Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #807 Bud Light FINALLY FIRES Woke Marketing Team, Sales Hit NEW LOW w/Gene Hamilton

Episode Date: June 28, 2023

Tim, Ian, Seamus, & Serge join Gene Hamilton to discuss Bud Light announcing they've fired their woke marketing team, Bud Light seeing its worst week in sales since beginning of boycott, an explicit book called "This Book Is Gay" found in schools, Rick Scott warning communists to "think twice" before coming to Florida, & Donald Trump responding to new leaked audio. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CNN has leaked audio of Donald Trump confessing to his crime. Yeah, not really. It's kind of nonsense audio. And a lot of people are like, this is the big breaking story about Trump. The audio proves it doesn't prove anything. But we are going to talk about that. However, we're not leading with that story. And I'm going to tell you why.

And it matters. Because for eight years, the media has lied about the context of every single story related to Donald Trump. And so when they come out, CNN publishes audio and they say, this audio proves something. The rule is you're supposed to wait three days. Because then invariably something else comes out and goes, actually

that was fake. And that seems to be the way it goes. So we'll definitely talk about the audio leaks of Donald Trump's conversations pertaining to classified documents. But we do have more pressing and important news surrounding censorship, the culture war, and a bunch of other topics. So it seems Bud Light

sales have dropped to a new record low. And finally, finally, Bud Light, Anheuser-Busch has fired the marketing team. Now, I know a lot of people thought that it already happened. It did not. They put them on leave. We thought this would blow over and they'd bring these people back.

Well, surprise, surprise. The boycott is holding. Sales are dropping. And they finally said, you're fired. So we'll talk about that. We're going to talk about, we got some other news.

Target is getting heat once again. A producer from Tuckerlson is coming out slamming the network because they just nuked the remaining producers from tucker carlson tonight we'll talk about that and then uh the quarter he had a big announcement he is i want to be careful how i phrase this sort of leaving youtube making youtube a back burner and this is a big shift because we're seeing something similar with tim dillon large prominent influential personalities in the political and cultural space all around the same time are announcing that

they're moving to Rumble and they're getting off YouTube. This is Market Competition as it works. So we'll talk about that, but before we get started, my friends, head over to CastBrew.com, the official sponsor of TimCast IRL. In fact, we're sponsoring ourselves because we own CastBrew. If you want to help fight the commies,

you buy coffee from us, And it actually is some of the best coffee. I have to be honest, and I mean this sincerely, we worked really hard to make good coffee, and I believe Appalachian Nights is the best coffee I've ever had. I'm not kidding. And Rise with Roberto Jr., second best coffee. For a while, I thought our Rise with Roberto Jr.

blend was the best. And then I started drinking the dark roast Appalachian Nights, and I went right back to the dark roast. I really do think so. And to be honest, it's not hard for me to say I think it's the best. I actually worked on the blend, found what I thought was the best blend, and then we made it and I think it's fantastic. So if you want to support

the show and you like a good cup of coffee, go to casprew.com, buy your coffee today, join the Casprew Coffee Club, get three bags every month. K-Cups are coming, New blends. We got Unwoke Sleepy Joe decaf blends are coming. A lot of great stuff in the works. We're working on the coffee shop. So thank you all for your

support. And also don't forget to go to TimCast.com Click join us. Become a member to support us directly and you will get access to uncensored members only after shows Monday through Thursday where as a member you can actually submit questions and call into the show to talk to us and our guests. Totally worth it.

And we do appreciate your support. So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Gene Hamilton. Hello. How are y'all? Who are you? What do you do? I am a vice president general counsel of America First Legal.

