Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #556 - Leftist Group Jane's Revenge Calls For Terror Campaign Over Roe v. Wade w/Larry Sharpe

Episode Date: June 22, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons and Lydia host New York gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe to discuss the militant leftist group threatening yet more violence against pro-life centers, the New York mayor's distress that Americans may soon be able to defend themselves even better with new gun rulings, the evidence that white liberals are more inclined to mental health problems, and the need for a third-party option. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So we are all waiting patiently for the Supreme Court to issue their ruling on Roe and Casey, as well as Bruin. So we could see gun rights expand, and we could also see Roe v. Wade overturned, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And we're waiting patiently. Because every week they keep saying, Monday is opinion day, it's going to happen, and then nothing happens. And they're like, well, it could be Wednesday, and then nothing happens. And then they're like, well, there's one more week and then it's Tuesday because Juneteenth was celebrated yesterday. And then they're like, well, maybe it's going to be Thursday.

And then they're like, well, maybe it'll be the week after that. And it feels like they're just dragging it out, probably to desensitize us from the story because it's going to get overturned and people are going to lose their minds. We have this far left terror organization called Jane's Revenge. Maybe I'm being a little too generous in calling them an organization, but flyers have started to pop up all over DC threatening terrorism. Look, I'm not going to play the game the media plays. They're threatening violence and riots, but we know what it is.

It is violence as a threat to sway political opinion. These people, Ruth sent us, are showing up in front of Supreme Court justices' homes, and a man just tried to kill a sitting Supreme Court justice. They are doing everything they can to try and stop this from getting overturned, short of actually caught. Well, I shouldn't say short of. They caught the guy who was trying to kill Kavanaugh, so it seems like, yeah, they're doing everything they can. In the event it gets overturned, Jane's Revenge says there will be violence. The GOP has called on the federal government, the DHS, and the FBI to label this group a domestic terror organization.

I don't think the federal government actually does that. And the FBI says they are investigating some 20-plus pro-life centers or politicians who have been attacked, had their offices attacked, vandalized, or even firebombed in some instances. So, you know, it's getting pretty spicy out there. And just thinking about what's been going on over the past several years, I think a lot of people don't realize how insane things are. If I were to tell you four years ago that in four years, the Supreme Court would be on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey,

and a far left group will be threatening to burn down pregnancy centers, commit acts of violence against people, and someone would try to kill a sitting Supreme Court justice. You'd have told me I was nuts. There's no way that's going to happen. And here we are. I really encourage people, can you find a video of yourself from 2018? Just like watch it and try and remember what you were thinking back then. Because I think we are frogs in the pot, frogs in a pot, and the water is starting to boil. It's getting nuts. So we'll talk about that. We've also got the economy. I really want to talk about this, the potential for gun rights expansion with the New York

case, Bruin, where they could potentially rule on concealed carry. I think it's a one in a million chance they go broad with it. But the general idea is they might require these Democrat states to issue concealed carry permits at the bare minimum. And we think that's where it's going. So we'll talk about that. We've got some hilarity. GOP, I think, what state was it? Was it Michigan?

I can't remember what state it was. No, no, Pennsylvania, I think, where they took this gun control bill and just copied and pasted constitutional carry over it as a way to defeat the bill it was brilliant so we'll talk about that plus economy war international conflict all that stuff joe biden is here and joining us to talk about all of this is larry sharp i'm here thank you for having me you want to pull your mic up a little bit is that good is it better there you go so i'm here yes thank you so you for having me. You want to pull your mic up a little bit? Is that good? Is it better? Yeah, there you go. I'm here. Yes. Thank you so much for having me.

Who are you and what are you doing? I am a very handsome man who- All right. And humble. And also humble of all my traits. My modesty is second to none. There's no doubt about that. But yes, no, I'm running for governor of New York as a libertarian.

Still, it's like I keep punishing myself. My second time around and I'm happy to be here. Thanks. Right on. Cool. We got Seamus. I'm Seamus Coghlan. I have an YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes. If you all want to go over there and check that out, we'll be releasing a cartoon Thursday. Just released one this past Thursday. I think you'll enjoy. And we launched a website, freedomtunes.com. If you want to go over there, become a member, you'll get an extra cartoon each week, and you'll be supporting good independent content. Hi, everyone. Ian Crosland here., realistically optimistic, but I'm sweating spiritually right now. So let's get down to talking about it.

Well, I love Larry because he's always super upbeat, but he has a very realistic outlook on the world. So I think this is just what the doctor ordered. Ian, let's get rolling. Before we get started, my friends, head over to timcast.com and become a member to help support our work. As a member, you'll get access to our exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.

They go up every Monday through Thursday on the website. They're not family-friendly. They are uncensored. We swear a lot. Don't let your kids listen. But it's good fun. And you'll also be supporting our journalists. We just hired a couple more.

We're going to be expanding into documentaries. We've had some meetings on the documentaries. We're going to be doing Gun Control, the Federal Reserve. It's going to be really, really amazing. Plus many, many more to come. We've got more shows we're launching. Man, expansion is happening. It's all thanks to you. So if you like the work we do, if you think there should be more of it, go to timcast.com, become a member. And also don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel right now, share this stream, this live stream, take that URL, post it everywhere because grassroots marketing is the most powerful

way to help spread the word and help us grow the mission. That being said, let's jump over into that first story. We got this one from The Independent. Jane's revenge group appears to threaten violence if Supreme Court overturns Roe. A flyer is calling for a night of rage, like how they put Anne a night, in Washington, D.C. when the Supreme Court decision on Roe is handed down. I chose this source,

the Independent, because they're like left-leaning. And I think it's funny that they're saying it appears they're threatening violence when they're outright saying you told us you would riot. The militant abortion rights organization, Jane's Revenge, appears to be calling for a night of rage in the nation's capital should the Supreme Court, as is expected, overturn Roe v. Wade later this month. This is the organization that's already taken credit for the vandalism.

And I'm not sure. Did they take credit for the firebombings, Seamus? Let me look up that. Let me look that up. So we've had now, what, it's like 20-plus either pro-life politicians or pregnancy centers get vandalized, windows smashed out, and some were firebombed, more than one. This is the organization that's taking credit for some of these acts of terror. They're threatening more. You combine that with the showing up in front of the Supreme Court justices' homes.

You combine that with the trying to take the life of a sitting Supreme Court justice. And, I mean, we've just been watching extreme violence over the past several years. And I got to say, it really does feel like things are crazier than they've been in a very long time. Yeah, 100%. I completely agree. I think that the worst part about this is it doesn't work. So all it does is dig people deeper into their own. Someone doesn't see that and go, oh, they're firebombing. Well, you know what? Now I'm on your side. Nobody does that. It just creates more violence. It dehumanizes the other. It validates violence as a way of feeling good about your issue. If you're really upset about this, and I get if you are, I understand that

viewpoint, then simply go to your state and have your state make sure that you can have legal and safe abortion in your state. That's the actual answer if you care so much. But I'll counter with this. Please. Violence doesn't work in terms of trying to get support for your cause and win for your cause. But if you're trying to destabilize the country to burn it down. Yeah. See, what happens is I've been doing a lot of reading about Bleeding Kansas.

And that's, you know, some people are comparing what's happening now to Bleeding Kansas. It was basically a statewide civil war in the territory of Kansas. It ended because the Civil War started. So it basically – from 1854 until 1861, you had this period of civil war but in Kansas, pro-slavery groups and freestaters fighting and killing each other. John Brown, who rose to notoriety due to Bleeding Kansas, was angry that abolitionists were pacifists. He didn't care to persuade anyone. He just straight walked up to slave owners and blasted them and just killed them. Killed five, just walked up to people with his kids and started killing people.

He did not care if anyone agreed with him or not. He said, I'm done. What ends up happening is this causes an escalation on the other side. So if your goal is to win for your cause because you're hoping a stable country will say, we voted for this and now this rule will be enacted, that's a terrible idea. This Jane's Revenge stuff, the only thing I can see is the outcome is going to be the inverse of what they presumably want. People on the other side are going to counter it, but that will likely just lead to destabilization and more violence. Yeah, I think – but the other issue is, right, if you're on the side, what media are you listening to and watching?

If you're watching media that says, well, this is in reaction to, if that's the media you're hearing, then it sounds like it's almost reasonable. See, it's an attack on us. So we're being aggressive to defend against the bad people who are trying to hurt us. So I'm not sure that it actually turns their side off. If anything, it just makes us, to your point, it makes both people, both sides dig in harder and it hurts anyone in the middle. now if i say hey stop the violence the right goes to me well they're killing us and the left goes well they'll kill they're killing us you're a bad guy so now i don't hate one side of the other so now i'm the bad guy too it actually what it winds up doing is stifling the calm person the person says can we can't we

all get along and that slave was that person. So Jane's Revenge has taken credit for various firebombings. Wow. The FBI says they're investigating. The GOP has demanded that they get labeled a domestic terror organization, but I don't think the federal government actually labels domestic terror organizations. I don't know if that's a thing.

You had a lot of people on the right saying Antifa should be and people on the left saying the Klan or the right-wing groups should be, and the government's like, we don't label groups, we label actions. Like, criminal actions or not. I don't see de-escalation coming. I've been saying this for a long time. You know, in the intro to the show, I pointed out four years ago, five years ago, maybe even three years ago, if I went to you and said in three years time, a far leftist would attempt to assassinate a sitting Supreme Court justice because for the first time in history,

a draft opinion had been leaked showing that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey was going to be overturned. People were showing up in the streets, firebombing buildings. You'd be like, no way. You know what, though? People told me that was never going to happen. The part of that that would surprise me the most was the possibility of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Exactly.

Yeah. Exactly. The fact that the left would react violently is not something I think that would ever surprise me. This has to be slowly accepted, and it has become, right? Since the recent violence in the streets right this has become more acceptable as normal right if you and i'll give you a good example uh a historical one if it's a 1912 1913 germany and if you were to say to someone hey you know what 30 years from now you germans will be systematically you up all your Jewish population and murdering them all.

They've been like, stop. We're Germany. We would never do that. Come on. Stop. Yet 30 years later, they're doing it. And if you were born at that time, if you're a young woman, a young man born in, say, 1910, 1912 in Germany, you would have never thought to do such a thing. It would have taken years for me to be brainwashed enough to do nothing right to not be involved but just let it happen

and be like well yeah i guess they kind of deserve it because they're the bad guys this guy hitler said and i think we're finding a similar thing again my point is they're the bad guys so it's okay remember right people who do bad things always validate their bad behavior. They don't think they're doing bad things. They validate somehow. Exactly right. No group of people who ever took power to oppress another group throughout all of history said, you know what? We want to oppress somebody.

They go, those people are oppressing us, so we have to stop them. And any and all means which are necessary are therefore justifiable because they're horrible people. And so when you look at this story, there's a really great lesson in media framing here. How did the Independent title this? Jane's Revenge Group appears to threaten violence. No, no. A terrorist organization which has taken credit for firebombing pro-life organizations as well as charities that are set up to help pregnant women care for their children

is threatening violence. Not just threatening it, calling on more people to join in. Yes. Yo. That's crazy. You know, I do think that this is a crazy thing to say, but in wartime, terroristic violence does get people on your side. For instance, like the American revolutionaries were terrorists, according to King George. George Washington was a terrorist.

And Henry Knox attacked an armory in, I think it was, northern New York early, early on. Killed a bunch of British guys. Stole a bunch of British artillery. Took it down to Washington

outside Boston. They sieged Boston. They took Boston. And then the French joined the Americans. So if the Americans were losing the battle – The French didn't join because of that.

It wasn't – but it was a result of victory after victory and a belief that maybe the Americans could win. If the Americans weren't winning, if they weren't doing this terroristic destruction, then the French never would have helped them and they would have been stomped out. But we're not in war. That's a wartime thing. This is not a wartime thing. My problem is people aren't upset about this. That is my central issue, right? If you look at, say, for example, in New York State recently, the Buffalo shooting, right?

Everyone's mad about that. No one's like, yay, everyone's mad about that. Regardless of what you think about this, the guns or the bad guy or the races or whatever you think, you're still not happy about that. This is like whatevs, and that's my point. There are enough people who aren't doing anything about it. When they came after the judge, I really thought that this would be a big deal, coming after a Supreme Court judge, and now we do nothing about that. That is my problem, is the apathy.

That's my biggest issue. I don't think it's apathy, and I don't think people are whatever about that. That is my problem, is the apathy. That's my biggest issue. I don't think it's apathy, and I don't think people are whatever about this. I think they support it. I think the left is happy about it, and I think they're happy about what's going on in front of the homes. Jen Psaki said we certainly encourage more of this. When they were showing up illegally

in front of judges' homes to try and sway the court's opinion, which is a federal crime. Then a guy who gets the address and information from these same protesters shows up to kill a sitting Supreme Court justice. Now, that guy gets arrested and charged. Okay, that happened. The protesters come back that same day, and the federal government does nothing. But my point is that the majority of the country doesn't self-identify as left or right like that.

They just think they're average people and they lean left or they lean right. That middle is the people who should be angry. The people who should say, look, I'm not a hardcore leftist or rightist, but I'm angry because this is unacceptable regardless of my left or right. And that's what I'm saying. People aren't saying that. I don't think there's a middle. You don't think so? No. I'm kind of in the middle here. No. There what I'm saying. People aren't saying that. I don't think there's a middle. You don't think so? No.

I'm kind of in the middle here. No. There's one guy. See, we've got one. No, you're not in the middle. You know exactly what we're talking about. You know exactly what's going on. But when the street violence kicked off in 2020, for instance, and they were bombing buildings and destroying buildings,

I wanted Trump to send in the National Guard, and I was like, why? Day one, National Guard. But then I started to question myself, am I an authoritarian for wanting the National Guard to come in? That is not the middle. But I mean, you have two factions. You go to the average person and say, what do you think about the fire bombings at pregnancy centers? And they'll go, the what? Yeah. You go to other people and they'll say, I heard about that. That's crazy. We got to stop that. Those are the factions.

