Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - Timcast IRL - ROE V WADE OVERTURNED, Dems Call For INSURRECTION w-Austin Petersen & Will Chamberlain

00:00:00.000 you you

00:01:08.000 today the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey We expected this to happen, and I believe this is the biggest story of our generation.

00:01:31.000 And I don't know if I can speak for Gen Xers or Boomers or whatever.

00:01:34.000 For me, this is massive.

00:01:37.000 It's the biggest story.

00:01:38.000 And there's threats of violence.

00:01:40.000 DHS has issued warning to churches.

00:01:43.000 People are already protesting.

00:01:44.000 And 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.

00:01:55.000 There'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.

00:02:01.000 So we're going to get into this.

00:02:03.000 Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support the very important work we do.

00:02:09.000 As a member, you get access to our exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.

00:02:14.000 And 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.

00:02:23.000 And you'll also be supporting our infrastructure.

00:02:25.000 We use Rumble so that we can be more resilient to censorship.

00:02:29.000 Without further ado, joining us to discuss all of this is Austin Peterson.

00:02:32.000 Hey, thanks for having me, guys.

00:02:34.000 You might know me from 2016.

00:02:36.000 I 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.

00:02:48.000 You know, right?

00:02:49.000 The whole question of, you know, should you be forced as a Christian to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

00:02:54.000 And that issue has come around, you know, full circle in many other ways in American politics now.

00:02:59.000 These days, I'm in a radio show and I also am a small business owner.

00:03:03.000 I 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.

00:03:18.000 Right on.

00:03:19.000 And so we originally did not have Will Chamberlain booked, but this morning when the decision came down, I'm reading some of these opinions.

00:03:26.000 I'm like, Will, can you come on?

00:03:28.000 Because we're going to need a lawyer for this one.

00:03:29.000 Yep.

00:03:30.000 Always good to be back.

00:03:31.000 Will 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.

00:03:41.000 And so we're pretty happy about that work today.

00:03:45.000 Right on.

00:03:45.000 Cool, cool, cool.

00:03:46.000 So we'll need your legal perspective.

00:03:47.000 We also got Ian, everybody knows Ian.

00:03:48.000 Sup dudes, iancrossland.net coming at you.

00:03:51.000 Seamus, you look kind of happy today.

00:03:53.000 Why do you say that?

00:03:55.000 Is it because this is one of the greatest days in American history?

00:04:01.000 Is that why I seem happy?

00:04:03.000 Why aren't you?

00:04:04.000 We're all laughing together.

00:04:05.000 This is fantastic.

00:04:06.000 We're all laughing together.

00:04:07.000 6-24.

00:04:08.000 One thing for you to do now is make a wish.

00:04:10.000 Okay.

00:04:12.000 What did you wish for?

00:04:13.000 Fatality won't come true, buddy.

00:04:14.000 I'm just kidding.

00:04:15.000 I'm not superstitious.

00:04:16.000 I've not been wishing.

00:04:17.000 I have been praying along with many of you and we still have work to do, but this is incredible.

00:04:23.000 This is incredible.

00:04:24.000 So what did you wish for?

00:04:26.000 I don't, I don't like wish.

00:04:28.000 All right.

00:04:29.000 But also I would like, I am praying for abortion to be illegal nationwide.

00:04:36.000 Mike Pence issued a similar statement.

00:04:38.000 We'll, we'll talk all about that.

00:04:39.000 He had a cake too?

00:04:40.000 He did?

00:04:41.000 No, no.

00:04:41.000 But for those that are just listening, they're probably like, why is everyone laughing?

00:04:45.000 It's because Seamus has a cake that says end of row with the number 6-24.

00:04:53.000 And he blew the candles out and made a wish.

00:04:54.000 Look, I mean, political victories in general are rare.

00:04:59.000 Victories of this magnitude are once in a lifetime or can be once in a lifetime.

00:05:03.000 We're going to make sure it's not once in a lifetime, though, folks.

00:05:05.000 We're going to fight for abortion to be illegal at the federal level.

00:05:08.000 But today, Yeah, I'm gonna celebrate.

00:05:10.000 Eat your cake.

00:05:11.000 We also got Lydia.

00:05:12.000 I am here in the corner.

00:05:12.000 It is a great day for me as well.

00:05:14.000 You guys all know that I'm super freaking pro-life and I tweeted today, guns, check, abortion, X. That is the America I'm going for.

00:05:20.000 I'm feeling really good as well.

00:05:22.000 I know we have more to do.

00:05:23.000 Just let me celebrate it today.

00:05:24.000 Looking forward to it.

00:05:26.000 Alright, let's jump into the first story we got here from TimCast.com.

00:05:30.000 Everybody knows by now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, as well as Casey.

00:05:35.000 And in concurrence, Clarence Thomas wrote, basically opening the door to overturning gay marriage.

00:05:41.000 The text of SCOTUS' Roe v. Wade decision opens door to upend gay marriage, just as Thomas calls gay marriage precedence demonstrably erroneous.

00:05:50.000 Saying, 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.

00:06:01.000 I'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.

00:06:15.000 So those those reports are correct.

00:06:17.000 Ultimately, like the underlying decision here in Dobbs does not actually implicate necessarily other substantive due process precedents.

00:06:24.000 So what is substantive due process?

00:06:26.000 So think about what is the due process guarantee, right?

00:06:28.000 It's you have the you know, you know, the government can't take away your life liberty of property without due process of law.

00:06:34.000 And 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.

00:06:45.000 So that's what most people think of when they think of due process.

00:06:48.000 However, 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.

00:07:07.000 And that doctrine has been used to protect the right to use contraception, the right to marry the person of your choice, etc.

00:07:15.000 Now, so then the question is, okay, well, Roe was also based on this substantive due process idea.

00:07:19.000 Does overturning Roe mean all substantive due process is dead?

00:07:23.000 The answer to that is no.

00:07:26.000 Basically, if you read Dobbs, they didn't say substantive due process was wrong in the majority opinion.

00:07:31.000 They 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?

00:07:43.000 And they said, for abortion, that's not true.

00:07:46.000 Historically, abortion was routinely banned throughout the states, so there's not a historical backing for it.

00:07:52.000 But throughout the Dobbs opinion, they're basically saying, this doesn't necessarily implicate any of the other

00:07:57.000 substantive due process rights.

00:07:59.000 Those have to go through the same analysis.

00:08:00.000 We're not getting rid of substantive due process entirely.

00:08:03.000 But it sounds like Clarence Thomas does.

00:08:05.000 Clarence Thomas would want to, but his views are pretty idiosyncratic on this point

00:08:10.000 in among the justices.

00:08:11.000 Like I actually, as a legal matter, I kind of agree with Clarence Thomas in the sense

00:08:15.000 that I think substantive due process as a doctrine is incoherent nonsense.

00:08:20.000 I'm a bad person.

00:08:21.000 But 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.

00:08:35.000 What about interracial marriages? 0.87

00:08:37.000 How was that decided?

00:08:37.000 How was the interracial marriage question decided in that same sense?

00:08:41.000 So 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.

00:08:51.000 And that's a distinct doctrine, right?

00:08:53.000 So kind of, you know, substantive due process is some rights are so important, they cannot be deprived of you no matter what.

00:08:59.000 Equal protection is people must be treated the same way, right?

00:09:02.000 You 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?

00:09:09.000 So 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.

00:09:23.000 He just, he just retired.

00:09:24.000 Anthony Kennedy was not.

00:09:25.000 What a shout out!

00:09:27.000 Sorry, he's still alive.

00:09:28.000 Wrote a bunch of really terrible like decisions from a legal perspective.

00:09:32.000 I mean it's not even, Like, outcome, I don't care.

00:09:34.000 He was more conservative than not, but just reading his opinions was like reading a bad writer.

00:09:39.000 Like, somebody who just wasn't very smart.

00:09:41.000 And so, you read his opinions and they don't make sense.

00:09:44.000 So, Obergefell was written by Kennedy.

00:09:46.000 So, it's not doctrinally precise.

00:09:50.000 I think we're gonna need a Supreme Court ruling legalizing cloning.

00:09:54.000 So that we can clone Clarence Thomas and then nominate him eight more times.

00:09:59.000 We gotta clone Joe Biden a bunch of times, too, to try to keep stopping him from getting out of the Supreme Court.

00:10:05.000 And just berate him.

00:10:06.000 You know, from a logic perspective, I'm reading Clarence Thomas and I'm like, what he's saying makes total sense.

00:10:11.000 And then reading the dissents, I'm just like, on the gun issue, and here I'm like, they have no idea what they're talking about, do they?

00:10:18.000 Well, I'm glad you're making an effort to read for more people of color.

00:10:23.000 So do we owe Ruth Bader Ginsburg a debt of gratitude?

00:10:26.000 A little bit.

00:10:27.000 Do we say thank you RBG?

00:10:29.000 You know what's even more painful?

00:10:31.000 We might owe Mitch McConnell a debt of gratitude.

00:10:35.000 To be completely honest, yeah.

00:10:37.000 He did pretty good.

00:10:38.000 Credit where it's due.

00:10:39.000 He didn't just get the three You know, the three Trump justices confirmed he also stopped Merrick Garland.

00:10:45.000 Before I sit here and laugh and agree with Seamus on this one, I'd actually... Seamus, I know you have a cake.

00:10:50.000 You're celebrating this.

00:10:51.000 Will, are you happy to see Ro overturned?

00:10:55.000 Yeah, I mean, I think we've talked about this before.

00:10:57.000 I would consider myself...

00:10:58.000 like modestly pro-choice, right? I think that we've talked about this before.

00:11:02.000 I think you and I agree basically on that.

00:11:04.000 Right, but...

00:11:04.000 So you're both wrong, man.

00:11:05.000 As a...

00:11:06.000 Oh, it's tough, you know, tough right?

00:11:07.000 As a, you know, I also come at this from a lawyer, Roe was a literal abortion of a decision.

00:11:13.000 Yeah, he was.

00:11:15.000 It's an abortion of legal reasoning. 0.95

00:11:17.000 I don't like that a bunch of white men... 1.00

00:11:20.000 So I'm more with Seamus on this one, and I...

00:11:23.000 I consider myself a pro-life libertarian and I think that all humans deserve the same equal protections, equal rights, equal liberty.

00:11:30.000 And that the unborn should be protected in the womb.

00:11:32.000 And that's because libertarians believe in personal responsibility, number one.

00:11:36.000 So elective abortions are heinous, like we were talking about before the show.

00:11:40.000 But even in the question of rape, you have to ask yourself, what percentage of people that are alive today are The result of rape.

00:11:49.000 How many of those people are glad they're alive?

00:11:51.000 How many of those people would say, I'm so thankful to be here and that I'm glad that they decided to adopt?

00:11:56.000 My little sister, for example, and I hope she doesn't mind that I talk about this, but it's kind of an open family thing.

00:12:02.000 She's adopted.

00:12:03.000 My parents and her family, uh, they had to have a conversation to try and get her to The mother not to kill her. 0.72

00:12:13.000 And then they said, please don't do that.

00:12:16.000 And then once she was born, the mother didn't want her, gave her to the babysitter. 0.96

00:12:23.000 And you know, I remember being a young man, 10 years old, seeing my little sister for the first time.

00:12:31.000 Five months old, looking up in the most beautiful brown eyes and saying to myself, I'm so thankful that she's alive and that she's here.

00:12:38.000 And now I have a little sister and I have a nephew, Mario.

00:12:40.000 Shout out to Mario.

00:12:41.000 I love you so much, by the way.

00:12:43.000 He's an awesome nephew, a great kid.

00:12:45.000 And my family is more full and complete because without adoption and, you know, are we talking about adoption?

00:12:52.000 We need to be talking about adoption more.

00:12:53.000 We need to be making adoption more easy.

00:12:55.000 Legally, it's very difficult to do it.

00:12:57.000 It's almost like buying a baby these days.

00:12:59.000 You've got to be rich to go and buy a baby.

00:13:01.000 But we should be talking about that.

00:13:03.000 We should be protecting life.

00:13:04.000 We should look at life as a consistent ethic, and I believe in a consistent pro-life ethic.

00:13:08.000 Not 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.

00:13:22.000 So Ian, I don't think you're as politically active as anyone else here.

00:13:27.000 I'm curious, are you happy to see Roe v. Wade overturn?

00:13:29.000 Well, I got mixed feelings.

00:13:31.000 It's not making abortion illegal.

00:13:33.000 And I think that's something people got to realize.

00:13:34.000 It's just giving the states the ability to choose.

00:13:36.000 I think that less abortion is a good thing.

00:13:38.000 I don't know if making it illegal is going to make less abortion.

00:13:41.000 It probably will in the long run.

00:13:42.000 And I think late term abortions are absolutely gruesome.

00:13:45.000 Yeah, they're barbaric.

00:13:47.000 I mean, you're a full grown human at like four months or five months.

00:13:50.000 That's like a small human being at five months.

00:13:52.000 You can see it.

00:13:53.000 It's like living and moving and all that stuff.

00:13:57.000 But I don't know.

00:13:58.000 I was expecting it once it leaked.

00:14:01.000 I still got mixed feelings.

00:14:01.000 I want to talk about the legal implications of this because I want to know more.

00:14:05.000 And obviously Lydia is celebrating along with Seamus.

00:14:08.000 I am over the moon about this.

00:14:09.000 And 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.

00:14:17.000 You know those pregnancy centers that they're firebombing right now? 1.00

00:14:21.000 Those are the Christian Church's response to abortion.

00:14:24.000 Those help mothers in need. 0.97

00:14:26.000 They help people who need the kind of help.

00:14:28.000 They give free ultrasounds.

00:14:29.000 They give free clothing.

00:14:30.000 They give diapers.

00:14:31.000 They give bottles.

00:14:31.000 They give shoes.

00:14:32.000 They teach parents how to parent.

00:14:34.000 They have a response.

00:14:35.000 It's a very real response.

00:14:36.000 So don't take any of that argument from them. 0.98

00:14:37.000 They're full of nonsense.

00:14:39.000 My position is, you know, as I said before the show, rather dispassionate. 0.90

00:14:43.000 Um, 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.

00:14:51.000 It is basically the left is pro-abortion.

00:14:53.000 They're being asked about late-term abortion, and the response from prominent Democrats is, it's the woman's choice.

00:14:59.000 And I'm kind of just like, my attitude is, If the woman has a health issue and the baby can't, like, 0.63

00:15:05.000 she can't carry the baby anymore, but the baby is viable, meaning it can live outside the

00:15:09.000 womb, why kill the baby? 1.00

00:15:11.000 And there's no legitimate answer that I've received because I don't think there is a

00:15:14.000 legitimate answer. So it's completely dismissive of the idea that the state might have an interest

00:15:19.000 in the life of an unborn child, which is an absurd position.

00:15:23.000 Yeah. 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.

00:15:40.000 I 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.

00:15:48.000 But 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.

00:15:57.000 And this mostly is a view based on guns, because people in cities are like, guns should all be banned.

00:16:02.000 And then it's like, bro, we had a bear on our porch a couple months ago.

00:16:06.000 I'm sorry, dude, you're not taking my guns away.

00:16:08.000 And aside from that, I know it's not an issue of hunting, or it's an issue of my right to defend myself.

00:16:13.000 The people who live in cities, sure, I get it, you're not worried about bears.

00:16:16.000 But you should be worried about murderers and criminals, because crime is skyrocketing.

00:16:20.000 So 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.

00:16:27.000 And then I see bills like this, and I'm like, it's probably better off this way.

00:16:30.000 Yeah.

00:16:30.000 I'm not super positive, but... So, there's a couple things I really want to say about this.

00:16:35.000 You're mentioning civil unrest, the fact that this country's so polarized.

00:16:38.000 I 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.

00:16:46.000 I believe that there are some things you can't compromise on.

00:16:49.000 I'll also say this.

00:16:51.000 What the Supreme Court decided today was not simply that states are allowed to extend protection to the lives of unborn children.

00:16:59.000 They 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.

00:17:15.000 That is a massive win for rule of law, and not as many people are talking about that.

00:17:21.000 Explain that a little bit.

00:17:22.000 Because every single other institution for the past several years has been caving into the mob on everything.

00:17:27.000 There 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.

00:17:36.000 That's right.

00:17:36.000 There was absolutely no condemnation of it.

00:17:39.000 No one was punished for it.

00:17:40.000 They got away with it and in fact their goals were forwarded because of it.

00:17:44.000 They mocked the president.