And we're here to fight for the common person, for the American, for true traditional American values. So we represent clients in court. We do all kinds of things to oversight public attention, to things government overreach, excesses, private corporations, the like. Pushing back on wokeness in these companies. Pushing back on wokeness. All of the stuff that we're seeing all over the place, want to be right in and we're doing our best right now to get all and there's there is big news coming this week you were mentioning with the supreme court and affirmative action so that'll be really interesting to see maybe we'll get into that

later in the show sounds great thanks for hanging out man should be fun we got seamus i'm seamus i have youtube channel called freedom tunes where we make animated cartoons we released a video last week where I reviewed and fixed a bunch of left-wing memes. They were broken. I had to make them funny, and I did. So if you guys want to check that out, I think you'll enjoy it. We also have a 30-minute long version of that same video, an extended cut, behind the paywall

at freedomtunes.com. If you guys want to go over there, check that out. Become members. You'll be able to see it. I think those are your best. The meme reviews? reviews meme reviews one thank you yeah they're a lot of fun the the the conspiracy pyramid was one of the best thank you well wait till you see the pride me a lot of people were saying the pride one was the best so i want to encourage you you gotta watch that one everyone you have to watch it you would you at

home if you love me and want to support my work i want to watch it hey guys ian crossland ian crossland.net happy to be here follow me anywhere on the internet ian crossland if you love me and want to support my work, I want to watch it. Hey guys, Ian Crosland, iancrosland.net. Happy to be here. Follow me anywhere on the internet at iancrosland if you like me. And I'll see you later. And I'm sirs.com. I'm ready to start when you guys are. Here's the big news. And the big news is not that they leaked audio of Donald Trump because it's been eight years of that.

I'm so bored with it. No, the big news is from the Daily Caller, top Anheuser-Busch marketing executives behind Boycott are no longer employed. The top two Anheuser-Busch marketing executives behind Boycott are no longer employed. The top two Anheuser-Busch marketing executives who were placed on leave amid the company shakeup no longer work for the brand. A source inside Anheuser-Busch confirmed

in texts obtained by the Daily Caller on Tuesday. Group Vice President for Marketing Daniel Blake and Bud Light Marketing Vice President Alyssa Heinerscheid are gone, gone, according to obtained text messages with the current regional head of marketing. The caller is granting anonymity to the source to discuss lengthy fraught internal company policy. Quote, to my understanding, if we publicly announce the word fire, it opens up the potential for them to sue us. That's why we said leave of absence.

The source said in text message obtained by the caller, the wholesalers would have had an absolute heyday with leadership if they didn't remove her. The source inside the company also said, to be fair, Daniel Blake was actually awesome. I think he was just caught in the crossfire, but also he did hire her. So that's a fault. Wholesalers were told they are both gone for good by leadership during in-person conversations. They already shifted all their direct reports to new people and the head of marketing. The source added another text message obtained by the caller. I'll tell you why this is

important. What we thought was going to happen, there's a hubbub, some bubble up in the press, after a couple days or a week, sales return to normal, the boycott falters, they announce they're coming back from their leap of evidence, or just don't announce anything, and they just slide back in their

positions, and everything resumes, and they keep on keeping on. But that's not what happened. What happened so far is that three months on, Bud Light sales continue to get worse. And now they've officially terminated these individuals. Starbucks just had a strike last week because they're telling people to take down pride decorations. Targets stock value is collapsing. And a bunch of other brands are reeling because, ladies and gentlemen, get woke, go broke is becoming more and more powerful. Yeah, absolutely.

You love to see it. I had a similar expectation when this all began. I thought, you know, people are going to stop drinking Bud Light for a little while, but they're going to go back to it. I think that when conservatives have tried boycotts in the past, they haven really stuck to them and of course this situation is a little bit different and one key detail i was missing is that you don't have to be a conservative to be disgusted by this kind of thing there's a large subsection of this country which still finds a man in a dress to be very off-putting and so even without having any kind of organization or political ideology behind it people said i'm not drinking that anymore i just i i disagree a little bit i think the average

person does not care about a man in a dress and that's why it was tolerated for so long what they care about is one it was marketing beer to kids and two we're seeing more and more of the grooming stuff parents started seeing books in schools that were teaching children about adult explicit content. And now what's happening is it's causing a backlash that's encompassing more than just the core issue, right? So when a parent sees a book like This Book is Gay, which Ian purchased, and it teaches children how to use adult sex apps, there's a backlash and everything, it's collateral damage. So for a long time, you get a guy in a dress, what happens? The average default

urban liberal or suburban liberal, whatever type, didn't care. And they said, I don't care what these people are doing in their own homes. They're liberals, right? So they're like, do whatever you want. Live and let live. Then these books come out, come in these schools. Now they see it and they associate all of it with each other. That's why now when Bud bud light it's not just this even bud light sponsoring toronto pride

where you've got naked men you know gyrating in front of children so people see that and they're just like all of it gone don't want it no sorry bye-bye i i agree with you that the grooming and all of the perversity that's come into the limelight in a way that it wasn't before is also factoring into people's decision to boycott but i would say that people have traditionally and historically still been off put by seeing a man in a dress i would say that that was the case um all the way up until now no right right right right like if brands weren't using them as mascots i was looking at old photos from atl Atlantic City in the 20s, and people are out in summer wearing suits. Yeah.

