transcript
Speaker 1:
[00:00] Welcome to The Line Up Live here on Rumble. Each show rolls into the next. You don't need to change the channel if you still, I know channels aren't a thing, but I'm still gonna use that word. Today is a day of screw ups. Well, yesterday was a day of screw ups, as you well know, because we weren't able to give you overlays, but today's a day of screw ups in the world. Chris Cuomo screwed up with his most recent video. Look, I don't wanna, like, I know the guy, he, he, he, he, he, you know, he's straight, he's a dumb guinea. You know what, they don't tell you, they tried to trans a kid and they tried to go to Cuba and that didn't work, that was a screw up. They're trying to bypass Donald Trump's laws and people say everything is all the same. Vivek screwed up in talking about immigration. He's using old RNC talking points where he acts like all immigrants are the same. It's complete BS. The most important thing is I have a question for you. I have a bad shoulder, and so it's hard for me to, do you think it's gay to be Little Spoon if the big spoon is a lady? Do you also enjoy sometimes being, because we don't often just, you know, go to the intro, get me out of this.
Speaker 2:
[02:15] What do you think about men who wear makeup?
Speaker 3:
[02:17] You can't put it into boys. Who said?
Speaker 2:
[03:21] I think that's an absolute outrageous idea that drag forces people to be a homosexual.
Speaker 1:
[04:10] Click Rumble Premium and join now for $99 annually or $999 a month to get the entirely ad free experience and an ever expanding roster of content creators and free speech. Glad to be with you, and yeah, the first time, I think we've only run that once, that intro. If you're upset, you should be. That's the point. And thank God that we do have a president who is standing there to defend families, at least to whatever degree at the gates, to genders, because you guys may not remember, you guys remember what an awful, awful circus freak show it was when they were wanting to have more drag queen story hours? Yeah. When they were doing events with children, saying, no, no, it's not sexual, and took us a long time to compile that. So, hey, we're making progress, but there's still too many around. Figuratively, Captain Morgan, CEO, how are you?
Speaker 4:
[05:34] Fantastic, not figuratively. I think I 100% agree. And I wouldn't report you if anything happened.
Speaker 1:
[05:39] Do you feel better? You were sick yesterday.
Speaker 4:
[05:41] I feel a little bit better, yeah.
Speaker 1:
[05:43] Okay, so you were just being bitchy.
Speaker 4:
[05:45] I mean man-foldish.
Speaker 1:
[05:47] Yeah, because you don't get over it that quickly.
Speaker 4:
[05:49] No, I usually fight stuff off very fast, so.
Speaker 1:
[05:51] That is true. That is true. It's because you live around a bunch of Petri dishes with all those kids.
Speaker 4:
[05:54] Mostly the people in those videos I fight off.
Speaker 1:
[05:57] Pretty much. Pretty much. Although some of them can surprisingly put up a good fight. It's because they're penises. Unlike Chris Cuomo. You remember he ducked the fight. Oh my gosh. By the way, Mission Control, make sure we bring that in, that old preview for the fight that he ducked. Friday, Saturday, April 24th, 25th. That's this weekend, Comedy Avenue in Lawton, Oklahoma. Go see him. Support live comedy, guys. The two numbers that don't lie are live viewers and tickets. People going to see live shows. Everyone can buy views, everyone can buy engagements. Watching live and going to see live, Mr. Josh Firestine. How are you?
Speaker 5:
[06:29] Good, good. Actually, right before the show, I did just find out right before the show that Friday is cancelled.
Speaker 1:
[06:35] Okay.
Speaker 5:
[06:35] Something came up with the venue. Friday is cancelled. We're just doing Saturday. So if you have tickets for Friday, I'm sorry, they'll be contacting you and moving your tickets to Saturday.
Speaker 1:
[06:45] Okay, good.
Speaker 5:
[06:45] So that was a weird thing. Sorry.
Speaker 1:
[06:47] One time that happened at a comedy club where I went and they had a gas leak.
Speaker 5:
[06:51] Oh, whoa.
Speaker 1:
[06:52] Yeah, that happened. But they didn't tell me. I got there and I smelled the gas leak. They were like, yeah, we're not doing shows tonight.
Speaker 5:
[06:58] You told them about the gas leak?
Speaker 1:
[06:59] No, I just smelled it and they were like, yeah.
Speaker 6:
[07:01] It smells like death.
Speaker 4:
[07:02] Yeah, they were like, yeah. It's the opener.
Speaker 6:
[07:06] It's like, oh. You traveled out here.
Speaker 1:
[07:07] It's old gas wheels Larry.
Speaker 4:
[07:10] We're all going to die.
Speaker 1:
[07:12] All right, let's leave it this because it's fun. And today is a day of Scrooge. But I promise you won't be troubled. I promise that you will not be depressed. We're just going to, you know, we call balls and strikes today. Mostly strikes. It's mostly strikes. Strikeouts. Is that the right analogy? I think so. I don't know. Or foul ball?
Speaker 5:
[07:30] Foul ball, not foul ball.
Speaker 1:
[07:31] Someone's stealing something. So first, here is an altercation. In case you were wondering, right, let's get rid of guns from society. Okay, great. And then let's have knife deposit boxes. Well, that doesn't really work. And then let's have speech codes. UK is gone. It's gone around the bend. It's a conquered nation. It's been conquered from within. It's basically a submissive conquered people. Here you see more proof Bolton, England, an altercation was, well, something that defies reason, but it happens all the time. Man sitting there, enjoying himself. Pratt's gonna stab him. Yeah, he just stabs him.
Speaker 5:
[08:13] Geez.
Speaker 1:
[08:14] I do like that he responds as though he's annoyed. At first, he's like, where can I get it, he can't.
Speaker 5:
[08:21] Then that adrenaline kicked in and just boxed him up.
Speaker 3:
[08:36] Still waiting on my sandwich.
Speaker 1:
[08:38] Hey, I still want my coffee. No cream.
Speaker 5:
[08:44] I've had enough sugar today.
Speaker 1:
[08:45] This guy is like, all right, all right, I'll sit down. I made my point. I do think I've made my point. You know what, I have two twinings, please.
Speaker 5:
[08:53] Stabbing is a tiring work.
Speaker 1:
[08:54] That's it. I like to kick back after a long day of stabbing.
Speaker 5:
[09:00] I need a menu. You know, I couldn't figure out like what was, it kind of dumbfounded me. I came in so slow. I tried to figure out what was bothering this guy. I watched a few times. I paused it. I figure out what this old guy was so pissed about. Yep, there it is. There it is, I figured out that's actually a rogue maid recruiter from Canada.
Speaker 1:
[09:45] Yes, it is.
Speaker 4:
[09:49] You didn't show up for your appointment.
Speaker 1:
[09:52] Also, the suspect is in custody after, this is like his second stabbing, to be clear. And let me just tell you, this is, you can go check the references, we provide them every weekday, 11 a.m. Eastern. This foundationally different, a worldview. Let me ask you this. Would you think it's sad if that man would get shot point blank dead? I wouldn't.