So the faction of those who aren't paying attention, you're saying? I usually call it the uninitiated and the discerning. The people who are inquisitive and looking into the news, trying to understand what's happening in their world versus the people who don't want anything to do with it. I meet a lot of those. So most people, I think, well, I shouldn't say most people, but a lot of people, especially those who voted for Joe Biden, had no idea what was going on, have no idea what they're talking about at all. So you go to them and you talk about any of this stuff and they're going to go, what? Here's a great example. You know, look, I can respect Bill Maher for calling out entitled millennials and the woke and all that.

But hearing him talk to Crystal Ball on his show last friday was laughable she brought up how everyone keeps ragging on the mass printing of money but no one said anything in 2020 when the fed printed trillions of dollars to pump into the stock market to stop it from crashing right and bill maher goes what are you talking about yes oh bill you do not have the position right now to challenge your guests after what happened with Dennis Prager. Crystal Ball was right. Right. And she's a progressive, and she's right.

The Federal Reserve started printing up money to buy stocks in essence to bail out the stock exchange, the markets, because there was a fear it was going to tank. And that was bad. Yep. So Bill Maher. That's Japanese-style stuff. Japanese do it all the time. You know what? If Bill Maher watched Freedom Tunes, he would have known that because he did a video called Corona Capitalism.

Here's a guy who has a show with a million viewers once a week. It's a once a week show. He gets about a million in the ratings, and he doesn't know what happened two years ago with major massive Fed bailout spending. That's like the biggest story of the year. But it's not just that. It's the hubris. That's my problem. I'm okay if he doesn't know, but then why is he aggressively pushing back?

He should go, oh, did that happen? Oh, let me look at that. Hey. Can I get a producer on this? Yeah, get a producer to see if this happened. You know, Crystal, that's a really great point. Yes. I wish I had known about that.

Yeah. No, he was wrong about Covington kids. He didn't pay attention to that. He was wrong when Dennis Prager on his show said they're putting menstrual tampons in the men's room. He goes, no, what are you talking about? This is exactly it. Bill Maher personifies. Now, he may be coming around, right?

All of a sudden – I like his libertarian streak. Let's reward the good behavior. Let's reward the good behavior. Absolutely. But this is my point. I think he is a barometer for many of the – what you would probably assume is the middle. If you have people who are blindly voting for the destruction of the country and their values and their economy and everything, I think Bill Maher represents exactly why.

They watch him. They listen to him. Sure. And he's years behind the curve in what's going on in this country. So I don't view it as there are political moderates and there are extremists. I don't view it as far left, far right and middle because, well, that makes no sense. They call, I mean, you're libertarian. They call you right wing or far right or whatever. They call me everything bad they can think of.

Exactly. Yes. Whatever they can call me. They call me right wing. My politics are like centrist, liberal, libertarian. It doesn't matter. I can sit here across from Seamus and we disagree on the abortion issue traditionally as this country did, but we're both far right. There's no distinction among that group because they don't know what we're talking about.

That's the media, the liberal economic orders media apparatus slandering people, though. That's not a real judgment call. No, I know. But it does become real when they brainwash people to believe it. Yes. My point is, yes, you have people who blindly believe it and people who don't. And those are the factions. There's no middle.

There's no there's no person who is like, you know, I do believe the narrative, but also not really. It's like, do you do you know what's going on in this country or don't you? If someone said Joe Biden tried to get a quid pro quo from the president of Ukraine, threatening to withhold U.S. loan guarantees in exchange for the firing of prosecutor, quid pro quo, and people will be like, we had a guy on the show. He goes, that never happened. And I was like, you want me to pull up the video? And I pull up the video and it's Joe Biden going like, so I tell him you want the billion dollars, you got to fire the prosecutor.

Well, SOB guy gets fired. And I'm like, did you not even bother Googling this story? You have people – You're asking – I'm with you, but there's two important questions I think here. Number one, if that's true, can you actually expect the average American who's struggling to survive as a general rule to spend that much time understanding everything. It's – they become overwhelmed. It's information over – it's just too much information. It's overload.

I'm not expecting them to do anything. So they're going to listen to whatever their talking head tells them, whether it's Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson, whichever side they pick, or if they're smart, Tim Poole, whoever is their talking head of the day, and they're going to listen to them and probably follow that person. So that's an element, but I see it as on the right, it's the exception, on the left, it's the rule. On the right, you have post-liberals, disaffected liberals, moderates, libertarians, conservatives. Why? Because the right is a group of people who are like, well, I don think tucker's right all the time i'll watch

tucker i'll see what brian stelter and rachel maddow are saying but i want to know what the truth is you of course have people who are like i just turn on tucker and i tune everything out sure and it's like okay well that's you're probably better off than if you're watching rachel maddow and then you have people who are like whatever anderson cooper tells me sure but but i think you find this you find this right now with Elon Musk. You found it with Joe Rogan. I would even say Dave Rubin. Many of these people were much more left than right.

But they stepped over a bound and some barrier they stepped over. And the left said, not good enough. How dare you? And they alienated the person. And the person believed, well, I can't be left, so what can I be? And the right goes, here we are. Hey, we love you, Joe. We love you, David. We love you. Come on over. And they were more accepting. It wasn't that the, I don't think it was the person themselves was actually more right-leaning, but they were accepted by the right because they felt shunned by the left. But there's no right. The right doesn't mean anything. What's a core right-wing value right

now? Freedom of speech, maybe? Are you saying political or are you talking social? When we're talking about what left and right means colloquially in cultural politics, in any kind of politics, what is a shared right-wing value? I'd imagine it's free speech. But hold on. The left historically was in favor of free speech. 100%. Joe Rogan is not conservative, but they're calling him right-wing now. And it's not that free speech is a right-wing principle. It's that the left said, okay, we've now decided if you're for free speech, you are no longer one of us.

Yes, and that's my point. We're on the same page here. My point is they were kicked out versus they were pulled in. The right didn't pull them in. They were thrown out by the left. Exactly. By the right. Joe Rogan.

That's my point. Liberal. Yeah. And I would agree with you on that. So we're in sort of a strange position where what the left has done culturally is they frame the narrative such that this very bizarre new ideology, which a very tiny sliver of the population believes in, is the dominant view. And if you're against that, there's only one other category for you, which is strange. Because, I mean, the United States, like developed Western

nations are pretty much the only countries where this ideology or some form of it exists. And even in those countries, it's like maybe three or 4 percent of the population at most who believe it. And yet it's been framed such that there's that view and then there's everyone else's view, even though almost no one in the world actually believes in this. And so it is a problem. You ask the question, what do conservatives actually believe? I think today, because we have this framing and everyone who's outside of that far fringe on the left is conservative, it doesn't mean anything other than you're not in this tiny group. To me, and I'm conservative, what I've understood that to mean is basically pro-family. You are in favor of tradition and many aspects of culture. You believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

I guess it depends on how far back you want to go with respect to what was considered acceptable in our culture. But I think that's at the heart of it. When I hear that there are people who are pro-choice being called conservative, it's not just me as a purist saying, I don't want those people in my movement. It's just me recognizing definitions have meanings. How can you be in favor of homosexual behavior or abortion and be conservative? I don't understand. That doesn't fit.

That's not what the word means. We had a progressive on this show, and Seamus mostly stayed in the conversation, and it was pro-abortion versus pro-choice. And the progressive view was that I was far right for being pro-choice. It's the weirdest nonsense. I've seen a lot of my friends in New York City as they've gotten older who were Democrats for years. Just for years. Parents were Democrats. They're Democrats. And now they can't find a home because they've been told that, well, all Republicans are evil.

So I can't vote for Republican. I've been told for 20 years that Republicans are evil. So I can't vote for them. Right? But I can't vote Democrats. I don't believe in them anymore. So they're checking out. Now, I'm trying to get them to go to the Libertarian Party, obviously.

LP.org, by the way. LP.org. If you're in New York State, LPNY.org, by the way. I'm trying to get them to go Libertarian. But it's very hard because they've been taught there's two sides. Exactly. There's only two sides. Do everything we say or not, which is why you see so many people are afraid to say the wrong thing.

If you say the wrong thing, they throw you out of the tribe. And you have to go to the tribe. But because in their minds, there's only two tribes. The tribe I've been told is evil for 20 years and the tribe I'm in now. If I say the wrong thing, I have to go with the evil people that I've been told for 20 years are evil. And it becomes a problem. I think Comcast bought MSNBC in 2013, right when all this weird stuff started happening. And then they started telling everyone, these other people are enemies. Focus.

Stay inside of our grip. And then so they're starting to think those other people are enemies. And then everyone else that's looking at these people that are now being engaged in this cult have a choice to make. Am I going to be conscientious with these people? am i going to be considerate and not take it personally or they're calling me a villain am i going to just strike back and and so a lot you said you do see people going at it but yes a lot of people aren't and those people are still considered on the outside of this media that's why they hate the whole of their politics right i'm out here campaigning right and i'm meeting people and i find people who very often do one of two things.

When I talk to them, they literally do not want to talk to me. Like, I can't deal with this. Nothing to your point. They're totally checked out. Right? We say to them, I'm checked out. I don't want to even talk to you. I can't handle this.

Or the other one, they give me some type of test to see if I fit in one side or the other. They'll ask me a question that's a test. Okay, are you going to say this or are you going to say that? They'll say things, what do you think about kids in school learning by drag queens? They'll ask that question, right? And then if I answer the wrong way, then okay, well, I'm the opposite guy. I'm the bad guy, whatever they want, right? They do that all the time. It's very challenging because I'm trying to give them an answer, right? I'm trying to show them a way. And those are the people who I begin to turn. The people who are interested,

interested, but actually feel like the team I was on sucks. The team I'm on now, I'm not happy with. And that's the people who I get to turn. That group of people. The other side sucks. The side I'm on now, not so good either. Let's talk about this

Bruin case, man. I'm really excited for this one. We got this story from the Daily News. It'll make you laugh. NYC Mayor Adams alarmed over pending Supreme Court ruling that could ease concealed weapons rules. Quote, it keeps me up at night. Aw, poor baby. A pending U.S. Supreme Court decision that would allow more concealed weapons to be carried on New York City streets has been keeping Mayor Adams up at night. All of us should be extremely alarmed about what the Supreme Court can do.

When he says all of us, is he referring to establishment authoritarians? Yes. Right. Not the people. Correct. That's not what he means. Yes. Yes.

Because he's worried about the wild, wild west, he says, right? Here's the problem. I live in New York City. It is the wild, wild west now. Exactly. This future dystopian thing you think of is today, right? So, yes. Isn't that hilarious?

Like Democrats always warn you about the possibility of what they've already done. Yes, it's already done. There will be crime everywhere. It's like, yes. No, we know that that's a possibility because it's happening in the places where you're in control. Yes. They say under the state's central law, New Yorkers must show a specific need for why they should be able to carry a concealed firearm before they're permitted to do so.

However in most states they just reject your reason. They go well you need a reason. That's not a good reason. Yes. Which is ridiculous.

That law was challenged by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. Bravo good sirs and ladies. Which claimed it violated 2A under the Constitution.

Supreme Court justices have suggested that they agree that the law infringes on gun owner rights and is expected to rule on the case during the current term. The decision would also impact California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Oh, you'll love to hear it. Yes. It keeps me up at night.

We have some of the most stringent gun permitting laws. I'm extremely concerned about this. My legal team is talking to other cities to determine how we can come together to prepare for this ruling. Here's what I'd love. All right. In D.C. v. Heller, Supreme Court basically said the right to keep and bear arms extends to all states, not just from the federal government. The idea before was that the federal government could not infringe upon your right to keep and bear arms, but states could. D.C. v. Heller was like, no, everyone can have guns.

And, well, I'm sorry, that wasn't the case. That was the case as it pertained to the federal government in D.C. v. Heller was like, no, everyone can have guns. And well, I'm sorry, that wasn't the case. That was the case as it pertained to the federal government in D.C. versus Heller. They were like, the federal government can't stop you from having a handgun. It was McDonald v. Chicago where two years later they said, yes, this includes all of the states as well because it was the D.C. jurisdiction. Now it was state. Now it was all the states. It was nationwide.

You could keep and bear arms. All of a sudden we see a wave across the country of shall issue states, meaning you apply for a consumer care permit. You got to get, here's what I'm hoping for. I am hoping for the one in a billion chance ruling that the Supreme court says, in fact, any requirement of a permit is an, is an infringement upon your right to keep and bear arms. Because let's be honest, it is. If you have to get permission from the government and they can say no, your rights are being infringed. If it was to not infringe upon your rights, the government has no say whatsoever. I can keep and bear arms. You can't stop me.

What about a corporation? I know you are a two-way purist. I know you are. Yeah. I'm actually not a two-way purist. I know you are. Yeah. I'm actually not a two-way purist. Well, you're wrong. I'm actually not a purist. You need to leave, sir. We're going to And here is my exception. I think you could have a regulation. It is possible in theory. Not in practice because of how it works.

But in theory, you could have a regulation on firearms that does not infringe. How so? An example might be if you are going to, let's say this happens and a bunch of people decide to buy firearms and we find that smaller statured people don't understand the power of certain firearms

and the backlash is hurting them. And the state would say, hey, if you're gonna sell a firearm, you have to put a rating system on it that would say big, small, little, whatever. That's a regulation, but it doesn't stop me from buying. I can buy what I want. But if I choose to sell it, I've got to let someone know this is rated one, two, or three when it comes to recoil. So I think that type of regulation doesn't infringe, but may be good for the population

as a whole to understand. So in what way do you see that actually – something like that being implemented? I'm saying – you said you're a purist. I'm just pushing back on the purist aspect. Well, I'm not saying I disagree with like a rating system. Yeah. I think when it comes to things like commerce, if you were to say you have to make sure that maybe you give your caliber in both imperial and metric or something like – I'm making these up, obviously. But if you were to create a regulation like that, that doesn't infringe.

It simply lets the consumer know what they're purchasing. I think it does infringe. I know. You're a purist. That's why I was teasing you. That's exactly why, yes. So the challenge is I think the government using circuitous methods to try and restrict things is a common tactic and we shouldn't tolerate it.