Like, it was like, yes, people were offended by people who didn't wear the uniform. So, like, even up for a long period of time, we got to a point where a guy in drag, a person, a cross-dresser, male or female, or whatever, was, for a long time socially completely unacceptable but with the liberal period in the past 20 or so years they said ah you live in the live do do your thing i don't care but what i'm saying now is yes people may not like it but they tolerate it said we don't care we tolerate this now they're not tolerating it at all yeah no no i agree i guess my main point is just that through that period where people were tolerating it it wasn't

because they didn't find it off-putting they were just willing to allow it to happen somewhere else right right right right yeah and now that it's affecting them the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction yeah so then what's the end result are we gonna see more brands back off did we win is this is this the the get what go broke is the the the brick that got pulled from the tower that causes the total collapse look i i mean i personally think it's going to depend on the brand, unfortunately. I mean, I think that there's – if Ben & Jerry's put Dylan Mulvaney on a carton of ice cream, people wouldn't bat an eye. I mean, because that's their customer base, right? I disagree.

I just don't know because that's how far out they are. For Bud Light and for most mainstream corporations, families especially, touching on exactly the issue that you just mentioned, which is people don't want this stuff shoved in their face. They're tired of it. And so for 20 years, people tolerated RuPaul's Drag Shows and all this other stuff. Okay, well, they're off doing their own thing in their own life and and but now they're they're doing exactly what's happening but i think like i i just with a bit with a brand that is extremely liberal like ben and jerry's i don't know with everything else i think i think you're on not on ben and jerry's ben and jerry's a gas station brand yeah ben and jerry's is like bud light sure they do kooky things you know like resist or whatever but no one cares when they walk in to grab a pint of ice cream they They want cookie dough and brownies.

That's all they care about. So when Bud Light became political in this particular way, people were just like, nope, not buying it. And I think it's because it's now affecting them. Ben & Jerry's does a lot of political stuff, but let's be real, a guy walking into a gas station for some cookie dough ice cream

doesn't care if it's Haagen-Dazs or Ben & Jerry's. Maybe he likes Ben & Jerry's because it's got bigger cookie dough chunks. That's about it. So if they started, I do think if Ben & Jerry's put Dylan Mulvaney on the carton, it would sell a lot less. I agree. I agree with that. This just crossed my mind, but I think a big mistake that Bud Light made, Anheuser-Busch,

is Dylan's not really, I mean, I'm not going to claim if he's trans or not, but he's an actor and he's doing camp he's very he's spoken outward that he's like making fun of the whole process so it's not like a real trans woman that's like look we're we're identifying gender dysphoria this person is like we're in support of this community it's dylan mulvaney he's a crazy actor he's like so they they almost mocked yeah they kind of mocked trans rights and transgenderism by using dylan as their spokes model well this is the crazy thing to me i think i think dylan's intention is to insult trans people like i i say it all the time i don't know how you get anything else from that there was like the recent video where dylan is on the red carpet

and tony the tiger comes out and dylan starts panicking and freaking out i'm like could you imagine if if a white man like put on black face and went around and started hooting and hot like dylan mulvaney is is a comedian and actor who has has done a bunch of ridiculous things like the price is right video running around and and and rolling around on the ground it's all it's it's like shock jock borat level stuff for real and so i you you look at these videos that dylan's produced come on let's be real dylan singing about having a bulge is just to insult trans people i and and and you know we had that uh that left his guest on friday phil labonte the other night was saying her whole thing was literally just whatever tim says, we're going to say the opposite. And that's what ends up happening.

