vote. Like, I think you should have to care enough to show up on the day. You should have to care that much. 100 like, and it wasn't that long that that was basically the standard and as few exceptions as possible. But that's at least a minimum threshold to where you have surety that the people are voting. And then you have like, you know, you have to have a level of buy in that you're willing to show up on a particular day.

[B]

Would you make or be open to making it a national holiday?

[C]

I mean, I think you can, I don't think it's needed, but sure.

[B]

There's a lot of people will argue they can't get to the voting polls because they work 12 hours.

[A]

A lot of people would lie to

[D]

let you off, like to go vote during work, at least in my experience.

[A]

Like, but a lot of people, A lot of people would lie and say,

[C]

never been a federal holiday. Somehow it worked. Like, I don't care. Like I, I think that, I think that companies should be encouraged, you know, to like, you know, make it easier for people. But I also like, you know, like, if you wanted to trade Juneteenth for, for election day. Sure.

[B]

Which today isn't it or you.

[A]

Yes, Juneteenth guys are closed, Post office is closed. Growing up, that was never a thing. I'm. Like I said, I'm 50 and I, I can't. Yeah, this is like the past couple years, the first couple years where it's like, oh, everything's closed.

[C]

I'm okay with it being a little bit harder.

[B]

I had a hard time in LA getting out to vote, getting out to rock the vote personally, because I had to work till 6:30 and then the voting places would be closed up or closing. And it was super, super angering like I was. So I felt like I was being disenfranchised by the way the system was set up. Sure.

[E]

I mean, I'm sure there's a case to be made. Like maybe it should be open for the full 24 hours. Maybe a national holiday or like some sort of manual. Like, hey, can go out and vote during a work day. Like you can take a few hours off or whatever. But like you were saying, you know, Thune's already saying that, that there are Republicans now in the Senate that are so opposed to Trump that they would never vote for safe. So we're already, we're already running into all these roadblocks of like the rhinos in the Senate.

[A]

I want their names.

[E]

Yeah, they won't approve. They won't vote for an 80 approval rating bill. Yeah, it's just.

[A]

So the idea of that's the, and that should be the minimum standard. This isn't something that's, that's some kind of off the wall crazy idea. I mean, you talk to people in places like Canada and they're like, you don't have to show ID to vote. You kidding me?

[B]

What is missing in the SAVE Act? I haven't read it. Is it worth reading? Like, is there something in there that people are like, no, we can't let.

[A]

It's literally Republicans hate, hate Donald Trump.

[E]

So that's the more recent thing. A little while ago, the Senate, they took a vote to see, like, would you vote yes or no?

[D]

Not.

[E]

Not a. We're voting on the bill, but would you vote yes or no on the bill? And even then, I think they only.

[C]

They voted on this last summer and 50 Tellis ended up taking his name off, but they had 51 votes for a while. It was last June. They voted on this. So, like, Republicans, the Republicans in the Senate are terrible and they hate America. They hate Trump. Like, these are just kind of Republican senators are like the worst human beings on the planet.

[B]

Is it. Is it like a type of omnibus bill? Is it just a bunch of stuff jammed in there? That's irrelevant?

[C]

No, I got to read it very, like, it's like two pages. It's not long.

[E]

I think there was a draft of it that included some other things, but the very most, because Trump won.

[A]

Wanted.

[C]

Trump wanted a few other things included in it. But that, you know, to me, that's neither here nor there. Like, it's not, you know, the SAVE act itself could just get passed by itself. I mean, at this point, Trump's like, I'm not going to sign FISA reauthorization. And unless they're safe as part of it, like, Trump, to his credit, is really pushing this.

[E]

And even then, like, I think that one of the more recent criticisms that I saw when a lot of the SAVE debate was happening, happening a few weeks ago, where a bunch of Republicans were even saying, well, voter fraud really isn't that much of a big deal. We don't really need to worry about it. It's a really small amount. This bill is unnecessary. And it's like, what? So, I mean, you obviously have every. Democrats going to oppose it, because for them, like, this is their voters. And then you have a lot of Republicans who, frankly, it's not even just about hitting Trump. They also just can't stand their own voter base.

[B]

Are we on track use Dominion voting machines again for the next federal election? We got to.

[A]

We got to go to discord.

[B]

We'll find out so soon.

[D]

Yeah, right.

[A]

Let's see, what do we got here today? We got callers no, we're not going to call.

