Trump DEMANDS Impeachment Of Judge Who BLOCKED TdA Deportation, Judge Claims EQUAL POWERS To Trump
02:40:34 Share

It's tourney time. And with FanDuel's dog of the day, you can get a daily profit boost during the college conference championships to bet on any underdog. So get ready to celebrate some upsets. No one saw that coming. Except for me, baby. 21 plus and present in select states. Opt-in required. Minimum plus 100 eyes required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable profit boost tokens. Restrictions apply, including token expiration and max wage or amount. See terms at sportsbook.fanduel.com. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.

Things are certainly heating up, my friends, as it pertains to the deportation of criminal terrorists in this country. Donald Trump deported his administration, Tren de Aragua criminals, to El Salvador to be held in their prisons. It's cheaper than holding them here. And the concern is that the concern is if these individuals are deported to Venezuela or anywhere else, they will simply come right back.

Now, the scandal erupted when a judge ordered the president to turn around military flights over international waters in midair and bring these people back to this country. A hearing was held yesterday where, I kid you not, a lower court judge argued his powers are equitable to the president. And I have the quotes. Trump has responded, demanding the impeachment of this crooked judge, saying he wasn't elected.

It is remarkable to see where we are at, my friends, where Democrats who just 10 years ago, Fox News ran this clip of Hillary Clinton saying criminal illegal immigrants would be deported. No questions asked. Now, what changed? Now, all of a sudden, these liberals are coming out and they're saying that we must have due process for noncitizens who commit crimes and are part of terrorist organizations.

OK, well, they get due process due process, meaning the appropriate procedure by which their rights are upheld. So what are we doing? Listen, if a gang member broke into my house and was known to have committed crimes, and then I said, we all here recognize you, sir, who broke into my house, have committed these crimes. I'm going to give you a ride home.

That's violating their rights. It's wild to me that these people, the worst thing most of them are getting. I mean, the ones that are going to the El Salvadoran prisons, they're going to prison. That's going to be up for El Salvador to figure out. We're deporting illegal immigrants. As for the other deportations, and I got a bunch of stories for you the left is freaking out about. The idea that the worst thing in the world is we give people a ride home is shocking to me. But I want to make sure you understand that.

All we're doing is saying, if you came here illegally, we get it. We're going to give you a ride home. Step in the car and the plane and give you a ride home.

Now, my friends, welcome to the Rumble lineup. It is the noon show. I am your host, Tim Pool, for the TimCast Morning News Show. I want to give a shout-out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club for the raid on the show. The news came out yesterday, ladies and gentlemen. I think 10 of the top 15 live news shows in the world were Rumble. That's pretty crazy. We are changing the shape of the game, and in terms of live streaming in general, we're

We here, the TimCast morning show, we were in, what number were we? I think we were like number four or something like this. Is that where we were? We were huge. Steven Crowder, I think, was number two behind Kai Sinet. You can't beat those young gun streamers, though. Kids want to watch their shows. But Steven Crowder, I think, was number two in the world. And so far...

This morning, the Rumble lineup has dominated each time slot, that number one in the world. I'm pretty sure in the world. I could be wrong. Maybe it's nation. So we'll be humble and say in the country.

So that is fantastic. We are changing the way the game is played, and we are going to create a sphere of influence of meritocracy responsibility. So stay tuned. We're going to be live with you guys for the hour going over this story. And I'm not just here to talk to you about Trump's demand this man be impeached. I'm here to talk to you about the current state of the left. And, you know, with the Democratic Party polling at a favorability, according to NBC News, of 27 percent, I don't think I'm the only one in this country who feels this way.

We've got another swatting. We had I think we're up to like 16 or 17 swattings, arson attacks. We've got arrests related to the violence and terror of the Tesla dealerships.

I want to compare and contrast as Donald Trump seeks to bring about justice and accountability to this country and say, you know, these are criminal gang members that Biden let in. They are they are rapists. They are murderers. They are bad people. They are not citizens. Their due process is being upheld. If you are not a citizen, you get arrested. We check your immigration status and then send you on your way. But no.

They want, as they have always wanted on the left, the liberals to treat non-citizens equally to citizens. Don't get me wrong. There are certain there are certain due process rights that we extend equally to citizens and non-citizens. But if you are here illegally, you get deported. We don't go and face a criminal trial where we present evidence to a jury to determine whether or not you're here illegally. We simply say, are you a citizen? No. OK, right this way, sir. We're giving you a ride home.

And this is where we're currently at. So my friends smash that like button, share the show with everyone. You know, that's the important thing as we are now dominating the news cycle with the top live shows in the world, back to back to back next week, no more YouTube. This morning show will be rumble exclusive, but I will stress Tim cast. IRL is remaining largely the same. We're not trying to just,

We're trying to build something with stability, and the morning lineup will be a Rumble-exclusive lineup with the top shows in the world. And I got to tell you, the Tim Pool morning show yesterday for a single stream had more viewers than TimCast IRL, and that's something. And that's thanks to you guys who are a part of this Rumble lineup.

who are watching as we do these raids, as everybody watches the morning show. We had one guy super chat us last night saying he was a trucker and he loves turning it on, turning on Evita at nine in the morning and just letting the show play as he drives because he gets all these live shows just like that. That's really awesome, you guys. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Don't forget my friends, Cast Brew Coffee. It's the best coffee. Everybody agrees.

We got Appalachian Knights, Rise with Roberto, Stand Your Grounds. And for those that prefer decaf, don't forget, we got Sleepy Joe and Unwoke. As always, join Rumble Premium. If you go to rumble.com slash timcast IRL, check out The Green Room, episode 101 with Eleazar Perez. To be honest, we were largely just goofing off and I was ranting about video games that I find to be too woke.

This is a premium behind-the-scenes show where you as Rumble Premium members get to watch us hang out in our green room at our studio. And not so family-friendly. Certainly, it is uncensored because I imagine everyone in the world would ban us for half the things we talk about. But let's jump into the news and see what's going on with this impeachment. As I already said, my friends, you can help the show out by sharing it with all your friends and hitting that like button. Newsweek reports...

Trump demands impeachment of crooked judge President Donald Trump attacked the judge who blocked his deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members as crooked and an agitator demanding his impeachment for thwarting the Democratic will.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg temporarily blocked the Trump administration from using an 18th century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to accelerate the deportation of Venezuelan gang members. I would like to assess how they write these stories, Newsweek. Now, they're not the worst, but notice every outlet does this. They've criticized Trump over an 18th century law. They're trying to play this game.

Eighteenth century law implies it's archaic and not needed. Heavens me, why are we even discussing it? Well, our Constitution is 18th century law, not in the literal legal context of what law is, but it's the law of the land, the Constitution. And it is also 18th century. Why does it matter? You can literally just say the Alien Enemies Act, which exists for a purpose for the president to execute his authority to get rid of enemies in this country.

Why? Why frame it that way? They're trying to diminish it and make it look like Trump is doing something wrong when he's exercising his authority under the executive branch, as he has always been allowed to do. The act allows noncitizens to be deported without the opportunity to go before an immigration or federal court judge. Trump Saturday proclaimed that proclamation called Trendy Aragua gang an invading force. Like a throw to Hillary Clinton, who also said, I believe, was 2014.

Deport criminal aliens. No questions asked. Yes, that is the authority of the president. Next question, I guess. Oh, but here they go. The liberals are coming out saying we believe in the Constitution. Uh huh. And this law from the same period gives Trump these powers. Well, here's a statement from Donald Trump on Truth Social.

This radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama was not elected president. He didn't win the popular vote by a lot. He didn't win all seven swing states. He didn't win two thousand seven hundred and fifty to five hundred and twenty five counties. He didn't win anything. I won for many reasons. It's an overwhelming mandate. But fighting illegal immigration may have been the number one reason for this historic victory.

Well, it may have been. It was number two in most polls. Still, I am just doing what the voters wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached. We don't want vicious, violent and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers in our country. Make America great again. I was shocked completely. And I mean this sincerely. When the reports came out that this judge claimed he had equal powers to the president.

President Trump doesn't wait. He works. And for American patients, he works at lightning speed. He cut red tape and saved millions of lives, gave hope to millions more with Right to Try, giving the terminally ill a chance to live. And he built public-private partnerships that created groundbreaking cures.

He made history in just four years. By January 20th, 2029, President Trump will make cancer history. The president is elected by the body politic as a whole. The entirety of this nation cast their ballot for a single president. And Trump won the popular vote. Congressmen are by district. Senators are by state. Governors are by state.

There is one man that is elected by literally everyone. It is Donald Trump. That beats any poll. How dare you claim to have powers equitable to the president himself?

Now, we can mention the branches are co-equal. That's fine. But a lower court judge, imagine the secretary of state claiming he can overrule the Supreme Court's decisions on things. Now, you can argue the executive can dispute and debate with the Supreme Court, given certain orders, or the legislative branch can challenge that. And there are checks and balances. That's how it works normally.

Legislative body will pass a law. Trump will reject it. Then there will be a veto. And that's a normal check and balance. They can't get past a veto. You don't even need the Supreme Court. A law will get passed. Trump will sign it. The people can then sue. And it goes to the Supreme Court. How about that? I'm going to read more of this where they say why it matters. But first, let me show you some of these posts from the actual hearing. Take a look at this yesterday from Julie Kelly. Boasberg is the judge here. Quote.

You're actually let me go back one. We're going to get some some context. The judge ordered the plane be turned around in midair. This is a military flight, mind you. Julie Kelly says Boasberg and the DOJ are now arguing over court's jurisdiction over international waters and airspace. Boasberg keeps interrupting DOJ and insisting he has ultimate authority, quote,

Isn't it a better course to return planes to the U.S. and figure out a better course instead of we will do whatever we want? He says Trump admin only relief is to appeal his order, not ignore it. There is no evidence that this is the case. That is the case. I'm just asking how my equitable powers don't attach to that plane after it left the United States. DOJ citing presidential military and foreign diplomatic authority. That's how insane this is. Boasberg, quote,

You're saying the president has extra powers over a plane once it leaves the United States. How is this real? Boasberg says, quote, I think my equitable powers are pretty clear that they don't end at the water's edge or airspace edge. These are interesting questions to have on a set of facts, which is what I was hoping to get to today. Julie Kelly goes on to say the ACLU ACLU lawyer babbling about equities, babbling about equities

What are we doing? Why is it jumping on me? Let's try that again. Okay, it's literally not letting me load this. So we'll try that and see if that loads. ACLU suggesting a flight related to proclamation took off Friday, March 14th. Boasberg again demands the DOJ tell him how many people are covered by proclamation. DOJ resists and Boasberg says he wants to know why he cannot receive that information. Quote, what I will hear from you by noon tomorrow, which is today, of course.

And I will memorialize this in a written order that you will offer me a sworn declaration that no one on the third flight was subject to the proclamation and why you cannot answer my specific questions in public and in what form you can answer them. This is incredible. What we have here is a lower court judge arguing that Trump's international negotiations with another country, with another, with El Salvador, the deportation, the removal of enemy combatants

These are criminal gangs. Many of them are labeled as terrorist organizations. They're cartel members. And Trump is saying they have waged war on our border. We are removing them. And a judge says, no, bring them back because my powers are equal to yours. They're not not even close. And it's remarkable that this judge thinks he can order the president to return a military flight. Can you stress that? Imagine if they if they got away with something like this.

Imagine if they do what they are doing, as they have always been doing, is trying to gut and rip to shreds the foundations of this country. My friends, I got no problem saying the executive branch has expanded its powers way too much over the past several decades. But but the president can direct the military. That's what he does. And a judge can't tell him no. Now, look, there are some things where courts can. But this certainly ain't the way.

If we have questions, right, the challenge is when a president engages in unilateral actions against an enemy, the remedy would be impeachment. But there's a mandate. The Republicans want to cross the board. This judge has gone rogue. Essentially, the Republicans have the House, the Senate and the presidency. They agree with the actions Trump is taking. He's not going to be impeached. He's not going to be convicted. The American people largely support these actions.

So this one singular judge arguing that simply by virtue of appointment from a previous administration, he has equal powers to the president is truly something to behold. In a post from Margo Cleveland breaking down this hearing that took place, DOJ points out oral order is not the injunction. And transcript said saying I would memorialize gave DOJ good faith basis to wait for written order. So basically, the other day,

Trump's got planes in the air and a judge says, I hereby order you to turn those planes around. The Trump administration just kept the planes going. And they said, until we get a written record in the in the court record, there's no order enforceable. The judge argued that simply by virtue of saying it, they must abide. They don't. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I gave this analogy yesterday, but I want you to imagine a scenario.

I want you to imagine this. Okay, let's say you were at an airport. How many of you were military? All right, let's try this one. You're in the military. You're a flight crew for a flight deporting enemy combatants. Maybe it's a little hyperbolic. Let's just say non-citizens. We don't even know what their crimes are. But these are people who are not citizens of the United States. You are ordered. Board them on this plane. This plane takes off at

Seventeen hundred. You say, yes, sir. You start doing the work. You load the plane. All of a sudden someone runs out. Stop the flight. Stop the flight. Why? Because a judge said so. Which judge? Well, a judge told the DOJ lawyer, Janet, and she told the clerk, Bill. Bill relayed the information to me by text. You got to stop the flight.

You know what they're going to say? Unless I'm ordered directly to do so, I ain't doing it. Now imagine there's a commanding officer sitting in his room. The guy goes, oh, I got it. So he runs in. Sir, you got to stop that flight. Why is that? A judge ordered it. Really? Is there a written order instructing me to stop the flight? No, he just said it. Who said it? I think his name was, what was his name? I don't know his name. They just said a judge said it. Let me check my text. Boasburg. Boasburg? Okay. Okay.

So who sent you the text? Jim. Who's Jim? Jim Smith. He's a lawyer. OK, so a lawyer texted you saying a judge said a thing. Bro, I am not going to shut down a flight that's ready to go because someone texted you or called you and said a thing happened. It is insane that a judge thinks he can verbally decree in a courtroom to a judge, turn the plane around, and that's going to stop the machine of the executive branch and everybody who is lined up to send these flights out. It's ludicrous. Now, hold on. Hold on.

Let's say the judge is he's got his written order in the court record. Now it's very easy. The guy runs to the commanding officer. Stop the flight. Why? Here you go. A court order. Oh, got a court order delivered in the in the court record. Docket number this. Let me make a phone call. Is this legit? It's in the court record. It's a real order. The judge is ordering you to stop. OK, I'm going to ask my commanding officer. It's not even that simple.

