The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and legalized same-sex marriage in a landmark decision that could have implications for abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. What does it mean for the future of abortion in America? What does this mean for gun control? And how will the rest of the country react to this historic ruling? We're joined by Austin Peterson, Ian Crossland, and Will Chamberlain to discuss all of this and much more.
00:01:44.000And I think on top of this is that the text from Clarence Thomas in his concurrence opens the door to overturning gay marriage and whatever else that might mean.
00:01:55.000There's a lot to talk about because we also have a bunch of gun control issues too because we just had that ruling and now the states are reacting as well.
00:02:03.000Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support the very important work we do.
00:02:09.000As a member, you get access to our exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
00:02:14.000And you'll be supporting our journalists who have been covering these stories all day, sitting there, making sure to get the news out with the best facts, the only the best facts, the correct ones.
00:02:23.000And you'll also be supporting our infrastructure.
00:02:25.000We use Rumble so that we can be more resilient to censorship.
00:02:29.000Without further ado, joining us to discuss all of this is Austin Peterson.
00:02:36.000I ran for president against Gary Johnson in the Libertarian primary, famous for saying that you shouldn't be able to sell heroin to five-year-olds and, you know, kind of being a guy who pushed the issue of, you know, baking the cake.
00:02:49.000The whole question of, you know, should you be forced as a Christian to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?
00:02:54.000And that issue has come around, you know, full circle in many other ways in American politics now.
00:02:59.000These days, I'm in a radio show and I also am a small business owner.
00:03:03.000I run the APForLibertyShop.com website and, you know, doing entrepreneurial stuff, trying to advance liberty and basically being at the forefront of Missouri politics these days, trying to advance gun bills there and advance pro-life legislation there and, you know, being a freedom fighter in general, I guess.
00:03:19.000And so we originally did not have Will Chamberlain booked, but this morning when the decision came down, I'm reading some of these opinions.
00:03:31.000Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, which fights big tech abuses, and the Article 3 Project, which fought to get Trump's justices confirmed.
00:03:41.000And so we're pretty happy about that work today.
00:05:26.000Alright, let's jump into the first story we got here from TimCast.com.
00:05:30.000Everybody knows by now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, as well as Casey.
00:05:35.000And in concurrence, Clarence Thomas wrote, basically opening the door to overturning gay marriage.
00:05:41.000The text of SCOTUS' Roe v. Wade decision opens door to upend gay marriage, just as Thomas calls gay marriage precedence demonstrably erroneous.
00:05:50.000Saying, uh, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, meaning those rulings are not guaranteed to escape future judicial scrutiny.
00:06:01.000I'm going to stop right there and ask Will, break this down for us because some reports were saying, no, no, no, this has no bearing whatsoever on gay marriage, but it certainly sounds like Clarence Thomas was like, man, we should, we should overturn those, those wrongs.
00:06:26.000So think about what is the due process guarantee, right?
00:06:28.000It's you have the you know, you know, the government can't take away your life liberty of property without due process of law.
00:06:34.000And so most people wouldn't understand that to mean, oh, due process, like procedural protections, like they can't take away my property without a hearing and notice telling me that they're going to do it and a chance to appeal, things like that.
00:06:45.000So that's what most people think of when they think of due process.
00:06:48.000However, the court, in order to protect certain rights that they felt were so essential that no process would be sufficient to justify the government depriving you of them, They came up with this kind of substantive due process doctrine that was used to essentially effectively create new rights.
00:07:07.000And that doctrine has been used to protect the right to use contraception, the right to marry the person of your choice, etc.
00:07:15.000Now, so then the question is, okay, well, Roe was also based on this substantive due process idea.
00:07:19.000Does overturning Roe mean all substantive due process is dead?
00:07:26.000Basically, if you read Dobbs, they didn't say substantive due process was wrong in the majority opinion.
00:07:31.000They said, here's how you interpret substantive due process, and it's basically like, is there a really robust historical justification or tradition of having this right, even if it wasn't spelled out in the Constitution?
00:07:43.000And they said, for abortion, that's not true.
00:07:46.000Historically, abortion was routinely banned throughout the states, so there's not a historical backing for it.
00:07:52.000But throughout the Dobbs opinion, they're basically saying, this doesn't necessarily implicate any of the other
00:08:21.000But that said, if you had a court case to try and overturn Obergefell on the grounds that substantive due process should be incoherent, I think that would lose 8-1.
00:08:37.000How was the interracial marriage question decided in that same sense?
00:08:41.000So I think interracial marriage, and again, I have to reach back because I haven't read Loving versus Virginia, which is the relevant case in a while, but I think that's an equal protection case.
00:08:51.000And that's a distinct doctrine, right?
00:08:53.000So kind of, you know, substantive due process is some rights are so important, they cannot be deprived of you no matter what.
00:08:59.000Equal protection is people must be treated the same way, right?
00:09:02.000You can't, you know, if there is an existing right, you can't deprive it arbitrarily to one subset Isn't that the argument in Obergefell?
00:09:09.000So I think Obergefell is like this weird mishmash of both substantive due process and equal protection because Anthony Kennedy is not, was not, may he rest in peace, or no he's still alive.
00:13:04.000We should look at life as a consistent ethic, and I believe in a consistent pro-life ethic.
00:13:08.000Not because I'm religious, because I'm not, but because I do believe that all humans deserve the same individual natural rights and they should be protected from reasonable idea of conception until natural death.
00:13:22.000So Ian, I don't think you're as politically active as anyone else here.
00:13:27.000I'm curious, are you happy to see Roe v. Wade overturn?
00:14:09.000And I think one of the things that I think people need to argue when they talk about how the conservative Christians don't care about babies once they're born, that's an out-and-out lie.
00:14:17.000You know those pregnancy centers that they're firebombing right now?
00:14:21.000Those are the Christian Church's response to abortion.
00:14:39.000My position is, you know, as I said before the show, rather dispassionate.
00:14:43.000Um, you know, I grew up... I think I, you know, Will and I agree on like a moderate kind of pro-choice, but it doesn't exist anymore in modern politics.
00:14:51.000It is basically the left is pro-abortion.
00:14:53.000They're being asked about late-term abortion, and the response from prominent Democrats is, it's the woman's choice.
00:14:59.000And I'm kind of just like, my attitude is, If the woman has a health issue and the baby can't, like,
00:15:05.000she can't carry the baby anymore, but the baby is viable, meaning it can live outside the
00:15:11.000And there's no legitimate answer that I've received because I don't think there is a
00:15:14.000legitimate answer. So it's completely dismissive of the idea that the state might have an interest
00:15:19.000in the life of an unborn child, which is an absurd position.
00:15:23.000Yeah. So I'll say this one more thing, Considering how insane everything's got in this country, I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of the rising conflict, but I'd imagine it's probably better that the states can enforce their own laws.
00:15:40.000I feel like it may result in more geographic hyperpolarization, which could be a bad thing, probably is a bad thing, in terms of keeping this country together.
00:15:48.000But I'm also concerned about the idea that For too long, you've had people who live very different lives in very different worlds are legislating for people who live in different ways.
00:15:57.000And this mostly is a view based on guns, because people in cities are like, guns should all be banned.
00:16:02.000And then it's like, bro, we had a bear on our porch a couple months ago.
00:16:06.000I'm sorry, dude, you're not taking my guns away.
00:16:08.000And aside from that, I know it's not an issue of hunting, or it's an issue of my right to defend myself.
00:16:13.000The people who live in cities, sure, I get it, you're not worried about bears.
00:16:16.000But you should be worried about murderers and criminals, because crime is skyrocketing.
00:16:20.000So look, The people who live in cities should not be passing laws that directly change the way of life for people who live totally different lives.
00:16:27.000And then I see bills like this, and I'm like, it's probably better off this way.
00:16:30.000I'm not super positive, but... So, there's a couple things I really want to say about this.
00:16:35.000You're mentioning civil unrest, the fact that this country's so polarized.
00:16:38.000I agree that there's a chance this is going to increase polarization, it almost certainly will, but I don't believe that unity can or ever should come at the expense of goodness, beauty, or truth.
00:16:46.000I believe that there are some things you can't compromise on.
00:16:51.000What the Supreme Court decided today was not simply that states are allowed to extend protection to the lives of unborn children.
00:16:59.000They decided that the thugs and terrorists who are mobbing outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices, attempting to assassinate them and kidnap their families, and firebombing pro-life charities do not get to decide what law is in this country.
00:17:15.000That is a massive win for rule of law, and not as many people are talking about that.
00:17:22.000Because every single other institution for the past several years has been caving into the mob on everything.
00:17:27.000There was no serious condemnation from any of our political institutions or the corporate world over the BLM riots or the 529 insurrection as we like to call it here.
00:17:46.000And they mocked the president when he was forced into a bunker because rioters outside of the White House had breached through the barriers after assaulting 150 federal agents.
