Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #563 - Jordan Peterson SUSPENDED Over Trans Tweet, Signs To Daily Wire w/Spike Cohen

Episode Date: July 1, 2022

Tim, Ian, Mary of Pop Culture Crisis, and Lydia join libertarian commentator and podcaster Spike Cohen to discuss Jordan Peterson's Twitter suspension and new deal with Daily Wire, the Pentagon's declaration that Roe's reversal means nothing to them, the 'Unborn Victims of Violence Act,' and Joe Biden's insane argument for electing someone else. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So Jordan Peterson got suspended on Twitter for making a tweet about an actress with the last name Page. I'll just put it that way, who's in Umbrella Academy. He made a tweet referencing an individual named Ellen Page, who now goes by Elliot Page. How about, does that work for you? And is refusing to apologize, so it looks like it's going to be a permanent suspension, but there is really, really big news. Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager have signed with The Daily Wire. The Daily Wire announced they got 890,000 paying subscribers. And I was so jealous. I punched my

monitor. I was like, oh, The Daily Wire. No, I'm just kidding. I'm really excited for these guys because their victory is our victory. Watching the corporate press and the establishment fizzle out and implode, CNN Plus couldn't even fail on time. They ended up imploding a few days early. It's amazing. And then The Daily Wire is taking off to see all of this success, to see Jordan Peterson getting more funding, to see money coming in,

to see everyone supporting The Daily Wire. It's just good news. It's just all around good news. And that's because it's not all good news. So I decided, you know, we're originally going to leave with the Joe Biden story where he said, you're going to pay high gas prices

as long as it takes for him to win in Ukraine. Great. Joe Biden's political ambitions are going to dictate why you can't afford to pay for gas. But, you know, I decided it's a little dark and, you know, let's switch it up and talk about the good news. I mean, it is kind of bad news that Jordan Peterson got suspended. We'll talk about that. Plus, we got some crazy news. The EPA is lost in the Supreme Court. Supreme Court basically said the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions, which is a huge

knock on federal authority. So now it's just hilarious. All of the losses the left has received, gun rights, Roe v. Wade, and now the EPA, they are freaking out. AOC, of course, going on Colbert and saying that the Supreme Court's illegitimate or whatever. She's an extremist. Nancy Pelosi says they're extremist. Well, they're really, really upset. But the Democrats are going to use all of that energy to try and win in the midterms. We'll see because I'm not convinced.

After all of the really bad stuff that happened to the left because the Supreme Court made correct rulings, when Joe Biden comes out and says you're going to pay high gas prices as long as it takes, I'm pretty sure people are going to be like, as long as it takes is until you're voted out of office, dude, Because it's not going to be that long. So we'll talk about all that. But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.

The Daily Wire has 890,000 subscribers. So we just need to add about 800 and some odd thousand people to our website and then we can be as big as they are. But we're doing a lot of stuff here as well. We brought in Jamie Kilstein to help us do the

vlog, Cast Castle, which we're slowly building it up to kind of like a fictional version of our office. So it'll be like a sitcom with gags and bits. We've always been trying to do that, but you have to slowly build up to it and we're not just throwing tons of money into it. But with your support,

we can ramp up production across the board. We got Tales from the Inverted World launching season two tomorrow. It's going to be big, plus the book. So we got a bunch of stuff in the works. We've got new people coming on board. We've got new shows planned. And with your support as members, there won't just be one massive company taking over the cultural establishment.

There will be two. TimCast will be doing it as well. So sign up. We're going to have a members-only show coming up for you at 11 p.m. That will be at TimCast.com. Smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with your friends. Without further ado, joining us to talk about all of these fun stories is Spike Cohen.

Hey, man. Thanks for having me on. Who are you? I am Spike Cohen. I am the founder and chair of an organization I started about a month ago called You Are the Power, which is a grassroots libertarian political activism group. I am a retired business owner. I am first and foremost the husband to objectively the greatest woman to ever walk this planet, Tasha Cohen.

And in my spare time, I cyberbully federal agencies and elected officials until they delete their social media accounts. Has that actually happened? A few times, yeah. Oh, wow. We've got, I think, 12 total. Mostly local and state, but yeah, a few DAs we've chased off the internet and stuff like But you don't mean, like, literally cyberbully.

You mean challenge their authority. Yeah, so I should say, cyberbully isism, we don't threaten her or anything like that. But really just, I'm actually almost like saccharine sweet in the way. I'm like, hi there, how are you doing? By the way, can we talk about this thing? And so I'm almost, I'm very congenial about it, but in a way that makes them want to leave the internet forever. So it'll be interesting talking about the EPA stuff with you, especially. Sure, absolutely.

We also have Mary Morgan. Hello, thank you for having have Mary Morgan. Hello. Thank you for having me on a second time. I didn't say anything to get you canceled last time. I'm still in your good graces, right? So you earned your way back on. Yeah. I'm the co-host of Pop Culture Crisis.

I'm going to shill it all night tonight. We just got over 30,000, so now it's the race to 40,000 with Inverted World. 100,000. Eventually. Pop Culture Crisis is one of our shows so mary and brett desavik host the show yes talking about pop culture issues and and cultural issues as well it's the more it's the more cultural side of the conversation so we talk a lot about heavy politics and stuff like the epa and joe biden and you guys were talking about like woke hollywood stuff yeah uh today we were talking about how how James Bond is getting a reinvention,

which could mean something very bad. He's going to be a black woman, I think. Right? Yeah, maybe paraplegic too, I heard. No.

Really? No. I believe it. The fact that you believe it, it says a lot. Yeah. All right. We also got Ian.

What's up, everybody? I'm actually going to be on Pop Culture Crisis tomorrow with Mary and Brett. I'm looking forward to it. It's going to be 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, so come and check it out. And I'm looking forward to communicating tonight with compassion, not letting my emotions get the best of me, just listening. Well, not just listening, but listening in addition to talking.

Excellent strategy. Pop Culture Crisis is 100% a house-like hobby. I'm always on on Wednesdays. Sometimes I go on with Andy. Ian's on Fridays. Got a bunch of our journalists on there. It's always a good time. You guys should for sure check it out.

Let's get to 40K next. Yeah. All right. Let's jump to this first story from the National Post. Jordan Peterson, suspended from Twitter, says it might as well be a ban because I won't apologize. Quote, If I can't be let back on because I won't apologize. Quote, if I can't be

let back on because I won't apologize, I could care less, Jordan Peterson told the National Post after Twitter suspended his account over a tweet about Elliot Page. I don't think Jordan Peterson said anything about Elliot Page. Did not, no. He was referring to an Ellen Page. On June 28th, the controversial author, I like how they say he's

controversial, clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto lost access to most of his Twitter account features because of a tweet he posted earlier in the week that used transgender actor Elliot Page's former name and suggested he had his breasts removed by a criminal physician. So that, he said, quote, I penned an irritated tweet in response to one of the latest happenings on the increasingly heated culture war front, Peter told the National Post. As far as Peterson is concerned, the temporary suspension might as well have been a ban because

he would rather die than delete the tweet in question, he said. Does the tweet stay up when that happens? I think so. I'm going to have to check it out. It stays up private, I think. Private? They want you to be the one to take it down, to admit you're wrong. Which is so psychologically manipulative.

That's a very psychological move. It's like no one can see it, but you have to take it down, to admit you're wrong. Which is so psychologically manipulative. That's a very psychological move. It's like, no one can see it, but you have to remove it yourself. Like, we could remove it, but you have to do it, or you can't come back on it. A tone. Very interesting. Exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's like making a kid go out into the woods and pick his own switch. Yeah, it is very much so.

Yes, but I think it's a legal thing. I think it's a legal thing. Is it? Yeah, I think they're like, we can't tell you. Yeah, like we can't remove it because then we are directly involved or something like that. And also then where's the proof? If you're like, hey, where's your proof that I violated terms? There's nothing up. Right. But then there's also, I mean, like Facebook's removed all sorts of stuff I put up over the years. And I'm sure Twitter has actually been fairly good to me on most stuff but in terms of

I mean I think they can remove stuff but maybe only if it's like you said violating the terms and if this is something that doesn't technically violate their terms they're like okay well we're just going to make you remove it. I'm honestly not sure what it is. It also might be because he's so prominent they don't want to remove it. They want him

to remove it and make that you know like atonement for it. I honestly don't know. If this was a small account, they would have gotten nuked in two seconds. They'd just, yeah, get nuked. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Send a message. But I think the principal issue as to why he got suspended was because he said criminal. He said criminal physician, I think is what he said, right?

Is that what he said? Yes, that's what he said. What's his exact tweet? Criminal physician. Right. And that's it right there. The insinuation of a crime or something is probably why they took it down. Oh, okay.

Dead naming. Yeah. Yep. Not dead naming no no that was the insert policy um i don't know i i i issued a tweet like so so often when people get suspended for stuff like this i will tweet something out similar in the same vein but specifically like jumping over landmines of the rules yeah so that i can effectively say something similar but to prove a point kind kind of just like make the point.

Yeah, I didn't get suspended. Maybe, I don't know, knock on wood, spoke too soon. But after I heard that Jordan Peterson got suspended, I tweeted, who is Ellen Page and what does breast removed mean? So by posing it as a question, the issue is with YouTube and all these platforms, they don't want you attacking people. That's the real issue. They don't mind you criticizing people.

But what Twitter, YouTube, and these other platforms have said behind the scenes, or I mean, actually, they say it overtly, is their goal is a healthier conversation. So if you're being critical of someone, but you're doing it calmly, they're fine with it. But if you start calling names and stuff, then that's when they... So you think it was more about the criminal accusation than about calling Elliot Ellen? It's kind of vague. But the idea is these big social media platforms, they don't want to cultivate a culture around everyone throwing rocks and mud at each other. So I talked to Google, and they told me,

because we have Google partners. I actually know a ton of people who work at Google. And they said, we're trying to just clamp down on people who are angry, nasty people who make their shows based on just being nasty and mean. And they were like,

obviously your show is nothing like that, so you have nothing to worry about. And I was like, I mean, I don't believe you, to be completely honest, but I appreciate you said that to me. Right, right. Just as a side note, I looked up the terms of service for Twitter, and it says they do prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes, other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade, or reinforce negative, harmful stereotypes. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming. So I think that might have been what did it for me.

So that might have been it. I'm not sure. Or it might have been what did it for him. So that might have been it. I'm not sure. Or it might have been both, yeah. So if you're a small account on Twitter, you get no benefit of the doubt. Right, of course. They just nuke you in two seconds. They don't care.

For Jordan Peterson, if putting criminal in there, I think is what put him over the edge of they're saying you're attacking, you're being mean and nasty or something like that. yeah i don't think it was a dead naming it probably played a role probably couldn't help but i don't think jordan peterson knows who elliot page is or anything about that you know i mean i think he just saw something it was like i can't believe they did this what i'm gonna tweet about it it's criminal and then they were like you're gone yeah

yeah so it might have been the the dead naming that got their attention, but the letter of the rule that was broken was the criminal accusation. Yeah, here's an interesting question, right? It is true that for a while, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, and big social media platforms were seeing a lot of people become very prominent off of just being really nasty. Now, the problem is the left is still extremely nasty, and they get away with it all the time. So I recognize it's a problem. My problem is like, maybe you guys should

actually, actually do something to, to calm people down and foster healthier conversations instead of just banning conservatives. Yeah. This is why last night we talked about Christianity. I brought up like the cult of Christianity. I think when you're criticizing a cult, it's different than criticizing the individuals. If you're criticizing the tenets of a cult, like the transgender ideologies of like, I was born in a male body, but I want to call myself a woman now. If you question that, that's really not a big problem. If you go after the individuals that are experiencing it,

then you're on hot water. Like he brought up Elliot's name, Elliot Page. And now that's like, yo, now you're bringing someone into it, an innocent bystander almost, someone that's part of it. Yeah. I think there's something to be said, a difference between someone giving their, in their mind, principle take either way on the transgender debate or discussion and like for

example on the on the anti side you know going after you know making fun of suicide rates or something and and you know uh going after individual people with memes about suicide or something like that that goes over the line of having a discussion about their disagreement with the idea of gender not being tied to biological sex and actually saying, well, I'm going to attack this person. So that would be an example of that. And obviously, there are other examples on the other side as well. But it's the difference between having even a heated debate and going at someone personally, like you said, to your point, attacking them. Well, here's an issue. Jordan Peterson has a lot of of very very important things to say least of which is his comments about elliot page right should he just say fine delete the tweet so he can carry on saying

the more important things to his 2.8 million followers this is this is the challenge i think jordan should probably set up a truth social account or something where he can tweet all day about these ideas right but not give up the battlefield over this one thing it's tough isn't it that's a judgment call for him to make he has to it really comes down to he has to decide how important what he was trying to say in that tweet was right like is that worth giving that up and it's not just what's in that tweet but the idea of something that jordan peterson has said a lot is uh I'm not going to say something that I don't agree with just because it'll make things easier. So if that's the hill he's willing to die on,

even if it's not necessarily in and of itself that important, he may back away from the whole thing. And I'm not even saying that I agree with that decision being made, but he's the one that built that audience, and it was on that kind of principle. So it's a judgment call, man. If he asked me what should I do, I'm not sure I'd have a good answer for him.

It feels like a metaphor for this would be, or some kind of example, Jordan Peterson, they swept the leg. They knocked him down. And he says, you're not supposed to sweep the leg, so I'm done fighting. And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You didn't lose. The fight's still happening. Don't walk away just because they pulled a cheap shot. Get up and try and win. And so the concern I have here is, I get that it was bad that

they're censoring him. He should be allowed to express these ideas. They should not be censored. But if Jordan Peterson has a million important things to say and one of them got him knocked down, it's not only did he say it. What he said has been blasted off a million fold. Everyone's seen it. Yeah. It's been seen substantially more than ever before. And he can say, I got my message out there. Let's get back to work.