[D]

We got questions. So if y' all have questions, drop them in the Discord chat.

[A]

Let's see, what do we got? Where are they?

[D]

They should be appearing soon, I think. Olivia, just put it on slow mode.

[B]

Give it to me.

[A]

Oh, Olivia, what are you doing?

[B]

Slow down, everyone. I'm having a hard time following.

[D]

There we go.

[A]

In regards to companies collecting data, the person clicking except cannot give approval or everyone else. Else around them in their contacts. And currently this is how it. Let's see. In regards to companies collecting data, the person clicking except cannot give approval for everyone else around them or in their contacts. And currently this is how it is. I know. If someone blindly clicks that they accept. The children living in your home, your guests and your family members who isn't on social media did not give approval. Do you think that this is something that will ever face the courts or be written into law? Unlikely. Yeah, unlikely. Because I don't think that. I don't think anything has gone. I think he's kind of referring to like the shadow profiles that Facebook makes. So for, for. If you're not aware, if you have a num. Phone number in your contact list and it's mom. And then someone, one of your friends has the same phone number in their contact list and it's, you know, share Sherry, then Facebook will say, oh, look, this number matches. This person's name is Sherry. Let's make a, Make a, A, A person, a probe for a profile for him. And then if you go somewhere else and say, I'm here with Sherry, and they see that it's the person somehow they see that it matches the. Matches some information on that Sherry person and there's a picture and you check in, they'll put the picture on it. So they'll literally build, Build a profile. And it's, it's not particularly hard when people are sharing all their information. They'll build a profile for a person that doesn't even have a Facebook page, that's never signed up for Facebook ever. And the more information they get, the more comprehensive the, the profile will be. And I don't, I don't imagine that there's going to be any kind of legislation about it. You know, this is, this is Facebook's business model. You know, they've never.

[C]

Courts have been so deferential to these companies that I just don't, I don't see that being an approach. I, I actually, I like the way you're thinking, though, because that ultimately is probably a type of legalistic approach that we're going to have to take against these guys. But right now I just, I mean, the courts just let these guys run wild and that's unfortunately the world we're living in right now.

[A]

See, Taylor Lorenz's ex wife says, ian, you made it rain here in Texas and it's 100 degrees. I'm blaming you. Can you guys riff, can you boys riff on the guy in the UK who threw a three year old into a crocodile enclosure? What story from today just says man in Coulter's law? Well, yeah, I mean, look, if you have a person in your country that is not supposed to be there, they should be sent home regardless as to whether or not they have thrown a three year old into a crocodile enclosure. If they're, if they, if you find a person that throws a three year old into a crocodile enclosure, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law that the law allows, regardless of whether they are in your country legally or illegally. It's, you know, it, it's, it's not necessary to carry out the most extreme form of punishment that the government allows to someone that is there illegally. That is throwing the Crockett. Like they get, they get the worst just for throwing the kid into the crocodile enclosure. It doesn't matter if they're there legally or not. And anyone that's there legally should be sent illegally, should be sent home.

[E]

I mean, yeah, the UK is just. Obviously we have our problems here, but man, the rom. The, the Rotherham inquiry or the, the rape report.

[A]

Yeah, what is it? Rupert Lowe's rape report. 212 pages, 250,000 girls.

[E]

It's like, I mean the accounts and, and all the, you know, people have been trying to like, Nick, nitpick the numbers and whatnot, but the actual accounts of what's happened to these girls and how it was allowed, encouraged, covered up by police by the UK officials, I

[A]

mean by, by care workers, by people that were in the hospitals, they were

[E]

paying like one of the most worst cases that I read when I was looking through it was that a girl would be trafficked, she become pregnant, they, she would have the child and then the, the, the traffickers that like raped her would then get paid foster care money by the state to take care of the child as a result of the trafficking.

[A]

Unreal. And to your point, like, you know, people are going to, they're trying to discredit it by saying that it wasn't done by the government. They're going after, they're saying, oh, it couldn spent 250,000 even. And I made this, Yeah, I know I made this point on, on the morning show the other day. It doesn't matter if they increase the numbers by 100%. If it was 125,000 girls, it is

[C]

still make it 80 or 800,000.

[A]

It doesn't matter.