Dylan Mulvaney comes out, puts on this performance that's insulting and demeaning to women and trans people. We criticize Dylan for doing it. So they defend Dylan. Interesting. Yeah, I mean, I don't make the same distinction that you guys do i i view all of this the same way but i'm curious about how the transgender community or people who identify as transgender have responded to dylan prior to the public backlash well look you have there are prominent uh personalities who are trans who speak out against these people yeah and there is among transgender people there's a left and a right as well so it's it's i i well. So I don't think you can hit it all with one broad brush stroke.

You know what I mean? Dylan Mulvaney clearly is a unique character that is putting on a performance and has even said this. Dylan Mulvaney did not come out and say they weren't trans, but did say they wanted to move beyond being identified as a trans person. Something to that effect. For sure. No, I don't disagree with you guys at all that dylan is a particularly obnoxious example and i don't disagree that people who identify as trans have a wide variety of political views where i'm saying i don't draw the distinction is i think all of it's insulting to women i think all of it is a

caricature of womanhood oh yeah no i'm saying that dylan's insulting trans people on top of it like you know you can you can take a look at um many look i'll shout out blair white and i'll shout out contra points a a a i guess blair is considered conservative i don't know where where where blair stands and contra points is considered liberal they're both serious people you can disagree with them you can you can uh have arguments around their ideologies or the way they live their lives, but they're both serious people who present arguments. Dylan Mulvaney puts high heels on in the woods, runs around, and then sings about having a bulge, which just

demeans and insults trans people. Like, I just, it's Borat. It's Borat. So that makes me think that maybe, Gene, you were onto something that if companies were to go with, you know, utilizing transgenderism as a marketing tactic but not going for the campy clownish uh people as their as their spokespeople and they

actually find like genuinely you know trans people that are like maybe they've been suffering or whatever and they want to elevate that community somehow i could see that actually not destroying a company maybe actually helping i mean i just go back to the rupaul rupaul has a show on what e or whatever and had a show for decades rupaul's drag race show and all these other things and and so you have you have these examples of this stuff happening where you have a base that is conditioned and acculturated to this lifestyle into to this stuff, which with none of it, I agree with, to be clear. Quite the opposite. But when you take a brand like Bud Light, or you take something like anything,

I mean, take a Ford Mustang. If Ford decided, we're going to advertise a new Mustang with Dylan Mulvaney. But didn't they? Did Ford do an advertisement with Dylan Mulvaney? No, no, no. They did a pride right who did the price seriously yeah okay so bad example somebody did do i i think someone might have done

a rainbow truck but also to be clear there's something about the rainbow that puts a layer of abstraction over it i i don't think there was an actual picture of somebody like dylan mulvaney associated with it yeah in 2022 there you go ford did it wow well let's jump we got we got an update to check this out it's from the new york post bud light sales reach new weekly low following dylan mulvaney fiasco sales of bud light suffered their steepest weekly drop i want to stress this all for you please listen it has been three months later and the worst week so far. 28.5% drop. It's getting worse.

Yo, it's supposed to be easing up three months on. I think this is brand death. I think, you know, the way I described it earlier is that maybe this is where we wrap a nice little bow around the Bud Light story. Dylan Mulvaney destroyed Anheuser-Busch. That's wild. Look, the company exists. They'll make money. And I'm not saying they just disappear off the face of the earth.

But I wonder if we might see a cascade effect that I've talked about before. Three months on and sales are still getting worse. That's crazy. And now they're talking about, so they're doing another free beer giveaway. They had Memorial Day. Now with the 4th of July coming up, Bud Light is giving away their beer for free. Now that's the get well, go broke, man.