The idea that by virtue of hearsay, I hereby decree to you, lawyer in this room, make sure the president knows I said to return, turn that flight around. I look, guys, let me let me tell you something. If I am ever walking down the street and someone yells, hey, I don't I don't turn around. Hey, is not my name. I don't listen to that. OK, the idea that a judge could decree to a lawyer and the lawyer is going to convey that to who else?

The first of all, the lawyer is not going to call the flight crew. The lawyer is going to call their league, their league, the DOJ office, which is going to go to Pam. It probably won't even go to Pam Bondi. How how many hours would it take before someone finally gets word to the president or to anyone in the executive branch is going to shut these flights down?

Imagine if this lawyer says, I'm going to go directly to the airport and say the judge said stop. They're going to be like, I don't answer to you. I don't take orders from you. I'm not shutting this flight down. It is psychotic that the judge is demanding his oral words in a lower court would have any kind of mandate over the executive branch military operations. There's more. The judge quoting says, you're saying, quote, I'm telling you immediately turn planes around. The judge, you're telling me that very clear point is not an order.

All right. What is it? DOJ, I'm telling you the government's position and it wasn't in written order, but so written order controls. The judge says you knew that morning there would be a hearing at five. So when I said directly, turn that plane around because my written order was pithier. That can't be disregarded. That can be disregarded. It isn't a matter of disregarded. It's a matter of minute order controls.

So you're saying we are outside of airspace, so no jurisdiction. DOJ, no. Removal happens when they left the U.S. So that means they were already removed, which is what the court order. The judge says equitable power has extraterritorial reach. You can't violate. You can't violate it. Long story short, this judge believes that he has equal powers to the president. Now, I ask you, my friends, who's that guy? Who dat? You've never seen that face before in your life.

Do you think that this guy could give commands to the military and they would like, OK, let's just try this. If Donald Trump, I mean this sincerely and honestly, I want you guys to comment because I'm not I've not served in the military. If Donald Trump showed up with Secret Service and all.

And he went to someone in the military and ordered them to prepare to set up a flight. Go tell your commanding officer, whoever you need to. We're getting this flight ready. Would you do it? And I mean that sincerely because I genuinely don't know. I'd have to imagine you'd be like, yes, sir, Mr. President, let me let me start organizing this.

Even if even if you were an enlisted private just showed up for your first day out of basic training, I'd imagine when the president says, go do this thing. Yes, sir. And I don't think I was going to have a problem with that. You'd make a phone call. The president's here. He's asking me to do this thing. Can we can we figure this out? Someone above me has got to take care of this. I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure if the president showed up and said, this is what's happening now. Get it done. Pretty sure you don't got to worry about too much because the president's ordering you and he's ordering you to prepare a flight.

I mean, obviously, if you ordered you to do something crazy, you'd be like, I don't know about that, Mr. President. Like, I don't think I can do that. Some people might just do it. OK, anyway, here's my point. Now, some may argue they will or won't or whatever. I think most people are going to say yes. We got some chats here. Cameron Hansen says the commander in chief. Yes, I would. Commander in chief. President supersedes all. POTUS is the commander, the commanding officer of the United of Uniformed Services. He has final say in military matters.

I kind of felt that way. The president's not going to show up by himself, right? His plane lands, Air Force One, they get out. He's got people with him. He's got all sorts of whatever around him. And if he gives an order to whoever's there, they're going to say, yes, sir, let me take care of this for you. Now, imagine this judge shows up.

He arrives by car and he's got a secure detail and he goes wearing his judge robes and says, turn that plane around. They're going to be like, who are you? I am Judge Boasberg of the Federal District Court out of Washington, D.C. And I say, turn that plane around. They're going to be like, I don't take orders from you, sir. Please step back. You're agitated. It ain't going to happen. And that's the point.

The point is what we as a society recognize and can agree upon. And the idea that this guy has the gall to say my powers are equal to the president. All it takes. Let's do an experiment, Judge. You walk up to anybody loading that plane and you order them to stop getting that flight prepared and to turn it around. And you tell me what they say. You want to talk about equitable powers. Let's talk about what you think you have versus what you actually have.

Everybody in the world knows who Donald Trump is, except perhaps maybe the North Sentinelese. I'm kidding. Not literally everybody. There's other uncontacted tribes out there other than North Sentinel Island. My point is you can go to the slums of India and people are going to recognize Donald Trump for real. Maybe not literally everybody, but you get the point. If Donald Trump shows up and says this is what we're going to be doing, it's going to happen. It's going to happen.

If Judge Boasberg shows up, even with a written court order, it ain't going to happen. That's power. OK, you can show up with marshals, police, whatever you want. And if you go up to any one of these guys getting the plane ready, they're going to say until I get word from my commanding officer, this means nothing to me. Your court order means nothing to me. I'll put in a phone call for you. But this is this is some random guy with a piece of paper. As far as I'm concerned, this is what power how it actually works.

The idea that a judge in a lower court is going to turn around a military flight is ludicrous. But here we are, my friends. We got Mike Davis chiming in. Mike Davis says the president of the United States correctly designated Trendy Aragua, a vicious Venezuelan gang, as a foreign terrorist organization, as he has the authority to do so. Any objections? No. Why? Well, they took over apartment buildings and there's a video of it.

These are people who have raped, killed, pillaged and murdered. And everybody seemed to agree. Yeah, foreign Venezuelan prison gangs waging, you know, conflict on our border and killing people. Terrorist organization. The president correctly put these terrorists on planes to get them a heck out of the country.

Yet D.C. Obama judge James Boasberg thinks he has the power to order the president to turn around the planes in midair and bring these terrorists into America. It's the most dangerous constitutional crisis imaginable. They do not say this lightly. The president has a constitutional duty as the chief executive officer and commander in chief to ignore Judge Boasberg's lawless and dangerous order.

Supreme Court must use the emergency docket to immediately stay Judge Boasberg's order. Next week, the House must the House must impeach Judge Boasberg and defund discord. I agree 100 percent completely agree. Mike Davis, of course, of course, former chief counsel for nomination Senate Judiciary Committee Article three project. I'll tell you why we're facing a constitutional crisis, a crisis because there is a judge who lacks the authority asserting the authority.

This is outside the purview of the court. This is not something they should be engaged in. And there must be limitations placed on these lower court judges. I believe it is fair to say the judge with a hearing from the ACLU can argue a couple of things. Lack of jurisdiction and reject the suit. Thank you and have a nice day. You can then appeal to a higher court where they can also say lack of jurisdiction. Here's how it should go.

I'm a judge. The ACLU comes to me and says the president is exercising his authority under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport individuals who are not citizens and accused of crimes. We challenge this and believes he should not be able to deport these individuals. My response would be, are your clients citizens? No, they are not. But they do deserve due process. OK, the president is well within his authority. We have no jurisdiction here.

The court hereby dismisses the claims and we refuse to hear it. Appeal to a higher court. Have a nice day. That's what should happen. That's it. Imagine a different scenario pertaining to executive authority. Donald Trump responds to a direct strike on our men and women in uniform in Iraq. And he says, I'm ordering our men to retaliate against those who are currently bombing our military bases. And a judge in D.C. goes, no.

Tell him to stop firing. You'd be like, what? No one's going to listen to that. That's the game that's being played right now.

Now, of course, there's a bit more nuance in that this is domestic deportation. But I will stress this first. The argument of the plane having already left the United States and being over international waters plays 100 percent. A judge ain't turning around a plane that beyond the over international waters. Trump negotiated terms with a foreign country. If a lower court judge can undermine agreements between two nations that the president has set forth, you have no country.

And I love this because I am opposed to the U.S. funding of Ukraine. I know Trump is restoring this stuff. I'm not a fan of it, but I trust the president to get the job done to the best of his abilities. And I'm hoping it's better than it is. I don't like the bombings in Yemen. We'll see how these things play out.

This episode is brought to you by Shopify. Upgrade your business with Shopify, home of the number one checkout on the planet. ShopPay boosts conversions up to 50%, meaning fewer cards going abandoned and more sales going cha-ching. So if you're into growing your business, get a commerce platform that's ready to sell wherever your customers are. Visit Shopify.com to upgrade your selling today.

The new KFC Dunk It Bucket with juicy original recipe tenders, new mashed potato poppers, crispy fries, plus three sauces that fit right on top of the lid. So you can dunk anywhere. You can dunk at the game. Dunk while security points to the no outside food sign. And dunk as 20,000 people watch you and your Dunk It Bucket get removed from the stadium. Dunk almost anywhere with the new $7 KFC Dunk It Bucket or get the double Dunk It Bucket for $25. Prices and participation vary while supplies last. Taxes, tips, and fees extra.

It is remarkable to think that as we have argued against the war in Ukraine and the left has argued, so what? No one can trust our country. We said in the Budapest memorandum that if Ukraine was attacked, we would come to their defense. And my response is you can't promise the children of one generation to the next. Sorry. And more importantly, when circumstances change, 30 year old promises mean very little.

The response I get is so people should just recognize that America is untrustworthy and you can't do deals with them. I say, yeah, probably. Look at what the Democrats are arguing right now, that Donald Trump contacts the president of El Salvador and says, let us come to terms on an arrangement for international and national security. That is violent criminal gangs passing through South and Central America from Venezuela to the United States that pose a threat to this country. We are removing.

We want them held. We want to transport them to you for you to deal with. If we return them to Venezuela, they will come right back. They come to terms in midair as El Salvador is preparing to receive criminal illegal aliens, terrorists designated by the United States. A lower court judge says, turn them around. The president's orders are meaningless.

What is what is Venezuela going to or what is El Salvador going to say? What will any foreign country say if Trump were to do this? They'd say, you mean to tell me that if we enter into good faith negotiations, we are going to take in these criminals in exchange for revenue from the United States. You can break that deal because the president does not have the authority to negotiate. That's an absurdity.

An absolute absurdity. I argued this the other day in regards to the classified documents. The Democrats once again made the same argument. The president has no authority over classification, which, of course, is insane. He has plenary declassification powers, meaning there is nothing above or beyond him. He is the absolute as it pertains to declassification. I want you to imagine a scenario. They tried putting Trump in jail for this. Imagine a scenario where Donald Trump is negotiating with Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine, as he's doing literally right now.

Putin says, I know that you've got special forces in Mariupol and in Kiev. If we are going to gauge the CIFAR, I want you to withdraw these forces. And then Trump goes, I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any forces. Thus, it can't be part of any negotiations because that would be a confirmation or denial of Putin's going to go, huh?

Are you going to pull your troops out of Ukraine so we can have a ceasefire or not? Trump goes, let me ask Congress if I'm allowed to share with you confidential information. Then maybe we can negotiate peace and put an end to this war. Would that not be the stupidest thing you've ever seen? Yet another president's going to go to go to Putin and say, OK, we'll pull our troops out. That's it.

Think about how the nuclear disarmament negotiations went. Vladimir Putin says our instruments have detected nuclear launch sites in these Eastern European countries. If you want us to remove our nukes from Cuba, you remove your nukes from Turkey. And then Trump goes, what nukes? Sorry, I don't have the authority to reveal any classified information in war negotiations to a rival nation for which we're about to annihilate each other. Let me go ask Congress for permission. That's fake.

There's no one he asks. The president goes to him and says, we're going to remove. We're going to pull. He's a commander in chief. We're going to pull our forces back here. You pull your forces back there. Don't play games. It is an absurdity that we live in this reality where they're trying to make those arguments.

Now we have Sean Davis. Boasberg is now ordering Trump to give him operational military intelligence on the size and status of Venezuelan TDA forces currently within the United States. As if Boasberg himself is the commander in chief and Trump is some staff officer detailed to him. Boasberg can get wrecked. Can you believe this? Amazing. And then here's the media chiming in, my friends.

Ed Wellen, so ugly how so many folks are skipping over any serious analysis of the legal issues and instead calling for Judge Boasberg to be investigated, impeached or jailed. I mean, at bare minimum, a higher court should say you are out of line. You are out of line. You have no authority. This is out of your jurisdiction. What got what? What are you thinking? Sean Davis says National Review now white knighting for the Russiagate FISA judge who has appointed himself commander in chief for the purpose of protecting Venezuelan terrorists.

Waylon's Zillow floor plan truthing was somehow less ridiculous than this. Here's what I'd say. I do believe the Trump administration should publish a roster with a short bio of everyone being deported. That way, the there's no reason not to do it. I'll tell you why. We're Americans. We want to make sure that no innocent American is swept up in this. Right. OK, it's simple. I don't believe that Donald Trump is getting anybody who's innocent and an American citizen swept up and deported. It's probably not happening.

All you got to do, Trump, is if these really are trend Aragwa terrorists, you should put out information pertaining to the individuals deported. You know why? Effectively, an APB. These are the criminals. Here's what they're accused of. Here's why they're being deported. Here's the list. They will not come back. And the information will be public publicly available in the event they somehow do come back. We want them deported again.

Some may argue national security concerns we can't reveal. I don't see any reason why we can't say here's the list of all the Trend Day Aragua members we have deported. And then people can see, oh, yeah, that's maybe there's a guy in there and someone goes, hey, wait a minute. That's not Trend Day Aragua. That's an American citizen. I really doubt it. But I want to see transparency.

I do believe it's fair to say that due process is served. If you are not a citizen of this country and you are apprehended by ICE, the idea that you would get a hearing is ridiculous.

If you're an American citizen and you have your documents to prove it, I do have a concern about authoritarian governments deporting Americans. But that seems strange. In what circumstance does that happen? If you're a citizen, you're a citizen. I'm a citizen. They say, let's look up your information. They look up your information. They say, OK. And there are questions about American citizens. I suppose I'll say this. I don't see American citizens getting deported if the Trump administration deports

does accidentally do that in any regard, then there will be hell to pay and they should pay restitution for the mistake. But I'm not talking about rare circumstance. I'm talking about in I'm talking about intentional, deliberate actions where they decided to deport a person. And then either either because of ignorance, mistake or otherwise, there should be hell to pay if people get caught up in this. I think there's got to be some degree of a filtration to make sure that Trump is deporting who he says he is.

I think that's simple. We do have some stories for you. I want to show you how the left is responding to all of this. USA Today. He voted for Trump. Now his wife sits in an ICE detention center. Okay, who wants to make the guess as to why his wife is in a detention center? Anybody? Anybody going once, going twice? Could it be she's an illegal immigrant? Yep. He voted for Trump. He was married to an illegal immigrant. She got detained.