[C]

It is, that is completely irrelevant to the fact that they had a systemic nationwide problem like that. Every single aspect of government was in on it. They knew it was happening. They allowed it to happen. They encouraged it in many cases to happen. I mean, some of these, you know, some of these, you know, some, some of these care facilities, they were using them to, to pimp out the, like the, the, the Muslim men would wait out front for the girls to leave and they'd pick them up. Like every single, like I am more mad mad at the, at the, at the government officials in the UK and I'm even like, you know, obviously, you know, UK needs to do remigration, but they need to, they need to lock up every single person who is involved in any aspect of this.

[A]

I mean, the, and, and I mean there's, there's so many people that are trying to cover it up or that have, have tried to cover it up. The thing that really does kind of get me the most is the, the care workers, right? The people at hospitals.

[C]

Hospitals and the police officers.

[A]

The. I, someone asked me, you know, that said, they said something along the lines of that's going to happen in America. And I brought up that's not going to happen in America. This is a country where a, a father went and his daughter was raped and he went and he took the law into his own hands. He was tried for murder. They found him not guilty. Then he ran for sheriff and won to be the sheriff. This is a country that celebrates Gary Plushe Day. Now this might be a little too online for some people, but Gary Plache, his son was, was molested by, by his karate teacher. And as the man was being brought through the airport, Gary Plache took the law into his own hands. And everyone knows the story and that. So this kind of stuff, stuff like as much as, as much as, you know, terrible things can happen in the United States. I, I, I don't even think that law enforcement would, would allow that now

[C]

here in the US Agree with you. I bet you it's already happening in places like Minneapolis.

[A]

You think so?

[C]

I bet it already is a small scale, sure. But I mean, you saw the reaction that Minneapolis had kind of the crazed women involved in those, you Know, ICE riots like earlier this year. I bet it's happening right now.

[A]

And I mean there, I, I know most of America.

[C]

I 100 agree with you. I think that places like Minneapolis, I think certain places in Michigan, I mean we have, I mean, you know, there's cities in Michigan where they do Islamic call to prayer.

[A]

Yeah.

[C]

I would not be surprised if in cities like that, if it's not around

[E]

already happening and even like going away from just like the Muslim thing. It was either in the city of Philadelphia or the state of Pennsylvania. I think this is very recent. I think this is yesterday the Supreme Court had to formally ask. I think it was the attorney general of the state or maybe it was like the district attorney for the city. I'm spacing on which one to not lie to them because it turns out that that individual, that official, plus like their secretary, were just straight up lying, trying to get people off of death row for like murder and like all sorts of other heinous crimes. This just happened like yesterday, I think it was. So it's like you're already seeing various amounts of law enforcement try and sweep this under the rug.

[A]

So I, I agree that there are problematic district attorneys. Yeah, right. Well, no, they're problematic district attorneys. Right. But I don't think that for the most part law enforcement is going to like the actual guys that are doing, you know, your detective, your, your cops that are beat cops and stuff. I, I obviously, I, I completely agree that there are plenty of DAs, there are plenty of leftists that have been, you know, that have had their, their campaigns that, that were funded by, you know, leftist organizations or what have you, that have been elected. And, and you see those, you've seen some of those people get recalled. And that's another thing that, another thing that I, another reason why I think that it wouldn't happen on such a broad scale scale in the US And I think that's my point. Not saying that it doesn't happen, but

[C]

I think you're right.

[A]

A whole systemic failure because I think that individual cops will not allow it. I think that, yeah, detectives won't just turn a blind. I think that there would be a lot of people that would quit, they would, they would be whistleblowers here in

[C]

the US I do think in America, like in the United States, I, I do agree with you. If this was happening in a broad enough scale scale, there would be a cop, he would go on a podcast, like he would blow the whistle and you would have higher levels of authority that would absolutely take that Serious. So I do agree with that. But I wouldn't be surprised if in Minneapolis if the, you know, if the foster care workers and stuff like that were. Were already facilitated.

[A]

Yeah, I would agree with that as well. It's possible that it would happen on a smaller scale in the uk.

[C]

I think kind of the point of the report was to show that didn't matter how high up you went. No one.

[A]

Up to Keir Starmer himself. Up to the Prime Minister himself. All right, so who is this one? Leonard.

[B]

Leonard.

[A]

Leonard says, are we watching the greatest marketing scheme ever with Anthropic and their mythos Fable 5 models, or do you think they really built something that's truly dangerous? Dangerous? So like, I was talking to Tim last night. The. The unique thing about Fable is when you give, like the ability to hack is emergent because you give an AI a really, really comprehensive ability to reason and you give it a really comprehensive ability to code. Those two things together create an ability to hack. It's not like they created it saying, we're going to make this thing able to hack.