Speaker 5:
[10:11] No, happy ending, honestly.
Speaker 1:
[10:12] That's honestly what I can say. Now, in the UK, they consider that horrible. What? Marxism. Oh, he's stabbing because he must be misunderstood. He's the underdog. There must be something wrong. Maybe his dad didn't hog him enough. No, I want to see more videos, more stories, where that man comes in, stabs an unsuspecting victim and for his troubles, gets shot in the face, meaning gone, dead, never to come back.
Speaker 5:
[10:35] Just like Old Dominion style. Those guys are plucking eyeballs out. They punch him and stab him to death with tiny knives. That's what I want. You do something like that, you get that punishment. I saw something in the day saying the problem with these reactions in war and combat is that people don't have the same level of intensity for the reaction. It's always over intensity, over reaction. No, that's how it's supposed to be. You're supposed to get an over reaction in reply to an evil deed. Yes, exactly right.
Speaker 4:
[11:03] What I would like to see is actually these videos not happen because the guy with a knife walking in there doesn't know if everybody in that place is armed. He knows he can go in with the knife and be at an advantage. He doesn't maybe necessarily think he can walk out, but he knows I can go in and stab some people. Nobody's got a gun in here. What are they going to come out with?
Speaker 1:
[11:19] Yeah, it was the second time.
Speaker 6:
[11:20] What are they going to do?
Speaker 1:
[11:21] I don't even know if he planned it. I think he was just walking by like, oh, I wonder what, oh, they got Kofi here. Yeah, oh, oh, yeah, oh, I hope myself to some stabbing. I just, and we've been guilted as a society to act as though we're supposed to be beyond this. So it's, it's barbaric. It's unfeeling. No, I want to see that man dead. Immediately. You guys let me know if that's where you, because I think that's all of humanity up until recently. And what I'm saying now at one point in time would have been a violation, for example, on YouTube guidelines. That's why Rumble exists, where they would say you can't. I'm not advocating violence against innocent people. I'm advocating for a societal change where innocent people aren't targeted. I'm not just saying I would prefer it if that guy wasn't hurt, or I would prefer it if he defended himself. What I am actually saying, and to be clear, is I think the best case scenario, as far as the end of that video, is the stabber on his second stabbing is shot dead. I think it's better than subdued. I think it's better than someone gets away. I think someone outlining him in shock is the ideal ending. Do that thousands of times, and then maybe people think twice. I'm tired of acting like that's not how I think.
Speaker 5:
[12:39] I think that's how you think. No, I think a lot of people think like that. I think most people watching this think that way.
Speaker 4:
[12:43] Oh, he's mentally disturbed. I don't care.
Speaker 1:
[12:45] I don't care.
Speaker 5:
[12:46] It doesn't go... Well, then it's going to repeat. If that's the problem, then it can't be fixed. I'm sorry, that can't be rehab, that can't be fixed with punishment and long reflection and change of heart. No, that person has to go. Maybe you do it ethically, but they have to go.
Speaker 1:
[13:02] I know, I know. Are you suggesting we have a society of vigilante? Well, he's not a vigilante. He's not riding the subways looking for someone to shoot, but I am suggesting that we have a society of armed citizens who kill violent attackers. Yes, that's the society I want to live in.
Speaker 5:
[13:17] Check the rest of us, thank you.
Speaker 4:
[13:18] Vote Stephen Crowder for that society.
Speaker 1:
[13:20] Vote Stephen Crowder, shoot stabbers.
Speaker 5:
[13:22] Well, the problem is that wasn't the first stabbing of that day.
Speaker 3:
[13:24] No.
Speaker 5:
[13:25] That guy stabbed another guy earlier that day. That first guy had shot that guy dead. One guy wouldn't have a puncture wound in his chest.
Speaker 3:
[13:31] Yeah.
Speaker 1:
[13:32] Instead, we have a society where, well, Mike Brown was misunderstood. He strong-armed Bodega and then was punching a cop and reaching for his gun. So we talk about how could he maybe be victimized. I think you attack someone else. I don't care if it's a knockout game. I don't care if it's stabbing. I don't care if you pull a gun on someone and it's not loaded. You forfeit your right to live. You forfeit your right to live the moment you put someone in a situation where they have to defend themselves because things get unpredictable. I am now advocating that it be more routinely predictable. By any means that you have available to you, if someone is a violent attacker, do your best to kill them. That's what I think. Let's go to the next story because, hey, we're on this train now. I don't care what happens. So remember how we talked about this last week. You need to really, I get it. Donald Trump is imprudent with his words. But we've noticed for sure a pattern throughout both terms that his words sometimes are a little bit more harsh or they're a little bit more hyperbolic than the policy. Sometimes they don't reflect his policy at all because he shoots from the hip. That can be both a good thing and a bad thing. We weren't thrilled about his post on Truth Social where he talked about gender transition surgery unless the parents approve and people didn't understand what that meant. It was really badly worded, then he removed it. But then if you look at the policy, the policy, executive order, which people will say can be undone, there are only two genders. That's the policy. And children cannot be mutilated. We had a government, we had an administration, Joe Biden, who said it was an act of evil for parents to not take part in the transition and mutilation of children. We now have a president who says it's going to be illegal to the best of our ability. And we've seen 27 states pass laws against it, including Utah, which brings us to this next story that is going to upset you, but it does have at least a semi-happy ending because even the commies don't want trans and kids.
Speaker 7:
[15:31] As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female.
Speaker 8:
[15:42] This morning, I signed a declaration, sex-rejecting procedures are neither safe nor effective treatment for children with gender dysphoria.
Speaker 1:
[15:50] Sex-rejecting.
Speaker 8:
[15:50] These procedures fail to meet professionally recognized standards of care. Medical professionals or entities providing sex-rejecting procedures to children are out of compliance with these standards of health care.
Speaker 9:
[16:03] President Trump Tuesday also signed an executive order to restrict gender transitions for minors. The order seeks to end federal support for medical procedures aimed at altering sex or gender, including surgery or use of puberty blockers or sex hormones.
Speaker 1:
[16:18] And by the way, isn't that funny? The left doesn't even know where to use it, so they often just use both sex or gender. No, it's got to be one or the other, doesn't it? Doesn't it? The whole basis of trans... It's rabidly anti-science. Well, gender and sex are different. Yeah, but it's not though. When you talk about identification, depending on whether it's a passport or a driver's license, very often you're trying to change your sex, and sex-rejecting surgery is something that you necessarily want in order to live out what you say is gender, which is separate. So whenever they report on it, just for legal liability purposes, because it is unclear by design, they used to be interchangeable, they go, sex or gender? Ah, the premise was that they were different. They're not, it was always a lie, and they were always coming for your kids. So here's one Utah couple who thought that they could get away with it if they tried to hide the child abuse.