Next question. Listen, if you're here in the United States illegally and your husband votes to have illegal immigrants deported, what makes you think that you are special? They run this story trying to play this game as if, oh, no, this poor man voted for Trump and Trump betrayed him. No, he didn't. Trump did exactly what he said he was going to do.

They bury the lead. Bradley Bartel and Camila Munoz had a familiar small town love story before they collided with immigration politics. They'd met their mutual friends, had a first date at a local steakhouse, married after two years, and were saving to buy a house and have kids. Munoz was already caring for Bartel's now 12-year-old son as her own. But last month on her way home to Wisconsin after honeymooning in Puerto Rico, an immigration agent pulled Munoz aside at the airport. Are you an American citizen? She answered no.

She wasn't. She's from Peru. But she and her husband had taken legal steps that one day she might get U.S. citizenship. Now, hold on there a minute. Sounds to me like this is a person who was here legally. They took the legal steps because she's marrying an American and she lives here and they're buying a house and she's helping raise his son. What's going on, Trump? What have you done? What have you done? Wait a minute. Let me scroll down quite a bit where it actually says, um,

Uh-huh. Because they're here illegally engaged. A woman in her 50s who has lived in the country more than 30 years and is married to a U.S. citizen.

So someone who's here illegally. I have questions about that. Valid proof of legal residency. I think it's fair to criticize CBP and ICE. If there are stories like this, though I don't trust the corporate press, I say, let's be magnanimous. Let us be better than the rest. And I'd like answers to that one. And I am critical of them if that is the case.

However, based on how these stories go, you know there's going to be something to the story where you're like, oh, she committed a crime. Because I got another story for you. Just wait. Wait till I pull up the next story. A European woman in her 30s engaged to a U.S. citizen who overstayed her visa when she was 21. So in other words, here illegally. A woman engaged to a U.S. legal permanent resident with whom she has lived for nine years. Uh-huh. So once again, a person here illegally. I mean, what is this? They're going to say none of the women has a criminal record, according to USA Today.

All were in an ongoing legal immigration process and felt comfortable enough boarding a domestic flight. Immigration agents swept each of them up as airport checkpoints mid-February at airport checkpoints at mid-February in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Neither ICE nor its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, responded to multiple requests for comment. Nora Ahmed, legal director for the ACLU of Louisiana, said immigrants in legal limbo of any kind should take precautions if they plan travel.

The unfortunate answer is they have to be worried. If you are not a citizen of the U.S. and you're going to go through immigration process, your first thought needs to be, how can this process be weapon against me? David Rose is an immigration attorney representing Munoz agreed. Anyone who isn't a legal permanent resident or U.S. citizen is at risk, period. Bartell and Munoz wore their wedding rings for the flight home. Secure the knowledge the U.S. government knew they'd applied for her green card.

She had overstayed her original visa, but they reasoned she had been vetted from the start, worked on a W-2 and paid her taxes. Before agents led her away, Munoz pulled off her wedding ring, afraid it might get confiscated, shoved it in her backpack and handed it to Bartel. He shook as he watched her disappear and thought, what the F did I do? Your your fiance wasn't here legally. I don't get it.

You see how they bury the story halfway down? She had applied legally to stay and she was married. And then you find out she overstayed her visa. I don't get why these people think the law will not apply to them. I have no sympathy. They knew she was here illegally and now he's shook. Bro, I have friends who got engaged to European European women.

Who had visa on entry. We're not talking about, you know, in Mexico, it's not as easy to get a visa depending on where you're trying to go. And if you're from El Salvador, it's harder to get a U.S. visa. Even tourist visas can be tough. I'm talking about, I got friends who've met people from European countries with visa on entry. And when they got engaged...

They went to immigration and immigration says, just make sure you don't overstay your visa. Simply getting engaged doesn't doesn't do enough. You get extensions. They'll allow you to stay a little bit longer. There's a lot of leeway when you announce to immigration you are preparing engagement. But they warn you if you overstay your visa, you can't come back for up to 10 years. So go home, get your paperwork done, then come back legally. Who are these people?

But there's more, my friends. This story, I think, is important to deported family of U.S. citizen girl recovering from brain surgery, alleges civil rights abuses and new complaint. There's always going to be the case. These stories were going to erupt. And we warned about this last year.

Again, I will scrutinize any administration, any law enforcement. If there are abuses, though I don't trust these people, I say, again, let's be magnanimous. Let's let's let's let's go above and beyond to make sure that we are doing this by the book and take the teeth out of any argument they may have. Here's the story.

A family was deported to Mexico. They're requesting an investigation into abuses they say they face in U.S. detention. I really doubt they faced any abuses, but I'm willing to entertain an investigation. I think they're likely lying. It's a sad story. Their daughter, their children were born here. They were not. They came here illegally, had kids, stayed here illegally. A 10-year-old girl is recovering from brain surgery. They're in an area of Mexico where they say they fear for their safety. Well...

That's why they came here illegally, I suppose. But a lot of people outside of the comforts and confines of the wealthy nation of the United States probably fear for their safety. If I was in the middle of the woods, I'd fear for my safety, too. I feel bad for this 10-year-old girl. And I believe we could be, to say it again, magnanimous. We could make sure this 10-year-old girl gets her medical treatment she needs. Come on. She's a U.S. citizen. However, the challenge here once again is, for a long time, the U.S. has tolerated illegal immigration and chain migration.

These people came here illegally and had kids. They are going to be deported because we tried the amnesty route. The argument was, let's say right now, no more illegal immigration and we grant amnesty. That's what the Democrats argued. That's what they argue with Trump.

deferred action, right? With these DACA kids. They say, how about this? If they were brought here as a kid, they can stay. Deferred action will get them processed. They can be citizens. They don't know any other country. And the agreement was supposed to be, but no more illegal immigration. What happened? Joe Biden flooded the borders. He said, surge the border. He opened up and he brought everybody in. Well, now you want to play hardball. Hardball is the only response.

Non-citizens get deported. You have two choices. The U.S. government can keep your children. I'm not a fan of that. Or you can keep your children, which is more humane, but you got to go home. That's it. When your kids are old enough, they're citizens for now, though I think Trump is going to challenge birthright citizenship of many of these individuals. But I say of this little girl, they're, of course, targeting this story because it's going to make liberals say, oh, no, she had brain cancer. Quick, burn the Constitution. I'm sorry. I'm not going to play that game.

I am a man. I am not to be swayed by you bringing a crying child before my eyes. I will do my what I can to help others. I empathize. I sympathize. But the blame rests with the parents who are evil. The parents who I understand came here because America is great, but decided they would engage in acts of evil to benefit their children and themselves. And for this, they now suffer. And the blame is not on us.

You cannot put your children in harm's way and then blame us for trying to secure our country. It just doesn't work that way. I think the story is important because this is one of the biggest that the liberals are pushing, claiming Donald Trump has deported U.S. citizens. Technically, technically, he deported their parents and gave them the option to keep their kids. Don't bring your kids here if you want to break the law. And that's what they did. And now this story, this one's going to make you laugh.

Politico reports deported Brown University professor had sympathetic photos of Hezbollah leaders on her phone, DOJ says. The government's explanation of Rasha Alawi's deportation came before a judge postponed a hearing on whether it defied a judge's order that she not be deported without advance notice to the court.

For those that are not familiar, this is round two of the Mahmoud Khalil story. Mahmoud Khalil was an organizer at the Columbia protests against Israel and pro-Palestine. I'm not going to play this game where I argue that simply he was aligned with Hamas. I don't play that game, and I don't need to. The argument from the DOJ is that he was engaged in actions aligned with Hamas, a terrorist organization.

I don't like that. I don't. Aligned with? You're allowed to be critical of Israel. Don't play those games with me. That being said, a non-citizen here on a temporary green card. They say he was a green card holder. Yeah, he had a two-year temporary stay. Okay. He was supposed to be going to school. He graduated. I don't know what he was doing. And he organized protests that broke the law.

He was an organizer of they took over buildings. You've got this story. Take a look at this from the Postmillennial. Columbia janitor files complaint against university after being trapped by pro Hamas mob. Torres said he tried to fight his way out, but one masked writer told him, I'm going to get 20 guys up here to F you up and violently shoved him. I learned this when I was a kid. If you rob a bank, you're going to jail. If you help someone rob a bank, you're going to jail with him.

If you organize the robbing of a bank, or I'll put it this way, you organize a flash mob. Let's say this. You get a bunch of buddies. Hey, we're all going to go to a bank and then we're going to dance. And then you show up and your friends start robbing the bank. You are going to jail. That's it. No one, you're not getting any, maybe you can, you can, you know, rat somebody out or whatever, but you're going to be charged as a part of this group that did this. Mahmoud Khalil,

Got his visa revoked because the secretary of state has the authority to do so under the Immigration Nationalization Act, I believe it is. Some have argued that because it was a temporary green card, it's a different legal apparatus. OK, go to court for it. My point is, I don't like the idea of noncitizens coming here on temporary stays and then organizing protests where they take over buildings, break the law and violence breaks out.

I don't know why we would tolerate that. So this guy is now facing deportation and he's being held in an ice center. I say, OK, they're doing another. They're doing it again. Politico reports.

Federal authorities say they deported a Lebanese doctor holding an American visa last week after finding sympathetic photos and videos of prominent Hezbollah figures in a deleted items folder on her cell phone. Rasha Alawi, a physician specializing in kidney transplants and professors at Brown University and a professor at Brown University, told CBP agents that while visiting Lebanon last month, she attended the funeral of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and followed his teachings from a religious perspective, but not a political one.

According to an official report of her interrogation by an immigration officer, CBP questioned Dr. Alouet and determined that her true intentions in the United States could not be determined. The claims in court filing submitted Monday by DOJ lawyers are the first public examination of why Alouet, 34, was deported Friday despite holding a U.S. visa typically issued to foreigners with special skills. I'm going to say it again.

Your data is like gold to hackers. They're selling your passwords, bank details, and private messages. McAfee helps stop them. SecureVPN keeps your online activity private. AI-powered text scam detector spots phishing attempts instantly. And with award-winning antivirus, you get top-tier hacker protection. Plus, you'll get up to $2 million in identity theft coverage, all for just $39.99 for your first year. Visit McAfee.com. Cancel any time. Terms apply.

You may get a little excited when you shop at Burlington. What a low price! Did you see that? They have my favorites! It's like a whole new world! I can buy two! I'm saving so much! Burlington saves you up to 60% off other retailers' prices every day. Will it be the low prices or the great brands? You'll love the deals. You'll love Burlington. I told you so.

The Secretary of State has unilateral authority to revoke visas. It is in the law. We went over this on Tim Kessler. IRL literally says there is no judicial review required. Now there is an exemption. Libby pointed this out. She was right. I was wrong. That should it be the only reason.

They are deporting them. Then there is to be a hearing. But I believe if they're claiming national security, then the revocation of visa, then the deportation, they can make an argument they don't have to. But once again, what's going on right now largely is Democrats and Republicans are arguing over things that have not been adjudicated. For instance, the...

The auto pen question. I didn't realize this. This is my bad. The narrative that I saw from most of the commentators I follow is that auto pen was a reference to like DocuSign using apps to plant your signature. I missed this. This is my bad. So I apologize. Correction. No, it's literally a machine. You slide a pen and screw it in and the machine signs for Joe Biden. Well,

I don't think that should be legal, but it's never been adjudicated. The Supreme Court has not issued a ruling on whether or not presidents can do this, which to me is an absurdity. But that's the point. These are questions that typically aren't being challenged or asked. And so the answer right now is I'm not going to give you this. I guarantee Trump has the authority. So be it. I'm not going to give you this. Well, certainly not the liberal perspective of this is unconstitutional. The reality is so long as the law is written as is.

Trump has the authority to do these things and the courts have not adjudicated them. For now, immigration law says Secretary of State can revoke any visa at his discretion for any reason. And there need not be judicial review. There's like one exception related to if you are deporting someone and for that reason, you revoke their visa. They get a review.

But I believe that if there is a cited reason which results in the revocation of visa, you can then deport them after the fact without judicial review. I'll put it this way. Nobody actually has a determination from the higher courts. Until then, nothing illegal is happening. We are talking to Elad the other day. We'll light this one up again because he debated loopholes in taxes. So let me just say it like this. There is no such thing as a loophole.

When the left says that the billionaires are exploiting loopholes to avoid paying taxes, that's not correct. What they're actually saying is billionaires are engaged in a legal practice, period. That's it. They use the phrase loophole to try and make it seem like they're doing something untoward intentionally. Most of the time, these individuals just say, what am I legally allowed to do and what am I legally not allowed to do? And so long as you're allowed to do it, it's not a loophole.

I reject that because it creates it puts the onus on the individual to know that they are acting outside the confines of what the government wants them to do. And they must abide by the spirit of what the government intends. No, the onus on the government to explicitly codify in law what is or is not allowed. And as of right now, Trump is well within his powers to do all of these things. Now, I do have some fears. Trump ain't perfect. He's not. But my friends, I have to warn you.

We are looking at a wartime presidency in Joe Biden and in Donald Trump. Joe Biden, mock him all you want, but his administration sought to imprison their political rival.

There's a strength in that that is terrifying. Maybe Joe Biden wasn't literally doing it, but his administration did. In Donald Trump, there is a strength in the action that he's taking as well. And it's basically that I will exercise the powers that I must to do what I must to win. That's wartime presidency. So when I look at stories like this, I say, buckle up, mother. It's on. We've got a wave. Look at this. Uh.

This is a guy, Jack Tron, infiltrating a Tesla protest paid for by 501C4 charities. Here we have Nick Sorter. A man was arrested for keying Teslas. Oh, I'm starting off light, baby. This guy, Levi Campbell, I drove past a local Kansas City Tesla dealership. Vehicles on fire. Barely caught a girl in a black dress running away. Here's a suspect who keyed another Tesla car. Juanita Broderick. Broderick got swatted.

This guy, Dustin Grage, swatted. Joe Pags swatted. Here we go. Oh, this one got taken down. That tweet's gone. Bearded Vet swatted. Did we get another one taken down? OK, Matt Van Swole swatted. And here's a video of a suspect trying to light up a car. I don't know what this one's related to. This video was wild. The guy ended up blowing up an incendiary device, which which hurt him.

And then, of course, we have Chuck Schumer security concerns. I don't want Chuck Schumer to get hurt. I hope he's all right. Scrapping a book tour. I'm just saying the left is engaged in extreme violence. Donald Trump is deporting people. It ain't stopping here, my friends. Things are escalating. I don't know where it goes, but it's not even summer yet. It's not even spring yet. In all of my years covering conflict and crisis, winter conflict is rare because people don't like going out in the cold or the rain. And they are now.