Right. Understatement. Yeah, no, I think that's very accurate. And this entire past Pride Month seems to have been a complete disaster for the left which i've i've very much enjoyed part of why i think this was such a massive and strategic error for bud light is because not only were they not selling a particularly impressive product people aren't buying bud light out of a sense of brand loyalty people aren't buying bud light because

it's the best of the best people are buying bud light because it's inexpensive and it's what they have access to but they also have access to many other beer brands nobody who's drinking bud light is picky about the beer they're drinking right they could have a product that's not from anheuser-busch and enjoy it just as much if not more so what they did is they tried to force something incredibly controversial onto people with a brand that those people didn't need and had very easily accessible alternatives to yeah 30 or 40 years ago beer was like you didn't have that many choices right there were a lot of it was centralized then all of a sudden micro brews got super popular and now you've got like 6 000 different choices you can stock your bar with i mean yeah why would you ever go for

trash like bud light take take a look at this from the USA Today. It's bland. Bud Light offers $15 beer rebates for 4th of July weekend amid boycott declining sales. I chose as neutral of a source as I can. They mentioned that 15 packs of the beer sell for less than $15. It's not that they're practically free. They're giving you money. So hold on. They mentioned

that some of these 15 packs are $12.99 in this article and that you get a $15 rebate. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a beer company that's giving away its beer for free. I'm looking at their stock right now. Look at this. Anheuser-Busch

Envev in the past six months is down 5.72%. In the past month, they've actually recovered 3.8%. Yo, the market, often illogical a beer company that doesn't sell beer it gives it away for free this is that's something people apparently have decided they should invest in well and so this is something it maybe some people are just trying to buy the dip they think it's going to get better i can't imagine anything else explaining that but i think

that there's something very massive and catastrophic about this and i mean catastrophic for them everyone's been saying this is the best example of a conservative boycott i've ever seen this is one of the best examples of a boycott in general i've ever seen when was the last time you saw a brand that was so heavily boycotted they started giving their product away for free i've never seen that happen before. Can you guys think of any examples? No. Of a business that was losing customers at such a rate that they started giving their

product away for free and people still weren't taking it? I've never seen that happen before. Hey, look, their stock has rebounded a couple of points in the past week or so. That could be an example of the people that sold. So I'm looking last for in may it dropped 20 they went from like 68 bucks to 52 or something like that and uh what happened was a bunch of people probably sold then the rest of the the world was like uh-oh and then they sold it dropped so low then those original people that sold bought back so yeah so they made some money and they still

have the same amount of stock but then it dropped again again. Obviously, people don't want the stuff. That's what I'm saying. I think maybe some people are trying to buy the dip because they're thinking this can't go on much longer. It's not retail investors. That's my guess. It's probably firms, and they're doing an analysis, and they're like, okay, we've seen it stabilize.

It's been three months. We'll buy now and see what happens. People will get over it eventually. Our stock price will go back up. I don't know that they will. I hope they don't. I think they've really done a number on themselves, man. Listen, the sales decline at 28.5%

is with them offering these crazy rebates. Right. Now they're offering free beer. They're like, buy our beer. It's $12.99 for a 15-pack. You get a $15 rebate. They call it practically free. I'm like, yo, they're giving you money. They're giving you beer. It's $12.99 for a 15-pack. You get a $15 rebate. They call it practically free. I'm like, yo, they're giving you money.

They're giving you money. Up to $15. I think they're covering the cost. It is just free. So they're giving their beer away for free. They're trying to stem the bleed. If they don't do this, it would be down 50%. So they're hoping that when they're doing this because they know,

4th of July weekend, their sales are going to be in the gutter. They've got to do something to keep the number up so that after next week, we can see an improvement. Well, yeah, and I'll also say, I think that bad 4th of July numbers are going to be particularly abysmal. That is really going to hurt their market value

if they don't see any kind of bump for the holiday. No, that's true. And, but, I mean, I think the other point here is that even with free beer, free beer, Fourth of July weekend, if any of y'all are going to barbecues this weekend,

who of you will be caught holding a Bud Light? Trump, I don't want to. I will make fun of anyone who has it. I will make fun of anyone who has it at a barbecue. How about this? Shelby Talcott tweets,

Maga Mimosa, the featured drink at the NH Federation of Republican Women Lilac Luncheon where Trump is scheduled to speak shortly. And there's Bud Light, Budweiser. And I think, is Stella? Is Stella Nann has her brand? I'm not sure. I don't know, but they got Bud Light right there.