00:17:58.000And the response from the media was, how mean of it was Donald Trump to disperse through those rioters to go over to the church to have a photo shoot.
00:18:11.000And so what we are seeing here is the, and I think we really need to pay attention to this.
00:18:16.000It is the first time in the last several years that any of our major institutions has stood up for itself and said, no, we're not going to let violent thugs tell us how to run our country.
00:18:26.000Let's jump to this next story from TimCast.com.
00:18:48.000You mean urging insurrection and violence.
00:18:51.000Now, as much as I will jokingly say urging insurrection, and I'm making a point by saying it, I do appreciate that at TimCast.com we don't use that loaded language.
00:19:01.000But the point I'm making when I say insurrection is these Democrats are coming out right now and saying no to the Supreme Court.
00:19:08.000And more importantly, and maybe you can comment on this more, Will, the DOJ garland came out And rebuked both the gun decision and Roe v. Wade.
00:20:44.000That actually breaking that relationship, maybe it's good because you want the government to lose in the Supreme Court a lot, but it's very unique and bizarre.
00:20:53.000Are you putting more icing on the cake?
00:20:56.000Yeah, I'm putting more icing on the cake.
00:20:57.000Look, I'm not going to stop celebrating, but you made this point and you're saying that it could be great if the Supreme Court just starts siding against the government more often.
00:22:33.000If your argument is based on the idea that two consenting adults, in the privacy of their own home and however they want to deal with their lives, should not be infringed upon, then why would that not open the door to every other circumstance?
00:22:45.000So how do we put on the brakes, right?
00:22:47.000So that's the thing, because initially, like, I think if two men want to get married, they should be free to do that, right?
00:22:52.000I don't think the state should inhibit it.
00:22:54.000That behavior, that's my own personal view.
00:22:56.000But how do you put the brakes on once you've done something like that, and you safeguard or protect that, that it doesn't go off?
00:23:57.000But also, on top of that, it's like, how could you ever possibly make the argument that society is going to adopt a new value and not pass that value on to its children?
00:24:29.000Because under the same arguments made, I was reading about the civil rights stuff
00:24:33.000and the arguments they made about the end of racial segregation.
00:24:36.000And the funny thing is, and I'll say this is the argument the left makes.
00:24:41.000The same arguments made about gender segregation were made for racial segregation.
00:24:45.000People were arguing that black and white people were fundamentally very different, that black people had this thing about them or white people had this thing, so it makes sense to separate.
00:24:54.000This is the argument, again, I'm saying presented by the left as to why they should end gender segregation.
00:24:58.000They said under the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says you can't discriminate in public
00:25:03.000accommodation, they end segregation, but why do we still have gender-based segregation
00:25:14.000So what do you do with gay kids, right?
00:25:15.000So when I was a child, you know, I have a gay brother, you know, we're kids, we're looking at the Sears magazine and I'm flipping to the girls section and he's like flipping to the guys section and we didn't know what sex was, right?
00:25:24.000So who talks to them about that, right?
00:25:26.000Who, you know, without that being considered grooming, right?
00:25:29.000Your parents decide how to address it and it's a personal family matter.
00:25:32.000But I mean like, you know, if they don't have parents, right?
00:25:34.000If there's, if there's no third party, right?
00:25:37.000That's like the moral legitimate You know, person who is supposed to be doing that.
00:25:41.000Whose responsibility is it to explain why this child is feeling the feelings that they're feeling that may not be the same as the rest of the kids in their class?
00:25:50.000Where does some third party have a moral right to have a conversation with that child about what they're feeling if nobody else does?
00:25:57.000If they have no parents, they have a guardian, right?
00:26:02.000The guardian, yeah, I'd say the guardian.
00:26:03.000Could they be accused of grooming if they don't have the proper relationship, right?
00:26:07.000Well, um, if, if you are not the, the, the guardian or parent of a child and then you're trying to introduce adult sexual concepts to them, yeah, I take issue with that because I don't trust it.
00:26:16.000Well, and also like, it is absolutely the case that parents or guardians can and do groom children.
00:26:22.000But right now, but, but I think we can say as a blanketed case, people who are not the parent or guardian should not under any circumstances be having these conversations with children.
00:26:30.000No, there's a circumstance in which the parents agree that they want an educator or someone to talk to their kids about it.
00:26:35.000So, you know, my attitude with the Florida bill is some of these conversations are already inappropriate for kids.
00:26:42.000If the parents decide my child is old enough to start learning about these things, the parent decide what's best for their kids.
00:26:47.000If that means they have a third-part educator, I disagree with it, but that's their decision on how they're raising their kids.
00:26:51.000So they can take them to a drag queen story hour at the public library if they want to, or maybe a private library if they want to.
00:26:57.000Well, the issue I take with drag queen story hour is that drag is a sexualized performance, and that's literal grooming, so let me ask you this in response.
00:27:05.000Do you think a parent should bring their kids to go-go dancer story hours?
00:27:11.000I don't think they should take a drag queen story hour, but I mean, there is some kind of a line there where you're saying is, you know, if the parent wants to teach the child about it, let's say the child is gay, you know, and they want to have a conversation with them about it, and they say that the boy wants to dress up like a woman, what is a safe environment that a parent can introduce them to those concepts that wouldn't become grooming if drag is inherently sexual?
00:27:44.000Lock them away in the tower and Rapunzel it down the hair when they're 18.
00:27:47.000And all of a sudden they can be introduced to that community or they're going to go online and they're going to be introduced to that community in a way that might be damaging to them, might be more harmful to them if they can't be introduced away.
00:28:39.000And my brother and I have been having these conversations, just like in the last few weeks, about he is sick and tired of drag queens becoming the avatars for the gay community.
00:28:47.000Like, why is it that pride has to be this sexualized event?
00:28:50.000Why can't it be something that can include conservative gays?
00:28:54.000Why is it that this... And it is, and it's notorious.
00:28:59.000At pride events, people walk around naked, women topless, and all these things.
00:29:03.000I would not call that a safe environment for a child to learn about these things.
00:29:06.000So when you have drag, for instance, you have a lot of people on the left saying, it's just dress up, it's costume.
00:29:11.000It's like, okay, what is a drag performance?
00:29:14.000A person in a sexualized way acts provocatively and it's accentuating sexual features and accepts money either in the thong or they rip their clothes off.
00:29:23.000They had Desmond is Amazing, a little boy ripping his clothes off on stage for tips.
00:29:49.000But for every reaction, there's going to be an equal counter-reaction.
00:29:52.000There's going to be conservative gays who are going to come out and they're going to say this, and you know, people like that should be able to have a seat at the table at the Texas GOP.
00:29:59.000I know that's been a big question lately.
00:30:00.000So, if we don't encourage the conservative gays to speak out in that community and offer them some kind of a moral support, then they're going to continue to be drowned out by those people who will sexualize children.
00:30:14.000So, how we do that is a challenge because if you're a conservative, you know, many people in the movement are not going to be in favor of interacting with the gay community at all.
00:30:22.000This is, again, the state of Texas Republican Party is having this big fight right now over whether or not log cabin Republicans will be included.
00:30:28.000Right, so we need to have allies in that community in order to have inroads with that community.
00:30:34.000If you really want to protect kids, that's going to have to be a front, a battlefront that we're going to have to participate in.
00:30:41.000So I think that as soon as, and you were sort of talking about the slippery slope earlier, and societies are going to pass their values on, they're going to pass their values on to their children, and also when you start breaking down taboos, it's not as if the people who want to break down taboos are ever satisfied, they just keep pushing for the next thing.
00:30:57.000And I think that's sort of always been the agenda behind the sexual revolution, going back to Kinsey.
00:31:02.000And John Money, who I've talked about extensively on the show and what their goals were.
00:31:07.000And this is Kinsey, who is called the godfather of the sexual revolution.
00:31:12.000He is the person who is credited as being the founder of the modern study of sex or sexology.
00:31:18.000And he openly said that he thinks the only perversion that exists is chastity.
00:31:24.000In his book, he was complicit in the sexual abuse of children and published data tables in his literature.
00:31:31.000Which basically were obtained through the sexual abuse of children.
00:31:35.000I won't get into detail on exactly what it was, just because it's graphic and disgusting.
00:31:39.000But the agenda of this sexual revolution has always been to break down all the cultural taboos, and that's not to say that every single person participating or every single person who is having sex outside of marriage or engaging in homosexual activity Wants the movement to reach that final end but that is its purpose and we've given it a tremendous amount of momentum as a society So I don't think the solution to that is for the conservative movement Which needs to stand up to it to say we need to incorporate more behaviors Which are just non-traditional sexual activities that we historically viewed as perversions into our own fold to help us make our policy
00:32:12.000Conservatism is a blanket term, or it's an umbrella term that will incorporate many different philosophies.
00:33:15.000We were talking about this on the show the other day.