Speaker 10:
[17:08] Rose and Nessa Ethington told the child's mother who they share custody with, that they were going on a camping trip to Calgary, Alberta. The group totaled four people. Rose, their spouse Blue, Blue's biological child, and the 10-year-old. They never made it to the reserved campsite. According to charging documents, they left Cache County, traveled to Washington State, crossed the border into Vancouver, then flew to Merida, Mexico, and finally landed in Havana, Cuba. When the child's mother couldn't get in contact with her ex-husband, she alerted Logan Police.
Speaker 1:
[17:41] Now, before I go on with the story, I could tell you how this was going to end, because this is one of those funny things, the drum circle hippies who say that communism works in theory. Don't ever tell them to look up the history of communism. They almost always kill the gays. Because at a certain point when you seize the means of production and distribution, you actually need, you don't need poets. You need people to be hyperly productive or the system doesn't work. And you also need to have a replacement birth rate and gays don't really contribute to that. For the same reason in a post-apocalyptic scenario, lesbians would be the first to go. So, the boy's father, Rose, you starting to get the picture? Rose Inessa Ethington, who claims to be a trans woman, well, him and his wife face a count now of international parental kidnapping. And here's the thing, like, they didn't even try and hide, like, they're not good criminals, which is, I mean, what you would expect from a mentally deranged trans father who calls himself Rose. They actually found in the authorities a to-do list in Rose's home, which included, quote, learn Spanish, get haircuts, empty bank account. Oh, come on. Also, learn to shoot up a school. That was in there. Yeah, that was in there. To-do list.
Speaker 5:
[19:02] Well, you gotta assimilate to your new culture.
Speaker 1:
[19:03] It's like a list. Hey, cops, I want to make it really easy to find me.
Speaker 5:
[19:08] Yeah, like.
Speaker 4:
[19:11] Would a bunch of Spanish be like a long-term?
Speaker 1:
[19:12] Travel book, brochures.
Speaker 4:
[19:14] It's like a long-term project, learn Spanish. You'd have to put that down like six months before.
Speaker 1:
[19:17] Yeah, so the dad, of course, and this, I believe it was a stepmom, and I believe there was a previous biological. All of them support transitioning the children. Now, what you are often told with these stories is support, support, support, support. Just like gender affirming. No, let's change that RFK. I think that's the first time it was used publicly. He used it. Let's make that popular. Sex rejection surgery procedures, sex rejection procedures. Affirm, support. Many of these cases, they are actually being coerced. And I don't know if you know this, it's really easy to manipulate children. I know that you do know that. That's why we have a problem with Drag Queen story hour. That's why those in the trans community say, oh no, no, no, we're allowing them to be free. We don't allow kids to be free in any other facet of decision making for some reason when it applies to reproductive health and a gross lack of understanding therein. Oh, all of a sudden, kids should be able to make their own decisions. The boy's uncle said that he would have supported the transition if it was the boy's idea, but according to the New York Times said, this seemed to be clearly all coming from Rose, the dad, Rose. It was heartbreaking and hard for me to see.
Speaker 5:
[20:31] Yeah, well, of course it's coming from the dad. How many kids want to be like their dad when they grow up? You know what I mean? Yes. Like it's a natural thing, if the dad's in the picture, the kid wants to, like my son, he wants to be a comedian, which is dumb, and at one point in my life, I wanted to be an asshole. We all want to be like our dad. I'm kidding, dad, I'm just kidding. Watch, I'm just joking.
Speaker 1:
[20:52] No, that's exactly right. So this is someone who likely is leftist, woke, would have supported the transition, so I already don't like him, but even he said this wasn't the kid's idea. Most of the time, we don't have an uncle like this. Most of the time, we just have the parents saying, I knew, usually a mom. Let's be clear, usually a mom. And by the way, in this case, you have the mom, mom's stepmom who support it, and then a dad who claims to say, you got three women in the mix, that kid's getting trans, just to be clear. It's just gonna happen. Women are far more likely to be supportive of it, and this is a problem that we see. We've seen many custody cases where the mom says that the child should transition, the father tries to get custody, he's blocked from doing so. It is a gross act of evil. We need to start treating this exactly for what it is. It is child abuse. There are no transgender children. I'll just say this. Transgender. There are no actual transgender people. There are transvestites and there are transsexuals, meaning they can present because they've gone through a surgery. You have not changed your biology. It's not a thing. I won't go along with it being a thing. And when you start applying it to children, it's a crime. That's my view. It's a crime. Easy.
Speaker 5:
[22:01] Just because you inject yourself with something doesn't make you that. Like I can inject steroids doesn't make me a baseball player. Right.
Speaker 3:
[22:06] Yeah.
Speaker 1:
[22:07] But sometimes it does.
Speaker 4:
[22:09] Hey, no, they're already baseball players and they just made themselves better.
Speaker 1:
[22:12] Yeah. Yeah, exactly right.
Speaker 3:
[22:13] Yeah.
Speaker 1:
[22:13] It just made them a lot better. So, Inessa Ethington had a GoFundMe to help keep custody of the boy and raised $9,700 of the 20,000 goal.
Speaker 3:
[22:26] Come on.
Speaker 1:
[22:27] Let's be honest. Do you really wonder how much you want? We don't have the numbers. Look at the demographics at that. I guarantee you it's entirely women.
Speaker 5:
[22:34] What does that money go to? You can't buy the kid. What do you think of buy the kid from the mom?
Speaker 1:
[22:38] I assume it's for legal fees. And the boy's mother gave up custody of the son upon returning to the US. The mother believed that the dad and son. She was given. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 5:
[22:47] She was given.
Speaker 1:
[22:48] Sorry. The mother believed that the father and the son would not return. And then apparently the trans issues were a pretty big factor in this divorce.
Speaker 5:
[22:55] Yeah, I can imagine.
Speaker 1:
[22:56] If we want to deal with this to the root issue, of course we have the laws. Great. Two genders. Okay. You can't transition kids. All right. I would like to see federal authority exercised here. No, no, no states. You're not allowed to do it. Treat it as the crime that it is. Zero tolerance for this. But practically speaking, we also maybe need to look at the custody laws in this country. Because women, single mothers, are far more likely to be supportive of this. Single mother households, by the way, also far more likely to commit abuse, physical and emotional, of children. And if you look at this transitioning issue, the trans issue, it has been spearheaded by women at their own cost, and it has been opposed by men. So if you look at support for transitioning kids, it's almost half for women, 46%. With men, it's under 40, about 38.
Speaker 5:
[23:46] Still too high, geez.