00:17:46.000 And 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.

00:17:56.000 And setting fire to a church?

00:17:57.000 Setting fire to a church.

00:17:58.000 And 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.

00:18:08.000 How dare he?

00:18:09.000 A peaceful protest.

00:18:11.000 And so what we are seeing here is the, and I think we really need to pay attention to this.

00:18:16.000 It 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.

00:18:26.000 Let's jump to this next story from TimCast.com.

00:18:28.000 Democrats call Supreme Court illegitimate.

00:18:31.000 Urge resistance following abortion decision.

00:18:34.000 This is a story from Adrian Norman from TimCast.

00:18:38.000 Rep Maxine Waters told protesters to hell with the Supreme Court.

00:18:41.000 We will defy them.

00:18:42.000 AOC was yelling illegitimate.

00:18:44.000 And I should say urging resistance?

00:18:48.000 You mean urging insurrection and violence.

00:18:51.000 Now, 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.

00:19:01.000 But the point I'm making when I say insurrection is these Democrats are coming out right now and saying no to the Supreme Court.

00:19:08.000 And 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.

00:19:17.000 When does the DOJ do that?

00:19:20.000 It doesn't.

00:19:20.000 That's not its job, right?

00:19:21.000 The DOJ is there to enforce... Has it ever come out and announced it would defy or is resistant?

00:19:25.000 I've never seen a DOJ independently make announcements and pronounce on like how, you know, that

00:19:32.000 it's how much it disagreed with the Supreme Court decision.

00:19:35.000 Like that's that's new to me.

00:19:36.000 Maybe maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Trump DOJ under Barr ever doing anything

00:19:40.000 like this.

00:19:42.000 And I think that's because that's the role.

00:19:43.000 I mean, it's it's supposed to it's there's two big reasons.

00:19:47.000 One is that the DOJ is supposed to have this nominal appearance of independence.

00:19:51.000 Like, they're the enforcers of the laws, the people who make the decision about who to prosecute, who not to prosecute.

00:19:57.000 So, like, them at least trying to appear unbiased should be important, which is clearly they're just not.

00:20:04.000 And then secondly, you know, they go in front of the Supreme Court regularly.

00:20:08.000 I mean, the U.S.

00:20:09.000 government is routinely a litigant in front of the Supreme Court defending its own laws.

00:20:14.000 You know, trying to also as amicus, like making statements about other cases that might implicate a federal interest.

00:20:21.000 So there's an importance for the DOJ itself to have a somewhat like good, you know, working relationship.

00:20:29.000 with the courts.

00:20:29.000 In fact, the Solicitor General is often called the 10th Justice because they're so often in front of the court.

00:20:36.000 And the idea that DOJ would jeopardize that by just, you know, the Attorney General being like, you're all wrong and you're idiots. 1.00

00:20:42.000 Like, okay. 0.98

00:20:44.000 That 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.

00:20:53.000 Are you putting more icing on the cake?

00:20:56.000 Yeah, I'm putting more icing on the cake.

00:20:57.000 Look, 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.

00:21:05.000 In my mind, that's fantastic.

00:21:07.000 I'm going to make another cake.

00:21:09.000 I'm going to run out of cakes.

00:21:10.000 I've got a question for everybody.

00:21:12.000 Slippery slope, right?

00:21:13.000 So when we were younger, people would say, well, if you allow gay marriage, then they're going to start trying to groom your kids. 0.62

00:21:21.000 And if you start to... Wait, they're doing that.

00:21:24.000 Everything the Christian Right said just turned out to be true, but continue. 0.83

00:21:28.000 So my question is, is the slippery slope not a fallacy, right?

00:21:32.000 If you look at abortion, they said if you allow abortion, they're going to say, well, now it's no longer just safe, legal, you know, rare.

00:21:38.000 It's now going to be all the way up to nine months and maybe even a couple of days after or like right after there.

00:21:45.000 Well, as Northam said, make the babies delivered, made comfortable, and then the mother and the doctor have a conversation.

00:21:51.000 Conversation is had, right?

00:21:53.000 Here's the thing, I'll say slippery slope, it's not a fallacy, and it never was.

00:21:57.000 Nope.

00:21:59.000 I don't think, I think the idea that a slippery slope means you, it implies that you go off the rails, things go out of control, sort of.

00:22:08.000 I view it as Degrees.

00:22:11.000 Incrementalization.

00:22:13.000 It's not a fallacy.

00:22:14.000 It's literally just, once the door is opened on, say, two people can get married, it's none of your business.

00:22:21.000 Then the question is, under that logic, however, you realize that an adult father could marry his daughter, right?

00:22:27.000 Are you okay with that?

00:22:28.000 I think that's kind of over the line.

00:22:30.000 And then they can say, okay, but that one, no.

00:22:31.000 It's like, hold on.

00:22:33.000 If 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?

00:22:45.000 So how do we put on the brakes, right?

00:22:47.000 So that's the thing, because initially, like, I think if two men want to get married, they should be free to do that, right?

00:22:52.000 I don't think the state should inhibit it.

00:22:54.000 That behavior, that's my own personal view.

00:22:56.000 But 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?

00:23:02.000 There's no brakes.

00:23:02.000 Yeah, I don't think there are.

00:23:03.000 You gotta keep your kids off the internet for a while.

00:23:06.000 That, my friend, is a 20.

00:23:08.000 100%.

00:23:08.000 Pump the brakes.

00:23:09.000 Keep your kids off the internet.

00:23:10.000 Maybe not 24-7, but pump the brakes and supervise if they're gonna be there.

00:23:15.000 Imagine letting your kid watch, like, Skinimax.

00:23:19.000 It's unthinkable.

00:23:21.000 Yeah, but these days parents are like, I don't think it's even worse than Cinemax ever was.

00:23:26.000 I don't think the gay marriage thing directly resulted in the grooming of the kids.

00:23:29.000 It seems like it's like a global, weird thing.

00:23:32.000 It's not an American ideal.

00:23:34.000 It's simple.

00:23:36.000 An internet.

00:23:36.000 When the Christian right said, if we have gay marriage, the next thing I'm going to do is start teaching kids about it in school.

00:23:41.000 And they said, that's ridiculous. 0.99

00:23:42.000 If two people are privately living their lives, it's their business.

00:23:46.000 But of course the logical outcome is, Well, kids need to be taught about legal precedent and about adults and how they live, right?

00:23:53.000 Okay, it should be in schools.

00:23:55.000 That's why we don't need government schools.

00:23:56.000 Well, 100%.

00:23:57.000 But 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?

00:24:07.000 Right.

00:24:07.000 That's what society does with its values!

00:24:09.000 That's like, the point!

00:24:11.000 Instead of like, oh yeah, we'll legalize gay marriage, but like, we're not gonna start telling kids about it.

00:24:15.000 We're not gonna start teaching kids about being gay, etc. 0.99

00:24:18.000 That's just a ridiculous position. 0.99

00:24:19.000 I don't know how anyone argued that with a straight face.

00:24:21.000 So, I think one of the next possible changes...

00:24:25.000 Is the end of gender segregation.

00:24:28.000 Yeah.

00:24:29.000 Because under the same arguments made, I was reading about the civil rights stuff

00:24:33.000 and the arguments they made about the end of racial segregation.

00:24:36.000 And the funny thing is, and I'll say this is the argument the left makes.

00:24:41.000 The same arguments made about gender segregation were made for racial segregation. 0.82

00:24:45.000 People 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.

00:24:54.000 This is the argument, again, I'm saying presented by the left as to why they should end gender segregation.

00:24:58.000 They said under the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says you can't discriminate in public

00:25:03.000 accommodation, they end segregation, but why do we still have gender-based segregation

00:25:08.000 in that case?

00:25:09.000 So, I think that's the point.

00:25:10.000 I think that's the point.

00:25:11.000 It's not a slippery slope.

00:25:12.000 It's literally moral logic follows. 0.80

00:25:14.000 So what do you do with gay kids, right? 1.00

00:25:15.000 So 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?

00:25:24.000 So who talks to them about that, right?

00:25:26.000 Who, you know, without that being considered grooming, right?

00:25:29.000 Like parents.

00:25:29.000 Your parents decide how to address it and it's a personal family matter.

00:25:32.000 But I mean like, you know, if they don't have parents, right?

00:25:34.000 If there's, if there's no third party, right?

00:25:37.000 That's like the moral legitimate You know, person who is supposed to be doing that.

00:25:41.000 Whose 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?

00:25:50.000 Where does some third party have a moral right to have a conversation with that child about what they're feeling if nobody else does?

00:25:57.000 If they have no parents, they have a guardian, right?

00:25:59.000 Right.

00:26:00.000 Well, there you go.

00:26:00.000 Okay, so just the guardian.

00:26:02.000 The guardian, yeah, I'd say the guardian.

00:26:03.000 Could they be accused of grooming if they don't have the proper relationship, right?

00:26:07.000 Well, 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.

00:26:16.000 Well, and also like, it is absolutely the case that parents or guardians can and do groom children.

00:26:21.000 Right.

00:26:22.000 But 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.

00:26:30.000 No, there's a circumstance in which the parents agree that they want an educator or someone to talk to their kids about it.

00:26:35.000 So, you know, my attitude with the Florida bill is some of these conversations are already inappropriate for kids.

00:26:42.000 Yeah.

00:26:42.000 If the parents decide my child is old enough to start learning about these things, the parent decide what's best for their kids.

00:26:47.000 If that means they have a third-part educator, I disagree with it, but that's their decision on how they're raising their kids.

00:26:51.000 So 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.

00:26:57.000 Well, 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.

00:27:05.000 Do you think a parent should bring their kids to go-go dancer story hours?

00:27:08.000 No.

00:27:11.000 I 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?

00:27:33.000 Right.

00:27:33.000 Well, I mean, but I mean, like, it's a community, right?

00:27:36.000 The gay community is a community.

00:27:38.000 And there's got to be some kind of a safe way for parents to be able to, you know, if a child is asking them to educate them.

00:27:44.000 I mean, what do you do?

00:27:44.000 Lock them away in the tower and Rapunzel it down the hair when they're 18.

00:27:47.000 And 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.

00:27:57.000 I don't know.

00:27:57.000 And I'm not advocating for drag queen story.

00:27:59.000 I'll tell you.

00:27:59.000 We don't know.

00:28:00.000 I'll tell you.

00:28:01.000 What's a healthy way to do this?

00:28:02.000 I don't know the answer.

00:28:03.000 I agree with the premise.

00:28:08.000 Kids who are LGBT need a safe environment to talk about and learn about these things.

00:28:13.000 But I will also say that as someone, my family owned a cafe in North Halsted in Chicago, which is Boys Town. 0.98

00:28:22.000 Yeah, it's a gay community and everything was overtly sexual. 1.00

00:28:25.000 The storefronts were sexualized. 0.74

00:28:27.000 The products they sold were sexualized. 0.98

00:28:29.000 Macaroni and cheese on display in the window was genitals.

00:28:33.000 The mannequins were anatomically correct and performing acts on each other. 0.80

00:28:36.000 That's not a safe place to bring a kid to teach them about how they feel.

00:28:39.000 You're right.

00:28:39.000 And 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.

00:28:47.000 Like, why is it that pride has to be this sexualized event?

00:28:50.000 Why can't it be something that can include conservative gays?

00:28:54.000 Why is it that this... And it is, and it's notorious.

00:28:59.000 At pride events, people walk around naked, women topless, and all these things. 1.00

00:29:03.000 I would not call that a safe environment for a child to learn about these things.

00:29:06.000 Correct.

00:29:06.000 So when you have drag, for instance, you have a lot of people on the left saying, it's just dress up, it's costume.

00:29:11.000 It's like, okay, what is a drag performance? 0.98

00:29:14.000 A 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.

00:29:23.000 They had Desmond is Amazing, a little boy ripping his clothes off on stage for tips.

00:29:29.000 That is the same thing as stripping.

00:29:31.000 And they acknowledge this, that drag shows incorporate the crowd giving money to the performer as they do these things.

00:29:38.000 So, you say drag, I say go-go dancing or stripping. 1.00

00:29:41.000 I don't see it any different.

00:29:42.000 Inappropriate for kids.

00:29:43.000 There's a new Twitter account called Gays Against Grooming.

00:29:45.000 That's right.

00:29:46.000 Ariel Scarcella, good friend of the show.

00:29:47.000 Oh, I didn't know that was her.

00:29:48.000 Okay, yeah.

00:29:49.000 Well, she's involved.

00:29:49.000 But for every reaction, there's going to be an equal counter-reaction.

00:29:52.000 There'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.

00:29:59.000 I know that's been a big question lately. 0.94

00:30:00.000 So, 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. 1.00

00:30:14.000 So, 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.

00:30:22.000 This 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.

00:30:28.000 Right, so we need to have allies in that community in order to have inroads with that community.

00:30:34.000 If 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.

00:30:40.000 I disagree on that one.

00:30:41.000 So 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.

00:30:57.000 And I think that's sort of always been the agenda behind the sexual revolution, going back to Kinsey.

00:31:02.000 And John Money, who I've talked about extensively on the show and what their goals were.

00:31:06.000 And they quite literally said it.

00:31:07.000 And this is Kinsey, who is called the godfather of the sexual revolution.

00:31:12.000 He is the person who is credited as being the founder of the modern study of sex or sexology.

00:31:18.000 And he openly said that he thinks the only perversion that exists is chastity.

00:31:24.000 In his book, he was complicit in the sexual abuse of children and published data tables in his literature. 0.73

00:31:31.000 Which basically were obtained through the sexual abuse of children.

00:31:35.000 I won't get into detail on exactly what it was, just because it's graphic and disgusting.

00:31:39.000 But 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

00:32:12.000 Conservatism is a blanket term, or it's an umbrella term that will incorporate many different philosophies.

00:32:18.000 National defense conservatism.

00:32:20.000 It's not just about social conservatism.

00:32:22.000 So I agree.

00:32:23.000 But there's also fiscal conservatism, right?

00:32:25.000 So we're going to have to find some kind of a balance between these three forces.

00:32:28.000 Homosexual conservatives are going to be a prominent force in advancing a conservative agenda.

00:32:35.000 in the LGBT community, and it's going to happen. 0.50

00:32:37.000 If we don't connect to that, I think we lose a big advocacy group.

00:32:41.000 I don't believe in tokenism, but many of the most effective conservative leaders are our black conservative leaders, right?

00:32:47.000 So we need to be making inroads to those communities.

00:32:50.000 There would have been people probably back in the civil rights era who would have said, no, we don't want those people in our group.

00:32:53.000 I think that's very different.

00:32:54.000 That's very different.

00:32:56.000 I know you think it's different, but on a tactical or a strategic level, on a strategic level it is.

00:33:01.000 I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would be in league with people who'd want to exclude black folks from the conservative movement.

00:33:06.000 I'm not saying that you are.

00:33:07.000 I'm not saying that you are.

00:33:08.000 So, my point here, and I hear what you're saying.

00:33:11.000 First of all, I agree with you that the conservative movement, it has become a massive umbrella.

00:33:14.000 It incorporates a lot of people.

00:33:15.000 We were talking about this on the show the other day.

00:33:17.000 You 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.

00:33:28.000 Like they are a very tiny minority, ideologically speaking.

00:33:31.000 Well, Gen Z is 28%. 0.97

00:33:33.000 Fair enough.

00:33:34.000 But I'm speaking overall population numbers.

00:33:36.000 And then everyone else is conservative.

00:33:38.000 Now that obviously doesn't work, right?

00:33:40.000 And 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.

00:33:51.000 You gotta be careful about moral extremism.

00:33:54.000 Especially, okay, economy gets bad, people get desperate, 1928, 1929, Hitler comes to power, he's a moral extremist. 0.56

00:34:00.000 He told you what was pure, what was good, what was right.

00:34:02.000 So, I think, when it comes to gay people, being gay is fine. 0.99

00:34:06.000 But being addicted to sex is not fine. 0.99

00:34:08.000 I don't care what It doesn't matter what orientation you are. 0.96

00:34:11.000 It doesn't matter what clothing you wear.

00:34:12.000 That's not about being gay or being straight.

00:34:14.000 You can wear whatever you want.

00:34:14.000 It doesn't matter.

00:34:15.000 It's irrelevant.

00:34:16.000 It doesn't matter what body you think you exist in.