But again, remember I said in theory, not in practice. Sure, sure. Because in practice, the government will always do that. You know what they did with the stamp tax for marijuana? Yep. They said, you want to buy marijuana? You got to buy a stamp. Then they stopped issuing stamps.

Yes. Yeah. Home and home play debt. So when you've got gun stores and they're like, we want to sell guns, then all of a sudden the government says it's not an infringement upon the individual's right to keep and bear arms. It's a regulation for businesses. What happens when these businesses then go, okay, we'll do the rating system. Who certifies the rating system? They go DHS. Okay. How do we get that done? Well, DHS is shut down for the next year. Sorry, you can't sell guns anymore. So it's an infringement. Infringement

is defined as an, an act so as to limit or undermine something if in any way there is a law passed requiring you to do a thing they are limiting your ability and if it's the commerce of that is a private citizen's right to keep and bear arms and transacted as such let me push back then it does say well regulated now when they said regulated what they meant was to make regular. To do things like to say what is regular. But that has nothing to do with the

direction of the Second Amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Yes, but descriptive statement is relevant. To make regular would mean to say things like to understand what caliber is, right? to make a contract rule that i know when i'm purchasing ammunition what is a dozen but that has nothing to do with the

with second amendment says regulate right in the second amendment and and and why does it say that to make it regular it would be like me saying um libraries being important for someone to read the people have a right to access books. Sure. That doesn't mean the books can be regulated or anything. It's me making a point about... But what if it said in a well-regulated library? What if it said that? The Second Amendment doesn't say that.

But what if it says a well-regulated militia? Being necessary to the security of a free state. Yeah, so what if it said people need to have well-regulated libraries? Let's say it said that. The people need to be able to have books. But the Second Amendment does not require anything to be regulated. I didn't say it requires. So what's the point of –

I'm saying that you could have a rule, a – you could have a law in theory. Again, I'm purposely saying theory. In theory, you could have a way of making the practice of selling a firearm regular that would not infringe on someone purchasing it. But regular has nothing to do with what is prescribed in the Second Amendment. It is describing their opinion on why people should have guns. And then it says separately, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It also says a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. I think that they're saying that a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It sounds like they're specifically saying that your right to establishing a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed. It's not saying that. I mean, the rest of it is just descriptive. So the original Second Amendment actually went on to argue that military or militia involvement has no bearing on whether or not you can keep or bear an arm. That was actually included in the original draft.

They removed it because they were scared that it would argue conscription isn't allowed, that people could reject conscription. So let me then move to the next important piece, which you have states like California and New York. And again, I'm a New Yorker, so I get this. About every poll you take in New York State, about 60%, give or take of New Yorkers, actually want more gun control. Too bad. I'm saying they want it. So with that in mind, politicians are going to act accordingly, right? They're going to. Regardless of constitution, they're going to act accordingly. So they're going to try their damnness to stop everything they possibly can. So how do you move forward in a state like California, New York, that is going to go out

of its way to somebody and go, no, just no. Federal intervention. And we do it already. Like if you go to New York City right now with a firearm that you own, it is locked and unloaded. It is following every single TSA guideline to the letter. You will go to Rikers Island. That's right. They will take you and put you to Rikers Island. They wait for people to land knowing that they have guns in the checked baggage. Yep.

And they wait as soon as you put a finger on the bag. Yep. They come and arrest you. Correct. That is New York City. That is exactly correct. New Jersey, Maryland, very similar.

Yes. So how do you... Because these cops are scumbags. So I know what you want and I get what you want. I'm actually not against what you're saying. I'm trying to say,

but I have a realistic issue here in my state where most of my people in my state think that moral regulation is a good idea. I don't care what they think. And you don't have to.

You're not a politician. Right. If you're a politician, you've got to care because they're going to vote for you. They're going to care what they think. And you don't have to. You're not a politician. Right. If you're a politician, you've got to care because they're going to vote for you. They're going to put you in charge. And they're the ones who are going to put the DAs in charge.

So the DAs are going to decide who they're going to prosecute, who they're not. But the DAs in New York City do this job because the people in New York City want them to. That's why they're doing it.

They're voting for these DAs to do this. The people want this. So we would need federal intervention into into new york to stop the infringement upon people's rights and i view it as no no different than if let's say new york decided they were going to segregate schools and the national guard or army had to be called in to de to uh uh to desegregate that's probably a good idea actually in new york because they do segregate schools. But anyway, that's besides the point. My view of things is that the Constitution is,

it's the founding document, the supreme law of this land. You got a problem with it, you can amend it. You need popular support to do so, and you're not going to get it. You can try. And I say that realistically. By all means, I encourage everyone to try to petition all of the states,

to have a convention of states, to make the changes that they hope will happen. There's a reason why gun access is expanding. It's because most people actually want access to guns. When they say most people want gun control, it's because advocacy groups are lying to you. And I mean that absolutely. They say things like, do you think there should be background checks for gun purchases? And most people say, for sure. Because there are. Then they say, people want universal background checks. Then they say, what we're talking about is private sales. You didn't ask that of the person when you took the poll. You look at liberal gun owners, of which there are

many. You look at Democrats, and it's like 50 some odd percent own weapons. You look at states like Vermont, places like where Bernie Sanders comes from. And this shows you the duplicitousness of these politicians, that Bernie Sanders comes from a state that has actually one of the lowest ages for owning a gun, that has some of the highest gun ownership, where he campaigned in 2015 saying, weapons is a urban versus rural issue. Yep. Today he says these gun control laws don't go far enough because he is just a lie.

It's like you described. Yes. They just want to get elected. Yes. And they won't just stand up and say this is what is and why it is. And if you want to change it, we can work to change it. But this is the way things are. Just because 60 percent of people in New York want to strip the rights away from the American people does not mean they get to.

Yeah. Sadly, and this is the piece I'll bring up again, and people get mad when I say this, the only party that is even trying to do what you're talking about is the Libertarian Party. That's right. The only one. Republicans are caving. Democrats in this one, I'll give them credit where credit is due. At least they're open about grabbing the guns. At least they're saying we hate guns.

That's one thing they're saying. The Republicans say they love guns and then still about grabbing the guns. At least they're saying we hate guns. That's one thing they're saying. The Republicans say they love guns and then still support grabbing the guns. It's true, but among Democrats, they go, no one is trying to ban your guns. That's ridiculous. Take your guns. Yes, right. They are trying to ban the guns. They're not trying to take them.

What they do is they make you a criminal retroactively is how Democrats are. They did it in my state. ATF did it with the 80% lowers. 100%. They're doing it with ghost guns. They're going to do it with 3D printed guns. Yep. So I was talking to one of these uninitiated people who don't know anything about guns

but for some reason want to regulate them. All the time. They have no idea what they're talking about. And they posted a meme where it said, no one is trying to ban your guns. And then I said, here's a list of my guns that are banned in Maryland. So why? The one I love to bring up is the M1A, which is a banned assault weapon in Maryland. But the SCAR-20S is totally fine, even though they're a similar caliber and one's more modern and arguably better.

How does that make sense? How does it make sense that you can load up a KSG-25 with 41 mini slugs, but you can't have a six-shot semi-automatic Benelli? Because the laws make no sense. It's not about – you know what? You've described it perfectly. Angry people who don't know what they're talking about, politicians who say, yeah, yeah, yeah, throw them whatever they want, and the system crumbles around us because corrupt politicians offer stupid people non-solutions that just gum up the system. That feel good. I'm going to go one step further. Here in New York, I should say here, I'm not in New York right now, but in New York, we just had a democratic gubernatorial debate and our governor

just signed 10 laws. She was very happy. She signed 10 laws to stop gun violence. And one of the guys who was running is a guy from Brooklyn named Jumaane Williams. And he said, yeah, but none of those laws will do anything to stop gun violence. This was a Democrat that said that. That's how bad it's getting. Your point's exactly right. They're just trying to say, I'm doing something.

So I'll sign this law. I'll sign that law. I'll sign the other law. I'll put money into this. I'll start a program. I'll do this thing. But they don't fix the problem. The real problem when it comes to guns, if people really care about the

problem, what people hate about guns is the fact that there are young people having mass shootings. That's really what most people care about, whether that's gang violence or whether that's Buffalo and places like that. Both of those issues are the same thing. Unhappy and broken young men. That's the issue. What's killing our kids is not the guns or the knives. What's killing our kids are lack of purpose, lack of community, and loneliness. But that's like – That's what's killing – and that's hard to fight.

That's hard to fix. It's way easier to sign 10 bills and say I'm doing something. How do you fix it? Because even the communist revolution and the Soviet Union was a bunch of young broken men. Yes, it was. And the mob

was a bunch of young broken men. Fascism is usually a bunch of young broken men. That's who the groups go for. That's the age of, that's the ancient history of humanity is young broken men. Absolutely.

People are pointing out New York City may want gun control, but New York State wants gun access. That's a myth. All the cities. Syracuse wants gun control. Buffalo wants gun control. Ithaca wants gun control. Rochester wants gun control.

It's urban versus rural. Yeah, yeah. Urban versus rural. So all the cities want it. I'm going to say again, I think that we're talking about militia control. I really believe the Second Amendment implicitly understands you have the right to weapons and armor, but it's in order to your right to have a well-regulated militia. I can start and control a militia with uniforms and training. That's not correct.

I want to touch what you talked about. You said, how do you fix this? I brought this up literally four years ago. Four years ago, I talked about how I changed the education system to where the kids get out of school at 16 and then make choices. You go from K through 12 to instead pre-K through 10. And at 10th grade, you pass a test, there's your master diploma, still make some choices. Do you go to a two-year prep school? Do you go to a two-year trade school? Do you go to a two-year associate's degree? Do you go get a job? Do you start a business? Go do something and have purpose. Have kids go to every school they want to go and all the government does it. In New York State, our

constitution forces us to pay for grades one through 12. We have to pay it through our constitution. So you give them what I had when I got in Marine Corps, which is the, basically I had a GI Bill. Here's a bunch of money. Go to college. You have 10 years to use it. Good luck. We give all of our kids at 16, $20,000, five years, go. What will happen is a bunch of schools will pop up

that all cost $20,000 every two years because that's how the system works. And kids will go to schools they want to go to. Kids will have more purpose. Their bullying goes away. Fighting goes away. All of a sudden, kids are doing things and taking action.

The last two years of high school for most kids, last year for sure, is garbage, useless. Why even have it? It doesn't help at all. It's a colossal waste of time, which is why some of them don't graduate. And when they go to college, it takes them six years to graduate.

It's not ready for it. The first year of college is 13th grade. You begin to fix that. Number one, you start fixing that, it changes everything. Make our kids make decisions at 16 and not just be lost. I don't want a generation of lost men. Add one more thing to that. Fix family court.

Family court is a disaster. All it does is crush and break families. It takes fathers out of the home. It destroys everything internally within families. It makes money everything and love nothing. I lost my father when I was 12 years old. I didn't have a father when I was a teenager. I would have taken a broke dad over no dad any day of the week.

You have to support the family by fixing family court, and then give kids more of a chance. The kids will make another problems. They're 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Vast majority of those five was a lost young man fix that you fix the problem I want to address

second amendment because there are people asking about it Ian I say you're incorrect the constitution of the United States of America 1789

a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed I ask you Ian whose right shall not be

infringed according to that statement? The people. Who are the people? You and I and everyone here. So the right of the people to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed. What does that have to do with the descriptive statement? Well, it's one sentence.

There's a comma. If it was a period after the word state. Does it say the right of the regulated militia to keep in bare arms shall not be infringed? The subject of this sentence is a well-regulated militiaia and at the end when they're describing they're describing the subject of the sentence there's no semicolon in there there's there's there's three commas yeah there's no semicolon so there's one subject and that is the well-regulated militia does it say the right to have a well-regulated militia no they put that at the end does it does it put the word right that's how they wrote they wrote like poets the like poets. Listen, the right of the people is a single group of words.

It's part of a well-regulated militia. So here's what you need to understand. The Constitution is asserting in this that the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists. They do not grant it. It does exist. It shall not be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of the free state, which is why you shall not infringe the right of a well-regulated militia to the people.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state is an explanation as to why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And this is the standard, modern, and every legal assessment of what it means. Well, I mean, it's very poorly written by today's standards. We really need to update the Constitution to make sense to people. But the issue is the existence of a well-regulated militia does not have an impact on the fact that the right of the people to keep in bare arms, that alone between the commas is in existence. Yeah, none of these things, these three things should be infringed. Neither your well-regulated militia, your free state,

or your right to keep and bear arms. So then we can say this. At very least, a well-regulated militia, a free state, and the right to keep and bear arms all shall not be infringed. Correct. There you go. At the very least. The actual legal rulings on this so far is that a well-regulated militia

being necessary to secure a free state was effectively an explanation. And as I mentioned, I actually read through the draft. I believe there were originally 17. There was actually an amendment for the allocation of congressional districts capping at 35,000, which would mean that we'd have like 7,000 members of Congress. We'd have crazy Congress, yes. So they ultimately said no to that. That was the original First Amendment, I believe. The original Second Amendment,

they were like articles that were proposed, actually wanted to say that you had no requirement to be in a militia to keep in bare arms, further explaining what they meant by this. They were scared that by saying that, people would then argue you could not be conscripted so that you could say, you can't conscript me.

I have a right to not be involved in the militia. So, OK, get rid of that. Additionally, if you look at the writings of many of the founding fathers, they outright are explaining what these things mean. So what's in the Constitution is often simply supplemented by like, I wonder what they meant when they said that. Well, read it. They wrote books about it.

They wrote tons of papers about it. I got to go to one step further, which I brought up earlier, which is you have a huge chunk of America that would listen to everything you said and go, I don't care. Constitution's dumb or whatever. It's old or I don't care or blah, blah. And you can say too bad,

but those people vote our rights away every year. That's right. So I have to convince these people that you're right. And I'm not going to convince them that they're right. I can't convince them that the Constitution is correct by going back to the Constitution. I have to convince them that they're correct by other things. And here's some things that I do. I'm one of the weird people, not as good as the guys like Maj, Ture, and others who do this far better than I do.