To be fair, it is starting to get warmer in certain places. But this is crazy. We're going to grab some of your Rumble rants, my friends. Let's do it. Before we sign off, make sure you smash that like button. Here's the game I like to play. Yesterday, with the pardons being argued to be voided, I said, every like is one year Fauci will do in prison. Every time you hit the like button, you were voting for how many years he should be in prison. And we got 17,500 likes. Ha ha ha.

I'm kidding. I was like, I will inform the president. That's how many years he must get. Nobody actually thought it was serious, but it was fun anyway. What's this? We got Chris Rumble. Tim Pool is the number one streamer in the USA for the noon hour. The Rumble lineup is crushing. Evita, number one. Vince, number one. Crowder, number one. And Pool, number one. You guys watching right now, the Rumble lineup, you guys are heroes. You are gentlemen and scholars.

So, tremendous respect to all of you who have been tuning in to watch the Rumble lineup. We are doing something transformative, and the Rumble lineup now owns the number one spot.

Check this out. It's not just that I'm number one right now. Crowder was more than double the viewership, by the way. Shout out to Steven Crowder. Thank you for the raid and for having me a part of this lineup as well as Chris. But Evita, Vince, next up in the next five minutes, we're going to grab some more of your Rumble rants and super chats.

The quartering, Jeremy Hambly, you don't want to miss it. We're going to have you guys join his show and keep it going. And we want Jeremy to be number one for the 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. slots because we're making a statement here. Rumble is the premier video podcasting platform. Spotify is trying to get in the game. YouTube suspended and shut down. Steven Crowder and some of the biggest podcasts, they banned Dan Bongino.

In their arrogance, they said, we don't want nothing here. And now we're looking at what they call the podcast presidency. The number one, some of the biggest shows in the world were kicked off YouTube. So let's take a look at the premier spaces for video podcasting. Spotify. They're okay. I got no beef. The viewership ain't all that there. Their podcast worship is relatively low compared to these other platforms. Apple don't even do video. So it's just audio. Maybe they'll get in the game at some point. YouTube's the big player. Don't get me wrong.

But they will shut you down in a heartbeat. And right now, they can't hold a candle to the Rumble lineup. Meaning, if you want to be in this space for podcast success, it's Rumble. Rumble is where the number one shows are. Rumble is where you have an opportunity to start something new without fear of censorship. And growth opportunities are massive.

We are now looking at, on the second day, all of the top shows for these hours. When the rankings come out tomorrow, I imagine like the top 10 streams, it's going to be almost entirely Rumble. For news, as of yesterday, 10 of the 15 top national streams were on Rumble. And I'll tell you why.

It's simple. Free speech matters. People want to express themselves without fear. You get shut down into the platforms. More importantly, as I already explained, Rumble said outright, if you are a video podcaster, we will make sure you flourish here. We will give you the tools you need and the space you need to have a successful show. YouTube doesn't. They make it impossible to get monetized. They're too big. They don't care about you. Spotify ain't bad, but they're really small.

So with all due respect to Spotify, I got no beef. They've been nice to us. Rumble is just a better place. We launched Timcast IRL on Rumble and almost instantly we doubled our viewership on Timcast IRL. Doubled. I kid you not. Some episodes, 300, 400,000 views. Yesterday we had 30. I think we had what? 33,000 on Rumble and 40,000 on YouTube. Rumble now rivaling those numbers on YouTube.

So we're hitting massive numbers. And it's all thanks to you guys who have decided Rumble is number one. And that's really it. What makes Rumble the best place to be? You guys who are watching. I do got to make sure we grab some of your questions and chats, though. So here we go. Tim Brackett is breaking. SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts just said President Trump's call to impeach a federal judge is inappropriate. Very interesting. Roberts rejected the impeachment also.

Uh, ooh, ooh, ah, ah, ting, tang, walla, walla, bing, bang. Very, very impressive. Very impressive. Let's see what you got for the old rumble rants, my friends. For, uh, forced name change says 18th century law. What about murder? That's been illegal since before Abraham. Is that void because it's old too? Right.

Something 20 says murder is even older law. So by their logic, I say we do away with that law and all related laws. They play this game, an 18th century law. Yeah, there's a lot of laws that we like. You guys hit the nail on the head. Murder. No, don't do it.

Whiplash says due process rights are only guaranteed to U.S. citizens, not illegal aliens. In most contexts, there are some some there is a bit of due process that is afforded. That is, they have a right to argue if they are or are not illegal immigrants. So that is their due process. Due process basically means you are due a process by which the law will be adjudicated fairly for you.

They'll stop you. Do you have an ID? No. Are you a citizen? No. Okay, you're being deported. That's it. That's due process. We ain't locking you up. We ain't hurting you. We're not doing anything. We're just literally going to give you a ride home. I have no idea why they are so, they're acting like that's the apocalypse. All right, we're going to grab, I think we got time for just one more here. McCarthy was correct. The commies infiltrated the highest levels of our institutions. These judges must be removed if they cannot be neutral arbiters of the law.

Well, my friends, I believe Jeremy Hambly over at The Quartering is live. And so that means it's time for all of you guys to jump to the next hour of this amazing Rumble lineup. So let me raid all of the viewers. Here we go.

I want to say I'm confirming the raid. Thank you guys so much for hanging out for this massive show. We had, I think, around 80,000 combined concurrence with the peak at around 63,000 on Rumble. Yo, you guys rock. I really do appreciate it. For those before you as a sequence finalizes, follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. Subscribe to this channel. We're back tomorrow at noon.

And shout out to Jeremy at the quartering. Take it away, buddy. Guys, if you're still watching, before you go, get Jeremy to number one. Let's have every live show in the Rumble lineup. Prove it. This is the place to be. And we are number one. Thank you all so much for hanging out. I still got more segments coming up through the day. And of course, we're back at 8 p.m. for TimCast IRL. And we'll see you all then.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a I have a correction on so much of what I was talking about the other day. I apologize. I was not aware of the extent of the auto pen scandal. My assumption based on reports I had read.

And commentary, and this is my fault, was that auto pen in the Biden auto pen scandal referred to apps that you can apply your signature. And I'd seen so much commentary on this. I didn't actually look into it. Now that the story is breaking, we are talking about quite literally a machine that holds the pen. This is not digital.

So let me give you the quick breakdown of the story. Trump the other day claimed that Joe Biden's pardons are void because they were signed via auto pen. Now, the corporate press is running these stories saying Donald Trump admits to using auto pen. Now, the first commentary I saw on this was people generally just saying he was it was being signed with an app like DocuSign. And so I didn't even think about it.

New reports have come out and I've actually been digging into the story and shocked as I was to discover. For those that don't know, Joe Biden arguably signed almost every single document using a machine that whole it's got arms. I kid you not. I did not know this. It's a literal machine that holds a pen and you press play and the pen moves on paper to make it seem like it's actually a wet signature.

And that was another issue with this was that all of the commentary presented by

What made it seem as though they're talking about using apps like DocuSign and even other commentary said the pardons must have a wet signature as if to imply ink was not used. Ink was used, according to the Heritage Foundation investigation. When some of these documents were, quote unquote, signed by Joe Biden using a machine, he was not in Washington. Now, the argument before this, everybody was acting like, again, it was an app is that

So was he on the phone? Was he on a tablet? How is he signing these documents digitally? No, my friends, I'm going to show you the video. And I am I was shocked to find when the narrative initially was Joe Biden used auto pen.

It did not seem so scandalous to me. It was a scandal, of course, because we don't trust that Joe Biden's actually doing presidential deeds and duties. Donald Trump comes out and says they're void. And the argument was, again, the argument that I largely saw on X. Joe, we are not sure that Joe Biden signed these because they were they were signed using some kind of digital service or app. No, no, no, no. That was way wrong.

We don't know that Joe Biden signed this because they weren't signed at all. Now, of course, liberals are going to come at me and say Barack Obama started it. Donald Trump did it to Biden did it. I don't I don't think any of them should be allowed to do this. This, in my view, is disqualifying of anything signed. Trump's first administration. I don't care. I had no idea that.

That since Obama, they have had machines where they slide a pen in and the arm signs it for them. There's literally no reason, none whatsoever that exists. Literally none. Unless you want someone to sign documents when the president is not there. So I wonder if this really makes me wonder, my friends, if what we're looking at is, you know, in Trump's first term, he was playing ball.

And they signed documents for him. And he's like, sure, fine, whatever. You know, he's he's traveling. And they say, we got this. You want to sign? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Use the auto pen. Very much the machine state saying, don't worry, sir, we'll handle this for you. Now, according to the Heritage Foundation, it appears Joe Biden did sign nothing. Yesterday morning, this was the story. Trump claims Biden's pardons are void, alleging they were signed via auto pen. Now, you saw this because we did report on it. But I want to show you a bit more. I missed this one.

I absolutely look at this. You see what we're looking at? That's an auto pen. For those that are listening, I'll just describe it. It looks like some old machine. I didn't even I did not know this.

It holds the pen. You screw the pen in so it's held tight and the machine will write for you. We've got the report from the oversight project from the Heritage Foundation that I will go through breaking down the scandal. Now that I truly understand the scope of this, this is so much worse than I realized, my friends. Trump is probably right. Biden's pardons are likely void. Now, legal scholars across the board, the media tell me why. No, we know why. But but I say this.

Why are all of these corporate outlets rushing to claim these pardons issued by, quote, unquote, Biden for his family and Fauci and Milley are all perfectly sound. None of them are addressing the actual argument. Trump said they're void because we don't know who signed them. Interesting, right? The corporate press is responding, saying Trump doesn't have the power to overturn pardons.

We never said Trump was overturning a pardon. Trump never said that he's vacating the pardon. He's saying they are vacant because Biden did not sign them. That's a wholly different argument. Why isn't the media actually addressing the real scandal here? Because it's likely true. Joe Biden didn't sign these.

Take a look at this. NBC News actually shows this. But what exactly is an auto pen? Put simply, it's a device that uses a pen to recreate signatures or handwriting, even if the quote signer is not in the room. President Obama apparently became the first president to use an auto pen to sign an actual bill when he extended the Bush era Patriot Act while he was in France, a move that caused a bit of a stir at the time. Wow. You said...

The auto pen must be directed directly by the president. But it's been used in the White House for decades, even centuries, for things like written communications and autograph requests. Centuries? The Thomas Jefferson Foundation says our third president was known to use a precursor to the auto pen known as a polygraph.

for making a copy of handwritten letters. President Harry Truman is often said to be the first president to use a fully robotic auto pen in the 1950s. John F. Kennedy was said to be such a prolific user of the auto pen that it became the subject of a book, the robot that helped make a president. And Lyndon Johnson's use of the machine even made the cover of the National Enquirer in 1968. Regardless of how auto pen has been used in the past, it's important to note that looking

signatures digital copies in the Federal Register might not be the best way to see how a document was signed. The National Archives, which runs the Federal Register, telling fact checker Snopes, each new administration provides a digital signature file for the Federal Register, quote,

which uses it to create the graphic image for all presidential documents published. NBC News asked the National Archives for comment and has yet to hear back. But that's why many Biden signatures would look the same as would President Trump signatures in the Federal Register from both his first term and this one. Thanks for watching. Stay updated about breaking news. And let's take a look at what the Heritage Foundation Foundation has to say. I would respond with this.

Very interesting arguments. I do not believe, first of all, using a quote unquote polygraph is still very different from using a machine that can write your signature for you.

And I can't believe I never knew about this. And I oppose it 100 percent. This is dereliction of duty. I don't care if it's Trump. I don't care if it's Obama. I don't care if it's Biden. I don't care if it's Kennedy. I don't care if it's Thomas Jefferson. It is dereliction of duty. The signature of the president is the signature of the president for a reason. And the idea that anyone could come in and stick a pen in the machine and press go. Well, the guy told me on the phone. Are you kidding me? Take a look at this.

The U.S. Constitution vests numerous powers in one man and one man alone, the President of the United States. The powers include signing or vetoing bills, signing or vetoing orders, etc., etc. We totally get it.

They say, but what happens when the president himself does not manually sign documents that exercise powers that belong only to him? What happens if he uses a proxy or administrative staff, uses a machine or technology to automatically affix the president's signature to documents that fulfill his constitutional duties and bicameralism and presentment or issue pardons? And most critically, how does that analysis change when the president lacks the mental and physical capacity to fulfill the duties of his office or is under mental or physical impairment?

At its core, the longstanding historical practice that the president affixes wet signature to acts of Congress and clemency warrants, clemency warrants stems from the interconnected issues of authority and authenticity. The Constitution vests the execution of executive powers, the signing of bills into law and a warning of pardons and clemency in one person, the president. He's the only one person and person who alone composes a branch of government.

So while we can make this argument and talk about whether Trump is right or wrong, the argument being presented by Heritage is that pardons and acts of Congress that are signed by the president must be signed by hand. The final decision and responsibility rests solely on his shoulders, since the founding of the United States, a key check to ensure the acts of unitarian executive are actually his.

is the requirement that important official documents bear his wet signature. This is not pure ministerial requirement, but a core safeguard against fraud and usurpation of authority. After all, when dealing with the president, one wants stringent safeguards against fraud and usurpation of authority.

The Oversight Project is conducting an ongoing review of public documents discharging non-delegable presidential powers containing former President Biden's signature. In this memorandum, we conclude that individuals in the Biden administration, other than the president, appear to have used the device called an auto pen to affix the president's signature under some of the most controversial clemency warrants of his presidency. Our conclusion is based on analysis of suspicious documentation. For example, we uncovered two identical auto pen signatures that were affixed to multiple acts of clemency.

We identified them as Autopen A and Autopen B, the relevance of which now is explained below. The Biden admin's Autopen use raises a grave constitutional, legal and pragmatic questions. How widespread was Autopen using the Biden White House? Given President Biden's mental and physical decline while in office, to what extent was he aware of the use of Autopen?

Now, there is still the interesting question that NBC News brings up, which I don't trust NBC News. They lied about me left and right, is that in the federal registry, are these just digital representations of signatures? Because the actual physical documents will end up being different. I do believe the Oversight Project has these images, Autopen A and Autopen B. Our analysis found the Biden admin signed 16 of 51 clemency warrants with Autopen A and

We determined that auto pen A appeared in the signatures of the following clemency warrants. Now, the reason why this matters, these are not digitally affixed as NBC News claims, or at least one may not be. I would argue that one may may be the digital registry or whatever, but certainly this one looks like it was scanned in.