00:34:17.000 It doesn't matter. 0.99

00:34:19.000 If you're gay, you're gay. 1.00

00:34:20.000 That's it. 1.00

00:34:20.000 Just don't be addicted to sex. 1.00

00:34:22.000 That's where it starts to get dirty. 0.90

00:34:23.000 But 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. 0.87

00:34:32.000 So I think we should not promote homosexuality. 0.99

00:34:34.000 I would not say that, like, this person should not be able to speak on this particular issue.

00:34:38.000 But 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.

00:34:43.000 Do you believe homosexuality is a choice and not an intrinsic value?

00:34:46.000 I believe acting on homosexual desires is a choice. 0.93

00:34:49.000 But that the desire itself is some kind of an intrinsic, like, genetic part of that person's makeup?

00:34:55.000 It may or may not be.

00:34:56.000 Okay, but I mean, you leave open the possibility that it is.

00:34:59.000 Yeah.

00:34:59.000 It's not a choice.

00:35:00.000 Well, no, I leave open the possibility that the attraction is not something that the person chooses.

00:35:04.000 You said genetic.

00:35:05.000 I would push back on that.

00:35:06.000 That's a complicated question.

00:35:08.000 It's possible.

00:35:08.000 There could be socially developed or genetic.

00:35:13.000 I think the broader point is simply did a person one day decide to do it or has it something that they've felt grow within them?

00:35:20.000 What makes you gay? 0.67

00:35:22.000 I think it's not so much that question.

00:35:24.000 I 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.

00:35:33.000 I think that it could be good.

00:35:35.000 Nobody's gonna make this argument.

00:35:36.000 But I would say that there's a chance that homosexuality is a good thing. 1.00

00:35:41.000 And the reason why is the possibility that evolution has created this as an adaptation in order to adapt for overpopulation.

00:35:51.000 And 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. 0.95

00:36:08.000 That just seems like bad advice.

00:36:11.000 Frogs do this, right? 1.00

00:36:12.000 So, 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.

00:36:20.000 And this is a natural process of evolution.

00:36:23.000 We don't know this, and I'm just postulating this, right?

00:36:26.000 There'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. 0.99

00:36:36.000 The modern left disagrees with you.

00:36:38.000 They believe that it's a choice.

00:36:39.000 Right.

00:36:40.000 So it used to be that the left in this country thought it wasn't and at least it was claimed

00:36:47.000 the right thought it was, that people were choosing to make these decisions.

00:36:50.000 I think Seamus puts it more clearly that the decision to act on it is the choice.

00:36:55.000 Now the weirdest thing is, among your moderate or traditional liberal, they'll still argue

00:36:59.000 it's not a choice.

00:37:00.000 But among the furthest left of gender ideology, it's outright a choice.

00:37:05.000 I wonder, what makes someone gay? 0.99

00:37:07.000 Is it wanting to have sex with someone of the same sex and never doing it? 1.00

00:37:11.000 Or is it having sex with people of the same sex and not wanting to at all? 0.52

00:37:15.000 So, just sort of to your point, I don't see evidence for that.

00:37:19.000 I mean, and you acknowledge that, that there's no hard evidence on it.

00:37:22.000 For me, the question is not, what is the cause of this?

00:37:25.000 It's the question of, do I view this as something worthy of promoting?

00:37:28.000 Is this something conservatives should be promoting?

00:37:30.000 Right.

00:37:31.000 That's a separate issue.

00:37:32.000 There's a simple answer here.

00:37:33.000 I mean, Milo Yiannopoulos.

00:37:37.000 I guess he's straight now?

00:37:38.000 Is that his thing?

00:37:38.000 So he calls himself reformed.

00:37:41.000 He says he's become very Catholic.

00:37:43.000 I think I understand what Seamus is saying.

00:37:45.000 Someone 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.

00:37:54.000 So there's a space for them, I'd imagine, right?

00:37:57.000 Yeah, 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

00:38:03.000 um I know people who I mean

00:38:06.000 I know so many people who do things that I would consider to be immoral that I don't agree with

00:38:10.000 But i'm not saying that that person should have no say on other issues where we can work together

00:38:14.000 What I am saying is that on that particular issue because we don't agree. We should not be agree

00:38:20.000 I think we're gonna miss out on a big strategic opportunity here

00:38:22.000 I think it was just two weeks ago when the the woke left started attacking 0.97

00:38:28.000 the white homosexuals in their movement 0.99

00:38:31.000 Trying to push the white home saying that many of the problems of the lgbt community were these white homosexuals 1.00

00:38:37.000 who were rebelling against the push for You know the ugly new, you know transgender flag that 1.00

00:38:42.000 includes all those things, right?

00:38:44.000 And so what's going to happen?

00:38:46.000 Is it with the left eating themselves?

00:38:47.000 They'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.

00:38:54.000 So 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? 0.83

00:39:17.000 So as that happens, we should be taking advantage of that in order to build conservative libertarian coalition to win elections and crush the left.

00:39:25.000 So you mentioned that this community is too large to have all these disparate views and that's how I feel about the conservative community.

00:39:31.000 I think it's absolutely the case that the left is going to eat itself.

00:39:33.000 They're going to force people out of their movement for whatever reason.

00:39:35.000 They're always struggling through their various wars and revolutions to become more ideologically pure.

00:39:40.000 What I'm saying is conservatism has basically meant something throughout the eras.

00:39:45.000 It's basically meant we want to conserve tradition and ultimately we want to conserve the family.

00:39:49.000 But what does it mean to be a conservative in the United Kingdom?

00:39:51.000 I don't think there's a very strong conservative movement throughout most of the West.

00:39:54.000 want to conserve things that the United States... I don't think there's a very strong conservative movement

00:39:59.000 throughout most of the West.

00:40:01.000 But conservatism is not baked like that cake.

00:40:04.000 But if it is, it's many different types of cakes, right?

00:40:08.000 That cake is immutable. The properties of that cake will remain the same, such as the ours, which is what you're

00:40:13.000 arguing for.

00:40:14.000 No, what I'm arguing for is that if we want our movement to be successful in stopping the left, these kinds of compromises

00:40:20.000 don't help.

00:40:20.000 And I don't think the conservative movement should be promoting a homosexual lifestyle.

00:40:24.000 That's what I'm saying.

00:40:25.000 When you say lifestyle, is it just the love between two men or is it the sex?

00:40:29.000 It's so, it's a good question.

00:40:31.000 We've talked about this before, but our society uses the word love in many different ways.

00:40:36.000 Whereas the ancients had different words to describe it.

00:40:38.000 I 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.

00:40:46.000 I don't believe that those are loving acts.

00:40:47.000 I don't, I'm not saying that I don't think that a gay person can love someone else or care about them.

00:40:52.000 I'm saying that I believe those acts are intrinsically immoral.

00:40:55.000 You see like erotic love.

00:40:56.000 You're talking about one of the eight types of Greek love is eroticism.

00:40:59.000 But I don't think erotic love is necessarily wrong.

00:41:03.000 It gets into a very different question of what's different about men and women?

00:41:08.000 Why is the sexual embrace between men and women within the confines of marriage a good thing? 1.00

00:41:13.000 What is different about that or an imitation of that when it occurs between two men?

00:41:17.000 And so it's a much larger discussion.

00:41:19.000 But my main point is that it's not something I believe the conservative movement should promote. 0.98

00:41:22.000 If Jesus Christ can wash the feet of sex workers, then I think you could get along with conservative homosexuals. 1.00

00:41:27.000 But he called them to repentance. 0.98

00:41:28.000 And he called them to repentance, and that's very important.

00:41:31.000 And we should call people to repentance.

00:41:33.000 Yes, and we can call people to repentance, but I know we're getting off the rails.

00:41:35.000 This sounds like, for one, going completely in circles, and not actually making any arguments.

00:41:39.000 It's a spiral.

00:41:39.000 We're moving forward as we're circling.

00:41:41.000 I don't think so.

00:41:43.000 I think the question's already been answered.

00:41:45.000 Momentous.

00:41:46.000 A gay conservative can come in and talk about all the conservative values in the world. 0.86

00:41:49.000 If Seamus has believed being gay is one of them, then they wouldn't be talking about this. 0.76

00:41:52.000 That's all that matters.

00:41:53.000 But there's some value between men and women.

00:41:55.000 That's for a man and a woman to have a conversation and to find a connection in love of some way, not necessarily erotic.

00:41:59.000 That's valuable.

00:42:00.000 Even for someone that's gay, like some people maybe aren't comfortable with people of the opposite sex.

00:42:05.000 So they, they do what they're comfortable with.

00:42:06.000 And it's in that way, it's good for people to learn how to communicate with someone of the opposite sex.

00:42:11.000 This 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?

00:42:30.000 I mean, well, you can always have some sort of court case, right?

00:42:34.000 Like, maybe a state could pass a law that would ban gay marriage, right? 0.99

00:42:38.000 And then somebody could challenge that law, and then it could work its way up through the courts, sort of.

00:42:41.000 Because that's kind of what happened with abortion, right?

00:42:43.000 Abortion 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.

00:42:50.000 That said, I mean, will it win?

00:42:52.000 No.

00:42:53.000 I mean, as I said, I think that would lose 8-1.

00:42:56.000 I don't know.

00:42:56.000 As a pragmatic thing who is the one Thomas?

00:42:59.000 But I think you know, I mean, I don't know I'm a I'm a given that I'm a pragmatist right like, you know, whatever

00:43:10.000 the actual like Contours of what it looks like for the conservative

00:43:13.000 movement to promote or not promote or accept or not accept It's like well, we're not, you know, the gay marriage issue

00:43:19.000 is based effectively tabled because you know We're not at least in the short term

00:43:24.000 So, like, maybe let's win political power right now?

00:43:28.000 I don't know.

00:43:29.000 But I mean, isn't that really what we're saying here?

00:43:31.000 Is that in embracing homosexual conservatives that we are adding to our ranks and growing ourselves in political power?

00:43:37.000 Yeah, I mean, I basically think that.

00:43:40.000 I mean, I disagree with Seamus on a lot, right?

00:43:43.000 I feel like you were like, this is intrinsically immoral.

00:43:45.000 I'm like, well, I wanted to ask you like, okay, that probably comes from your Catholic beliefs, I would assume.

00:43:50.000 I would say it's a natural opposition.

00:43:51.000 I don't think someone has to be Catholic to hold it.

00:43:54.000 I guess I could see that.

00:43:55.000 I just think like, you know, from, you know, when I look at something like that, I'm like, well, I don't think it's intrinsically moral.

00:44:01.000 But the thing is, my point is, we don't have to agree on everything.

00:44:06.000 I don't have to agree with everything on someone we're working with.

00:44:08.000 If someone has homosexual tendencies or inclinations, I'm not saying they can't do any good for society.

00:44:13.000 I'm saying we should not promote it.

00:44:14.000 We're talking in circles.

00:44:16.000 Hold on, I'm going to say it again.

00:44:17.000 Guys, we get it.

00:44:17.000 If you're concerned.

00:44:19.000 Also, I do not understand your argument.

00:44:22.000 We've got to separate religious marriage. 0.99

00:44:24.000 If the statement is, there are gay conservatives, they exist.

00:44:27.000 What are conservative values?

00:44:28.000 1, 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. 0.54

00:44:34.000 Fiscal conservatism, national defense conservatism.

00:44:36.000 And 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. 0.95

00:44:41.000 But a homosexual conservative who is in favor of gay marriage is in favor of a socially conservative value.

00:44:48.000 Wanting to have gay marriage is a conservative value.

00:44:51.000 Because a marriage between two people is a conservative value.

00:44:58.000 Marriage itself is a conservative institution.

00:45:01.000 If two men want to get married, that is showing that these homosexuals are embracing socially conservative values, in my view. 0.97

00:45:09.000 I just don't.

00:45:10.000 I don't see it.

00:45:10.000 You've got a separate religious marriage and legal marriage.

00:45:13.000 Let me ask Will a question.

00:45:14.000 You mentioned you don't see it as intrinsically immoral, right?

00:45:18.000 Yeah, no.

00:45:19.000 What about two brothers who are legally adults?

00:45:23.000 Is that immoral?

00:45:24.000 Or a brother and a sister?

00:45:25.000 Yeah, no, actually.

00:45:26.000 That would be.

00:45:26.000 Yeah, I think so too.

00:45:28.000 So why, and again, you know, I'm not asking this because I disagree with him.

00:45:34.000 I agree, I think it's immoral.

00:45:35.000 I'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.

00:45:45.000 I mean, like, I've read sort of the arguments, and so the answer is actually going to be fairly simple.

00:45:50.000 Like, it really is my own intuitive moral response.

00:45:53.000 Right?

00:45:54.000 Simple enough.

00:45:54.000 I have an intuitive, like, you know, disgust reflex towards incest.

00:45:58.000 I think that's pretty evolutionary.

00:46:00.000 Most people do.

00:46:01.000 People feel the same way for gay relationships.

00:46:03.000 Right.

00:46:04.000 So this is the question I was bringing up when it came to what Clarence Thomas was bringing up with this due process question.

00:46:11.000 It's incest.

00:46:11.000 that if you're going to argue that two legally consenting adults can engage in whatever behaviors

00:46:15.000 they want to, how would that preclude a father and a daughter as long as they're adults or

00:46:19.000 brothers or sisters or brother and sister?

00:46:21.000 Personally, I think those are wrong.

00:46:23.000 It's incest.

00:46:24.000 Incest is illegal out of places and I would not be okay with that.

00:46:27.000 Well, isn't it because of the possible third party that you would be introducing into the

00:46:31.000 world would be one that of stunted growth, right?

00:46:33.000 You're literally committing a crime by creating, like... Well, no, no, no.

00:46:37.000 Yeah, then what if they use perfect protection?

00:46:39.000 Right, exactly. 0.76

00:46:40.000 Gay couples don't have kids either. 1.00

00:46:42.000 A brother and a sister could adopt if they love each other.

00:46:43.000 So there's a question here.

00:46:46.000 The way I view it when it comes to the slippery slope is I've long evolved on the idea that one thing goes out of control.

00:46:54.000 It's simply degrees.

00:46:55.000 If you make a moral argument and you win the moral argument, the moral argument stands for all facets of it.

00:46:59.000 If 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.

00:47:10.000 It extends to a father and a daughter, a mother and a son, brothers, sisters, and everything in between.

00:47:14.000 And they're actually making those arguments now.

00:47:17.000 And so this is the issue I was bringing up with gender segregation.

00:47:19.000 Racial segregation, I think, is wrong.

00:47:22.000 Gender segregation, I don't much have a problem with.

00:47:24.000 Like, a men's room in a women's room. 1.00

00:47:27.000 I get it.

00:47:28.000 But there's a similar moral argument.

00:47:30.000 If 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?

00:47:36.000 And I'm like...

00:47:38.000 How do you answer that question?

00:47:39.000 Other than just saying, we have a personal moral line, and that's it.

00:47:43.000 If 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. 0.73

00:47:59.000 Not a slippery slope, just literally the next step in incrementalizing towards it.

00:48:03.000 Ultimately, I think what we're arguing over in Austin, I mean, I appreciate everything you said about the pro-life movement.

00:48:08.000 There are a number of things we really agree on.

00:48:10.000 I think where we really disagree is first and foremost on the definition of marriage.

00:48:13.000 I just don't believe that gay marriage is a logical possibility given how I define the term marriage. 1.00

00:48:18.000 I think what we really don't agree on is where the slippery slope starts, right?

00:48:23.000 Where 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.

00:48:31.000 What really matters is the law, right?

00:48:36.000 Isn't it at first?

00:48:37.000 Because what are we trying to do?

00:48:39.000 Are we trying to stop people?

00:48:40.000 Should we use the government to actually stop people from engaging in a private contract?

00:48:44.000 If someone has a private contract and calls it a marriage, Right, are you saying that that's not?

00:48:50.000 So I don't believe that, no yeah, I don't believe that the federal government has any power to redefine marriage.

00:48:55.000 I believe marriage between a man and a woman, I don't think, or any government.

00:48:57.000 I'm talking about a contract, I'm talking about a private contract between two individuals that they desire to call marriage.

00:49:01.000 Two 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.

00:49:07.000 I'm asking you, do you believe that the government should stop, halt, a contract between two consenting adults that they call marriage?

00:49:16.000 It depends on what they're trying to do.

00:49:18.000 So I don't think the government should recognize it as marriage.

00:49:21.000 If 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? 0.81

00:49:27.000 That's what I was going to say.

00:49:28.000 I don't think the government should be recognizing marriage whatsoever.

00:49:30.000 I agree, but for as long as the government is recognizing marriage.