Wouldn't it be hysterical if Trump just started trashing Bud Light while he was there? He's like, I heard some people are saying there was some Bud Light here. I don't like Bud Light, quite frankly. would be that would be the nail in the coffin we went to an event in west virginia it was like a republican's speech being given and they had a drink you know mini bar set up no bud light and i walked up and i and the guy opened the fridge and i could see bud light in the fridge and i was like oh i see you got bud light down there's like yeah we don't have it out though because it's like they had the stock.

If someone asks for it, we'll sell it to them, but nobody's going to buy it. And I'm like, yeah, okay. So all the Anheuser-Busch products were pulled. When we did our event in Texas, we actually told the bar no Anheuser-Busch products. They can't even do that at this Republican event? Here's a question. Here's a tough one for all of you. Trump is guaranteed to win in 2024

but you have to drink a bud light okay you do it you do it you throw that bud like that you'd let people take a picture of you holding a bud light tim pool if it meant trump is guaranteed to win i here's the thing no no i don't think you would because he wouldn't pardon you for it he'd be like tim drank that bud light it was. Have you seen anything so awful? Don't say it. Don't say it. It's going to get clipped. Don't you say anything about how you drink Bud Light.

Don't say anything about how you drink Bud Light. I will sacrifice for the greater good of this country by drinking Bud Light. It means it guaranteed Donald Trump the election. Yeah, Stella is AB in Bev. Look at that, Stella. Tim, I couldn't let you do it. I said, Tim, no. There have been people

who have been willing to sacrifice everything to save everyone, Seamus. Oh, man. And you're saying, if they said... I was just asking you, quite frankly. I wanted to see your answer. So hold on. I don't think Trump's going to pardon you.

They come to you and say, Donald Trump okay time traveler comes uh-huh and he says seamus you understand the butterfly effect right okay i'm telling you right now if you let me take this picture of you drinking a bud light trump will get elected you wouldn't do it i would not do evil that good might come of it yeah i would drink the beer. Would you do a keg stand? I'd like keg stand. And take it all. No, Modelo.

You'd do a Modelo? Modelo's fine, though, right? I don't know. Is Modelo AB InBev? No, but seriously, come on. Like, I know it's fantastical. No, it's just good to know you feel that way, you know? Is this, like, Trump-sanctioned?

Yeah, Modelo's also AB InBev. No, it's not in the United States. It's Constellation Brands. Fact check. We got it on their website, and bev our brands outside of outside of the united states so in the u.s where sales are skyrocketing it's owned by constellation brands an antitrust lawsuit we do not own this delicious beer in the u.s that's a disclaimer on their website wow it says that it's interesting okay so did come on of course everybody would. If there was some definitive proof, the oracle of time,

the CIA's time device, you could look into it and it was like, if all Trump supporters started drinking Bud Light right now, he'd win. It's the CIA. I wouldn't trust it.

It's the CIA's time-telling device. They're only trying to get us to drink Bud Light to boost their sales. That's why they're pulling this whole prank. Trump supporters discover an alien device

that can show them the future and they see a possible future where if they all start drinking Bud Light again Trump wins, they would. Dude, Bud Light's going to sigh up us into thinking that this is the truth like it's the only way to get him re-elected That's their marketing strategy We looked into the future

It's the only way The only way for Trump to win. Oh my goodness Actually, to be honest though, I think it would be the opposite. I think if conservatives actually gave in and did not boycott these brands, without a doubt, Trump would lose. The fact that we're seeing so many regular people and conservatives actually sustain a boycott suggests to me there will be the possible ground force for a Trump victory. Yeah. Well, I think it's also just indicative of the fact that your average person isn't interested in having this nonsense forced on them. As we were discussing

earlier for a while, people were okay letting these things happen far away from them where they wouldn't have to see it. But once you start putting in their face, they go, you know what? If, if, if it's either, um, you stop doing this or it gets forced on me i choose that you stop doing it because i'm starting to feel like the whole live and let live thing was always a lie well let's talk about what's causing this because um ian actually purchased this book that's been the subject of great controversy and i have this tweet it's an i looked up on amazon this book is gay it's called and ian has uh purchased it right here on the back it says this book is gay, it's called, and Ian has purchased it right here. On the back it says, this book is for, underlined, everyone, regardless of gender or sexual preference. This book is for anyone who's ever dared to wonder.

This book is for you. They sell it to 14 to 17 year olds on Amazon. Amazon says reading age is 14 to 17, you can see here at the bottom. Yet in the book, it teaches you and explains how to use adult sex apps. Yeah, explicitly. So this is what happens. You have, for whatever reason, people on the left, either because there are overt pedophiles or because overt tribalists will defend anything that the right opposes.

You end up with a book like this in grade schools. There's a teacher who provided this book to her middle schoolers and they called the police on her and she was removed. And this is what happens. A teacher provided this book to middle schoolers. The book shows pictures of sex acts,

explains extremely disgusting activities that would cause serious illness. Like, okay, what people need to understand is there are activities that would cause serious illness like okay what people need to understand is there are activities that people engage in when it comes to adult stuff that will injure you and give you infections and diseases and i'm talking about e-coli and i don't want to be gross but let's just i'm gonna have to describe it for y'all we try to keep it family friendly so earmuffs for your kids but the book describes consuming feces okay you you can die from things like this wait are you serious i didn't even know that was in there i knew this was perverse i didn't know that oh my gosh i'm i'm i'm fairly certain i haven't seen that part yet i'm i'm fairly certain we

talked about that before i want to double check but i'm pretty sure it talks about yeah look maybe maybe and also maybe i shouldn't be so surprised right because there's a lot of perversity associated with the this particular set of life choices i i understand where why someone might think this is a good idea because like okay they're thinking kids don't have enough sexual education we need to prep these young kids that don't have good family lives ahead of time it does confirm oh my god yeah here here let me see it is it is in the book for it that's it dude that is sickening that is sickening i've uh jail right and so jail what happens when uh so to clarify though the the the description is in the glossary explaining what the act is and how to do it so when parents

see this stuff they say hey i don't want my kid reading that and what happens you get that woman from the majority report emma being like i don't believe in censorship i think i'm like should this be in school it's like well i don't agree with censorship she wants kids to read but then you asked her penthouse should be in schools and then the conversation just changed after that. She didn't say yes, and she didn't really say no, I don't think. I don't remember exactly. But it's a good point. Do you want Penthouse in schools?

Do you want nudie magazines for 13- and 14-year-olds to look at? There's pictures of nude. There's a drawing of a naked woman right in there on page, I don't know, 188 or something like that, explicit with arrows pointing to the different private parts. And, like, kids need to understand private parts those are private those are for you if someone ever messes with your privacy and your private you tell an adult you tell your parents like that is this kind of but i'm coming from a different generation man i didn't have the

internet until i was like 14 i didn't see porn until i was 14 i didn't and and for young kids that slip on onto some of that at the age of six, I don't know. It's a different reality for me, how you teach kids about this kind of thing. It even has a... They drew a picture of Grindr. Oh, my gosh.

Like, in the back. Explains what a glory hole is. On page 182, it says, note, Grindr is specifically for 18 and up. But here's how you use Grindr. I must have said it was a good book when it was brought up, by the way, too. She's like, oh, it's good.

And then you guys were like, well, there's a description of gay hookup apps and someone was showing this to 10-year-olds and she's like, why do you get these anecdotes? If a child reads this

and comes in the back and comes to the back that explains consuming feces, you could die. Why would Amazon think a 14 to 17 year old should be reading something like this and they make the argument that oh kids have access to the internet these days maybe they shouldn't yeah exactly websites are supposed to have blocks on them you're not

supposed to allow kids to be looking at this stuff the idea that will no kids can see other disgusting things in other disgusting places so let's show them disgusting things in their school where they're they ideally should be safe from this kind of perversity. I understand. It even explains amyl nitrate. Wasn't that like bath salts? Or is that like how you... What is that?

I'm not going to get into it. All right. It's a substance used in crazy sex parties and all that stuff. We'll leave it at that. Yeah. Man, on 182, they're like, grinders explicitly. This is what I don't get. I understand you want to tell a kid ahead of time things they got to watch out for in

And here are the phone numbers in the back of organizations to call to get more information and more access. That's disgusting. They call it advocacy. Holy. Jail. There's a difference between warning children about what's to come and showing them how to do the things they're not supposed to do.