They go on to mention all of these different clemencies that were granted. Wow. Look at all these. December 12, 2024, commutation for 1,499 individuals. Interesting. Look at all the citations they have.

We uncovered additional inaccuracies. The clemency awards issued with auto pen a every clemency document contains the same affirmations and testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal the Department of Justice to be affixed. They read further done to the city of Washington this day of the month, the year of our Lord 2020 and independence of the United States, blah, blah, blah. We get it.

The statement is doubly inaccurate for all auto pen clemency warrants the president did not sign. Rather, at best, he caused his signature like a department seal to be affixed.

The statement is inaccurate for the pardons issued on December 30th, 2022. President Biden was on vacation in the Virgin Islands from December 27th through December 31st, 2022. On the 30th, the day he signed the pardons, President Biden was golfing with his grandson on the island of St. Croix. How do you pronounce that? I think it's definitive.

I think Trump is correct. I think the Heritage Foundation is correct. It doesn't matter, my friends. It literally does not matter. These people do not care about what is true, correct and sound. They care about winning. So I ask you this, my friends.

What argument need you? Honest question. What do I need to say to you? Do I need to say, look, it appears that Joe Biden wasn't in the United States at the time when the clemency was granted and it's supposed to be a wet signature from the president himself. And these are not digital registry. These were literally when the president was not in the country. Why? Why am I arguing that to you? You don't care. No, I don't mean to be a dick or anything, but you don't need to have that argument because we see it. We get it.

The left media matters. The corporate press are arguing Trump is trying to void the pardons. You can't void something that's not legitimate. And here we are. No matter what argument I give to these people, no matter what I say about, wow, there's an argument as to why the president must sign personally a clemency because only only the president can do this.

Whereas certain documents, memos or otherwise, it's the president, but arguably someone else has the authority to push forward memos or whatever. When it comes to acts of Congress, the president must sign it when it comes to signing bills and legislation. When it comes to pardons, the president has to sign it because only he can do that. Autopen can't be used for that. Okay.

I get it. I get it. So auto pen, I think, is horrifying and wrong, but it's OK because it's not for executive singular executive authorities. It's for like if there's somebody who works in the White House who has the authority to do a thing and the president agrees with it, they'll affix the president's signature using a machine because it's not a sole executive authority. OK, makes sense. That's the argument. Well, clemency is signing legislation is.

So we can see here from the Heritage Foundation, they say Biden family pardoned Dr. Fauci pardoned. This is this is media matters, by the way, saying it's all fake news titled How Heritage and MAGA Crafted Trump's Autopen Attack. They will say anything. I will leave you with simply this. First, do you accept and comment? Comment. Let me know what you think. Honest question. Do you accept that any president, no matter who they are, can have a machine sign documents for them? First question.

If the answer to that question is in some circumstances, yes. OK, do you believe any president should be allowed to use an auto pen to sign clemency, pardons or legislation? OK, you're probably going to say no, because we want to know that the president is the one who actually signed these. And if that is the case, then we are looking at what appears to be

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, considering Joe Biden was not in the country, he did not sign these documents. Nothing else matters. If you come to me right now and say everybody's auto pen, I'm like, wow, we should stop everybody from having done that. We should stop every president who did. OK, most of them are dead. Fine. Who's left? Trump. He's the president. No more auto pen. No more auto pen. Trump. Trump, you wanted to bring this up with Heritage Foundation. I'm shocked that you would have ever done this. And I say no.

No to any of this. Take a look at this. They say the Heritage Foundation and MAGA laid the groundwork for Trump's unprecedented and lawless overnight claim that he's invalidating the pardons of Joe Biden's issue to the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Trump is not invalidating anything. He's questioning whether they actually exist. You see, there's a difference. They're trying to argue that Biden issued a pardon. And then Trump came out and said, those pardons, I am removing his authority. No, that's not happening. He's saying, I want proof Joe Biden actually signed these. Apparently in the past, as I've already shown you, Biden was not in the country when certain things were signed.

They're going to mention saying Trump responded hours later by proving Biden correct, promising action for the J6 hostages while denouncing Biden's pardon of the unselect committee. He moved quickly to fulfill his promise to the January 6th defendants. He pardoned them. But Trump waited until after a minute on Monday to reopen his attack on the January 6th committee. Blah, blah, blah. They then have Trump's quote where he says Joe Biden did not sign them. But more importantly, he didn't know anything about them.

They say that's not how any of this works, as NBC News made clear in its report on Trump's posting. They say the U.S. Constitution makes clear the president has unique executive powers to issue pardons and makes no provision for subsequent presidents to rescind them for issues relating to the choice of pen or anything else. Full stop. Once again, you see how they're obfuscating. I'm playing games here. Trump is not saying he chose a feather pen, a quill.

He's not saying he chose to use a one of those pens where you turn upside down, the one's clothes come off. He's saying he's saying Biden didn't sign them. He wasn't in the country. He wasn't here. He didn't even know about him. NBC News is trying to argue that Trump is rescinding pardons for issues relating to the choice of pen. No, an auto pen machine is not your choice of pen. It's it's it's you not signing it. They're going to mention it.

Biden Obama both used auto pen devices to sign official documents, a practice which is legally binding, according to 2005 guidance from the Office of Legal Counsel. The president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing a signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign an order for the bill to become law. The office said, and this includes the use of auto pen. OK, I'll say this. What's the Supreme Court's ruling on auto pen?

Honest question. Let's let's let's let's take a has SCOTUS ruled on the use of auto pen? Let's ask our robot friend. And if they have, then I'll say, well, Trump's wrong on this one. As of now, the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a ruling addressing the use of an auto pen for signing official documents. However, the DOJ has previously opined the president may use an auto pen to sign legislation. Well, here we are, my friends. We're at an impasse, an impasse that Democrats should have recognized.

They're going to make the argument that a president need not actually be in the room and a machine can sign for him. I think that is ludicrous.

Restrictions apply. See terms and conditions at KLM.com. Donald Trump is not making the argument. You can't do that. OK, so here's what's going to happen. It's bad news for Democrats. The risk now on Democrats is that this claim as Trump will make a move against assuming Trump or maybe it's Bongino, assuming they make a move against J6 committee members or Fauci, these individuals will undoubtedly cite their pardons.

Trump will respond by saying these were signed by an auto pen, and we challenge whether Biden actually signed them or not. The question will then arise as to whether or not it was auto pen, which it appears to be. They can choose to let's say it's true. Biden signed them and they come out and they assert Biden did sign these by hand. Trump will argue they'll show side by sides and we'll see if the court believes him. If it was auto pen, maybe they lie and say it was by hand. I swear. Once again, same scenario.

Or they come out and admit that this is auto pen, auto pens allowed. The Supreme Court ultimately will have to issue a ruling as to whether or not a president can president can abdicate his responsibility of his official signature to literally anyone else. Because do you think Biden, Trump, Obama, whoever else is sitting at the auto pen and they slide the paper under there and press go and then stand there? No, they just sign it. They just issue their signature.

So clearly, Autopen is someone else pressing the button. Why would we allow this? Trump MAGA allies built this case that Biden's pardons were void. The Heritage Foundation, a MAGA think tank that created the Project 2020 framework, saying we gather every document we could find with Biden's signature over the course of his presidency, all use the same Autopen signature, except for the announcement that the former president was dropping out of the race last year.

Trump's media allies jumped on the report and immediately began suggesting that Biden's J6 committee pardons might be invalid. Indeed, they say Jesse Waters primetime the following hour. Trump count counselor Elena Habba picked up the story so that Biden evidently signed everything with an auto signature. When Waters later suggested Biden should have handed out more preemptive pardons to prevent Trump's DOJ for investigating his political foes, she suggested that Biden's pardons were void. I wonder if those were auto signed as well, because I would challenge the validity of it. Heritage President Kevin Roberts joined Newsmax, blah, blah. We get it.

So, OK, heritage. Interesting. Now I throw to media matters. Nowhere in this did you refute anything they said. The argument stands. Did Joe Biden actually issue these pardons? We don't know. And that's their own fault. You can argue that that's fine. You can say this. We hereby believe that auto pen is totally legal. Let's say Supreme Court comes back and says auto pens always allowed. OK, Jake Tapper wrote a book saying that Biden's cognitive decline was covered up.

Could then one argue that the president was in a state of mental decline or impairment and was unable to consent to these pardons? Things are going to get interesting because it doesn't matter what you want to be true. It doesn't matter what is true. It matters who's got the power and what someone is willing to argue.

The left will argue no matter what, tooth and nail, that they're going to be right no matter what. And the right will as well. So all that matters is the exercise of power. We'll see. I'll wrap it up there. We got more segments coming up. Stay tuned. Don't forget, we'll be live at noon. Thanks for hanging out. And we will see you all in the in the live show. A viral debate moment. Sam Seder on Surrounded, the Jubilee show where they bring on individuals of particular political persuasion, surround them by people of the opposing persuasion, and then have them debate a variety of people.

I know people love this. I'm not a fan of any of it. I don't. I watched a few of them. I don't watch them now because I don't like talking point five minute sound bites. I like in-depth conversation. You know, the reason why we don't do Timcast IRL over Zoom is largely because you can't have a raw, honest conversation.

Every Internet conversation always is just A, then B, then C, then D. Whereas opposed with actual in-person, as you can see with this viral moment where Sam Seder was obliterated by Eleazar Perez, there's an opportunity to interrupt and advance in ways that can get at the core of issues. The only issue I take for the most part.

Which you believe they only give the guy a few minutes. What we need is a much longer conversation. And we find something particularly interesting for which I would like to address. The first thing I'd like to say is, for those that have not seen this, this is Eleazar Perez, who believes in, I would just say, theistic moral foundations as a basis for society. Hope I'm not getting his viewpoint wrong. We had him on Tim Castile all the other night. And Sam Seder, who doesn't have a moral philosophy at all.

I am not saying that to insult Sam Seder. Calm down, liberals. There are moral philosophies that you could ask someone, do you ascribe to this belief system, this belief system? Or if none of those, is there an amalgam or something unique? How would you describe it? Sam Seder hasn't one. He doesn't have one. If you were to ask me,

I'd say I take a strongly deontological approach, which I say strongly because I don't know that there's an absolute in terms of how we handle morals and ethics in society. I do believe that we can take a look at moral foundations, which largely are overlapping with religions, not completely, but typically. And I would argue that the Christian moral foundation has created a better world than any other moral foundation. Case in point, Sam Seder exists beneath the

the creations of this Christian moral society. So if you're a liberal who lives in this country and you say, I disagree, Christianity is wrong. Congratulations, you are an outpouring of quite literally Christian moral foundation. Now, you may argue that you reject much of its tenets. You don't believe in organized religion. Your ideas and worldview does not exist in communist China or or in Islamic Qatar.

They don't exist. The worldviews that you've developed, classical liberalism emerged out of Christian moral tradition. That is the point. Now, you may argue that you have a new moral tradition, something else. And I simply would say, describe that to me where you view your morals as coming from. They don't come from God. I'm not saying that. What is your view? Where should society go? What is the purpose of all that we do?

Now, it all stems back to religion, because these are great questions that are difficult to answer in this viral moment, which I I'm going to say it again, guys. The problem with these these Jubilee shows, very entertaining. I you know, it's not bad. And I know people were letting a lot of views. I don't know that much is served by these snippets, because what we needed between Sam Seder and Eliezer Perez is probably two hours, right?

However, I would at least admit this. Sam Seder is not a man who has any intention of actually answering questions or understanding them. So let me say I'm going to show you the clip from the show where it breaks down the inability of Sam Seder to truly understand. And I will start by saying this. Eight years ago, I think it was seven years ago. I've known Sam going back to 2012 or whatever. In fact, Sam Seder is the first person to ever in media praise me.

When I first got my start during Occupy Wall Street, Sam Seder famously on his radio show, whatever it was, was praising I as well as another guy that I worked with. That was the first time I ever got any recognition in media. So thank you, Sam. Known him since then. And as I have sought to understand, as I always have my whole life.

the world around me, I eventually found myself in a position where Sam wasn't actually, as someone I knew, trying to better understand the world as a liberal personality and solve for its problems. Instead, he seems to adhere to moral collectivism, which is what I describe as wokeness. It's one of the easiest ways to understand what wokeness is. Many people try to debate what wokeness is, and I tell you my view is it is cult-like adherence to liberal orthodoxy.

That is to say, moral collectivism. The left has an idea of what they deem to be true and right, and it could change tomorrow. So long as the collective says so, it is. That is a horrifying prospect because it means that actions taken today that are justified by the crowd of the moral collectivist could be condemned tomorrow by the same group. And we've seen it with Sarah Silverman losing a movie role because 15 years ago she did Blackface.

That is the horrors of more collectivism, at least in my opinion. Now, before I play this clip, I do want to say one thing. Again, going back about seven or eight years, I had a conversation. I'm like saying debate because I'm like, tell me who you are. Sam Seder at the time had a famous viral moment. It was both viral on the left and the right for different reasons. One, because the left is a bunch of low IQ individuals who think that anonymous is an actual group that exists. They don't understand the word anonymous means anonymous, but I'm just I'm just kind of insulting them at this point. So.

I was having a discussion about universal health care, to which I said, I suppose the arguments you're making are utilitarian versus deontological moral ethics, to which Sam responded. I don't know what that means. I don't know what that is. I said, OK, fine.

Um, how do I explain to a man of lesser knowledge? Guys, calm down. I'm not insulting him. He quite literally did not know a thing I knew. He has less knowledge on the issue than I do. So how do I relate that to him? Well, you notice I often like to use analogies to explain things, try to put people in a circumstance where they might be familiar with that and attach an emotion to it. It's a sales technique. So I said, okay, uh, Thanos, right? Right.

Thanos in Avengers Infinity War says, I will wipe out half of the universal population of life so the other half can flourish. That's utilitarianism. It is Spock. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Captain America represents deontological moral ethics. The duty and responsibility of the individual, regardless of consequence. We don't trade lives. We must adhere to our moral principles. By any means, we do not engage in those tactics.

The response on the left was to how will it like monkeys bang on the table saying Tim is so dumb. Why is he talking about Thanos?

And those that understood basic high school level moral philosophy and ethics were like, I didn't even need the analogy in the first place. So this moment went viral on two fronts with the right being, holy crap, Sam Seder doesn't know basic moral philosophy. How old is this guy? How is he a pundit arguing for what is or should not be in civics and law? And he doesn't even know literally philosophy 101. That's not even fair. 101 implies college.