00:49:33.000 I don't want the government to recognize your Catholic marriages either. 0.99

00:49:35.000 But here's the thing.

00:49:38.000 Austin, 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.

00:49:48.000 I am not agreeing with that idea.

00:49:51.000 I'm presenting, like, making that point, then why would they?

00:49:54.000 I think the issue is, marriage is deeply rooted in, at least in the United States, in Abrahamic tradition.

00:50:01.000 Marriages 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.

00:50:13.000 Seamus takes a traditional religious perspective, which is that marriage is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition.

00:50:18.000 Well, that's not exactly my position.

00:50:19.000 But wait, my view— Because I actually don't—so I believe marriage preex—I mean, marriage preexists Abraham, right?

00:50:24.000 Right, right, right.

00:50:24.000 Abraham was married.

00:50:25.000 Uh, 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.

00:50:34.000 We believe marriage is what it has been through history and it can't like change it from being man and woman to something else.

00:50:39.000 No, 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.

00:50:47.000 We just got back from touring Bridal Cave, which is at the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.

00:50:51.000 This is why I just said, at least in America.

00:50:57.000 I don't believe that Christianity or Judaism invented marriage at all. 0.54

00:51:00.000 That's not my position.

00:51:01.000 Right, but the Native Americans would go to Bridal Cave and they would get married and they'd had no contact with Abrahamic traditions.

00:51:06.000 So I mean, marriage is an institution.

00:51:08.000 It's human.

00:51:08.000 Not one of the government, but one of two people.

00:51:11.000 It's a contract in a sense, a private contract.

00:51:14.000 It doesn't need, it's not a contract that necessarily needs to be written down.

00:51:17.000 So a marriage is a relationship, right?

00:51:19.000 It's not necessarily, you know, because your God has deigned to bring you two together.

00:51:24.000 It'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.

00:51:31.000 But that is an intrinsically personal thing that's defined by them, not by government.

00:51:35.000 No, it's not just personal.

00:51:36.000 It involves broader society, too.

00:51:38.000 There's a reason, like, when you have a marriage, there are other people there observing.

00:51:41.000 Yeah, and hold on, hold on.

00:51:42.000 Didn't they used to consummate the marriage in front of the party? 0.97

00:51:45.000 Actually, the third person that was there was the tribal chief.

00:51:47.000 So there were only typically three people there.

00:51:49.000 But 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.

00:52:05.000 Oh, hold on.

00:52:06.000 The state involvement has actually, in my opinion, made it so that there is no binding involved, right?

00:52:12.000 I mean, they've made it too easy to divorce, sure.

00:52:16.000 They made it too easy to divorce, and the enforcement of taking resources from one party to another, it's just created disaster.

00:52:23.000 Maybe that sort of easy economic punishment makes it too simple.

00:52:29.000 You obviously need the broader societal pressure and societal stigma against divorce and things like that.

00:52:35.000 It's like, also, I want to clear something up.

00:52:37.000 When I said enforced monogamy, I was saying that every incel should be given a woman who's forced to pee with it. 1.00

00:52:40.000 When he said that in the Native American tribes if you were to start doing your buddy's wife after you got married the

00:52:44.000 tribe would Throw you out of the tribe. Yeah, so yeah, it's like banishment.

00:52:47.000 It's important to know who's Also, I want to clear something up when I said enforced monogamy 0.97

00:52:54.000 I was saying that every incel should be given a woman who's And it's like these people try to take me out of context

00:53:01.000 and say I was setting up a societal precedent for people to say

00:53:04.000 It's like, no, I was saying we should redistribute women to incels, man. 1.00

00:53:07.000 It's like, I was very clear, man.

00:53:10.000 It's like, why is it that only the top 1% of the chads get 99% of the women?

00:53:13.000 It's like, it's not fair.

00:53:15.000 This is the only developed nation.

00:53:16.000 That's pretty sad.

00:53:17.000 It's the only developed nation.

00:53:18.000 You wrote that, didn't you?

00:53:20.000 That?

00:53:21.000 I've never written that, but maybe that should be a cartoon.

00:53:24.000 I'm still stuck on the differential between religious marriage and legal marriage.

00:53:28.000 And they use the same word marriage, but they're different, completely different definitions.

00:53:32.000 So we got to stop conflating those.

00:53:35.000 I feel like you're bent on man and man can't get married because of the religious aspect.

00:53:39.000 I mean, not the religious aspect, because I believe marriage predates religion. 0.78

00:53:42.000 It's just what I believe the term means.

00:53:47.000 The weird thing to me about, we also have the Supreme Court ruling on Maine and the private schools.

00:53:52.000 Is 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.

00:54:02.000 Whereas on the right, the separation of church and state is the state cannot discriminate on the basis of your religion, which is particularly interesting.

00:54:09.000 So I'm thinking back to the famous Prop 8 musical with Jack Black.

00:54:15.000 And he said his argument for why there should be gay marriages, the nation was built on a separation of church and state.

00:54:22.000 And 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?

00:54:30.000 Isn't that what you want, Will?

00:54:32.000 I 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.

00:54:41.000 I 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.

00:54:53.000 I 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. 0.95

00:55:01.000 I think it's like... Look at this liberal over here.

00:55:03.000 Yeah, I mean, you got me, right?

00:55:05.000 Like, my most conservative thing was I thought, you know, hey, conservatives should win.

00:55:09.000 That's like, that was my big conservative belief.

00:55:11.000 Now I can all argue... That's crazy.

00:55:12.000 You know?

00:55:14.000 Right?

00:55:14.000 Remember when people were saying, no, we should just... like David French.

00:55:16.000 No, we should not win because reasons. Well, look what they're doing now. I hate to do a hard derail,

00:55:22.000 but I don't want to just stand subject for too long. So let's, let's jump to gun control because 0.61

00:55:26.000 the house has passed gun control package, sending it to Joe Biden's desk after McConnell and other

00:55:31.000 Republicans defy Trump and vote for the bill. No, let me, let me tell you, they did not defy Trump.

00:55:38.000 They defied the will of their voter base. Yes.

00:55:41.000 And I will not forget Shelley Moore Capito in West Virginia what you did because you are a scumbag. 1.00

00:55:48.000 I am rightly pissed off about this. 0.99

00:55:50.000 Second most Trump-supporting state in the country.

00:55:53.000 And 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. 1.00

00:56:03.000 Well, thank God for Missouri, because in Missouri, we have the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

00:56:07.000 And this is a law that was passed two years ago, signed by the governor, Mike Parson, that effectively punishes Missouri police officers Wow.

00:56:17.000 and their institution, whichever one that they are a part of,

00:56:20.000 with a $50,000 fine if Missouri police officers are to act in coordination with federal officers

00:56:26.000 enforcing federal laws, if they are not against the law in Missouri.

00:56:30.000 So if you're breaking Missouri law, then the police officers can participate.

00:56:34.000 But in Missouri, if Joe Biden passes a gun control package and it's not in Missouri's law,

00:56:41.000 then Missouri police officers are not allowed to participate.

00:56:43.000 The feds still can, but not Missouri police.

00:56:45.000 We 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.

00:57:01.000 So the state cannot The feds can come in, but not the states.

00:57:10.000 My understanding of the federal law is that it provides funding and support to states in implementing their own red flag laws.

00:57:19.000 Am I mistaken?

00:57:20.000 Well, this is not about red flag laws.

00:57:22.000 This is about the NFA.

00:57:23.000 This is about any restriction on any gun that's not codified in New Hampshire.

00:57:27.000 It's not nullification, but it's something similar in a sense.

00:57:30.000 Right.

00:57:31.000 Well, there's things like that happen in context outside of gun where the state's like, we're not going to help the feds.

00:57:36.000 It's commandeering.

00:57:37.000 Sort of like sanctuary state type stuff.

00:57:38.000 I mean, the feds can't force the state to spend their money and resources enforcing federal law.

00:57:42.000 Right, right.

00:57:43.000 So that's what it would be.

00:57:46.000 So, 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.

00:57:53.000 If they want to perform a federal raid for bump stocks, then Missouri police officers are not allowed to participate.

00:57:58.000 And 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.

00:58:05.000 And 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.

00:58:19.000 I 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.

00:58:26.000 He was governor there for a short time.

00:58:28.000 He's now running again to be in the U.S.

00:58:30.000 Senate.

00:58:30.000 And he actually came on my program in Missouri and said that he supported the police, that this amounts to a defunding of the police.

00:58:37.000 He 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.

00:58:47.000 Well, 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.

00:58:58.000 It puts Republicans in a really difficult spot.

00:59:00.000 I think it's actually a beautiful thing to do.

00:59:01.000 I hope more states copy us.

00:59:02.000 No, I hear you.

00:59:03.000 And 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.

00:59:12.000 Is 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?

00:59:18.000 Per incident, right?

00:59:20.000 So 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.

00:59:32.000 And 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.

00:59:40.000 But 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.

00:59:49.000 So that's really the issue, is the question of how much money that these police departments are losing.

00:59:54.000 And that's why I think it's a critical issue because it places conservative values against the law.

01:00:00.000 And 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?

01:00:11.000 So I think it's a rubber-hits-the-road issue for anybody running for political office.

01:00:16.000 Ask them about Missouri SEPA law.

01:00:17.000 Ask them about what New Hampshire is doing here.

01:00:20.000 And I wonder, you know, from a constitutional question, what do you think, Will, of the question of the real deal?

01:00:27.000 The real nullification, which we had a crisis of, which we had a civil war over.

01:00:32.000 Nullification is nonsense.

01:00:33.000 Sorry.

01:00:34.000 Yeah, well, go ahead.

01:00:35.000 Tell me about it.

01:00:37.000 That was settled in the 1860s.

01:00:39.000 Can you define what it is?

01:00:40.000 Oh, nullification is the right of a state to defy or somehow overturn federal law in its jurisdiction, right?

01:00:48.000 So the feds would not be able, in nullification, the police officers would actually prevent the feds from enforcing their rights.

01:00:55.000 Aren't they doing that in some places though?

01:00:57.000 No, 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?

01:01:05.000 Like, not that we're saying that your law doesn't apply here, but rather, we will not help you enforce your law.

01:01:11.000 Like, that's your problem.

01:01:12.000 If 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.

01:01:16.000 That's okay, because state and federal government are different sovereigns, right?

01:01:20.000 And 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.

01:01:28.000 I 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.

01:01:40.000 You know, that's funny that you have that Second Amendment, but we're going to do what we want in New York.

01:01:44.000 And if that means depriving everyone of their right to guns, you have no say in it.

01:01:47.000 We're going to nullify that Supreme Court ruling.

01:01:50.000 Like, nah, right?

01:01:51.000 I think...

01:01:52.000 That's what they're trying to do.

01:01:53.000 I hear you.

01:01:54.000 I hear you and I think you're making good arguments.

01:01:56.000 And I'm not totally on one side or the other here, but I would say this.

01:02:00.000 I 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.

01:02:10.000 Ultimately, the end state of nullification is going back to, effectively, the world of the United States and the Articles of Confederation. 0.54

01:02:19.000 And I'm like, no!

01:02:22.000 Actually, historically, that was terrible.

01:02:24.000 And I don't want civil war in the United States, but that's how we get there. 0.87

01:02:28.000 We 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.

01:02:35.000 We got a pretty strong federal government.

01:02:36.000 I don't know about civil wars out of the question.

01:02:38.000 Yeah.

01:02:38.000 No, 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.

01:03:06.000 No, the state can't do that.

01:03:07.000 That's civil war.

01:03:09.000 I 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.

01:03:19.000 And we know how that would end up now, right?

01:03:21.000 Because the Supreme Court would say so.

01:03:23.000 Just as a matter of principle, right?

01:03:24.000 Like, 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.

01:03:37.000 It's clearly within federal authority.

01:03:39.000 I don't think the state then just gets to defy that.

01:03:41.000 Under that scenario, would you be in favor of a convention of states?

01:03:44.000 I mean, I'd be in favor of changing federal law at that point.

01:03:50.000 There are no circumstances where you think Article 5 of the Constitution would ever arise?

01:03:54.000 I don't want a revolution, man.

01:03:55.000 Revolutions are generally bad. 0.99

01:03:57.000 Damn, I want a revolution. 0.99

01:03:58.000 I want a revolution. 0.99

01:03:59.000 They never turn out the way people think they will.

01:04:01.000 Every single time.

01:04:03.000 We are like the only revolution that has ever stuck the landing.

01:04:06.000 Ever.

01:04:06.000 I mean, think about how bad it was.

01:04:08.000 But hold on.

01:04:08.000 Is 20 years of conflict and death and fighting sticking the landing?

01:04:13.000 I mean, that's as good as it gets, right?

01:04:14.000 And right.

01:04:14.000 And 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.

01:04:23.000 And 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.

01:04:28.000 Well, yeah, well, I mean, you're you're a Jeffersonian, and I'm a Hamiltonian, right?

01:04:32.000 Like, this is the... Like, they already posed a revolution on us in 1913.

01:04:36.000 Now we got to take it back.

01:04:37.000 Yeah, now we have the most powerful economy in the world.

01:04:39.000 But not all revolutions are fought with blood and tears and powder.

01:04:44.000 And the Federal Reserve was a revolution.

01:04:46.000 Right the progressive era was a revolution. It wasn't fought with bullets. It was fought at the ballot box

01:04:50.000 And so yeah, I want a revolution I don't want fighting in the streets here in the United

01:04:54.000 States but I want an overturning of many of the

01:04:57.000 Legal precedents that have been said then, you know win some elections and and win some litigation

01:05:02.000 For more states for a convention revolution means to turn forward and it actually it's it's constantly we're in a

01:05:11.000 revolution We are revolving and if you participate in the revolution

01:05:14.000 is up to you But it's revolving whether you're doing it or not.

01:05:17.000 30 states are controlled by Republicans, legislatures, and 34 for a convention of states, I believe.

01:05:24.000 I 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?

01:05:37.000 No, if we did.

01:05:38.000 I mean, since we have a majority conservative Supreme Court, I'm like, we don't need to do anything crazy.

01:05:43.000 Let's just keep litigating and winning.

01:05:47.000 I mean, think about how depressing must you be if you're a progressive right now.

01:05:52.000 You control the presidency and both halves of Congress, and you're taking L after L after L right now.

01:05:58.000 And you're about to, like, Lose at least one of those.

01:06:01.000 Do you want that in your back pocket though?

01:06:03.000 Do you want an article 5 convention to stay in the constitution and to be something that's there?

01:06:08.000 You don't even want that power?

01:06:09.000 I don't want, like, I really do not, you know, people talk about national divorce.

01:06:13.000 I am like a very anti-national divorce guy.

01:06:16.000 I'm actually with you on that.

01:06:17.000 I 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?

01:06:26.000 Un-possible, yeah.

01:06:28.000 Me Failed English?

01:06:30.000 That sounds like a Simpsons reference.

01:06:32.000 It's not 1860.

01:06:34.000 In 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.

01:06:42.000 The federal government was so weak.

01:06:43.000 We 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.

01:06:51.000 It's just not something that would happen, and it would be bad if it did.

01:06:54.000 How strong is too strong a federal government for you?

01:06:58.000 A federal government that can't be constrained by law at all is too strong.

01:07:03.000 There's no legal recourse.

01:07:06.000 You don't think they were there?

01:07:07.000 Not even close.

01:07:07.000 What do you think about the Patriot Act?

01:07:08.000 The federal government is not too strong in your mind?

01:07:11.000 I mean, there are places where I think the federal government should be weaker and places where I think the federal government should be stronger.

01:07:16.000 Are you comfortable with the Patriot Act?

01:07:29.000 Like, I think it probably gives the NSA, and like, there's probably too much power and too much espionage power in general.

01:07:35.000 Can you cut it out with the nuance, please?

01:07:37.000 I'm sorry.

01:07:39.000 I want to know.

01:07:39.000 Will's talking about the total package.

01:07:41.000 There's a total reserve.

01:07:42.000 Oh, yeah, sure.

01:07:42.000 I'm sorry, man.

01:07:43.000 Get out! 0.98

01:07:47.000 I will also say this on the question of revolutions, right?

01:07:50.000 People need to realize this.

01:07:52.000 This is true of basically every revolution that I'm familiar with, right?

01:07:55.000 Not a giant history buff.

01:07:56.000 You're right, the American Revolution in many ways stuck the landing.

01:07:59.000 But 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.

01:08:09.000 And 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.

01:08:23.000 They 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.

01:08:31.000 Oh yeah.