But I talk about the Second Amendment in cities. For me to go talk to the Second Amendment in rural areas is literally preaching to the choir. They already got it. They're like, yeah, Larry, we got you. Already good. Already done. So I go into cities to talk about it. And I don't talk about the idea of the Constitution.

I talk about the idea of it being an equalizer. I discuss that issue of it being an equalizer. If you look at what happens in most cities, and you live in Chicago, right? You're from Chicago, right? So you know, most of the time the people who are attacked non-gang violence are people who they see as weak. Someone who's older,

a mom with children, something like that. They see the person as doesn't have a gun or is weak in some way, shape, or form. Those are the people who get attacked.

But imagine if that mom or that older person just in one city someplace drew down on a thug, pulled out a gun, and put a bullet in him. They all run away and they go, wait a minute. Maybe this is not so easy.

Yeah, it's equalized. I say, you want to take the rights of gun owners away? Great. What about the woman who has a boyfriend or a husband and wants to kill her? It's an equalizer. I'll tell you. That makes people rethink the Second Amendment. I'll tell you one better.

I convinced a couple people. They're posting about red flag laws. It's the big issue. The Republicans are working with Democrats. My response is just the goal of stop and frisk in New York City was to get guns off the street. The police ended up targeting black and brown kids. And a lot of these kids were innocent, didn't do anything. These kids then find themselves getting falsely charged.

There's a whole big scandal about it. And you even had one cop who came out and said he was instructed by the leadership to target black kids. Then Michael Bloomberg comes out and says, well, that's who's committing the crime. Just basically saying, well, sure. What do you think red flags are going to do when you now have these same people in charge

saying this time, go in their home? And I've had people go, you're right. I didn't think about that. Yes, yes. Well, I go't think about that. Yes. Yes. Well, I go one step further with this also, which is they say, but Larry,

how are we going to stop it? I say, in New York City, we already have something. It's called, if you see something, say something. There's no red flag law if you see some bad guy

going to blow something up. There's no requirement to report. But you know what we do? We report. The only thing that's ever really stopped any bad attack

has been a populist that called the cop and said, hey, that guy shouldn't be there. We stopped that Times Square bomber. We've stopped these people with see something, say something. There's no requirement for a red flag law. It works. Let me tell you this. Look up psychology today and any one of these studies that show that the left has a higher rate of mental illness. Now, you might – it's a fact.

So you might hear many people say that, so I tweeted about this, Marina Lavaterova or whatever her name is. Navratilova, yeah. Navratilova. Navratilova, there you go. She was like, what kind of BS is this? You made this up. What?

Google search, left mental illness. There's just endless amounts of studies. Now, one argument from the left is that, well, it's because people on the right don't seek out mental treatment. Therefore, they never get diagnosed. Whatever you want to say, fine. That's fine by me. The issue is if you're a leftist and you're part of, say, the Socialist Rifle Association, the SRA or whatever, or Vosh, for instance, who is a socialist and very pro-gun. Yep. You probably have a higher rate of mental illness. And let's just argue it's because you're willing to get diagnosed and you want better

treatment, right? So what do you think is going to happen when the fascists rise up and there's red flag laws and they say, that guy is depressed and it's marked down in his files. Judge, take his guns away. Now who's got the guns? It ain't the left. Well, here's the thing. You were making the point about stop and frisk earlier the reality is the left 100 would have supported stop

and frisk if they believed it would serve their political interests right and so we're going to see the exact same thing with red flag laws obviously there's a very good argument to be made as you have made it that this is going to disproportionately target black people in inner cities but guess what but guess what they don't care as long as conservatives are also targeted and if they know that a red flag law is going to allow them to strip you of your right to own a gun they don't care how many black people are also going to be stripped of their right to own guns i don't think so because they only see them as political pods anyway it's it's it's evidence to what he's saying already in new york state the same fact when it came out literally it's used against people who are black and brown in cities.

They add that stuff on. I agree with this. It's not, in my opinion, going to be targeting conservatives as much. Some people have tried arguing to me saying, Tim, the law enforcement apparatus will be disproportionately used against the right. In some circumstances, perhaps. But I don't see it in this instance because you're talking about the majority of conservatives who live in rural areas. You think that you're going to see a local sheriff show up to Jim Bob's house who he might know. He's going to be like, I'll call him on the phone or something.

Tell him to come in. I don't know about that. Especially considering these guys are strapped. In big cities, Bloomberg, people like him, they're going to kick the door in. Do whatever you want. So I'll put it this way. I've thought about the pros and the cons. For me, I believe in freedom.

I think the left should have guns. I think the Black Panthers should have guns. I think the not effing around coalition guys, very pro-CRT. Very poor trigger discipline. Very poor trigger discipline. Very poor. But hey, the guys who accidentally shoot, yeah, okay, guys, you know, we can't have that. But I'm just like, you've got a right to keep it in bare arms.

You want to change it? Amend the Constitution. But I think his point, he wasn't disagreeing with you. No, but he was saying they won't care. Yeah, I mean, I do still think it would be disproportionately used against conservatives, for example, in blue areas where there is a conservative neighbor who you know has a gun. Everyone's going to report that guy. Or in a suburb which is mixed and left-wing people will report the conservative guy because he said something on social media they disagree and what likely in my opinion will end up happening

is in the wealthier suburbs where these people are going to you know have lawyers or whatever maybe that'll happen and then you're going to see stop and frisk times 10 in inner cities yeah yeah i think both will happen yeah i. I think on top of that, as much as I believe in freedom, what's the end result of this? A bunch of right-wing people then say, oh, okay, red flags. They're going to start going.

It could be 4chan. It could be any one of these online forums. They're going to start going after every single leftist who's trans or posts that they're neurodivergent. And they're going to say they're posting scary things. And whether you have a gun or not, they're going to kick your door in, and it will be a legalized form of swatting. Dude, you'll have people in the federal government hacking people's accounts, making it post stuff that's false flag, red flags, and then they'll be using that crap. You just can't do that.

Rap lyrics. You'll post rap lyrics. You'll post punk rock lyrics stuff's out of context you can't use that as precedent and what'll happen is because red flag laws are non-adversarial the the call comes in the cops go to the judge the judge they say here judge here's what happened the judge has take their guns away yep and then you're going to get some dude i'll tell you this it's going to be in in a city and i don't care about what this. It's going to be in a city, and I don't care about what the race is. It's going to be in a poor neighborhood, and the cops are going to come kicking the door in or coming to take the person's weapons away. And you're going to have people who are going to be like, what's happening? What's going on?

I don't know. I don't believe you. Also, I mean, gangs could very easily put someone up to red flagging someone in their neighborhood they want to harm but who they know has a firearm. Like this stuff could very easily be abused. Oh, that'll happen yes i i think the worst case scenario for the left is just to imagine a bunch of fascists weaponizing their mental illness against them because they often say they are and then the government comes and takes all their weapons away no more antifa armed no more forks no more cutlery no more pillowcases come is this insanity? No, they just want common sense pillowcase control, all right?

It's not happening. It's common sense. Not this decade. God. I guess my point is when we look at so much of what's happened over the past couple years, and I think particularly the 2020 riots, if the left views the agenda of a particular group as being anti-conservative, they don't care what happens to black people. $2 billion worth of businesses were destroyed in the summer of 2020.

Likely more than that. 30 plus people were killed, many of them in black neighborhoods. And guess what? The left defends it. They don't care. The only way that changes, there's only one way that changes,

is if you see the black population stop just always voting Democratic. that's how it changes. It is. But the Hispanic population a whole lot faster. You're seeing that. That's a very fast change. Now Asians too. Asians too.

If you see the swap, if you see that the black population is not going, you know what? Maybe I'm not voting Democratic. Vote Libertarian. Vote Libertarian. But anyway, if they don't stop voting Democratic, if they do that that then the democrats will have to stop taking that voting block for granted and they'll have to actually care but you're right now they do not care yeah because no matter what they do the black population still votes democratic so i don't care if i'm bad with them they still do it anyway yeah exactly it'll shift there was you earlier you mentioned the ny safe act yep what

a ridiculous gun control so this one i believe this part of it was actually struck down, but you were allowed to own a 10-round magazine, but if you put more than seven rounds into it, that was illegal. Correct. So we've got a bunch of studies. I mean, this is a very common story that came out a year ago, a year before that. White liberals are more likely to have a mental health condition. We've got this from Zach Goldberg. Has a doctor or other health care provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition?

You can see that among white liberals, it's substantially higher, double, just about double that of what people who are very conservative report. Conservatives have the least, the lowest level. Now, what I've heard, some people argue, like I mentioned on the liberals, they argue that this is because liberals are more likely to go to doctors. It's less stigmatized among the left. And I'm like, for the sake of the red flag laws, let's just say that's true. Wow. Could you imagine fascists exploiting the fact that you want health care to take away your guns when you want to defend yourself from the fascists? Personally, I don't believe that's true because that would imply that people who are very conservative, far right, are more likely to go to the doctor than conservatives, which

makes no sense. And it also makes no sense that someone who is liberal and someone who is very liberal would have different degrees of a stigmatized view of getting mental health therapy. Well, I think what you're saying, there's some evidence of what you're saying already, which is you find already, again, for the SAFE Act, you found people who are literally, you find veterans. Veterans, it affects veterans more than anybody else. Veterans are more likely to have a firearm than non-veterans, and they're also more likely to have some form of invisible injury, whether that's PTSD, traumatic brain injury, something like that, than non-veterans. So you find out that a lot of veterans in their communities will not go get help because they know, to your point, in the second they have it on their record, someone's taking

their guns. And it's usually a family member who's angry at them or sometimes a former family member who's angry at them for an ex, a spouse, a girlfriend who will now take their gun away. So yes, it does happen. It's already happening in New York State. I was thinking of external circumstances that can make people crazy, like New York City, brake dust. There's brake dust in the atmosphere from all these cars. It's so small, particularly small, that it goes through the alveoli in your lungs and right into

your bloodstream, which is way worse than smog. It causes hypertension, which can lead to stress, which can cause to mental disorders, which can cause to a doctor visit. So like what? Just because you live near a toxic chemical plant and you're more likely to go neurotic means you're going to be less likely to have a weapon? I don't like that. Did you know that there was a correlation, perhaps spurious, between leaded gasoline and crime rates? And as lead started getting removed from gas. Crime rates started to go down. Some, I guess the speculation is, as cars were driving, the lead was being particularized or particulates were going into the atmosphere. People were breathing it in and it was poisoning them and it was screwing with them.

It was hurting their brains. So we got rid of that and then crime went down. I'm not saying it's a direct causal effect, cause and effect. It could be a spurious correlation. But the fact is, I think you make a good point. effect it could be a spurious correlation but the fact is i think you make a good point there was also a study on happiness that found that people who are in closer who are closer to nature uh typically have higher rates of happiness so imagine you live in a big concrete block that smells like sour milk and brake pads you know we went to new york i went

to new york uh when was it like a month ago two months ago man it stinks it's crazy being out here in the middle of nowhere and just all the different smells and all the fresh air the trees we're surrounded by trees so it's all just clean fresh air and you go to the city and you're like oh it's a unique smell and i think that actually ties into what we're saying about mental health right so left-wing people tend to be more likely to live in cities. What do you think is better for your mental health? Being packed into a small apartment building like sardines and paying $2,000 a month for one bedroom and you're cramped.

$2,000. What city do you live in? Did I say $200? I'm sorry. I meant $2,000. I know. I know. I meant $2,000.

That's too low. Which is probably like $8,000 for a closet. Thank you. There we go. Are we there? There we go. $8,000, they let you sleep in the corner of the elevator. Exactly, yes.

But none of these things are good for your mental health. That's a good point. And it's not just what I think. It's like Andrew Huberman's neuroscientist has done experiments that gazing into the horizon for 15 minutes a day and having that depth perception greatly enhances neurogenesis and is going to allow you to not be stressful, to fix your brain. We got so many bunnies. Oh, it's funny. The touch grass meme.

But it's true. It works. You just go outside for a little while, it resets your brain. I just love this when people post a meme like, touch grass, like you're too online. And I'm just sitting there like, dude, you are in a concrete cubicle, surrounded by concrete cubicles, and I'm looking out my window at a mountain and trees in every direction. And when I look out the window, you know what I see?

I see a groundhog. We named him Winston. And I see a bunch of rabbits. There's one rabbit that sits right in front of the door. He's not scared of us at all. Nice. And I'm like, it's probably not smart of that rabbit. Feed that dude. But here's the thing. us at all. Nice. And I'm like, it's probably not smart of that rabbit. Feed that dude.

But here's the thing. I'll tell you this. When every day you go out, there's like a fox running around and we're like, he's trying to go for the chickens. We're shaking our fists. I saw a raccoon last week. We got wild turkeys. It's fun.

Yeah. They're hilarious. Yeah. When the turkeys walked over to the chicken coop and the chickens started losing their minds, it was hilarious. And I lived in New York, man. There's no magic there. It is anger, animosity.

Nobody knows each other. Nobody likes each other. There's people fighting all the time. Are you in the city, in New York City right now? I am. I live in Queens. Have you been there for a long time? AOC is my congressperson.

Good for you. I accept your condolences. Do you get out of this? For perspective, do you get out of the city frequently? Of course. I campaign. I go upstate New York all the time. Yeah. I live in western New York all the time. Yeah.

I live in western New York half the time. Oh, Ithaca's awesome. I go all over the place. I'm up a little bit. Western New York is probably our strongest place. The libertarian movement is strongest in western New York. In fact, one of the counties in 2018, it got 9% of the vote in a county. And there's a couple precincts up in north country where I got like 25% of the vote.

So north country is pretty strong libertarian. Western New York, very strong libertarian. So yeah, we have a libertarian stronghold across the state. Do you advise people to get out of the city from time to time? All the time, yes, absolutely. It's expensive, I know, for your average lower middle class person to get up. It's like 40 bucks to take the train up to Greenwich and back or something. The glory that New York State actually is, and I wish could be more.