Speaker 1:
[23:48] Yeah. Then you have mothers far more likely to accept their children as trans than fathers. It's still way too high for fathers. Then you also have trans individuals saying they have a more positive perception of their mother than their father by 10 points. Across the board, women supported trans men in sports. Why? Because most women don't play sports. They supported changing identification on drivers licenses. They supported biological men in women's spaces. If a woman speaks out against it, they are a turf. Men have overwhelmingly of all races, demographics been opposed to it. We see this far more often with single mother households, and that needs to be taken into account when we're talking about the well-being of the child. Here is the silver lining though. And I want to, you can read this from the New York Times. We provide the references for those who are new. 11 a.m. we stream every weekday. This is a rare instance of Cuba and the United States actually cooperating. So the Cuban authorities immediately alerted us. They went to Cuba and they were like, look, I know that lines of communication have been a little bit cold, but they're bringing trans kids here, so you probably want them back.
Speaker 4:
[24:57] Get these freak shows out of here.
Speaker 5:
[24:58] Yeah, they called, oh yeah, amigo, we have a freak here for you.
Speaker 3:
[25:02] Yes.
Speaker 11:
[25:02] They say they want to come and get your freak.
Speaker 3:
[25:04] Hey, they say they can make a girl a boy, so we send them back to you.
Speaker 5:
[25:10] We have no more room for a freak here.
Speaker 1:
[25:15] This is something that a lot of people, communists generally are very anti-LGBTQ AIP. Because they view it as degeneracy and they want to control over society. So Che Guevara was very publicly homophobic. When you wear that shirt, maybe we should circulate that because people get mad when you make fun of Che who killed people. He also killed black people just for being black. The indolent Negroes, as he called them, and that doesn't seem to be enough for the left. Just tell people, I don't know if you know this, Che Guevara was like, he put them in forced labor camps and he referred to all gays as, quote, sexual perverts.
Speaker 4:
[25:49] Hey, he wasn't wrong on everything.
Speaker 1:
[25:51] And they don't allow trans-surgery for minors in Cuba.
Speaker 4:
[25:53] They don't.
Speaker 1:
[25:54] They don't allow it.
Speaker 3:
[25:55] Like, no, no, you have to lower your penis. You can't, you don't cut off and then make the hole. This never work.
Speaker 4:
[26:08] It does bring up a bigger conversation though, and I don't know if you guys saw this just the other day, there were a couple of videos going around of two dads and a child crying because the dad goes, you know, the kid said, mama.
Speaker 1:
[26:20] It's lacking context.
Speaker 4:
[26:21] It is lacking context. It's fine. No, that can happen. But it brings up this idea, why the hell are we doing this? Like, why is it legal to do these kinds of things? Two children, right? So two moms, two dads, surrogacy to get two gay guys, a male child. Predominantly, they want male children over female children. Like, why are we allowing these kinds of things to happen? It goes back to your point. Like, there does need to be some federal law, but in place because whether or not they are, you know, super pro trans or anything else, you do want to be like your parents. You do want to grow up like that. And do we think that is good for society? No. The majority of Americans don't think that's good for society.
Speaker 1:
[26:53] And I get why people are upset because it breaks your heart. You have a little baby saying mama and them laughing. And I don't know the exact context of the video, but I understand why people are upset, and I don't think that they should have that child anyway. That's been my opinion for a very long time. But here's the flip side of that. We've already done that societally with Dada. We've done it with Dada. Daddy's not here. Why? Because the government has said that fathers should see them on weekends. And if you go and watch Friends, we actually shoved aside the biological father to the child who wanted to be involved and everyone championed her as a brave single mom by choice. We've done that societally. So Dada, he's not here. No one acts like that's a tragedy. And when I say no one, I know that many of you do, but societally, it's brave and it's a bold decision. You should, you have your kid when you want. People grossly underestimate the impact that the sitcom Friends had and that story arc of Rachel choosing to be a single mother. And everyone, if you spoke out against it, it was sexist. You're like, that's not a good thing.
Speaker 5:
[27:53] No, are you pro Ross?
Speaker 6:
[27:55] Oh, really?
Speaker 5:
[27:57] You're on Ross's side?
Speaker 3:
[27:59] Yes.
Speaker 1:
[28:00] And I don't even like him. How dare you? I'm pro fathers being in the life. I'm pro children having a fair shake.
Speaker 3:
[28:07] And I get it.
Speaker 1:
[28:08] People get tough breaks. Kids do. There's a huge difference between something that is an unforeseen circumstance and engineering society with a baked in acceptability of a child not having a mother or a father. And yes, that applies to same sex couples having children. Doesn't mean that there aren't some same sex couples who are better parents than alcoholic heterosexual couples. It's not lost on me. It's how do you want to design society? Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5:
[28:33] And Gerald, you said, how are we letting this happen? How can we allow this? It's fear.
Speaker 3:
[28:37] Yeah.
Speaker 5:
[28:38] It's fear of a couple of things. Fear from the politicians of not getting elected again, losing their office, losing their job, losing their money, losing their sweet benefits. And it's fear of the violent left.
Speaker 3:
[28:46] Yeah.
Speaker 5:
[28:46] They're a mob, dude.
Speaker 1:
[28:47] Yep. Absolutely right. And it's fear of, yeah, it's fear of offending people. It's fear of the Republicans of we won't have a big tent. Look, whether it was Dave Rubin or when I spoke with Jillian, they know where I line up. I said, Dave was like, oh, I know you're like me. You're a libertarian. I said, no, I'm against gay marriage. I always have been. And I think that gays adopting should be right down the list with like single parents. It should go to mother and father households first, and there are plenty of them who want kids. I think it's less ideal if we have a surplus of children who need homes and we'll put them wherever we can. Sure, okay, at that point, if you're well adjusted. But I think first right of refusal goes to mommy and daddy households. I've never changed my opinion. And in this case, they're looking at kidnapping charges. So that's good. Kidnapping is one of those things. You never want to be a victim of kidnapping. It's right up there with robbery. Here you go.
Speaker 6:
[29:45] Hey, give me your wallet, now! I don't have a wallet. What do you mean you don't have a wallet? I don't need one. Yeah, well what about your driver's license? I don't have one of those either. You can't get a driver's license? No, I can get one, I just don't like the bureaucracy, I don't like standing in lines. You sound like a liar, which is like one of the worst things to be, even worse than a thief. Are you a liar? How do you pay for things, liar? I use Rumble Wallet. What's Rumble Wallet, some kind of vibrating sack of cash?
Speaker 11:
[30:15] No, it's a place where I could manage my crypto in one spot.
Speaker 6:
[30:19] It's as easy as money. Well, then give me that.
Speaker 11:
[30:22] I can't.
Speaker 6:
[30:23] It's encrypted.
Speaker 11:
[30:24] Yeah?
Speaker 6:
[30:25] Well, how about I stab you until you give me the encryption, huh?
Speaker 1:
[30:30] Go to wallet.rumble.com to download the Rumble Wallet today. No banks, no fees, no middlemen, just your money, and now all of your crypto in one secure, easy to use place. Get started today. Yep. We didn't know how to end it when we were sitting there in the corner. I said, how about he just says that he'll stab him and take it anyway, and he just goes, ah.
Speaker 6:
[30:52] Oh, crap.