01:08:32.000 If there is anything right now that is making the federal government weaker, it's what the

01:08:37.000 DOJ is doing with Trump supporters.

01:08:39.000 Oh, yeah.

01:08:40.000 Yes.

01:08:41.000 That that outright with with the solitary confinement, with the rating on Jeffrey Clark,

01:08:44.000 with the subpoenas to GOP, it is basically sending a signal to half this country that

01:08:51.000 the government is against you.

01:08:53.000 And that that means if you're if you're someone who supported Trump, you believe Trump or

01:08:58.000 you have you are a simple skeptic who has questions based on the Texas v. Pennsylvania

01:09:03.000 lawsuit or things like that.

01:09:04.000 You are being told your your your wants, concerns are irrelevant and you will get no reaches

01:09:09.000 of grievances.

01:09:11.000 And if that's the case, it's exactly what ends up happening.

01:09:15.000 It is in line with what happened in 1860.

01:09:18.000 It's a little... I think it's a little different.

01:09:20.000 what was supposed to be granted to them in terms of the federal negotiations

01:09:24.000 between states, they weren't getting what they were they were supposed to be

01:09:28.000 granted. It's a little I think it's a little different I mean the way the way

01:09:32.000 I'd look at the South is the South felt like you know that they were on a track

01:09:37.000 to inevitably lose complete power.

01:09:40.000 Like, basically, they were on track to be a permanent political minority.

01:09:44.000 And how is that different?

01:09:45.000 It's not just that.

01:09:46.000 It's one of the big issues with the Fugitive Slave Act, which is the North was not adhering to.

01:09:52.000 And 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.

01:10:04.000 And 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.

01:10:16.000 I think, I mean, the way to resolve that is to punish them when we take power, right?

01:10:24.000 Like, I think that that's, we need to kind of flip it back on them, right?

01:10:28.000 Everybody who is involved in these DOJ investigations themselves needs to come under investigation.

01:10:32.000 There needs to be, like, subpoenas.

01:10:35.000 Trump 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...

01:10:52.000 The 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.

01:11:06.000 Yeah, and DOJ, what DOJ is doing now and what Merrick Garland is doing at DOJ, I mean, Merrick Garland should be impeached.

01:11:10.000 That actually should be early on the list of things, like, of what should be done.

01:11:13.000 For what?

01:11:17.000 Oh, absolutely.

01:11:17.000 I mean, there's a lot of unlawful, there's actually like some seriously like unlawful actions failure to enforce law.

01:11:22.000 Yep, right failure For example, like the protests that judges justices houses

01:11:26.000 like his decision to just completely not enforce that in my view. That's impeachable

01:11:30.000 Oh, yeah, did he argue that was the First Amendment? Right?

01:11:32.000 He just didn't even I don't even think yeah discussed it publicly like at all

01:11:36.000 I think he passively just, I think it was asked of him, but he said something like just shrugging it off or something.

01:11:44.000 If 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.

01:11:51.000 But doesn't the First Amendment supersede that?

01:11:53.000 No.

01:11:54.000 The precedent is that there cannot be free speech without justice.

01:12:00.000 So the exception made in terms of protest is that courts must be free from the influence of partisans.

01:12:06.000 Therefore, you are right to speak, but you are not allowed to pressure the courts through protest.

01:12:14.000 I guess the real reason that's acceptable is it's a time, place, and manner restriction.

01:12:17.000 Right?

01:12:18.000 Like, it's saying, like, you're allowed to protest, you just can't do it in front of their private home.

01:12:22.000 Right?

01:12:22.000 And, you know, that's what those rules say.

01:12:25.000 That's the procedural.

01:12:27.000 The 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.

01:12:37.000 Well, but they can still protest at the court, right?

01:12:40.000 No, they can't.

01:12:41.000 Sure they can.

01:12:43.000 I'm pretty sure it actually says you cannot attempt to protest at a court to persuade an officer.

01:12:49.000 Well, as applied, that would certainly be unconstitutional, right?

01:12:52.000 If they actually tried to, that would certainly be a First Amendment violation to say you couldn't protest.

01:12:56.000 I could be wrong about that.

01:12:57.000 It does say home.

01:12:58.000 There'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.

01:13:03.000 Because if you're yelling at his car and yelling at him when he's walking in, that's definitely pressuring the judge.

01:13:08.000 Well, let's clarify.

01:13:09.000 You 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.

01:13:15.000 But I think of the Revolutionary War and the similarities that the taxation, no taxation without representation is what sparked it.

01:13:22.000 And as they're printing trillions, we've got like $30 trillion of debt.

01:13:26.000 That's a tax on me.

01:13:28.000 I'm not seeing that money.

01:13:31.000 I want to clarify.

01:13:32.000 Yes, you cannot at a court.

01:13:33.000 It 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?

01:13:55.000 I 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?

01:14:02.000 title imprisoned, not more than one year or both.

01:14:04.000 How do you define near?

01:14:06.000 I guess it's probably, I mean, actually, you know, that's an interesting question because

01:14:09.000 I guess somehow that's got to coexist with the First Amendment, right?

01:14:13.000 So then there's like, I don't know.

01:14:15.000 I guess I'd have to read up on how the Supreme... I know the Supreme Court said some stuff about this.

01:14:19.000 Well, 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?

01:14:35.000 So 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.

01:14:42.000 Because 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.

01:14:53.000 Kind of reminds me of, remember back to the Tommy Robinson stuff?

01:14:56.000 Right, that was in the UK though.

01:14:58.000 That was in the UK, but sort of similar to this.

01:14:59.000 He interviewed someone outside of court, so they arrested him.

01:15:02.000 Well, 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.

01:15:10.000 Big brain stuff, man.

01:15:12.000 Yeah, I know.

01:15:13.000 I wonder how they define being near a court or residence.

01:15:16.000 Like, is it two blocks away?

01:15:18.000 Is it 20 feet away?

01:15:19.000 Is it a thousand blocks away?

01:15:20.000 Judges interpret.

01:15:22.000 Oh, so the judges get to decide for themselves if you were near their house.

01:15:25.000 Welcome to judicial precedence.

01:15:27.000 How can you rely on nine people to decide the fate of the country? 0.68

01:15:30.000 It makes no sense.

01:15:31.000 I see why these people are saying defy it.

01:15:33.000 Hold on, hold on.

01:15:33.000 How many federal judges are there?

01:15:36.000 Oh gosh, a couple thousand?

01:15:37.000 Not that many, I don't think.

01:15:38.000 Maybe, like, about a thousand, I think?

01:15:40.000 Yeah.

01:15:40.000 It's not just nine people.

01:15:41.000 But it goes up the chain to the nine.

01:15:43.000 And they can't hear every single case.

01:15:46.000 And they get to decide what they hear and what they don't.

01:15:48.000 They can be like, I don't even want to deal with it.

01:15:49.000 That's right!

01:15:50.000 That's insane!

01:15:51.000 No, no, I do not deem that relevant.

01:15:54.000 It's not insane.

01:15:55.000 That 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?

01:16:01.000 Right, 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.

01:16:07.000 I understand that they're not physically capable of it.

01:16:08.000 Listen to this anarchist guy over here.

01:16:10.000 Maxine Waters over here.

01:16:11.000 More judicial supremacy.

01:16:13.000 Look, they're not going to take the graphene case I keep telling you.

01:16:17.000 AI, we need AI justices.

01:16:19.000 They're not going to take the income taxes and constitutional cases.

01:16:22.000 Milton Friedman thought we needed an AI Federal Reserve, that he thought the whole inflation should just be set by an algorithm.

01:16:27.000 I'm open to that.

01:16:28.000 If we could observe it and make sure it's an open source thing that we're watching happen, I think we could use it as an advisor.

01:16:33.000 I will say this.

01:16:34.000 Times have changed, technology has changed, and we probably could do a better job with some great minds in building a new form of government.

01:16:41.000 That being said, right now in the world, it's like the United States government, the structure of it, it's the best.

01:16:49.000 I don't think there's anything better. 0.67

01:16:50.000 Granted, 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.

01:16:57.000 There's a lot of things they didn't predict, but the idea of a legislative branch, an executive, and a judicial branch is brilliant.

01:17:02.000 And a bicameral system within the legislature, so it wasn't just one body.

01:17:08.000 And the strong executive, frankly.

01:17:10.000 Most 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.

01:17:22.000 If you have a weak executive, generally the legislature ultimately swallows up executive power and you get like one thing.

01:17:29.000 So Ian, it is not just about the justices.

01:17:31.000 Congress gets together, the House, and they go, hey we got an idea.

01:17:34.000 These are all the people elected to represent their districts and we think these things should be law.

01:17:40.000 Then it goes to the Senate, who has to agree.

01:17:43.000 They represent the states.

01:17:44.000 So 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.

01:17:52.000 If it doesn't, you need a veto-proof majority.

01:17:55.000 When the president signs off on it, you now have two branches checking that.

01:17:58.000 Then, once it becomes law, people can challenge it in court, and then there's a judicial review of it.

01:18:04.000 It is actually... Look, man, you can argue that you don't like that nine people have these decisions.

01:18:09.000 It is the best system in the world right now.

01:18:12.000 One issue I've got with the House of Representatives is that they have a monopoly on the lawmaking right now.

01:18:17.000 It's like 460 of them or something get to decide what goes to the I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

01:18:22.000 It's not even that.

01:18:23.000 It's like one person.

01:18:24.000 It's Nancy Pelosi.

01:18:24.000 Well, that's wicked nuts.

01:18:25.000 And Chuck Schumer. 0.97

01:18:26.000 I know, that's awful.

01:18:27.000 Mike 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.

01:18:33.000 It's the people.

01:18:34.000 And 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.

01:18:41.000 And you also now gain the ability to pass laws into the Senate.

01:18:44.000 We all do.

01:18:46.000 Like a ballot referendum kind of a deal?

01:18:48.000 I'm not sure.

01:18:48.000 I don't know what that is.

01:18:49.000 I think it's a terrible idea.

01:18:50.000 That sounds like a terrible idea.

01:18:51.000 I think people are smart enough to know.

01:18:53.000 If someone knows how to write a law, if they learn in school how to do it... They're not.

01:18:57.000 They're not.

01:18:57.000 Then you shoot it down.

01:18:58.000 We crowdfund it.

01:18:59.000 We 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.

01:19:07.000 We 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.

01:19:17.000 The 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.

01:19:27.000 That's the kind of laws that you get when they're written by Democratic majorities. 0.76

01:19:30.000 And Ian, I'll tell you why I disagree.

01:19:31.000 So when you look at Wikipedia, You can't sue the individuals who write the things because they don't write complete sentences.

01:19:37.000 You can't sue Wikipedia because they're not the ones who write it, even though they publish it.

01:19:41.000 The 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.

01:19:51.000 So hold on, so here's the issue.

01:19:53.000 Right now in New York, we had Larry Sharp on.

01:19:55.000 He mentioned 60% of people in the state want gun control, even though it's unconstitutional.

01:20:01.000 If we introduce laws based on that, you will get majority manipulation.

01:20:06.000 You will get people's rights being violated.

01:20:08.000 And as Michael Malice puts it, my rights are not up for a vote. 0.97

01:20:12.000 But a bunch of really ignorant people who are unaccountable can all just go in and make it happen. 0.60

01:20:17.000 Now, 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. 0.93

01:20:26.000 But what kind of accountability do these people have right now, all these people that voted for this?

01:20:31.000 I 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.

01:20:40.000 Ian, the problem is, remember checks and balances, right?

01:20:43.000 So here's the question.

01:20:44.000 If you create that fourth branch of government, what role does the Supreme Court and the legislature and the president have in order to check?

01:20:50.000 What powers do they have over that?

01:20:53.000 It's the same as if we were just like an extrapolation of the House of Representatives.

01:20:57.000 Everyone becomes a representative.

01:20:58.000 Everyone has the opportunity now to create a model.

01:21:00.000 Honestly, I think the end result is the Senate would just ignore it.

01:21:02.000 It's possible, but it would be making a big noise if they did.

01:21:05.000 But either way, direct democracy doesn't work. 0.50

01:21:08.000 It wouldn't be that.

01:21:09.000 I'm not suggesting mob rule or anything like that.

01:21:11.000 It would just create another branch of government. 0.73

01:21:12.000 So we have an opportunity to participate.

01:21:14.000 We do.

01:21:15.000 Not really.

01:21:15.000 We pick someone to go do it for us.

01:21:17.000 And it doesn't feel like I'm involved.

01:21:20.000 And there's 300 million of us, man.

01:21:23.000 It can feel like that when you're only looking at federal issues.

01:21:25.000 If you get involved in your state, you can see real changes happening.

01:21:28.000 Don't just look at federal.

01:21:30.000 I see it all the time.

01:21:31.000 When Missouri representatives have meetings with constituents, they show up, they make their voices heard, and policies change.

01:21:38.000 It happens all the time.

01:21:40.000 If you look at the federal, things move much slower.

01:21:42.000 So I would ask you to say, why don't you pass something like that in a state first?

01:21:46.000 Like pass something like that on a state level.

01:21:48.000 We already kind of do that in Missouri.

01:21:50.000 We 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.

01:22:02.000 And it's a nightmare.

01:22:02.000 And now our Constitution in Missouri is this leviathan that becomes, you know, completely unwieldy.

01:22:08.000 And every 10 years we have an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution, and they keep trying to do it, and we can't.

01:22:14.000 So 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.

01:22:24.000 Do 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?

01:22:30.000 Like, 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.

01:22:40.000 Any of the great people that we have right now are running for office and they are getting elected.

01:22:45.000 Very few of them that I think that people like Massey and Rand Paul and others, but they're there.

01:22:50.000 The founders are there and they're already in the government writing laws.

01:22:53.000 The issue, Ian, that you're taking is not solved by your proposal.

01:22:58.000 The issue is we have a corrupt system.

01:23:01.000 That the people who get elected often are just serving special interests.

01:23:04.000 And it's untenable.

01:23:05.000 Like a bill will come with 80 pages or 800 pages and no one reads it.

01:23:09.000 Right.

01:23:10.000 But that should be on the internet so everyone can read it and upvote it or downvote it like a Reddit thing.

01:23:14.000 No, absolutely not.

01:23:14.000 And then the popular ones go to the Senate.

01:23:16.000 This is a single layer issue.

01:23:19.000 You're looking at a problem and saying the solution is to give it to the people when that's not the solution at all.

01:23:24.000 The problem is multifaceted, nuanced, and extremely difficult to solve.

01:23:27.000 It is not solved by just opening up the system to random people.

01:23:31.000 I mean, that's a vague way of phrasing what I'm talking about.

01:23:33.000 The National Initiative doesn't just give mob rule.

01:23:36.000 It lets people get involved in the lawmaking process.

01:23:40.000 What we need are representatives who are moral, principled, and not... It's not possible, dude.

01:23:47.000 People get bribed.

01:23:48.000 It is possible.

01:23:49.000 No one is a paragon.

01:23:50.000 See, the issue is the system can be fixed.

01:23:55.000 I agree with that.

01:23:55.000 Your proposal does not address the problem.

01:23:57.000 It just adds another bandaid on top of the problem.

01:23:59.000 I don't know.

01:23:59.000 I 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.

01:24:06.000 The problem is people don't care.

01:24:09.000 The problem is they vote for Nancy Pelosi in her district without thinking twice, and you want to extend more power to those same people. 0.90

01:24:15.000 It will not solve the problem.

01:24:16.000 Term limits! 1.00

01:24:17.000 No, I agree with that as well.

01:24:22.000 Term limits! 1.00

01:24:22.000 Hold on, hold on, hold on. 1.00

01:24:23.000 I gotta make one point.

01:24:25.000 The 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.

01:24:30.000 They say that that happens in Missouri, but there are some negatives to it, but the benefits are that Nancy Pelosi types go away.

01:24:38.000 That they can't come in and establish a little kingdom and then stay there for 20, 30, 40 years.

01:24:42.000 But Ron Paul did, and we like Ron Paul.

01:24:45.000 There 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.

01:25:08.000 That's a much more effective place to start.

01:25:10.000 Hold on, hold on, hold on.

01:25:10.000 I mean, that would be a lot better.

01:25:12.000 That's a much more effective place to start.

01:25:14.000 Here's my proposal.

01:25:18.000 In any position in which you work in government, after four years, you're sent off to an island.

01:25:24.000 That's it.

01:25:24.000 You can't come back.

01:25:25.000 You're not going to get to leave.