00:33:17.000You have progressives who make up, at most, and I'm talking true progressives really pushing this stuff, make up at most 4% of the population within Western developed countries.
00:33:28.000Like they are a very tiny minority, ideologically speaking.
00:33:34.000But I'm speaking overall population numbers.
00:33:36.000And then everyone else is conservative.
00:33:38.000Now that obviously doesn't work, right?
00:33:40.000And so I think it makes sense to draw certain lines and say, well, you know, like in our municipality or in our township, to us, conservative means we promote conservative values with respect to human sexuality.
00:33:51.000You gotta be careful about moral extremism.
00:33:54.000Especially, okay, economy gets bad, people get desperate, 1928, 1929, Hitler comes to power, he's a moral extremist.
00:34:00.000He told you what was pure, what was good, what was right.
00:34:02.000So, I think, when it comes to gay people, being gay is fine.
00:34:06.000But being addicted to sex is not fine.
00:34:08.000I don't care what It doesn't matter what orientation you are.
00:34:11.000It doesn't matter what clothing you wear.
00:34:12.000That's not about being gay or being straight.
00:34:23.000But Seamus, can I ask you then, are you saying then that we should exclude, in the conservative movement, homosexual conservatives in order to not promote Homosexuality.
00:34:32.000So I think we should not promote homosexuality.
00:34:34.000I would not say that, like, this person should not be able to speak on this particular issue.
00:34:38.000But I would say the conservative movement should not be using, like, it is conservative to support gay marriage or homosexual behavior or anything like that.
00:34:43.000Do you believe homosexuality is a choice and not an intrinsic value?
00:34:46.000I believe acting on homosexual desires is a choice.
00:34:49.000But that the desire itself is some kind of an intrinsic, like, genetic part of that person's makeup?
00:35:22.000I think it's not so much that question.
00:35:24.000I mean, there are a lot of behaviors that I think there's a genetic predisposition for that I would consider good or bad without reference to that genetic predisposition.
00:35:36.000But I would say that there's a chance that homosexuality is a good thing.
00:35:41.000And the reason why is the possibility that evolution has created this as an adaptation in order to adapt for overpopulation.
00:35:51.000And the possibility, the reason why there are so many homosexuals in large population centers is because it is possible that Natural selection is creating a scenario where it's turning off homosexual relationships in order to account for overpopulation in a given area.
00:36:12.000So, for example, if there aren't enough female frogs in certain areas, then they will spontaneously change their sex so that they can actually produce.
00:36:20.000And this is a natural process of evolution.
00:36:23.000We don't know this, and I'm just postulating this, right?
00:36:26.000There's not a lot of hard science on this one, but I think we will probably find out that there is a biological reason for why homosexuality exists, and it might be a good thing for the survival of the species.
00:37:43.000I think I understand what Seamus is saying.
00:37:45.000Someone who is conservative and LGBT or whatever, you don't need to promote LGBT, but they can speak on conservative issues that you agree on or that are conservative.
00:37:54.000So there's a space for them, I'd imagine, right?
00:37:57.000Yeah, is it that you well it in the same way that I mean, so I've spoken with people who I'll give you an example
00:38:46.000Is it with the left eating themselves?
00:38:47.000They're going to start pushing out many of their own people in that group It's just too large a group to be able to hold all these people in of many disparate views.
00:38:54.000So strategically, what's happening right now, I see, is a window is opening up for us to take advantage of to bring these kinds of people into the group, not just targeting, you know, white homosexuals, but the people that they're going to start eating and that they're going to go after and say, well, these people that are problematic now, because it's these white homosexuals that are, you know, against these kinds of racial policies that we've had, or CRT, for example, right?
00:39:17.000So as that happens, we should be taking advantage of that in order to build conservative libertarian coalition to win elections and crush the left.
00:39:25.000So you mentioned that this community is too large to have all these disparate views and that's how I feel about the conservative community.
00:39:31.000I think it's absolutely the case that the left is going to eat itself.
00:39:33.000They're going to force people out of their movement for whatever reason.
00:39:35.000They're always struggling through their various wars and revolutions to become more ideologically pure.
00:39:40.000What I'm saying is conservatism has basically meant something throughout the eras.
00:39:45.000It's basically meant we want to conserve tradition and ultimately we want to conserve the family.
00:39:49.000But what does it mean to be a conservative in the United Kingdom?
00:39:51.000I don't think there's a very strong conservative movement throughout most of the West.
00:39:54.000want to conserve things that the United States... I don't think there's a very strong conservative movement
00:40:31.000We've talked about this before, but our society uses the word love in many different ways.
00:40:36.000Whereas the ancients had different words to describe it.
00:40:38.000I do not believe that homosexual behavior with respect to what is done behind closed doors, we'll use euphemisms here because we're on YouTube in front of a live audience.
00:40:46.000I don't believe that those are loving acts.
00:40:47.000I don't, I'm not saying that I don't think that a gay person can love someone else or care about them.
00:40:52.000I'm saying that I believe those acts are intrinsically immoral.
00:42:00.000Even for someone that's gay, like some people maybe aren't comfortable with people of the opposite sex.
00:42:05.000So they, they do what they're comfortable with.
00:42:06.000And it's in that way, it's good for people to learn how to communicate with someone of the opposite sex.
00:42:11.000This is an interesting, I think this is a good conversation still, because if the door is being opened based on the statements made by Thomas, and I think it's something to talk about, but I will say, I ultimately don't know if it matters, because I'll ask you, Will, is there a potential court case that could arise that would actually challenge Obergefell?
00:42:30.000I mean, well, you can always have some sort of court case, right?
00:42:34.000Like, maybe a state could pass a law that would ban gay marriage, right?
00:42:38.000And then somebody could challenge that law, and then it could work its way up through the courts, sort of.
00:42:41.000Because that's kind of what happened with abortion, right?
00:42:43.000Abortion was, there was a federal rule saying you can't ban abortion pre-viability, so a state just did it, and then used that to challenge it.
00:44:28.0001, 2, and 3, A, B, and C. Conservatives who are gay and conservatives who are straight agree on A, B, and C. Then there's literally no discussion and argument.
00:44:34.000Fiscal conservatism, national defense conservatism.
00:44:36.000And so if you're a fiscal conservative and you meet another fiscal conservative who happens to be gay, that wouldn't be a part of your conversation.
00:44:41.000But a homosexual conservative who is in favor of gay marriage is in favor of a socially conservative value.
00:44:48.000Wanting to have gay marriage is a conservative value.
00:44:51.000Because a marriage between two people is a conservative value.
00:44:58.000Marriage itself is a conservative institution.
00:45:01.000If two men want to get married, that is showing that these homosexuals are embracing socially conservative values, in my view.
00:45:35.000I'm curious what your basis is for why you would say a gay relationship is fine, but an incestuous gay relationship or an incestuous relationship is not okay.
00:45:45.000I mean, like, I've read sort of the arguments, and so the answer is actually going to be fairly simple.
00:45:50.000Like, it really is my own intuitive moral response.
00:46:55.000If you make a moral argument and you win the moral argument, the moral argument stands for all facets of it.
00:46:59.000If you say, two consenting adults are allowed to live in the private state of their home and do whatever they want, it's like, okay, but you realize that extends morally, logically, beyond just two adult men or two adult women.
00:47:10.000It extends to a father and a daughter, a mother and a son, brothers, sisters, and everything in between.
00:47:14.000And they're actually making those arguments now.
00:47:17.000And so this is the issue I was bringing up with gender segregation.
00:47:19.000Racial segregation, I think, is wrong.
00:47:22.000Gender segregation, I don't much have a problem with.
00:47:30.000If you cannot discriminate on the basis of these intrinsic characteristics in public accommodation, why would you be allowed to for one and not the other?
00:47:39.000Other than just saying, we have a personal moral line, and that's it.
00:47:43.000If that's the case, and you're saying that it's just within you, you have an intrinsic morality, then all that matters is if you open the door to gay marriage, quite literally, people who grew up with it will not have that reflex for the next degree, which would be incest or things of that nature.
00:47:59.000Not a slippery slope, just literally the next step in incrementalizing towards it.
00:48:03.000Ultimately, I think what we're arguing over in Austin, I mean, I appreciate everything you said about the pro-life movement.
00:48:08.000There are a number of things we really agree on.
00:48:10.000I think where we really disagree is first and foremost on the definition of marriage.
00:48:13.000I just don't believe that gay marriage is a logical possibility given how I define the term marriage.
00:48:18.000I think what we really don't agree on is where the slippery slope starts, right?
00:48:23.000Where can we say this is the behavior we're going to allow, but like once we go past that, it's clear that we're going to start slipping down that hill.
00:48:31.000What really matters is the law, right?
00:48:40.000Should we use the government to actually stop people from engaging in a private contract?
00:48:44.000If someone has a private contract and calls it a marriage, Right, are you saying that that's not?