Speaker 1:
[30:53] I didn't think about that. I like it. Tell you what I don't like. I don't mean I don't like him personally, because I know there's a likelihood that he'll respond, and that's fine. I don't like what he has to say. I don't like how he presents it, and I don't like how he chases trends, I don't like how he's inconsistent, and then tries to claim that it's because he's being objective. None of that is genuine. And objectively, Chris Cuomo is incapable of being objective. I haven't forgotten how he broadcast during COVID. I haven't forgotten how he covered the impeachment. I haven't forgotten how he covered Russiagate. I haven't forgotten how he talked about white men being the greatest domestic terrorist threats. I haven't forgotten about that. And I know he says he's been wrong about a couple of things, but he still keeps being wrong. So yesterday, Chris Cuomo took to his channel to make some flat out inaccurate statements regarding President Trump and Iran. And it very much seems like he's catering to the horseshoe right, because he's basing it off of the same wrong claims. Here's Chris Cuomo.
Speaker 11:
[32:11] You want to win the war over the war in Iran? I can help you, because here's what we know. The rationale from the administration for why this had to happen at all, and why it had to happen right now, are both not only wrong, but they lead to an opposite conclusion than the ones that the administration has drawn. The war in Iran is justified why? Because the president is right that the regime in Iran is stockpiling highly enriched uranium because they want to develop a nuclear weapon, and they were just weeks away, so he had to do it right when he did it. Okay. Is that true? No.
Speaker 1:
[33:06] Is that? And then there were a multitude of claims. Right. So, I'll just say this, his flat-out claim of no, well, that's wrong, okay? We'll get to his claims on Iran here in a second, we'll provide you with references, but keep in mind this is also the same guy who claimed that he could dunk in a 10-foot rim and argued with people in the comment sections that this actually was a 10-foot rim. Yeah, someone in the post argued, not 10 feet, plus shouldn't you be reporting or something? You give the president a hard time every time he isn't working, shame on you, because he was still a far leftist at that point, and he responded, what a dummy, wrong about the rim, and he abbreviated about to A-B-T, I don't know why he did that. And do you trumpets really hold him in such a low standard? If I worked out as often as he golfs, I would be the fittest 50-year-old, wake up. It also looks like he's losing a little bit of mass right now, so maybe we should get back to that. That is not a 10-foot rim. We found the exact same model number adjusted for the angle. At most, it might be 8 1⁄2 feet. It's very likely 8 feet. The weird part is that he would lie about it and argue with someone in a comment section. He's the same guy. I want to be really clear before you let him into the fold. All of that practice, however, did pay off because he's been signed by the Indiana Fever.
Speaker 4:
[34:23] Still 10-foot rims, unfortunately.
Speaker 5:
[34:25] I've been advocating for years. It's a WNBA 8-foot rims. Come on, let's let these ladies play.
Speaker 1:
[34:30] I get it.
Speaker 4:
[34:30] We also see dunks.
Speaker 1:
[34:31] I don't even know how to get this next one. It's just because we're childish. Here's something else funny. To be clear, we're going to get to a claim truth. There are good faith arguments to be made on both sides of Iran. I have maintained, I don't know what day we are. I said like three months, that's when I will give an assessment, in my opinion, and we can have that discussion. But I'm not going to have a discussion that this is a forever war that is directly comparable to Iraq, or have a discussion based on claims that are simply false, or are baseless. I think it's totally valid for people to say, all right, Iran is obviously a very unstable nation. There's a reason that no other country in that region, really on earth, wants them to have nuclear weapons. They certainly were at the point where we would see all of the indicators that they are going to develop nuclear weapons. And we certainly were at the point where they might be able to defend their ability to build nuclear weapons. But I still don't think it's worth the price. And I still don't think this was the right time. And I'm not happy about it. I get it. I get it. I think there's a valid argument to say, not the right time. We shouldn't be doing this now. But ignoring data and treating your audience like as though they're the same level of moron as the host is not good faith, Chris Cuomo. It's time for Claim Truth. All right. And unlike Chris Cuomo or any of these other people in this space who are a day late and a dollar short, we will provide you with the references. We live stream 11 a.m. weekdays. You have a bibliography every single day. First claim from Chris Cuomo. And it's very similar to the wrong claim that a lot of other people make. And I do recommend you go and watch this whole video so that you see we are not taking anything out of context. His claim is that 60% enriched uranium doesn't really mean all that much here. Watch him.
Speaker 11:
[36:17] They are preying on your ignorance. And they are intentionally deceiving their supporters about what the information means. The more you look at it, the more obvious the deception is. Now they're getting over on people why? Because they are confusing the non-critical thinkers into believing that having enriched uranium is the same thing as almost having a weapon. Mm-hmm.
Speaker 1:
[36:49] Oh, you're saying that's not the case. Okay, well, here's the truth. No country has ever passed, we could say 20, but I know someone might say, oh, 21. No country has ever passed 30% in Richmond and not built a nuclear bomb. Iran is at 60%. So whether you agree with the intervention or not, you do have to accept the factual premise that in this instance, Iran with 60% enriched uranium would be the first country to do that and not develop a nuclear weapon. You want to put that much faith in Iran? This is not discussing the timeline as to when they get to 90%. No nation has passed 30% and not built a nuke. So assuming that they would be in line with every country ever past that threshold, what do you think they would do with it? They have enough for 10 bombs. To be clear, about 900 something pounds between 900 and 1,000. And the important component here that people always ignore, same thing when they talk about the JCPOA, is ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles short, intermediate range ballistic missiles being able to hit Europe and more importantly, so many missiles and so many drones that they would be able to shield themselves to the point where no one could stop them as they get from 60 to 90 if they feel so inclined or if they are similar to every nation who's ever existed ever with enriched uranium. So let me make this really clear because I think people are, he says, critical thinkers. You guys let me know if there's anything that you think is incorrect here or that can be explained more clearly. I want to give you a really clear timeline. Okay, here we go. We start at 0%. Bring this up Toolman. 0% in Richmond, that's where you start. Okay, then we go along this path to 30%. That's the next threshold where we find ourselves. No country has passed that point and not developed nuclear weapons. Let's go to where Iran is right now, 60%. Okay, 60%, that's according to IAEA. Pretty much everybody, by the way, the same agencies, the same intelligence outfits who told you that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. So let's not try and use that argument. So 0, 30, 60. All right, then 90% is that point where it's seriously dangerous and it's nuke time. Okay, that's the timeline there between 60 and 90. But because of the ballistic missiles and the drones, there's a separate window. Here you go. America's window to act is somewhere here, meaning somewhere after 30% and before 90% is where a judgment call has to be made. Unless you think that Iran won't use a nuke if they have one, and you would have to believe that they're the first nation ever. So whether it's 31% or it's 89%, we have a window there to stop it if we think a nuclear Iran is a bad thing for the United States or the world. Does that make sense? Now add to that the ability for them to close that window if they create auxiliary defense capabilities of missiles and drones so that you can't stop them no matter what, meaning they could hit 40 percent. But then they have so many drones and missiles and basically an impenetrable shield that they can just slowly lollygag from 40 to 90 because no one can do a thing about it. There's that window of a judgment call. So the argument here is within that window, people think this judgment call was wrong or right. Does that help explain it to you? I think that's a reasonable conversation to have. I don't think it's an impeachable offense. And I don't think that people are stupid if they go, oh, we're past 60, we're kind of getting towards the tail end of that window. And I don't think it's unreasonable for people to say, you know what, maybe not. I don't trust it. The problem is when you misrepresent it. And I see that everywhere right now. Does that help?