So that's the challenge with the censorship issue is everybody's saying like we shouldn't be on YouTube and I'm like retreat from the battlefield so that we can go into a high school parking lot and talk to no one or recognize there are certain things that will get us kicked off the battlefield and we got to fight with what space we have. And then we set up the TimCast.com members only show

so that we can try and still do this. We are working on stuff behind the scenes in terms of infrastructure. We can only go as fast as humans can go, but hopefully we'll have some big announcements coming soon. And I think, I kind of feel like Jordan's made his point. He can come back on Twitter and he can start smack-talking again. He should go for it.

I think you made a good point, Spike, that he's made kind of his career around, or a big part of his career is like, I'm not going to use compel. You cannot compel me to say something I don't believe. And in this situation, I think if he did recant and say, okay, fine, fine, I'll do whatever you want. I'll bend the knee that he'll lose 30% of his followers or like they'll just lose faith in him.

And right now he's got the faith of humanity on his side. So wherever he goes, whatever he does, people will listen. People will follow. He also could be playing the long game of expecting Elon Musk to purchase Twitter so he can come back triumphant however many weeks, months from now and say, See, look, I didn't bend. I said what I said, and I'm not going to back off. And you can take that to the bank.

Then I'll never back off of something that I believe. And if that ends up playing out that way, then he ended up playing a much longer game than the rest of us. Here's an idea. He can take his tweet down, and then as soon as his account is reopened, issue a new tweet saying, follow me on Truth Social because screw this platform, they're censorious.

Try and pull as many of their users off the platform as possible to make them suffer. That's one way to do it. I mean, look, if Jordan Peterson is saying he's going to nuke, he's never coming back to Twitter, it's like, all right, give him one final show. Come back on and be like, come on, everybody, party's out here. Let's get out of here.

And delete your own account. And then, or you just put a big, if you want to see what Jordan Peterson, here's the link to Truth Social. Yeah, yeah. That's the way you got to do it, man. Do mines. Truth Social's, Trump will ban you for talking crap about him on social yeah that's true i have to give a shout out to my friend reed coverdale because what he does is whenever a new you know

so-called free speech platform comes out he immediately goes on creates an account and says a bunch of stuff that that you know ticks conservatives off and so you know immediately go on there and be like you know uh i don't, I'm not even sure if I should say this stuff because we're streaming on YouTube. Smart. But saying a bunch of various things that might tick people off on the center right and see how quickly it takes him to get kicked off. And it's usually measured in minutes or hours. And so he says, you know, these typically, and I'm not sure about Truth Social particularly,

but in general, any of these things, it's typically – it's more not necessarily free speech entirely, but more conservative-friendly speech as opposed to the Twitter version where it's more progressive or centrist-friendly speech. He has a – so far, he's batting 1,000 for getting knocked off these platforms. Shout out to Reed Coverdale. Yes. Nice job. Let's talk about what's going for getting knocked off these platforms. Shout out to Reed Coverdale. Yes. Nice job. Let's talk about what's going on with Jordan Peterson, man. This is Jordan Peterson Newsday. Daily Wire, the new streaming service, Daily Wire Plus,

signed Jordan Peterson to a multi-year deal. I was laughing all night. So this news came out basically during our show yesterday. And then when I found out, I started laughing. I'm like, this is amazing. CNN Plus couldn't last three weeks. They were supposed to implode within a month, and then even a few days early, they couldn't even fail on time.

And watching there just collapse. Then CNN had this announcement that their daytime host was just like, I'm quitting. I'm tired of being tired. I don't want to do this anymore. And then Daily Wire is expanding rapidly. They're signing new shows. They're launching new shows. They're launching new shows.

They're bringing in Dennis Prager and Jordan Peterson. In April, they had 600,000 subscribers. Now they have 890,000 subscribers. And so it's just a good day. You know what I say? I'll say this earlier. I'm not motivated by money. I'm not doing this because I want to buy a Ferrari, a Lambo, and build a mansion. No, I would love nothing more than to walk out of my hut into a field of fresh fruit

and farm them and smile upon a grateful universe knowing that we have snapped out of existence the corporate press and the establishment garbage, manipulative trash. I want to see the liars called out. I want to see accountability from the establishment. The Daily Wire is doing that good for them. We want to do do that too that's what i want to do every single day so when i see the daily wire pulling this off and i see cnn failing i know that we are we are we are winning it's a big turn in the tide man that's a that's a well like a extremely established turn in the in the momentum of if you want to call culture war like the sense of the i mean

they've they've not only have they increased their subscriber base by like 20 30 percent in like three months yeah which was massive what was it 600 000 to 900 something that's a 50 increase yeah yeah yeah it's this is really really monumental well that's from one documentary that's from matt's i am mostly as a woman what is a Woman. That's a big part of it. I think Gina Carano, of course, the Terror on the Prairie came out. Gina's just a superstar right now. I mean, she's a big part of the momentum of that and deserves the notoriety she's getting. Let's just do some math real quick.

$12 per month, 300,000 people per month. It's like 1.7 million. No, it's 3.6. 3.6 million per month. It's like 1.7 million? No, it's 3.6. 3.6 million per month. Added on top of their existing 600,000. So they're hitting like, I think the math is $10.6 million

per month. That's just in subscriptions too. And that's not counting their ad revenue. Man, I'm jealous. Merchandise, all that stuff. We got to get 300 employees. 890,000 website. But it's snowball rolling downhill.

They've been doing this for seven, eight years now. Right. So they're really, really taking off. And man, it just feels good, man. Sitting back and just seeing their success. It was really funny because when the news broke, I tweeted out saying, holy ish. And then I had these lefty journalists being like, ha-ha, LOL, and laughing. And I'm just like, bro, you're like on the verge of being unemployed.

What are you laughing about? You're going to go manage an AMC? What are you doing? I got a question now. Is Jordan an American citizen? Is he going to get his American citizenship after this? No, he's Canadian. I don't know. Moving to citizen? Is he going to get his American citizenship after this? No, he's Canadian. I don't know.

Moving to Tennessee? Is he going to go to Nashville? Or is he just keeping on with keeping on? I don't know. I don't think he has to be an American citizen to do a contract with. No, but does he get to become one now? I know he's fed up with the Canadian government. I mean, he said some really, really.

He's one of Justin Trudeau's probably most accurate, harshest critics, and justifiably so. I don't know if you know this, but I'm pretty sure you can just buy citizenship. Like if you're rich. At that point, yeah. At that point. And then you reach a certain point where it makes sense to renounce your citizenship for tax purposes. So I'm not sure where he falls in that spectrum on whether it makes sense for him to become

a citizen or to renounce it. Well, are Canadian taxes higher or lower than the U.S.? The income tax. Well, now with the increase. I think our taxes might be higher. I think that at the higher level, the income tax well now with the increase um i think our taxes might be higher i think that at the higher level the income tax is higher where canada gets you isn't necessarily the income tax being higher and in fact their corporate tax uh for the larger corporations is lower a lot of american companies like burger king was a famous one that moved to being a canadian company for the income for the corporate tax purpose it's the property taxes and

the sales taxes it's the it's the middle class that they're hitting with the real taxes. The rich aren't the ones getting it. Also, the censorship tax, which is unquantifiable. It's kind of like Einstein fleeing Nazi Germany before it got bad. He saw the writing on the wall and was like, I'm out. They've also had the not allowed to leave your province unless you're vaccinated tax that they finally lifted earlier this month.

So, I mean, if you're talking about overall burden, then it goes beyond property taxes. I saw a picture from a Canadian airport, and they were like, there's like four-hour waits or six-hour waits at the airport, and it's just bags, everything, this huge line. What are they – what is he putting in there? It's all Trudeau's fault what he's putting these people through. I just don't believe these people are happy. I just can't imagine they're happy

living in Canada. All the Canadian people I know are like trying to come to America. I'm not even kidding though. And then it was funny. I was hanging out with some Canadian friends

and I was ragging on Canada and they were getting really mad. They were like, you Americans are so arrogant. And I'm like, you're trying so hard to come here, dude. And they're like, still, Americans are so arrogant. And I'm like, yeah, you want to be here, dude. It is getting bad.

I agree that American arrogance is grotesque because we really need to live the ideals of the Constitution. You know, it's not just, it's not fair to like rest on our laurels because they worked so hard and intelligently to build that awesome document and yeah i don't know i think this country is gonna implode like we i didn't want to leave with the story but i was talking about the dod earlier saying they're going to keep performing abortions regardless of whether the states ban them right and i'm like what happens if a woman let's say you've got an active service personnel who lives in texas where they just banned abortion and she goes to a military base to get an abortion and they have a civilian

doctor contracting on the military base to perform abortions yeah i'm pretty sure i don't know about texas but i know there are laws that say that if if you leave to pursue an abortion or aid and abet someone getting an abortion, you can be criminally charged. So I'm feeling like in Texas, if you live in the state and go to federal jurisdiction, the federal government is like, don't worry. You can't be prosecuted for what we do here. It's legal. When you come back, they'll be like, no, we have a law that says it doesn't matter where you go to do it. It's illegal. So I think about stuff like that and I'm like, yeah, I think the U.S. is kind of about

to explode. But I say that just to provide a little juxtaposition to this good news about the culture war, because I don't think it means that the end is nigh. It just means we're in for a conflict. A revolution. Or something. Something. I mean, from the libertarian take, what we're hoping for is to move towards peaceful decentralization.

And the first step in that is, and this is something I'm working on with You Are the Power, is local, county, and state-level nullification of bad laws higher up the food chain that they don't like. Like the NFA. Like the NFA. Missouri became a second amendment sanctuary state and i think new hampshire just did uh yes and what the atf has already said um and uh border patrol had to say this with the immigration sanctuary states and i mean we know that they've had to do this with all the cannabis sanctuary states that without the local authorities doing

the like over 90 of the heavy lifting and the actual enforcement of these laws it's functionally impossible for them to be able to do it love to see it good that's good well california started it they wanted to do all the immigration stuff and now we're going to see all the two ways and the cannabis stuff and the immigration immigration and cannabis okay great well now we're doing it for everything that's right and and the beauty of that is not just the the real world implications of being able to nullify bad state and federal policy at the local level. It also empowers the citizen to know that their vote isn't just cast into the ether. They can take over their city, their county, and eventually their state and get rid of all the garbage that they don't have the wherewithal to stop at Capitol Hill.

They can just stop it from being effectively enforced where they live. Where we are right now in Maryland, there are, I think, I think it's three counties signed letters saying they wanted to secede from Maryland to join West Virginia. It's never going to happen. But the county we're in actually declared a two-way sanctuary.

It doesn't mean a whole lot because the state didn't. And so you still got to get clearance from the state police to make sure because the laws make no sense here for guns. But up in New Hampshire, the governor just signed a bill that said they're no longer going to cooperate with the feds and people need to understand the feds don't have the ability to police at all it's not even close the states have to do it for them so the the interesting thing is

when i'm reading about what was happening with um the the dod basically saying like we're going to keep doing abortions regardless of what the state law is i'm like can federal agents be arrested for breaking state laws do you know the answer to that question uh i mean the states can certainly arrest them for it uh it's then gonna have to work its way through adjudication to see if that's upheld the simple answer is well obviously of course right if if an fbi agent is caught likebing a bank, of course he's going to get charged. But what I mean is, if in their duties as federal officers they break state law, can the state arrest them? I think you have a duty to do it because, I mean, the union as it stands is just a contract amongst the states. The only reason the federal government even exists is because we're letting it exist per our contract with the Constitution. Well, they say that federal – so this is an interesting thing.

They say it's a supremacy clause, things like that. The federal government's laws supersede the state. So if California says weed's legal and the feds say no, it's not, the feds can go into California and enforce their law but what about the inverse what if the feds say a cop carrying a high capacity magazine as it's defined by these blue states they say no no police aren't allowed to carry those either now and the feds go in with Glock 17s can the state say I don't care who you are I don't care what you're doing, you broke the law? That's what I can't find. I think you've predicted one of the next big contentious things to be handled at the federal court level because that is likely to happen. As the gap between what the federal government's priorities and rules are and what the state's priorities and rules are, that's going to lead to conflict.

And it's not happening in Washington, D.C. It's not happening on federal land. It's happening on state property, in state jurisdictions. That's who's likely to get arrested. We know the feds will arrest someone at the state level in a Texas second. Let me actually, let's pull the story up and dive in. We have some NBC news. Pentagon says Supreme Court's Roe ruling won't affect abortions on military facilities.

The military will continue providing abortions in cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is at risk, a top Pentagon official said. Okay. Texas does not allow those exceptions, rape and incest, only the health of the mother, the life of the mother. So my question is, let's say you have a civilian doctor and a female army personnel. She lives off base. She's married. Civilian doctor does not live on base, but he contracts the hospital on base. Or not even that. He doesn't need to be civilian.

Let's say he's active duty military as well, lives off base. They both, living under the jurisdiction of Texas, are subject to its laws and rules. If you are in the Army and you break the law, you face military court and civilian court. You get in trouble two times. So we know they have to obey the laws. Obviously, you can't have a person to be like, I'm in the military, so I can do what I want. So they go into the military base. She gets an abortion. The doctor performs

it. There is now a record of that having occurred, and the U.S. government has said, you cannot be criminally charged or penalized civilly for having this procedure, regardless of the state law. But some of these states have actually, I don't know if they've passed them yet,

they say, if you aid and abet an abortion you're guilty of a crime so that means the doctor and the woman regardless of where it's performed coming back into that state could be arrested because they have committed the crime according to that state right what happens if the state then says we don't care what the fed said and they arrest this contractor or two active duty military. And the military is like, you can't arrest them. It's not illegal. And they say, it is here. What happens when states start arresting military personnel?

Well, I think there are three things there. One is what happens when the states start arresting them. The second part is, is a law that says you can't do something effectively somewhere else, somewhere outside of our jurisdiction, is that going to be able to hold up in court and then also the question of specific to this uh what if the feds just stop recording it what if the feds just it's you know no questions asked uh abortions being performed and they just don't you know i got one more for you okay woman's in the military she is married they get pregnant the man says i really think we should have this kid and she says i don't yeah and he says i refuse to allow the abortion app and i think it's wrong i think it's murder and she says too bad he knows where she goes he knows who does it and reports it to the local

state but to the state police you know maybe they're not married because i don't know if a husband would do that but let's say there's like, oh, she hooks up with a guy. Yeah, whatever. And the guy's just like, I refuse to allow you to get an abortion. I reject this. So he reports her. It doesn't matter if the feds are tracking it or not, you know, that you have a witness come out. And then the feds take the active duty person in and say, we're going to interrogate you as part of our investigation.

And she says, yes, I did it. And it was legal. It was on federal jurisdiction. And they say, okay, stand up. Hands behind your behind your back you're under arrest you've right to remain silent she's like what how is this happening and they say the law states if you aid in a bed an abortion and go somewhere it doesn't matter where it took place i don't know if texas has that ruling but the general idea i suppose is it's not necessarily the same thing as i think it might have been like iowa or idaho where they said if you aid in a bet but if this military base is in texas tech the feds might be like it happened on federal

jurisdiction texas might still say you're still in texas you still live under our laws and regardless of that let's just say letter of the law no no no they can't do that right okay well according to james buchanan states weren't legally allowed to secede either didn't stop them right so what happens if you get a christian conservative prosecutor in texas who says we have made it illegal to kill babies and then you went into a military base and killed a baby i'm gonna i'm gonna charge you and i'm gonna bring i'm gonna take it all the way to the top because i believe it's the right thing to do it doesn't matter what the federal government thinks they're protected on and then what the feds are going to be like trying to pull their people out of the jail filing lawsuits does it end in a legal battle or does it end with

the state police surrounding federal law enforcement vehicles at gunpoint and saying you're under arrest what happens then if a federal agent tries getting the woman out even though she's a known fugitive of state law, is it possible Texas then says you've aided and abetted a fugitive. I don't care if you're doing it. The feds have no authority to undermine our laws. Think about it this way. Let's say a federal agent, let's say a female member of the army murders a kid, hits him with a car, and it was on duty driving a military vehicle and the kid dies and the state says you were driving recklessly we have a witness you're under arrest and then the military says no

she was on she was active duty it was an accident we reject those charges what happens oh there i mean that's obvious right like if it's if it's on you know in the jurisdiction of the state where this gets mucky would be if she did it on a military base and the military said we're handling it and the state said no it's in our jurisdiction my understanding of that is that that wouldn't be their jurisdiction all right let's try this but we could also talk about there could be a prosecutor who says you know reality of power stop me right the court said i can't do it the supreme court said i can't do it i'm doing it anyway come and stop me here so so just throwing hypotheticals out there.

I'm not saying any of these are highly probable. Pizza delivery guy. He drives on a base, and they're like, what are you here for? And he's like, I've got to deliver a pizza to base housing. And they're like, all right, we're going to search your vehicle, and then you're cool. And then he's driving in, and then while on duty as an MP, she crashes into him, flips him over, killing him. And she was not paying attention, and she made an illegal lane change. And the military says, we're not prosecuting this. We think it was an accident.

And then the family of the driver says, he's a civilian who's in our state. We reject this. We want him charged. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it's highly likely in most circumstances in that case they'd be like, it happened on a military base. The feds are going to have to handle it. Yeah, I was going to say, I believe that there's already some longstanding precedent. I'm not even sure if it had to be judicial.

I think that's understanding that on military base, that is federal land. That's not state jurisdiction. So where the question arises then, where this starts to become more akin to the Civil War, is women going to military bases when they're not active duty to get abortions, the state knows they're not active duty to get abortions yeah the state knows they're doing it yeah does the state say to the federal government stop breaking our laws or else and the feds say it's our military base you can't do anything about it and they say we will send in state police to arrest these women the moment they step foot out they're getting

arrested because you are like if people start going on a military basis they say and again i know this is a bit of a stretch they're going to be providing abortions i think it's typically only done for military personnel on military bases but there are people on the left arguing for effectively making them sanctuaries for right exactly yeah yeah i'm so my suggestion is is this direction the direction we may be going? Oh, very much. I mean, you want to talk about a culture war. There is a gap between those who see this as a woman exerting autonomy over her body against a clump of cells, a parasite. And other people are saying, no, this is a murder of a baby every bit as much as if the woman were to turn around and murder someone standing next to them. And it's hard to have a compromise between that. Right.

And so if this plays out and, and both sides are willing to go to the trenches over it, this could lead to what we're talking about or even worse on just even this specific subject. You made a good point. Reality of power that they can say whatever they want. It doesn't matter who's willing to do something about it. And so I suppose the issue is let's take the moral issue of today with abortion and go back in time to slavery. So let's say in the North,

they said, we've abolished slavery. And then let's say it's in Pennsylvania. And so it's right on the border of Maryland, which was a slave state. And then you have a military base there that has slaves and they're like, we don't care that you abolished this. We're keeping the slaves. We're just going to do it anyway.

John Brown would probably lose it over that right the abolitionists would be like don't know don't care yeah you can't do this it's wrong yep so that that what i fear is it's just crazy to me that texas would come out so strong no exceptions for rape or incest and the military military says, we will. Like, we're getting to that point where you just need to imagine it this way. If abortion is murder, at least in the eyes of the Christian conservatives, what they're basically saying is we will keep killing children and you can't stop us. Yet at a certain point, law enforcement is going to be like, we have codified this in our law that you cannot do this and you are doing it. Well, it's not murder. I don't care what what people believe it's not murder let's keep that in mind why is it not murder it's not illegal in texas it is well in certain places if you do it in the

wrong spot you might consider it a murder i don't know if they are you saying from a legal standpoint legal standpoint murder is a legal term it's killing it's it's definitely a form of homicide i mean it depends on if you consider the lump of cells a human. At what point are they legally human? It is illegal in Texas. It is the unlawful killing of a person in Texas. Is it a person from inception? Did they codify that?

All I know is that abortions are illegal in Texas. I don't think they've codified it as murder. They've just as a criminal action. Okay. So still not murder. they've codified it as murder, as a criminal action. Otherwise, it wouldn't just be going after providers. It would be if you have an abortion, if you're a pregnant woman that has an abortion, you can face the death penalty,

for example. That would be the level that would be at. Could you imagine if the pro-life movement took it to the place where they were killing mothers for having abortions? You talk to Seamus even. He's very pro-life. He wants a national ban, they were killing mothers for having abortions. But you talk to Seamus even. He's very pro-life. He wants a national ban, and even he doesn't want to go there. Right.

He views it more as the doctors shouldn't be allowed to perform these things. He's not going to penalize the mothers who are in these positions or whatever. What makes me – really bothers me is the idea that a state would prosecute someone for something they did outside of the jurisdiction. I don't understand. That bothers me the most out of all of this. And, I mean, we could talk about my concerns about how a war on abortion is just as successful as the war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, everything else. What happens when you get government involved as a regulatory body on something like pregnancy and the harm that comes from that. But just inside of this, the biggest thing I'm concerned of on a broader scale is the idea of, oh, you did that over there?

Yeah, no, don't ever come back or we'll arrest you. Like that. I mean, take that to its logical conclusion. It doesn't sound... Are there any other instances in the United States that... I don't believe that would be held up. There may be some rule, but as far as I can think, I can't think of an instance where going, because, I mean, you take that to its logical conclusion. It's not just within the U.S.

That could mean someone that goes to the Netherlands and tries ketamine or tries cannabis or something and then comes back to a state where it's illegal, gets arrested because they put it on social media that they did it um and then you could even get more obscure with things that like violate a bylaw in your county but they they don't violate a bylaw where you were i think the enforcement mechanism there would be horrific and yeah it needs to be if there's going to be a semblance of rule of law it's the jurisdiction you are under those are the rules that you are under, not the crimes you committed and then come back, or the things you did there that were perfectly fine and legal, but then you come back home or wherever you reside, and now it's illegal there, so now you're going to be charged for a crime. I mean, imagine, hard enough to figure out what's illegal in a given place where you are, to try to figure out what's illegal any place you would then go after

that, yeah, I can't see that being held up. And that would be a major problem. And like Tim said, we don't even know if Texas has that, but there are other states that have tried implementing that for abortion and some of these other things. And it's politicians, honestly, virtue signaling to their base. Not only can't they do it here, they can't do it anywhere. Well, that's probably not going to be held up.

And would you want that to be held up? Like, would you want the government to tell you what you can and can't do when you aren't even under their jurisdiction? I certainly wouldn't. No, no, not at all. Ian, I know you said abortion is not murder from the legal standpoint of the word. But then what do you make of murdering a pregnant woman being considered double homicide? Oh, it's homicide homicide it's just not murder homicide is the killing of a human um murder is the illegal i don't know what they're different definitions so like murder is a form of homicide okay i don't know if the abortion bans are

considering abortion homicide though they're not in louisiana i think they tried to codify that and then it got bumped right no one wants to do that no one wants to to touch that. Mary's point was in, I think, Scott Peterson. I think Seamus brought that up. I don't know if it's Peterson's case. Yes. Yeah. He got charged with double homicide because he killed Lacey Peterson and their unborn child. Unborn child.

Right. So there are jurisdictions where if a woman is pregnant, you punch her in the stomach, you can get charged with murder. Yeah. Actual murder. Yeah. Yeah. Actual like. If the mother survives. Or manslaughter. Yeah. You kill the baby. She can get charged with murder. Yeah. Actual murder. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Actual, like, If the mother survives,

or manslaughter, yeah. But the she miscarries. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, just to clarify, you can get charged with murdering the baby if you punch her in the gut, right?

Murder, manslaughter, it depends on, I believe it's state by state, because I know in California, and a lot of people thought, how ironic, California, which is, you know, when it comes to abortion, the most, you know liberal on that subject uh but when scott peterson killed lacey peterson and her child he was charged with double

homicide with double murder very strange for california they're like no no no he did kill her but the rest was a clump of cells it comes down to the argument that well it all depends on the mother's intent because she wanted to keep the unborn child. No, I didn't say it made sense. This is it. This is the age of the will where your will equates to the truth of the matter. Yeah, no, if it comes down

to, if a state, because really it comes down to personhood, right? Like if a state has decided that personhood doesn't begin until birth or some point after conception and this fetus, unborn child, whatever you want to call it, hasn't reached that point of personhood yet, well, then that would mean whether it was through an abortion or through someone killing the mother or attacking the mother

and the fetus, unborn person dies, it would either always be a homicide or a crime, or it would always not be that because that thing doesn't have personhood yeah i would think there it's a there's a value to the intricacy of of killing an unborn fetus that maybe isn't considered a person that's that's different than just destroying a cell block but also maybe not as horrific as like a murder charge yeah it's some kind of a crime was committed but not necessarily murder if you're going the route of saying that

it doesn't have personhood yet. Check this out. I just Google searched this. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus

in utero as a legal victim if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.

The law defines child in utero as a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of violence. The law defines child and utero as a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development. The law is codified in two sections of U.S. Code. Blah, blah, blah. The law applies only to certain offenses

over which the U.S. government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military. In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur. So look, to put it simply, if you kill an unborn baby, since 2004, it has been considered a crime and the embryo is a legal

victim. A person too, according to what you were saying there. What's the name of that again? The Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Yeah, that was the Bush administration and the GOP Congress's kind of foot in the door of normalizing the idea of like, you know, this is an unborn child. It's also a victim for future references. You know, and this is also why abortion should be banned or restricted or whatever. So this was Bush's way of virtue of signaling that the unborn fetus is a person. Not just signaling, but actually creating the legal mechanism to build upon in the future. The camel's nose under the tent, and a few years later, you've got a full camel in your tent.

The purpose behind that, as Tim noted, that's for federal offenses or for federal personnel, like military personnel or whatever. So if it's outside of federal jurisdiction, that doesn't apply. So the whole purpose of that, even though it's very limited when it could ever be used, the whole purpose of that, yes, was to signal to the base, but also to create that infrastructure or that legal mechanism to make future build-upons in the future. This would mean that in Washington, D.C., for instance, if you committed one of these listed crimes against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus,

then you're... You're charged with this. Yeah, exactly. But I guess what is the charge? Is it feticide? Is it homicide? Is it murder, manslaughter? How do they handle it?

That I don't know. I guess if it's a legal victim and considered a person, it would just be homicide. Or whatever they did to it. Basically, whatever you did to the fetus. Right. They call it murder.

Had you done it to a post-born person, whatever, it's the same crime. It's murder. The title of the bill is an act to amend Title 18 U.S. Code and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder and for other purposes. So quite literally, they refer to it as murder. Yeah, if it was killed, it would be murder or manslaughter or whatever. And right now, abortion's not part of this. It's an exception as abortion. But I could imagine this argument happening

where they're like, well, abortion should be considered part of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, so we've got to be real careful that they don't start interweaving these without people understanding what's happening. Because if a mother goes in for an abortion and then gets charged with murder because of some stupid law, that's going to just unravel the fabric of society. We've got to not start punishing women for...

This is, I believe, a gray area right now because the Roe v. Wade decision, they decided, they sidestepped the question of is this a ninth amendment issue where abortion is an unenumerated right or is it a tenth amendment issue where this was never covered under the constitution and therefore it should be left to the states of the people instead they sidestepped and said well it's really it's a question of privacy it's a violation of privacy um and so in overturning this uh the the uh the current supreme court said not only it's not a ninth it's not a privacy issue they said it's also not a Ninth Amendment issue, but they said it's a Tenth Amendment issue, meaning it should be left to the states. So at least as it was decided, it did not sound like, name any medical procedure where you have no right to privacy.

Why isn't this a thing, blah, blah, blah? And I was like, did you read Roe? Because I don't think any of these people actually know what the point of Roe was or the decision, one of which was stated by the Supreme Court. The fetus itself is a living being with a right to privacy. Therefore, the question of an abortion is not about a single person, but about two persons, which is why we ended up with the trimester ruling. Basically, they said, okay, in the first trimester, you can get an abortion, but afterwards, now

you have to consider the person's life, which is the baby. And then with Casey, they said it's viability. It's not trimester. I don't think any of these people realize that. They keep saying things like my body, my choice, and you're like, read Roe. They're specifically saying at a certain point you have to recognize there are two bodies here. They don't even recognize that. In the federal law, they actually have a photo here on the Wikipedia page of a woman named Tracy Marciniak holding the body of her son.

She was seriously injured in an assault during the Wikipedia page of a woman named Tracy Marciniak holding the body of her son. She was seriously injured in an assault during the ninth month of her pregnancy. So that's what I often say. I don't understand why there is a legal distinction between two babies of the exact same amount of time since conception

but one has been removed from the womb and one hasn't. Why is there a legal protection for one but not the other? I don't understand any logical or moral statement. Mostly because the woman still has the protection. The protection is deferred to the mother if the baby's in the womb. But that still doesn't fly. If a mother was shielding her baby from your assault

and you ended up hurting her hands and killing the baby, you still committed homicide against the baby. Well, like if you – if a pregnant woman goes and kills someone, you don't charge the baby with accomplice to murder. No. Because – but it's a second person that was there, you know, and going through all the motions with them. Like it's an argument that you don't – the baby's not able to – Wait, I'm not following. The baby's not able to make choices at that stage. So you can't treat it like it... But why would you? Kidnapping

someone while you commit crimes, we don't say that the kidnapped victim is responsible for the crime. Bringing your child to a bank robbery, we don't hold the child responsible for you bringing him there. You happen to be occupying the same physical space. There's two parallel debates here. One is the personhood debate. When does this cease

to be a clump of cells and when does it become a full-fledged person that has the same legal and moral and ethical protections that anyone else would have? A secondary debate is even if it has personhood at some point before birth, which I think it's hard to argue that there's some magic moment

passing through the womb like, oh, now it's magically a person. But the secondary debate there becomes, at what point, if ever, does one human life have the right to the connection to another human life for its subsistence. And so that has been an argument that the mother, and that's why it comes down to what the mother wanted or intended or decided, is the idea that the mother shouldn't have to be, should the mother have to be tied to and be providing subsistence to and risking her life and health for a second person, even if it is an actual recognized person. Does that, does that, go ahead. Oh, no, I was going to say, this is where it gets interesting, because if you look at polling across the board over the past several decades, most people, you'll see the left will be like, 80% of people are pro-choice.

And I'm like, yeah, but they also really resent and reject elective abortion. Because the average person, when you're asking them about abortion, they think, they imagine this woman who's crying and being like, I have no choice. You know, I need to make the right decision for my life and my family. And I wish it wasn't this way. But instead, you have like 93% of abortions are elective, no reason given. Many women use it as a form of contraception. Most people don't like that.

So when you look at, I actually went through tons of data, all these different polls, all these different institutions, because I'm like, okay, they're saying, I can't believe that most people in this country are just like totally fine with abortion as contraception. And people keep saying they do.

And it's like, when you actually look at the questions asked, you realize, actually, they're not okay with elective abortion. And they're very much in line with I think how Oklahoma has been handling it, meaning abortion is legal in any legitimate circumstance. Legitimate being a very, very narrow band of acceptable causes for why abortion can happen. And most people, I think it's more than two-thirds or 70, say abortion should only happen with a legitimate reason.

And I'm like, that's actually very restrictive. That would get rid of 93% of abortions. You're not hearing that when it comes to what the left is actually arguing when they're talking about this. So I bring that up because you mentioned the woman is providing her body to the child. And this is an important distinction. In the issue of rape and incest, I actually think you have a very, very difficult position. But in this instance especially, I think women have a right to abortion, particularly because if you're going to make the argument that women made irresponsible choices and then got pregnant.

Rape is not an irresponsible choice. Right. It's victimhood. Yeah. And so here's the challenge because I've argued with this with Seamus. If a woman says, I'm going to go party tonight, I don't need protection, and then gets pregnant, then someone makes the point the government can't mandate she provide her body to another being. It's like, well, hold on. She made the choice to provide her body to that being and now wants to rescind it. It's not that she made the choice specifically thinking it would happen, but she engaged in the behavior which results in that it happened and now there's a being dependent upon her so it's it's like if you agree to uh

a medical procedure that would provide a direct link to another person's blood and then after two weeks said i want to shut this down they'd be like well now you'd be killing the person yeah it's a different story as opposed to someone forcefully jammed you fused your body with someone else, human centipede style. Then I'd be like, you had no right to do that, and you can't hold it against me. But the incest thing isn't victimhood either. Incest is a consensual – I disagree. Well, there could be rape involved in an incest situation.

But if a brother and sister decide to have a baby together, I don't understand how that would be different than having a child with some sort of deformity in the womb. I do understand your point, and I think there is an important moral distinction to be made that individuals can choose to engage in that behavior. But I also think incest has a special space in that it results in serious problems. It can. Inbreeding, they would call it. But so can like- That's why it's illegal. Just actually. Yeah. Yeah. But so can

any kind of deform... Like if you find out three weeks or seven weeks that the child has like a brain deformity or something, then it's basically like an incest gone wrong. Right. But also, I mean, when they say... The reason they say rape and incest is very often incest is rape. It is rape within the family.

Like the power dynamics alone of you know a father having sex with an impregnating a daughter that's rape like i mean there's you know that's not it would be very hard to argue especially if you got a very young daughter or something like that statutory rape yeah well not just statutory but also from the standpoint of like this is a child like it's it's pedophilia or hebephilia or whatever you want to call it. So it's, it is also an act of, of sexual assault or rape, uh, in addition to the fact that they're related. So, uh, that's because, uh, the child can't consent.

The idea is legally a child until they're 18, not consent. So it's a form of rape, but if they call it statutory, it's not actual, like two consenting adult siblings that have get pregnant. of rape, but if they call it statutory, it's not actual. You're making the distinction of two consenting adult cousins or something. Two consenting adult siblings that get pregnant, should they just be able to go get the baby aborted at five months? I mean, it's a good point because we certainly are not okay with the idea of eugenics-based abortion where it's like, I don't like the baby. I'm told the baby will not be well, therefore get rid of it.

Because if the incest is the same argument, then... But I want to point something out because I saw a meme. And it's the two arms coming together with like two distinct ideas and then coming together over one. You know what I'm talking about? Yeah, I know the one you're talking about. And it's slavery and abortion. And then together it said denying personhood rights. And I was like, oh, that's really funny because it's Democrats that are denying personhood today.

And then I was going to make a joke. I was like, you know who else denied personhood rights? And I was going to ah, that's really funny because it's Democrats that are denying personhood today. And then I was going to make a joke. I was like, you know who else denied personhood rights? And I was going to put the Confederates. And then I was like, wait, those are the Democrats too. It's literally just the Democrats. I want to tell you, I mean, I don't know how much longer you wanted to talk about this. So I do want to get this in. I actually personally consider myself pro-life.

I think that abortions are more often than not gruesome and regrettable things. The reason that I really do not like the idea of government getting involved in this is because if you look at how government handles things, they never just handle this. By their very nature, there's mission creep and they just keep getting more and more and more involved. If they take the turn of saying, this is a constitutionally protected person inside of your body and we have to make sure this person is not killed that doesn't end there it is also we need to make sure you're taking care of this person and if we're making sure you're taking care of this person we need to make sure that you're getting regular inspections and if there's a miscarriage we're going to have to investigate that and you know what you're going to need to be taking uh

you know keep your vitamin levels at a certain level and keep your bmi below a certain level this inevitably if you look at the history of how government ends up regulating things, this will inevitably at some point, especially once the progressives decide that they've lost this battle and they're just going to fight it on the other side, it will lead to pregnancy licensing. And if that sounds insane, by the way, for anyone who thinks that sounds insane, go back 100 years and tell someone all the things they have to have a license to do right now. And now go forward 10, 20 years and tell someone that you could have an unlicensed pregnancy

and look at the look of horror on their face. And whenever something has to be licensed or regulated, here come the rent-seeking crony lobbyists who want to make sure that their prenatal vitamin is mandated. So now what used to be $8 a month is now $500 a month. And who knows if your insurance is going to cover it and you're going to end up inevitably in the situation because abortion illegal abortions will always be available there will always be a black market for where poor women who are unable to afford a legal regulated pregnancy end up getting an on getting an illegal abortion who would have otherwise kept the child because they can't

afford the burden of getting a legal pregnancy and it's way easier to hide an illegal abortion than a ridiculous notion that anyone's miscarriage would be investigated in the circumstance that you know abortion would be federally banned or but then anyone could just say they miscarried instead of having abortion roe v wade was the start of the government encroaching upon women's bodies. What do you mean by that? That's the new precedent. They shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. Well, the involvement was saying whether or not they could do it.

That was the beginning of their regulating pregnancy. So just read that one. U.S. women are being jailed for having miscarriages. Now, it could be wrong. Yeah, I want to hear the full story. It could be wrong, right? Yeah.

They say a 21-year-old Native American woman from Oklahoma was convicted of manslaughter after having a miscarriage. People were outraged, but she was not alone. They say she was sentenced

to four years in prison for the first-degree manslaughter of her unborn son. Was she doing drugs? Maybe. That's what... I've seen a couple of cases like this. And I was like, what the heck?

The examiner did not determine the cause of death. Noting genetic anomaly, placenta abruption or maternal methamphetamine use could have been contributing factors. So it was the drug use. Yes. But it led to an investigation. And the problem is if you've criminalized abortion, then the easy loophole, if they're not actively investigating miscarriages is to just say oopsie got a miscarriage right and so that can trigger i mean it's not like every single time they're gonna you know have someone and they're gonna be drilling them putting the lights on them and all of that but at the very least there has to

be some follow-up by law enforcement to make sure this was a legitimate uh miscarriage now imagine being a woman who's just had a miscarriage. I don't think that that is inevitable. Do you think that before 1973, every woman who had a miscarriage was getting investigated? No, actually before 1973 and really before the restrictions that started a few decades prior, abortion was actually something that was largely unregulated in the U.S. And so it wasn't really coming into the late 19th and early 20th century was actually when you saw the ban starting. I will tell you, I mean, if you take it to its logical conclusion, because otherwise, if that's not the case,

then really there is no effective ban on abortion. They can just all say they miscarry. The reason you might have seen bans on abortion starting in the early 20th century is that's when contraception was taking off. But that's a whole other. Oh, yeah. Yeah. No, I mean, there's there were reasons for that.

But and the only point I'm making is that we haven't seen this exist long enough to see the logical conclusion of what happens when government gets their their hooks into something. You know, the government tends to screw things up. That's what concerns me about the Roe v. Wade overturn is that now instead of one government involved in the regulation, there's 50 governments regulating it. I don't know. That's kind of a good thing. I don't know, man. I don't want the governments involved.

Decentralization is better than centralization. In general, it is. If you argue, decentralization should go to the individual, right? Ideally. So if you're arguing that this is a woman's rights thing, that the obvious argument is that it goes back to the individual. If you're arguing that there should be some regulation of this, then the argument would be that it should be handled at the state level. I'm kind of transcending all of that and saying, I really just, the idea of government getting involved in something like this, you know, the war on drugs, more drugs, empowering of

cartels, the criminalization of otherwise peaceful human behavior, the militarization of the police, no knock raids, all of this came from trying to regulate the use of a substance. And if you get them now involved in pregnancy, then I'm very concerned where that's going to lead. Not immediately, but years, decades down the road, what that leads to. Especially once progressives say, hey, you know what? Screw it. We'll just regulate the hell out of it then. I hear you on government involvement.

The way I have to describe it is that people recognize a problem and say, let's do a government program to fix it. Yes. So you have a wound on your arm and you slap a Band-Aid on it. Yeah. A few months later, they say, ooh, that wound is looking festery and stinky. Yep. Let's put another Band-Aid on it. Yep.

And they keep stacking up bandages on a festering, gangrenous they never they never solve yeah um but that being said the problem's cultural it is very much one of the reasons we didn't have the issue with abortion pre-1973 that we do today or would is because a very different culture today it's like shout your abortion abortion at nine months you get an abortion and you get an abortion lena dunham coming out saying she wished she had one even like she didn't but she didn't get pregnant she was saying she wishes she got pregnant so she could have an abortion she was like all these women talk about it and i want to talk about it too and it's like that's messed up that's a complete psyop that anyone would think i had to say psyop that um you know anyone is favorable to that i think most people feel rather lukewarm or have mixed feelings about abortion no no zombies dude that like michelle wolf did

a whole bit where she was like you get an abortion yay and they're all cheering yeah but the masses not the talking head oh for sure right right right right i see what you're saying a psyop yeah yeah regular that's what i was saying most, you'll get the polls are like, we think abortion should only be allowed with legitimate reasons. And like that eliminates 93%. It's a much more nuanced take than either side wants to say. There's not this large plurality that's like, yes, even if you've been raped, you have to carry the child.

Nor is this large, necessarily large plurality that's like, yeah, all the way up to the very moment of birth. We're cool with it. But like you said, it's a cultural issue. It's also an economic issue. If you look at the surveys that have been done of women that get abortions, it's largely for economic reasons. A lot of them are already mothers who have just made an economic decision. Well, that's a problem that can be solved in an economic thing.

Most of it is no reason given. But of reasons that are given, economics is the main one. And so the point of that is that I think that I wish that there was more focus put on addressing the concerns and reasons why women get abortions, getting rid of some of these ridiculous restrictions on adoption, which, by the way, pro-lifers agree with. I hate watching pro-choicers or pro-abortion, whatever you want to call them, on Twitter and on Facebook going, well, if these pro-lifers really cared, they'd want to loosen the restrictions on adoption. Well, yeah, pro-lifers actually do want that. They definitely want that. They want adoption to be easier. It's ridiculous. Amy Coney Barrett's got like, what, two adopted kids? Yeah, no, they absolutely want that. So that's a common point that we could all agree on. Let's jump to some domestic issues.

We'll get off the abortion stuff for a bit. We got this story from Jalopnik. I love using leftist sources for this stuff. Biden warns Americans gas prices will remain high as long as it takes. Seatings will continue. Yes, right. The president said gas prices will stay high to combat Putin and Russia's war on Ukraine. I love it.

I love it. He's basically saying don't vote for me. I love it. He's basically saying, don't vote for me. I think it sounds like more of a threat than a warning. Biden threatens Americans. Gas prices will remain high as long as you take that. You want Ukraine to win or not, now pay up. Yeah, it's amazing. So at a time when the Democrats are desperate to find someone to run in 2024

because they don't think Joe Biden's going to make it, Joe Biden's giving them all of the reason to try and find someone else to run in 2024. You know, I like the theory that, you know, there have been people that have said that he keeps like giving calls for help, that he doesn't really want to be doing this and that he's like, you know, they won't just let me go eat ice cream. And like, he'll like, like at different, like candid moments where it'll be like, they told me to come out here and say this. So I guess I have to say that this might be him just like, you know, please like, don't

know. I don't want to. Yeah. Everyone everyone's gonna have to pay higher gas prices will you finally just replace me can i go sit down somewhere yeah this is a blatant honesty i mean the whole as long as it takes things is political propaganda but he's basically acknowledging that it's not going to come back down yeah if you remove as long as it takes this is an axiom this is as long as the policies that are in place uh are in place um the gas prices will remain high um and it's crazy because it was i believe earlier this month that biden did correctly acknowledge that right now the biggest bottleneck at least in the u.s when it comes to uh domestic gas production is at the refinery level but then he he blamed the

refiners and said oh you're not producing enough producing enough and you're profiting, you know, you're price gouging us. And then the refiners came out and said, we're at like 96, 98% capacity. If you right now lessen some of the environmental restrictions and regulations on us, we could increase capacity by double digits.

And if at the same time, you allowed us to build some new refineries for the first time in decades, while simultaneously reducing some of these tariffs on the materials that we need to build the refineries we could short-term fix it with reduction of regulations and long-term fix it by building more refineries but you know he'd rather say hashtag putin price hike joe biden said when he was campaigning he's going to transition us off of fossil fuels imagine hearing him tell you that voting for him and then coming out and being like joe biden doesn't control the price of gas yeah like dude he told you he was gonna do this it's like

that pikachu face meme where it's like i'm gonna make gas prices go up okay gas prices go up how did this happen and and you try and explain to them all of the reasons some of which are rbs they're like it's corporate profits that explains everything suddenly yeah and i'm like okay break break down for me the corporate profits thing and they're like what do you mean like explain to me the how much money they make like i don't know i just saw a meme on facebook and i'm like if inflation is through the roof and the cost to produce oil has gone up and the cost to drill for oil has gone up that means their profits will increase to the same percentage point.

So I'll put it simply. If you make $100 in profit and it costs you $75 to produce the oil, that's a 25% profit. If the costs increase by 25% and then you increase the cost of fuel as you sell it by 25%, it will also look like your profits went up 25%, but you retained the same level of buying power. These people don't understand that. So sure, maybe you can say, but they're still getting lots of profits. That is true.

They are still making billions of dollars. But it's also absurd to be like, well, they should sacrifice their profits for the sake of Joe Biden's energy policy. No, no, look, I'll be fair and say, yeah, they probably should work alongside with the government to lower prices. But we still can point out Joe Biden enacted a bunch of policies specifically to transition us off of fossil fuels. But to be, and exactly, I mean, he said, I'm going to do this. And it was like,

okay, good. But now what they didn't realize is transition isn't like rainbows and unicorns. Transition means make this prohibitively expensive so you have to do this. That's what a transition that's forced by government looks like as opposed to a market-driven transition where it is unicorns, where it is look at this new thing that's way better as opposed to we're going to make this thing way worse in comparison. You see these flight cancellations? Yes.

You see this stuff? Oh, I don't just see it. I've heard about them. I've been the victim of them, yes. We've been too. Like they abruptly will change someone's ticket. Yeah, cancel their flight. Or change it, right?

Didn't we have it like they just move someone's flight to the next day or something? No, that was them doing it. Yeah. They emailed me and they're like, oh, yeah, he changed that. He just didn't tell me. Oh, okay, okay, okay. That's fine. That's different.

That freaked me out. No, but there are stories in the press where people are saying that they just changed your flight to a later date or something. I have gotten on an airplane, gotten a notification that the flight had been canceled and then just start getting up because I realized they're about to announce it to everyone else too. And they've done that before. Yeah. And we ended up having to stay.

That was at Charlotte airport. We ended up having to stay the night there. And like, I'm looking at him like, no, we're on the, we're on the plane. I looked in the doors open. I'm like, I'm like, we're getting off the plane. And we did. And sure enough, like as I'm getting off the plane, they're like, everyone, we have an update. And I'm like, yeah, the update is this flight is canceled.

See you tomorrow morning. They said it was because of, oh, what did they say? They always say maintenance. And that's because of some kind of thing with the flight insurance. They don't have to pay as much out or something like that. But the reality is I talked to one of the pilots as we were leaving and they're like, yeah, we already went over our hours. And they thought that these other pilots coming in would be able to do it, but they went over their hours, too. I talked to a pilot and he said most pilots are hitting their limit.

And so they're just, you know. So my question, though, is how? Where did all the pilots go? They quit their vaccine mandates. They were like, well, I'm not getting the jab. I'm out. Furloughed in vaccine mandates. That's what happened.

And we were told, the media was like, they're not protesting vaccine mandates. Everything's fine. Yeah, a bunch will probably quit. I like the idea that everybody got raptured better because it sounds more fun.

The good pilots went to heaven. Higher and higher. The good pilots went to heaven. We're all in hell now. I've been thinking about this because why are there shortages everywhere? Where are people? Why aren't people working?

It's not even – maybe it's the vaccine mandates. And that could be really it that most people just said, I'm out. I'm not doing it. And now – but where are those people? I mean they got to eat, right? Black market. But what are they doing? They got to make money doing something, but they're still not here.

So we went to the movies over Labor Day, and there's nobody anywhere. And I'm just like, where are the humans? Where are the humans? So the fun conspiracy theory, it's not really a conspiracy, but the fun joke theory is that the rapture happened. And all of the people that got raptured, our memories of them was erased. So now we're just sitting here wondering why all of the stores have labor shortages, why there's no pilots anymore. They're all gone, and we just can't remember who they were.

Oh, good. So I have a new nightmare. Thank you for that. That's good. No, that's good. Just sleep on that. Seamus was like, that can't be true, you know, because Seamus is Catholic, right? He would have to be raptured, too. And I'm like, I don't know. Someone found out they were wrong. I know, right?

No, but in all seriousness, though, something doesn't know. Someone found out they were wrong. I know, right? Yeah. No, but in all seriousness, though, something doesn't make sense. I think they're at home collecting unemployment. But not for this long. Not for this long. They were canceling flights last year. They were, yeah. You're not going to get unemployment for two years.

I mean, we're going on a year. What is it, 18 months? Is that the long? They did extend it. So there is actually an explanation for this. When you pump trillions of dollars into the economy and artificially create demand while simultaneously paying people to do nothing, you create a bunch of consumers and reduce the number of producers. And we're watching that play out in real time. The way that corrects is through a massive recession, which is coming.

If it hasn't already started, it's coming. And it is the reality of when, and this, by the way, anyone who's still out there promoting modern monetary theory or UBI or any of that nonsense, this was a couple times of them handing off checks and expanding unemployment insurance by a little bit. And look at what it led to. It led to such a disruption in the market that everyone became net consumers and stopped producing. And the ripple effects of that will be felt for years. Should I take out a bunch of loans right now is what you're saying?

Yes, you should take out loans, credit card debt, anything you have a title for, go to the title loan place. This is the time to buy. You got to buy in. Well, so the idea is if the recession is coming and the value of the dollar is going to tank, then the buying – so like a car that's worth $20,000 today is going to be worth $40,000 in a year. Yeah. You take out a loan for a $20,000 car and in a year you sell it for $40,000. You pay off the loan.

You got a free $20,000. I mean that's some brave pool you're playing there. But yeah, I mean – Well, what I mean to say is – That's some rich guy's game. Right. No, no, no. What rich people do.

That is what rich people do. No, that is what rich people do, except they do it on your back, right? They do it with Fed money that just got freshly printed, and if everything goes south, then they're too big to fail. This is the point I'm making.

Right before the recession, they know that if they borrow $100,000, and then the buying power of that $100,000 collapses, they basically got a freebie. Now they can sell whatever they bought because the price will spike. The value of the dollar goes down, so you'll need twice as many dollars to buy it, so they'll get the free money. Half the buying power with none of the work.

I can imagine that that breaks down at some point. What's the inevitable conclusion of that Ponzi scheme? It just keeps getting worse. That's what we have right now. So you look at the difference between the 2007-2008, the housing price bubble that then crashed and then caused the whole ripple effect to the recession, which then led to the whole concept of too big to fail and the TARP bailouts. Add a zero to that, and that's what we're facing. This is a whole – this is an exponential – this is a whole order of magnitude higher of what we're this is a whole you know this is an exponential this is a whole order of magnitude higher of what we're facing now like we're literally instead of hundreds of billions and trillions we're now talking trillions and tens of trillions and it's hard to quantify

what the ripple effects are going to be and they just keep feeding into it and That's why you see this. They talk about the... Yes. Yes. I love this. 40% of all the money that has ever been made has been made in the last two years. This is also... To be fair... Yeah, are you going to explain that?

This spike is when they said your savings account is now a checking account. Right. So they put savings in a circulation. Right. But look at the hockey stick after the fact. That's the creation of currency. I think they did that to mask

that they were about to start printing and get that upper diagonal, that big one, that, what is it, like an 80 degree angle instead of a 27 degree angle? To make it look less severe? Yeah. And I'm glad you pointed that out because this doesn't look like a 40% increase. This looks like a 600% increase, but it's right.

It's the definitional change that happened. Thank you for- So what we got to do is get a graph where we remove the vertical line and just watch it go from the 27 degree angle to the 80 degree angle. It's still ugly. Yeah. It's still not good. And this is only up until 2020, like August of 2020, it looks like.

What's going on now? And what's funny is the fractional reserve policy changed just before COVID. Yeah, it was like April 2020 or something. It used to be that you needed a reserve to loan out money, and then they went, we're getting rid of that. You can just loan as much as you want. Yeah, yeah. Zero percent fractional reserve. Imagine playing a game of Monopoly, and all of us are playing by the rules, okay?

And every single – I'm going to make you the bad guy here. Sorry. All of us are playing by the rules. I'm going to make you the bad guy here, sorry. All of us are playing by the rules. You roll your dice, you go to the number of spaces, you decide whether you want to buy, hold, whatever.

Then when it's Mary's turn, she goes to the banker and says, give me a trillion Monopoly notes and stick them all with the bill for it. That's our economy. And the problem is the price of living is going up the same for everyone. But the closer you are to that money supply at its initial printout, at its initial disbursement, the less affected you are by the double digit price inflation. And the more you're exposed to the triple, quadruple-digit increase overnight of your wealth, and that's what we're seeing here.

Here's another important factor here. Bitcoin dropped, I think, to like 19K or whatever. And everyone's screaming in the media, and I'm just like, I don't know, I don't care. I'm ignoring it. And that's the deal. When you have money, you don't care that it went down. You're like, I don't know what I'm going to do with it anyway. And then after a year, two years, three years,

it starts to recover. So when people see this stuff and they actually need their money and they're seeing it tank and they're like, I can't ignore that. And they're forced to sell it at garbage rates. They become poorer. Rich people who are more resilient to the change in monetary value and recessions and depressions can ignore it until the recovery happens and then retain all that value. So the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Exactly.

I would also like to note that Bitcoin has crashed down to its 2017 high, its previous all-time high before this last increase. There's an old video. I wish they had kept updating it. It's about seven years old now, but it's called Don't Buy Bitcoin.

It crashes. And it's this Don't Buy Bitcoin. It crashes. And it's this guy going, there was this one time Bitcoin was worth, and I'm making up the numbers, but it's pretty much like this. One time it was worth 0.1 cents, and then it went up to 5 cents, and then it crashed all the way down to 2 cents. And then this other time it was worth $3.25, and then it went all the way up to $25, and then it crashed all the way down to $7.80. And he keeps doing this, and he goes, and so the moral of the story is don't buy, get Bitcoin. It crashes. This is the cycle of parabolic growth, usually some sideways trading, and then a crash down to higher than the previous all-time high. And now the gaps are obviously not as wide as they used to be. It's a lot easier for something to go from $1 to $10

than to go from $20,000 to $200,000, right? Like there's only so much market cap it can have. But the pattern is still playing out. This is not financial advice, by the way. I'm just a Jew on the internet. I'm not a financial advisor. But you look at the way the dollar is going, and I don't know how anybody could have faith in their paychecks at this point.

Really? Yeah. The recession that's headed our way, they're saying there's going to be rolling blackouts. Do you guys see this reporting? Rolling blackouts, food shortages, food prices. So you know what I'm really proud of? In 2020, I started doing the emergency food sponsorships. Yeah.

And then like Vice made like a hit piece, they were like, ha ha, what a loser. And then I'm like, man, if you bought that food in 2020, it was I think like half the cost of what it is today. Yeah. So you'd be sitting on food that lasts for 25 years at half the price. You'd be like, oh, wow, it's a good thing I bought it two years ago. It's going to last 23 more years. Yeah.

You buy it today, it's more expensive. Jim Baker has the last laugh. Even if you just decided to eat it today, you got your food at half price. Yep. So it's crazy because I was talking about this in 2020, 2021, food shortages are coming. What happens? Putin's price hike. Whether or not you believe any of that stuff, the fact is-

It came. There is a shortage of wheat, which is going to be mind-bogglingly devastating. Not as much to us, but Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all these Middle Eastern countries, Turkey, these countries that get much of their grain and food from Russia and Ukraine, they ain't going to be getting it. So what are they going to do? They're going to be very, very hungry and very angry. And we are going to be watching. We're going to be sitting there and we're going to be like, ha ha.

Remember when we used to watch CNN when they were news? No. Well, let's put it on anyway. You'll turn it on and you'll just see food riots, water and food riots. And we'll have some of that here. During the pandemic, remember those lines of cars for miles waiting for food because people didn't have any? If you think it's bad now, if you think it was bad back then, right now there's nobody producing.

So not only do we have a fertilizer shortage, which led to predictions of a crop yield dropping by 40%, diesel potential shortage, meaning farmers won't even be able to harvest. And if they do, it'll be substantially more expensive to harvest, and there will be substantially less food, meaning for more than one reason the cost of food is going to skyrocket. Yeah, it's almost a – sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, I was going to say, and then people are going to – that's when people break down and go crazy.

Yeah, it's almost as if massively expanding the monetary supply and then just handing it out leads to a massive increase in prices because you have much more money chasing the same amount of goods and services. And then that same amount of goods and services actually goes down because people say, I got all this money. I don't need to work. And so now you've got the disruptions from that. It's a perfect storm for what we're experiencing. You know what we need? Seeing this problem happening.

Yes. We need to figure out a way to start over. Some kind of like a reset, but a bigger one. A great one. A great one. A great reset. Like a really big. Make resets great again.

Yeah. Yeah, like a great reset. And then maybe when the people, look, people are going to lose everything they own in this, but we need this great reset. And then after that, they may own nothing, but they will be happy. They'll be happy. They'll be happy. That sounds pretty good. So it makes you wonder. You said it was great.

You sold me it great, honestly. If it's called great, then it must be. Listen, listen, listen. It makes you wonder when they advocate for the great reset, literally, like calling it that, and then they implement these policies that have just destroyed everything. It's almost like they want it to happen. I'm looking at the M1 money supply.

I'm kind of investigating it right now. And it does show up until May. I'm seeing it up until May of 2022. It's at the 80% increase until about April, 2022. And then it looks like it's actually gone down. Yeah. Because yeah,

that's slightly a little bit. Yeah. Because the federal reserve has started tightening the rates. They've, they've started increasing the rates. The reason that's happening, that is a consequence of banks being able to lend money or get lent money at effectively 0%. Once you factor in for inflation, they're actually getting it at negative interest rate. They can turn around and put it out there to us, to the consumer, at a low interest rate and just make a bunch of free money, basically.

It's literal free money. So by raising the rates and then buy property with it, right? And then bankrupt people and then seize their assets. Destroy their lives and walk away holding the bag, right? Because people won't be able to pay back the interest on their loans, et cetera, things like that. But once everything crashes, absolutely. That's all the foreclosures that happened in 2007, 2008. So we need a law to protect people from foreclosures?

Because I imagine BlackRock and other banks are going to try and steal people's houses. You need to just stop. First of all, you need to get currency out of the control of the government. Government is a political entity that tries to implement political goals for political purposes. It should not be in charge of the money supply because this is what happens. When you have a political entity in charge of the money supply, they implement the money supply not for the best use of its consumers because they're a monopoly they don't care about the consumers or or the people using it they do it for their political purposes which in this case is to try to you know push along a an economy that they don't want to correct

and making things worse in the process and paying off the cronies who sponsored them in the office. Sure, but you have to recognize some people are just really dumb, right? Oh, there's that too. And because they're so dumb, you need better men to rule over them. Strong men. Strong men. Strong men for a great reset. Absolutely. Why has no one else thought of this?

Right? Like it took us coming together to finally figure out what the problem is. Don't you remember that speech from Michael Bloomberg when he said tax the poor? He said, poor people spend money on dumb things. Yes. So we should tax their money so we can choose for them what to buy. A populist message if there ever was one. He wanted to tax large drinks because he said poor people are stupid and buy big sugary drinks and get fat.

So let's put a big tax on it so they can't afford it anymore so they stop doing it that work they're doing so you say get money out of the government out of politics or what i don't know how did you phrase it right so the government needs to stop being involved in what money is because if you if you allow the market to determine what money is, now instead of having a political entity manipulating, openly manipulating the monetary supply for political purposes, right, and destroying the wealth and the well-being of the vast majority of people that are involved in this, instead now you have competing entities who, because they want to have their dominant market share, have a vested interest in doing the opposite. They want their money to be deflationary or at the very least not go, not have the value go down over time, have the value of the money increase over time,

have the, the case use and the ability to use it, uh, go up over time, have it be an effective and better thing. This is what we apply to everything else, right? Like you don't want to have to buy your car from the government car company,

right? Why would you want to have to get your money from the government money company? The Constitution – Hold on. Sorry. Real quick. Yeah. Not only would you have to buy your car from the government, but they have a computer chip

in it where every year it goes 10 miles an hour slower. Yeah. And then you're like – Literally. I got to get a new car because it's too slow. Yeah. This is like planned obsolescence for money. Right.

So this is like Federal Reserve tactics, which is a private company. Obviously, they're in cahoots with the monopolies. They're monopolized by the government. But like Congress is supposed to be in charge of the monetary supply, according to Congress. Yes. So it should be amended. Like, no, that's the thing. Like, yes, this is. And by the way, this is why I don't consider myself a constitutionalist. I think the

Constitution is a useful way for us to use it defensively to protect our rights. But at any point, there are times in the Constitution where it lays out things that blatantly are bad for us and violate our rights. And this would be an example of that. I don't think that government should be involved in money.

They've proven themselves to be a bad steward of it. And even if you replace the Federal Reserve, because I understand what you're saying. They're technically a private entity. If you replace the Federal Reserve

instead with... Oh, you dropped something. Yes. If you replace the Federal Reserve instead with just a federal bank, it's effectively the same thing but just with different steps. You don't need a federal bank. That's what I just handed you. That's the Bank of Columbus $10 bill. This was a bank note, a private bank note, right?

This is what I'm talking about. I think if it was Congress, we'd be able to audit it or it would be like part of it being the Congress's bank is that the American, the people's bank is that we would audit it. It would constantly be all public. In theory, and could it be better? Yeah, but you still have a centrally planned authority, right? So why not instead allow a market-derived series of notes, or in this case, it's probably going to be more electronic, but you could also have physical notes. There are plenty of people out there that don't want the electronic notes. They want the physical notes. Why not let the market determine what is best for people? Because the people who are in power are friends with those who control the policy that enrich them.

And why would they ever walk away from this? That's the correct answer. They collude. Well, no, because people collude and buy up huge amounts of stuff and then sell them off all at once. And then they work the market. And so we need a government to protect us from monopolies. But that's not what happens. They get free money from the Fed and they work the market. And so we need a government to protect us from monopolies. But that's not what happens. They get free money from the Fed and they buy up houses.

And then you are a working class family and you're like, it's time to buy our first house. This house is going for 200 grand. And you say, I will pay asking. And they go, great, we'll get back to you. And they call you back and say, we got an offer from BlackRock or whatever that's at 240. And you're like, I can't afford that. And they're like, well, sorry.

And that's what keeps happening to people. Yeah, yeah. And the thing is, a lot of what the crony, and at this point, it's sort of like a corporatist, fascist extension of government, some of these companies like BlackRock and so forth. The reason they're able to do it is because they get free money that's underwritten by you

and by future generations that haven't even been born yet. You reintroduce, and I'm not saying necessarily this, but you reintroduce having the money being determined by the market level. They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. And yes, they're wealthier, but they're now going to have to deal with the same supply and demand issues. They're not going to be able to just, yeah, Bitcoin. They're not going to be able to just print out endless streams of money and have you pay the bill for it, have you pay the debt for it with the interest. And then when everything falls apart, they get bailed out, and that's paid for by more money that got printed out. That whole thing goes away when you take away the ability for them to just expand the monetary supply whenever they want to to pay off their own bill.

This is why I like cryptocurrency, and this is why it's frustrating when you get progressives who are acting like crypto is a really, really bad thing. It's like you're just establishing – you're just shilling out for the establishment. It's literally the way out of it. People can create infinite amounts of crypto right now without regulation. Absolutely. That's endless inflation, just the same problem. But only if people value those crypto. Only if people value – exactly.

It comes into – this is subjective value, right? Like I can make a coin tomorrow based on the Ethereum chain or whatever. I call it spike coin. And I go, hey, everyone, go get some spike coin. And they go, great. What's your case use? What are you fulfilling that isn't already being fulfilled? And I go, spike coin.

That's not going to work. No one's going to want it. Some people will get it as a joke, but it's not going to go anywhere. And on top of that, I can print a bunch of cards and I can call them Timbuk's. And I can be like, this is paper Timbuk's. They're worth so much money. Hey. And people are going to be like, I don't know.

If I value it, I value it. If you value it, you value it. Right now, all the people with the Bitcoin and the Ethereum, like there are huge people that own massive amounts of that stuff, would own the market essentially without any government oversight. And then they would buy up all the corn. And then they would raise the price of corn 13 times and then sell it back to the people well first of all just i mean yeah are there bitcoin billionaires absolutely but like the if you look at like the the distribution of that wealth for lack of a better term uh it's far less centralized than you would see for example where you have like what is it less than one percent of the population that owns 20 30 percent

of everything like that's certainly not happening and And if you took all the crypto bros out there, they're certainly not going to have anywhere near that same market level that exists in this current system because they can't. Because it has to be a system that reflects the actual market demands and supply and demand as opposed to a political entity, a centrally planned political entity saying, all right, well, you guys helped get me into office. And so I'm paying you off, and here's however many trillion dollars. I'm going to give you a $600 check. You stay right there.

You should make sure to vote for me. And also, you're getting the debt for this guy. Oh, this all fell apart? Okay, well, we're going to print out more money and bail you out because you're too big to fail. You've got to pay for this. You're definitely not too big to fail. That's the system that's failed.

Yeah, that's the worst. The Federal Reserve unauditable system is the worst by far. But I think that crypto unregulated by the people could get as bad. There is no utopian system, but the regulation comes in place. If suddenly there's a reason for there to be suspicion of how Bitcoin is being used, it's out in the open and people can see it. Or if it's not out in the open and people can see it or if it's not out in the open if there's some coin that you know you can't see the back end of it you can't see the ledger of it it is centrally controlled people are going to say why would i use this when i can use

this that's so much better that's what happens from the market it's like it's like using the car analogy if you if this car company suddenly is making cars that are absolute garbage you know it and you go buy a car somewhere else you can do this with anything chicken sandwiches, you know it, and you go buy a car somewhere else. You can do this with anything, chicken sandwiches, skateboards, whatever. It doesn't matter. Having more providers makes you more likely to be able to get a better value and for them to have an incentivization of serving you as the consumer. But when you bypass that through central planning, now they don't have to serve you as the consumer. They only have to serve the political class that they put in office, and that's a much

easier thing for them. I'm interested in getting, Mary, I know you're an expert on fiscal policy and fintech. So what are your thoughts on all this? I mean, I'm trying to think of the right questions to ask, but I'm- It's very esoteric. A little bit. With the wallets, like with crypto wallets, it looks like there's a lot of people that, because everyone has a wallet, but it could be one guy that has 900,000 wallets. I mean, it... This argument doesn't track.

Look, I could buy a bunch of rocks, and then I can go around being like, Tim rocks, they're only mine, and you can't get Tim rocks from anybody else. So if I buy a bag of gravel, it's true. That bag of gravel is exclusively Tim Rocks. He could own all that gravel. I could own them all. And then people are like, we want it, we want it all. Like, we'll give you bread, we'll give you labor.

I'm like, ha ha, giving out rocks. There's no difference between that and any token. Just use Bitcoin as your example. Well, Bitcoin is decentralized. I can buy it. It looks decentralized. Right. I can buy Bitcoin, and then I've actually put money into the system, and then I would not just want to lose the value of that.

So other people can value it because they know there's a market around it with real value where people are willing to buy and trade for it. At some point, farmers are going to be like, we accept crypto. You'll be like, great, what kind? And they'll choose. We accept Bitcoin. We accept Ethereum. And if you don't have those two cryptos- Then you exchange it for that.

But the value of those are going to skyrocket. Who owns them when they decide it's this proof of stake thing that they want to move towards away from proof of work? Right. Who's creating tokens? Who has the tokens? Those are the ones that get to make the decisions. The people that have them.

Yeah. Those are the ones that are rich right now. They want to move it to a system where the rich people get to make the decisions. Right. So what could happen- But that's what we have right now. What could happen- I'm not saying what we have right now is an ass.