Our state's a beautiful state. There's everything you could want in our state. Everything is from Madison Square Garden to Niagara Falls to mountains and skiing to lakes to fishing to Broadway to whatever is the thing you like, you can get it in New York State. The problem is our government is so oppressive that people can't stay here. It actually breaks up families. But the state itself is beautiful. It's like they're governing the state as if it was New York State. The problem is our government is so oppressive that people can't stay here. It actually breaks up families. But the state itself is beautiful.

It's like they're governing the state as if it was New York City, but then the rest of the state is completely different. Correct. This is my entire issue, right? The point I bring up constantly is a lot of things

that people are saying are true, but they're not going to happen in New York State. It's simply not going to happen. So my goal is several fold. One is to simply make it to where we have more localization. That is not a perfect answer. It's just a better answer. Let Brooklyn be Brooklyn and let Ithaca be Ithaca and let Broome County be Broome County,

let North County be North Country. Let them be their own. Most people who are in New York State who are not Democrats, who are Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, Conservatives, they want one thing, to be left alone. That's what they really want. Leave me alone. They don't care about Brooklyn. They don't care about Manhattan. Just leave me alone is what they want. So my goal is to achieve just that.

I do that. That's realistic. It can happen. It can work. But I'll bring up a more important piece. Of everything we talked about, none of it is going to be assisted. None of it is going to work. None of it is going to be fixed if we don't have a third answer.

Right now, everything becomes left versus right or us versus them or whatever you decide. And the other person, to your point earlier, is evil. So I can do whatever I want to hurt them or kill them. There's got to be a third entity. I believe it's the Trump Party. I'm clearly biased. And I say that every time I am. But it might be maybe it's Andrew Yang's forward bar, which is why I made a connection with him. Maybe it's the Libertarian Party. I'm clearly biased and I say that every time I am. But it might be, maybe it's

Andrew Yang's forward bar, which is why I made a connection with him. Maybe it's that. I don't care but I think it's mine. I think it's my party. But it's got to be a movement, yes, that allows other people to talk to each other without pointing a finger that allows people to go, you know what?

You do you. I do me. We're good. And right now it doesn't exist. So that's, Libert what? You do you, I do me, we're good. And right now it doesn't exist. So that's, libertarians are on the right culturally. Why do you say that? I mean, it's just, in the culture war, in the context, if you go to a leftist and say you're a libertarian, they will say you're right wing.

I think that's often true because many people who are Republicans who call themselves libertarians when they're not. But they're not libertarians though. Correct. I mean liberals and the establishment left and modern leftists do not believe in libertarianism. And I'm talking about that in the philosophical, not the big libertarian party. I'm not sure where you're going. Are you telling me that culturally people think we are on the right

or are you saying that libertarians are on the right? In the culture war, the Libertarian Party is no different than conservatives. Okay. We are as a party, we are far more left-leaning socially than Republicans are. Sure.

Far more. And the culture war is heavily about social issues. Right. So how can you say we're right-leaning when we join the left in most of these things? Like what things

did you vote join the left in? Cannabis, as an example. Right? Drug war. The right is all about support the drug war. Cannabis is evil. The left is like

cannabis is good. And libertarians are further than the left. Yeah. Most Democrats are like, let's just regulate and tax cannabis. Libertarians are like, let it all go. I think that's definitely changing the Republican Party though. We're left when it comes to gay rights, the gender, sexual minority community.

We're far left on that, further than Democrats. Donald Trump was a supporter of gay marriage. Yes, but you said conservatives. Donald Trump is sometimes a supporter of some kind of gay marriage. Sure, sure. The Republican Party then. Yes, but you said conservatives. Donald Trump is sometimes because there are sometimes not. The Republican Party then. The Republican Party is viewed as right-wing. Libertarians are viewed right alongside it.

Viewed as. I'm agreeing with that, but in reality I'm not sure that's true. The point I'm making is when I go and... First of all, when people try to accurately describe me, and I'm not talking about what the media says, they say libertarian center or libertarian liberal centerly attractive stuff yeah but that that's a fair assessment when I go and talk to progressives and leftists they say conservative far right 100% I we had we had Vosh on the show and he called me far right yep and so you mentioned a space where you can bring people

together and it's like yeah but look when we bring on these progressives, they outright tell us they disagree with what you said. They think they should have a say in other people's lives, period. So when you say most people want to be left alone, you're not talking about bringing both sides together. You're talking about trying to appeal to the common person who wants to be left alone. Yes. That's what I'm saying. Yes. But you did like three different things in there. The first thing is if you're saying, am I viewed by most as right wing? That's true. Most people say that.

Most of the time, my biggest issue I have when I'm running for office is when the right's angry at me, it comes at me. The right will say, you're wrong because this. And I love that because I'm a master of judo, so I will take them and I will take their attack and put them down. I can turn people from the right fast and from the left. The left will simply ignore me. They will just ignore me, not talk to me,

dismiss me. I need to draw them, which is why I like guys like Vosh, because Vosh will at least attack. And I want people, I like all the debate bros. I like Destiny. I like Vosh. I like Dylan Burns because all those guys are left,

but they will attack me and I can have a conversation with them. So much of the left will not even talk to me and I beg, I reach up and beg them to talk to me

and they just won't do it. You're correct. Because they believe that I am right wing even though I'm not. That's not necessarily, it's not so much about the fact that you are right wing,

it's that they have no argument. The people who have arguments will argue, The people who don't won't. And typically among the left, they don't have arguments. Well, but that doesn't answer what I was talking about, right? I don't think that we are right-leaning at all. I think we lean right in certain things, but I don't think libertarians actually are right. I think

the culture believes we are. But when they talk to us, they go, oh, and why I said this is because when I get people from the left to talk to me, they often stay. But I'm referring to the cultural scale, not the economic scale. So right and left mean very – you have to define what left and right means. I'm using it in the context of if you were to walk into a room full of people who listen to podcasts, left and right has a meaning. You are right wing. If you were to talk to someone about social policy and economic policy, you're probably center or something to that effect. But that's not relevant when you're trying to get people into a room when you have big media funding

the colloquial definitions of left and right. That's what I mean to say. You made the point that you want to create a space where we can bring everyone together, and it's like, oh, I love that idea. But like you said, the left will not have those conversations. The only people, we get two kinds of people

that want to come on this show that are on the left. And I should say mostly. Grifters, who are trying to manipulate us and exploit us to then turn around to their fan base, hoot and holler,

and then screw us over. Right. Either not come on the show, cancel the last minute, which we've had many of, or just start tweeting BS accusing me of things that never happened. So we'll get them on the show and they'll say, oh, Tim did this, and oh, now, oh, jeez, and then try and get press out of it.

We then have people who have no following. They have no body of work. They're not very active in politics. They're just small accounts that have maybe a couple thousand followers. And they have no strong arguments. They want to come on the show. And you know what happens when we invite these people on the show? They sit there dumbfounded, confused, having no idea what to say.

I've had that same issue, right? As I've tried to reach out to the left more and more, I brought people on. I obviously have a smaller show. But when I bring people to my smaller show, I sometimes have an issue where my people get mad at me because I have to use kid gloves. Because if I don't use kid gloves. Because if I don't use kid gloves, I make the guests look really bad. Good. Do it. And I don't want to make the guests look really bad because I'm trying

to be... I want the left to come on my show. And if I beat them up too badly, then nobody comes back anymore. So I have a similar issue where sometimes I bring someone on who is just... They're so accustomed to talking within their own bubble that everybody white is wrong that when they come on my show, they're unprepared for anything.

So I've got to use kid gloves or make them look terrible. This is why you get people like Jordan Klepper who go down to rallies to find the oldest and most ignorant among the Trump supporters to make that the focal point. Because when, I think it was Vish Burra actually, we had him on the show, when he actually talked to Jordan Klepper, Klepper's like, uh-oh. It reminds me of during Occupy Wall Street when, I forgot the dude's name. actually we had him on the show when he actually talked to jordan klepper klepper is like oh it reminds me of during occupy wall street when um i forgot the dude's name he was uh jesse legreca

shouted to jesse legreca he was being interviewed by griv jenkins of fox news and he went on this tirade about how fox was not going to actually share what their real opinions were and the video was secret was being recorded by somebody else. Fox never aired the interview. And then the left got a hold of it, published it, and they were like this. Fox won't tell you what the Occupy Wall Street people are actually concerned about. The funny thing is the things we talk about, the Federal Reserve, freedom, liberty, was exactly what was being espoused by some of these people at Occupy Wall Street. Although, unfortunately, eventually got taken over by social justice leftists. Absolutely. Although, unfortunately, eventually got taken over by social justice leftists. Yes, absolutely. But it feels very much the same way today where you take a look at – I'm surprised Bill Maher has Ben Shapiro on.

But even when he does, he falls back even though Ben Shapiro is right. But you take a look at MSNBC or CNN. They don't have on anyone who can actually stand up to the debate. The January 6th committee will not have anybody who can actually make an argument. No, wait. Hold on. It's bipartisan. They have Liz Cheney. That's right.

Oh, that's true. That makes it all right. I'm sorry. Yes. Everything you've just said, Tim, is completely wrong because Liz Cheney is there. So now, yes. Accept that. Accept your shame.

Yeah. Adam Kinzinger. I do believe there's a culture war going on. It's 150 years probably since the opium war in China. The British colonies tried to force opium war in china and the british colonies tried to force opium into the country the chinese play the long game and now they're using i don't know who it is that's doing it but somebody is using this media junction of like comcast and verizon and google and google is now alphabet i don't know how involved you guys are

at alphabet with this stuff but like to spread message, which is to crush these people into this cult mindset and everything else is right. It's on the right. If it's libertarian, it's on the right. If it's something else, it's on the right. If you don't know what it is and it's on the right, don't listen to it. There's a part of that too. I agree.

There's a part of the idea of censorship is self-censorship. I won't watch this show. I won't look at this thing. I won't read this thing because it's on the right or whatever the case may be. There is a lot of self-censorship. And the stuff that they're missing is the talk about the Federal Reserve, international banking, fiat currency. But I think some of that's changing, right? I do think there is – it's not as fast as I want it to be, but I do feel like there are enough people who are saying something's wrong.

I don't get it, but I just know something's wrong. To your point, Tim, they're not educated themselves enough, but they feel like just this isn't right. And they're looking for something else, which is why I think so many of the podcasts are exploding. Alternative media is exploding because they're like, who's that guy you were talking about? I want to watch that guy where two years ago, like, I'm not watching Timmy, some crazy guy. And now they're like, who's that guy? Let me go check his show out. I think we're getting more of that. I do think it's happening.

But then after they watch for two years, they go, oh, he's that crazy guy. He is that crazy guy. I saw BlackRock trending on Twitter. I mean, that's a breakthrough. The psychic mind. Well, you made this point. It sort of touches on something I was saying earlier about this very small fraction deciding that they're the totality of the left, like everything else is right wing. This is something you can even find with like a political compass test.

When you take one of these surveys, you can tell who wrote it. You can tell the ideology of the person putting the questions into it. 100%. And so that's very much the case with many of the culture war issues. You can tell who's deciding what we're going to end up talking about and that they're on the left. Almost always, with a few exceptions. Now that we're talking about grooming, et cetera, you can tell, well, conservatives are actually starting to have their voice heard.

But for the most part, everything we've talked about has been what the left wanted us to talk about. You'll take a political compass test and the question will be something like do you believe women should have the right to choose whether or not to be a mother yes yeah right and then you're like okay i know who wrote that it'll be like do you think an employer should be able to beat any of their employees to death with a hammer for no reason and you're like no they're like you're a communist you're on our side like you're with us you You believe in workers' rights. You said it right there. I love – have you watched Squid Games? Yeah. The funniest thing to me is that these people desperately want to claim it is a critique of capitalism.

Sure. And apparently the guy who wrote it, like the story saying like he was writing a critique of capitalism and Netflix didn't want to buy it it took him like seven years or whatever and and my my response was if that guy he it really was writing a critique of capitalism he's a perfect example of a leftist who has no idea what capitalism is also i just want to say the idea that any media company wouldn't want to buy a film or television show which was a critique of capitalism that's like the most boring market safe thing you can write everyone makes critiques of capitalism that's not it the point was that he offered up the show they didn't want, and then when they finally bought it, it was successful. It wasn't that he was like, I want to critique capitalism.

I understand. I understand. Here's the funny thing, Squid Games. I know it's an old show by now, but I just love this idea. Here's a show where in one of the first games, everyone has to wear the same clothes, no one is allowed to leave, and everyone starts at the equal point at the same line. You then have to try and make it across this field where you're effectively cutthroat and pushing people and

trying to beat everyone else and those who don't make it die. And I'm like, what about that is capitalism? If it was capitalism, everyone would be wearing different clothes. You can leave at any time and some people would start halfway across the finish line or halfway towards the finish line. Communism is where everyone is forced to start at the same point with the same clothes and you can't leave and if you try you get killed well i don't think you realize this tim but um any term which is associated with the right just means bad thing bad thing yeah yeah so whenever any any bad thing happens on television that was like capitalism or conservatism or something i just i just thought it was funny where they're like this is clearly capitalism and i'm like if you look at at – it's because they believe in ideological communism.

And so they'll just take whatever they can and say it's capitalism because it's bad. And then I'm just like, bro, in the capitalist system, you can choose to just be homeless and just leave. Or not play the game. Right. In Squid Game, if you tried to leave, they killed you. Right. That's communism. When you try to escape a communist country, what happens? Right. They throw, if you tried to leave, they killed you. Right. That's communism. When you try to escape a communist country, what happens?

Right. They throw you in the gulag or they kill you. What sounds not communist is how they have to challenge, fight each other in the free-for-all part. Because in a communist system, they would be working together and it doesn't matter who gets there. Well, do the people starve in the union? In theory, that's true, but not in practice. That's why I'm saying actual communism. In capitalism, you can leave.