Speaker 4:
[40:40] Yeah, and by the way, Trump tried to negotiate once we entered that window.
Speaker 1:
[40:43] Right.
Speaker 4:
[40:43] It wasn't just like, I just went to military strikes. Like he tried to negotiate as well.
Speaker 1:
[40:47] Here's, yes, and here's the next claim from Brothers Guinea. That Iran wasn't close to getting a weapon. It's all a lie, something.
Speaker 11:
[40:58] There is a good basis of belief within the expert community that Iran does not have the expertise, nor does it have what it needs to have in place, even if it did have the expertise, to make the moves you have to make to go from having the enriched uranium, if you could even enrich it from 60 to 90, which is not a given, but is likely, is probable, not just possible, into making a weapon. So, can you have a weapon if you don't have weapons-grade uranium? No. Do you automatically have a weapon if you have weapons-grade uranium? No. Was the regime weeks away from having a nuclear weapon? No.
Speaker 1:
[41:47] Okay. Here's the truth. Cuomo is misleading you here by omission. But to go back to that analogy again, he says, doesn't mean it. No, just 100 percent of historical precedent. Yeah. In other words, your window is, if I say I'm going to shoot you and I have a gun, and I have a magazine, and the magazine is loaded, I put the magazine in the gun. Do you have to wait till it's chambered? At what point do you go, someone says, I'm going to shoot you, death to you, not America, death to Gerald. Taking this gun, I have a loaded magazine, I'm now putting it in the gun, you have a judgment call to make at some point. Historically, the person who says, I'm going to kill you with this gun, and they have a loaded magazine, they always chamber it and shoot you. It never doesn't happen. Here's the other thing, Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, and sometimes people point to, I've been hearing that for years, as though it hasn't been the case in spite of other efforts. What do I mean by that? Allow me to explain. So first off, a physicist, nuclear weapons expert, David Albright, he said that if Iran has five to six months to build a net, the probability of success grows to 84 percent. 84 percent. He outlined this in an article in 24 under the accelerator program, they could build a weapon in six months. Same method Pakistan used, again, historical precedent. Because of Iran's short breakout time, the US would have a pretty limited warning that deterrence with force would be the best way to prevent it from taking place. People have been saying this for a long time, like, well, we've been hearing that. They're two weeks away. They're two months away for a very long time. Yeah. It could still be true. And they didn't get there because, they didn't get there because of the actions we took, in spite of the fact that they were two or three months away. You guys are aware that, I know you'll go nuts, that Israel hacked their centrifuges with, the funniest hack ever, the funniest virus ever that screwed it up. It's like straight out of a movie, because they were in the process of trying to, it's like Michael Phelps. People will go, well, you know, he won all these championships and he was eating McDonald's. Well, yeah, he won the championships in spite of eating McDonald's. Those two facts can be true. They could have been close and they were to the enriched uranium that they need and efforts have been undertaken. Consistently, by the United States, by Israel, by international agreements. That's why the JCPOA existed, because we saw the threat. Again, that window is the judgment call. That's the argument that we are having. Not, could they? Will they? 100% of the time, historically, nations that have crossed 30% develop a nuclear weapon. Now, here's why. If you want to apply pragmatic thinking, people who are getting well past that threshold, there's no need for it, for any purpose outside of a nuclear weapon, they also, historically, 100% of the time, have been recruiting, training up people with the expertise and ability to develop a nuclear weapon. It has never not happened. I hope that I've been clear about that. And if you say, Iran was going to get a nuke because it would be in line with 100% historical precedent, and I don't care anyway, fine. Just don't say that we don't know they were going to. It would be an outlier. It would be the first time in history that it wouldn't happen. Here's the third claim. From Mr. Gumba, that all of this is a political distraction.
Speaker 11:
[45:12] I don't believe in the loser BB, loser, his own people theory. I believe that he was told they could do this. It would be easy. He is not sophisticated. He is not a student of war history. And he likes the idea of an easy win. He thinks that Venezuela is the same as Iran. And he wanted the distraction from what was happening at home. That's what I think. Epstein thing, not going his way. Affordability, not going his way. Getting things done with or in Congress, not going his way. That's why we're in Iran.
Speaker 1:
[45:57] Uh-huh. Yeah. This is another common trope that people have used. And they use it to say, stay home in midterms. And there's no difference between the right and the left. They say Donald Trump said, no new wars. And he betrayed his base. No, he said, no more, no new forever wars. And we are only going to fight wars if we know that we will win and it will be swift and it will be violent and it will be effective. We're not going to find ourselves in another Vietnam or Iraq. Not everything is comparable to Vietnam or Iraq. And it's very, very clear. You may disagree with it. And I disagree with President Trump on a lot. I could say this. His views on abortion, I do not agree with. I have never agreed with. But I voted for him in spite of that because of the alternative. I would not call it a betrayal if Donald Trump said he supports abortion with some limitations that I wouldn't support because I understand that's his stance. President Trump, here's the truth, has made Iran a focal point, including militarily. For over 45 years, we don't have this kind of a track record from any president on any other singular issue. We have the luxury of him being a celebrity before he ever ran for office.
Speaker 7:
[47:05] The Iranian situation is a case in point. That they hold our hostages is just absolutely and totally ridiculous. That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror.
Speaker 12:
[47:24] Obviously, you're advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, et cetera, and brought our boys out.
Speaker 7:
[47:29] I absolutely feel that, yes. Why couldn't we go in and take over some of their oil, which is along the sea? How would you do that? Would you send in the Marines?
Speaker 12:
[47:38] Would you take a chance in a war?
Speaker 7:
[47:40] Let them have Iran. You take their oil. The next time Iran attacks this country, go in and grab one of their big oil installations. I mean, grab it and keep it and get back your losses, because this country has lost plenty because of Iran. I will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and we won't be using a man like Secretary Kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation.
Speaker 1:
[48:07] And, by the way, he was saying this all the while he was opposed to the Iraq War and criticized George W. Bush and Barack Obama, meaning they are two very different things, and he has been consistent on both. If you are claiming anything other than that, you are either uneducated on the issue or you are lying to your viewers. You can disagree with Trump. President Trump in 1980, we're going to deal with Iran including the military if necessary. In 1987, we need to deal with Iran including militarily if necessary. In 2015, famous escalator speech. In 2016, in 2018, while he wasn't president, you can disagree with him along all of those points in the timeline, but you would be disagreeing with a remarkably consistent view.