00:48:50.000So I don't believe that, no yeah, I don't believe that the federal government has any power to redefine marriage.
00:48:55.000I believe marriage between a man and a woman, I don't think, or any government.
00:48:57.000I'm talking about a contract, I'm talking about a private contract between two individuals that they desire to call marriage.
00:49:01.000Two people can make a contract and say that they're going to do whatever they want, but I don't believe that that is a marriage.
00:49:07.000I'm asking you, do you believe that the government should stop, halt, a contract between two consenting adults that they call marriage?
00:49:16.000It depends on what they're trying to do.
00:49:18.000So I don't think the government should recognize it as marriage.
00:49:21.000If two people come together and say, you know, we're going to live together or we're going to do X, Y, and Z, why should the government recognize marriage at all?
00:49:38.000Austin, I would agree with you that I want the federal government out of marriage generally speaking, but I think it's worse for it to redefine it once it's been involved.
00:49:51.000I'm presenting, like, making that point, then why would they?
00:49:54.000I think the issue is, marriage is deeply rooted in, at least in the United States, in Abrahamic tradition.
00:50:01.000Marriages exist in other countries as well, and marriage, because of the secularization of the United States, has become a state institution, which opens up the question of, what you're saying, contracts between consenting adults.
00:50:13.000Seamus takes a traditional religious perspective, which is that marriage is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.
00:50:25.000Uh, and so I believe that, I don't believe, and this is the irony actually, like as Catholics we, part of why we don't believe in gay marriage is because we don't think the church can redefine what marriage is.
00:50:34.000We believe marriage is what it has been through history and it can't like change it from being man and woman to something else.
00:50:39.000No, but you're all wrong because it's not based on the Abrahamic religions entirely because we just got my beautiful wife who's in the corner here, Stephanie.
00:50:47.000We just got back from touring Bridal Cave, which is at the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.
00:50:51.000This is why I just said, at least in America.
00:50:57.000I don't believe that Christianity or Judaism invented marriage at all.
00:51:08.000Not one of the government, but one of two people.
00:51:11.000It's a contract in a sense, a private contract.
00:51:14.000It doesn't need, it's not a contract that necessarily needs to be written down.
00:51:17.000So a marriage is a relationship, right?
00:51:19.000It's not necessarily, you know, because your God has deigned to bring you two together.
00:51:24.000It's a relationship between two people that can involve only them, or it can involve them and their God or a third party, if you so desire.
00:51:31.000But that is an intrinsically personal thing that's defined by them, not by government.
00:51:42.000Didn't they used to consummate the marriage in front of the party?
00:51:45.000Actually, the third person that was there was the tribal chief.
00:51:47.000So there were only typically three people there.
00:51:49.000But there's a society, I mean, there's a, the reason, like, I say, like, when I'm like, the state should obviously, to me, be involved in marriages and certifying them is because, um, you know, there's part of the benefit of having the state involved is it's very hard to make binding commitments in our world.
00:53:35.000I feel like you're bent on man and man can't get married because of the religious aspect.
00:53:39.000I mean, not the religious aspect, because I believe marriage predates religion.
00:53:42.000It's just what I believe the term means.
00:53:47.000The weird thing to me about, we also have the Supreme Court ruling on Maine and the private schools.
00:53:52.000Is that to the liberal in this country, the separation of church and state means the state refusing to provide for or to actively discriminate against religion.
00:54:02.000Whereas on the right, the separation of church and state is the state cannot discriminate on the basis of your religion, which is particularly interesting.
00:54:09.000So I'm thinking back to the famous Prop 8 musical with Jack Black.
00:54:15.000And he said his argument for why there should be gay marriages, the nation was built on a separation of church and state.
00:54:22.000And then I'm like, wouldn't that actually be an argument for civil unions, a government contract, and not any kind of like ceremonial procedure?
00:54:32.000I mean, in the sense that Right, like, I mean, I think I'm sort of indifferent to whatever the state calls the, like, sort of, you know, certification.
00:54:41.000I mean, it's, you know, my dad always joked that, you know, my dad's a California conservative, but he joked, he's like, yeah, sure, I absolutely want the gays to have marriage and alimony and divorce payments and child support payments and everything that goes along with it.
00:54:53.000I think, I mean, I guess, I don't know, I'm fine with gay marriage, you know, in terms of the state certifying legal marriages.
00:55:01.000I think it's like... Look at this liberal over here.
00:55:50.000Second most Trump-supporting state in the country.
00:55:53.000And she's not up for reelection for four years, so she thinks she can get away with this, that she can spit on her constituents as if West Virginians want gun control.
00:56:03.000Well, thank God for Missouri, because in Missouri, we have the Second Amendment Preservation Act.
00:56:07.000And this is a law that was passed two years ago, signed by the governor, Mike Parson, that effectively punishes Missouri police officers Wow.
00:56:17.000and their institution, whichever one that they are a part of,
00:56:20.000with a $50,000 fine if Missouri police officers are to act in coordination with federal officers
00:56:26.000enforcing federal laws, if they are not against the law in Missouri.
00:56:30.000So if you're breaking Missouri law, then the police officers can participate.
00:56:34.000But in Missouri, if Joe Biden passes a gun control package and it's not in Missouri's law,
00:56:41.000then Missouri police officers are not allowed to participate.
00:56:43.000The feds still can, but not Missouri police.
00:56:45.000We also have from governor.nh.gov, HB 1178, signed into law, an act prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or presidential executive order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
00:57:01.000So the state cannot The feds can come in, but not the states.
00:57:10.000My understanding of the federal law is that it provides funding and support to states in implementing their own red flag laws.
00:57:46.000So, you're not stopping the feds from coming in, obviously, but if they do come in, your police officers are totally unable to help unless they want to.
00:57:53.000If they want to perform a federal raid for bump stocks, then Missouri police officers are not allowed to participate.
00:57:58.000And the police don't like it, and it actually has put conservatives in Missouri in a really difficult position because typically they would de facto support police.
00:58:05.000And so now police are, you know, in a situation where they have to try and convince conservative lawmakers to try and repeal or gut a law that the lawmakers just passed overwhelmingly that was popular, and it's now a big campaign issue in Missouri.
00:58:19.000I don't know that New Hampshire's has any kind of an enforcement clause, but there's a current Senate candidate named Eric Greitens who's running in Missouri.
00:58:26.000He was governor there for a short time.
00:58:28.000He's now running again to be in the U.S.
00:58:30.000And he actually came on my program in Missouri and said that he supported the police, that this amounts to a defunding of the police.
00:58:37.000He was actually using leftist rhetoric, mom's demand rhetoric, going against the Second Amendment Preservation Act because of the $50,000 fine that goes to those police departments.
00:58:47.000Well, I guess it does amount to a de facto defunding of police, but because Missouri conservatives are more inclined to support gun rights than they are to support the police, They're American.
00:58:58.000It puts Republicans in a really difficult spot.
00:59:00.000I think it's actually a beautiful thing to do.
00:59:03.000And I just want to mention, if anyone had any illusions that the police will not enforce gun control laws or come take your guns because they're conservatives, this clearly demonstrates that they will.
00:59:12.000Is it the kind of thing where if two cops in a cop car come and do it that it's 100 grand, like 50,000 twice them and the partner?
00:59:20.000So if you have if there's a gun raid, and the FBI is asking for local law enforcement to help participate, which happens all the time, because usually it's really it's actually about money, because what they want to do is civil asset forfeiture, because we have this thing called equitable sharing.
00:59:32.000And the process is that they come in, they do a raid, the state takes some of the money, the feds take some of the money, they split the proceeds, and then they walk out happy.
00:59:40.000But the state police officers are mad because if they aren't breaking a Missouri state law, they can't participate with the feds and they can't share in the spoils of war.
00:59:49.000So that's really the issue, is the question of how much money that these police departments are losing.
00:59:54.000And that's why I think it's a critical issue because it places conservative values against the law.
01:00:00.000And when conservatives are asked whether or not they're going to support the police or support gun rights, The rights are what's more important than the cultural we-support-police, you know, rah-rah-rah kind of a thing, right?
01:00:11.000So I think it's a rubber-hits-the-road issue for anybody running for political office.
01:00:40.000Oh, nullification is the right of a state to defy or somehow overturn federal law in its jurisdiction, right?
01:00:48.000So the feds would not be able, in nullification, the police officers would actually prevent the feds from enforcing their rights.
01:00:55.000Aren't they doing that in some places though?
01:00:57.000No, I mean, the only thing that they've done is, like, they've, you know, states can say, basically do what they did here, which is like, we will not help you, right?
01:01:05.000Like, not that we're saying that your law doesn't apply here, but rather, we will not help you enforce your law.
01:01:12.000If you want to come in and enforce it, you have the right to do that, go for it, but we're not going to help you enforce federal law.