You're like, my neighbor's screwing with me. I can go to the courts and petition. In communism, I had a friend who was in Ukraine, and when I went to her apartment, she explained to me how there are two apartments next to each other, and the neighbors were having a feud. So one person called the Communist Party and said, my neighbor is bad-mouthing the party,

and the next day their apartment was empty. Send them to the gulag. That was the reality of communism. People were cutthroat. If you wanted to survive, you needed to do whatever it took to get food and survive. I keep thinking about communism

and how it creeps in and it's not a political party, but it's just this idea that all of us are going to control everything together. We're all in this together, you guys. No, it does sound good. There's no doubt the rhetoric of communism is amazing rhetoric. And if you go back to, say, 2016-ish, the left rhetoric was way better than the right rhetoric was.

It was all about we're all going to be together and we're going to be – there's going to be rainbows every day. It's going to be amazing and we're all going to get unicorns. It's going to be great. The rhetoric is awesome. But when you see it in play, it doesn't work. And my example is my state. My state is the example. Literally, in New York State, a Republican has not won a statewide election in 20 years. The state has been run by Democrats for 20 years. We've been putting more and more rules and regulations and laws and all those things, and it has not gotten better by anybody's

regulation. We have been listed by Cato multiple years as the least free state in the union. Take that, California, we're number one. We are number one, and it's not good. In terms of Democrat rule, Illinois would like to have a word with you. Oh, it's been longer than that? I think it's like 80 years or 100 years.

Has it not won any statewide election? No, no, no. Not state. So there's no statewide at all. Illinois has Republicans. I should say Chicago. No, I'm sorry. But that's not fair because New York City is probably the same.

Well, New York City also – remember, a New York City Republican is like an Oklahoma Democrat, if that makes any sense. Bloomberg? Yeah, Bloomberg was our Republican mayor. So, yeah, that's not – Giuliani was Republican, right? He was, yes. But if you look at New York State, state meaning senator, attorney general, lieutenant governor, governor – Congress?

Congress, yes. That's federal. Yes, but I'm saying a statewide election, New York State has not had a – Okay, I stand corrected. Is it because they control the media marketing message in the state? Like they get to pick where the billboards go? Because outside of the cities in New York, there's basically been no recovery since 2008. There's no recovery.

So the only place to find a job is in cities. So people flock to cities. And that's the reason why the country after 2008 made a very fast shift towards the left. That is changing now. And that's probably one of the better things for COVID to be forward. The COVID lockdowns had so many horrible effects. But one of the effects it had is made the cities began to empty. And as people rushed to cities, they become more left.

We live on top of each other, as you said. We live on top of each other. We don't have the same religion, background. We don't have the same language, culture. We cry for a referee. The referee is almost always government. So we cry for more government. We cry for more referees.

People tend to become more left as they live and grow and work in cities. When they go back now, which is happening now, I think you'll find many people as they go back into the rural areas and into the suburban areas, there's an opportunity for there to be a renaissance in the suburban areas and that people become what I would think is more neutral or more having left and right and not being hardcore left or hardcore right. I would hope that would happen. Did you see that indoor farm in Jersey? I think it might be in Jersey City. Arrow Farms is the company.

It's the largest indoor farm in the world or it was. Oh, I didn't know that. It's right across, right near the city. And I wonder if indoor farming is something that they could do in New York because Because, I mean, in the winter, you lose the crop, essentially. Well, we have a bunch of empty buildings in New York City, so it's not a bad idea. We have tons of empty buildings in New York City now. I mean, people are not going back at all. New York City, in my view, will drop below 8 million and never come back past 8 million again.

Because there's simply – the glory that was New York City is a 16 million metro person areas. In the metro area, 16 million people. So if you wanted talent, if you wanted customers, if you wanted anything, and banking finance was in New York City, you would go to New York City to get your stuff. But two things have happened. With remote everything, you don't have to be in New York City now to get the talent you want. And in the back of the day, tech followed finance. Those days are over. Now finance follows tech. So wherever tech goes,

finance follows them. New York City no longer has to be that center for finance anymore. Austin can be it. Dallas can be it. San Francisco can be it. So New York City is going to struggle. Got to bring in all the West Virginia. What you got to do

is you have to make New York City what it should be, which is a cultural center. That it still has and still will be. And the culture is what will save New York City. I don't think it has it. I don't even know. Yeah, I don't know that I would agree with that because that's all been decentralized too with social media.

People can make anything from anywhere. Yes. However, when it comes to culture, I mean things like if you want to be a classic pianist, if you want to work on Broadway, if you want to be a ballerina, if you want to be that kind of thing, still right now New York has that. Now you're right. If they don't take advantage of it, it will be decentralized and they'll lose it. They have to focus on

that now to keep it. I somewhat disagree. They do have it, of course. But the scale matters. So we had 40,000 concurrents at peak on this show. That's two Madison Square Gardens. Yep. So imagine if we actually were like New York's the place to be because I want to do a big show to 20,000 people, man.

And then we're going to be in Madison Square Garden. It's like – or you can just get a live stream and get twice the audience size. But that's the cultural issue. Again, this is you want to physically be. There's a reason why people want to go to Broadway. Sure, sure, sure. But my point is just because you want to work for a print newspaper doesn't mean you're going to have influence

beyond someone who works for an archaic medium. What do you mean by that? You personally want to be in New York? Well, that's fantastic. I want to go and watch a Broadway show. I want to go and watch live ballet. And less people do that

than consume media online. Absolutely true. Which is my point that you are more likely to develop culture outside of New York than inside of it. It's the internet age. I left New York for this reason. It was expensive and was not conducive to building any kind of media brand. I left LA for that reason.

We went to South Jersey. Couldn't do it in South Jersey. We're in the tri-state of Western Maryland, West Virginia, and we're building a headquarters right now in West Virginia in the middle of nowhere. And you know what it was? I was thinking, you know the challenges? We've got to get guests. And if we got to the middle of nowhere, how do we get guests? And then I looked at the time from JFK to a Brooklyn studio, and it's two hours, an hour and a half.

And then I looked at the time from DCA or IAD, DC Airports, or even Baltimore to where we are now. It's actually less time. Yep, I'm agreeing with you. But the issue is when it comes to cultural issues like that, there is an infrastructure that has to be built. If you want to have an art infrastructure, that infrastructure right now exists in New York City. But what does that mean? It means if you say, for example, you want to watch the ballet. There has to be a customer base that will go.

You can, but you want to watch it live. And lots of people do. Literally thousands of people do. Millions of people come to New York City because they want to watch it live, and lots of people do. Literally thousands of people do. Millions of people come to New York City because they want to watch stuff live. That's the issue. Now, my point is if New York City doesn't do a better job of cultivating that, your point is correct. Some other place or other place will take it. No, no, no.

I'm saying that that's already done. So the idea – look, I was got we got time square billboards and uh i don't want to say too much but wow is it bad in new york yes there's no one cares anymore yep nobody wants to be there shows do not do well i know i live there it's a problem and and one of the billboards in time square was off i said how is it off? It's off. There's nothing there. No one wanted this space. I won't say too much, but they turned it back on. And

now we're thinking about it because we wanted to do some we did it to make a statement like we're here, but we know it's because the cultural establishment is in retreat. It's in decay. And that's our opportunity to assert ourselves. But now I'm looking at it and I'm like, what's the positive impact? It's negligible. Sure, some people want to go to New York to watch a ballerina. They do. I assure you, if you right now want to be a famous ballerina, you will be

wasting your time by going to New York. You're better off making a YouTube channel, learning on your own, hiring a private tutor, and then doing YouTube videos. You go to New York to do it, you'll have a quarter of the audience size, and you will be archaic. You do it on YouTube, you save money, you will get more viewership, and you'll be more relevant, and then they will fly to New York. Probably the best you could do is be in New York, doing it on the ground, and with a YouTube channel, because people like seeing a real-life ballerina as well. Doing it at home, and then once you're famous,

having them pay to bring you to these places. Yeah, so I think that whether you're looking at New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, any of these giant cities, I see them the way I see... There's only one giant city. Well, get out of here, all right? And your pizza's not good either. No, I'm kidding. But the way...

Actually, get out. I'm giving you a hard time. I'm giving you a hard time. The way I look at these large cities is they're like wealthy families. And what happens to a wealthy family, generally speaking, is within a handful of generations, less than a handful, the wealth is gone. Yeah. Because the younger generation that inherited the wealth doesn't know as much about building

wealth as the person who amassed it in the first place. And so you see a lot of these cities, and for a long time, they did have advantage just based on the technological infrastructure that was accessible to this country based on their location geographically. Subways. But now, as you've mentioned, there are reasons that people don't need to be in these states. So you said capital follows innovation and technology rather than it being the reverse. Yep. So what do wealthy people do and what have they done historically? Well, they've patronized art, which promoted things that they loved. Correct.

And so because New York was so wealthy, we had the arts being patronized there. Yep. And I believe you're just going to see less of that. New York is going to be less of a cultural center because the people earning wealth are going to be in other areas and they'll want to fund it there. Yeah. Well, something else happened. The government has much more power now than ever, right?

And what you're finding is people are moving to be outside of DC because they want to be close to centers of power, right? Interesting. That's a good point. And every other country that does not have a decentralized or – if you look at every other country, right, you want to capture their capital because their capital is their political capital. It's their cultural capital. It's their financial capital. America has been blessed.

We have a different capital. New York has always been our financial capital. LA was our cultural capital when it came to movies and stuff like that. DC was our capital when it came to politics. Now it's all shipping towards the DC area, right? Disturbing. D.C. was our capital when it came to politics. Now it's all shipping towards the D.C. area, right? And parts of Texas too. But because politics is so important in creating monopolies and things like that, you're seeing people wanting to be close to power.

Things are changing. In New York and L.A. shrinking, that doesn't bother me. But D.C. growing? Yes. Horrifying. I agree with you. I agree with you completely. I think it's a challenge that we see.

But I'll go back again, and I know I'm a broken record, but I don't care. I'll do it. The answer is stop voting left and right. Yeah, you just said that. The answer is stop voting left and right. What does that mean? It means – Like vote libertarian?

Yes. Or yes. I mean, look, if you lean left, maybe you vote – but anyway, vote libertarian. What I'm saying is vote third party because if you don't vote third party, there is no reason for any Democrat or any Republican to solve a problem. Right now in America, there are Democrats of the party with the bad ideas and Republicans of the party have no ideas. They're not fixing anything and there's no need to fix it. They won't because we just keep going up to the right and we go, well, the most important election. I got to make sure that Biden doesn't win again.

Great. So Trump wins. Four years later, what do we get, AOC? And then four years later, what do we get, Ted Cruz? And then four years, what do we get, Omar? Remember something. Please never forget this. For you guys who are all worried about, I gotta make sure this is the right election.

Remember something. Bush got us Obama. Obama got us Trump. Trump got us Biden. Nobody's winning here. I don't care whether you lean left or lean right nobody's winning nothing's changing if you get a powerful third party that can begin to move the other parties and that's doing something something might change why would the libertarian party not trigger a similar backlash in the opposite direction what's the opposite direction like i would suppose more government authority. Wouldn't they trigger the...

It's already happening. This topian thing is already happening. But it can always get worse. People who voted for Trump liked Trump. They got everything they wanted from him. They got an end to the TPP. They got Biden. They wanted that?

They got Biden. No, no, no. People who voted for Biden didn't want Biden. Okay. Well, they wanted Trump to drain the swamp. Voting for Trump... People who voted for Trump were happy with Trump. And. Well, they wanted Trump to drain the swamp. Voting for Trump. People who voted for Trump were happy with Trump. But they're not happy with Biden.

That's why 13 million more people voted for Trump in 2020. But they're not happy with Biden. It doesn't matter if you get Biden. The problem – so listen. If you're mad about Bush and you're mad about Obama, but then you're happy about Trump and then you're mad about Biden, you're going to vote for Trump again because Trump is what you want. Great. So you get Trump for four years. Then you get who next? You get Kamala Harris?

I mean, you're just, you're delaying your pain for four years. I'm saying begin to fix the system. I'm saying people voted for Trump because he was what they wanted. They weren't voting against. I got you. People who loved Obama think Obama was great.

People who love Trump think Trump was wonderful. So if you love Obama or you love Trump, what, are you going to keep waiting for another Obama or Trump to come? What happens when there's no Trump or Obama up top? What happens when the system is so broken there will be no more Trumps? I don't see you offering anything outside of if people want to vote for Trump because Trump gave them what they wanted, why wouldn't they vote for him? Because they're going to lose it in four years. That's why. But why?

They're going to vote for a libertarian. They're going to lose it in four years. No, they're not because when libertarians begin, when any third party begins to make actual impact, things will begin to change. Ross Perot showed us that. Ross Perot, as he tried to do good – I was a Ross Perot supporter back in the 90s. When Ross Perot tried to do good, he did try to do good. I think he thought he was doing the right thing. He wound up closing the door behind all of us because once the left and right saw that Ross Perot could actually make any impact, they then created systems to make sure no third parties can ever do anything ever again.

And then Trump won through the system. He went through the system, correct. He crushed the TPP, which both Republicans and Democrats wanted, which was a shock to a lot of people. Well, and I want to mention too, you're talking about one candidate getting another candidate. I think bringing up Ross Perot is a little ironic. I like him, but there's a good argument to be made that he got us Clinton. Otherwise it would have been George Bush Sr. Yes, but let's say he did.

Or that Nader got us Bush. But let's say that he was able to actually win, to think of argument. Perot was able to actually make a change where he actually won. That would have shaken everything up. And I'd rather have that. If you look at what's happening now, it's not good. It's a uniparty. At least that's how it's been referred to.