01:25:27.000 That's it.

01:25:27.000 By the way, elected office, government job, four years, off to the island.

01:25:31.000 We have term limits on the state level.

01:25:33.000 Maybe it just needs to be on the state level.

01:25:34.000 But in Missouri, we have term limits and you're, you know, if you're in the legislature, you go at a certain time.

01:25:39.000 And we have lost some good people, but the majority of people are bad.

01:25:42.000 And the majority of people go away, and that makes it better.

01:25:45.000 But 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.

01:25:53.000 Well, it helps in Missouri.

01:25:56.000 Most 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.

01:26:05.000 What 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.

01:26:13.000 So there's a thing called super chickens.

01:26:17.000 Super chickens are the hens that dominate the pecking order.

01:26:22.000 So 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.

01:26:27.000 So they did an experiment.

01:26:28.000 They 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. 0.97

01:26:36.000 They all killed each other.

01:26:39.000 So 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.

01:26:49.000 And afterwards, Island.

01:26:50.000 Iowa.

01:26:51.000 What would that look like?

01:26:53.000 You'd lose a lot of institutional memory, right?

01:26:56.000 Like, 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?

01:27:03.000 Well- And then you enter the society of all former politicians.

01:27:06.000 It would look like Arlington, Virginia.

01:27:10.000 Yeah, that's a good point.

01:27:12.000 Also, I mean, Will, if we want institutional memory, we can always, like, venture to the island and grab one of them.

01:27:18.000 Hey, how did the nuclear reactors work?

01:27:21.000 How does that... What's that regulation?

01:27:24.000 How do you reset the memory?

01:27:25.000 I don't remember.

01:27:26.000 You're like, alright, thank you.

01:27:27.000 I will tell you if you let me off the island.

01:27:30.000 They're like, this is my best friend, Jimmy.

01:27:32.000 He's like holding a coconut.

01:27:33.000 You're like, ah, he doesn't remember.

01:27:35.000 Part of why I think term limits is a better idea now than it was before is because of social media.

01:27:39.000 People get really famous, and when they're in office for four years, they get 1.2 million followers.

01:27:44.000 Then they're gone.

01:27:44.000 They're out of politics.

01:27:46.000 But they still have a huge following.

01:27:47.000 They can still make a living.

01:27:48.000 People still trust them.

01:27:49.000 There are a lot of people who are in politics for four years who don't end up with 1.2 million followers.

01:27:54.000 The ones that we're thinking of are all giant, but that's because they're giant.

01:27:57.000 I just gotta read one super chat real quick, because I just saw it.

01:27:59.000 Phil Goen says, Tim, that's a bad idea.

01:28:01.000 The Elite already have had their eye on us.

01:28:07.000 Oh, that's true!

01:28:08.000 Now, Will, how do we get rid of the Deep State?

01:28:10.000 How do you get rid of the deep state?

01:28:11.000 Is there like a spray or something?

01:28:15.000 You change civil service laws, right?

01:28:17.000 That's where basically you make people much more easy to fire for the basis of just like, you're not one of us, right?

01:28:24.000 And 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.

01:28:35.000 But what about their institutional knowledge?

01:28:36.000 We would lose that.

01:28:39.000 Basically, it's like you want a world where you have the choice about whether you keep that institutional knowledge around or not, right?

01:28:46.000 You 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.

01:28:57.000 Basically, you want to give more authority to the White House over the executive branch

01:29:03.000 if it wants to use it.

01:29:05.000 And I think the big problem is when you have a White House that can't deal with a hostile

01:29:10.000 executive branch, then you have the deep state problem.

01:29:13.000 So are you opposed to presidential term limits?

01:29:16.000 Uh, no.

01:29:19.000 I 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.

01:29:28.000 So the Senate's less powerful, so... Senate's less powerful, Senate, Senate's primary function now is becoming, the primary function is becoming oversight.

01:29:36.000 Honestly.

01:29:37.000 But wouldn't you want to see that meme Carpe Dantum make of the Trump 2024, 2028, 2032 just going off indefinitely?

01:29:44.000 Wouldn't that be great?

01:29:45.000 I mean, and you know, like, there's a trade-off, right?

01:29:47.000 I mean, you do get, like, sometimes you really have a good president, and it's probably good that they weren't kicked out.

01:29:53.000 I mean, like, think about it.

01:29:54.000 I mean, FDR would have been termed out right in the middle of World War II.

01:29:59.000 Was it good?

01:30:00.000 Yeah, it was not good.

01:30:01.000 Like, that probably would have been a bad thing, right?

01:30:03.000 Are we sure?

01:30:05.000 I 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?

01:30:24.000 Should it be that that transition of power should occur in wartime and do so in such a way as to be?

01:30:30.000 Yeah, I mean, we always want peaceful transfer of power.

01:30:33.000 But the question is sort of a technocratic one.

01:30:35.000 Is 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.

01:30:45.000 I mean, you know, there's no term limits in Britain for prime ministers.

01:30:49.000 During wartime, the power of the presidency swells and expands, right?

01:30:53.000 So I mean, isn't that probably the argument for why allowing that kind of transfer of power or protecting the executive branch?

01:30:59.000 Sure, but like what also, you know, wild swings in the policy of an administration during wartime don't seem Great.

01:31:05.000 You're right.

01:31:06.000 Right?

01:31:07.000 You're right.

01:31:07.000 Like, 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?

01:31:15.000 Like, there's still elections.

01:31:16.000 The guy still has to win office every time he... But I mean, we've had presidents that have changed hands during wars.

01:31:21.000 Sure.

01:31:21.000 But not at the scale of World War II.

01:31:24.000 And, you know, we've had peaceful transfers of power between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, right?

01:31:28.000 Sure.

01:31:29.000 So, I mean, did it affect our wartime capability?

01:31:33.000 I 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.

01:31:43.000 You 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.

01:31:52.000 I don't know.

01:31:52.000 I think it's actually a much closer question, right?

01:31:55.000 The 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.

01:32:05.000 Having 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.

01:32:14.000 That's not a good thing?

01:32:16.000 Not necessarily.

01:32:16.000 No, 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?

01:32:24.000 So if the president's power is ebbing away, then somebody has it.

01:32:28.000 Maybe it's Congress.

01:32:29.000 Maybe it's, you know, unelected executive branch officials.

01:32:32.000 Who knows, right?

01:32:33.000 But it just doesn't seem obvious to me that it's a good thing that we have these lame-duck periods.

01:32:40.000 Because other systems don't have it.

01:32:41.000 England doesn't, and they have a democracy, but their prime ministers could just keep getting re-elected.

01:32:48.000 It's not a democracy, it's a parliamentary monarchy.

01:32:51.000 Parliamentary monarchy, but the same concept applies where it's like the leader does not necessarily have to go after X number of terms.

01:32:58.000 I don't like democracy, that's why I bring it up.

01:32:59.000 When people are like, our democracy, I'm like, your democratic institutions in your either parliamentary monarchy or constitutional republic.

01:33:07.000 To point out, transfer of power during wartime, we haven't actually been at war since 1943, 42, whenever we declared war.

01:33:14.000 Congress hasn't declared a war since, so it's just been these military actions.

01:33:18.000 I play civilization, and I just can't stand the democratic form of government in that game.

01:33:23.000 You gotta go republic, it's the way to do it.

01:33:25.000 That's right.

01:33:26.000 Let's go to Super Chats!

01:33:27.000 If you haven't, well, I mean, you can also choose, like, religious fundamentalism.

01:33:33.000 I'm talking about Civilization II, by the way, going back to the 90s.

01:33:36.000 Anyway, would you kindly smash that like button?

01:33:38.000 Overturn the like button!

01:33:40.000 Subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends, and become a member at TimCast.com.

01:33:44.000 In the top right of the screen, you'll see that sign-up button.

01:33:45.000 Hit that.

01:33:46.000 Support our work.

01:33:47.000 We just hired a couple more journalists.

01:33:49.000 We're going to be hiring more people.

01:33:50.000 We're expanding, doing a lot of really awesome stuff.

01:33:52.000 Check 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.

01:34:02.000 Really, really fun.

01:34:03.000 And with your support, we're actually expanding into documentaries.

01:34:06.000 We're working on one about gun control and the Federal Reserve.

01:34:10.000 It's expensive to make documentaries, but we're going to do it.

01:34:12.000 When you sign up, you're going to be helping in that mission.

01:34:14.000 So, that being said, let's read some of these super chats.

01:34:19.000 All right.

01:34:20.000 Jeb Reed says, Common Sense Gender Laws.

01:34:23.000 There are only two genders. 0.99

01:34:24.000 Nature, the original science, decided millions of years ago.

01:34:27.000 Yeah, you mentioned gender was a discrimination and how like... Gender segregation.

01:34:32.000 Gender segregation.

01:34:33.000 I think it's more sexual segregation and we should keep hammering that.

01:34:37.000 It's not about gender, it's about what's sex. 0.60

01:34:39.000 I'm using the traditional colloquial definition of the word gender to mean biological sex.

01:34:44.000 They slid that one in because... Oh, I see what you're doing. 0.82

01:34:46.000 Biological 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. 0.97

01:34:55.000 That's the point.

01:34:56.000 Well, and again, I mean, separating the genders makes sense. 0.99

01:34:58.000 You don't want to tantalize the male testosterone with naked women. 1.00

01:35:02.000 It's not just that. 0.96

01:35:03.000 Well, so what I, my response to sort of what was said earlier... Like men are mindless and just like can't help but attack women. 0.98

01:35:07.000 They're animals, that's for sure.

01:35:09.000 So 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.

01:35:26.000 Like there are differences between the sexes.

01:35:27.000 That's also reflected in how the court evaluates those rules.

01:35:30.000 Like it's a different level of scrutiny.

01:35:32.000 Pretty sure it's intermediate scrutiny.

01:35:33.000 And they made the argument in the 50s that there were biological differences between people based on race.

01:35:39.000 Yeah, but the arguments weren't good.

01:35:41.000 Right.

01:35:41.000 So 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.

01:35:54.000 They're very, very different.

01:35:55.000 One's taller, one's on average shorter, one's on average thinner, or whatever.

01:35:58.000 So the racial arguments make no sense.

01:36:01.000 Across all civilizations, there is sexual dimorphism, so that's the argument.

01:36:06.000 How do we look at human beings in race versus genetics?

01:36:09.000 If we look at some people on the genetic level, can you tell genetically that someone is of a certain race?

01:36:15.000 There'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.

01:36:24.000 And 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. 0.73

01:36:30.000 On the left, you can tell because of the more prominent frontal lobe, it's a male, and very obviously Caucasian.

01:36:34.000 It's like, just based on the skeleton, they knew the race.

01:36:38.000 Also, 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.

01:36:45.000 It's like, hold up.

01:36:46.000 It's like not making a point.

01:36:48.000 So does that lead to like, arguments about biological determinism and things like that?

01:36:52.000 What's that exactly?

01:36:55.000 For example, sickle cell anemia.

01:37:00.000 All races can have it, but it's confined to African Americans.

01:37:06.000 Talking about that as a biological determinant.

01:37:09.000 Does it jump from not just like a disease, but does it jump to behaviors or something that could be looked at as a social behavior?

01:37:19.000 Is there some kind of a reason for why people of certain races behave in a certain way?

01:37:24.000 That's what biological determinism would be.

01:37:27.000 Right.

01:37:27.000 I'm just asking, by the way.

01:37:27.000 because of your biology going to behave in a certain way more likely because

01:37:32.000 you're of this certain race if genetics determine your race and you can tell

01:37:36.000 from genetics what somebody's race in so far as just asking by the way city in so

01:37:40.000 far as Clear that up.

01:37:44.000 Great question.

01:37:45.000 Insofar as a propensity towards a disease may influence a culture's evolution.

01:37:50.000 So a culture that's more likely to have sickle cell anemia might behave culturally different ways and pass on different values to their kids.

01:37:57.000 Eat different foods.

01:37:58.000 Cultures that eat different foods are going to have different reactions to those foods.

01:38:02.000 Japan, for instance, they traditionally have a low-fat diet.

01:38:06.000 I 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.

01:38:15.000 My 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.

01:38:29.000 So if you take a look at the stereotype about Asians being smart, it's like, yeah, well, look at their cultural values.

01:38:35.000 The cultural values are, the parents are very strict on, you know, you should study, you should do these things. 0.94

01:38:40.000 I also know stoner, pothead, loser Asian people because they did not have those cultures, those values. 1.00

01:38:46.000 I think culture absolutely trumps in terms of behavior. 0.97

01:38:49.000 So then is that, so that, does that make Japanese people, is that a superpower in a sense, right?

01:38:54.000 To be able to break down cellulose better than other people, right?

01:38:57.000 Well, it's a, it's a gut bacteria.

01:38:59.000 So you can get that gut bacteria. 0.90

01:39:00.000 Right.

01:39:01.000 So, you know, I read a book where they talked about like Jewish domination of basketball before African Americans came in.

01:39:08.000 Right.

01:39:08.000 So 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.

01:39:15.000 It was actually a bunch of Jewish basketball leagues that existed.

01:39:18.000 And then all of a sudden that changed.

01:39:20.000 Right.

01:39:20.000 Which would imply that, you know, anybody could be good at basketball.

01:39:24.000 Right.

01:39:24.000 But I mean, is it so then is it a cultural thing that African-Americans just play basketball more so they tend to be better at it?

01:39:31.000 Right.

01:39:31.000 Or is there a biological question?

01:39:33.000 It's both.

01:39:34.000 We look at CRISPR, which is this genetic engineering.

01:39:36.000 I mean, they're making attempting to make superhumans by tweaking their genes.

01:39:40.000 There's definitely a correlation between your genetics and your abilities.

01:39:43.000 Well, well, I think you gotta clarify.

01:39:48.000 The issue with basketball is height.

01:39:51.000 And if certain people from certain backgrounds are taller, that's what gets you in the NBA.

01:39:57.000 I think I read that if you're 7 feet tall, you have a 17% chance of being in the NBA.

01:40:01.000 Because it's just like, we want a tall person that can reach better.

01:40:05.000 So 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. 0.51

01:40:15.000 Have you seen like the penis study in sizes in different cultures or different countries around the world? 0.60

01:40:20.000 Let's read some more. 0.95

01:40:20.000 That's a good one. 0.95

01:40:21.000 Let's skip that one.

01:40:22.000 All right, we got Merber says Ben Shapiro today broke down the decision, concurrence, and the dissent.

01:40:27.000 He explained all the legal and constitutional parts and was extremely informative.

01:40:30.000 It's worth a listen or watch.

01:40:32.000 Well, Ben is a lawyer and he's very smart.

01:40:34.000 So I would be I would be surprised if it wasn't.

01:40:37.000 Why did we even bring Will on?

01:40:40.000 Why did we bring Ben Shapiro on?

01:40:42.000 Ben Shapiro already took care of it.

01:40:44.000 Just go watch Ben's video.

01:40:45.000 Also, Roberts, I mean, that was a...

01:40:47.000 It was really more of a 5-4 than a 6-3, honestly.

01:40:50.000 Roberts' concurrence was just a concurrence in the judgment and it was really cringe.

01:40:55.000 We talked about this earlier, I think, how he wanted to have this reasonable opportunity standard.

01:41:00.000 Um, right, to replace viability.

01:41:02.000 Because he's like, and he's like looking at the majority, he's like, you guys are discarding precedent, willy-nilly.

01:41:07.000 And they look at him and they're like, you want to invent a completely new standard, that's not starting to size us either, bro.

01:41:13.000 Sorry.

01:41:14.000 Good ol' Roberts.

01:41:15.000 All right, let's read some more.

01:41:15.000 We got Blessed Fatherhood says, Love the cake, Shimcast.

01:41:18.000 The real work starts now.

01:41:19.000 Cherish all women. 1.00

01:41:21.000 We're doing cool stuff in Oklahoma.

01:41:22.000 Love is sometimes difficult.

01:41:24.000 Exodus 20.

01:41:25.000 Well, all right.

01:41:26.000 Beautiful.

01:41:27.000 Patrick Banks says, as an adopted person, yes, it needs more support.

01:41:31.000 I agree.

01:41:32.000 It's crazy.

01:41:33.000 You guys ever watch 30 Rock?

01:41:35.000 Oh, yeah.

01:41:35.000 I love that show.

01:41:36.000 When Tina Fey's character, Liz Lemon, is trying to adopt a kid, and like, the plot of it is that it's extremely difficult.