01:01:16.000That's okay, because state and federal government are different sovereigns, right?
01:01:20.000And that's not a disrespect of federal sovereignty, because it's still saying the federal government has the right to enforce its law anywhere in the United States.
01:01:28.000I mean, a world where you accept nullification is a world where, you know, New York says, that's fascinating that you have this new rule that says we can't stop people from You know, we can't have our concealed weapons thing.
01:01:40.000You know, that's funny that you have that Second Amendment, but we're going to do what we want in New York.
01:01:44.000And if that means depriving everyone of their right to guns, you have no say in it.
01:01:47.000We're going to nullify that Supreme Court ruling.
01:01:54.000I hear you and I think you're making good arguments.
01:01:56.000And I'm not totally on one side or the other here, but I would say this.
01:02:00.000I might be willing to accept that if that meant in my state the federal government gets zero say and can't enforce anything if our legislatures decide that I should be able to have whatever gun I want.
01:02:10.000Ultimately, the end state of nullification is going back to, effectively, the world of the United States and the Articles of Confederation.
01:02:22.000Actually, historically, that was terrible.
01:02:24.000And I don't want civil war in the United States, but that's how we get there.
01:02:28.000We want to go back to a world where we had a very weak federal government and and I mean ultimately that there wasn't very very well I gotta be honest.
01:02:35.000We got a pretty strong federal government.
01:02:36.000I don't know about civil wars out of the question.
01:02:38.000No, I mean Actually, you know, this is probably where I disagree with you all I think we actually do have a very strong federal government and I think that as a result of that civil wars But if the federal government were to pass a law that were to ban guns Federally right then the state says no actually we're going to nullify that because we actually interpret the Constitution as it is clearly written I mean, you'd be in favor of the feds being able to enforce a law that would ban guns federally if the state wanted to nullify it.
01:03:09.000I mean, obviously, I think the hypothetical has a problem because the state could go to court and say, this is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
01:03:19.000And we know how that would end up now, right?
01:03:21.000Because the Supreme Court would say so.
01:03:24.000Like, I don't think, you know, if on any random litigated issue, if the state disagrees with the federal government, but the, you know, and they litigate, you know, the federal government wants to impose its law on the state, the state litigates and all the courts say, no, the federal government can do this.
01:03:37.000It's clearly within federal authority.
01:03:39.000I don't think the state then just gets to defy that.
01:03:41.000Under that scenario, would you be in favor of a convention of states?
01:03:44.000I mean, I'd be in favor of changing federal law at that point.
01:03:50.000There are no circumstances where you think Article 5 of the Constitution would ever arise?
01:04:14.000And I think it turned out really, we're extremely lucky at The Founding Fathers because you look at Canada right now and it's like, But they warned us over and over about central banks.
01:04:23.000And I mean, they were like, they're more powerful than standing armies, I think they even said at one point, and then the Federal Reserve got formed.
01:04:28.000Well, yeah, well, I mean, you're you're a Jeffersonian, and I'm a Hamiltonian, right?
01:04:32.000Like, this is the... Like, they already posed a revolution on us in 1913.
01:04:37.000Yeah, now we have the most powerful economy in the world.
01:04:39.000But not all revolutions are fought with blood and tears and powder.
01:04:44.000And the Federal Reserve was a revolution.
01:04:46.000Right the progressive era was a revolution. It wasn't fought with bullets. It was fought at the ballot box
01:04:50.000And so yeah, I want a revolution I don't want fighting in the streets here in the United
01:04:54.000States but I want an overturning of many of the
01:04:57.000Legal precedents that have been said then, you know win some elections and and win some litigation
01:05:02.000For more states for a convention revolution means to turn forward and it actually it's it's constantly we're in a
01:05:11.000revolution We are revolving and if you participate in the revolution
01:05:14.000is up to you But it's revolving whether you're doing it or not.
01:05:17.00030 states are controlled by Republicans, legislatures, and 34 for a convention of states, I believe.
01:05:24.000I mean, if we had like what we have now on the Supreme Court in terms of majority with these states, where we had majority of conservative states that were pushing for this, Then would you push for an Article 5 or think that... Oh, you mean if we didn't have a majority conservative Supreme Court?
01:06:17.000I think people are wildly underestimating how violent and bloody that would be, how impossible that would be relative to... I mean, I think one thing we... You say un-possible?
01:06:34.000In the run-up to the Civil War, right after the Civil War was declared, state armies literally just walked into federal armories and took all the guns.
01:06:43.000We can't even comprehend how weak the federal government was in the run-up to the Civil War, which is why the states were able to secede in the first place.
01:06:51.000It's just not something that would happen, and it would be bad if it did.
01:06:54.000How strong is too strong a federal government for you?
01:06:58.000A federal government that can't be constrained by law at all is too strong.
01:07:07.000What do you think about the Patriot Act?
01:07:08.000The federal government is not too strong in your mind?
01:07:11.000I mean, there are places where I think the federal government should be weaker and places where I think the federal government should be stronger.
01:07:16.000Are you comfortable with the Patriot Act?
01:07:29.000Like, I think it probably gives the NSA, and like, there's probably too much power and too much espionage power in general.
01:07:35.000Can you cut it out with the nuance, please?
01:07:56.000You're right, the American Revolution in many ways stuck the landing.
01:07:59.000But even with the American Revolution, it's not as if every single person Who was revolting, was fighting because they wanted the kind of system that the Founding Fathers ended up setting up.
01:08:09.000And we see this in every, like, you look at the Bolshevik Revolution, it's not as if, or even the French Revolution, it's not as if all of those people rose up to fight because they wanted to see the ideology that ended up taking the place of their current system come to fruition.
01:08:23.000They were angry, they wanted to fight, but it's just a very tiny organized minority that ends up getting to decide what government you have after the revolution has won.
01:09:46.000It's one of the big issues with the Fugitive Slave Act, which is the North was not adhering to.
01:09:52.000And so you have many southern states outright being like, So our votes are meaningless, the federal government won't enforce the agreements that we have as a union, then there must not be a union.
01:10:04.000And if that's happening now with the DOJ going after Trump's Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Clark, going after a GOP chair in Nevada, filing subpoenas, raiding homes, these people are going to have the exact same sentiment.
01:10:16.000I think, I mean, the way to resolve that is to punish them when we take power, right?
01:10:24.000Like, I think that that's, we need to kind of flip it back on them, right?
01:10:28.000Everybody who is involved in these DOJ investigations themselves needs to come under investigation.
01:10:35.000Trump couldn't do it, but then, I'm thinking, you gotta look at a world where DeSantis and a little more sophisticated, legally sophisticated group of people are in charge of a Republican White House, like, and I think the optimism is...
01:10:52.000The midterms are gonna be really good for Republicans, and then in 2024, you're gonna get either a Trump or a DeSantis who will take those actions, but I just feel like that's just, it's unpredictable.
01:11:06.000Yeah, and DOJ, what DOJ is doing now and what Merrick Garland is doing at DOJ, I mean, Merrick Garland should be impeached.
01:11:10.000That actually should be early on the list of things, like, of what should be done.
01:11:17.000I mean, there's a lot of unlawful, there's actually like some seriously like unlawful actions failure to enforce law.
01:11:22.000Yep, right failure For example, like the protests that judges justices houses
01:11:26.000like his decision to just completely not enforce that in my view. That's impeachable
01:11:30.000Oh, yeah, did he argue that was the First Amendment? Right?
01:11:32.000He just didn't even I don't even think yeah discussed it publicly like at all
01:11:36.000I think he passively just, I think it was asked of him, but he said something like just shrugging it off or something.
01:11:44.000If you're not going to protect Supreme Court justices from, you know, like there's federal law on the books that says people aren't allowed to protest in front of their private homes.
01:11:51.000But doesn't the First Amendment supersede that?
01:12:27.000The sort of ideological is, if the courts aren't allowed to sit down, discuss, and try and figure out what justice is, then free speech doesn't exist at all.
01:12:37.000Well, but they can still protest at the court, right?
01:12:58.000There's a difference of yelling at the judge as he's driving to the court, standing outside, and just yelling outside the court while they're all inside.
01:13:03.000Because if you're yelling at his car and yelling at him when he's walking in, that's definitely pressuring the judge.
01:13:09.000You guys are talking a lot about the Civil War and the allegory, which I see, which is the states being like, you're not upholding my rights, government.
01:13:15.000But I think of the Revolutionary War and the similarities that the taxation, no taxation without representation is what sparked it.
01:13:22.000And as they're printing trillions, we've got like $30 trillion of debt.
01:13:33.000It says, whoever with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such a judge, juror, witness, or court officer, How do you define near?
01:13:55.000I guess it's probably... I mean that actually, you know, that's an interesting question because I guess somehow that's got to coexist with the First Amendment, right?
01:14:02.000title imprisoned, not more than one year or both.