And here's my problem. So to some extent, I agree with you. So I'm conservative. I think the republican party they're mostly empty suits but then there are republicans who come along who i really do agree with and think would do good things and in that case i can't vote for libertarian i used to be libertarian but then but but then here's my problem with that is for people who are not completely ideologically libertarian introducing the libertarian party is just giving them the

lesser of three evils rather than the lesser of two evils and it's like if i'm gonna vote for the lesser evil i'm gonna vote for the people who are more likely to win to mitigate the destruction that the other side is trying to bring against me and here's what i would buy with that if you want to do that it's great but then find the guys that you like or the gals that you like that are running the problem is we get dismissed right shane hazel's running right now in georgia ricky harrington jr is running right now in in arkansas believe it or not we actually have a presidential candidate mike term Mike Tremont. That's T-E-R-M-A-A-T for those of you online. He's actually running for president right now, right? He's already started. He's starting now, but they'll be dismissed. What I'm asking anyone to do is to simply say, you know what,

if you're a third party, particularly libertarian, I'm biased, but look at a third party with the same way you'd look at a left or a right. And if you find the guy or gal you like, vote for them. Because if they begin to do well, they will affect others. But once you start saying, if you're telling me I like this Republican, please vote for that Republican. If you're telling me, this Republican sucks, but he's not a Democrat. That's the wrong reason, in my view, to vote for a Republican. I completely agree. But what I think is being overlooked is that Donald Trump was not a traditional Republican. He was not part of the Uniparty.

He brought in a wave of new voters, people who never voted before. And so he just basically stormed into the Republican Party, forced the neocons to join the Democrats, people like Bill Kristol, people like the Lincoln Project, and people voted for him because he gave them exactly what they wanted. And it was so good for many of them that he went from i think 62 million votes in 2016 to 74 in 2020 still the people who voted for biden didn't want biden they just hated trump correct so i i don't i don't see i i understand the point about it's bad that it's just left and right but here's my point but if someone like trump was nowhere near a traditional republican and no way to change unless changes so imagine if he had run as a third party and could actually if there was a system

involved where he could actually run his third party that's the thing that's why he ran as republican but he ran as republican though also as something else a very popular person who was also wealthy how are you going to keep finding that And do we want that to be the thing that we're always looking for? That's not a good idea. We have to break a system. But that makes no sense. Tell me why. They like Trump for his attitude. He happened to have been wealthy. Ron DeSantis

is now rivaling Trump, and he's not like Trump in many ways. He's like Trump in certain policy ways, but he's got military experience. He's younger, and he's nowhere near as wealthy. But he could actually win a presidential election. So the issue is... Lots of people can win

a presidential election. The point I'm making is that you've got Rhonda Sanders and Donald Trump running and the people are excited for them and enthusiastic about them. They're getting what they want. Just saying,

well, if you vote for it, you're going to get Biden. It's like, sure, you've got bad, ignorant people in this country who vote against things you like. You'll never change that. But if you've got people you do like who are running and you're like, this is fantastic, vote for it. Let me give you a good example, since I know

you like what Trump did. All right. Some of it. Trump in the first couple years struggled a bit. Most people would agree with that. He struggled to get on track. The system was against him. I blame Russiagate for that, yeah. Well, the system was against him, right? The system was against him, right? So he couldn't get what he wanted. If you look instead at, say, someone like Obama, also struggled the first year. But guys like Clinton and Bush, who were former governors, didn't struggle as much their first year. They kind of knew how to deal with the system.

So both of them were able to get more stuff done in the first year or two than Obama and Trump because theoretically, they were more outsiders than those first two. So wouldn't it be better if you had a system where you could have a third party that could move both sides? To your point earlier, the Democratic Party is supposed to be about civil liberties. They're clearly not. But they're supposed to be. Libertarians are.

Why do you say that? You don't think they're about civil liberties? No, absolutely not. That's what I said. They're supposed to be, though. No, no. They say all the time. They they're supposed to be libertarians why do you say that you don't think they're about civil liberties no absolutely not that's what i said they're supposed to be them no they say they're not supposed to be yes they are oh my god yes absolutely if you go back to the 60s and 70s democrats were the ones about free speech well yeah the left 100 absolutely they're supposed to be about they're not but they're supposed to be it's we say supposed to be it's like a very short-lived and new thing for Democrats relative to the history of this country. I mean Democrats historically were the opposing civil rights for people.

Yes. And even to this day – Yes. But even today, they're pro-segregation. They're anti-free speech. But if you ask – It's like a small blip in history. But if you ask a Democrat, they always talk about democracy and freedom.

So their rhetoric is that. But they're not that. The Republicans are supposed to be about small business, less taxes. They're really not about that either. There's more debt. So they're about more debt than anything else. They're not that either. But if you had a third party to shift them and move them towards where they want to be, it would be

a better system. I don't want to wait for whatever... You've got to change the voting system. Yes. I've got to go to Super Chats. We have to go to Super Chats. That was hot. What a button. Absolutely, yes. Change the system.

We've got to change the voting system. We have to go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and head over to TimCast.com.

We're going to have more coming up at 11 p.m. tonight for members only. The uncensored version, which will be a whole lot of fun. We'll continue this discussion. So we've got Ozzy Headshot says, Buck Buck. Yes. tonight for members only the uncensored version which will be a whole lot of fun we'll continue this discussion so we've got ozzy headshot says buck buck yes that's right thank you buck buck chickens all right jk says we should all start calling monkey pox jane's revenge well okay all right all right storm huffman says seamus and crew i tried to ask you a question about catholicism

and youtube refunded my super chat ever hear about anything like that it's either the deep church or the deep state that's oppressing it they don't want you i'm kidding i didn't know anything about that beavis mclean says proposal timcast does a documentary in the spirit of matt walsh's what is a woman wherein a man goes to planned parenthood identifies as a pregnant woman in need of an abortion to see how far Planned Parenthood goes to entertain the claim except Stephen Crowder

already did that several years ago. That's correct. And they entertained it all the way. Completely. And he was actually angry because he said

that he was pregnant and if a man takes a pregnancy test and it comes back positive it typically means you have cancer. That's right. And he was like

they should have told me that but they didn't. right none of your business says this is for ian's graphene revolution when are you going to crowdfund prototypes you know what are you doing ian uh i'll talk i i just need a little inspiration here guys if that's what you want me to do if that's what you want to do if you want to create a graphene revolution let's do it right on all right astral says tim do you have any do, if you want to create a graphene revolution, let's do it. Right on. All right. Astral says, Tim, do you have any updates on when you'll drop more music?

Will of the People has been on repeat every day, and I'm absolutely thirsting for more. So the Will of the People album will be coming out mid-August. We've already got, I think we have 10 songs that are set to be on it. Just today I was listening to the drums. We've got Pete Parata, formerly of The Off the offspring who's doing the drum tracks for us so we've got uh i think we have like 10 songs demoed out and now they're going into full production so it's gonna be great and then i i think that that i don't think that includes will of the people which will will be on it for its official release we released that for the that just before the election in 2020.

And it's just been a short film thing that I made. So if you haven't seen it, check out Will of the People on YouTube. It's a song and short film. And the actual album release with everything will be probably mid-August. And we'll do a big ad campaign

for the Will of the People album by Timcast. So there you go. It's really good stuff. I posted on Instagram some demo, like small clips of songs so you can hear them and uh yeah not complete mind you all right subversive with justin o'donnell says if

democrats really cared about roe v wade they would have used their majorities in congress and the senate and a democrat presidency to codify it before the decision was released 100 correct that's my point about them not solving anything. You're 100% correct. That's exactly accurate. They don't solve anything. They want to make sure that they can throw something like that against you. Who did they try to codify? I thought we talked about this.

They tried to expand it, but they couldn't get past the filibuster. Who was the Freedom Caucus guy we had on? The congressman? Randy? Yeah. Why can't I remember his name? Too guests sorry i think it was him but we were told that uh when they were trying to vote down obamacare the republicans actually said no no no no don't vote it down we need the wedge issue yes absolutely yeah so they're just they're just playing you because they want to we're fighting against this yeah yes then when trump actually gets in on culture war issues the establishment republicans

are like help us democrats and now they're all democrats there you go i love how the lincoln party was like we're gonna restore the party of lincoln and then trump loses and they're like no we're still democrats okay dude oh yeah randy weber randy weber there we go a little slow gideon aoz says if there is a civil war leading to two separate nations or a peaceful divorce which side gets to keep the name the United States of America? Neither. I don't think either. Well, it wouldn't be the United States.

By definition, not the United, yeah. But if it did – No, it will be whatever side does not call itself the rebellion, right? If one side is going to say they're the rebellion, one side is going to say that. The left will never call itself the rebellion right if if one side is going to say that the rebellion the left will never call itself the united states of america then they won't have it then they're going to be like this country at the race so we're changing the name then then they'll be the ones they're going to call it like the oppressors colonies of there we go of of what's what's europe no what's the indigenous name for the flag's going to be them self-flagellating. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

The national anthem is I'm sorry. Oh, I am sorry. Beautiful. Connor Brown says, Bill C-11 just passed here in Canada. It's the internet censorship bill and drastically limits the media Canadians can consume and which content creators can make money.

Rip free speech in Canada. What was that bill called? C-11. Jeez. Yeah. Did you look it called? C-11. Jeez. Yeah. Did you look it up? Yeah, I'm looking at it now. What happened to Canada?

It was always a British colony. I know Canadians get pissed at me when I say that, but I mean, it's basically part of the British Commonwealth, not a colony. It still is. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. It's part of it. It's like the queen has her thumb on something over there.

Australia and New Zealand too. And Trudeau's just got the right to start taking people's guns and banning free speech. Yeah, but they never had that right forever. What happened to them? You do not have a right to defend yourself with a gun. That is not a right that Canadians have. I saw a video of him when he was in high school, and he is such a smarmy piece of crap, dude. Wow.

Being family friendly about it. You are right. He was when he was 18. His dad was a super famous politician, so now he got to be a... Let's read some more. Jemma says, what's Larry's opinion

of the Mises caucus taking over the Libertarian Party, LPNC? The Mises caucus takeover is a symptom. It's a symptom of a party that didn't do enough to make things happen. And when

the Mises caucus decided to start organizing, people came to me and said, the Mises was kidding me. They said, Larry, will you be on our advisory board? I said, sure. I'm happy to help you out. And then I went to other caucuses. Are you guys want my help? They went, no. Mises is bad. And I said, well, if you want to stop Mises, what you could do is counter-organize. If you think they're bad, you could always just counter-organize and grow bigger and badder. And they didn't. And Mises grew and organized and took over. And I'm not complaining.

It is what it is. I think it's a normal thing. I think for the party in the long run, in the short run, it's bad for me, in the short run, because the Civil War Libertarian Party has been in has hurt me as as a candidate. People have decided to not help, walked away from the party. So it did hurt me when it came to fundraising and volunteers. So in the short run, it was hurtful for me. But in the long run, I think it's great because in the long run, either the Mises Caucus will do well and make the party do well, or others will come in and learn from them and also grow. So I think it's part of growing pains, and I'm not unhappy about it. Dave Smith, 2024? I want anybody popular to include him. In my perfect world, it's somebody popular, because what I want in 2024 is the

Libertarian Party to gain electoral votes, whether that's a chunk of Nebraska, whether that's Utah, part of Maine. I don't care. I want some gold on that map. And to make that happen, we need someone popular. I would take Dave Smith. He's popular. Absolutely.

I would take anyone. I would take Drew Carey. He's a Libertarian. I would take Kurt Russell. I would take Dave Smith. I would take anybody who's popular. I want a popular person to be running for president. It will not be me, by the way. I'm not Kurt Russell. I would take Dave Smith. I would take anybody who's popular. I want a popular person to be running for president. It will not be me, by the way.

I'm not that popular. If I all of a sudden became popular, I would consider it, but I'm not that popular. So anyone who is popular is what I want. I think that's what matters for the party, and that would include Dave Smith for me. All right. Randall Eskimo says the writings of the founding fathers make clear that by well-regulated meant well-distributed and well-provisioned. Regulations were very often the records of having the necessary supplies and abilities to restock needs. Yeah, regulation does not mean what it means now.

Which is why the British regulars were called that. They were regulated. It doesn't mean the government was controlling them necessarily, although the British crown was. It meant they were well-equipped, well-armed, and well-trained. Also for that, my understanding is Paul Revere never said the British are coming. That would make no sense because they were subjects of Britain. He said the regulars are coming. Although, I don't know.

I read that in some book you read in bathrooms. You ever see those books? Those are great. Yeah, like they're made for being in bathrooms. Yeah, the regulars are coming as a much more valuable piece of knowledge for the people to know because they know what kind of enemy to be ready for like imagine if if like you know fbi was showing up and someone ran by like the americans are coming you'd be like what the army's coming you're like what do you mean is it the tanks are coming is what you

would say exactly yes soldiers yeah all right what do we got? Batman says National Guard is not the militia. Per Constitution, the militia is forbidden from foreign deployment, while National Guard is obviously not. Yeah, the argument is that the militia, the local militias were formally molded into the National Guard or whatever. But militia back then basically meant a bunch of local dudes who were armed. That's what it meant. And as long as you're well regulated then the government has no right to break you up what do you mean that's what that i meant well regulated meant like a well-armed you're not a mob basically like no no no no no

no you were you could be a mob it meant you were well armed like you had good working guns but regulate also means you're trained no uh you're not breaking it doesn't mean that you're not breaking regulated was like no but if you if you're trained. No. You're not breaking – does it mean that you're not breaking the law? Regulated was like – No, but if you're going with the argument of regular like as in the British Army regulated, then to make regular would mean to train. I suppose theoretically, but in the terms of a bunch of farmers who have guns, I don't think the founding fathers were like – But those are literally called the regulars. I'm talking about the mafia.

Right, right, right. What I'm saying is – Those are literally called the regulars. I'm talking about the mafia. Right, right, right. What I'm saying is a well-regulated militia theoretically could mean like they weren't sending out the army to train farmers. Farmers, it was just like we want them to have guns and to know how to use them. But the Minutemen literally would drill. The Minutemen weren't militia. They were Continental Army. Or are you talking about the Minutemen were militia?