01:41:42.000 And I'm like, that's crazy that there's a baby that's in need of a family.

01:41:45.000 And they're like, weird.

01:41:46.000 Like, this is a wealthy white woman in New York City who works for NBC.

01:41:50.000 Like, how hard is it?

01:41:51.000 But the gag is basically that it's very difficult to do.

01:41:54.000 And then I think ultimately she doesn't get the kid, right?

01:41:56.000 Or does she?

01:41:56.000 She does get the kid.

01:41:57.000 I don't know, whatever.

01:41:58.000 I haven't seen the show in a while.

01:41:59.000 Why is it so hard?

01:42:00.000 Why do they pose such a challenge for adoption these days?

01:42:03.000 I don't know much about it, but I just keep hearing it.

01:42:04.000 Well, there's good money to be made for the state.

01:42:07.000 And holding the children hostage?

01:42:08.000 Selling them to people who want them.

01:42:10.000 It's also like, they say it's kind of like an admittance fee.

01:42:13.000 So if you can't afford to pay that fee, then it shows that you're able to monetarily take care of the child as well.

01:42:19.000 Some people argue for that.

01:42:20.000 I'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.

01:42:27.000 Then I'll sell them off to slavery or something.

01:42:29.000 Got it. 0.84

01:42:30.000 All right.

01:42:30.000 Fritter says, pendulum swing.

01:42:32.000 And 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.

01:42:40.000 I'm talking about beware the moral superiority where none of us are perfect.

01:42:44.000 All right.

01:42:45.000 Jason Lindholm says, Chicago, Aurora, Naperville, and other Illinois cities having protests.

01:42:49.000 Tim and Seamus, are you blaming us?

01:42:51.000 Oh, wow.

01:42:52.000 That's so crazy.

01:42:53.000 In Democrat-controlled Chicago, they're protesting as if anyone there is pro-life.

01:42:58.000 I don't get it.

01:43:00.000 I just don't understand.

01:43:02.000 We're gonna go protest and riot in the city that agrees with us.

01:43:05.000 It's like, okay.

01:43:06.000 Well, I get it.

01:43:07.000 If 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.

01:43:12.000 Well, 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.

01:43:18.000 So, you know.

01:43:20.000 Good on him.

01:43:20.000 And then he went like this, and then he went, where were you exactly?

01:43:23.000 Even though your administration encouraged people to break the law and protest outside justices' homes, alright.

01:43:28.000 But, 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.

01:43:39.000 How is Joe Biden still a Catholic, by the way?

01:43:41.000 He's not.

01:43:41.000 He's not a practicing Catholic by definition.

01:43:43.000 He doesn't give a cent to Catholic teaching.

01:43:45.000 The goal is to trick liberals into thinking he's Catholic so that he can make some kind of argument.

01:43:50.000 But Catholics look at him like, yeah, no, come on. 0.91

01:43:52.000 He literally tries to make an identity politics argument about being Catholic.

01:43:57.000 He's like, no, I just identify as one.

01:43:59.000 I call myself one.

01:44:00.000 Therefore, I am one, even though I completely reject what the church has to say.

01:44:04.000 It's like a trans theory of Catholicism.

01:44:05.000 What is a Catholic?

01:44:09.000 You 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.

01:44:17.000 You 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.

01:44:29.000 Yeah.

01:44:30.000 And 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?

01:44:39.000 I mean, are you conservative Christians losing to progressive Christians?

01:44:43.000 Because it sure seems that way.

01:44:44.000 Not in our churches, to be honest.

01:44:46.000 Most of the young people, I mean, almost all the young Catholics I know are very conservative, very orthodox, don't harbor heretical beliefs.

01:44:52.000 So 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.

01:45:00.000 And Joe Biden clearly doesn't on many issues.

01:45:02.000 He's like, no, I don't believe that, man.

01:45:04.000 And so, He's called devout when he's not even practicing.

01:45:09.000 And 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.

01:45:19.000 There's a word for that, a protestant.

01:45:21.000 You're a protestant.

01:45:22.000 That is what the word Protestant means.

01:45:24.000 And I'm sorry for my Protestant brothers and sisters in the audience.

01:45:26.000 I don't mean to voice Joe Biden onto you.

01:45:28.000 I'm If your church is any good, he wouldn't be considered a member there either.

01:45:32.000 But Joe Biden is not a practicing Catholic by definition.

01:45:35.000 All right, let's read some more.

01:45:36.000 We got Josh Emmo says, I read two-thirds of Americans are pro-choice to some degree.

01:45:40.000 I believe pro-life statehouse reps and governors are going to have a hard time holding their seats.

01:45:45.000 I've also read GOP leadership agree and are quite worried.

01:45:48.000 Thoughts?

01:45:49.000 I will address this by saying, they're not pro-choice in the way you think.

01:45:54.000 If 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.

01:46:03.000 The 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.

01:46:12.000 When you actually break down all these polls, what they ask these people is, are you pro-choice or pro-life?

01:46:18.000 And they'll say, I'm pro-choice.

01:46:19.000 And then they'll say, do you think there should be restrictions on abortion?

01:46:22.000 In fact, the interesting thing is, I think it was Gallup.

01:46:26.000 Actually, the majority of people sided with The View.

01:46:28.000 No, no, I'm sorry.

01:46:29.000 I'm sorry.

01:46:29.000 This is historical data we pulled up through Wikipedia going back decades, repeated.

01:46:34.000 Most people think there should be legitimate reasons for an abortion, which basically bans 93% of abortions.

01:46:42.000 No more elective abortion.

01:46:44.000 Two-thirds of people think, yes, abortion should be allowed, with reasons.

01:46:48.000 I wish they knew.

01:46:49.000 Yeah, the center of American public opinion is more pro-life than the current law, right?

01:46:56.000 I think that's the way to think about it.

01:46:58.000 It'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.

01:47:15.000 And 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.

01:47:21.000 I 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.

01:47:31.000 Well, yeah.

01:47:32.000 It's the economy.

01:47:34.000 These social issues can only last so long until someone... Right now they're screaming. 0.99

01:47:39.000 They're like, I can't believe the Supreme Court would do this to us.

01:47:41.000 We need to go protest.

01:47:43.000 They all get out and go into their car and they're driving.

01:47:46.000 We're not gonna be able to make it downtown unless I stop for gas.

01:47:48.000 Then they're gonna pull into the gas station and go...

01:47:50.000 What were we mad about again?

01:47:51.000 Staring 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.

01:48:01.000 The 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.

01:48:07.000 You know, think about how much Democrat politicians have failed their constituents on this one, right?

01:48:12.000 Like 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.

01:48:18.000 Well, you had the opportunity to codify it.

01:48:20.000 You'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.

01:48:26.000 They want the wedge issue.

01:48:27.000 Uh, they had the opportunity to, like, get RBG to retire during Obama's term?

01:48:33.000 Like, I mean, there's so many... Well, let's, we got... Sorry.

01:48:35.000 Let's just read some more Super Chats. 0.96

01:48:36.000 We got, um... The Isaac Glover Show says, Tim, you're wrong about recalling senators.

01:48:41.000 The First Amendment gives us the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

01:48:45.000 Check the definition of petition again, and you'll realize you can recall anybody.

01:48:49.000 Well, look, the government is comprised of people, and people can do what they want if they have confidence in what they're doing.

01:48:55.000 But maybe I am wrong.

01:48:57.000 Can you recall a senator?

01:48:58.000 No.

01:48:59.000 Okay, well, there you go.

01:49:00.000 Can a state legislature recall a senator?

01:49:02.000 No.

01:49:02.000 So how do you deal with senators who are acting in defiance of their constituents?

01:49:07.000 Expulsion.

01:49:08.000 Well, how do you do that?

01:49:10.000 Senate can expel its own members.

01:49:13.000 Oh, okay, so that's never gonna happen.

01:49:14.000 Yeah, that's the only...

01:49:16.000 I thought it has happened.

01:49:17.000 It has happened.

01:49:18.000 It happened after the Civil War.

01:49:19.000 What if there was some kind of fourth branch of government where the people could put forth bills or whatever?

01:49:25.000 That's a good idea.

01:49:26.000 Yes!

01:49:28.000 So they could expel other people.

01:49:29.000 Wouldn't it be funny if Ian started arguing against it and we're trying to convince him to stop now?

01:49:35.000 We'd be better off just letting California secede and then reconquering it and administering it as a territory.

01:49:40.000 So you do believe in a great divorce?

01:49:42.000 Hey, can we add any new states?

01:49:44.000 You know, maybe annex Alberta?

01:49:46.000 You think that the United States will ever add like a 51st state?

01:49:48.000 I think that's a wonderful idea.

01:49:50.000 I think we absolutely should annex Alberta.

01:49:51.000 Texas was given the option to be five states.

01:49:53.000 Did you know that?

01:49:55.000 When they joined the Union and they opted to remain as Texas.

01:49:59.000 So imagine what that would look like.

01:50:00.000 Can the 51st state not be D.C.?

01:50:04.000 No, D.C.

01:50:04.000 should never be a state.

01:50:05.000 D.C.

01:50:06.000 should never be a state.

01:50:07.000 If anything, we need to expand D.C.

01:50:09.000 to include Arlington.

01:50:11.000 That was a historical mistake to let Arlington come into Virginia.

01:50:15.000 We need to disenfranchise more liberals.

01:50:17.000 Well, it's not that.

01:50:18.000 Save Virginia from Northern Virginia. 0.60

01:50:21.000 Hear that?

01:50:21.000 Media matters!

01:50:23.000 Anyone saying D.C. 0.99

01:50:24.000 should be a state, in my opinion, is ignorant or evil. 0.98

01:50:28.000 D.C. 0.99

01:50:29.000 is a federal territory for obvious reason.

01:50:31.000 No state should have power over the federal government.

01:50:34.000 That's the point.

01:50:34.000 But here's the problem.

01:50:35.000 Taxation and representation.

01:50:37.000 Right, Ian?

01:50:38.000 Are they being represented properly?

01:50:40.000 They're not supposed to live there!

01:50:42.000 Okay, so that's your goal?

01:50:44.000 Don't live in D.C.

01:50:45.000 if you want representation?

01:50:46.000 Yes!

01:50:47.000 Listen, if D.C.

01:50:49.000 was 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.

01:50:57.000 It would cause dissolution.

01:50:58.000 Abolish housing in the District of Columbia.

01:51:00.000 I'm just a practical man.

01:51:01.000 Again, disenfranchise more liberals.

01:51:05.000 Well look, I'm not saying we can evict everybody from Washington, D.C.

01:51:12.000 I'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.

01:51:20.000 Alright, let's grab some more.

01:51:23.000 Gene Dumas says, I think Japan has it right.

01:51:26.000 They acknowledge that the nuclear family is important.

01:51:28.000 Many of the LGBT activists and the one that make the woke gospel want to destroy the nuclear family. 0.99

01:51:34.000 BLM used to advertise that on their webpage.

01:51:38.000 They're not the only one.

01:51:39.000 That's true.

01:51:39.000 And they got rid of it because people were freaking out.

01:51:42.000 BLM was very much anti-family. 1.00

01:51:44.000 That's right.

01:51:45.000 Brody May says, please see if Bryson Gray will come on the show.

01:51:48.000 He's an amazing musician and his newest song, Drag Queens, is great.

01:51:52.000 Titles such as Maga Boy and Gun Totin' Patriot.

01:51:55.000 He's been doing culture jamming since 2016.

01:51:57.000 I've heard of him.

01:51:59.000 Didn't he do a song that mentioned me?

01:52:01.000 Him and, um... Yeah, it was him and... Patriot J, maybe?

01:52:04.000 No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

01:52:06.000 I feel bad for forgetting his name.

01:52:07.000 Oh, yeah.

01:52:08.000 I think somebody did mention you.

01:52:09.000 I don't remember.

01:52:10.000 Yeah, he did a song with someone.

01:52:10.000 The Tommy Donald?

01:52:11.000 No.

01:52:11.000 Is that the one?

01:52:12.000 No?

01:52:12.000 Okay.

01:52:12.000 Him and this other guy did a song and they mentioned something like Tim Pool's being... Oh, Anomaly.

01:52:15.000 Anomaly! 0.96

01:52:16.000 That's who it was.

01:52:17.000 Yeah, that was cool.

01:52:17.000 We shouted him out.

01:52:19.000 Very cool.

01:52:20.000 All right.

01:52:21.000 And I'll tell you, if you tastefully make fun of me in a song, I'll shut it out.

01:52:27.000 You know what I mean? 0.82

01:52:28.000 Like Hassan Piker is tweeting at me, told me I should be aborted.

01:52:31.000 I said, Hassan, be nice. 0.88

01:52:33.000 That's awful. 0.81

01:52:35.000 Well, 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. 0.88

01:52:44.000 Like, the point was the extreme opposite of what happened.

01:52:48.000 Like, as if that would really happen.

01:52:50.000 And so then he said, you should be a mandated abortion. 1.00

01:52:52.000 I love how Tim's always explaining his Twitter.

01:52:54.000 He's like, look, this is like not what I meant.

01:52:56.000 This was a joke.

01:52:57.000 Well, because the people who are listening are in on it.

01:53:00.000 No, I know.

01:53:01.000 You know what I mean?

01:53:02.000 So I want to like, I'm like, hey, here's like, here's the point of doing it.

01:53:04.000 I'm just posting nonsense to, you know, to like make a point.

01:53:09.000 All right, let's grab some more.

01:53:09.000 What do we got here?

01:53:10.000 Super chats, super chats.

01:53:13.000 All right.

01:53:14.000 BarelyInsane says, in terms of marriage, I think the government should allow civil unions that participate in the same benefits, gay or not. 0.80

01:53:20.000 Marriage is a religious deal and should only be handled by churches and synagogues, etc.

01:53:24.000 Well, the issue is in the traditional American view, it is.

01:53:31.000 But you mentioned Native Americans have it.

01:53:33.000 Marriage exists everywhere.

01:53:35.000 Ancient pagan stuff.

01:53:36.000 They would have concubines as well. 0.98

01:53:38.000 It's just a different type of marriage.

01:53:39.000 Like I said, Abraham was married.

01:53:41.000 Marriage far pre-exists Abraham.

01:53:43.000 All right.

01:53:45.000 Jedi 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.

01:53:55.000 Changes my perspective totally.

01:53:56.000 I don't believe you, good sir!

01:53:58.000 Ah, doubt.

01:53:59.000 Yeah, very serious doubt.

01:54:00.000 Wow.

01:54:01.000 Hold on.

01:54:01.000 Can I just shout something out?

01:54:03.000 This is not a super chat, but it's in the chat.

01:54:05.000 Someone said Ian and Seamus should start wearing beanies.

01:54:07.000 Oh, you should.

01:54:08.000 I'm in.

01:54:09.000 Everyone on the show has to wear a beanie.

01:54:13.000 Now I see why you're so hot.

01:54:14.000 Yeah, let's do it.

01:54:15.000 It's like I'm melting.

01:54:16.000 I'm just so fired up.

01:54:16.000 Kingdom First says, hello gorillas.

01:54:19.000 If you would like to get a Christian perspective on origins, morality, and what the Bible actually says, check out Steve Gregg at thenarrowpath.com.

01:54:27.000 No denominations, no cultures, a life lived in Christ.

01:54:30.000 Interesting.

01:54:33.000 All right.

01:54:34.000 JR sees as a covenant versus a contract.

01:54:36.000 It's pretty simple to understand the difference as long as you have morals and values.

01:54:40.000 What is the difference?

01:54:42.000 I guess he's saying like a covenant isn't breakable or a covenant is something you take an oath with religious content, maybe?

01:54:47.000 I don't know.

01:54:49.000 I mean, again, I see the value of like making commitments that you can't wiggle out of, right?

01:54:56.000 It 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?

01:55:05.000 And 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.

01:55:16.000 I see relationships where people have children but aren't married and I'm just like, you're so unlucky.

01:55:21.000 You 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.

01:55:31.000 That's that no-fault divorce.

01:55:32.000 Yeah, I'm not for it.

01:55:35.000 It's a problem.

01:55:36.000 Alright, let's read some more.

01:55:37.000 We got Jacob who says, Tim, I am unapologetically pro-life, and I have my sister's baby shower tomorrow.

01:55:43.000 There will be dozens of liberal women there, and the Roe v. Wade news will undoubtedly be a big subject of discussion. 1.00

01:55:50.000 Seamus, pray for me.

01:55:51.000 Absolutely.