And the left said, holy crap, Tim Pool is trying to make weird arguments about the X-Men and Avengers because he's and he can't even address politics. But I think that shows the distinction. By all means, the left wants to hoot and holler. What you need to understand about a man like Sam Seder is he does not understand concepts in moral philosophy. He does not understand greater questions. He is a low ordered thinker. Again, I'm not trying to insult him, but that is the truth. Let me play the clip for you so you can get some context here.

And we have this article from this is from The Federalist. The era of presuming liberal moral superiority is over. And they go to mention that kids have figured out that America's failing liberal institutions have left them surrounded by a harmful cultural and political order that can't justify itself. Worse off, Gen Z has finally discovered their lives are being ruined by an ethos of gluttony and moral collectivism.

Young people who were told it's OK to pull pranks on the Internet later found themselves being kicked out of sporting teams, kicked off sporting teams. You had kids who were told everybody makes jokes online. Go ahead and make jokes. And then five years later, they were suspended from school because someone found their old posts on Facebook.

They were like, but I was just doing what literally everybody else was doing. Welcome to moral collectivism. And you know what they're saying? F you. You told me it was OK. So I said I will do what I see you do. And then you came back and punished me for it. Yeah. Communism much, huh?

They have the clip in question. Let's take a look. Charlie Kirk says the dude just obliterated Samson. Hey, it's nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. OK, so I would like to touch on the religious fundamentalist aspect. Are you an atheist? I'm a reformed Jew. I don't I am I. I don't have a strong belief in the existence of God, but I'm going to pause real quick and just make sure you guys understand as he's getting started. There are jump cuts. They edit for time. Eliezer pointed out yesterday that

He actually stuttered and stammered and paused quite a bit, but they edit it down. There you go. That's why I don't like these Jubilee things. I don't think that religion in and of itself is bad.

Okay, so what's wrong with religious fundamentalists? So like when you said trans rights and women's rights or something like that? Well, the problem I have with religious fundamentalists, and really more, I guess, it's really theocrats, is that they want to impose their morality that comes from their religion on the rest of us. But morality, from your view, is going to be a preference, right? It's not morality, it's a preference? Yes.

So, morality without a foundation is going to reduce you to a preference. Well, I have a foundation for my morality. Which is what? It's a humanist vision of what basically creates as little suffering as possible for as many people. Okay, so you're like a consequentialist? Utilitarian? I don't really bother myself with being a consequentialist or a utilitarian. Sam Seder is so stupid!

This dude had almost 10 years to Google utilitarianism. I am gloating, my friends. Look.

I talked to this guy eight years ago. Was it seven years ago? Whatever. And I asked him if he was a utilitarian or a deontological worldview. And the dude didn't know what it meant. And in all of this time, Sam Seder is so stupid. He didn't Google it. Y'all are getting your morals and worldviews from a guy who's never used Google one time in seven years to understand a question I asked him. Oh, my God.

I am embarrassed for people who watch his show. First of all, the guy's got an unhealthy obsession with me. So congratulations, Sam. You're getting I'm addressing you as you so hope you so hope and beg for. That was embarrassing.

Absolutely embarrassing. A humanist vision. Sam doesn't understand at all what morals are, where they come from, why he does the thing he does. If you watch his show, it is literally emotional reaction of moral collectivism, meaning single order thinking, meaning he is an impulsive reactor. As a human being, it is the most

Reductive rudimentary structure of human mind. Animals are impulsive, reactionary. Sam, that's all he is. He's never stopped. I can't believe this. I mean, I can. The man in seven years did not stop one time, one time.

one time to consider the root of why he feels the way he does. He cannot look within himself and question his own existence. They do tests where they put monkeys in front of mirrors and put stickers on their forehead. And then they're like, does the monkey recognize that it exists and it's seeing itself? And if the monkey pulls the sticker off, they're like, heavens me, the monkey considered its own existence. But for a fleeting moment, Sam hasn't

hasn't done that once. Holy crap. It's going to reduce you to a preference. So if you say that killing is wrong and I say it's right, you would really have no contention with that. Well, no, I don't base my understanding of civil society on religion. And so we have a civil society. We have laws that we have decided as a society in a democratic way.

And for some people, it's okay for it to be informed by their religion. That's okay. Perfect. So if tomorrow society comes together and we say, hey, trans folks don't deserve rights, you would be okay with that? No, I would be against it. But I mean, it would be... It would be morally right under your view. Not morally right. No, no, no. I'm not talking about morals here. Okay, so here's where I'm getting to, right? He doesn't know what morals means.

Religious foundations provide an ethical framework for one to live their life off of. I believe you can have an ethical framework without religion. And if we take the leftist view to its logical tail end, to its extreme view, you have low reproductive birth rates, you have a reproductive dead end, so...

two men together can't reproduce unless they have to take from a healthy straight couple religion provides this foundation where you do prioritize the nuclear family so do you have a problem with gay people being married it's not that I have a problem I just don't see a justification for why they ought to be gay outside of it just feels good can you give me another justification for it well I think maybe that's the way they were born okay what about pedophiles are they born that way

They may be, yeah. Okay, so should we let a pedophile off the hook since they are born that way? No, I think we as a society should implement duties to prevent them from acting on that innate urge, correct? Well, I think between consenting adults, it's a different thing than... Okay, so you're okay with a 45-year-old dad with a 19-year-old daughter as well? Incest.

No. If they consent, you're okay with that? No, I think society has also determined that it's not beneficial. Right, there's duties and obligations that we have. So religion provides... Not beneficial. Listen, these are questions that I asked myself when I was 16 years old. I grew up Catholic. I felt that the school and the church that I went to provided with no answers. But there were so many...

And I sought those answers, first becoming an atheist for probably four or five years. But I don't know if I was actually ever an atheist because I didn't really understand much. And then around 18, a formative moment, I said, I think I understand there is a God. And I've talked quite a bit about this. But when he says...

Society has determined society has determined or that there's no benefit to incest. He's starting to understand obligation and duties as if he just see seeing a crack in the bottom of the door. What Eliezer is pointing out, what does a gay couple accomplish? They can't have kids unless they use surrogacy.

The things the left prescribes and says is morally good results in dead, a dead end socially, culturally and biologically. Those duties. Life isn't about freedom and exercising what you want. I mean, well, you want to impose your religious doctrine. No, because you just admitted we need duties. We need we have responsibility as a society to keep us functioning, to keep us thriving. Your leftist view, the liberal view doesn't provide anything besides it just makes me feel good. Religion does. So what's your argument?

And he is completely correct. Eliezer says, why not then a 45-year-old dad with his 19-year-old daughter? And he says, no, society finds that it is not beneficial. Okay, if it's not beneficial to society, not even a detriment to society, Sam Seder argued against it. What

What we're really seeing is Sam has never even thought about these things. In fact, in an interview he gave to Vulture, they actually asked him to address this. Now, to all of my friends who are devout Christian religious folks, I think you are missing the secular, philosophical, classically liberal or otherwise angle to this. And when it's approached as saying...

Sam doesn't understand Christianity fundamentally, blah, blah, blah. He is simply using that going to his audience saying, see, they want to impose their religion. It's a meaningless nonsense statement because anybody who understands moral philosophy knows that religion is just a faith based moral structure, a moral tradition, we call it.

And there are other non-theistic moral traditions. And there are today, as we have seen, the non-theistic religion, we call it, of wokeness. That is social orthodoxy of the liberals, the moral collective, what they deem to be correct. It exists outside of conservatives, the right, because the right has a Christian moral framework. The emergence of the culture war, in my view, has many factors within it.

Some people, as we have to mention, it's libertarian, authoritarian, it's nationalist, it's globalist, whatever. I don't know that anyone actually describes it. But I would say it is the Christian moral framework versus a neo-secularist or whatever you want to call it, an emergent moral framework that has no nucleus. I'll explain a little bit more and give a breakdown. But let me read this passage from the interview Sam did following his Jubilee interview. They write or I say they asked Sam, what went through your mind?

When you came to the realization, what went through your mind, you came to the realization that what was that what that was what was happening. Come on, guy, because you had to juggle that alongside debating people, debating people simply believed in objectively false statements. OK, I think there's a lot of typos in that question, but I'm not surprised coming from Vulture.

Sam says it was exhausting and the people they cut out were even more, shall we say, off topic. With the people who don't know the facts, I knew it was going to be helpful just to impeach their perspective. With the theocrat and the white nationalist, I felt like I didn't have to do much of the work here. I'm going to let them espouse their agenda and allow the audience to decide if that's the vision of America they want. And there it is.

When you don't understand why you exist, like a dog, right? I like dogs. Dogs are great. I'm not insulting someone by saying like, I'm saying dogs also don't contemplate their existence for the most part, as much as we can tell. You only have a reaction of, don't make me do a thing me no like. Me no like, me growl.

Whereas human beings, or I should say those of higher ordered thinking, would say, why do I do what I do? Why do I exist? For what is the purpose of life? What is the function of life? What does life do? Is it math? Is the logos of the universe? Does it dictate? Do we have free will? I must ask these questions and understand these deep, I guess, philosophical questions. Sam Seder can't do that. He lacks the perspicacity. So he simply says, I'm going to let them do the work.

Okay. Well, Eliezer asked for what is the purpose of society? Well, as much as Sam doesn't know that he could only parrot things he may have heard on the TV. So he says things like when it comes to incest, it's not beneficial to society or society has determined. But the question is, why does society determine? Evolutionary psychology plays a huge role in the functions of human beings and biology does as well. And as Eliezer points out,

Certainly there will be deviations in society. I believe the existence of liberalism, as we colloquially call it today, despite the fact that it's not really liberalism, exists as a function of mutation of psychology. Evolutionary psychology would suggest that

There needs to be strong deviation in any biological entity and structure and society. This is mutation. I would argue that the leftist orthodoxy is a mutation. Now, sometimes mutations are beneficial and sometimes they're not. An organism that mutates in such a way that causes it problems like it only has one leg won't survive. But eventually there's a mutation that becomes beneficial. These allow for leaps in evolution.

Eventually, a creature has instead of flippers, little bony nubs. But now it can actually move itself slightly off of the shore, whereas fish before would get stuck, beached and die. This one mutant might not swim very well, but when it goes to the shore, it's able to actually go along the water. And when the water recedes, it doesn't die right away because it can flop itself back into the water. That's a mutation that seemingly would be detrimental, but ultimately is beneficial.

As with leftism, we see a mutation from society, the traditional Christian moral ethos, and we are left with something that likely will not survive. They're not having children. They're not producing. They're not reproducing. It is not constructive. It is not advanced societal knowledge or scientific knowledge. In the end, it is a bunch of people who simply flock together like a murmuration of birds without rhyme or reason. That is what Sam Sita represents.

I don't fault him for not having the cognitive capabilities to Google search things like solipsism or deontology or even to look up the root words of such things. If you can't do it and your brain doesn't work that way, some people just won't have that ability. Some people are going to be smarter. Some people are going to be more arrogant, but twice as stupid. Sam Seder goes on. With a theocrat, it took me a while to understand what he was actually saying in terms of what he was probably in terms.

Of he was probably espousing society where women are subjugated by men, where trans people don't exist, where marriage rights are not extended to anyone but heterosexual couples. If I had to do it again, I would have attempted to realize that first and then just let him espouse how he envisions America instead of fighting him so hard. Because from my perspective, I do think there is a majority of people in this country and even a significant chunk of Trump voters who don't want that.

This is ultimately, as I described, his only reaction is let the man actually describe his positions for I have no answer to them. And people don't like what he say. Well, I got to tell you, those of duty, those who built the modern world, and this goes to any moral tradition, communist China, for instance, there are those who are willing to make sacrifices that others are not. Some of these are I would describe as evil, but in some cultures, they don't think so.

You know, the Soviets and the communists in China, they'd massacre tens of millions. The Nazis would murder millions. Why? Because they have a psychotic and deranged worldview where they think it is OK to destroy so many. I don't agree. My morals are built off of a combination of Christian moral tradition, though I'm not a Christian, but I've seen the the the logos, the logic of

in what it has produced. And then I take a look to science and our basic understanding of physics. And I say, well, there's a reason why we protect life at all costs or to the best of our ability, though it's not so nuanced. And that is life is negative entropy. This is what life does. Life creates life, organizes. Now it organizes in combat to entropy, which destroys on the path to pure order.

It certainly is a paradoxical universe, is it not? The heat death of the universe would be perfect order. Every electron, every particle equally spaced out across an endless cosmos. But in the meantime, it is disarray. Entropy simply destroys what exists before us. And entropy, life, negative entropy, the coming together of mass and matter, resists, though only in the context that more entropy is created. Truly a remarkable structure. They want to say,

But it's another risky thing to do, to sit back and say, I'll let them hang themselves, because we do have a resulting situation where clips from this video then go out into the Internet and right wing commentators like Matt Walsh say, look at this guy destroying Sam Cedar. And here I am. My point with all of this, though, is to point out to so many young people, do not abide by a man who has not thought these questions, for he will lead you to the path of ruin. You will suffer. You will be lost and you will find yourself old questioning what you have done with your life.

The man who comes before you and says, do pushups, get fit, be healthy, take care of your legs, take care of your arms, take care of your teeth. They will bestow upon you a better life. You will find yourself at 30 years old, the beautiful family with a smile on your face, with health and abundance. For which would you prefer? Would you prefer loneliness, squalor, listlessness? I don't know who would, but perhaps to many of these people.

They'd much prefer just to do drugs and stimulate themselves to death. Well, here we go. Cedar responds because this guy did, to use your words, hang himself. And when Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles or any of these commentators embrace that guy, it exposes them. Chris Rufo tweeted out that I don't know about Foucault or I don't know how to address Christian Apologia. And

And from my perspective, I don't care. He's making this academic argument when my argument is, what are the implications of this? They may think amongst themselves they have a rational explanation for why the Bible should supplant the Constitution. But I'm betting the majority of the public who watch these things don't want to live in a world where gay people are ostracized or women are subjugated. That's my calculation. And now he's playing a game for which he's trying to adapt the situation to apply to those who can't understand it.

Well, I will say to those that are responding, saying he doesn't understand Christianity. I don't care. I don't care about the religion question or the religion. I care about the philosophy. Sam kept saying, I don't want you to impose your religion. OK, fine. Me, I don't have one. I don't follow a Christian theistic tradition. I do believe, as I've long said, in the Christian moral tradition, which has informed the Constitution, Blackstone's formulation, et cetera, being one of the best examples.