Yeah, the Minutemen were militia? Yeah, the Minutemen were militia and they literally drilled. I mean, they were like similar to the once a week we come out and march around or we do some shooting

with our guns or, right, and we have some form. Were they under the command of the Continental Army? No, they weren't, but they had a command structure. You would know that

the mayor or whoever was the person, he'd be the captain of the company or something. But this is still – like the point I'm saying is that a bunch of farmers who have guns and train with them at their own discretion is very different from trained military. A hundred percent, yes. But there would be some training. To be a militia, there would be some training. You have to show up once a month or whatever the thing is, march around and learn how to use your weapons.

But that's like you and your neighbors being like, hey, on the third Friday, we're all going to go out shooting. You'd be like, all right. Yeah, but it probably would have been something that would be official, right? Like the mayor would say, hey, you can use the parade grounds on every Thursday or something like that. But my point is when it was official, you're talking about a town of like 100 people or something small. So we got to separate that from the context of today where you have a mayor of a town of 300,000 you've never met before calling people to come out. Different world. My point is basically it was like you and your neighbors going out and some guy with 50 acres being like, you guys can use my land if you want to go shooting, which still happens today.

All right. All right. Let's see. Let's grab some more. A lot of Second Amendment ones, which i think we addressed a lot of we beat that one down a bit yeah all right uh what do we got here charles wan says they don't care they won't debate they don't want a conversation they want a tyrannical government to force their beliefs on you and your children but who are they who are they uh i think he's talking about leftists i want names i want names it's good

all right dragon dragon's talon says district of columbia v heller the supreme court held the second amendment protects the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. Right. And then McDonald v. Chicago was, this right extends to all states, not just federal, the federal government.

And so all of a sudden in Chicago, everybody was buying guns and they were, the city was freaking out and they were angry about it. Now what we need is for the Supreme Court to say, requiring permission from the government is an infringement upon your right to keep and bear arms. And then permits are gone. No more permits. Everybody just have a gun.

Go buy one. And body armor too. Well, New York didn't just ban body armor? Just ban body armor. That's armed. Why? Yeah, because again, we'll just do things because we'll take action on things

that make no sense whatsoever. And how do they define body armor? Probably stupidly is my assumption because they'll, you know, yes, I have a phone in my pocket. That's body armor. Put him in jail. I'm sure that's what they'll say. You know what they were doing in Thailand is they were taking sheets of X-ray film, layering it, and then putting it in the tactical vests to hold because it provided some protection, particularly from blunt force objects.

They argued it could stop some rounds, but probably not rifle rounds. But they swore by it. That body armor? Yeah. No, no. The worst part is in Buffalo, which was our shooting, the only guy who stood up, right, because he was one armed guy there at the actual supermarket. He was a former cop.

He turned and fired. The kid he hit didn't go down because the kid had body armor, and the kid put him down because he didn't. So now what our answer is to make sure guys like him will never have body armor. I don't know how that makes any sense, but that's what we've done in New York. Tony T says,

Ian, if they strip the right to keep and bear arms, the people cannot create a well-regulated militia to fight enemies both foreign and domestic. It would just be a protest at that point. Yeah, but I also, regardless of whether or not they're armed, I think that a militia has fight enemies both foreign and domestic it would just be a protest at that point yeah but i also regardless of whether or not they're armed i think that a militia has a right to form yeah before police they had militia and then i was reading about the history of police because the left likes to push this lie that police are the remnants of slave catchers and it's like actually yeah sometimes but, sometimes, but typically no. But they also think

everything's the remnant of slavery. Right. Yeah. Most police departments were just an expansion of local law enforcement, sheriffs and deputies

and stuff. And they were like, hey, we need something like this, but like, you know, in the city. And they're like, okay. And it was, I think it was done

in France first. And then, yeah. Before that, in a lot of areas, you just have a militia and they'd catch somebody and they'd bring them to the sheriff or whatever or the courts would deal with it.

Free Golem says, red flag laws equals state-sanctioned swatting. Yes. That is correct. Correct. Very true. Cody Bridgers says, the Constitution is not poorly written. Ian is poorly read. Ooh, smackdown.

I don't know. I mean, it is a 250-year-old document. We could probably update it I actually gotta say I don't know if it's that it's poorly written other than the fact that language changes and you have what is it the textualists versus what's the other phrase

like the people who read it verbatim by text the Supreme Court justices versus those who like interpret what they think it's supposed to mean I don't know originalists the textualists are the bad. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Absolutely. The textualists are the bad ones.

They're like, well, it says well-regulated. That means the government has to control it. And then the originalists are like, no, that's not what it means. That's not what regular meant back then. Regulation has a different meaning

now than it had then. Then it literally meant to make regular versus now it means to control. Justin Clark says, in modern colloquial English, 2A is, quote, because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And that's basically where we're at right now with the Supreme Court and how they see it. And I'm hoping, I just want them to go nuts. I want to see like, I don't know,

Alito or Thomas, just with their glowing red eyes, just drop the opinion and it says like everyone gets guns. Period. Yeah. I'm half kidding, by the way. I think if people want to change the rules, you have to get the amendments in. So when people are like, we should ban this, I'm like, by all means, get the votes to amend the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution and the reason it exists as it is, and if you want to amend it, it's very difficult,

is because democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for lunch, but a republic is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. So you do not get to take away my right to keep and bear arms because you don't like it even if you're in the majority. Sorry. Too bad. All right. Daniel Brent says, having a BLM flag, aederate flag what if i flew a literal red flag

could that reporter that felt intimidated by the american by american flags call them in this will hopefully get shot down in the courts which one is that a reference to i don't know the communist is that what they want the red flag i don't know dimsum nimsum says there is a rating system caliber and grain weight to f bill maher he wanted recession to get rid of trump he got what he asked for he doesn't get to complain now yeah it's about the point it's about the point yeah i like that he calls out the wokeness the absurdity yeah i don't like that he's elite he's elitist he's snooty and he's not well read at all i'm just trying to say when when someone like him, who is a person who many people look at and see,

when he does something right, let's not attack him. Let's reward that good behavior. I agree. That's all I'm saying. And I think that is one of the strengths that the right for all of its present weaknesses still has, which is that when somebody says something good, we go, oh, that was good. Instead of going, they did something good. Let's find something they said 10 years ago to cancel them with.

Right. Very good. That said, we don't want to welcome them in the movement and say this guy's a conservative when he's been literally against us his entire life. But yes, when someone does something good, acknowledge it was good. Totally agree. All right. Twitchy Spaz says, Tim, you should invite Philip DeFranco on the show.

He used to be center right, but has fallen into leftist ideology. He's to be center-right, but has fallen into leftist ideology. He's about having a conversation, but he has nothing but leftist conversation. Phil would be absolutely welcome on this show. I don't know what he's up to. The last time I heard of him, he got Covington wrong. He came out against the Covington kids and, like, against his face.

Yeah, I don't really pay attention to what he's been doing other than that. I just mean, like, that's the one thing where people were, like, very critical critical of him did he apologize for that i don't know i'd assume he did i don't think he's a bad dude but i remember he uh didn't he interview gary johnson or he did something with the libertarian party back in like 2012 on youtube interesting yeah youtube i don't remember that yeah he's always been really politically engaged since like 06 i've known him way way way back when he was just Sexy Phil. S-X-E. Straight edge Phil.

Yeah. All black and white. Oh, that's what that was? S-X-E means straight edge. Sexy Phil. You ever hear his old theme song intro? Check it out. Look for it on YouTube.

He's not sexy. Sexy Phil. He's S-X-E. A. Murray says, right wing is individualism. The left is collectivism. Libertarians are default right. That's one of a million ways to look at it.

I think that's the modern definition. I think that's the modern definition. I would say conservative is family-based. Libertarian is more individualism, and then leftism is more collectivism. I think that's a more robust way of defining it. But you're right. That's a better way of defining it. But you're right. That's a better way of saying it. It's a better way.

But in the present cultural context, that is true. I mean, that is how it is viewed today. A free-thinking dog says, conservatism equals preservation of original intent, and that is individual liberty and self-governance. Selfish individuals have ruined the great experiment. Or the great experiment. This is a part of it.

It's ungovernable right now because over 700 000 people are represented by one yes that's incapable it's nonsense yep yeah and then you look at uh so you had flores i think was it flores myra flores yeah she won in that special election in texas right texas yeah and everyone's like red wave they're like this proves it she's like it's a landslide, like twice as many votes. And I'm like, bro, 28,000 people voted. Right. Like, I think 28,000 people voted for her and like 14 for the other guy in a district

of 700,000. Right. A special election is not indicative of what is going to happen when you get 200,000 people voting. However, I do think there is some data to extrapolate. The people who pay attention voted. Yeah, that's true. The people who pay attention are going to come out and vote. But if the people who pay attention are only 14,000

people, I don't think they'll move the needle all that much come the general election. Well, this was back to what you were talking about, right? What most of them want to do is they want to keep a culture war issue that's not solved to get the people who aren't paying attention to vote blindly for them, right? So if I am trying to get people blind left or blind right, I pick a cultural war issue and go, you got to stop this thing. So come on out and vote for me because of this thing. That's so dangerous.

It's like playing with fire. Yes. And the sparks fly and they can catch stuff. This is why it's ruining us. That's exactly right. You're correct. Yes. So I yell out, I say, look,

if you want to make sure that a woman will have a right to an abortion, you have to come out and vote, right? You say that. Oh, my God. And then people who feel that way who aren't paying attention go, oh, yes, I like women.

I'm not anti-woman. They go that and they run out and they vote and they vote for the other guy. Or what works even better is you just put Trump on the ballot. You put, nothing motivates the left to come out more than hatred of Trump. Oh, yeah, that's is you just put trump on the ballot you put nothing motivates the left to come out more than hatred of trump so yeah that's why trump on the ballot

and the left comes out in boats that's why i think uh it was robert barnes who was saying this they're not going to indict trump they're not going to do a criminal referral because if trump gets indicted then you get ron desantis and he wins on a landslide yep go i agree i agree i've been thinking about it and my my concern is i don't think Ron DeSantis is going to drain the swamp. I think he's going to try and just simmer things down but do right. I think he'll want to do the right thing, but he's going to try to avoid – I think he's going to make similar mistakes that Trump made. If Trump got in now, he would just be a ball in a china shop. He'd be firing everybody left and right.

He'd be gutting systems. He'd be just – I don't know, man. It's like he didn't do it last time but this time's gonna be different yeah i just don't see it he didn't do it last time and they destroyed him and now he's angry that's the anger doesn't get you there it's not anger that gets good personnel decisions made no i'm not talking about good personal decisions i'm talking about him just firing people who made him angry but who's he gonna replace it with i don't care out of anger just some idiot i don't care the executive branch has expanded its authority to an absurd degree relentlessly absolutely true i don't care oh my god i don't know how much power

one guy has to disrupt that you've got an administrative state that has no accountability and if trump just went and fired him i'd be happy ron desantis probably won't but i like desantis he's more professional he's got military experience. He can probably get a lot done. I'm just wondering if then four years later, the administrative state just carries on the way it always does. At first, I've heard a lot. DeSantis on foreign policy, I'm not convinced. What's up with his military experiences?

I saw he was in the Navy. Navy. And he served at Guantanamo. I don't know much about it. He served at Guantanamo? I didn't know that. I don't know about that. I just saw an article about it. And yeah, I've heard that he did something with the Israeli foreign policy about, what

was this, where you don't insult Israel? Is it BSD? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's read a couple more because we can get to the members only. We've got Dorktanian who says, The attempt to alter language to undermine legal and cultural norms is a consistent tactic that can be seen in most, if not all, identitarian cover labels, feminism, BLM, etc., until they move on to an untainted label.

Yeah, and it's like, I think it's in communist countries, they do the same thing. Yeah, you control the language. The movement I was mentioning is Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions, BDS. I don't know what – It means you don't want to do any business at all. The government will not do any business at all with Israel. We have this one more super chat. John Curry says Heller and McDonald protect body armor.

Read it. Very interesting. New York's in for some lawsuits. So we will see. My friends, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show anywhere you can. Head over to timcast.com and become a member

because we're going to have a members-only show coming up at 11 p.m. We do that Monday through Thursday. They are uncensored, and you don't want to miss it. As a member, you're helping support the expansion. We've got a couple documentaries in the works. We're doing one on gun control. We're doing one on the Federal Reserve.

That's the plan for now. We are launching. We've got Pop Culture Crisis, of course. We've got a couple documentaries in the works. We're doing one on gun control. We're doing one on the Federal Reserve. That's the plan for now. We are launching. We've got pop culture crisis, of course. We've got a couple new shows that we're planning on launching. Everything is going amazing. It's all thanks to you. So help continue that operation. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL.

You can follow me personally at TimCast. Larry, do you want to shout anything out? Absolutely, guys. I am running for governor, and I need help taking care of my petitioners. I need help with all. I'm getting double lawsuit. I'm getting sued by the Republican Party in my state to get me off the ballot. And I'm going to be in court twice. And I need help for that, guys. If you want to help me out with that, you can go to lpny.org. Head on down there and donate. They will help to take care of the lawsuits and the petitioners. You want to support me directly, LarrySharp.com.

Don't forget, that's Larry Sharp with an E, and the E stands for electable. All right. There you go. A lot of foresight on your parents' part to make sure that they would have that. They knew that.

My parents were thinking. This child will be electable. There's one thing he is. I'm Seamus Coggan. I want to make a quick addendum to something earlier. We were talking about Ross Perot. I said I liked him.

I'm not a fan. I liked sort of what he did with renting a spot on television talking about the deficit I thought that was cool but overall not a fan Seamus Coghlan freedomtunes.com if you guys want to go

over there alright five bucks a month you'll get an extra cartoon every week we have like seven cartoons up there right now you'll love them and we're going to be

releasing a new cartoon on the Freedom Tunes channel this Thursday. I think you all will enjoy it. So go over there and subscribe. I want to shout out Luke Rudkowski and We Are Change. I believe it's wearechange.com. I don't know, Luke. What's your website right now? Wearechange.org. And you can check it out on YouTube.

There's not much in life that feels better than enhancing your friends. So do it. See you later. I am also here. Thank you guys very much for tuning in. I enjoyed this conversation with Larry, as we always do. You guys may follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids, as well as SourPatchLids.me.

We will see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.