01:55:53.000 I would just put it this way.

01:55:54.000 My attitude is always sort of passive curiosity.

01:55:59.000 And so, don't get heated, don't get angry, just nod along and be like, oh, okay, and then ask questions.

01:56:05.000 And 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.

01:56:13.000 I don't understand that.

01:56:14.000 And then if they get mad and say no, I'm like, I don't know.

01:56:17.000 Yeah, that's the bill.

01:56:18.000 I don't know.

01:56:20.000 And just don't argue with them, but just be like, why are you getting so mad?

01:56:24.000 I don't understand why you're so angry at me.

01:56:25.000 I love that this is a baby shower.

01:56:26.000 It's kind of like, Look, it's a baby.

01:56:28.000 We're here because we wanted to have a baby.

01:56:30.000 Well, you can do the opposite.

01:56:31.000 You can be like, should have aborted it.

01:56:33.000 Oh, yeah.

01:56:33.000 Keep the focus of the day on the baby and the health of the baby.

01:56:37.000 Yeah.

01:56:37.000 And the gloriousness of birth.

01:56:38.000 Refuse to get a gift and be like, I disagree.

01:56:42.000 I'm pro Roe v. Wade.

01:56:43.000 So that baby should have been aborted.

01:56:44.000 I'm an anti-natalist.

01:56:45.000 How dare you bring other life into this world?

01:56:48.000 I've got one of those ideologies that only exists on Reddit.

01:56:50.000 Yeah.

01:56:51.000 It's just so weird when I'm talking with people like, so you're a natalist?

01:56:54.000 And I'm like, a natalist?

01:56:55.000 You mean I'm a normal person?

01:56:56.000 Yes.

01:56:57.000 But I'm like, I'm not even arguing any strong conservative position.

01:56:59.000 I was just like, we shouldn't kill babies at nine months.

01:57:02.000 And they're like, natalist.

01:57:02.000 I'm like, what?

01:57:02.000 I just like I hate when people come up with new terms for normal

01:57:05.000 That's completely like Just I mean I don't want to say that because I think it's

01:57:14.000 bad to say it on this show because YouTube will But but you realize like the fundamental underlying tension

01:57:18.000 like with the anti-natalist position like you're alive But I mean, there are people who wish they aren't.

01:57:26.000 There are people who have been on camera who have said, I wish I was aborted.

01:57:30.000 That's so weird.

01:57:30.000 Those are the kind of people that are like, I'm moving to Canada if Trump gets elected and then they don't go.

01:57:34.000 There are methods to— And I don't— Constitutional amendment.

01:57:39.000 If 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.

01:57:47.000 Yeah, we'll subsidize it. 0.65

01:57:48.000 That's fine.

01:57:49.000 Yeah, I just, I absolutely do not advocate suicide.

01:57:56.000 I think it is a grave and horrible evil.

01:57:58.000 Do not do it.

01:57:59.000 But when someone who is alive says like, Oh, I hate being alive.

01:58:02.000 Or like, I wish I was never born.

01:58:03.000 It's like, well, clearly you find some goodness in value in life because you're still here.

01:58:08.000 Why would you not want to extend that to other human beings?

01:58:11.000 Well, I'll tell you this.

01:58:11.000 I have been told by multiple people who are Christian that they wished they were dead because they want to be in heaven.

01:58:17.000 Well, I mean, I hope to be, I would tell them don't presume.

01:58:25.000 That's right.

01:58:26.000 That's right.

01:58:26.000 There's no rush either.

01:58:27.000 All right.

01:58:27.000 Will P says, Tim, bring Austin Peterson back on IRL as soon as possible.

01:58:30.000 This was the best show yet.

01:58:31.000 It was a good show.

01:58:33.000 This was good.

01:58:33.000 By the way, we all disagreed on so much.

01:58:37.000 No, we didn't.

01:58:38.000 Remember when Will defended the Federal Reserve?

01:58:40.000 I know.

01:58:41.000 Every time someone made a strong statement, one person was like, yes.

01:58:43.000 Someone else was like, no.

01:58:45.000 I made the mistake of seeing the chats on there and it's like, get Austin out of here.

01:58:51.000 Well, when Will, when I brought up that Will defunded the Federal Reserve, all of the 1s appeared in the chat. 0.92

01:58:58.000 Oh yeah, like, no, no!

01:58:59.000 That's what makes it fun.

01:59:00.000 Oh, Will, did all those 1s, were there too many 1s?

01:59:02.000 Did that cause inflation?

01:59:03.000 There were 20 of them.

01:59:04.000 Is the average 1 worth less?

01:59:07.000 Yeah, but like if you don't, I'm not gonna get started and ruin your day.

01:59:11.000 Wait, wait, are you for the inflation algorithm?

01:59:13.000 The Milton Friedman thing?

01:59:14.000 Is that okay?

01:59:15.000 I don't know about the algorithm, but I definitely don't want a gold standard.

01:59:18.000 It's a terrible idea.

01:59:19.000 I'm not saying a gold standard.

01:59:20.000 I 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.

01:59:27.000 Free banking.

01:59:28.000 Free banking.

01:59:28.000 Google it.

01:59:29.000 Google it.

01:59:29.000 Free banking.

01:59:30.000 Free banking.

01:59:31.000 Good start.

01:59:31.000 Google it.

01:59:32.000 I don't know, man.

01:59:33.000 This business.

01:59:33.000 Yes!

01:59:34.000 The Gilded Age.

01:59:34.000 Yes, thank you, Kim.

01:59:35.000 Gilded Age.

01:59:36.000 Exactly.

01:59:37.000 The liberals call it the age of Robert Barron's, but we call it the Gilded Age, where one of

01:59:41.000 the greatest American presidents, Grover Cleveland, presided over administrations.

01:59:44.000 A time of unprecedented prosperity and wealth, the tail end of the Industrial Revolution

01:59:49.000 in the United States, when we were building up our industrial manufacturing and turning

01:59:52.000 the United States into a powerhouse that became what it was today.

01:59:55.000 The Gilded Age had a banking system that was called a free banking system, based on a Scottish

02:00:00.000 banking system that existed during a period of the 1700s.

02:00:03.000 This is the Adam Smith system.

02:00:04.000 This is a system where banks are allowed to print and create their own currencies.

02:00:08.000 For those that are just listening, Austin is holding up the Bank of Columbus $10 bill.

02:00:12.000 It is a decentralized, but it is a legal tender.

02:00:16.000 You just knew that bank backed the value of that currency.

02:00:18.000 You don't need a federal reserve for it.

02:00:20.000 And can I ask, how much did you pay for that?

02:00:22.000 Uh, that I think was like 75 bucks.

02:00:23.000 Alright, 75 bucks?

02:00:24.000 Maybe.

02:00:25.000 That's appreciation.

02:00:26.000 Yeah, I was gonna say that's appreciation.

02:00:28.000 Clearly it was a good investment.

02:00:28.000 If you had a bunch, if you held on to that.

02:00:30.000 It may have been way less actually.

02:00:32.000 You want money to have a stable value.

02:00:34.000 The question is, is what is money and can government determine the value of money, right?

02:00:39.000 Money wasn't a creation of government.

02:00:40.000 Money predates government.

02:00:42.000 We traded amongst ourselves.

02:00:44.000 Currency.

02:00:44.000 Oh, no, no, no.

02:00:47.000 Some maniacal economist at the head of the Federal Reserve can determine how much our money value.

02:00:51.000 What was the inception of currency?

02:00:53.000 It was must have been four or five thousand BC, if not before.

02:00:56.000 So if you want to know about where currency came from, just Google John Money.

02:01:00.000 I want you all to learn about him.

02:01:01.000 That's right.

02:01:02.000 John Money learned everything about him and everything he invented and where it all came from.

02:01:08.000 I 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.

02:01:15.000 Just Google search John Money to understand.

02:01:17.000 Yeah, the best one I ever saw was Gage Grosskreutz was a father of five children.

02:01:22.000 He was burned, or he was, you know, attacked.

02:01:24.000 Look him up and find out all about him and the five children.

02:01:26.000 Okay, I'm just gonna say it one more time.

02:01:27.000 Look up free banking.

02:01:28.000 That is, look up free banking.

02:01:29.000 Also, I will say, that's part of the problem with that, is most people do not look up what the meme tells them to look up.

02:01:34.000 They just believe the meme is true.

02:01:37.000 Alright, alright.

02:01:38.000 Let's grab a couple more Super Chats here.

02:01:41.000 Alright, let's see what we got.

02:01:45.000 Colton Sulak says, Hey Tim and crew, I keep hearing the argument about Roe v. Wade being overturned would make birth control harder to get.

02:01:52.000 Not sure how, but could y'all explain?

02:01:53.000 I mean, it's the substantive due process argument that we already went over.

02:01:58.000 The 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.

02:02:09.000 But as I explained earlier, Very unlikely.

02:02:13.000 It actually is in the Dobbs opinion.

02:02:15.000 It is expressly disclaimed that it has any impact on these other substantive due process cases.

02:02:19.000 And so not going to happen.

02:02:22.000 Right.

02:02:22.000 That was Griswold, right?

02:02:23.000 Yeah.

02:02:23.000 Griswold v. Connecticut.

02:02:25.000 Yeah.

02:02:25.000 That was the right to contraception.

02:02:28.000 Well, interesting.

02:02:29.000 All right, let's see.

02:02:30.000 We'll try and grab one more.

02:02:33.000 Thousand Foot Deepend says, Seamus, phenomenal appearance on Pop Culture Crisis today.

02:02:37.000 You had this Protestant fist pumping your calling of the lost to repentance and hope in Christ. 0.71

02:02:43.000 Hope to see you back on soon.

02:02:44.000 Thank you so much.

02:02:45.000 See what I'm doing to your shows, Tim?

02:02:47.000 Hey, hey, make them more valuable.

02:02:48.000 Stocks rising.

02:02:49.000 Thank you.

02:02:49.000 That's right.

02:02:49.000 All right.

02:02:50.000 Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button?

02:02:54.000 Overturn the like button!

02:02:55.000 Subscribe to this channel.

02:02:56.000 Share the show if you like it.

02:02:57.000 Become a member at TimCast.com to support the work we're doing as we expand this operation.

02:03:02.000 You can follow the show at TimCast IRL.

02:03:04.000 You can follow me at TimCast everywhere.

02:03:06.000 Follow me on Instagram.

02:03:08.000 Austin, do you want to shout anything out?

02:03:09.000 Yeah, AP for Liberty on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

02:03:12.000 And 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.

02:03:19.000 So check that out.

02:03:20.000 It's AP for Liberty Shop.

02:03:21.000 That's a gorilla though.

02:03:22.000 Yeah, this is a gorilla.

02:03:23.000 See, I was so excited.

02:03:24.000 I brought a bunch.

02:03:25.000 I brought all my Buddhas and 3D prints for you guys, but I was so excited to come on that I left them at the hotel.

02:03:30.000 So hopefully next time, but check it out at apforlibertyshop.com.

02:03:34.000 It's just AP, the number four, apforlibertyshop.com.

02:03:37.000 There's also a lot of cool like 4th of July stuff on there.

02:03:40.000 So go and check it out and check out the store and buy some merch and follow me on Twitter.

02:03:44.000 Right on, Will.

02:03:46.000 At Will Chamberlain on Twitter.

02:03:48.000 Also, 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.

02:03:56.000 And then the Article 3 Project, which I don't have the Twitter handle right there, but very relevant today.

02:04:01.000 Article 3 Project fought hard to get, you know, Trump's Supreme Court justices confirmed.

02:04:05.000 That seems to have been a pretty good idea and a pretty good thing to be working on, so.

02:04:10.000 I'm Seamus Coghlan.

02:04:12.000 My credentials?

02:04:13.000 Well, someone who just chatted in described me as semi-acceptable.

02:04:19.000 I run a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes.

02:04:20.000 We released a video Thursday and a video today.

02:04:23.000 I think you guys are going to love it.

02:04:26.000 It's about Roe v. Wade being overturned and how he's crazy.

02:04:29.000 Thank you so much.

02:04:31.000 And there's also a 12-minute version of it, so it's five minutes long.

02:04:34.000 There's a full 12-minute version of it at freedomtunes.com if you become a member.

02:04:38.000 Five bucks a month, you'll get an extra cartoon every single week, plus behind-the-scenes content.

02:04:43.000 You'll be supporting independent content.

02:04:45.000 So go over there and check it out.

02:04:46.000 Thank you so much.

02:04:46.000 I liked it because Seamus says my name several times in the video.

02:04:49.000 I do actually say Tim's name, but they're kidding.

02:04:50.000 That's really funny.

02:04:51.000 I had to update people on my name.

02:04:52.000 That is a powerful plug.

02:04:54.000 So I plugged my shop right there and I watched the store.

02:04:57.000 26 people instantly downloaded it.

02:04:59.000 You guys move, people.

02:05:01.000 Way to go.

02:05:01.000 AP for Liberty.

02:05:02.000 AP for Liberty, yeah.

02:05:04.000 I just found some really groundbreaking information.

02:05:06.000 The Statue of Liberty was chained.

02:05:08.000 I don't know if you guys know this.

02:05:09.000 The original idea of the Statue of Liberty was that she had broken chains on her hands.

02:05:14.000 She's a freed slave. 1.00

02:05:15.000 The industrialists of the time, or whoever, decided, no, it's too prominent.

02:05:20.000 Put the chains at her feet. 0.99

02:05:21.000 If you see the Statue of Liberty from above, she has broken chain at her feet.

02:05:24.000 I thought the Statue of Liberty was given to us by the French so they could sneak in while they were hidden inside. 1.00

02:05:29.000 If you go there, you'll meet them.

02:05:31.000 But 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.

02:05:42.000 It'd be beautiful if we saw that in New York Harbor.

02:05:44.000 For whatever reason, they made her look like an erudite, you know, post-freedom.

02:05:47.000 But we gotta remember the actual essence of freedom.

02:05:50.000 Yes, I feel a very strong connection with Ian. 0.92

02:05:52.000 Are you like the radical, crazy libertarian here? 0.98

02:05:55.000 No! 0.98

02:05:56.000 He's like, half the time, radical authoritarian.

02:05:59.000 Two of those three words were correct.

02:06:01.000 The funniest time was when Ian went on about how he believes in the death penalty.

02:06:05.000 And it was like, I can't remember which guest we had, but they were like, arguing with you, but then you agreed on the death penalty.

02:06:10.000 It was like, wow!

02:06:11.000 I don't know where to box my... I can't box myself into it, but what's right, what looks sensical, what looks realistic.

02:06:18.000 If DMT tripping was a person?

02:06:21.000 Oh, I'm totally into psychedelics.

02:06:23.000 Maybe that's what you're feeling.

02:06:24.000 Maybe that's what it is.

02:06:25.000 Have you smoked DMT before?

02:06:26.000 It's the mushrooms, I think.

02:06:27.000 Sipped on ayahuasca.

02:06:29.000 It's nice.

02:06:29.000 You get a DMT rush.

02:06:31.000 I'll go deeper on it later.

02:06:32.000 We can talk about it on the next one.

02:06:34.000 Anyway, I am also here in the corner.

02:06:36.000 I pushed all the buttons this evening.

02:06:37.000 It was a lot of work because they were all talking over each other, which was very fun.

02:06:40.000 Very engaged conversation.

02:06:42.000 Thank you guys both very much for coming.

02:06:43.000 Austin for coming from all the way from Missouri, which kind of sounds like paradise right now.

02:06:47.000 Will, for coming from D.C.

02:06:49.000 I'm happy we were able to get you out of there for a few hours.

02:06:51.000 You guys may follow me on Twitter at Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids.

02:06:54.000 We're also going to the Minds event in New York City.

02:06:57.000 Very excited to be there.

02:06:58.000 I want a selfie with Tulsi Gabbard.

02:07:00.000 Stay tuned.

02:07:01.000 We'll see if I get that.

02:07:02.000 You guys can follow me at Sour Patch Lids.me as well.

02:07:04.000 Check out Cast Castle on YouTube for our silly comedy vlogs.

02:07:08.000 You can check out YouTube.com slash Chicken City if you want to watch chickens.

02:07:12.000 They're sleeping right now, but you can watch them.

02:07:14.000 Thanks for hanging out, everybody, and we'll see you all next time.

Timcast IRL - Tim Pool - June 24, 2022

Timcast IRL - ROE V WADE OVERTURNED, Dems Call For INSURRECTION w-Austin Petersen & Will Chamberlain

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript