Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #559 - ROE V WADE OVERTURNED, Dems Call For INSURRECTION w/Austin Petersen & Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: June 25, 2022

Tim, Ian, Seamus of FreedomToons, and Lydia host libertarian commentator and radio personality Austin Petersen alongside of lawyer Will Chamberlain to discuss the most momentous judicial decision of our generation (thus far) and its implications, Democrats' freak-out over realizing that they might actually lose 'access to women's healthcare', and the Houses' passage of the gun control bill and red states' refusal to cooperate. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun.

And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey.

We expected this to happen. And I believe this is the biggest story of our generation and I don't know if I can speak for Gen Xers or Boomers or whatever for me this is massive it's the biggest story and there's threats of violence DHS has issued warning to churches

people are already protesting and I think on top of this is that the text from Clarence Thomas and his concurrence opens the door to overturning gay marriage and whatever else that might mean. There's a lot to talk about because we also have a bunch of gun control issues too because

we just had that ruling and now the states are reacting as well. So we're going to get into this. Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support the very important work we do. As a member, you get access to our exclusive segments from this show Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.

And you'll be supporting our journalists who have been covering these stories all day, sitting there, making sure to get the news out with the best facts, only the best facts, the correct ones. And you'll also be supporting our infrastructure. We use Rumble so that we can be more resilient to censorship. Without further ado, joining us to discuss all of this is Austin Peterson. Hey, thanks for having me, guys. You might know me from 2016.

I ran for president against Gary Johnson in the Libertarian primary, famous for saying that you shouldn't be able to sell heroin to five-year-olds. And kind of being a guy who pushed the issue of baking the cake. The whole question of should you be forced as a Christian to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. And that issue has come around full circle in many other ways in American politics now. These days I'm at a radio show and I also am a small business owner. I run the APforLibertyShop.com website. And doing entrepreneurial stuff, trying to advance liberty. And basically being at the forefront of Missouri politics these days, uh, trying to advance gun bills there and advance pro-life legislation there. And, you know, being a freedom fighter in general, I guess.

Right on. And, uh, so we originally did not have Will Chamberlain booked, but this morning when the, when the decision came down, I'm reading, I'm reading some of these opinions. I'm like, Will, can you come on? Cause we're going to need a lawyer for this one. Yep. Always good to be back. Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Internet Accountability Project, which fights big tech abuses, and the Article III Project, which fought to get Trump's justices confirmed.

And so we're pretty happy about that work today. Right on. Cool, cool, cool. So we'll need your legal perspective. We also got Ian. Everybody knows Ian. What's up, dudes? IanCrossland.net. Coming at you, Seamus. You look kind of happy today. Cool, cool, cool. So we'll need your legal perspective. We also got Ian. Everybody knows Ian. IanCrossland.net. Coming at you, Seamus.

You look kind of happy today. Why do you say that? Is it because this is one of the greatest days in American history? Is that why I seem happy? Why aren't you? We're all laughing together. This is fantastic. One thing for you to do now is make a wish. Okay.

What did you wish for? Fatalia won't come true, buddy. I'm just kidding. I'm not superstitious. I've not been wishing. I have been praying along with many of you, and we still have work to do, but this is incredible. This is incredible.

So what did you wish for? I don't like wish. All right. I like pray. But also, I would like for, I am praying for abortion to be illegal nationwide. There you go. Mike Pence issued a similar statement. We'll talk all about that. He had a cake, too?

He did? No, no. But for those that are just listening, they're probably like, why is everyone laughing? What's going on? It's because Seamus has a cake. Which he's cutting into right now. Why is everyone laughing? It's because Seamus has a cake that says end of row with the number 6-24. And he blew the candles out and made a wish. Look, I mean, political victories in general are rare.

Victories of this magnitude are once in a lifetime or can be once in a lifetime. We're going to make sure it's not once in a lifetime, though, folks. We're going to fight for abortion to be illegal at the federal level. But today, yeah, I'm going to celebrate gonna celebrate eat your cake we also got lydia i am here in the corner it is a great day for me as well you guys all know that i'm super freaking pro-life and i tweeted today guns check abortion x that is the america i'm going for i'm feeling really good as well i know we have more to do just let me celebrate it today looking forward to it all right let's jump into the first story we got here from TimCast.com.

Everybody knows by now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, as well as Casey. And in concurrence, Clarence Thomas wrote, basically opening the door to overturning gay marriage. The text of SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision opens door to upend gay marriage. Justice Thomas

calls gay marriage precedents demonstrably erroneous, saying in future cases we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, meaning those rulings are not guaranteed to escape future judicial scrutiny. I'm going to stop

right there and ask Will, break this down for us, because some reports were saying, no, no, no, this has no bearing whatsoever on gay marriage. But it certainly sounds like Clarence Thomas was like, we should overturn those wrongs. So those reports are correct. Ultimately, like the underlying decision here in Dobbs does not actually implicate necessarily other substantive due process precedents. So what is substantive due process?

So think about what is the due process guarantee, right? It's you have the, you know, the government can't take away your life, liberty of property without due process of law. And so most people wouldn't understand that to mean, oh, due process, like procedural protections, like they can't take away my property without a hearing and notice telling you that they're going to do it and a chance to appeal, things like that. So that's, um, that's what most people think of when they think of due process. However, the court, in order to protect certain rights that they felt were so essential

that no process would be sufficient to justify the government depriving you of them, they came up with this kind of substantive due process doctrine that was used to effectively create new rights. And that doctrine has been used to protect the right to use contraception, the right to marry the person of your choice, et cetera. Now, so then the question

is, okay, well, Roe was also based on this substantive due process idea. Does overturning Roe mean all substantive due process is dead? The answer to that is no. Basically, if you read Dobbs, they didn't say substantive due process was wrong in the majority opinion. They said, here's how you interpret substantive due process. And it's basically like, is there a really robust historical justification or tradition of having this right, even if it wasn't spelled in the Constitution? And they said that for abortion, that's not true. They're just historically abortion was routinely banned throughout the state. So there's not like a historical backing for it. But throughout the Dobbs opinion, they're basically saying this doesn't necessarily implicate any of the other substantive due process rights.

Those have to go through the same analysis. We're not getting rid of substantive due process entirely. But it sounds like Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas would want to, but his views are pretty idiosyncratic on this point in among the justices. Like I actually, as a legal matter, I kind of agree with Clarence Thomas in the sense that I think substantive due process as a doctrine is incoherent nonsense, but bad person. I know, but that, that said, like, you know, I don't, I don't think, you know, if you had a court case to try and overturn Obergefell on the grounds that substantive due process is, should incoherent and you would, I think that that would lose eight one.

Can I ask about the, what about interracial marriages? How was that decided? How was the interracial marriage question decided in that same sense? So I think, I think interracial marriage, and again, I'm, I'm have to reach back because I haven't read Loving versus Virginia, which is the relevant case in a while. But I think that's an equal protection case. And that's a distinct doctrine, right? So kind of, you know, substantive due processes, some rights are so important they cannot be deprived of you no matter what. Equal protection is people must be treated the same way, right?

You can't, you know, if there is an existing right, you can't deprive it arbitrarily to one subset of people. Isn't that the argument in Obergefell? So I think Obergefell is like this weird mishmash of both substantive due process and equal protection because Anthony Kennedy was not, may he rest in peace, or no, he's still alive. He just retired. Anthony Kennedy was not- What a shout out. Sorry. He's still alive.

Wrote a bunch of really terrible decisions from a legal perspective. I mean, it's not even like outcome. I don't care. He was more conservative than not. But just reading his opinions was like reading a bad writer, like somebody who just wasn't very smart. And so you read his opinions and they don't make sense. So Obergefell was written by Kennedy. And so it's not doctrinally precise.

I think we're going to need a Supreme Court ruling legalizing cloning. So Obergefell was written by Kennedy, so it's not doctrinally precise. I think we're going to need a Supreme Court ruling legalizing cloning so that we can clone Clarence Thomas and then nominate him eight more times. But we've got to clone Joe Biden a bunch of times, too, to try to keep stopping him from getting out of the Supreme Court. Oh, right. Yeah, that's great. And just berate him. You know, from a logic perspective, I'm reading Clarence Thomas and I'm like, what he's saying makes total sense.

And then reading the dissents, I'm just like, on the gun issue, and here I'm like, they have no idea what they're talking about, do they? Well, I'm glad you're making an effort to read from more people of color. So do we owe Ruth Bader Ginsburg a debt of gratitude? A little bit.

Do we say thank you, RBG? You know what's even more painful? We might owe Mitch McConnell a debt of gratitude. To be completely honest. He did pretty good. Credit where it's due. He didn't just get the three Trump justices confirmed, he also stopped Merrick Garland.

He did. Before I sit here and laugh and agree with Seamus on this one, I'd actually... Seamus, I know you have a cake. You're celebrating this. Will, are you happy to see Roe overturned? Yeah. I mean, I think we've talked about this before. I would consider myself modestly pro-choice.

I think that we've talked about this before. I think you and I agree basically on that. Right. So you're both wrong, man. It's tough. It's tough, right? I also come at this from a lawyer. Roe was a literal abortion of a decision.

It's an abortion of legal reasoning. I don't like that abortion. What about you, Austin? So I'm more with Seamus on this one, and I consider myself a pro-life libertarian, and I think that all humans deserve the same equal protections, equal rights, rights equal liberty and that the unborn should be protected in the womb and that's because libertarians believe in personal responsibility number one so elective abortions are heinous like we were talking about before the show yeah but you know but even in the question of rape i mean you have to ask yourself you know what percentage of people that are alive today are the result of rape? How many of those people are glad they're alive?

How many of those people would say, I'm so thankful to be here and that I'm glad that they decided to adopt? My little sister, for example, and I hope she doesn't mind that I talk about this, but it's kind of an open family thing. She's adopted. My parents and her family, they had to have a conversation to try and get her to the mother not to kill her wow and then they said please don't do that and then once she was born the mother didn't want her gave her to the babysitter and um you know i remember being a young man 10 years old seeing my little sister for the first time, five months old, looking up in the most beautiful brown eyes and saying to myself, I'm so thankful that she's alive and that she's here. And now I have a little sister.

And I have a nephew, Mario. Shout out to Mario. I love you so much, by the way. He's an awesome nephew, a great kid. And my family is more full and complete because without adoption and you know are we talking about adoption we need to be talking about adoption more we need to be making adoption more easy legally it's very difficult to do it it's almost like buying a baby these days you've got to be rich to go and buy a baby but we should be talking about that we should be

protecting life we should look at life as a consistent ethic and i believe in a consistent pro-life ethic not because i'm religious because'm not, but because I do believe that all humans deserve the same individual natural rights, and they should be protected from reasonable idea of conception until natural death. So, Ian, I don't think you're as politically active as anyone else here. I'm curious, are you happy to see Roe v. Wade overturned? Well, I have mixed feelings. It's not making abortion illegal, and I think that's something people got to realize.

It's just giving the states the ability to choose. I think that less abortion is a good thing. I don't know if making it illegal is going to make less abortion. It probably will in the long run. And I think late-term abortions are absolutely gruesome. Yeah, they're barbaric. I mean, you're a full-grown human at like four months or five months. That's like a small human being at five months.

You can see it. It's like living and moving and all that stuff. But I don't know. I was expecting it once it leaked. I still got mixed feelings. I want to talk about the legal implications of this because I want to know more. And obviously, Lydia is celebrating along with Seamus. I am over the moon about this.

And I think one of the things that I think people need to argue when they talk about how the conservative Christians don't care about babies once they're born, that's an out and out lie. You know, those pregnancy centers that they're firebombing right now, those are the Christian church's response to abortion. Those help mothers in need. They help people who need the kind of help. They give free ultrasounds they give free clothing they give diapers they give bottles they give shoes they teach parents how to parent they have a response it's a very real response so don't take any of that argument from them they're full of nonsense my my position is is you know i said before the show rather

dispassionate um you know i grew up i think i you know will and i agree on like a moderate kind of pro-choice but it doesn't exist anymore in modern politics. It is basically the left is pro-abortion. They're being asked about late-term abortion, and the response from prominent Democrats is it's the woman's choice. And I'm kind of just like – my attitude is if the woman has a health issue and the baby can't – like she can't carry the baby anymore. But the baby is viable, meaning it can live outside the womb. Why kill the baby? And there's no legitimate answer that I've received because I don't think there is a legitimate answer. It's completely dismissive of the idea that the state might have an interest in the life of an unborn child, which is an absurd position.

Yeah. So I'll say this one more thing, too. Considering how insane everything's gotten in this country, I don't know if this is good or bad in terms of the rising conflict, but I'd imagine it's probably better that the states can enforce their own laws. I feel like it may result in more geographic hyperpolarization, which could be a bad thing, probably is a bad thing, in terms of keeping this country together. But I'm also concerned about the

idea that for too long you've had people who live very different lives in very different worlds are legislating for people who live on in in different ways and and and this mostly is a view based on guns because people in cities are like guns should all be banned and then it's like bro we had a bear on our porch a couple months ago like i'm sorry dude you're not taking my guns away and and aside from that like i know it's not an issue of hunting or it's an issue of my right to defend myself the people who live in cities sure i get you're not worried about bears i'm all but you should be worried about murderers and criminals because crime is skyrocketing so look the people who live in cities should not be passing laws that directly change the way of life for people who live totally

different lives and then i see bills like this and I'm like, it's probably better off this way. Yeah. I'm not super positive, but. So there's a couple of things I really want to say about this. You're mentioning civil unrest, the fact that this country is so polarized. I agree that there's a chance this is going to increase polarization. It almost certainly will. But I don't believe that unity can or ever should come at the expense of goodness, beauty,

or truth. I believe that there are some things you can't compromise on. I'll also say this. What the Supreme Court decided today was not simply that states are allowed to extend protection to the lives of unborn children. They decided that the thugs and terrorists who are mobbing outside of the homes of Supreme Court justices, attempting to assassinate them and kidnap their families and firebombing pro-life charities do not get to decide what law is in this country that is a massive win for rule of law and not as many people are talking about that we'll explain that a little bit because every single

other institution for the past several years has been caving into the mob on everything there was no serious condemnation from any of our political institutions or the corporate world over the BLM riots or the 529 insurrection, as we like to call it here. There was absolutely no condemnation of it. No one was punished for it. They got away with it, and in fact, their goals were forwarded because of it. They mocked the president.

They mocked the president when he was forced into a bunker because rioters outside of the White House had breached through the barriers of it. They mocked the president. They mocked the president when he was forced into a bunker because rioters outside of the White House had breached through the barriers after assaulting 150 federal agents and setting fire to a church. And the response from the media was how mean

of it was Donald Trump to disperse through those rioters to go over to the church to have a photo shoot. How dare he? A peaceful protest. A peaceful protest. Mostly. And so what we are seeing here is, and I think we really need to pay attention to this, it is the first time in the last several years that any of our major institutions

has stood up for itself and said, no, we're not going to let violent thugs tell us how to run our country. Let's jump to this next story from TimCast.com. Democrats call Supreme Court illegitimate. Urge resistance following abortion decision. This is a story from Adrian Norman from TimCast. Rep Maxine Waters told protesters to

hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them. AOC was yelling illegitimate. And I should say urging resistance? You mean urging insurrection and violence. Now as much as I will joking should say urging resistance. You mean urging insurrection and violence. Now, as much as I will jokingly say urging insurrection, and I'm making a point by saying it, I do appreciate that at TimCast.com we don't use that loaded language. But the point I'm making when I say insurrection is these Democrats are coming out right now and saying no to the Supreme Court.

And more importantly, and maybe you can comment on this more, Will, the DOJ Garland came out and rebuked both the gun decision and Roe v. Wade. When does the DOJ do that? It doesn't. That's not its job, right? The DOJ is there to enforce. Has it ever come out and announced it would defy or is resistant. I've never seen a DOJ independently make announcements and pronounce on how much it disagreed with a Supreme Court decision.

That's new to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Trump DOJ under Barr ever doing anything like this. And I think that's because that's the role. I mean, it's supposed to... There's two big reasons. One is that the DOJ is supposed to have this nominal appearance of independence, right? Like they're the enforcers of the laws, the people who make the decision about who to prosecute, who not to prosecute.

So like them at least trying to appear unbiased should be important, which is clearly they're just not. And then secondly, you know, they go in front of the Supreme Court regularly. I mean, the U.S. government is routinely a litigant in front of the Supreme Court defending its own laws, you know, working relationship with the courts. In fact, like the Solicitor General is often called like the 10th justice because they're supposed, they're so often in front of the court. And the idea that DOJ would jeopardize that by just going, you know, the Attorney General being like, you're all wrong and you're idiots. Like, okay, do, I mean, that's, that could, that actually breaking that relationship, maybe it's good because you want the government to lose in the Supreme Court a lot, but it's very unique and bizarre. Are you putting more icing on the cake? Yeah, I'm putting more icing on the cake.

I'm not going to stop celebrating, but you made this point and you're saying that it could be great if the Supreme Court just starts siding against the government more often. In my mind, that's fantastic. I'm going to make another cake. I'm going to run out of cakes. I've got a question for everybody. Slippery slope, right? So when we were younger, they would say, well, people would say, well, if you allow gay marriage, then they're going to start trying to groom your kids.

And if you start to... Wait, they're doing that. Everything the Christian right said just turned out to be true, but continue. So my question is, is the slippery slope not a fallacy, right? If you look at abortion, they said if you allow abortion, they're going to say, well, now it's no longer just safe, legal, rare. It's now going to be all the way up to nine months and maybe even a couple of days after or like right after there. So my question is, do you think that – Well, as Northam said, make the babies delivered, made comfortable, and then the mother and the doctor have a conversation.

A conversation is had, right? Here's the thing. I'll say it. Slippery slope, it's not a fallacy, and it never was. Nope. Right? I don't think – I think the idea that a slippery slope means you – it implies that you go off the rails, things go out of control sort of. I view it as

degrees, incrementalization. It's not a fallacy. It's literally just once the door is opened on, say, two people can get married, it's none of your business. Then the question is, under that logic, however, you realize that an adult father could marry his daughter, right? Are you okay with that? I think that's kind of over the line. And then can say okay but that one no it's like hold on if your argument is based on the idea that two consenting adults in in the privacy of their own home and however they want to deal with their lives should not be infringed upon then why would that not open the door to every other circumstance so how do we put on the brakes right well that's the thing because initially like i think if two men want to get married,

they should be free to do that, right? I don't think the state should inhibit that behavior. That's my own personal view. But how do you put the brakes on once you've done something like that and you safeguard or protect that, that it doesn't go off? There's no brakes. You've got to keep your kids off the Internet for a while. That, my friend, is a 20.

100%. Pump the brakes. Maybe not 24-7, but pump the brakes and supervise if they're going to be there. Imagine letting

your kid watch like Skinamax or like, it's unthinkable. But these days, parents are like, no, I don't care if you're on the internet.

Yeah, it's even worse than Cinemax ever was. I don't think the gay marriage thing directly resulted in the grooming of the kids. It seems like it's like a global weird thing that's not an American ideal. It's simple.

An internet. When the Christian right said, if we have gay marriage, the next thing we're going to do is start teaching kids about it in school. And they said, that's ridiculous. If two people are privately living their lives, it's their business. But of course the logical outcome is well kids need to be taught about yes legal precedent and about adults and how they live right okay it should be in school well yeah exactly government schools well 100 but also on top of that it's like how could you ever possibly make the argument that society is going to adopt a new value and not pass that value onto

its children right that's what society does with its values. That's like the point. And so to be like, oh, no, yeah, we'll legalize gay marriage, but we're not going to start telling kids about it. We're not going to start teaching kids about being gay, et cetera. That's just a ridiculous position. I don't know how anyone argued that with a straight face. I think one of the next possible changes is the end of gender segregation.

Yeah. Because under the same arguments made i was reading about the civil rights stuff um and the arguments they made about the end of racial segregation and the funny thing is and i'll say this is this is the argument the left makes the same arguments made about gender segregation were made for racial segregation people were arguing that black and white people were fundamentally very different, that black people had this thing about them, or white people had this thing, so it makes sense to separate. This is the argument, again, I'm saying, presented by

the left as to why they should end gender segregation. They said, under the 1964 Civil Rights Act that says you can't discriminate in public accommodation, they end segregation, but why do we still have gender-based segregation in that case? I think I've answered that question. It's not a slippery slope.

It's literally moral logic follows. So what do you do with gay kids, right? So when I was a child, I have a gay brother. We're kids. We're looking at the Sears magazine, and I'm flipping to the girls' section, and he's flipping to the guys' section. And we didn't know what sex was, right? So who talks to them about that, right? Without that being considered grooming, right?

Your parents decide how to address it. Right. But I mean, like, you know, if they don't have parents, right, if there's if there's no third party, right, that's like the moral legitimate person who is supposed to be doing that. Whose responsibility is it to explain why this child is feeling the feelings that they're feeling that may not be the same as the rest of the kids in their class. Where does some third party have a moral right to have a conversation with that child about what they're feeling if nobody else does? If they have no parents, they have a guardian, right? Right. Well, there you go. Okay, so just the guardian.

The guardian, yeah, I'd say the guardian. Could they be accused of grooming if they don't have the proper relationship? I don't, well if if you are not the the the guardian or parent of a child and then you're trying to introduce adult sexual concepts to them yeah i take issue with that because i don't trust it well and also like it is absolutely the case that parents or guardians can and do groom children right but right now but but i think we can say as a blanketed case people who are not the parent or guardian should not under any circumstances be

having these conversations with children no there's a circumstance in which the parents agree that they want an educator or someone to talk to their kids about it so you know my attitude with the florida bill is some of these conversations are inappropriate for kids yeah if the parents decide my child is old enough to start learning about these things the parent decide what's best for their kids if that means they have a third-part educator, I disagree with it, but that's their decision on how they're raising their kids. So they can take them to a drag queen story hour

at the public library if they want to, or maybe a private library if they want to. Well, the issue I take with drag queen story hour is that drag is a sexualized performance, and that's literal grooming. So let me ask you this in response. Do you think a parent should bring their kids to go-go dancer story hour?

No. And drag queen follows the exact same thing. Right. I don't think they should take them to drag queen story hour. But, I mean, there is some kind of a line there where what you're saying is, you know, if the parent wants to teach the child about it, let's say the child is gay, you know, and they want to have a conversation with them about it, and they say that the boy wants to dress up like a woman, what is a safe environment that a parent can introduce

them to those concepts that wouldn't become grooming if drag is inherently sexual, right? Well, I mean, but I mean, like, it's a community, right? The gay community is a community. And there's got to be some kind of a safe way for parents to be able to, you know, if a child is asking them to educate them, I mean, what do you do? Lock them away in the tower and Rapunzel it down their hair when they're 18 and all of a sudden they can be introduced to that community? Or they're going to go online and they're going to be introduced to that community in a way that might be damaging to them, might be more harmful to them if they can't be introduced away.

I don't know, and I'm not advocating for Drag Queen Story Hour, but I'm saying we don't know. What's a healthy way to do this? I don't know the answer. I agree with the premise. Kids who are LGBT need a safe environment to talk about and learn about these things. But I will also say that as someone my family owned a cafe in North Halstead in Chicago, which is Boys Town. Yeah, it's a gay community and everything was overtly sexual. The storefronts were sexualized. The products they

sold were sexualized. Macaroni and cheese on display in the window was genitals. The mannequins were anatomically correct and performing acts on each other. That's not a safe place to bring a kid to teach them about how they feel. My brother and I have been having these conversations just like in the last few weeks about he is sick and tired of

drag queens becoming the avatars for the gay community. Why is it that pride has to be this sexualized event? Why can't it be something that can include conservative gays? Why is it that this... And it is. And it's notorious. At pride events, people walk around naked,

women topless and all these things. I would not call that a safe environment for a child to learn about these things. So when you have drag, for instance, you have a lot of people on the left saying it's just dress up. It's costume. It's like, okay, what is a drag performance?

A person in a sexualized way acts provocatively and it's accentuating sexual features and accepts money either in the thong or they rip their clothes off. They had Desmond is Amazing, a little boy ripping his clothes off on stage for tips. That is the same thing as stripping. And they acknowledge this, that drag shows incorporate the crowd giving money to the performer as they do these things. So you say drag. I say go-go dancing or stripping. I don't see it any different.

Inappropriate for kids. There's a new Twitter account called Gays Against Grooming. That's right. Ariel Scarcella. Oh, I didn't know that was her. Okay, yeah. Well, she's involved. But for every reaction, good friend of the show. Oh, I didn't know that was her. Okay, yeah. Well, she's involved. But for every reaction,

there's going to be an equal counter-reaction. There's going to be conservative gays who are going to come out and they're going to say this and people like that should be able to have a seat at the table at the Texas GOP. I know that's been a big question lately. So if we don't encourage the conservative gays

to speak out in that community and offer them some kind of a moral support, then they're going to continue to be drowned out by those people who will sexualize children. So how we do that is a challenge because if you're a conservative, many people in the movement are not going to be in favor of interacting with the gay community at all. This is, again, the state of Texas Republican Party is having this big fight right now over whether or not log cabin Republicans will be included. So we need to have allies in that community in order to have inroads with that community. If you really want to protect kids, that's going to have to be a battlefront that we're going to have to participate in.

I disagree on that one. So I think that as soon as – and you were sort of talking about the slippery slope earlier. And societies are going to pass their values on. They're going to pass their values on to their children and also when you start breaking down taboos it's not as if the people who want to break down taboos are ever satisfied they just keep pushing for the next thing and i think that's sort of always been the agenda behind the sexual revolution going back to kinsey and john money who i've talked about extensively on the show and what their goals were and they quite literally said, and this is Kinsey, who is called the godfather of the sexual revolution.

He is the person who is credited as being the founder of the modern study of sex or sexology. And he openly said that he thinks the only perversion that exists is chastity. In his book, he was complicit in the sexual abuse of children and published data tables in his book, he was complicit in the sexual abuse of children and published data tables in his literature, which basically were obtained through the sexual abuse of children. I won't get into detail on exactly what it was just because it's graphic and disgusting. But the agenda of this sexual revolution has always been to break down all the cultural taboos. And that's not to say that every single person participating or every single person who is having sex outside of marriage or engaging in homosexual activity wants the movement to reach that final end. But that is its purpose. And we've given it a tremendous amount of momentum as a society.

So I don't think the solution to that is for the conservative movement, which needs to stand up to it to say we need to incorporate more behaviors, which are just nontraditional sexual activities that we historically viewed as perversions into our own fold to help us make our policies. But conservatism is a blanket term, or it's an umbrella term, that will incorporate many different philosophies. National defense conservatism. It's not just about social conservatism. But there's also fiscal conservatism, right? So we're going to have to find some kind of a balance between these three forces. Homosexual conservatives are going to be a prominent force in advancing a conservative agenda

in the LGBT community. And it's going to happen. If we don't connect to that, I think we lose a big advocacy group. I don't believe in tokenism, but many of the most effective conservative leaders are our black conservative leaders, right? So we need to be making inroads to those communities. There would have been people probably back in the civil rights era who would have said, no, we don't want those people in our group. I think that's very different. I know you think it's different, but on a tactical or a strategic level,

on a strategic level, it is. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I would be in league with people who'd want to exclude black folks from the conservative movement. I'm not saying that you are. So my point here, and I hear what you're saying. First of all, I agree with you that the conservative movement, it has become a massive umbrella, incorporates a lot of people. We were talking about this on the show the other day. You have progressives who make up at most, and I'm talking true progressives really pushing this stuff, make up at most 4% of the population within Western developed countries.

They are a very tiny minority, ideologically speaking. Well, Gen Z is 28%. Fair enough. But I'm speaking overall population numbers. And then everyone else is conservative. Now that obviously doesn't work, right? And so I think it makes sense to draw certain lines and say, well, you know, like in our municipality or in our township, to us, conservative means we promote conservative values with respect to human sexuality.

You've got to be careful about moral extremism, especially, okay, economy gets bad. People get desperate. 1928, 1929, Hitler comes to power. He's a moral extremist. He told you what was pure, what was good, what was right. So I think when it comes to gay people, being gay is fine. But being addicted to sex is not fine. I don't care what orientation you are. It doesn't matter what clothing you wear. That's not about being gay is fine. But being addicted to sex is not fine. I don't care what orientation

you are. It doesn't matter what clothing you wear. That's not about being gay or being straight. You can wear whatever you want. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what body you think you exist in. It doesn't matter. If you're gay, you're gay. That's it. Just don't be addicted to sex. That's where it starts to get dirty. But Seamus, can I ask you then, are you saying then that we should exclude in the conservative movement homosexual conservatives in order to not promote homosexuality? So I think we should not promote homosexuality. I would not say that like this person should not be able to speak on this particular issue. But I would say the conservative movement should not be saying like it is conservative to support gay marriage or homosexual behavior or anything like that.

Do you believe homosexuality is a choice and not an intrinsic value? I believe acting on homosexual desires is a choice and not an intrinsic value? I believe acting on homosexual desires is a choice. But that the desire itself is some kind of an intrinsic genetic part of that person's makeup? It may or may not be. Okay, but you leave open the possibility that it is. It's not a choice. No, I leave open the possibility that the

attraction is not something that the person chooses. You said genetic. I would push that. That's a complicated question. They're possible. They could be socially developed or genetic. I would push that. I'm just asking. That's a complicated question. They're possible. There could be socially developed or genetic. I think the broader point is simply did a person one day decide to do it or has it something that they felt grow within them? I just want to mention this too. I think it's not so much that question. I mean there are a lot of behaviors that I think there's a genetic predisposition for that I would consider good or bad without reference to that genetic predisposition.

I'll mention two. I think that it could be good. I'm just saying that nobody's going to make this argument. But I would say that there's a chance that homosexuality is a good thing. And the reason why is the possibility that evolution has created this as an adaptation in order to adapt for overpopulation. And the possibility, the reason why there are so many homosexuals in large population centers is because it is possible that natural selection is creating a scenario where it's turning off homosexual relationships in order to account for overpopulation in a given area.

That just seems like bad. Well, I mean, frogs do this, right? So, for example, if there are, you know, frogs, if there aren't enough female frogs in certain areas, then they will spontaneously change their sex so that they can actually produce. And this is a natural process of evolution. We don't know this, and I'm just postulating this, right? There's not a lot of hard science on this one, but I think we will probably find out that there is a biological reason for why homosexuality exists and it might be a good thing for the survival of the modern the modern left disagrees with you

they believe that it's a choice right so uh it used to be that the the left in this country thought it wasn't and uh at least it was it was claimed the right thought it was that people were choosing to make these decisions i think seamus puts it more clearly that the decision to act on wasn't and at least it was it was claimed the right thought it was that people were choosing to make these decisions i think shamus puts it more clearly that the decision to act on it was is the choice yeah now now the weirdest thing is among your moderate or traditional liberal they'll still argue it's not a choice but among the the furthest left of gender ideology it's outright a choice i just i wonder what makes someone gay is it wanting to have sex with someone of the of the same sex and never doing? Or is it having sex with people of the same sex and not

wanting to at all? So just sort of to your point, I don't see evidence for that. I mean, and you acknowledge that, that there's no hard evidence on it. For me, the question is not what is the cause of this? It's the question of, do I view this as something worthy of promoting? Is this something conservatives should be promoting? Right. That's a separate this. It's the question of, do I view this as something worthy of promoting? Is this something conservatives should be promoting? Right. That's a separate issue. There's a simple answer here. I mean,

Milo Yiannopoulos, I guess he's straight now. Is that his thing? So he calls himself reformed. The point is, I think I understand what Seamus is saying. Someone who is conservative and LGBT or whatever, you don't need to promote lgbt but

they can speak on conservative issues that you agree on or that are conservative so there's a space for them i'd imagine right yeah is it that you well in the same way that i mean so i've spoken with people who i'll give you an example um i know people who i mean i know so many people who do things that i would consider to be immoral, that I don't agree with. But I'm not saying that that person should have no say on other issues where we can work together. What I am saying is that on that particular issue, because we don't agree, we should not be agreeing. I think we're going to miss out on a big strategic opportunity here. I think it was just two weeks ago when the woke left started attacking the white homosexuals in their movement,

trying to push the white homosexuals, saying that many of the problems of the LGBT community were these white homosexuals who were rebelling against the push for the ugly new transgender flag that includes all those things, right? And so what's going to happen is that with the left eating themselves, they're going to start pushing out many of their own people in that group. It's just too large a group to be able, well, these people are problematic now because it's these white homosexuals that are, you know, against these kinds of racial policies that we've answered CRT, for example, right?

So as that happens, we should be taking advantage of that in order to build conservative libertarian coalition to win elections and crush the left. So you mentioned that this community is too large to have all these disparate views, and that's how I feel about the conservative community. I think it's absolutely the case that the left is going to eat itself. They're going to force people out of their movement for whatever reason. They're always struggling through their various wars and revolutions to become more ideologically pure.

What I'm saying is conservatism has basically meant something throughout the eras. It's basically meant we want to conserve tradition, and ultimately we want to conserve the family. But what does it mean to be a conservative in the United Kingdom? If you're a conservative in the United Kingdom, then you want to conserve things that the United... I don't think there's a very strong... We're not talking about the United Kingdom.

But conservatism is not baked like that cake. But if it is, it's many different types of cakes, right? That cake is immutable. The properties of that cake will remain the same such as they are, which is what you're arguing for. No, what I'm arguing for is that if we want our movement to be successful in stopping the left, these kinds of compromises don't help. And I don't think the conservative movement should be promoting a homosexual lifestyle. That's what I'm saying. Well, when you say lifestyle, is it just the love between two men or is it the sex?

It's a good question. We've talked about this before, but our society uses the word love in many different ways. Whereas the ancients had different words to describe it. I do not believe that homosexual behavior with respect to what is done behind closed doors. We'll use euphemisms here because we're on YouTube in front of a live audience. I don't believe that those are loving acts. I don't, I'm not saying that I don't think that a gay person can love someone else or care about them. I'm saying that I believe those acts are intrinsically immoral. You see like erotic love. You're talking about one of the eight types of Greek love is eroticism.

But I don't think erotic love is necessarily wrong. It gets into a very different question of what's different about men and women. Why is the sexual embrace between men and women why is the sexual embrace between men and women within the confines of marriage a good thing what is different about that or an imitation of that when it occurs between two men and so it's it's a much larger discussion but my main point is that it's not something i believe the conservative if jesus christ can wash the feet of sex workers then i think you could get along with conservative homosexuals but he called them to repentance repentance. And he called them to repentance.

But he should call people to repentance. I've got to be completely honest. And we can call people to repentance. This sounds like, for one, going completely in circles. Yeah. And not actually making any arguments. It's a spiral. We're moving forward as we're circling.

I don't think so. I think the question's already been answered. Momentous. A gay conservative can come in and talk about all the conservative values in the world. If Seamus has believed being gay is one of them, then they wouldn't be talking about it. That's all that matters. But there's some value between men and women. For a man and a woman to have a conversation and to find a connection in love of some way, not necessarily erotic, that's valuable.

Even for someone that's gay, some people maybe aren't comfortable with people of the opposite sex, so they do what they're comfortable with. And in that way, it's good for people to learn how to communicate with someone of the opposite sex so they they do what they're comfortable with and it's in that way it's good for people to learn how to communicate with someone of the opposite sex this is this is an interesting uh i think this is a good conversation still because if the door is being opened based on the statements made by thomas and i i think it's something to talk about but i will say i ultimately don't know if it matters because i'll ask you will is there a potential court case that could arise that would actually challenge obergefell i mean it well you can always have some sort of court case right like maybe a state a state could pass a law that would ban gay marriage right and then somebody could challenge that law and then it could work its way up through the court sort of

because that's kind of what happened with abortion right abortion was there was a federal rule saying you can't ban abortion pre-viability so a state just did it and then use that to challenge it um that said i mean will it win no i mean it's again as i said i think that you that would lose eight one um as a pragmatic thing who's the one thomas right face thomas um but i think you know i mean i i don't know i'm a i'm a given that I'm a pragmatist. Right. Like, you know, whatever the actual like contours of what it looks like for the conservative movement to promote or not promote or accept or not accept. It's like, well, we're not you know, the gay marriage issue is based effectively tabled because, you know, we're not at least in the short term. So like maybe let's win political power right now i don't know but i mean isn't that really what we're saying here is that in you know in embracing homosexual conservatives that we are adding to our ranks and growing ourselves in political power yeah i i mean i basically think that i mean and i'm i probably i mean i disagree with shamus on a lot right like i feel like you

were like this is intrinsically immoral i'm like well i wanted to ask you like okay that probably comes from your catholic, I would assume. I would say it's a natural opposition. I don't think someone has to be Catholic to hold it. I guess I could see that. I just think, like, you know, from, you know, when I look at something like that, I'm like, well, I don't think it's intrinsically immoral. But the thing is, my point is, we don't have to agree on everything. I don't have to agree with everything on someone we're working with.

If someone has homosexual tendencies or inclinations, I'm not saying they can't do any good for society. I'm saying we should not promote it. Hold on. I'm just going to say it again. Guys, we get it. If you're conservative, like, there's – Austin, I do not understand your argument. We've got to separate religious marriage. If the statement is there are gay conservatives, they exist.

What are conservative values? One, two, and three, A, B, and C. Conservatives who values? One, two, and three, A, B, and C. Conservatives who are gay and conservatives who are straight agree on A, B, and C. Then there's literally no discussion. Fiscal conservatism, national defense conservatism. And so if you're a fiscal conservative and you meet another fiscal conservative who happens to be gay, that would be a part of your conversation. But a homosexual conservative who is in favor of gay marriage is in favor of a socially conservative value. Wanting to have gay marriage

is a conservative value. That is a homosexual embracing... How is that conservative? A homosexual... Because a marriage between two people is a conservative value. Marriage itself is a conservative institution. If two men want to get married, that is showing that these homosexuals are embracing

socially conservative values, in my view. I just don't – I don't see it. You got a separate religious marriage and legal marriage. Let me ask Will a question. You mentioned you don't see it as intrinsically immoral, right? Yeah, no. What about two brothers who are legally adults? Is that immoral?

Or a brother and a sister? Yeah. No, I actually – That would be. Yeah, I think so too. So why, and again, you know, I'm not asking this because I disagree with him. I agree. I think it's immoral. I'm curious what your basis is for why you would say a gay relationship is fine, but

an incestuous gay relationship or an incestuous relationship is not okay. I mean, like I've read sort of the arguments. And so the answer is actually going to be fairly simple. like it really is my own intuitive moral response right simple enough i have an intuitive like you know disgust reflex towards incest uh i think that's pretty well people most people yeah do same people feel the same way for for gay relationships right and so so it's a so this is the question i was bringing up when it came to what Clarence Thomas was bringing up with this due process question, is that if you're going to argue that two legally consenting adults can engage in whatever behaviors they want to, how would that preclude a father and a daughter as long as they're adults, or brothers or sisters or brother and sister?

Personally, I think those are wrong. It's incest. Incest is illegal out of places, and I would not be okay with that. Well, isn't it because the possible third party that you would be introducing into the world would be one of stunted growth, right? You're literally committing a crime by creating something. Yeah, then what if they use perfect protection? Right, exactly. Gay couples don't have kids either.

A brother and a sister could adopt if they love each other. So there's a question here. The way I view it when it comes to the slippery slope is I've long evolved on the idea that one thing goes out of control. It simply degrees. If you make a moral argument and you win the moral argument, the moral argument stands for all facets of it. If you say two consenting adults are allowed to live in the privacy of their home and do whatever they want, it's like, okay, but you realize that extends morally, logically beyond just two adult men or two adult women. It extends to a father and a daughter, a mother and a son, brothers, sisters, and everything in between. And they're actually making those arguments now.

And so this is the issue I was bringing up with gender segregation. Racial segregation, I think is wrong. Gender segregation, I don't much have a problem with like a men's room in a women's room. I get it. But there's a similar moral argument if you cannot discriminate on the basis of these intrinsic characteristics in public accommodation why would you be allowed to for one and not the other and i'm like how do you answer that question other than just saying we have a personal moral line and that's it if that's the case and you're

saying that it's just within you you you have an intrinsic morality, then all that matters is if you open the door to gay marriage, quite literally people who grew up with it will not have that reflex for the next degree, which would be incest or things of that nature. Not a slippery slope, just literally the next step in incrementalizing towards it. Ultimately, I think what we're arguing over, and Austin, I mean, I appreciate everything you said about the pro-life movement. There are a number of things we really agree on. I think where we really disagree is first and foremost on the definition of marriage. I just don't believe that gay marriage is a logical

possibility given how I define the term marriage. I think what we really don't agree on is where the slippery slope starts, right? Where can we say this is the behavior we're going to allow, but once we go past that, it's clear that we're going to start slipping down that hill. We're battling a cultural war, but what really matters is the law, right? Isn't it at first? Because what are we trying to do? Are we trying to stop people? Should we use the government to actually stop people from engaging in a private contract?

If someone has a private contract and calls it a marriage, are you saying that that's not? So I don't believe that the federal government has any power to redefine marriage. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm talking about a private contract between two individuals that they desire to call marriage. Two people can make a contract and say that they're going to do whatever they want, but I don't believe that that is a marriage. I'm asking you, do you believe that the government should stop, halt a contract between two consenting adults that they call marriage? It depends on what they're trying to do. So I don't think the government should recognize it as marriage.

If two people come together and say, you know, we're going to live together or we're going to do X, Y, and Z. Why should the government recognize marriage at all? That's what I was going to say. I don't think the government should recognize marriage whatsoever. Yes, I agree. But for as long as the government is recognizing marriage. I don't want the government to recognize your Catholic marriages either.

But here's the thing. I was over here like, you guys are all wrong. You guys are all wrong. Austin, I would agree with you that I want the federal government out of marriage generally speaking. I think it's worse for it to redefine it once it's been involved. I am not agreeing with that idea. I'm presenting like making that point. Then why would they?

I think the issue is marriage is deeply rooted in at least United States in Abrahamic tradition. Marriages exist in other countries as well. And marriage, because of the secularization of the United States, has become a state institution, which opens up the question of what you're saying, contracts between consenting adults. Seamus takes a traditional religious perspective, which is that marriage is rooted in the Abrahamic tradition. Well, that's not exactly my position. But wait. I actually don't. So I believe marriage pre-exists Abraham, right?

Abraham was married. And so I believe that. I don't believe. And this is the irony actually. Like as Catholics, part of why we don't believe in gay marriage is because we don't think the church can redefine what marriage is. We believe marriage is what it has been through history and it can't like change it from being man and woman to something else. But you're all wrong because it's not based on the Abrahamic religions entirely because we just got – my beautiful wife is in the corner here, Stephanie. We just got back from touring Bridal Cave, which is the Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.

This is why I just said at least in America. And I also said it's not – I think it predates Abraham. Right. It does. I don't believe that Christianity or Judaism invented marriage at all. That's not my position. Right. But the Native Americans would go to Bridal Cave and they would get married and they'd

had no contact with Abrahamic traditions. So I mean marriage is an institution. It's human. It's human. Not one of the government, but one of two people. It's a contract, in a sense, a private contract. It's not a contract that necessarily

needs to be written down. So a marriage is a relationship. It's not necessarily because your God has deigned to bring you two together. It's a relationship between two people that can involve only them, or it can involve them and their God, or a third party if You so desire but that is an intrinsically personal thing that's defined by them not by government. No, it's not just personal

It involves broader society too. There's a reason like when you have a marriage there are other people there observing Yeah, the tribe hold on hold on didn't they used to consummate the marriage in front of the party? Actually, the third person that was there was the tribal chiefss so there were only typically three people but there's a society i mean there's a the reason like i say like when i'm like the state should obviously to me be involved in marriages and certifying them is because um you know there's part of the benefit of having the state involved is it's very hard to make binding commitments in our world oh hold on the The state involvement has actually, in my opinion, made it so that there is no binding involved, right? The idea... I mean, if they've made it too easy to divorce, sure. They made it too easy to divorce, and the enforcement of taking resources from one party

to another, it's just created disaster in terms of marriage. Maybe that sort of easy economic punishment makes it too simple, and maybe you need... You obviously need the broader societal pressure and societal stigma against divorce and things like that and working in conjunction. Cultural and enforced monogamy? Yeah, I would imagine in the tribes... I got people mad at Jordan Peters when he said that. In the Native American tribes, if you were to start doing your buddy's wife

after you got married, the tribe would throw you out of the tribe. So it's like banishment. It's important to know who is having children with whom. Yeah. Cancel. It's like, also, I want to clear something up. When I said enforced monogamy, I was saying that every incel should be given a woman who's forced to do it. And that's what I was arguing.

And it's like these people try to take me out of context and say I was setting up a societal precedent for people to say it. It's like, no, I was saying we should redistribute women to incels, man. Or redistribute women, man. It's like, why is it that only we should redistribute women to incels, man. Redistribute women, man. It's like, why is it that only the top 1% of the chads get 99% of women? It's not fair. This is the only developed nation, Alex Bernstein. It's the only developed nation. You wrote that, didn't you?

That? That's the next cartoon. I've never written that, but maybe that should be a cartoon. I'm still stuck on the differential between religious marriage and legal marriage. And they use the same word, marriage, but they're different, completely different definitions. So we've got to stop conflating those. I feel like you're bent on man and man can't get married because of the religious aspect. Well, it's just the definition.

I mean, not the religious aspect because I believe marriage predates religion. It's what I believe the term means. Well, marriage means marriage. I will say a separate question. The weird thing to me about, we also have the Supreme Court ruling on Maine and the private schools, is that to the liberal in this country, the separation of church and state means the state refusing to

provide for or to actively discriminate against religion, whereas on the right, the separation of church and state is the state cannot discriminate on the basis of your religion, which is particularly interesting. So i'm thinking back to um the famous prop 8 musical with jack black and he said his arguments for why there should be gay marriages the nation was built on a separation of church and state and then i'm like wouldn't that actually be an argument for civil unions a government

contract and not any kind of like ceremonial procedure? Isn't that what you want, Will? I mean, in a sense that... Right. Like, I mean, I think I'm sort of indifferent to whatever the state calls the like sort of, you know, certification. I mean, it's, you know, my dad always joked that, you know, my dad's a California conservative,

but he joked, he's like, yeah, sure. I absolutely want the gays to have marriage and alimony and divorce payments and child support payments and everything that goes along with it. Um, the, I think, I mean, I guess, I don't know if I, I'm fine with gay marriage, you know, in terms of the state certifying legal marriages. I think it's like, oh, there's liberal over here. Yeah. I mean, you got me right.

Like my most conservative thing was I thought, you know, hey, conservatives should win. That's like, that was my big conservative belief. Now I can all argue. That's crazy. You know, right? Like my most conservative thing was I thought, you know, hey, conservatives should win. That's like that was my big conservative belief. Now I can all argue. That's crazy. You know? Right. Remember when people were saying, no, we should just like David French.

No, we should not win because reasons. Well, look what they're doing now. I hate to do a hard derail, but I don't want to just stay on subject for too long. So let's let's jump to gun control because the House has passed a gun control package sitting sending it to joe biden's desk after mcconnell and other republicans defy trump and vote for the bill no um let me let me tell you they did not defy trump they defied the will of their voter base yes and i will not forget shelly moore capito in west virginia what you did because you are a scumbag. I am rightly pissed off about this. Second most Trump supporting state in the country.

And she's not up for reelection for four years. So she thinks she can get away with this, that she can she can spit on our constituents as if West Virginians want gun control. Well, thank God for Missouri, because in Missouri, we have the Second Amendment Preservation Act. And this is a law that was passed two years ago, signed by the governor, Mike Parson, that effectively punishes Missouri police officers and their institution, whichever one that they are a part of, with a $50,000 fine if Missouri police officers are to act in coordination with federal officers enforcing federal laws,

if they are not against the law in missouri so if you breaking missouri law then the police officers can participate but in missouri if uh if joe biden passes a gun control package and it's not in missouri's law then missouri police officers are not allowed to participate and we all still can but not missouri police we also have from governor.nh.gov hb 1178 signed into law an act prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or presidential executive order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

So the state cannot. The feds can come in, but not the state. So it is Missouri. I don't know how relevant that is. Sorry. I think my know how relevant that is. Sorry. I think my understanding of the federal law is that it provides funding and support to states in implementing their own red flag laws. Am I mistaken? Well, this is not about red flag laws.

This is about the NFA. This is about any restriction on any gun that's not codified in New Hampshire. It's not nullification, but it's something similar in a sense right like like we won't i mean well there's there's things like that happen in context outside of gun where the state's like we're not going to help the feds it's common sanctuary sort of like sanctuary state the feds can't force the state to spend their money and resources enforcing federal law right right and that's so that's that's what it would be um so you're not stopping the feds from coming in obviously but if they if they do come in, your police officers are totally unable to help unless they want to. If they want to perform a federal raid for bump stocks, then Missouri police officers are not allowed to participate.

And the police don't like it. And it actually has put conservatives in Missouri in a really difficult position because typically they would de facto support police. And so now police are in a situation where they have to try and convince conservative lawmakers to try and repeal or gut a law that the lawmakers just passed overwhelmingly that was popular. And it's now a big campaign issue in Missouri. I don't know that New Hampshire has any kind of an enforcement clause, but there's a current Senate candidate named Eric Greitens who's running in Missouri. He was governor there for a short time.

He's now running again to be in the U.S. Senate. And he actually came on my program in Missouri and said that he supported the police, that this amounts to a defunding of the police. He was actually using leftist rhetoric, moms-demand rhetoric, going against the Second Amendment Preservation Act because of the $50,000 fine that goes to those police departments. Well, I guess it does amount to a de facto defunding in police. But because Missouri conservatives are more inclined to support gun rights than they are

to support the police, it puts Republicans in a really difficult spot. I think it's actually a beautiful thing to do. I hope more states copy us. No, I hear you. And I just want to mention, if anyone had any illusions that the police will not enforce gun control laws or come take your guns because they're conservatives, this clearly demonstrates that they will. Is it the kind of thing where if two cops in a cop car come and do it, that it's $100,000, like $50,000 twice, them and the partner? Per incident, right?

So if there's a gun raid and the FBI is asking for local law enforcement to help participate, which happens all the time, because usually it's really actually about money actually about money because what they want to do is civil asset forfeiture. Because we have this thing called equitable sharing. And the process is that they come in, they do a raid, the states, the state takes some of the money, the feds take some of the money, they split the proceeds and then they walk out happy. But the state police officers are mad because if they aren't breaking a Missouri state law, they can't participate with the feds and they can't share in the spoils of war, right? So that's really the issue is the question of how much money that these police departments are losing. And that's why I think it's a critical issue because it places conservative values against

the law. And when conservatives are asked whether or not they're going to support the police or they're going to support gun rights, the rights are what's more important than the cultural we support police, you know, rah, rah, rah kind of a thing, right? So I think it's a rubber hits the road issue for anybody running for political office. Ask them about Missouri SEPA law. Ask them about what New Hampshire is doing here.

And I wonder, you know, from a constitutional question, what do you think, Will, of the question of the real deal, the real null nullification which we had a crisis of which we had a civil war nullification is nonsense sorry yeah well go ahead yeah no tell me about i mean that was that was settled in the 1860s can you define what it is oh nullification is the right of a state to defy or uh over somehow overturn federal law in its jurisdiction right and so the feds would not be able. In nullification, the police officers would actually prevent the feds from enforcing their laws. Aren't they doing that in some places, though?

No. I mean, the only thing that they've done is, like, they've, you know, states can say, basically do what they're doing here, which is, like, we will not help you. Right? Like, not that we're saying that your law doesn't apply here, but rather will not help you enforce your law like that's your problem if you want to come in and enforce it you have the right to do that go for it but we're not going to help you enforce federal law that's okay because state and federal government are different sovereigns right but that and that's not a disrespect of federal sovereignty because it's still saying the federal government has the

right to enforce its law and anywhere in the united states um i i mean a world where you accept nullification is a world where uh you know new york says that's fascinating that you have this new rule that says we can't stop people from you know we can't have our concealed weapons thing you know that's funny that you have that second amendment but we're going to do what we want in new york and if that means depriving everyone of their right to guns you have no say in it we're going to nullify that Supreme Court ruling. Like, nah, right? Hold on, hold on.

That's what they're trying to do. I hear you. I hear you, and I think you're making good arguments. And I'm not totally on one side or the other here, but I would say this. I might be willing to accept that if that meant in my state the federal government gets zero say and can't enforce anything if our legislatures decide that i should be able to have whatever kind i want ultimately what but you know ultimately the the end state of nullification is is going back to effectively the world of the united states and the articles of confederation

right it is the end of and i'm like no actually historically that was terrible and i don't want civil war in the united states no but that's how we get there right like we want to go back to a world where we had a very weak federal government and and i mean ultimately that there wasn't very well i gotta be honest we got a pretty strong federal government i don't know about civil wars out of the question yeah i mean actually you know this is probably where i disagree with you all i think we actually do have a very strong federal government and i think that as a result of that civil war is totally out of the question but if the federal government were to pass a law that were to ban guns federally, right, then the state says, no, actually, we're going to nullify that because we actually interpret the Constitution as it is clearly written.

You'd be in favor of the feds being able to enforce a law that would ban guns federally. If the state wanted to nullify it, you would be, no, the state can't do that the civil war uh i mean as like i mean obviously i think you know the hypothetical has a problem because the state could go to court and say this is that this is unconstitutional under the second amendment and you know we we know how that would end up now right because the supreme court would say so but just as a matter of principle right like i don't think you know if on any random litigated issue if the state disagrees with the federal government but the you know you know, and they litigate, you know, the federal wants, government wants to impose its law on the state, the state litigates and all the courts say,

no, the federal government can do this. It's clearly within federal authority. I don't think the state then just gets to defy that. Under that scenario, would you be in favor of a convention of states? I mean, I'd be in favor of changing federal law. I would be in favor of changing federal law at that point. There are no circumstances where you think Article V of the Constitution would ever arise? I don't want a revolution, man. Revolutions are generally bad. Damn, I would love a revolution.

I want a revolution. They never turn out the way people think they would. Every single time. We are like the only revolution that has ever stuck the landing. Ever. I mean, think about how bad it was. But hold on. Is 20 years of conflict and death and fighting stuck the landing, ever. Like, I mean, think about how bad it was. But hold on. Is 20 years of conflict and death and fighting

sticking the landing? And that's as good as it gets, right? And right. And I think it turned out really, we're extremely lucky at the Founding Fathers because you look at Canada right now and it's like... But they warned us over and over about central banks. And I mean, they were like,

they're more powerful than standing armies, I think they even said at one point. And then the Federal Reserve got formed. Well, I mean, you're a Jeffersonian and I'm a Hamiltonian, right? Like they already posed a revolution on us in 1913. Now we've got to take it back. Yeah, now we have the most powerful economy in the world. But not all revolutions are fought with blood and tears and powder.

Sure, and the Federal Reserve was a revolution, right? The Progressive Era was a revolution. It wasn't fought with bullets. It was fought at the ballot box. And so, yeah, I was a revolution, right? The progressive era was a revolution. It wasn't fought with bullets. It was fought at the ballot box. And so, yeah, I want a revolution. I don't want fighting in the streets here in the United States, but I want an overturning of many of the legal precedents that have been set. Then, you know, win some elections and win some litigation.