Speaker 4:
[48:55] Yeah. And by the way, just really quickly, he's making a really bad argument because affordability, do you think affordability was going to get better when you attack somebody in the Middle East? What do you think is going to happen to the oil prices even if they don't close the strait?
Speaker 1:
[49:06] Right.
Speaker 4:
[49:06] Affordability is going to be a problem and it wasn't really as big of a problem. He was working on that. Jews, now you've got to contend with people saying the Jews, Israel is just leading us in to every single thing that we do, forever wars you mentioned, and also he was getting plenty done domestically. Everybody acts like the Epstein thing was killing him. It wasn't good for him, but it wasn't killing him. Going into this, everyone that was yelling about Epstein would go to a 10 by adding a ran on.
Speaker 1:
[49:30] Well, it's a very good point because that brings me to claim number four from Chris Cuomo. This is why I believe he's still the same leftist who referred to you as trumpets and I think mogtards, whatever other terms he used while claiming he dunks on a 10-foot and arguing in the comment section. Like I see with the Marxist right, they'll misrepresent a ran. I'm not talking about people who have sensible disagreements. They'll misrepresent a ran and then parlay that into and see all this other stuff, everyone else was right, he's bad on immigration, he's bad on the things that are objectively false because that's exactly what Chris Cuomo does. Trump is even failing at immigration. Tell me how he doesn't sound like a leftist still.
Speaker 11:
[50:11] Immigration, has he changed any of the rules that matter?
Speaker 1:
[50:15] Yes.
Speaker 11:
[50:15] Nope. Has he changed the resource structure?
Speaker 1:
[50:18] Yes.
Speaker 11:
[50:18] In the way that would matter the most? Nope. Why? Processing capabilities, ability to hold with humanity, ability to return, he didn't help those. He upped ICE. He installed the revolving door. He created a brute squad that has embarrassed itself and embarrassed our law enforcement culture in this country, violating the Constitution, violating decency. Yeah, but everybody wants people who aren't here legally to get out. It's never been the question. What? Sure does. I mean, for some Democrats, maybe. Pause.
Speaker 1:
[50:47] The entire sanctuary cities where you can't deport a single one. All right, let's finish this clip.
Speaker 11:
[50:52] Orders that they don't believe it's a crime to enter illegally. Okay. But that's not the law. I don't think it's a good political position either, but it's definitely not a good legal position.
Speaker 1:
[51:02] It was a political position of the entire Democrat Party. We sought for four years, 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, we wanted Amnesty and a new voting base. Here's the truth. Yes, Trump has changed all those things. President Trump has, and he has massively improved immigration. Is it perfect? No. But by every objective parameters that we could set, metrics that we could use that are quantifiable, deportations, over two and a half million total. Yes, that includes self-deportations. Border crossings are down 97 percent. Failure. Net migration negative for the first time in 50 years. Asylum claims down 99 percent. Yeah. Refugees being admitted down 90 percent. Since October 2025, 99.9 percent of refugees, by the way, are from South Africa who are fleeing actual persecution and are grateful to be in America where your stuff's not just taken from you because you're white. Here's a bonus stupid claim. He tries to take a lie to spin another lie based on a lie and it's just a whole bunch of lying horseshit like him dunking on a 10-foot rim.
Speaker 11:
[52:02] They make it sound like, you know, they put out a false stat the other day that nobody cared about. Pause.
Speaker 1:
[52:09] He says this while referring to President Trump and the administration. Keep in mind. They. Oh. So you think President Trump, the administration. Keep playing.
Speaker 11:
[52:17] On social media, and you're allowed to say whatever you want there, free of accountability, that a majority of homicides last year were committed by people who are here illegally. It's a complete bullsh**t out of context stat. It's completely untrue. And all the people spreading it know it.
Speaker 1:
[52:36] Okay. Here's the truth. That is an untrue stat. Nobody from the Trump administration posted that. Wrote that. It was something reposted by an account called Gunther Eagleman, who, by the way, often gets things wrong. The post says in 2024, illegals committed 13,000 murders or 64% of all murders. That is not true. Here's the true stat. As of 2024, there were 13,000 illegals convicted of homicide on ICE's national docket. So this is a good example of people who don't do their due diligence and circulating some kind of a meme or a fact that other people repost and it does damage because people who are not acting in good faith, people like Chris Cuomo out there will try and attribute that to the administration or people who actually do their due diligence. By the way, he's one who doesn't. So when he says they, think about this, he goes, Iran. Let me give you a bunch of false premises. Now let me transition to Donald Trump has done nothing on immigration. And let me transition to they don't know their thumb from their dick because they're posting this, which is untrue even though it's not a post from President Trump. He's a leftist. What he really believes is we shouldn't be able to deport people. We need to detain people humanely. He believes in the Biden approach. How do I know? Because he supported it. Because he supported it. And he also helped silence people who said there was cognitive decline with Joe Biden.
Speaker 5:
[54:01] I mean, he just admitted to liking censorship right there.
Speaker 1:
[54:04] Right.
Speaker 5:
[54:04] I mean, not exactly, but indirectly. Social media, you can say whatever you want there.
Speaker 3:
[54:09] Yeah.
Speaker 6:
[54:09] Free of accountability.
Speaker 3:
[54:10] Yeah.
Speaker 5:
[54:11] We should do something about it.
Speaker 1:
[54:12] Right.
Speaker 5:
[54:13] He didn't say that part, but.
Speaker 1:
[54:14] The good news is on X, hey, there's a community note. And we do our own community notes where you can fact check us. Hey, if you want a world, Chris Cuomo, if you want a world where people can't just say whatever they want without accountability. By the way, I'm with you. Do you provide references every single show?
Speaker 4:
[54:29] Hmm.
Speaker 1:
[54:32] Would you accept the challenge to start doing that? Every single piece of content you put out every show, you make sure your references are publicly available. Meaning with links that people can click. We do.
Speaker 4:
[54:46] You did a couple of times in there. He said, these people say or many people are saying in the intelligence site one.
Speaker 1:
[54:52] Yeah.
Speaker 4:
[54:52] Site one.
Speaker 1:
[54:54] Right. Right.
Speaker 4:
[54:56] Then people would know.
Speaker 1:
[54:58] I think Donald Trump has improved our immigration policy dramatically. And you know what else? Betting odds actually take the same approach. Let's do the cal sheet check in here. The number of deportations this year that if you want to bet right now, the odds, not including self, by the way, they're two separate numbers, over 300,000, 92%, over 400,000, 68%, over 500,000, 32%. So hey, you know what? That means there's a good chance that you'll get a lot of them and even more self deportations.
Speaker 4:
[55:24] Yeah. I like the over 500,000 number personally. I would like to see that one. Yeah.