01:14:15.000I guess I'd have to read up on how the Supreme... I know the Supreme Court said some stuff about this.
01:14:19.000Well, so what I read was the reason this came about, this is 1950, was because the judges were basically like, how can we actually administer justice if people will use political attacks against us in the course of seeking justice?
01:14:35.000So if you're able to protest at someone's house or at a court to influence a judge and alter the course of justice, then there isn't any.
01:14:42.000Because that means, like with Brett Kavanaugh, If he says, I am going to side with overturning Roe v. Wade, and then we're going to go to your house and threaten you, then there's not justice for those who had filed a petition in the court.
01:14:53.000Kind of reminds me of, remember back to the Tommy Robinson stuff?
01:14:58.000That was in the UK, but sort of similar to this.
01:14:59.000He interviewed someone outside of court, so they arrested him.
01:15:02.000Well, you just talked about private, you know, like what it was declared confidential information about court proceedings and you're not allowed to do that.
01:15:55.000That they can just choose not to look at things that they don't feel like are relevant to them, but like, they're relevant to me?
01:16:01.000Right, well, but they, you know, there's a lot of reasons we might not want, you know, there's a lot of reasons they shouldn't just take every single case.
01:16:07.000I understand that they're not physically capable of it.
01:16:08.000Listen to this anarchist guy over here.
01:16:34.000Times have changed, technology has changed, and we probably could do a better job with some great minds in building a new form of government.
01:16:41.000That being said, right now in the world, it's like the United States government, the structure of it, it's the best.
01:16:50.000Granted, over time it gets bad, over time bad things happen, there's bad precedent, there's bad lot, bloats, and then you're like, oh, I got too much garbage.
01:16:57.000There's a lot of things they didn't predict, but the idea of a legislative branch, an executive, and a judicial branch is brilliant.
01:17:02.000And a bicameral system within the legislature, so it wasn't just one body.
01:17:10.000Most people underestimate the power of, you really don't like having, there's a lot of times where you get really upset if you have a weak executive, or Because also, here's the interesting thing about having a strong executive is it's a counterbalance to the legislature.
01:17:22.000If you have a weak executive, generally the legislature ultimately swallows up executive power and you get like one thing.
01:17:29.000So Ian, it is not just about the justices.
01:17:31.000Congress gets together, the House, and they go, hey we got an idea.
01:17:34.000These are all the people elected to represent their districts and we think these things should be law.
01:17:40.000Then it goes to the Senate, who has to agree.
01:17:44.000So the people's representation passes a bill, the state's representation agrees with it, and then the executive branch has to sign off on it.
01:17:52.000If it doesn't, you need a veto-proof majority.
01:17:55.000When the president signs off on it, you now have two branches checking that.
01:17:58.000Then, once it becomes law, people can challenge it in court, and then there's a judicial review of it.
01:18:04.000It is actually... Look, man, you can argue that you don't like that nine people have these decisions.
01:18:09.000It is the best system in the world right now.
01:18:12.000One issue I've got with the House of Representatives is that they have a monopoly on the lawmaking right now.
01:18:17.000It's like 460 of them or something get to decide what goes to the I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
01:18:27.000Mike Revelle proposed this thing when he was still alive, the last consenator, called the National Initiative, which would have created a fourth branch of government.
01:18:34.000And you get representatives from every state or people from every state that come together and select one of them to represent, which you probably wouldn't even need now with the internet.
01:18:41.000And you also now gain the ability to pass laws into the Senate.
01:18:59.000We can't shoot it down because the majority of people who go to the ballot box don't sit down and read the referendum and know exactly everything that's in it.
01:19:07.000We just passed a terrible medical marijuana bill in Missouri that created a cartel where only Five to ten to fifteen people are allowed to completely control the marijuana thing, and we're about to do it again.
01:19:17.000The people who want to legalize recreational cannabis are going to go to the polls this fall in Missouri and pass a terrible bill that all the libertarians in Missouri are actually against because it sets up a cartel.
01:19:27.000That's the kind of laws that you get when they're written by Democratic majorities.
01:19:30.000And Ian, I'll tell you why I disagree.
01:19:31.000So when you look at Wikipedia, You can't sue the individuals who write the things because they don't write complete sentences.
01:19:37.000You can't sue Wikipedia because they're not the ones who write it, even though they publish it.
01:19:41.000The fact that it's so heavily decentralized means there's no accountability for wrongdoing, but wrongdoing taking place due to a large crowd makes them unaccountable.
01:19:53.000Right now in New York, we had Larry Sharp on.
01:19:55.000He mentioned 60% of people in the state want gun control, even though it's unconstitutional.
01:20:01.000If we introduce laws based on that, you will get majority manipulation.
01:20:06.000You will get people's rights being violated.
01:20:08.000And as Michael Malice puts it, my rights are not up for a vote.
01:20:12.000But a bunch of really ignorant people who are unaccountable can all just go in and make it happen.
01:20:17.000Now, when it comes to a representative, there's accountability because the individual is the one representing the group, has to take accountability for passing the law or introducing it, and the courts can come after them, and they can get voted out.
01:20:26.000But what kind of accountability do these people have right now, all these people that voted for this?
01:20:31.000I don't see how a corporation writing a law and handing it to a representative to give to the Senate is better than giving me the opportunity to write a law and pass it to a judge.
01:20:40.000Ian, the problem is, remember checks and balances, right?
01:20:44.000If you create that fourth branch of government, what role does the Supreme Court and the legislature and the president have in order to check?
01:21:40.000If you look at the federal, things move much slower.
01:21:42.000So I would ask you to say, why don't you pass something like that in a state first?
01:21:46.000Like pass something like that on a state level.
01:21:48.000We already kind of do that in Missouri.
01:21:50.000We have a referendum process where people can actually change the Constitution by passing, going around the legislature, going around the executive in Missouri, and passing something by a popular direct vote in democracy.
01:22:02.000And now our Constitution in Missouri is this leviathan that becomes, you know, completely unwieldy.
01:22:08.000And every 10 years we have an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution, and they keep trying to do it, and we can't.
01:22:14.000So the last thing that we want to do is give the power to direct democracy in the United States for anybody, you know, to go out and just write a law and then place that in the Constitution.
01:22:24.000Do you want, like, your average Joe to write a law that's going to sit next to the Second Amendment and the beautiful words of the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment?
01:22:30.000Like, we don't have those founding father type people again, and if they are, They're certainly not coming out of the regular ranks of the people and bypassing, you know, not going and running for office.
01:22:40.000Any of the great people that we have right now are running for office and they are getting elected.
01:22:45.000Very few of them that I think that people like Massey and Rand Paul and others, but they're there.
01:22:50.000The founders are there and they're already in the government writing laws.
01:22:53.000The issue, Ian, that you're taking is not solved by your proposal.
01:22:58.000The issue is we have a corrupt system.
01:23:01.000That the people who get elected often are just serving special interests.
01:23:59.000I think the problem is that big, huge bills are getting into the representatives' hands that they don't read, and then they vote yes and it's sent to the Senate.
01:24:25.000The term limit thing, I've gone back and forth on, but the reason it doesn't work is that special interests will just rotate their people.
01:24:30.000They say that that happens in Missouri, but there are some negatives to it, but the benefits are that Nancy Pelosi types go away.
01:24:38.000That they can't come in and establish a little kingdom and then stay there for 20, 30, 40 years.
01:24:42.000But Ron Paul did, and we like Ron Paul.
01:24:45.000There are no term limits in the bureaucracy and so if you have term limits exactly like Congress is sort of your way of having some oversight of the deep state That's how it works though That is that is a big part of how it works right and in certainly if we had term limits in a world of term limits We just get I mean, that would be a lot better.
01:25:08.000That's a much more effective place to start.
01:25:27.000By the way, elected office, government job, four years, off to the island.
01:25:31.000We have term limits on the state level.
01:25:33.000Maybe it just needs to be on the state level.
01:25:34.000But in Missouri, we have term limits and you're, you know, if you're in the legislature, you go at a certain time.
01:25:39.000And we have lost some good people, but the majority of people are bad.
01:25:42.000And the majority of people go away, and that makes it better.
01:25:45.000But the problem is that you think about how much power you're giving to the legislative aides in that world, because the legislative aides are the only people who know, like, the law.
01:25:56.000Most of the legislative aides that I know in Missouri, and I live in Jefferson City and work there, they are all, many of them, much more libertarian than their bosses, because they have to be conservative to win office.
01:26:05.000What I know of the legislative aides in Missouri is that it helps us because they do, like you say, accrue more power, but the ones that we have in Missouri are more libertarian.
01:26:13.000So there's a thing called super chickens.
01:26:17.000Super chickens are the hens that dominate the pecking order.
01:26:22.000So anybody who has chickens knows that there's going to be one hand who's going to be like, I'm in charge and pushing everybody around.