My argument to Sam is, where do you get your morals from? He doesn't know. That's what Eliezer asked as well. It would just be a preference. He simply says society dictates. But society dictates wrong sometimes. We know this is a fact. Racism persisted for a long time. So why would Sam Seder say society has determined it's of no benefit? During the period of slavery, society determined that slavery had a benefit. And then certain technologies and social innovations and revolutions occurred in which the structures fell apart.

So, no, society saying something is or is not beneficial does not dictate whether something should or should not be moral. But I don't disagree in a certain sense that Sam Seder is right. Society has largely functioned that way for a long time. It is only those of strong moral conviction have resisted, which has made these changes.

He says, in any case, people like Matt Walsh work to obfuscate the things that are at the heart of the political agenda. And by embracing somebody who is so explicit about it, it should cause their audience to realize what is at the heart of their agenda. I haven't spent too much time noodling around, but somebody sent me Michael Knoll's video response. And looking through his comment section on YouTube, there are people saying, what are you talking about? Which

Which is for me, is the goal I had going into this. You might not peel off the majority of his audience. You might not even peel out a substantial chunk. But if you get some percentage of people greater than 0% to look at this guy with more jaundiced eye, you might amount to something. I completely agree, Sam, which is why I'm making this video. My question to all of you who watch this guy is a man who does not seek to understand the world around him. Is he a man you would seek to emulate?

Sam Seder had seven years to Google search deontology or utilitarianism, and he didn't. He had no interest in understanding the world around him. Now, for many of you, you may simply say, why should I care?

Perhaps you're a nihilist. By all means, an agent of entropy is so you choose to be for we have free will. OK, do so with my blessing. If you want to be Chelsea Handler, where you wake up at 50 some odd years old at six in the morning, do drugs and masturbate. By all means, that's your prerogative.

But I will leave you with this. Ask yourself of the world that Sam Seder has provided for you. He doesn't understand the deep moral and philosophical questions. He doesn't understand the nature of science and the world around him. He simply says society dictates. Does

Does society dictate a world in which you will achieve your dreams and accomplish what you want? Maybe for some of you it does. But for many people, there are deeper questions. And the question will be, as you lie there on your deathbed, reminiscing and reliving your past experiences, what will you think to yourself? There are many sayings in this regard. People say no one on their deathbed ever said, I wish I worked more. They tend to say things like, I wish I had more family or I spent more time with my kids. Why does that trope exist?

For these people that tell you a society in which people don't have children, women are in the workplace instead of raising families. I'm not saying all women should be raising families. Women are. I'm not a Christian theist who believes women should be at home. I'm saying in that world where men and women are not enjoying traditional lives with freedoms, of course, what is the end result? So I ask you this to look at yourself. For those of you that are.

I don't know. I would say out of shape. Do you feel good about it? For those of you that have not accomplished your goals, do you feel good about it? Don't give me this. How dare you genuinely look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, what do I want and why am I here?

Are you happy that you're overweight or are you just making excuses? Are you the fox who couldn't reach the grapes? Who wants the grapes anyway? They're probably sour. Are you lying to yourself? Perhaps some of you aren't. Perhaps you're like, I genuinely do not care. OK, that's totally fine. My question is for those who think long term and and want to understand what is the point of being alive? How many of you have given up and said there clearly is no purpose? There is no point.

Some of you have looked at those of religious faith and said, you poor, poor souls. You've simply ascribed a belief structure to yourselves because you're so desperate for purpose. But this is what I find in nihilism. And if you don't know that it is, Google it. While so many people say, if nothing matters, I can do, then what's the point of doing anything? I say quite the inverse. If nothing matters, what's stopping you from doing whatever you want?

The rules, the laws, the structures. Well, certainly if you want to do evil, good luck. I recommend not. But for anybody else out there who says, I want to climb the top of the, I want to climb Everest. I want to base jump the tallest building. I want to be the greatest there ever was. I want to catch all the Pokemon, whatever it is. What's stopping you? If nothing matters, what's holding you back?

People like Sam Seder don't ask these deep questions. And the evidence is in the fact that the man still, after nearly a decade, cannot answer a basic question of whether he's a consequentialist or has a deontological framework. Does he believe in duty? Apparently he does sometimes, but he really doesn't understand these questions because he's never actually cared to read it. Why follow a guy who doesn't care in the first place? Is he going to provide for you a path towards a better life? So I say this. I want you to think right now about what you will do

As you lie injured in the hospital awaiting death. Imagine this. I want you to actually imagine this. You are lying in a hospital room. You are alone. Your heart is racing and you don't know if you're going to live or die. I want you to imagine that because for those who have the ability to empathize and try to empathy, of course, trying to imagine what someone else may be feeling.

It is a horrifying scenario. For those of you that actually have been in a hospital alone with no one to call, you know exactly what this is. It is torture as hell. It is terrifying. Now imagine yourself at 75 years old. You're sitting in a hospital bed. The lights are low. Sun is coming through the windows and a doctor enters the room and says, I'm sorry, but it is terminal. Is there someone you'd like me to call? No. Well, press the button if you need us. And they walk out of the room. How will that feel? I wonder.

I'd also like you to imagine that feeling you got when grandma made you a batch of chocolate chip cookies, if she did. I never had anything like that, but some people did. I want you to imagine what it was like when you got into trouble and your parents came and rescued you. I want you to imagine any warm feeling you have of family. And now imagine you are lying there in bed, dying, and the doctor says, I'm sorry, it's terminal. I'm going to send in your family if it's all right now.

And in come your brothers, your sisters, your children, your grandchildren. And they look you in the eyes and say, I love you. And you have given me the greatest life anyone could ever have hoped for. Thank you so much for everything. One moral worldview prescribes that scenario and another prescribes the latter. I'm sorry, the former.

Do you want to be lying in bed terrified, thinking that nothing matters? Perhaps there are some that would argue, but it's it's it's relief. There's nothing to fear if nothing matters. But I know and you know that you will be terrified because, as they say, there's no atheists in a foxhole. Now, why is that?

Some atheists argue that's ridiculous. How dare you? Because it's not absolute. But it is an interesting question. Why is it that even in our darkest moments, those of us who don't believe are still willing to at least entertain the possibility? Because we're scared and we want help. We're social beings. And even if there is no God, we want someone to come and help us. So even then, everyone knows for all humans, it's preferable to be lying there

When your family comes in to hold your hand and say thank you. Because you know you're leaving, but you know you've done your best. And it feels good. And you know what the truth is? If it didn't feel good, humans would not exist. Humanity exists and perseveres because we strive for these feelings. We fight every day for family. And that's why we value them. If we didn't, we would just go extinct. And that is the moral worldview of Sam Seder. That's what he gives you.

He doesn't know why he thinks the things he does. It just feels good. That's the world he wants to live in. And these people will grow old and some will have different degrees of family. Not saying everyone's going to be barren and alone. Even gay couples can have kids to varying degrees. Not, you know, not with each other, of course. But there are ways they can have biological children through surrogacy and things like this. So it's not absolute that you're just there by yourself dying.

But you certainly will not have the apex of what humans have fought so much for. The last thing I'll give you is this. People like Sam Seder genuinely can't understand orders of thinking. And that is, I recommend you look up these various, I guess, research papers on the orders of thinking. Reactionary and impulsive individuals. They don't care to think deeply. They don't know why they think what they do. Non-player characters, I guess.

I can give you a rudimentary exercise in helping you be a stronger and better person and smarter person. Not everybody can be the smartest person because there are limitations on our biology. That's just who we are. But the first thing you should recognize is this. In any situation, you should be cognizant of the first person. How do I feel about this? Genuinely ask yourself that. It's remarkable to say that people like Sam do not. They don't ask themselves these questions.

And it seems so simple. You're sitting across the table on a date and you think to yourself, how do I feel right now? Because so many people lie to themselves and that's how they find themselves in jobs and lives they do not like. And then one day they wake up and say, I hate this. I'm miserable. Well, did you ever stop to think about what you really felt in any of these moments or were you on autopilot? The next thing you must entertain is the second person. So this is twofold.

The person sitting across from you, how must they feel? How do you think they feel about the actions you take? And are you acting in such a way that would be a warm feeling, a negative feeling? Did you ever stop to think about how you act and what they want? Simple, right?

Outside of this, additionally, is the people sitting around you, because it's not just two people. The second person is the people around you and their experiences. It's not just the person sitting across from you, but the person you don't know at the other table looking at you. What are they thinking? Why do they think the things they do? What must they want or feel? Not the most important questions in the immediate, but important nonetheless that you stop to consider these things.

Simple reason could be maybe that's a burglar and he's going to rob the liquor store. Were you paying attention to what he was doing and how he was behaving? Do you ever ask yourself these questions? And lastly, is the third person in the grand scheme of things as you sit there talking to this individual, how does it play in to the greater of human society and existence?

You should be aware of these things. Maybe you're like, I don't even know how to begin to think that stuff. That's fine. Do you? But I tell you, these are the basic questions you can ask yourself to elevate yourself beyond first ordered thinking. So you don't end up like a vapid ignoramus like Sam Seder, who after a decade couldn't Google search this a single philosophical concept such as consequentialism. Do you want to live in a world where a man comes to you and says you are to be sacrificed and don't matter?

Or do you want to live in a world where a man says, I don't know you, but it is my duty to save you? I think it's fairly obvious. And then you'll ask yourself, why does this man behave this way? Why does he want what he wants? For people who would say you must be sacrificed for the greater good. What they want is rooted in ignorance and a lack of understanding in humanity, civilization or otherwise. Hence, you get authoritarian despots who don't succeed. It's why the centralized command economies don't work.

And those who are duty bound to build a better world are those who would plant the trees whose shade they know they will never sit beneath. So to my friends, thank you for listening to this rant. I suppose a lot more to break down in this regard. But I appreciate that Sam Seder went and did this show because he exposes himself. He likes to think that the other other people expose themselves. And, you know, to an extent, most do.

I got to tell you, to all the Christians, when your response is that he doesn't understand Christianity, he's not speaking to people who care about Christianity. He's speaking to people who have a hatred in their hearts and a lack of understanding of moral philosophy. He's trying to rally the NPCs. Now, the man himself doesn't understand these questions, but I suppose he doesn't need to. He's not the only one. This is why we have Trump derangement syndrome and Elon derangement syndrome.

People do not ever stop, for the most part, to ask themselves what someone else must be thinking and why. I can tell you this. That's why I had a debate with Sam Seder and brought him back on the show. To ask him these questions, and you find when you ask him these questions and you truly try to wonder what it is he thinks, there's two potential scenarios. He's intentionally playing the fool, or he genuinely doesn't have the mental capacity. So I'll end by saying this once again. You choose.

I'm sure it feels really good to do drugs and party and wake up late and masturbate. Is that the world you want to live in? And how long will that last for? But ultimately, you decide. Short-term gain, long-term loss, long-term gain, short-term loss, short-term sacrifice, long-term success. It's up to you. Thanks for listening to this, like, what is effectively a podcast anyway. I'm going to wrap it up there. Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. And more segments to come.

Ladies and gentlemen, I must inform you, Disney's Snow White takes woke to a whole new level. I was actually surprised considering they canceled the red carpet. The movie had to be completely redone because at first they had the seven companions instead of the seven dwarves. A clip for the movie has come out and it's basically Rachel Zegler girl bossing. And I'm like, they can't they can't possibly make it worse, can they? They have.

put an entire synopsis trigger warning on the film. I'm actually impressed they went this far. But I do, I gotta say as well, I'm aware that when I do segments on Disney movies and Snow White stuff, woke is so broke, most people don't actually care. But we're here and we're gonna talk about it because this is Snow White, something that matters to us, something from our children that they are beating and bludgeoning to destroy.

Now we have this from Sky News dot com dot au. Diabolical woke messaging in Snow White is slammed. News Corp columnist Louise Roberts has slammed woke messaging in movies as diabolical and encourages films to focus on good storytelling. Disney's Snow White has been slammed by critics for its woke reimagining. This follows a series of scandals and PR nightmares around the movie. Indeed, my friends, take a look at this.

Disney's woke Snow White is slapped with trigger warnings about a, quote, woman deliberately poisoned and, quote, girls surrounded by ominous trees. They have taken it to a whole new level. So I wonder if this is like what we would call a death rattle. Are you familiar with the death rattle? Yeah. When someone dies, they go like make a really awful gurgling noise. And, you know.

Now, this is what woke has has succumbed to. So, of course, the critics are coming out. There's a clip from the movie. They're saying it's actually not that bad. This is my father's kingdom. Oh, it was a place of fairness. But the queen changed everything. Take him away. Your Majesty. What did you say? The people need some kindness. You know, I really don't remember you being this opinionated. Ha ha.

I can't do it. Magic mirror on the wall. Who is the fairest of them all? Famed is thy beauty, majesty. With a lovely maiden I now behold. I look at you and I just want to be the fairest of them all. The queen is evil. You must flee into the woods. I will not be seeing this movie. But here we go. So that was a little bit of the trailer.

Disney's woke Snow White is slapped with trigger warnings. Take a look at this. It's the 200 million pound movie that has been plagued by controversy from replacing dwarf actors with CGI and its lead star panning. Oh, no. Are you kidding me? And its lead star panning the original Disney cartoon for its sexist romance plot. Guys, I didn't even know the controversy doubled up.

Okay, so first, Peter Dinklage is like, you're making a movie with dwarves? How backwards are we? And so they're like, guys, we can't have dwarf actors. Get rid of it. Let's do the seven politically correct companions, for which everybody's already seen the hilarious picture.

Then everybody started making fun of them saying, you are ruining this. Disney realized, guys, we're making money off nostalgia here. We can't have the seven politically correct companions. It's got to be dwarves. So then they said, you know what? Fine. CGI. I didn't realize that.

that what had happened was by getting rid of the little people that were acting in the movie, they caused a secondary controversy. But I am so here for it. I love that Disney is reeling from this because maybe just maybe if y'all didn't act like a bunch of psychopaths and just made good content, you could ignore the woke who don't have money anyway.

They say now Snow White has struck anger, has struck again as trigger warnings, such as a woman is deliberately poisoned. A girl is surrounded by ominous trees have been issued for audiences. The British Board of Film Classification has slapped a hefty list of disclaimers on the live action Disney remake.

The $270 remake of the 1937 classic will debut this week and has been beset by multiple controversies, including reimagining the Seven Dwarfs as a diverse group of magical creatures of all heights, gender, and races.

Less than a week before the film was released, Mail Online can reveal the bizarre trigger warnings issued by the BBFC. Viewers are told, quote, Thanks for letting me know.