Speaker 5:
[55:29] Let's put some money on it, Joe.
Speaker 4:
[55:30] No, I didn't mean like that. I'm not saying like I think you should buy it. I'm just saying.
Speaker 5:
[55:34] Let's buy that option. I'm going to buy it today.
Speaker 4:
[55:36] I think you should.
Speaker 1:
[55:37] Why not?
Speaker 4:
[55:37] I hope.
Speaker 5:
[55:38] I'm going to. Wishful spending.
Speaker 3:
[55:40] Boom.
Speaker 4:
[55:41] Look at that.
Speaker 3:
[55:42] Look at this.
Speaker 1:
[55:44] Importations.
Speaker 4:
[55:44] A million.
Speaker 1:
[55:45] We have plenty of criticism to go around, by the way. And I know I'm open to criticism. I deserve it. Rightfully so. I say a bunch of silly stuff.
Speaker 4:
[55:52] But you cite your sources when you do.
Speaker 1:
[55:55] Yes. Not for jokes. Media matters. Vivek. Now he's been in the studio. He's been on the show quite a few times. We even had a disagreement that got a little heated, but was, I think, productive and civil. He just gave this speech on immigration, and he's getting hammered over it. And here's the thing. It's not that what he is saying is wrong. It's that he's not speaking to what is most important, what is most pertinent, and what is most applicable. Now, you'll hear this a lot. It's the tired old claim, we're a nation of immigrants. We're all, oh, I guess your parents are Native Americans. Shut up. They didn't use the wheel. I don't care. Now, here is the very basic counter that you need to have ready. Let's start with this. There's a huge difference between a pre-welfare versus a post-welfare state. Okay? So regardless of race, creed, and we'll get to all of those stats, which are also relevant. Pre-welfare, no promise, you come here with a nickel in your pocket, you are free, but that is all you are promised. Go forward and see if you can contribute to the country. Versus, hey, come here and you get free stuff at the expense of the taxpayer. These are two very, very different environments. They're not even comparable. They'd be as comparable as a movie theater and a military base. Pre-welfare state versus post-welfare state. And the other thing is also, they came with qualifiers. So immigrants initially, the difference between immigrants today and immigrants who were coming from the days of yore, when people say, oh, your parents are immigrants, it was a pre-welfare state and they were qualified, meaning speaking the language, meaning being a contributor, meaning you added something to the fabric of society. This idea that it was just anyone from any third world country, whether they were compatible or not, were welcome and were coming here in record numbers is not, it's just not accurate. And let me give you another example. This is very easy to understand. Every single physical space, a house, an apartment complex, a hotel, right? There's a building phase, new country, the new world, we called it. We didn't even know how far it was. It's just go west. Some of you are going to die from snakes and shit, but you know, let's see what happens. You know, there's the building phase. There's the fill occupancy phase. All right, we've built up a hundred whatever condos. Here you go. Here's some advertising guys. You want to come get a condo? All right, you get 20 percent off if you fill out your paperwork. And then it's filled up and there's a no vacancy phase. Every single physical space that houses, shelters human beings has those three phases. And how you approach them is very different. And who we invite during those, we need builders, we need renters and buyers, and then we don't have any room. It's not complicated, but people act like they don't understand it. And so then you end up with a situation that's like an overcrowded migrant shelter like the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City, and that's how a lot of people view the United States right now. So Vivek spoke, I don't know where it was, was it some kind of a conference? And he delivered the old talking points on immigration, which aren't wrong, but he sidesteps things that are important and that American citizens are starting to see. Here you go.
Speaker 13:
[59:14] Others will say our diversity as a country is our strength, to which my response is, no, no, no, it's not quite right. Our strength is that which unites us across that diversity.
Speaker 1:
[59:27] And what is that?
Speaker 13:
[59:27] The pluribus unum, from many, one, the ideals enshrined in that Declaration of Independence. Ronald Reagan from your generation, he understood this well. He famously said, right, you can travel to Italy, but you would never be in Italian. You can travel to France, but you'll never be a Frenchman. You can live in Germany, but you would never be a German. You can pack your bags and live the rest of your life in China or Japan. And you will never be Chinese or Japanese. But you can travel from any one of those countries to establish roots in the United States of America. And you can still be an American, so long as you work hard, you play by the rules, you make your contributions, you wait your turn, pledge allegiance to the flag, and obtain your citizenship in the right way. That is America.
Speaker 1:
[60:20] Yeah, the sentiment, I understand, and this is something that a lot of people on the right used to say, and I will say I'm guilty of this, myself included, without getting to the part that needs to be expounded upon. Let me ask you this first before I get through these numbers. Do you believe that the countries he listed, Italy, France, Germany, the immigrants from those countries, largely pre-welfare state, do you believe that that's comparable to people coming from India and Bangladesh and Somalia? And what do you think the primary differences are? Okay, because I'm going to list them. Here's key fact number one. Places like Italy, France, Germany, they had cultures that could assimilate. There's a huge difference again, pre-welfare, post-welfare, filling occupancy versus no vacancy, and the qualifiers. The qualifiers are very different, and they're not being met by immigrants coming from countries that share nothing in common with us. So pre-1980 immigrants, they were two to three times more proficient in English than modern immigrants. So you can say, as long as you come here, you pledge allegiance, yeah, yeah, but what does that mean? How about you learn the language? How about you actually understand what the culture is? It's a lot easier to understand the culture if you come from a country where you speak the same language or a culture that recognizes the importance of learning than the native tongue of a language, which is pretty much common across the Western sphere. Share religion, share some understanding of social mores. Let's go to religion. 95% of Europeans coming in the early 1900s were Christian, unlike now. Huge portion, sometimes depending on the stats, most Islamic Hindu. And I will tell you this, not compatible, not compatible in the same way. I'm sorry, it's just not. The values of those immigrants, the countries that he listed, they brought individualism, work ethic, not collectivism, not authoritarianism, and certainly not coming from a country where everyone lives in abject poverty and has to accept it because they have been propagandized and under the thumb of a caste system since the history of their country. Very, very different. You know it's different, I know it's different, and it's just the rights version of we are the world, let's all hold hands. There's a big difference between someone from England, someone from Ireland, someone from Germany, someone from France, someone from Italy, someone coming here with a nickel in their pocket, pre-welfare state, learning the language at a rate two to three times higher than someone from India, Pakistan, or Mexico today who shares none of those same values. And it's okay for you to say, no vacancy. We're going to continue with the segment, by the way. I know I've gone over time. If you are not yet a Rumble Premium member, hey, click that button down there. We're able to say these things because we're funded by viewers like you. It's $99 a year. You get this wonderful hand-assured month. Try for $9 a month. Get everything ad-free to 100% more show. And if not, you get to go on, watch Haley Cronia and tune in tomorrow where it's also free. Key fact number two. While we're talking about those nations, Toolman hit it. They actually, Toolman.