01:26:28.000They took a bunch of different flocks, took the highest ranking pecking order chickens and said, okay, let's put them in a flock and see how they handle it.
01:26:39.000So I bring that up because I'm like, I wonder what would happen if the island ID, I know I'm kidding, but imagine if we took everyone out, you get four years in office, For whatever reason.
01:26:53.000You'd lose a lot of institutional memory, right?
01:26:56.000Like, there's- and there's a lot of places- Well, I'm not talking about to us, I'm talking about what would an island look like if you just, like, a boat comes up and they're like, off you go, and they leave?
01:27:03.000Well- And then you enter the society of all former politicians.
01:27:06.000It would look like Arlington, Virginia.
01:28:17.000That's where basically you make people much more easy to fire for the basis of just like, you're not one of us, right?
01:28:24.000And I mean, that creates its own set of like corruption issues, which is like you sweep in a whole, every time you have a new administration, you sweep out a whole bunch of civil servants that you wouldn't have swept out before.
01:28:35.000But what about their institutional knowledge?
01:28:39.000Basically, it's like you want a world where you have the choice about whether you keep that institutional knowledge around or not, right?
01:28:46.000You get the benefit of it if you think these people are genuinely nonpartisan, but if you come in and you're like, oh look, the FBI wants to destroy my administration, I'm going to fire as many people as want to do that to make a point.
01:28:57.000Basically, you want to give more authority to the White House over the executive branch
01:29:19.000I mean, like, I think some, you'd probably, it's such an important position that it's probably, it's, and it's such a powerful position that it's probably good that you get some rotation in there.
01:29:28.000So the Senate's less powerful, so... Senate's less powerful, Senate, Senate's primary function now is becoming, the primary function is becoming oversight.
01:30:05.000I mean, he was elected in 32 for his first term, and then his term would have ran out in January of 1940, which I guess would have... we weren't in the war yet, but we were close, and then certainly... But I mean, shouldn't democracy, the way it's laid out, shouldn't it be like the way that the system is set up?
01:30:24.000Should it be that that transition of power should occur in wartime and do so in such a way as to be?
01:30:30.000Yeah, I mean, we always want peaceful transfer of power.
01:30:33.000But the question is sort of a technocratic one.
01:30:35.000Is it good to force people out of power, you know, by a term limit via like a statute rather than allowing The people to continue to choose the person they like to be continuing power.
01:30:45.000I mean, you know, there's no term limits in Britain for prime ministers.
01:30:49.000During wartime, the power of the presidency swells and expands, right?
01:30:53.000So I mean, isn't that probably the argument for why allowing that kind of transfer of power or protecting the executive branch?
01:30:59.000Sure, but like what also, you know, wild swings in the policy of an administration during wartime don't seem Great.
01:31:07.000Like, you know, that there's probably a benefit to... And also, like, there's probably a benefit to... That's not saying that you couldn't, right?
01:31:29.000So, I mean, did it affect our wartime capability?
01:31:33.000I mean, no, but there's like, I guess, you know, what you're saying is you actually have to not just say that it's merely not, like, not bad to have switches of power.
01:31:43.000You have to, like, come up with, like, affirmatively good, like, it is a good thing that people are forced to leave the presidency and that we are forced to have these changes at a maximum of eight years.
01:31:52.000I think it's actually a much closer question, right?
01:31:55.000The nature of our system inevitably weakens the president at a certain point in his term where everybody knows he's going to be gone soon.
01:32:05.000Having lame ducks is not necessarily a good thing in terms of how our system of government works because you get this sort of degrading of the executive at the end of the last two years of his term.
01:32:16.000No, I mean, just think about, like, you know, what does it mean for how the rest of the government, you know, the way I see it is sovereign power is always conserved, right?
01:32:24.000So if the president's power is ebbing away, then somebody has it.
01:32:41.000England doesn't, and they have a democracy, but their prime ministers could just keep getting re-elected.
01:32:48.000It's not a democracy, it's a parliamentary monarchy.
01:32:51.000Parliamentary monarchy, but the same concept applies where it's like the leader does not necessarily have to go after X number of terms.
01:32:58.000I don't like democracy, that's why I bring it up.
01:32:59.000When people are like, our democracy, I'm like, your democratic institutions in your either parliamentary monarchy or constitutional republic.
01:33:07.000To point out, transfer of power during wartime, we haven't actually been at war since 1943, 42, whenever we declared war.
01:33:14.000Congress hasn't declared a war since, so it's just been these military actions.
01:33:18.000I play civilization, and I just can't stand the democratic form of government in that game.
01:33:23.000You gotta go republic, it's the way to do it.
01:33:50.000We're expanding, doing a lot of really awesome stuff.
01:33:52.000Check out youtube.com slash castcastle because we're basically making a cultural comedy kind of show based on the shenanigans that happens here at the castle with all of our staff members and team members.
01:34:33.000I think it's more sexual segregation and we should keep hammering that.
01:34:37.000It's not about gender, it's about what's sex.
01:34:39.000I'm using the traditional colloquial definition of the word gender to mean biological sex.
01:34:44.000They slid that one in because... Oh, I see what you're doing.
01:34:46.000Biological sexual discrimination is understandable because you don't want naked men in a naked woman's bathroom necessarily because he might try and have sex with her against her will.
01:35:09.000So the reason it makes sense, right, is because so when you're looking at like civil rights laws with respect to, you know, segregation between black people and white people and comparing them to gender segregation, the difference is like, There are actual fundamental important differences between men and women.
01:35:26.000Like there are differences between the sexes.
01:35:27.000That's also reflected in how the court evaluates those rules.
01:35:30.000Like it's a different level of scrutiny.
01:35:41.000So we had a conversation about this, and it's like, if you look at a person from Haiti and a person from Somalia, the skin color does not hold a commonality between these groups.
01:35:55.000One's taller, one's on average shorter, one's on average thinner, or whatever.
01:35:58.000So the racial arguments make no sense.
01:36:01.000Across all civilizations, there is sexual dimorphism, so that's the argument.
01:36:06.000How do we look at human beings in race versus genetics?
01:36:09.000If we look at some people on the genetic level, can you tell genetically that someone is of a certain race?
01:36:15.000There's a funny meme where it shows two skeletons embracing and someone commented, like, it's so beautiful because at this point you don't know if it's a man or a woman or if they're white or black.
01:36:24.000And it's just love, and then someone responded like, actually, you can take a look at the mandibular blah blah blah, like this one's clearly an Asian female.
01:36:30.000On the left, you can tell because of the more prominent frontal lobe, it's a male, and very obviously Caucasian.
01:36:34.000It's like, just based on the skeleton, they knew the race.
01:36:38.000Also, I love the argument that like, when you strip every characteristic away from a person down to the point where they're just a skeleton, we're really all the same.
01:37:45.000Insofar as a propensity towards a disease may influence a culture's evolution.
01:37:50.000So a culture that's more likely to have sickle cell anemia might behave culturally different ways and pass on different values to their kids.
01:37:58.000Cultures that eat different foods are going to have different reactions to those foods.
01:38:02.000Japan, for instance, they traditionally have a low-fat diet.
01:38:06.000I read that Japanese people have a certain gut bacteria that can break down cellulose better, and it's because, culturally, they would eat a lot of seaweed, a lot of cellulose.
01:38:15.000My view on this, based on a lot of what I've read, is that there's a mix of nature versus nurture in everything, but that behavioral changes based on race are so minimal, and that it's typically cultural.
01:38:29.000So if you take a look at the stereotype about Asians being smart, it's like, yeah, well, look at their cultural values.
01:38:35.000The cultural values are, the parents are very strict on, you know, you should study, you should do these things.
01:38:40.000I also know stoner, pothead, loser Asian people because they did not have those cultures, those values.
01:38:46.000I think culture absolutely trumps in terms of behavior.
01:38:49.000So then is that, so that, does that make Japanese people, is that a superpower in a sense, right?
01:38:54.000To be able to break down cellulose better than other people, right?
01:39:08.000So it was like the most uncommon thing you could ever imagine before African Americans were known to play basketball and to be great at basketball.
01:39:15.000It was actually a bunch of Jewish basketball leagues that existed.
01:39:18.000And then all of a sudden that changed.
01:39:51.000And if certain people from certain backgrounds are taller, that's what gets you in the NBA.
01:39:57.000I think I read that if you're 7 feet tall, you have a 17% chance of being in the NBA.
01:40:01.000Because it's just like, we want a tall person that can reach better.
01:40:05.000So I'm not sure that the issue is your ability so much as people from Sweden and Norway tend to be a lot taller and they're white than say people from France who are a lot shorter.
01:40:15.000Have you seen like the penis study in sizes in different cultures or different countries around the world?
01:42:20.000I'm not saying we do, but if you lower the cost of adopting a baby to zero and somebody can just come in and be like, oh, I'll take, I'll take 10, 10 babies.
01:42:27.000Then I'll sell them off to slavery or something.