A warning that characters drink alcohol briefly at a party has also been issued. And when it comes to violence, it is established, quote, a man is shot in the chest with an arrow. There are also brief sword fights and a woman is deliberately poisoned. Look at this. There you go. What's funny is I doubt Rachel Zegler actually did any kind of reshooting for this scene. They just superimposed her along with the seven dwarf characters, which is offensive, I guess.

This movie is going to flop so miserably. It's kind of it's crazy. They canceled the red carpet. There's a new movie. The new movie musical Wicked adapted from the popular stage show, blah, blah, blah, was hit with a similar level, similar level of trigger warnings. Yeah, but I got to be honest, Wicked was wicked boring. I don't care. Anybody who is like Wicked was actually. No, it wasn't. It was so boring. I turned it off. It made no sense. And it was stupid. A green skinned woman is mocked, bullied, humiliated because of her skin color.

Well, to be fair, my friends, I can't put this one on Disney. This is the fault of the British. My, how the mighty have fallen. You know, at one point, the British had like, I think the French had the biggest global empire. But the British were up there.

The British actually, I'm pretty sure it was the French only because briefly Napoleon had conquered parts of Europe. But I think the British Empire was externally the largest in that kind of amazing. If you think about it like the UK is not that big and they sent all these ships around and they took over so much. And now what are they doing now? They're putting trigger warnings on their content. Their country is falling apart. How miserable.

They go on to say, oh, they have some interesting. They have some commentary. Simon Evans mocked the decision. Trigger warnings are ridiculous and counterproductive at the best of times, dampening excitement, destroying creative dramatic tension and creating a muffled atmosphere appropriate to an HR seminar than more appropriate to an HR seminar than a movie. But with this one, they've really warning comment contains dangerous aquatic threat jumped the shark.

Meanwhile, Ziegler, who stars as Snow White, previously revealed she refused to sing the beloved song Someday My Prince Will Come from the 1937 classic, stating it was weird that the movie focused on Snow White's love story with a guy who literally stalks her. We didn't do that this time. I was scared of the original version. I think I watched it once and never picked it up again, Ziegler told Variety in 2022.

Ziegler said the character is not going to be saved by the prince. She's not going to be dreaming about true love. She's dreaming of becoming the leader she knows she can be when she spoke at the Disney Expo last year. What were these people thinking in choosing this lunatic to headline this movie? Well, I don't know, but that's why they canceled the red carpet. Congratulations. You played yourself. Man, if I was Gal Gadot, I'd be so pissed.

You know, because Gal Gadot, she's great. She's famous. And she's like, I'm going to play the evil queen in this big blockbuster remake. Snow White's the movie that made Disney. It was their big smashing grand slam. She's dreaming of becoming the leader that her late father told her she could be if she was fearless, fair, brave, and true. She later gushed to Variety as her co-star, Gal Gadot, smiled beside her.

Zegler has also criticized David Hand's 1937 original animated film as extremely dated when it comes to ideas of women being in roles of power and admitted she has only seen it once. The original cartoon came out in 1937 and very evidently so. Jeez. I mean, just to have this chick just spitting on the legacy of Disney.

There's a big focus on her love story with a guy who literally stalks her. Weird. So we didn't do it this time. We have a different approach to what I'm sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because we cast a guy in the movie. The guy is Andrew Burnap, plays a man named Jonathan. All of Andrew's scenes could get cut. Who knows? It's Hollywood, baby. Oh my God. Yo, she has burned this movie to the ground.

Sources have claimed the pair have nothing in common, citing their age gap, blah, blah, blah. This is going to be so miserable. Who in their right mind would want to watch this? I feel bad for the people who are like, I love Snow White, and they go to see it, and they're just like, what was that?

According to People magazine, Gal is a mother of four, while Rachel is in a completely different stage of her life. On top of that, their political views differ. Adding to the tension, Israeli born Miskado, who served in the IDF, has publicly supported the release of Israeli hostages, while Ms. Zagler has used her platform to voice support for Palestine amid the conflict in Gaza. This divide has reportedly further fueled. Stop hiring these people. Just shun them. Shun them.

I don't care about the whole Israel debate thing. I'm saying, why would you hire this woman who hates you, who hates everything you are? What is wrong with you? You can find a young woman who can play Snow White and wouldn't take a dump on your legacy. These people have a humiliation fetish. Anyway, they go on to say that she's basically ragged on the film. But by all means, look, I think the film will probably make some money. But I got I got to say my bet.

They're going to lose a lot of money. It is going to burn them up. Well, look, man, you reap what you have sown. Congratulations to Snow White and your woke garbage trigger warnings. I hope you do your thing. As I often say, I don't care if you want to make movies that are garbage woke movies. I ain't going to go watch them. But if people do and you make a billion dollars, well, hey, man, congratulations. I'm glad you did me. Nah, I'm not going to I'm not going to go see these movies. If they did Snow White, oh, gee, I'd have seen it. If they made The Little Mermaid, oh, gee, I'd have seen it.

I'm going to be completely honest with you. When they tried when they cast Halle Bailey, a young black woman as Ariel, but dyed her hair red. I was mortified by the racism. What's it what's what's wrong with having black hair and being a black woman mermaid?

They didn't want to just make the movie. And if they wanted to commit to casting a non-white actress to play Ariel, they didn't need to dye her hair red. And then all the liberals are like, but Ariel is red hair. Yeah, because white, there's some white people with red hair. But if you're making a young black woman, if you're choosing her to play it, just go with it and be the little mermaid. And they didn't. And it flopped. I think they broke even on it, but probably lost in the marketing budget. So whatever.

Bro, if you made Snow White, I need Disney. We make Dumbo. I go see it. Okay. But you know what? I went and saw Aladdin. That was fun. Not nearly as good as the original, but hey, it is what it is. Good luck, man. You do you. I'll leave it there. Stay tuned. We got more segments coming up and we'll see you all shortly. The Daily Beast ran this headline.

Don't tell Melania Trump once offered rising MAGA star his bed. And look at that photo. A scathing Melania looking at Trump. How dare you? These people are evil. Here's the story. Rep Anna Polina Luna was pregnant and Trump said, you can lay down here with your husband. Just don't tell Melania as a passive joke. That's it.

And I'm not going to I'm not going to bear the lead on this one, but I will show you the responses and the facts. Rep. Anna Luna has responded to this. This is what they do. This is and I wonder if they do it on purpose, to be completely honest. Our little secret. The alleged comments cast new light on the president's eyebrow raising marriage to Melania Trump. And then this photo trying to make it look like Melania is furious with Trump. Let me show you the post they made.

The Daily Beast says the new revelations reveal how Trump reportedly offered a female congressman his bed as long as she kept it a secret from his wife. It's a joke. He was kidding. They were there and he's like, you can lay down in this bed. She was pregnant. Take a look at this. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, woman in question, has responded to this and says nothing inappropriate occurred. The situation is being presented out of context. Trump offered her a bed to lie if she needed as she was experiencing pregnancy related issues on Air Force One. I...

Okay, look, I know you know. I know you know. You're watching this video. You know they lie. They've lied about everything. Why? These people are evil. So I tell you this. Share the video. You got friends, you got family that don't believe it, that are liberal. I know. A lot of people say, Tim, even when I show them the proof, they don't want to believe it. Well, one step at a time, I guess. But look at this. Rep Luna says...

I seldom respond to nasty headlines because I don't like giving trash credibility. However, being that there is allegedly a book coming out with me named and attacking POTUS, his marriage, our first lady, and frankly implying something distasteful about me, I'm responding. I was very pregnant and at the time experiencing preeclampsia symptoms, but was not diagnosed.

As soon as Donald Trump boarded the plane, being the gentleman and good person that he is, said, if I did not feel well, I could use the back room. He did this in a respectful way in front of my husband, of which we thanked him. He also assured me that they had a medical team on board in case anything happened. And they were aware of how pregnant I was. They took a moment where the president was being a gentleman to a pregnant woman and tried to turn it into a scandal. That's how evil these people are. Jeez.

She says, this is the most compassionate thing that could have been done at the time. I find it disgusting that the author fails to recognize that. A few weeks later, I was induced because I did have preeclampsia. The author of this book never reached out to me for comment, which means that this book is likely going to be a ish hit piece. If people in POTUS orbit are talking to this author, they need to be cut off immediately. This is gross. How disgusting. Here's the story.

Donald Trump once offered a MAGA newcomer his bed while she was feeling unwell, but told her to keep it a secret from Melania, according to a new bombshell book. The president made the offer aboard his personal jet in 2023 when Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, 35, was pregnant. So why the headline? Why the subhead and why the photo?

If you need a bed to lie down and there's one here on the plane, if you feel sick and you need a light, you can lay on it. Trump reportedly told Luna, just don't tell Melania. She doesn't like other women on my bed. He joked. So hold on there. What's this game you're playing right away? They say he was choking. It's a joke. Can't have if I go to my wife and we had a an RV and there's a bed.

And there was a pregnant woman and her husband. And I'm just like Trump. I said, feel free to lie down. Just don't tell Allison. Allison would laugh. She'd chuckle. It's a joke. There's another woman in my bed. Yeah, it's a pregnant lady and her husband. Sane, rational people don't play these dirty games. But you know what the Daily Beast is doing? They're doing two things. They know most people are going to share this without reading the story. That's the game they play. They know it's going to get them clicks and they don't care what's true.

I'll give a shout out to our friend David Pakman, who ran a headline on YouTube. Donald Trump says Donald Trump threatens to white blue states off the map. It never happened. But this is all these people are. You wonder why they live in a deluded, paranoid state that makes no sense. You're wondering, how can you believe these things that never happened? There's a video proving it never happened because they don't Google things. Man, I did a really long breakdown on Twitter.

The moral worldviews of liberals with that Sam Cedar video. Homie did not Google in seven years the word utilitarian. In fact, maybe it was too big for him to comprehend. Here's a guy who's got a massive channel and it never occurred to him to perhaps Google the word utilitarian. And what's crazy is that, bro, Star Trek has been around for decades, for generations now at this point. Spock said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Classic utilitarianism.

And ain't nothing wrong if that's the worldview you want to have. We just make that argument. Homey didn't even bother to Google it. They don't care. They don't look into these things. They see a headline and they say, that's all that matters. I saw a headline. I didn't read the story. I don't know the context. So this is the game they play. The comments revealed an Axios reporter, Alex Eisenstadt's new book, Revenge, the inside story,

On Trump's return to power, cast new light on the president's eyebrow-raising marriage to Melania Trump. Sheffing hates him. A source close to Trump and his family told Michael Wolff, who last month published another book to delve into Trump's second campaign, All or Nothing, How Trump Recaptured America. I really don't believe that's true. I do not believe that Melania hates Trump because she could leave. Why not? Why not?

Make any sound argument if she hated him. Now, maybe they're a grumpy old couple or whatever. I do not believe Melania hates Donald Trump. I think that's silly.

Maybe there are moments where they argue, as couples do. And maybe there are moments where she is grumpy. It's fine. Maybe there's moments where Trump is short. I'm sure. Sounds like most married couples have arguments. And then someone sees that. And this is what happens. They go to a journalist for access and says, oh, man, she hates him. I saw her looking at him. And then as soon as the fight's over, she's like, I'm sorry, Donald. And he's like, it's OK. It's nothing. These are two. Look, the crazy thing is.

The assumption that you get to the level of Trump by being a buffoon. And this is the game that the Democrats want to play. They say Joe Biden is this is the best version of Joe Biden I've ever seen. And the guy clearly his brain didn't work. And they say Donald Trump's an idiot. And so is Elon Musk. Are you serious? And in your infinite wisdom, you've made how much money in your life? What's your net worth? Well, I have integrity. If I was going to rip people off, shut up, sour grapes. You know, Phil and I had this debate last night.

I argue that these people, these leftists, would abandon all of their stated positions in a heartbeat for cash. Guarantee it. I guarantee that if I went to any one of these reports, any of these news outlets, and I said,

I'll give you $200,000 to come work for me instead. They'd say done in a heartbeat. I guarantee you if I went to a good, like probably 99% of any woke personality and offer them cash done. Now, hold on. Some of these woke personalities make a lot more money than that.

I'm saying go find some like university activist and then be like, we could use someone like you in production. How six figures sound. They'd be like, sign me up, baby. And then instantly they'd be like, you know, I don't even know if socialism makes sense. I mean, I just say, right. Low ordered thinking, no convictions. That's who we're largely dealing with. These people are doing these things because they hate and largely because they're drones. This guy was at Erky Forrester.

Breaking news in turn. You see, he's desperate. This is his path to followers and notoriety. Let me tell you something, guys.

You watch a video of a dude dressing up like a giant banana and punching a clown in the face in the middle of the street. And you ask yourself why they do it. Yes, you see a video of a guy taking two gallons of milk, jumping up on the checkout aisle on the register counter at Walmart, dumping the milk all over him, screaming I'm a big baby boy or whatever, and then slipping and falling.

And you say, why would they do that? Because they want they want you to look at them. They would do anything for fame. Now, if these people exist, don't you think these people in the corporate press do quite literally the exact same thing they do? They just do in a slightly different way. It's going to burn the country to the ground. They're making everything worse. But surprise, surprise. This is the nature of our reality. And it is pure scumbaggery. That's why I left the industry.

You know, I warned them. I told them. And I was just fascinated. The editorial meetings at Fusion when they'd say the story I like to tell is when they were like, ooh, ghost in the shell. Scarlett Johansson's playing the major in the main. That's a white woman. That's whitewashing. We should write that up. That's that's racist. And I explained to them, actually, it's not.

A premise of Ghost in the Shell, which you should actually like, is that in the future you can change bodies with a prosthetic body. And so an Asian woman getting the body of a white woman is actually in line with the narrative of what it's supposed to be. And they went, oh, I just call it racist. And I'm like, but I'm a fan of Ghost in the Shell. Like I was reading a lot about. Nope, don't matter. We want to say it's racist. We don't care if you're a fan. You know, it's true. We just want to run the headline. It gets clicks.

And then they tell me women will share it. And here we are. That's it. This headline is going to get screenshotted. It's going to get shared without being able to be clicked on. And the left is going to run with it like it's true. It's probably already at the top of Reddit where people are going, oh, and they're screaming and saying this proves it. And then they don't even read the part where it's a joke. And if you comment, say, guys, he was kidding. And it's about a pregnant woman. They will downvote you. So no one sees it. That's the worldview of the left and the liberals. And it's how they operate. Truth be damned.

I'll leave it there. Stay tuned. Timcast IRL coming up tonight, and we will see you all then.