It's terrible. What could happen is that people build faith in a cryptocurrency that is centralized and controlled by rich, powerful people. That doesn't change the fact that the Fed is bad and we should find an alternate system and crypto is pretty good. Yeah, so market-derived systems don't necessarily not allow for the centralization of wealth. But in order to be able to do that, you have to serve the consumer. If it's market derived and not centrally planned, in order to be able to grow, maintain, and expand wealth, you have to be serving the consumer better than your competitors, especially if you want to expand it. And if you want to maintain it, you have to at least be doing

it as well as your competitors. In a system that isn't market derived, in a system that is centrally planned through a centralized monopoly of violence such as government, instead what you have is a system where I don't have to serve you. I just have to be friends with Mary, the government, who I just so happen to bankroll into office, and friend Mary, too, who's on the other side, and make sure that they're my friends and that they give me whatever i want so now instead of having to to do the often you know mind-numbing labor to make sure that i am serving you and everyone else as best as possible and where the consumer is king instead all i have to do is spend a pittance of those resources just keeping them in office keeping them fat and happy and then getting them to give me whatever I want. That is inherently a system that feeds. Everything has to feed a profit motive, right?

The profit motive needs to be fed by serving the consumer instead of serving a small handful of the ruling class. We've got to go to Super Chat. If you haven't already, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and share the show with your friends. Head over to TimCast.com. We're going to have that members-only show coming up for you at 11 p.m., but we're going to read what y'all have to say right now.

What we got here. The Snack Lady Jackie says, Nice to see Tasha's husband on the show tonight. I vote him for VP with Dave Smith, President, and Michael Malice, Press Secretary. We need this to happen. Are you intending to be a VP? I doubt I would run for VP.

I honestly don't. I don't know if I'm going to be running for anything in the future. And right now, and part of the reason I started You Are The Power is until we grow this movement massively, we're really talking about who's the next guy to score the margin of error. It doesn't matter until we have a much larger movement. So I haven't ruled anything out for the future. I just don't really care until we've done the movement growing. Right on.

And would you kindly smash that Like button? Let's read more. And hit the bell. Don't just subscribe hit the bell we want your phone to explode with notifications every time i've never actually told people to hit the bell hit the bell does it work hit the bell everybody who's subscribed or subscribe and then hit the bell hit the bell get the notifications let it wake you up east f says spike keep up the relentless trolling of the atf i do what i can thank Thank you. Do you agree, sir, that we should abolish the ATF? Yes.

The ATF is a federal law enforcement agency targeting what four legal things? Alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives. It's actually now the BATFE, but they went back to being the ATF because everyone's like, what's the BATFE?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Which should be like a convenience store. I know that's like an old trope. That's not my joke. It's like an old trope. But it's true. It's a cliche because it's true. The reality is the government has no business telling you what you can own, firearm or otherwise.

And you can make the Second Amendment argument of it says very clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can also make just the rights argument of it says very clearly the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can also make just the rights argument of if I have a natural right to defend myself. And you can also make the reality of power argument, which is that if a small handful of people have the only effective ability to project violence effectively, no one else has any say in anything. Right. All right. Warwolf says with a bunch of crab emojis potato man is gone that's right

the potato man bailed on us no so so now we're stuck with mary no we're excited we had to get a sub in a catholic yeah yeah no but we also uh we'll have we'll have mary here we'll have uh brett we'll have jamie we'll have a couple people bump uh jumping in and then luke's on his way back right lu, Luke? Right, Luke? Brett's here. Luke. Brett's here. Luke even had a problem with it when Seamus was on Pop Culture.

What? Yeah, he was commenting, boo, potato man. It was in the chat. Yeah. Boo, potato man. On Instagram, too. People on Twitter think they have a real beef. They're like, man, these guys really hate each other.

No, it's a bit. They're like ribbing. No, it's not a bit. It's ribbing. No, it's not a bit. It's completely serious. Yes, that's right. Seamus cries after every show. Every show? That's why he left.

That's what's sad. Because Luke was trolling him in the chat, so Seamus was like, I'm leaving. All right, all right. What is this? John Kirsten says,

Seamus talking of cock and tubs. Tim and Seatown and Ian double-handed mopping has me wonder about what is happening behind the scenes. Oh yeah, when Ian did the double mopping thing. Double mopping. You actually have to pretend like the

mops are in your hands. You know, the pressure that you feel, that friction. Raymond G. Maga Stanley Jr. says, who's ready for Maga Month? The left may be setting our country a burning, but let's use that fire for barbecues, bonfires, and building community. Go IRL.

Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow begins the first day of Maga month. Make America great again month. I have my Twitter profile picture ready. It is the same face, but I got the American flag behind me. And this is not just a month in which you grill burgers every day or on the weekends whenever you can. It's not just the month where you get the 4th of July to fire off fireworks. The point of MAGA month is to make America great again. You know what that means?

It means y'all should be engaging in community building, community service. You should be figuring out ways you can come together with your neighbors, meet people, learn from each other, build those communal bonds to literally make America great again and audit the Fed or something like that. Hell yeah. Some political buzz thing. Unnullify the government. You can't make America great again

without nullifying government and building community bonds and building networks. That's the purpose of America is to nullify unjust government. Literal purpose. MAGA month is not about Trump. It's about making America great again and that means if you go out and pick up trash you've made america great again yep if you like scott pressler does if you go out and register people to vote you are making america great again it doesn't matter if

it's trump or desantis or whatever the point is start locally build community meet your neighbors have a barbecue invite friends over learn from each other and build those strong community bonds and that makes america stronger i mean i realized that american flag make america great again is it like take it back to where it was when it was great it's the idea that you're going to continuously do something to make it great over and over and over again and also in doing that you show people that they don't need a lot of people they aren't you know socialists or statists or authoritarians or whatever they they they veer into those things because they don't see a viable alternative they're not shown a viable alternative for how they can be we all

want the same things we want to be safe we want to be healthy we want to be happy we want to be prosperous and if we can show that by building communal bonds that we can do those things together voluntarily and not needing some centrally planned authority, making some caricature approximation of it that makes everything worse. We can actually reduce their power that is in people's heads of the legitimacy of their bad ideas by showing them a much better alternative, which is us working together. All right, let's read some more. We got Travis Boss.

He says, Hey, Spike, Tim, the Libertarian Party of Eastern Panhandle Convention is July 16th. You and your friends are cordially invited. What day is the 16th? I think it's a Saturday. It's a Saturday. I'm not sure. Let me check. Is that in West Virginia?

Yes. Oh, yeah. I am sorry. I didn't pass that on to you. You are, in fact, invited to speak. I passed it on to Seamus. No, I don't know if I can speak. Yeah, so it's over in the Eastern Panhandle.

I'll send you the details if you want it. You said the 16th? Yeah, what day is that? I will, unfortunately, be at Freedom Fest in Vegas. Oh, Saturdays. We can do Saturdays. That'd be fun. Yeah, it'd be fun, right?

To go to a Libertarian party thing. You should go. You should definitely go. Well, let me... Bring the porcupine. Whoever brought the porcupine to the West Virginia Convention, bring the porcupine, and Tim will definitely come. I don't know.

I'm penciling it in. Actually, I only have a pen, but if I can't. That's permanent. You can't erase that. He just penned it in. He just penned it in. Pencil that in. No, that actually does sound fun.

Where exactly is it going to be? I know it's in the eastern panhandle, but we're basically there. Yeah. So are there going to be wings? Because if you've got wings. Chicken wings? Chicken wings. Bring wings.

Yeah. Hit the bell, bring wings. Bring some eggs. Some farm fresh eggs for everybody. Well, I'm not going to fry eggs at a liberty party. No, no. Just bring the raw eggs. I heard they had plant-based human meat.

Dude, we got to talk about that. Maybe on the after show. Did you guys? So they're actually, this is on Twitter. Was it Majid Nawaz tweeted this out? No. A vegan burger made to taste like human meat received an award in Cannes. This is not a joke.

It was test tested. Let's talk about that for the members. An award at Cannes? What the? I'm not asking. I mean, it does kind of sound like something the Libertarian Party might do. Be like, it's about freedom. If you want to eat people, it's not real people, but you're free to do it.

If you want to simulate eating people. With consent. Simulate crime. If you want to simulate eating people. With consent. Simulate crime. Simulate. I don't know. What if a person consented to being eaten after they died? The Libertarian Party. Oh.

I don't think that's a modern... The Libertarian Party has been in favor of some weird stuff in the past. Not that. That's why I'm bringing it up. Like when the guy took his pants off. Or when they booed some guy. Yeah, I mean, there's taking your pants off, and there's you can eat me after I die.

And I feel like... Well, there's also... Didn't some guy say... Didn't someone say they shouldn't sell drugs to children and they got booed? Yeah, Austin Peterson said that. Oh, yeah. Heroin five-year-olds?

No. Heroin five-year-olds. No, there it is. All right, all right. Let's read some more. DC says, Ian, it's a big leap to call Christianity a cult, but your point about targeting the individual over the group is spot on.

Thanks, man. We were talking about it before the show. I think all religions are cults. It's not an insult. It's just an observation. But then, like, all belief structures are cults regardless. I don't know about that. It's the organization of religions that make them cults.

Is it bad to be a cult? Not necessarily. But you just got to identify the cult behaviors. Like believing things that aren't real? Yeah. Like there's this impermeable magnetic field that allows us to communicate and commune with the universe? That's not provable. That's nonsense.

If I had people sit around me and repeat after me and say it, then yeah, that would be very culty. I mean, you could argue, if you go that far, that anything that has presuppositional beliefs that cannot be challenged is a cult. And like, there are five lights. For instance, Picard knows there's four, but they're like, just say that there are five. Even though we know that you know it's not real, we want you to say it out loud to acknowledge that you're one of us. And I feel like going to a church and having them having you repeat stuff like, this bread

is actually a physical, is his human body. Or a woman was impregnated by a ghost thing is like, it's not right in front of you. But when you have a piece of bread in front of you and you're made to say that it's a guy's body. You're not made to. Well, they ask you to repeat it. And you can walk out. You can. Or you can become one of them.

If you want to. And if you want to become Catholic. Whereas Picard was tortured and electrocuted. Yeah, that's a different story. In the 1500s, you would get tortured for not today though all right let's see let's read some more waffle sensei says the beloved and empirical elon will just reinstate jordan peterson why would he cave now and it's basically guaranteed he'll be back on yeah i think that that's the long game yeah october i think was what they're saying that is that what

they're saying yeah the deal should be closed by October. I don't know for sure, though. That could just be scuttlebutt. I mean, look at all the scuttlebutt that's gotten us where we are so far with this deal, right? But, I mean, if you wanted to play the game of I'd never bend to anyone's will, even on something that in and of itself isn't necessarily the hill many would die on, it's the hill I'll die on because I'll die on every hill. That's kind of his brand, right? Like there isn't a hill I won would die on it's the hill i'll die on because i'll die on every hill that's kind of his brand right like there isn't a hill i won't die on and then and then to have elon musk come in and say well we're you know you're going to be allowed to say that i mean

what an ultimate victory there plus yes that coupled with the daily wire announcement everything else is like jordan peterson's king of the world of that babylon b coming back at the same time would be huge all that all right All right. Let's see. Bree Sullivan says, are you serious about Trump banning people? It was reported. I'm not saying it's completely. It's true because,

you know, I don't trust these media outlets that people were getting banned off Truth Social for pushing January 6th reporting. Like they were saying, like here's what January 6th

the committee is saying and doing and they were getting banned. I kind of feel like I don't trust them when they report that because it's probably, you leftists and liberals going on truth social and breaking the rules but including january 6th so they can be like look look what i was banned for and it's like yeah like i said my friend reed and i'm not going to repeat it because we're on a youtube live stream

but we'll put up stuff that uh should not be violating what they purport to be their terms but it's like you know sacred cows in the in the in on the right and uh and and very quickly gets banned like minutes i don't know true social but knowing him he's already done it because he did it with all of them um so i'm sure he's done it with them too all right anthony zavaro says jordan peterson joining the daily wire was the straw that broke the camel's back that made me join Daily Wire Plus. The culture war pendulum swings. And I will say this too. The more power the Daily Wire generates through subscriptions, the more they're able to sign people like Jordan Peterson, which will in turn make the snowball get bigger and bigger and bigger.

And I got to say, Daily Wire is the new CNN. I don't mean that in a way that it's derogatory cnn at one point was groundbreaking in the it was in the 80s right they they were like we're gonna do news 24 7 and then all of a sudden you had this big deal this they created the 24-hour news cycle and it was a big deal it was a cultural shift and now they're imploding and the daily wire is taking off displacing you now they're imploding. And the Daily Wire is taking off, displacing, you know, they're the new upstart. They're the first to do

a streaming video on demand service. But I got to say, get woke, go broke has never been truer. These big streaming networks are just resting on their laurels. Yes, we know what CBS is and so people sign up for it.

But the Daily Wire is building and proving they're they're actually building something new they're earning their place that's meritocracy and we're going to see it their movies are going to improve their shows are going to improve and we're going to be like yo i didn't want to watch have you guys watched miss marvel have you guys seen it did you watch it i didn't but we talked about it on the show a few times. I am watching this show. It was cartoonishly bad. It is beyond.

It is okay. I heard they actually used the word latinx on the show. Let me tell you about Ms. Marvel. Ms. Marvel is a show which is a high school course on British colonialism in Pakistan. That's what the show is because i swear they say partition every five minutes and then there's a scene in one of the episodes where they're like they're in uh they're in pakistan and then they're like walking and they're talking about like you've got magic powers by the way this is a house where people were forced to live because of partition colonialism

had terrible caused terrible problems in this country and they start walking and i'm like what what did that have to do with anything in the show? They're genies being attacked by the government and you want to stop to pause to give me a lesson on partition? Yo. That's most important. The show is so bad. But, you know, I watch this because, like, I want to know. I want to review it myself and I'm a big fan of Marvel and watching this, I'm like, come on, man.

Like, I think Ms. Marvel's cool. I played the Avengers video game. I dig it. I'm not here for a lesson on partition and British colonialism in India. Can we just move the story around as to why this little girl, this teenager's got magic powers?

Can we just have fun and inspire and create a strong female character who saves the day? The answer is no. No? Not unless you recognize partition. That's right. You know, oh, she travels back in time to partition. I try to picture the condescension and the low effort that's being put into trying to create so-called diversity by saying, you know, you know, remember Thor?