Yeah, I'm working on that. Four more states for a convention. Revolution means to turn forward, and it actually, it's constantly, we're in a revolution. We are revolving. And if you participate in the revolution, it's up to you. But it's revolving whether you're doing it or not. 30 states are controlled by Republicans, all legislatures. And 34 for a convention of states.

I believe. If we had like what we have now on the Supreme Court in terms of majority with these states where we had majority of conservative states that were pushing for this, then would you push for an Article 5 or think that – You mean if we didn't have a majority conservative Supreme Court? No, if we did. I mean, since we have a majority conservative Supreme Court, I'm like, let's – we don't need to do anything crazy.

Let's just keep litigating and winning. Like, I mean, think about how much it must – how depressing must you be if you're a progressive right now. Like, you control the presidency in both halves of Congress, and you're taking L after L after L right now. And you're about to, like, lose at least one of those. Do you want that in your back pocket, though? Do you want an Article V convention to stay in the Constitution and to be something that's there? You don't even want the power. I don't want like,

I really do not. You know, people talk about national divorce. I am like a very anti-national divorce guy. I'm actually with you on that. I think, I think people are wildly underestimating how violent and bloody that would be,

how impossible that would be relative to, I mean, I think one thing we say is impossible. Basically, effectively. I mean, me failed English. It's not, it's not. I was like, sentence reference.

It's not 1860. In the run-up to the Civil War, right after the Civil War was declared, state armies literally just walked into federal armories and took all the guns. The federal government was so weak. We can't even comprehend how weak the federal government was in the run-up to the Civil War,

which is why the states were able to secede in the first place. It's just not something that would happen, and it would be bad if it did. How strong is too strong a federal government for you? A federal government that can't be constrained by law at all is too strong. There's no legal recourse. You don't think that we're there? Not even close. What do you think about the Patriot Act?

The federal government is not too strong in your mind uh i mean there are places where i think the federal government should be weaker and places where i think the federal government should be stronger are you are you comfortable with the patriot act with the patriot act i'm comfortable with some things in the Patriot Act. Like, I think it probably gives the NSA and, like, there's probably too much power and too much espionage power in general. But put it out with the nuance, please. Sorry. I want to know.

Will's talking about the total package. You've got the total reserve. Oh, yeah, sure. That's true. Yeah, I'm sorry, man. Oh, get out. Yeah. I will also say this.

On the question of revolutions, right? People need to realize this. This is true of basically every revolution that I'm familiar with, right? Not a giant history buff. You're right. The American Revolution in many ways stuck the landing. But even with the American Revolution, it's not as if every single person who was revolting was fighting because they wanted the kind of system that the founding fathers ended up setting up. And we see this in every, like you look at the Bolshevik revolution,

it's not as if, or even the French revolution, it's not as if all of those people rose up to fight because they wanted to see the ideology that ended up taking the place of their current system come to fruition. They were angry. They wanted to fight, but it's just a very tiny organized minority that ends up getting to decide what government you have after the revolution has won or has been won. If there is anything right now that is making the federal government weaker, it's what the DOJ is doing with Trump supporters. Oh, yeah. Yes. That outright with the solitary confinement, with the rating on Jeffrey Clark, with the subpoenas to GOP. It is basically sending a signal to half this country

that the government is against you. And that means if you're someone who supported Trump, you believe Trump, or you are a simple skeptic who has questions based on the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit or things like that, you are being told your wants concerns are irrelevant and you will get no reaches of grievances. And if that's the case, it's exactly what ends up happening. It is in line with what happened in 1860. When Southern states felt like what was supposed to be granted to them in terms of the federal negotiations between states,

they weren't getting what they were supposed to be granted. I think it's a little different. I mean, the way I look at the South is the South felt like, you know, that they were on a track to inevitably lose complete power. Basically, they were on track to be a permanent political minority. And how is that different? It's not just that. It's one of the big issues with the Fugitive Slave Act, which is the North was not adhering to.

And so you have many southern states outright being like, so our votes are meaningless? The federal government won't enforce the agreements that we have as a union? Then there must not be a union. And if that's happening now with the DOJ going after Trump's Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, Jeffrey Clark, going after a GOP chair in Nevada, filing subpoenas, raiding homes, these people are going to have the exact same sentiment. I think – I mean the way to resolve that is to punish them when we take power, right? Like I think that that's – we need to kind of flip it back on them, right? Everybody who is involved in these DOJ investigations themselves needs to come under investigation. There needs to be like Trump could have subpoenas. Trump couldn't do it. But then I'm thinking you got to look at a world where DeSantis and a little more sophisticated, legally sophisticated group of people are in charge of a Republican White House like and I and a more vengeful, like, yeah. I think the optimism is the midterms are going to be really good for Republicans.

And then in 2024, you're going to get either a Trump or DeSantis who will take those actions. But I just feel like that's just, it's unpredictable. Yeah, and DOJ, what DOJ is doing now, what Merrick Garland is doing at DOJ, I mean, Merrick Garland should be impeachedached that actually should be early on the list of things like of what should be done for what um for uh various i mean there's a lot of unlawful there's actually like some seriously like unlawful actions failure to enforce law yep um right failure for example like the protests at judges justices houses like his decision to just completely not enforce that in my view that's impeachable.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Did he argue that was the First Amendment, right? He just didn't even – I don't even think he discussed it publicly, like at all. I think he passively just – I think it was asked of him, but he said something like just shrugging it off or something. If you're not going to protect Supreme Court justices from – you know, like there's federal law in the books that says people aren't allowed to protest in front of their private homes. But doesn't the First Amendment supersede that? No. I mean, the precedent is that there cannot be a first.

There cannot be free speech without justice. So the exception made in terms of protest is that courts must be free from the influence of partisans. Therefore, you are you are you are right to speak, but not speak, but you are not allowed to pressure the courts through protests. Well, I guess the real reason that's acceptable is it's a time, place, and manner restriction, right? Like it's saying, like, you're allowed to protest, you just can't do it in front of their private home, right? And, you know, that's what those rules say.

That's the procedural. The sort of ideological is if the courts aren't allowed to uh sit down discuss and try and figure out what justice is then free speech doesn't exist at all well but they can still i mean they can still protest at the court right no they can't sure they can um i'm pretty sure it actually says you cannot attempt to protest at a court to persuade an officer. Well, as applied, that would certainly be unconstitutional. If they actually tried to, that would certainly be a First Amendment

violation to say you couldn't protest. I could be wrong about that. It does say home. There's a difference of yelling at the judge as he's driving to the court, standing outside, and just yelling outside the court while they're all inside. Because if you're yelling at his car and yelling at him when he's walking in, that's definitely pressuring the judge. Let's clarify.

You guys talk a lot about the Civil War and the allegory, which I see, which is the states being like, you're not upholding my rights, government. But I think of the Revolutionary War and the similarities that the taxation, no taxation without representation is what sparked it. And as they're printing trillions, we've got like $30 trillion of debt. That's a tax on me. And I'm not seeing that money. I just want to clarify. Yes, you cannot add a court.

It says, whoever with the intent of interfering with obstructing or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such a judge, juror, witness, or court officer, How do you define near? I guess it's probably... I mean, actually, that's an interesting question, because I the somehow that's got to coexist with the first amendment right so then there's like i don't know if there's i i guess i'd have to read up on the what the how the supreme i know the supreme well so what i read was the the the reason this came about this 1950 was because

the the judge the judges were basically, how can we actually administer justice if people will use political attacks against us in the course of seeking justice? So if you're able to protest at someone's house or at a court to influence a judge and alter the course of justice, then there isn't any. Because that means, like with Brett Kavanaugh,

if he says, I am going to side with overturning Roe v. Wade, and then we're going to go to your house and threaten you, then there's not justice for those who had filed a petition in the court. Kind of reminds me of, remember back to the Tommy Robinson stuff? Right. That was in the UK, though. That was in the UK, but sort of similar to this. He interviewed someone outside of court, so they arrested him?

Well, he just talked about private, you know, like what was declared confidential information about court proceedings. Wow. You're not allowed to do that. This is big brain stuff, man. Yeah, you know, like what it was declared confidential information about court proceedings. Wow. You're not allowed to do that. This is big brain stuff, man. Yeah, I know. Yeah, because I wonder how they define being near a court or residence. Like, is it two blocks away?

Is it 20 feet away? Is it 1,000 blocks away? Judges interpret. Oh, so the judges get to decide for themselves if you were near their house. Welcome to judicial precedence. How can you rely on nine people to decide the fate of the country? It makes no sense. I see why these people are saying defy it.

Hold on, hold on. How many federal judges are there? Oh, gosh. A couple thousand? Not that many, I don't know. Maybe like about a thousand, I think. Yeah. It's not just nine people.

But it goes up the chain to the nine. And they can't hear every single case. And they get to decide what they hear or what they don't. They can be like, I don't even want to deal with it. That's right. That's insane.

No, no. I do not gain that relevant. It's not insane. That they can just choose not to look at things that they don't feel like are relevant to them, but like they're relevant to me? Right. Well, but there's a lot of reasons we might not want. There's a lot of reasons they shouldn't just take every single case.

I understand that they're not physically capable of it. Listen to this anarchist guy over here. Maxine Waters over here. They're not going to take the graphene case. I keep telling you. AI, we need AI justices. They're not going to take the income taxes and constitutional cases. Milton Friedman thought we needed an AI Federal Reserve,

that he thought the whole inflation should just be set by an algorithm. I'm open to that. If we could observe it and make sure it's an open source thing that we're watching happen, I think we could use it as an advisor. I will say this. Times have changed. Technology has changed. And we probably could do a better job with some great minds in building a new form of government.

That being said, right now in the world, it's like the United States government, the structure of it, it's the best. I don't think there's anything better. Granted, over time, it gets bad. Over time, bad things happen. There's bad precedent. There's bad law. It bloats.

And then you're like, oh, I got too much garbage. There's a lot of things they didn't predict. But the idea of a legislative branch, an executive, and a judicial branch is brilliant. And a bicameral system within the legislature. So it wasn't just one body. It's brilliant. And the strong executive frankly like most people underestimate the power of you you really don't like having there's a lot of

times where you get really upset if you have a weak executive or because also here's the interesting thing about like having a strong executive is it's a counterbalance of the legislature if you're a weak executive generally the legislature swallows up executive ultimately swallows up executive power and you get like one one thing so ian it is not just about the justices congress gets together the house and they go hey we got an idea these are all the people elected to represent their districts and we think these things should be law then it goes to the senate who has to agree they represent this they represent the states so the people's representation passes a bill. The state's representation agrees with it. And then the executive branch has to sign off on it. If he doesn't, you need a veto-proof majority.

When the president signs off on it, you now have two branches checking that. Then once it becomes law, people can challenge it in court. And then there's a judicial review of it. It is actually, look, man, you can argue that you don't like that nine people have these decisions. It is the best system in the world right now. One issue I've got with the House of Representatives is that they have a monopoly on the lawmaking right now. It's like 460 of them or something get to decide what goes to the Senate. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's not even that. It's like one person. It's Nancy Pelosi. That's wicked nuts. And Chuck Schumer. That's

awful. Mike Revell proposed this thing when he was still alive, the Alaskan senator, called the National Initiative, which would have created a fourth branch of government. It's the people, and you get representatives from every state or people from every state that come together and select one of them to represent, which you probably wouldn't even need now with the Internet. And you also now gain the ability to pass laws into the Senate.

We all do. Like a ballot referendum kind of a deal? I'm not sure. I don't know what that is. I think it's a terrible idea. That sounds like a terrible idea. I think people are smart enough to know. If someone knows how to write a law, if they learn in school how to do it. They're not. They're not. And you shoot it down. We have terrible crowdfunding. We can't shoot it down

because the majority of people who go to the ballot box don't sit down and read the referendum and know exactly everything that's in it. You just passed a terrible medical marijuana bill in Missouri that created a cartel where only 5 to 10 to 15 people are allowed to completely control the marijuana thing. And we're about to do it again. The people who want to legalize recreational cannabis are going to go to the polls this

fall in Missouri and pass a terrible bill that all the libertarians in Missouri are actually against because it sets up a cartel. That's the kind of laws that you get when they're written by a Democratic majority. Ian, I'll tell you why I disagree. So when you look at Wikipedia, you can't sue the individuals who write the things because they don't write complete sentences. You can't sue Wikipedia because they're not the ones who write it, even though they publish it.

The fact that it's so heavily decentralized means there's no accountability for wrongdoing, but wrongdoing taking place due to a large crowd makes them unaccountable. So hold on. So here's the issue. Right now in New York, we had Larry Sharpe on. He mentioned 60% of people in the state want gun control, even though it's unconstitutional. If we introduce laws based on that, you will get majority manipulation. You will get people's rights being violated. And michael malice puts it my rights are not up for a vote but a bunch of really ignorant people who are unaccountable can all just go in and make it happen now when it comes to a representative there's accountability

because the individual is the one representing the group has to take accountability for passing the law or introducing it and the courts can come after them and they can get voted out but what kind of accountability do these people have right now, all these people that voted for this? I don't see how a corporation writing a law and handing it to a representative to give to the Senate is better than giving me the opportunity to write a law and pass it to a judge. But Ian, the problem is, remember checks and balances, right?

So here's the question. If you create that fourth branch of government, what role does the Supreme Court and the legislature and the president have in order to check what powers do they have same over that it's the same as if we were just like an extrapolation of the house of representatives everyone becomes a representative everyone has the opportunity now to create honestly i think the i think the end result is the senate would just ignore it it's possible right like it would be big making noise either way direct democracy doesn't work. It wouldn't be that. I'm not suggesting mob rule or anything like that.

It would just create another branch of government so we have an opportunity to participate. We do. Not really. We pick someone to go do it for us, and it doesn't feel like I'm involved. There's 300 million of us, man. It can feel like that when you're only looking at federal issues. If you get involved in your state, you can see real changes happening. Don't just look at federal. I see it all the time. When Missouri representatives have meetings with constituents, they show up, they make their voices heard, and policies change. It happens all the

time. If you look at the federal, things move much slower. So I would ask you to say, why don't you pass something like that in a state first? Like pass something like that on a state level. We already kind of do that in Missouri. We have a referendum process where people can actually change the Constitution by passing, going around the legislature, going around the executive in Missouri, and passing something by a popular direct vote in democracy, and it's a nightmare. And now our Constitution in Missouri is this leviathan that becomes completely unwieldy, and every 10 years we have an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution, and they keep trying to you know, completely unwieldy. And every 10 years,

we have an opportunity to rewrite the Constitution, and they keep trying to do it, and we can't. So what the last thing that we want to do is give the power to direct democracy in the United States for anybody, you know, to go out and just write a law and then place that in the Constitution. Do you want like your average Joe to write a law that's going to sit next to the Second Amendment, the beautiful words of the Fourth Amendment, the the fifth amendment like we don't have those founding father type people again and if they are they're certainly not coming out of the of the regular ranks of the people and bypassing you know not going and running for office any of the great people that we have right now are running for office and they are getting elected i very few of them that i think

that people like massey and and ran Paul and others, but they're there. The founders are there, and they're already in the government writing laws. The issue, Ian, that you're taking is not solved by your proposal. The issue is we have a corrupt system that the people who get elected often are just serving special interests. And it's untenable. Like a bill will come with 800 pages and no one reads it. Right. But we'd like to be on the internet so everyone can read it and upvote it or downvote it like a Reddit thing.

No, absolutely not. And then the popular ones go to the Senate. This is a single-layer issue. You're looking at a problem and saying the solution is to give it to the people when that's not the solution at all. The problem is multifaceted, nuanced, and extremely difficult to solve. It is not solved by just opening up the system to random people. I mean, that's a vague way of phrasing what I'm talking about. The national initiative doesn't just give mob rule.

It lets people get involved in the lawmaking process. What we need are representatives who are moral, principled, and not— It's not possible, dude. People get bribed. It is possible. No one is a paragon. See, this is... The issue is the system can be fixed.

I agree with that. Your proposal does not address the problem. It just adds another bandit on top of the problem. I don't know. I think the problem is that big, huge bills are getting into the representatives' hands that they don't read, and then they vote yes and send it to the Senate. The problem is people don't care. The problem is they vote for Nancy Pelosi in her district without thinking twice,

and you want to extend more power to those same people. It will not solve the problem. Term limits. No. I agree with that as well. Term limits. Wait, I want to ask you a question. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

I got to make one point. The term limit thing, I've gone back and forth on, but the reason it doesn't work is that special interests will just rotate their people. They say that that happens in Missouri, but there are some negatives to it. But the benefits are that Nancy Pelosi types go away, that they can't come in and establish a little kingdom and then stay there for 24 years. But Ron Paul did, and we like Ron Paul. But he didn't pass a single bill, and I love Ron Paul. You just call him Ron Paul?

He's Dr. No. There are no term limits in the bureaucracy. And so if you have term limits, exactly. Like Congress is sort of your way of having some oversight of the deep state. That's how it works, though. That is a big part of how it works, right? And certainly if we had term limits, in a world of term limits, we just get hosed. Well, you need term limits for the deep state too,

for the administrators. I mean, that would be a lot better. That's a, that's a much more effective place to start. Here's my, here's my proposal. In any position in which you work in government,

after four years, you're sent off to an Island. That's it. You can't get back. By the way, elected office, government job job four years off to the island

we have term limits on the state level maybe it just needs to be on the state level but in Missouri we have term limits and you're you know

if you're in the legislature you go away after a certain time and we have lost some good people but the majority of people are bad and the majority of people

go away and that makes it but the problem is that you think about how much power you're giving to the legislative aides in that world

because the legislative aides are the only people who know the law. Well, it helps in Missouri. Most of the legislative aides that I know in Missouri, and I live in Jefferson City and work there, they are all, many of them, much more libertarian than their bosses because they have to be conservative to win office. But what I know of the legislative aides in Missouri is that it helps us because they do, like you say, accrue more power, but the ones that we have in Missouri are more libertarian. So there's a thing called super chickens. Super chickens are the hens that dominate the pecking order. So anybody who has chickens knows that there's going to be one hen who's going to be like,

I'm in charge and pushing everybody around. So they did an experiment. They took a bunch of different flocks, took the highest ranking pecking order chickens and said, okay, let's put them in a flock and see how they handle it.

They all killed each other. So I bring that up because I'm like, I wonder what would happen if the island ID, I know I'm kidding, but imagine if we took everyone out,

you get four years in office for whatever reason and afterwards, island. Iowa. What would that look like? You'd lose a lot of institutional memory, right? Like there's a lot of places. Well, I'm not talking about two walls.

I'm talking about what would an island look like if you just like a boat comes up and they're like, off you go, and they leave? And then you enter the society of all former politicians. It would look like Arlington, Virginia. Yeah, that's a good point. And you enter the society of all former politicians. It would look like Arlington, Virginia. Yeah, that's a good point. Also, I mean, Will, if we want institutional memory, we can always venture to the island and grab one of those. Hey, how did the nuclear reactors work? How does that regulation – how do you reset the memory? I don't remember.

You're like, all right, thank you. I will tell you if you let me off the island. They're like, this is my best friend, Jim. He's like holding a coconut. You're like, ah, he doesn't remember. Part of why I think term limits is a better idea now than it was before is because of social media. People get really famous, and when they're in office for four years, they get 1.2 million followers. Then they're gone.

They're out of politics. But they still have a huge following. They can still make a living. People still trust them. There are a lot of people who are in politics for four years who don't end up with 1.2 million followers. The ones that we're thinking of are all giant, but that's because they're giant. I just got to read one Super Chat real quick because I just saw it. Phil Gowen says, Tim, it's a bad idea.

The elite already have had their island. Oh! That's spicy. Now, Will, how do we get rid of the deep state? How do you get rid of the deep state how do you get rid of the deep state is there like a spray or something right here you you change civil service laws right that's the where basically you make people much more easy to fire for the basis of just like you're not you're not one of us right like the for and i mean that creates its own set of like corruption issues which is like you sweep in a whole every time you have a new administration, you sweep out a whole bunch of civil servants that you wouldn't have swept out before.

But what about their institutional knowledge? We would lose. I mean, you want like you basically it's like you want a world where you can you know, you have the choice about whether you keep that institutional knowledge around or not. Right. Like you get the benefit of it if you think these people are genuinely nonpartisan. But if you come in and you're like, oh, look, the FBI wants to destroy my administration, I'm going to fire as many people as want to do that to make a point. Like, you just need, basically, you want to give more authority to the White House over the executive branch if it wants to use it. And I think the big problem is when you have a White House that can't deal with

a hostile executive branch, then you have the deep state problem. So are you opposed to presidential term limits? No. I mean, like, I think some, you'd probably, it's such an important position that it's probably, it's such a powerful position that it's probably good that you get some rotation in there. So the Senate's less powerful, powerful so senate's less powerful senate senate's primary function now is becoming the primary function is becoming oversight honestly but but wouldn't you want to see that meme carpe don't make of the trump 2024 2028 2032 just going off indefinitely wouldn't that be great i mean and you know like there's a trade-off right i mean you you do get like sometimes you really have a good president,

and it's probably good that they weren't kicked out. I mean, like, think about it. I mean, FDR would have been termed out right in the middle of World War II. Was it good? Yeah, it was not good. Like, that probably would have been a bad thing, right? Are we sure? I mean, he was elected in 32 for his first term,

and then his term would have ran out in January of 1940, which I guess would have – we weren't in the war yet, but we were close. And then certainly – 40 – he was 41, right? Shouldn't democracy, the way it's laid out, shouldn't it be like the way that the system is set up? Shouldn't it be that that transition of power should occur in wartime and do so in such a way as to be... Yeah, I mean, we always want peaceful transfer of power. But the question is sort of a technocratic one. Is it good to force people out of power, you know, by a term limit via like a statute

rather than allowing the people to continue to choose the person they like to be continuing in power? I mean, you know, there's no term limits in Britain for prime ministers. But during wartime, the power of the presidency swells and expands, right? So, I mean, isn't that probably the argument for why allowing that kind of transfer of power or protecting the executive branch? Sure, but, like, also, you know, wild swings in the policy of an administration during wartime don't seem great. You're right.

Right? Like, you know, that there's probably a benefit to, and also like, there's probably a benefit to, that's not saying that you couldn't, right? Like there's still elections. The guy still has to win office every time. But I mean,

we've had presidents that have changed hands during wars. Sure. But not at the scale of World War II. And, you know, we've had peaceful transfers of power between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, right? Sure. So, I mean, did it affect our transfers of power between George W. Bush and Barack Obama, right? Sure. So, I mean, did it affect our wartime capability?

I mean, no, but there's, like, I guess, you know, what you're saying is you actually have to not just say that it's merely not, like, not bad to have switches of power. You have to, like, come up with, like, affirmatively good, like, it is a good thing that people are forced to leave the presidency and that we are forced to have these changes in a maximum of eight years. And I don't know. I think it's actually a much closer question, right? Like, the nature of our system inevitably weakens the president at a certain point in his, like, term where everybody knows he's going to be gone soon. Like, you know, it's not necessarily— Lame duck. You know, it's not having lame ducks is not necessarily a good thing in terms of how our system of government works, because you get this sort of degrading of the executive at the end of the last two years of his term. That's not a good thing.

Not necessarily. No, I mean, just think about like, you know, what does it mean for how the rest of the government, you know, the way I see it is sovereign power is always conserved. Right. So if the president's power is ebbing away, somebody has it. Maybe it's Congress. Maybe it's, you know, unelected executive branch officials. Who knows, right? But it just doesn't seem obvious to me that it's a good thing that we have these lame duck periods.

Because other systems don't have it. England doesn't, and they have a democracy, but their prime ministers could just keep getting reelected. It's not a democracy. It's a parliamentary monarchy. Parliamentary monarchy, but the same concept applies, where it's like the leader does not necessarily have to go after X number of times. I don't like democracy. That's why I bring it up.

When people are like, our democracy, I'm like, you're democratic institutions in your either parliamentary monarchy or constitutional republic. To point out, transfer of power during wartime, we haven't actually been at war since 1943, 1942, whenever we declared war. Congress hasn't declared a war since, so it's just been these military actions.

I play Civilization, and I just can't stand the democratic form of government in that game. You've got to go Republic. It's the way to do it. That's right. Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't, well, I mean, you can also choose religious fundamentals. I'm talking about Civilization II, by the way, going back to the 90s.

Anyway, would you kindly smash that like button? Overturn the like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share this show with your friends. And become a member at TimCast.com. In the top right of the screen, you'll see that sign-up button. Hit that. Support our work.

We just hired a couple more journalists. We're going to be hiring more people. We're expanding, doing a lot of really awesome stuff. Check out youtube.com slash castcastle because we're basically making a cultural comedy kind of show based on the shenanigans

that happens here at the castle with all of our staff members and team members. Really, really fun. And with your support, we're actually expanding into documentaries. We're working on one

about gun control and the Federal Reserve. It's expensive to make documentaries, but we're going to do it. When you sign up, you're going to be helping in that mission. So that being said, let's read some of these super chats. All right. Jeb Reed says, common sense gender laws. There are only two genders.

Nature, the original science, decided millions of years ago. Yeah, you mentioned gender uh was a discrimination and how like gender segregation gender segregation i think it's more sexual segregation and we should keep keep hammering that it's not about gender it's about what sex so you have a man and a woman i'm using the traditional colloquial definition of the word gender to mean biological they slid that one in because oh i see what you're doing biological sexual discrimination is understandable because you don't want naked men in a naked woman's bathroom necessarily because he might try and have sex with her against her will.

That's the point. Well, and again, I mean, separating the genders makes sense. You don't want to tantalize the male testosterone with naked women. It's not just that. Well, so my response to sort of what was said earlier. Men are mindless and just like can't help but attack women. They're animals, that's for sure. So the reason it makes sense, right, is because when you're looking at civil rights laws with respect to segregation between black people and white people and comparing them to gender segregation, the difference is there are actual fundamental important differences between men and women. There are differences between the sexes.

That's also reflected in how the court evaluates those rules. It's a different level of scrutiny. I'm pretty sure it's intermediate scrutiny. They made the argument in the 50s that there were biological differences between people based on race. Yeah, but the arguments weren't good. Right. We had

a conversation about this. If you look at a person from Haiti and a person from Somalia, the skin color does not hold a commonality between these groups. They're very, very different. One's taller. One's on average shorter. One's on average thinner or whatever.

So the racial arguments make no sense. Across all civilizations, there is sexual dimorphism. Exactly. So that's the argument. How do we look at human beings in race versus genetics? If we look at some people on the genetic level, can you tell genetically that someone is of a certain race? There's a funny meme where it shows two skeletons embracing. And someone commented, it's so beautiful because at this point you don't know if it's a man or a woman or if they're white or black.

And it's just love. And then someone responded, actually, you can take a look at the mandibular blah, blah, blah. This one's clearly an Asian female. On the left, you can tell because of the more prominent frontal lobe. It's a male and very obviously Caucasian. It's like just based on the skeleton. They knew the race. Also, I love the argument that like when you strip every characteristic away from a person down to the point where they're just a skeleton, we're really all the same. It's like, hold on.

It's like not making a point. So does that lead to like arguments about biological determinism and things like that? Well, what's that exactly? I mean, like, so for example, like sickle cell anemia, right? So like that's, you know, shared by, you know, all races can have it,

but it's, you know, confined to African Americans, right? And so talking about that as like a biological determinant, does it jump from not just like a disease, but does it jump to behaviors or something that could be looked at as a social behavior? Is there, you know, some kind of a reason for why people of certain races behave in a certain way? That's what biological determinism would be, right? You're inherently, because of your biology, going to behave in a certain way more likely's what biological determinism would be. You're inherently, because of your biology, going to

behave in a certain way more likely because you're of this certain race. If genetics determine your race, and you can tell from genetics what somebody's race is. In so far as... I'm just asking, by the way. ...a propensity... Just so you know... Great question.

In so far as a propensity towards a disease may influence a culture's evolution. So a culture that's more likely to have sickle cell anemia might behave culturally in different ways and pass on different values to their kids. Eat different foods. Cultures that eat different foods are going to have different reactions to those foods. Japan, for instance, they traditionally have a low-fat diet. I read that Japanese people have a certain gut bacteria that can break down cellulose better and it's because they're culturally,

they would eat a lot of seaweed, a lot of cellulose. My view on this based on a lot of what I've read is that there's a mix of nature versus nurture in everything, but that behavioral changes based on race are so minimal

and that it's typically cultural. So if you take a look at the stereotype about about Asians being smart, it's like, yeah, well, look at their cultural values. The cultural values are the parents are very strict on you should study and you should do these things. I also know stoner, pothead, loser Asian people because they did not have those values. I think culture absolutely trumps in terms of behavior. So does that make Japanese people, is that a superpower in a sense, right? To be able to

break down cellulose better than other people, right? Well, it's a gut bacteria. You can get that gut bacteria. Right. So I read a book where they talked about Jewish domination of basketball before African-Americans came in, right? So it was like the most uncommon thing you could ever imagine. Before African Americans were known to play basketball and to be great at basketball, it was actually a bunch of Jewish basketball leagues that existed. And then all of a sudden that changed, right? Which would imply that, you know, anybody could be good at basketball, right?

But I mean, is it, so then is it a cultural thing that African Americans just play basketball more so they tend to be better at it? Right. Or is there a biological question? It's both. We look at CRISPR, which is this genetic engineering. I mean, they're making attempting to make superhumans by tweaking their genes. There's definitely a correlation between your genetics and your abilities. Well, well, I think I think you got clarify. The issue with basketball is height. And if certain people from certain backgrounds are taller, that's what gets you in the NBA.

I think I read that if you're seven feet tall, you have a 17% chance of being in the NBA. Because it's just like we want a tall person that can reach better. So I'm not sure that the issue is your ability so much as people from Sweden and Norway tend to be a lot taller and they're white than say people from France who are a lot shorter. Have you seen like the penis study in sizes in different cultures or different countries around the world? Let's read some more. Let's get that. All right. We got Mayor Bear says Ben Shapiro today broke down the decision concurrence and the dissent. He explained all the legal and constitutional parts and was extremely

informative. It's worth a listen or watch. Well, Ben is a lawyer, and he's very smart, so I would be surprised if it wasn't. Why did we even bring Will on? Why did we bring Ben Shabir on? Ben Shabir already took care of it. Just go watch Ben's video.

It was really more a 5-4 than a 6-3, honestly. Roberts' concurrence was just a concurrence in the judgment. And it was really cringe. We talked about this earlier, I think, how he wanted to have this reasonable opportunity standard to replace viability.

And he's looking at the majority, he's like, you guys are discarding precedent, willy-nilly. And they look at him and they're like, you want to invent a completely new standard? That's not Star Indecisus either, bro. Sorry. Good old Roberts. All right, let's read some more. We got Blessed Fatherhood says, love the cake, Shimcast.

The real work starts now. Cherish all women. We're doing cool stuff in Oklahoma. Love is sometimes difficult. Exodus 20. Patrick Banks says, as an adopted person, yes yes it needs more support i agree it's crazy you guys ever watch 30 rock i love that show when when uh tina fey's character liz lemon is trying to adopt a kid and and like the the plot of it is that it's extremely difficult

and i'm like that's crazy there's a baby that's in need of a family and they're like weird like this is a wealthy white woman in New York City who works for NBC. Like how hard is it? But the gag is basically that it's very difficult to do. And then I think ultimately she doesn't get the kid, right? Or does she?

She does get the kid. I don't know, whatever. I haven't seen the show in a while. Why is it so hard? Why do they pose such a challenge for adoption these days? I don't know much about it, but I just keep hearing.

Well, there's good money to be made for the state. And holding the children hostage. Selling them to people who want them. It's also like they say it's kind of like an admittance fee. So if you can't afford to pay that fee, then it shows that you're able to monetarily take care of the child as well. Some people argue for that. I'm not saying we do.

But if you lower the cost of adopting a baby to zero and somebody can just come in and be like, oh, I'll take 10 babies. Yeah, then I'll sell them off to slavery or something. Got it. All right. Fritter says, pendulum swing. And the harder you try to push the bob to your side, the harder, faster, and farther it swings to the other side when you lose your grip. And you always lose your grip. That's what I'm talking about.

Beware the moral superiority where none of us are perfect. All right. Jason Lindholm says, Chicago, Aurora, Naperville, and other Illinois cities having protests. Tim and Seamus. Are you blaming us? Oh, wow. That's so crazy. In Democrat-controlled Chicago, they're protesting as if anyone there is pro-life.

I don't get it. I just don't understand. We're going to go protest and riot in the city that agrees with us. It's like, okay. There you go. Well, I get it. If they go to a red red city or state then people are going to come out and be like come back well the thing is there's a chance

obviously if it uh isn't peaceful which by the way joe biden said make sure your protests are peaceful so you know good on him and then he went like this and then and then he went even though your administration encouraged people to break the law and protest outside justice's homes all right um but what happens is in these communities where there is this straight conservative or conservative organization or a church, if they get rowdy, that's what they go after. That's what they attack. How is Joe Biden still a Catholic, by the way? Come on.

He's not. He's not a practicing Catholic by definition. He doesn't give assent to Catholic teaching. He doesn't. The goal is to trick liberals into thinking he's Catholic so that he can make some kind of argument. But Catholics look at him like, yeah, no, come on.

He literally tries to make an identity politics argument about being Catholic. He's like, no, I just identify as one. I call myself one. Therefore, I am one even though I completely reject

what the church has to say. It's like a trans theory of Catholicism. Yeah, it is. What is a Catholic? You guys are joking, but this would be a good show just all by itself, like the battle in between Christianity, between progressive Christians and conservative Christians. You have this fight that's going on in the Southern Baptist Convention right now between corrupt pastors and things, and a lot of progressive Christians out there

that are advancing the things that you don't agree in, but they're doing it in the name of God. And it would be a fascinating thing for somebody who doesn't have a dog in the fight there, but who does have a dog in the fight against progressivism to see, are you all on your back feet right now? I mean, are you conservative Christians losing to progressive Christians? Because it sure seems that way. Not in our churches, to be honest. Most of the young people, I mean, almost all the young Catholics I know are very conservative, very orthodox, don't harbor heretical beliefs. So with Joe Biden, I've said this before, one of the necessary requirements in order to be considered a practicing Catholic is you have to give full assent to Catholic teaching. And Joe Biden clearly doesn't on many issues. He's like, no, I don't believe that, man.

And so he's called devout when he's not even practicing. And if you consider yourself to be a Christian, but you reject Catholic doctrines, you reject the authority of the papacy, you are protesting the church. There's a word for a protest. And you're a protestant. You're a that is what the word Protestant means. And I'm sorry for my Protestant brothers and sisters in the audience. I don't mean to voice Joe Biden onto you. If your church is any good, he wouldn't be considered a member there either.

But Joe Biden is not a practicing Catholic by definition. All right, let's read some more. We got Josh M who says, I read two-thirds of Americans are pro-choice to some degree. I believe pro-life statehouse reps and governors are going to have a hard time holding their seats. I've also read GOP leadership agree and are quite worried. Thoughts. I will address this by saying they're not pro-choice in the way you think. If Republicans want to hold their seats, they need to make sure their constituents know Democrats tried to pass a

bill that allowed abortion at nine months. Okay. The people who are pro-choice are more pro-choice probably like me or will, where it's like there's some area of nuance, but beyond this elective abortion, we don't like these things. When you actually break down all these polls, what they ask these people is, are you pro-choice or pro-life? And they'll say, I'm pro-choice. And then they'll say, do you think there should be restrictions on abortion? In fact, the interesting thing is, I think it was Gallup. Actually, the majority of people sided with the view.

No, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is historical data. We pulled the majority of people sided with the view. No, no, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. This is historical data we pulled up through Wikipedia going back decades, repeated. Most people think there should be legitimate reasons for an abortion, which basically bans 90, what, 93% of abortions? Yeah, most people. No more elective abortion. That's like two-thirds of people think, yes, abortion should be allowed with reasons. I wish they knew.

Yeah, the center of American public opinion is more pro-life than the current law, right? I think that's the way to think about it. And so it's not, but it's not like absolutist pro-life. It's just, it's definitely, it's, honestly, I think the center of American opinion is probably more like European law, where it's something like, you know, like you know early it's usually not allowed to pass like 12 weeks without a doctor's without a doctor's explanation of why it's necessary and so i think so as a result i think i don't think this will have a big political impact in the way that people think i actually honestly i think this is going to be better for republicans than it is for democrats because my

basic thesis is this is very demoralizing if you are an activist Democrat or if you're a moderate Democrat. Well, yeah. It's the economy. These social issues can only last so long until someone, right now they're screaming.

They're like, I can't believe the Supreme Court would do this to us. We need to go protest. They all get out and go into their car and they're driving.

We're not going to be able to make it downtown unless I stop for gas. Then they're going to pull into the gas station and go, what were we mad about again? Staring at the $5 pump being like... See, they're arguing that this is going to

galvanize the base, that they're going to make these fall elections all about abortion. The left is saying that this is going to help us win these elections or at least stem the tide of a Republican red wave coming this fall. Think about how much Democrat politicians have failed their constituents on this one.

If their constituents were like, no, we would really just like to preserve the right to an abortion or preserve Roe as it was, well, you had the opportunity to codify it. You've had plenty of opportunity to codify it into federal law. Think of Obama era when they had the super majorities. They want the wedge issue. They had the opportunity to get RBG to retire during Obama's term. I mean, there's so many. Well, let's just read some more Super Chats.

We got the Isaac Glover Show says, Tim, you're wrong about recalling senators. The First Amendment gives us the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Check the definition of petition again, and you'll realize you can't recall anybody. Well, look, the government is comprised of people, and people can do what they want if they have confidence in what they're doing. But maybe I am wrong. Can you recall a senator? No. Okay, well, there you go. Can a state legislature recall a senator? No. So how do you deal with senators who are acting in defiance of their constituents? Expulsion. Well, how do you do that? Senate can expel its own members. Oh, okay.

So that's never going to happen. Yeah. That's the only... I thought it has happened. It has happened. It happened after the Civil War. What if there was some kind of fourth branch of government where the people could put forth bills or whatever?

That's a good idea. So they could expel other people. Wouldn't it be funny if Ian started arguing against it and we're trying to convince him? No. Stupid. Stop now. They're never worth it. We'd be better off just letting California secede and then reconquering it and administrating

it as a territory. So you do believe in a great divorce. Hey, can we add any new states? Maybe annex Alberta? You think that the United States will ever add a 51st state? I think that's a wonderful idea. I think we absolutely should annex Alberta. Texas was given the United States will ever add a 51st state? I think that's a wonderful idea. I think we absolutely should annex Alberta. Texas was given the option to be five states.

Did you know that? Interesting. When they joined the union, and they opted to remain as Texas. So imagine what that would look like. Can the 51st state not be D.C.? No, D.C. should never be a state. D.C. should never be a state. It just shouldn't be there.

We need to expand D.C. should never be a state. Can we all agree? D.C. should never be a state. It just shouldn't be there. We need to expand D.C. to include Arlington. That was a historical mistake to let Arlington come into Virginia. We need to disenfranchise more liberals. Well, it's not that. Save Virginia from Northern Virginia. Hear that, Media Matters? Anyone saying D.C. should be a state, in my opinion, is ignorant or evil. D.C. is a federal territory for obvious reason

no state should have power over the federal government that's the point but here's the problem taxation and representation right ian are they being represented properly they're not supposed to live there okay so that's your goal is they don't live in dc if you want representation yes okay listen i mean if dc was brought into maryland the maryland state government could Don't live in D.C. if you want representation? Yes. Okay. Listen. I'm not saying I disagree. If D.C. was brought into Maryland, the Maryland state government could pressure the federal government and get favors, and that is not going to work for a union. It would cause dissolution. Abolish housing in the District of Columbia.

I'm just a practical man. Again, is there a way to disenfranchise more liberals? Well, look, I'm not saying we can't evict everybody from D.C. The Hakes are still so calm. He's like, eh, just go. I'm not saying we can't i'm not saying we can evict everybody from dc but the fact is it was a mistake to start bringing housing into the federal territory that was supposed to administer government yeah great all right let's grab some more gene dumas says i think japan has it right they acknowledge that the nuclear family is important many of the lgbt activists and the one that make the woke gospel want to destroy the nuclear family. BML used to advertise that on their webpage.

They're not the only one. That's true. And they got rid of it because people were freaking out. BLM was very much anti-family. That's right. Brody May says, please see if Bryson Gray will come on the show. He's an amazing musician, and his newest song, Drag Queens, is great.

Titles such as Maga Boy and Gun Totin Patriot, he's been doing culture jamming since 2016. I've heard of him. Didn't he do a song that mentioned me? Him and, yeah, it was him and- Patriot Jay, maybe? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I feel bad for forgetting his name.

Yeah, I think somebody did mention you yeah he did a song with someone him and this other guy did a song and they mentioned something like Tim Pool's Beanie Anomaly that's who it was we shouted him out and I'll tell you if you like tastefully make fun of me

in a song like I'll shout it out you know what I mean like Hasan Piker is tweeting at me told me i should be aborted i said hassan be nice jeez yeah that's really that's awful well it's because i i posted this ridiculous tweet where i said if if hillary clinton would have won in 2016 scotus would have mandated forced abortions today like the point was the extreme opposite of what happened like as if that would really happen and so then he said you should be a mandated abortion i love tim's always explaining his twitter he's like look this is like not what i meant this was a joke like i feel like every

well because the people who are listening are in on it no i know you know what i mean so i want to like i'm like hey here's like here's the point of doing it i'm just posting nonsense to you know no like make a point. All right. Let's grab some more. What do we got here? Super chats, super chats. All right. Barely Insane says, in terms of marriage, I think the government should allow civil unions that participate in the same benefits, gay or not.

Marriage is a religious deal and should only be handled by churches and synagogues, et cetera. Well, the issue is in the like traditional American view it is but you mentioned Native Americans have it you know marriage exists everywhere ancient pagan stuff they would have concubines as well it was just different type of marriage like I said Abraham was married marriage far pre-existed Abraham

all right Jedi Mind Trick says Tim Staff enough Tim Staff enough though I've been a member since 2019 and went out of my way to be cool, told me to go F myself when I had a billing issue. Changes my perspective totally. I don't believe you, good sir. Ah, doubt.

Yeah, very serious doubt. Wow. Can I just shout something out? This is not a super chat, but it's in the chat. Someone said Ian and Seamus should start wearing beanies. Oh, you should. Everyone on the show has to wear a beanie. chat but it's in the chat someone said ian and shama should start wearing beanies oh now i see why you're so hot yeah let's do it it's like i'm melting just so fired up kingdom first says hello gorillas buck buck if you would like to get a christian perspective on origins

morality and what the bible actually says check out steve g at thenarrowpath.com. No denominations, no cults, just a life lived in Christ. Interesting. All right. JRC says, a covenant versus a contract. It's pretty simple to understand the difference as long as you have morals and values. What is the difference? I guess he's saying, like, a covenant isn't breakable, or a covenant is something you take enough with religious content, maybe? I mean, again, I see the value of, like, making commitments that you can't wiggle out of, right?

Like, it just seems marriage, like, one obvious really pragmatic benefit of marriage being in it is, like, the knowledge that you can't just leave, right? And that forces you to work things out and compromise and, work with each other and not hold you know especially once you have children like not hold the dissolution of the marriage over each other's heads um like i see i see relationships where you know people have children but aren't married and i'm just like you're so unlucky like you really you both would be so much better off if you were you know had just this massive social pressure forcing you to stay together and had undertaken this commitment to each other. That's that no-fault divorce.

Yeah, no, I'm not for it. It's a problem. All right, let's read some more. We got Jacob who says, Tim, I am unapologetically pro-life and I have my sister's baby shower tomorrow. There will be dozens of liberal women there and the Roe v. Wade news

will undoubtedly be a big subject of discussion. Seamus, pray shameless pray for me absolutely i would just put it this way my attitude is always sort of passive curiosity and so don't get heated don't get angry just like not along and be like oh okay and then ask questions and one of them is but you know like the democrats tried passing that bill that would allow for ending the baby's life even if the baby could be delivered. I don't understand that. And then if they get mad and say no, I'm like, I don't know. Like, yeah, that's the bill. Like, I don't know.

And just like don't argue with them but just be like, why are you getting so mad? Like, I don't understand why you're so angry at me. I love that this is a baby shower. It's kind of like, look, it's a baby. We're here because we wanted to have a baby. Well, you can do the opposite. You can be like, should have aborted it. Oh.

Yeah, keep the focus of the day on the baby and the health of the baby and the gloriousness of birth. Refuse to get a gift and be like, I disagree. I'm pro Roe v. Wade, so that baby should have been aborted. I'm an anti-natalist. How dare you bring another life into this world? I've got one of those ideologies that only exists on Reddit. Yeah. It's just so weird when I'm talking with people like, so you're-natalist. How dare you bring another life into this world? I've got one of those ideologies that only exists on Reddit. It's just so weird when I'm talking with people like, so you're a natalist?

And I'm like, a natalist? You mean I'm a normal person? Yes. But I'm like, I'm not even arguing any strong conservative position. I was just like, we shouldn't kill babies at nine months. I'm not a natalist. I hate when people come up with new terms for normal. I'm normal.

I'm normal. I'm a normal person. Yes. That's completely like, I mean, I don't want to say that come up with new terms for normal. I'm normal. I'm normal. I'm a normal person. Yes, exactly. That's completely like, I mean, I don't want to say that because I think it's bad to say it on this show because YouTube will, but you realize the fundamental underlying tension

with the antinatalist position, like you're alive. Yeah. Right? But I mean, there are people who wish they aren't. There are people who have been on camera who have said, I wish I was aborted.

That's so weird. Those are the kind of people that are like, I'm moving to Canada if Trump gets elected and then they don't go. There are methods to really want to. Constitutional amendment. If you tweet that you're leaving the country due to a presidential election, not only are you obligated to do so under our new constitutional amendment, but we will taxpayer fund it. Yeah, we'll subsidize it. That's fine. Out. Taxation is theft. You're obligated to do so under our new constitutional amendment, but we will taxpayer fund it. Yeah, we'll subsidize it. That's fine. Out!

No! Taxation is theft! Yeah, I just, I absolutely do not advocate suicide. I think it is a grave and horrible evil. Do not do it. But when someone who is alive says, like, oh, I hate being alive, or like, I wish I was never born, it's like, well, clearly you find some goodness and value in life because you're still here. Why would you not want to extend that to other human beings?

Well, I'll tell you this. I have been told by multiple people who are Christian that they wished they were dead because they want to be in heaven. Well, I mean, I hope to be. I would tell them don't presume. Right. Oh, brutal. That's right. That's right.

There's no rush either. All right. Will P. says, Tim, bring Austin Peterson back on IRL as soon as possible. This was the best show yet. It was a good show. It was a spicy show. This's right. There's no rush either. Alright, Will P says, Tim, bring Austin Peterson back on IRL as soon as possible. This was the best show. Yeah, it was a good show. This was good. By the way, we all disagreed on so much. This was like no, it was good. Remember when Will defended the Federal Reserve?

I know. Every time someone made a strong statement, one person was like, yes. Someone else was like, no. See, I made the mistake of seeing the chats on there and it's like, get Austin out of here. I was like, I've got to turn that off. Well, when I brought up that Will defended the Federal Reserve, all of the ones... Oh, yeah. I'm like, no!

No! All the AP for Liberty fans. That's what makes it fun. Oh, Will, did all those ones, were there too many ones? Did that cause inflation? There were 20 of them. Is the average one worth less? Yeah, but if you don't...

I'm not going to get started and ruin your day. Wait, wait. Are you for the inflation algorithm, the Milton Friedman thing? Is that okay? I don't know about the algorithm, but I definitely don't want a gold standard. It's a terrible algorithm. I'm not saying we're gold standard. I don't want to talk about free banking.

It's got a free banking in the late 1800s where there was a gold standard, but the banks printed their own money. Where's that bill? I mean... Free banking. Free banking. Google it. Google it. Free banking. Free banking. that bill? Free banking. Google it.

Free banking. I don't know, man. The Gilded Age. Yes, thank you, Ken. The liberals call it the age of robber barons, but we call it the Gilded Age where one of the greatest American presidents, Grover Cleveland, presided over administrations at a time of unprecedented prosperity and wealth

at the tail end of the Industrial Revolution in the United States when we were building up our industrial manufacturing and turning the United States into a powerhouse that became what it was today. The Gilded Age had a banking system that was called a free banking system based on a Scottish banking system that existed during a period of the 1700s. This is the Adam Smith system. This is a system where banks are allowed to print and create their own currencies. For those that are just listening, Austin is holding

up the Bank of Columbus $10 bill. It is a decentralized, but it is legal tender. You just knew that bank backed the value of that currency. You don't need a federal reserve for it. Can I ask, how much did you pay for that? I think it was like $75. $75? That's appreciation.

I was going to say, that's appreciation. Clearly, it was a good investment. If you held on bunch, if you held on to that. It may have been way less, actually. It was just a bunch of those. You want money to have a stable value. The question is, is what is money? And can government determine the value of money? Money wasn't a creation of government.

Money predates government. We traded amongst ourselves. Currency? Oh, no, no, no. Weird noises. Some maniacal economist at the head of the Federal Reserve can determine how much our money values. What was the inception of currency? It must have been 4,000 or 5,000 B.C. if not before.

So if you want to know about where currency came from, just Google John Money. I want you all to learn about him. That's right. Look up John Money. Learn everything about him and everything he invented and where it all came from. I love those memes where they do that, where it'll be like, if you're ever wondering why the banks are ripping you off, you need to understand how the banking power came to be. Just Google search John Money to understand.

Yeah. The best one I ever saw was Gage Groskowitz was a father of five children. He was burned or he was attacked. Look him up and find out all about him and the five children. Okay. I'm just going to say it one more time. Look up free banking. That is look up free banking. Also, I will say

this part of the problem with that is most people do not look up what the meme tells them to look up. They just believe the meme is true. All right, all right. We'll just, let's grab a couple more superchats here. All right, let's see what we got. Colton

Sulak says, hey, Tim and crew, I keep hearing the argument about Roe v wade being overturned would make birth control harder to get not sure how but could y'all explain yeah the i mean it's the substantive due process argument that we already went over the idea that it would undermine substantive due process uh the doctrine and thereby undermine the cases like i think the griswold case is the contraception case um but as i explained earlier very unlikely that it actually is in the dobbs opinion it is expressly disclaimed that it has any impact on these other substantive due process cases and so not gonna happen right that was um

griswold right yeah griswold v connecticut yeah that was the right to contraception well interesting all right let's see we'll try and grab one more V. Connecticut. Yeah, that was the right to contraception. Well, interesting. Alright, let's see. We'll try and grab one more. Thousand Foot Deep End says, Seamus, phenomenal appearance on Pop Culture Crisis today. You had this Protestant fist pumping your calling of the lost to repentance and hope in Christ. Hope to see you back on soon.

Thank you so much. See what I'm doing to your shows, Tim? Hey, hey, make them more valuable. Stocks rising. Thank you, that's right. Ladies and gentlemen to your shows, Tim? Hey, hey, make them more valuable. Stocks rising. Thank you. That's right. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button? Overturn the like button.

Subscribe to this channel. Share the show if you like it. Become a member at TimCast.com to support the work we're doing as we expand this operation. You can follow the show at TimCastIRL. You can follow me at TimCast everywhere. Follow me on Instagram. Austin, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah AP for Liberty on Twitter, Facebook

and Instagram and I just launched a new store where I actually 3D print Buddhas with Thomas Jefferson's head on them and George Washington's

head on them so check that out it's AP for Liberty shop that's a gorilla though yeah this is a gorilla see I was so excited I brought a bunch

I brought all my Buddhas and 3D prints for you guys but I was so excited to come on that I left them at the hotel man so hopefully next time but check it out at ap for liberty shop.com it's just ap the number four ap for liberty shop.com there's also a lot of cool like fourth of july stuff on there so go and check it out and check out the store and buy some merch and follow me on twitter right on will uh at will chamberlain on Twitter. Also, I should shout out my organizations. The Internet Accountability Project.

The underscore IAP. That's also on Twitter. Fighting Big Tech Abuses. And then the Article 3 Project, which I don't have the Twitter handle right there, but very relevant today. Article 3 Project fought hard to get Trump Supreme Court justices confirmed. That seems to have been a pretty good idea and a

pretty good thing to be working on. I'm Seamus Coghlan. My credentials? Well, someone who just chatted in described me as semi-acceptable. Oh, my. Here we are. Moving on. I run a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes.

We released a video Thursday and a video today. I think you guys are going to love it. It's about Roe v. Wade being overturned and how these crazy... Thank you so much. And there's also a 12 minute version of it. So it's five minutes long. There's a full 12 minute version of it at freedomtunes.com if you become a member. Five bucks a month. You'll get an extra

cartoon every single week. Plus behind the scenes content. You'll be supporting independent content. So go over there and check it out. Thank you so much. I liked it because Seamus says my name several times. I do actually say that. That's really funny. I update people on my website. That is a powerful plug. So I plugged my shop right

there and I watched the store. 26 people instantly joined in. Oh, cool. You guys move people. Way to go. AP for Liberty. AP for Liberty, yeah. I just found some really groundbreaking information. The Statue of Liberty was chained. I don't know if you guys know this. The original idea of the Statue of Liberty was that she had broken chains on her hands.

She's a freed slave. The industrialists of the time or whoever decided, no, it's too prominent. Put the chains at her feet. If you see the Statue of Liberty from above, she has a broken chain at her feet. I thought the Statue of Liberty was given to us by the French so they could sneak in while they were hidden inside. If you go there, you'll meet them. It's to remember that we come from freed slaves, not only the British, but our own Civil War to free the slaves. Before that, the Roman slaves.

We are descended and let it never happen again. It would be beautiful if we saw that in New York Harbor. For whatever reason, they made her look like an erudite post-freedom. But we've got to remember the actual essence of freedom yes i feel a very strong connection with ian are you like the radical crazy libertarian here or no he's like half the time radical authority two of those three words it was the funny the funniest time was when ian went on about like how he believes in the death penalty and it was like i can't remember which guest we had but they were like arguing with you but then you agreed on the death penalty he's like wow like, I can't remember which guest we had, but they were like arguing with you,

but then you agreed on the death penalty. I was like, wow. I don't know where to box. I can't box myself into it, but what's right, what looks sensical, what looks realistic. If DMT tripping was a person.

Oh, I'm totally into psychedelics. Maybe that's what you're feeling. Maybe that's what it is. Have you smoked DMT before? It's the mushrooms, I think. They're kept on ayahuasca. It's nice. You get a DMT rush. I'll go mushrooms, I think. They're kept on ayahuasca. It's nice. You get a DMT rush.

I'll go deeper on it later. We can talk about it on the next one. Anyway, I am also here in the corner. I pushed all the buttons this evening. It was a lot of work because they were all talking over each other, which was very fun, very engaged conversation. Thank you guys both very much for coming. Austin for coming from all the way from Missouri, which kind of sounds like paradise right now.

Will for coming from D.C. I'm happy we were able to get you out of there for a few hours. You guys may follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sour Patch Lids. We're also going to the Minds event in New York City. Very excited to be there. I want a selfie with Tulsi Gabbard. Stay tuned. We'll see if I get that.

You guys can follow me at Sour Patch Lids.me as well. Check out Cast Castle on YouTube for our silly comedy vlogs. You can check out youtube.com slash chicken city if you want to watch chickens they're sleeping right now but you can watch them thanks for hanging out everybody we'll see you all next time bye guys