01:42:32.000And the harder you try to push the bob to your side, the harder, faster, and farther it swings to the other side when you lose your grip and you always lose your grip.
01:42:40.000I'm talking about beware the moral superiority where none of us are perfect.
01:43:07.000If they go to a red city or state, then people are going to come out and be like, come back from where you came from.
01:43:12.000Well, the thing is, there's a chance, obviously, if it isn't peaceful, which by the way, Joe Biden said, make sure your protests are peaceful.
01:43:20.000And then he went like this, and then he went, where were you exactly?
01:43:23.000Even though your administration encouraged people to break the law and protest outside justices' homes, alright.
01:43:28.000But, what happens is, in these communities where there is a straight conservative, or conservative organization, or a church, they get rowdy, that's what they go after, that's what they attack.
01:43:39.000How is Joe Biden still a Catholic, by the way?
01:44:09.000You guys are joking, but I mean, this would be a good show just all by itself, like the battle in between Christianity, between progressive Christians and conservative Christians.
01:44:17.000You know, you have like this fight that's going on in the Southern Baptist Convention right now between, you know, corrupt pastors and things, and a lot of progressive Christians out there that are advancing the things that you don't agree in, but they're doing it in the name of God.
01:44:30.000And it would be a fascinating thing for, you know, somebody who doesn't have a dog in the fight there but who does have a dog in the fight against progressivism to see, you know, are you all on your back feet right now?
01:44:39.000I mean, are you conservative Christians losing to progressive Christians?
01:44:46.000Most of the young people, I mean, almost all the young Catholics I know are very conservative, very orthodox, don't harbor heretical beliefs.
01:44:52.000So with Joe Biden, I've said this before, one of the necessary requirements in order to be considered a practicing Catholic is you have to give full assent to Catholic teaching.
01:45:00.000And Joe Biden clearly doesn't on many issues.
01:45:02.000He's like, no, I don't believe that, man.
01:45:04.000And so, He's called devout when he's not even practicing.
01:45:09.000And if you consider yourself to be a Christian, but you reject Catholic doctrines, you reject the authority of the papacy, you are protesting the church.
01:45:19.000There's a word for that, a protestant.
01:45:49.000I will address this by saying, they're not pro-choice in the way you think.
01:45:54.000If Republicans want to hold their seats, they need to make sure their constituents know Democrats tried to pass a bill that allowed abortion at nine months.
01:46:03.000The people who are pro-choice are more pro-choice probably like me or Will, where it's like there's some area of nuance, but beyond this, elective abortion, we don't like these things.
01:46:12.000When you actually break down all these polls, what they ask these people is, are you pro-choice or pro-life?
01:46:49.000Yeah, the center of American public opinion is more pro-life than the current law, right?
01:46:56.000I think that's the way to think about it.
01:46:58.000It's not but it's not like absolutist pro-life it's just it's it's definitely it's it honestly I think the center of American opinion is probably more like European law where it's something like you know you have like you know early it's usually not allowed to pass like 12 weeks without a doctor's note without a doctor's explanation of why it's necessary.
01:47:15.000And so I think, so as a result, I think, I don't think this will have a big political impact in the way that people think.
01:47:21.000I actually, honestly, I think this is going to be better for Republicans than it is for Democrats because my basic thesis is this is very demoralizing if you are an activist Democrat or if you're a moderate Democrat.
01:47:51.000Staring at the five dollar pump being like, uh... See, they're arguing that this is going to, you know, galvanize the base, that they're going to make it all these fall elections all about abortion.
01:48:01.000The left is saying that this is going to help us win these elections or at least stem the tide of a Republican red wave coming this fall.
01:48:07.000You know, think about how much Democrat politicians have failed their constituents on this one, right?
01:48:12.000Like if their constituents were like, no, we would really just like to preserve the right to an abortion or like preserve Roe as it was.
01:48:18.000Well, you had the opportunity to codify it.
01:48:20.000You've had plenty of opportunity to codify it into federal law when they had, like, you know, think of Obama era when they had the supermajorities.
01:50:49.000was brought into Maryland, the Maryland state government could pressure the federal government and get favors, and that is not going to work for a union.
01:51:05.000Well look, I'm not saying we can evict everybody from Washington, D.C.
01:51:12.000I'm not saying we can evict everybody from Washington, D.C., but the fact is it was a mistake to start bringing housing into the federal territory that was supposed to administer government.
01:52:35.000Well, it's because I posted this ridiculous tweet where I said, if Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016, SCOTUS would have mandated forced abortions today.
01:52:44.000Like, the point was the extreme opposite of what happened.
01:53:14.000BarelyInsane says, in terms of marriage, I think the government should allow civil unions that participate in the same benefits, gay or not.
01:53:20.000Marriage is a religious deal and should only be handled by churches and synagogues, etc.
01:53:24.000Well, the issue is in the traditional American view, it is.
01:53:31.000But you mentioned Native Americans have it.
01:53:45.000Jedi Mind Trick says, Tim Staff, enough though I've been a member since 2019 and went out of my way to be cool, told me to go F myself when I had a billing issue.
01:54:19.000If you would like to get a Christian perspective on origins, morality, and what the Bible actually says, check out Steve Gregg at thenarrowpath.com.
01:54:27.000No denominations, no cultures, a life lived in Christ.
01:54:49.000I mean, again, I see the value of like making commitments that you can't wiggle out of, right?
01:54:56.000It just seems marriage, like one obvious really pragmatic benefit of marriage being in it is like the knowledge that you can't just leave, right?
01:55:05.000And that forces you to work things out and compromise and like work with each other and not hold, you know, especially once you have children, like not hold the dissolution of the marriage over each other's heads.
01:55:16.000I see relationships where people have children but aren't married and I'm just like, you're so unlucky.
01:55:21.000You both would be so much better off if you had just this massive social pressure forcing you to stay together and had undertaken this commitment to each other.
01:55:54.000My attitude is always sort of passive curiosity.
01:55:59.000And so, don't get heated, don't get angry, just nod along and be like, oh, okay, and then ask questions.
01:56:05.000And one of them is, but you know, the Democrats tried passing that bill that would allow for ending the baby's life, even if the baby could be delivered.
01:57:30.000Those are the kind of people that are like, I'm moving to Canada if Trump gets elected and then they don't go.
01:57:34.000There are methods to— And I don't— Constitutional amendment.
01:57:39.000If you tweet that you're leaving the country due to a presidential election, not only are you obligated to do so under our new constitutional amendment, but we will taxpayer fund it.
01:59:20.000I don't want to talk about free banking and Scottish free banking in the late 1800s where there was a gold standard, but the banks printed their own money.
02:01:02.000John Money learned everything about him and everything he invented and where it all came from.
02:01:08.000I love those memes where they do that, where it'll be like, if you're ever wondering why the banks are ripping you off, you need to understand how the banking power came to be.
02:01:15.000Just Google search John Money to understand.
02:01:17.000Yeah, the best one I ever saw was Gage Grosskreutz was a father of five children.
02:01:22.000He was burned, or he was, you know, attacked.
02:01:24.000Look him up and find out all about him and the five children.
02:01:26.000Okay, I'm just gonna say it one more time.
02:01:45.000Colton Sulak says, Hey Tim and crew, I keep hearing the argument about Roe v. Wade being overturned would make birth control harder to get.
02:01:52.000Not sure how, but could y'all explain?
02:01:53.000I mean, it's the substantive due process argument that we already went over.
02:01:58.000The idea that it would undermine substantive due process, the doctrine, and thereby undermine the cases, like I think the Griswold case is the contraception case.
02:02:09.000But as I explained earlier, Very unlikely.
02:03:08.000Austin, do you want to shout anything out?
02:03:09.000Yeah, AP for Liberty on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
02:03:12.000And I just launched a new store where I actually 3D print Buddhas with Thomas Jefferson's head on them and George Washington's head on them.
02:03:48.000Also, I'm, you know, I should shout out my organization's, the Internet Accountability Project, the underscore IEP, that's also on Twitter, Fighting Big Tech Abuses.
02:03:56.000And then the Article 3 Project, which I don't have the Twitter handle right there, but very relevant today.
02:04:01.000Article 3 Project fought hard to get, you know, Trump's Supreme Court justices confirmed.
02:04:05.000That seems to have been a pretty good idea and a pretty good thing to be working on, so.
02:05:31.000But it's to remember that we come from freed slaves, not only the British, but our own Civil War to free the slaves before that, the Roman slaves, like we are descended and let it never happen again.
02:05:42.000It'd be beautiful if we saw that in New York Harbor.
02:05:44.000For whatever reason, they made her look like an erudite, you know, post-freedom.
02:05:47.000But we gotta remember the actual essence of freedom.
02:05:50.000Yes, I feel a very strong connection with Ian.
02:05:52.000Are you like the radical, crazy libertarian here?