Well, now she's black. And it's like, how, you know, why not instead? I mean, there's all sorts of african folklore why not create new characters and have them be black and female or gay or whatever else like why take existing characters and say oh it's okay we're gonna include you it hand me downs because it's about character assassination of the original fan base well and it's also it's it's about character assassination of the original fan base. It's done out of contempt. Well, that's a great way to make money. But it's not about making money.

I mean, it's ideologues who have nothing to lose. But even if it's ideological, right? If I have this ideological desire to spread diversity, this isn't diversity. It's almost like a weird kind of blackface. It's it's like, it's like saying this character, this, you know, and again, I'm using Thor. I don't even know if they've changed Thor. They changed Thor to a woman, but it's Natalie Portman. Okay, well, but that's. Just, she took possession of Mjolnir.

Fair enough. But if. I don't think the storyline for the mighty Thor is actually as bad as a lot of people complained about. And I picked, I don't follow any of this, but I've just seen so many examples of like, okay, this character is now gay or black or Muslim or whatever else. And it's like, why not instead have a new character that is that and that is uniquely that person?

Like that seems like that would be far more powerful and empowering and inclusive and embracing diversity than just saying, this one's black now. Right. It's like, here's an existing character. We're going to just make him Latino, I guess. So that it's like, no, no, no, make a new hero. Thor's unique because it's whoever picks up the hammer becomes Thor.

Like Eric Masterson was one at one point. There was a guy before Eric Masterson. Yeah, that might not have been a good example, but just Superman or whatever. I think it's because they are not as creative as like Stanley. They're afraid to take risks and to create something that will fall on its face. That's something that's about to fall apart. If you're not disrupting and creating new things, then you end up becoming stagnant. They're pod people who are wearing these institutions like skin suits.

They're lizards. Let's read some more. All right. Bonnie says, Albertan here, can you guys please just annex us? It would be amazing and no more Trudeau. Had so many scandals, he should be in jail. Only prime minister in

history to be found to violate ethic laws. They have oil, too. Dude, I thought of that while we were talking. How badass. How awesome if we were all, I mean, I think if the American Canada became one United States and we were all living I mean, I think if they say if the American Canada became one United States and we were all like living in this decentralized freedom state, like able to do it. Mexico is the United States of Mexico. That's the name of the country.

So like if we, I understand that centralization isn't the goal. I don't want like a federal government controlling the Canadians. But dude, we're basically the same people with these similar ideals. I think I want to work from the bottom up to nullify the bad crap we have and then export that elsewhere. Create a domino effect of people more locally and more in tune with their actual community, their actual culture. And culture, by the way, does not have to be geographical or ethnic or anything like that. It can be values-based. It can be an online community that spans the entire globe. Community-based, decentralized order with an eye towards nullifying the bad centrally planned order that's being imposed on them. That's something

that can become essentially worldwide, but it's focused at the local level and it's focused on the empowerment of the individual and on voluntary solutions over bad, coerced ones. All right, let's read this one. We got Al Bidam says, Tim, per the UCMJ, Uniform Code for Military Justice, if a crime were to happen on a military base or off, the federal authorities, base commander, defense counsel, have jurisdiction over the military member first as far as active duty goes. Yes. And on the military base, they have exclusive rights to criminally try. But the point I was trying to get at with that is what happens when you get to the point where the ideology is too strong? Yep.

And someone in the state says this person who lives in our city took a baby against its will to be killed on a military base. Imagine it this way. If there's a baby kidnapped and brought into a military base and then killed, and then the person comes back off, you might actually get people in the state rioting and demanding justice. It may then fall upon the federal government to say, okay, they literally killed the baby. But if the federal government doesn't recognize that as a crime,

you could end up with people rioting. You could end up with federal government saying, we will do nothing, and that's the point of conflict. So it's like you were saying, the reality of power. Reality of power. The states have way more power at the state level. They got the guns. They got the numbers. So it's just a question of, I understand it's not legal, but secession wasn't according to Buchanan either.

It didn't stop them. Will we get to that point where, it reminds me of V for Vendetta, when the inspector says someone will eventually do something stupid, and then it shows the little girl skipping, wearing the mask, and then the cop shoots her, and then all of the locals just walk up and just beat the cop to death. They don't care what was legal at that point. Will we come to the point with abortion, and I've talked about this before, if we get a national ban on abortion, and I've talked about this before, if we get a national born and abat...

a national ban on abortion because Republicans end up codifying it, Mike Pence says he wants it nationwide, just not enforced by the federal government. Seamus says he wants a national ban. If blue states then say, no, we won't stop, let me

ask you this. Do you think there's one person in this country who would take it upon themselves to stop them were it codified illegal nationwide? One person. To stop the implementation. Let's say federal government, Congress, codifies because Republicans sweep in November,

then Trump gets reelected and he signs this bill and then abortion is banned across the country. California says, nope, we're still going to keep doing it. Do you think there is one person in the United States from anywhere that would be like, I'm going to go to California to stop it? Oh, to stop the Californians? Yes. Yes.

And it's quite possible the federal government even does. Because if the federal government says it's illegal at the federal level, then the federal government will go and enforce the law, which they say supersedes, if the will is there. Because, you know, marijuana is illegal, but they're not going into these states. So it really just depends on if they're willing to do it. That's the point, the willingness to reach that level of clash. The will of the people.

That's part of the reality of power is whose side are the majority of people on? Because they're also the ones voting. They're the ones making these kinds of, like, decisions of what they're willing to tolerate so i mean there are many different factors when you're figuring out power it's not just guns and numbers it's also like the perception of what's right or wrong by the by the plurality or the majority and all those things play into that i mean it can become a pretty big mess pretty quickly all right steven geiger says usmc vet here how will the military be able to provide abortions with the Hyde Amendment in effect? That's a good point.

Good question. They say they currently do. Oh, because federal government can't. Provide funding for it. But they said they currently do. Now there is the very serious clash of. Has the. Wow, I can't.

I don't remember this. Has the Hyde Amendment been repealed? Yeah, tell me about the Hyde Amendment really quick. So the Hyde Amendment is basically an amendment that was added at some point to, I believe, Medicare funding that said that the federal government dollars cannot be used directly for abortions. So even like Title IX funding for Medicare or Medicaid supposedly isn't – it can go to Planned Parenthood, but it can't go towards the abortions. It can go towards everything else. And then that frees up money for the abortions, but it can't go towards the actual abortions.

This would be a case where they are actually funding abortions. But now I'm trying to remember if the Hyde Amendment is still in effect or not. I think it is. All right. We got Jesse Meek. He says, I'm a member of the Timcast website and simply can't send a pitch. I've tried several times a day for 10 days now and can't even report the problem. Is there a problem with the site?

I don't know. We'll look into that to make sure. But we've also – we don't accept pitches anymore. Right. Because we can't. We can't. We shut down the email. Yeah, we shut down the email.

We can't accept pitches. Too many legal implications. Because if you send a pitch and then I don't even read it, but then we end up making the thing coincidentally, you can come at me for stealing your idea and it's not worth it. It just makes people angry. It's just better that we don't do it. It's just basically like we don't want there to be any misconceptions or – It will because you couldn't respond to all of them. Right, right, right right right right and then people

are like i had this idea that we had a similar idea and it's just like it's better it's better that we just take um solicited pitches directly which is the reality of the industry you know i will say we try to be scrappy and punk rock but every day we learn exactly why businesses function the way they do and um you know i've And I've got friends at bigger companies. I won't name them. Big CEOs. And they're like, it really is just the more people you hire, the more you become corporate, not by choice, by regulation. So we're learning a lot about what the government mandates.

And it's crazy. People are like, man man my job sucks the way they do these policies i'm like oh those are legal those are legally enforced policies like the government makes them do it so that's the reality of growing a big company yep nothing you can do about it so it's like stop your company from growing too big yeah so you can stay being small and just having fun yeah or try and have a big cultural impact. And then the government steps in and says, now you have to do all of these things. And then they're like, oh, then we can move our banks to Panama and become a multinational megacorp that lives outside of government bounds.

Like you see why that happens. You either there there is not you are not allowed to climb a steady ladder. You have to choose a lane. And the lane is either you grow up to a certain point, you don't get any bigger because it's not worth the hassle. You dive into it and become a company that is making way more money, but it's just subject to so much regulation and becomes almost stagnant as a result. Or you go to the next level where you just own everything. And you see someone like Jeff Bezos. Amazon literally has gone through

each of those stages. And to the point now where Jeff Bezos is like buying entire media companies and, you know, putting out hit pieces against the Pentagon because they didn't approve his $10 billion no bid deals. And like, it's almost like becoming Lex Luthor, where he originally started his company out of a small office and went from small business all the way up to, you know, the biggest mega company ever almost. So that's, that's So that's the progression of what happens. And that's all because of the fascist corporatist system that government imposes on the market. All right, B. Anderson says,

if they're not going to enforce abortion bans on federal property, what's going to stop them from not enforcing acts against little ones' crimes? I'm thinking about this. This is interesting. I tried looking up instances in which something is illegal at the state level, but not the federal level, and I can't – it's really hard to find.

It's usually not that way. Right. But now we're there. So let's say the government says, you know what? Marijuana, federally legal because the Democrats are really pushing it. We got some libertarian types in Congress. It may happen. But then you have a state like West Virginia where it's illegal. And they're going to say, yeah, well, federal law

supersedes state law. But hold on, hold on. They're taking the law off the books. Just because it's not criminalized at the federal level doesn't mean you can do it. So what happens then if you have people in West Virginia going onto federal bases to do illegal drugs, as West Virginia would see it, are they going to be like, we're okay with this? What if it goes even crazier? What if the Democrats actually say like heroin, and now you have heroin addicts wandering off federal property for whatever, maybe a military base, and they're all strung out, and they're causing problems in the state, and the state's like, we got to arrest these people. Like, I don't think the state and the state's like we got to arrest these people like i don't think the state would tolerate people going into a military base committing serious crimes and then coming out

the thing that might be worth looking into is post prohibition you had you know it was legal but regulated at the federal level but there were still many dry states and towns for quite some time after that the dry states now it's more like you know you can't drink it in a restaurant or whatever, but like, there used to be like, it's still illegal in this town, do not be caught drinking or possessing it here. It would be interesting to see if there were any cases where like, there was a military base there, and there were people getting drunk

on base, and then, you know, wandering out into town, and whether or not they tried to arrest them because of that. I would guess that it would be no. That it would be because federal usurped state, and it is federal property, that they would likely say, no, you can't of that. I would guess that it would be no, that it would be because federal usurp state and it is federal property that they would likely say, no, you can't do that. But again, reality of power comes into place. If it reaches a cultural level, if it reaches a political level where it is most politically expedient for the people in charge at that state to say, you know

what, we're going to enforce it anyway. We don't care what the Supreme Court says. We don't care what the White House says. We don't care what anyone says. We're going to do it anyway. Then the rule of law doesn't even mean anything. All right, we'll get one more here. Quickly Saw 6 says the Army doesn't allow it under Article 119A and TRICARE does not cover it. You need an ETP signed by a general officer after your provider gave you a memo saying

you will die if you keep going. Perhaps they're just blowing hot air. The Pentagon is just saying, we're going to keep doing it, but they really don't do it anyway. They could very well be. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, and hit the bell. Hit the bell. That's right, hit that bell.

And head over to TimCast.com, become a member, because we're only about 800 and some odd thousand subscribers away from catching up to the Daily Wire. So if we can get all 1.3 million people to subscribe, we'll be beating the Daily Wire. Yeah, okay. But subscribe. Support our work because we are trying to get to that point as well. Yes.

Doing new shows, hiring more and more people, and we're expanding quite rapidly. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL. You can follow me personally at TimCast. Spike, you want to shout anything out? Absolutely. If you want to follow me, I'm Spike Cohen. I'm on all social media. I also have a show, actually a multi-time a week show on Muddy Waters Media.

That's MuddyWatersMedia.com. We too are a scant 800 and so thousand away from subscribers away from beating the daily wire. So if you join us over at Anchor.FM slash Muddy Waters, you can become a subscriber today. And if you want to find out more about the grassroots revolution for liberty that we are building to set communities free and grow the liberty movement in America, go to YouAreepower.net and see how you can get involved. You can find me on Instagram or WeChat at CloserKitty. Sometimes I post articles on timcast.com and I promote them there. And I also want all of you

to go in droves to Pop Culture Crisis on YouTube and subscribe and hit the bell, I guess. I never say that. I got to pop in and talk about Ms. Marvel. I want to do a review. I'm going to be like... I mean, do it, yeah.

If I get work done on time. You guys go live at three, I have to get done before that. Yeah, come tomorrow, I'll be on. Oh, I can't. Tim on Pop Culture? I can't do it tomorrow. But we'll see, we'll see. Maybe next week with Ms. Marvel.

Yeah, well, we go live every weekday at 3 p.m. Eastern Standard Time and noon Pacific. So come join us. That's right. Come join us tomorrow, 3 o'clock p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Pop Culture Crisis. I'll be there. I'm looking forward to it.

I am Ian Crossland from iancrossland.net. Hit me up anytime you like. Spike, great to meet you, man. Good talking to you, too. Thank you so much. I mean, it was really concise. Really nice. I appreciate that.

Thank you, man. See you later. Very nice Pop I appreciate that. Thank you, Matt. See you later. Very nice. Pop Culture Crisis evening. I'm really glad they crossed over the 30,000 threshold and excited for what the future holds for them for sure. Brett works very hard on that show and Mary's a great addition too. You guys can follow me on Twitter and Minds.com at Sarah Patchlitz as well as the site that Annie made for me called SarahPatchlitz.me. We will see you all over at TimCast.com.

Thanks for hanging out. Bye, guys.