[D]

Hack.

[A]

Right. That ability, the. The ability to hack into computer systems, it takes reasoning and it takes a really deep understanding of code. I don't think that it's a marketing ploy. I think that that Fable probably is incredibly good at hacking. I use Sonnet all the time with my AI, right? Like, I got an AI bot most of you guys know. I call him Tank and he. I use Fable or no, I'm sorry, I use Son on it because it's not as expensive as. As the. What was the newest one anyways?

[D]

Opus.

[A]

Opus. Yeah, it's not as expensive as Opus, and it's pretty comprehensive. Like, it's pretty good. So I do think that it's probably as capable as they say it is. They didn't start Project glasswing for no reason. I don't think that they would have given it to companies to test out if it was just about marketing, and if it was just about marketing, these companies would. Someone in the companies would have been like, this is not a big deal. There would be people talking about it and you're not hearing that. So, no, I don't think that it's. That it's a marketing club. Do you guys have takes on this?

[C]

I've got an interesting riff of what you just said and something I thought was very interesting in the Trump administration's response. So if you look at the. You know, I think it was Lutnick. I think it was a commerce department that put the Restrictions on the product. What was really interesting about it is, and part of the reason they had to recall it was that a place in export saying no foreigner could get access to this, including foreign nationals within Anthropic. What was really interesting to me about that is that a model to force these companies to hire American. Because like if you're going to, if these AI models are going to be the point where we're not going to allow. Is that an opportunity for the Trump administration to force these AI companies that are in many cases have CCP like known. I mean like, you know, huge percentages of these companies are foreign citizens. Is this a way for the Trump administration to force these companies to hire American? I thought that was just interesting little, little aspect of it that I thought got overlooked by a lot of people.

[D]

People.

[B]

You know, when I'm, I'm looking at this common sense wise, it's like, okay, the dam is breaking. The water looks like it's all gonna spill out. And they're like, hold on, hold on, hold on. Fix that patch in the dam. And I'm like, the dam's still breaking under its own weight. I think, what are they? Even if it's all Americans at anthropic, why wouldn't the guy just Dropbox the code to like a Chinese. How can you stop this at this point?

[D]

It's totally available for, for like two days. People made videos about like yo, use this shit now. Because it's going to be, you know, it's probably going to be gone. People anticipated this would happen.

[B]

My buddy so powerful. My buddy works deep, deep military tech intelligence and he's like, yo bro, the people are freaking out about how to counter quantum cryptographic breakage. Things are figuring out at the quantum scale how to break cryptography. So they're to trying, trying to, how to counter it. It's like how do you counter a hypersonic tungsten rod that's coming straight down from orbit? That's the thing about ballistics, they're kind of hard to counter. You know you're always kind of on your back foot and the more explosive forward moving things kind of take, take precedence. I feel like that's what AI is right now. Jesus.

[A]

I don't want to, I don't want

[B]

to get dark pilled on this. Right?

[A]

All right, well smash the like button. Share the show with all your friends. Tell everyone you know that you want them to watch Tim Cast Iron URL. You can go to Tim Cast Timcast news. Join our timcast.com to join the discord there's no after show tonight. You can go to Rumble to join the Join Rumble and watch the after show. There's no after show tonight because it's Friday, obviously. But, you know, during the week, you can join the Discord and call in. You'll be able to talk to our guests. You'll be able to ask us questions. But for right now, Noah, where can people find you?

[C]

Yeah, so it's Noah Wall. At Noah Wall, I run the state leadership initiative. That's stateleadership of work.

[E]

And then just follow the state leadership account, which is Red States Lead. At Red States Lead, do you have a personal. Yeah, my personal is Jacob I Waymyer. W E H M E Y E

[B]

R It is a great conversation, guys. That was awesome. I'm at Ian Crossland. You'll find me at Ian Crossland all over the Internet. Carter Banks.

[D]

I am at Carter Banks. You can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere. And at Carter Banks, official everywhere I else. Juneteenth, everyone. Happy Juneteenth. Release a song today. You can go to a live or dead song. Yeah, I'm pumped about it. I think it's going to be a bop, so we'll see.

[A]

Awesome.

[D]

Anyway, let's go.

[A]

All right. And make sure that you check out clips throughout the weekend and we'll be back here on Monday.