Right. When it says, this is for 18 and up, this app, but here's exactly how you use it. You upload a photo and it says you upload a photo. Like it tells them you do it. You do this thing. I'm not going to read it piece by piece. It's just so disturbing.

Note, Grindr also has an age minimum of 18 years old. It's in bold. Then the next paragraph, how sex apps work. Upload a tiny pic of yourself to the app. It's for 18-year-olds. You don't tell them how to do it. Also, the idea that you can get away with something like that in a book that's being marketed to children

by simply saying, oh, you have to be 18 or up. Well, this stuff is in schools. It's being shown to children. Amazon's selling it to children as young as 14 years old. There was a teacher who was showing it to 10-year-olds. And the idea that you would give somebody a guide on how to use these hookup apps as if it's rocket science and you need a guide to know how to log in. You're clearly directing these kids to do this.

Like you're clearly directing them to do this. So sick. So sick. So the main point was Amazon says 14 to 17 year olds. What do you think would happen if you went to a playground with a bunch of 14 year olds and started teaching them how to use Grindr? Jail. You'd be arrested. As you should be.

Yep. But when it comes to what they're doing in schools, it's all protected. And then when we ask a simple question to a leftist who comes on this show, comes on the Culture War podcast, why is why? How hard is it for them to be like now i get it those books shouldn't be in school instead they say i don't believe in censorship so allow it and i'm like what yeah no but if you wanted to have a bible in a school library right it's so funny how two-faced they are and it's clear that they're not interested in either free speech or combating censorship because none of them were saying that schools not being able to teach creationism meant that christians didn't have

free speech all the arguments they're making for this perverse nonsense are arguments that they obviously didn't make in favor of people teaching their children their values about the christian faith they weren't saying well you know when kids get old enough they're going to learn about christianity anyway so we should tell them about it now like that's kept as far away from public schools as possible but guidebooks that teach children how to eat feces and use gay hookup apps are not kept away from schools for some reason and when someone tries to keep it away from schools we call them a tyrant that's where our culture's at right now parents called the police on a teacher who showed this to their kids to the great to the to the middle school kids. Good for them. Yeah.

This is why Target's getting stock dropped. This is why Bud Light's suffering because these companies, they're just marching along like, don't know, don't care. We're just going to do whatever we're told to do. And parents are saying, no. Right. No, we've had enough of this stuff.

There was that, remember Nick Merckx, the gamer, when he was like, remember Nick Merckx, the gamer, when he was like, leave the kids alone, and they went nuts on him. Yep. And I guess the sentiment was, he recently became a father. Yep.

Now you get it. Now you're like, how dare you show my children these things? And parents started seeing it, and now there's a backlash. I think this could be one of the Democrats' biggest weaknesses. Trump was recently in a rally and he was like,

you know, I could talk, I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, I talk about lowering taxes, nobody cares. I talk about culture war stuff, everybody starts cheering.

Yes. Because taxes are like a boring thing we deal with periodically and try and figure out the right number. Typically we want it to go down. Everybody wants it to go down.

But right now we're dealing with an existential threat targeting children. This has got people riled up like crazy. Mm-hmm. Yeah, and again, rightfully so. I'm curious, what path forward do you see here? What do you think families should be doing?

What do you think it's possible to do within the guidelines of the law also as a lawyer? I mean, who can be sued? Who can charges be pressed against for these kinds of things look i mean there's a lot of parents who are stepping up across the country who are are saying no more and doing things like i mean look if you're a parent and you have a teacher showing your kids explicit material you should i think in in under the right circumstances reported to law enforcement but you also have all kinds of other ways that you can do

things you can sue the school district. You can get the materials, demand that the materials are removed from the libraries. I mean, just simple steps, showing up, going to school board meetings, showing up, talking to your teachers, talking to your principals. Because ultimately, we are in that place, I think, as a culture, as a country, where it is a societal inflection point. Whereas, which direction do we go do we tolerate more of this because that's what we're going to get if we don't stop it right or do we say no enough is enough and so a lot of folks are are are using um courts using

courts of public opinion to advance the ball and try to defend not not not i wouldn't say even conservative values i mean they are conservative values but just traditional american values human values things that have been understood for millennia and that now are just being uh tolerated uh like that book that book is disgusting it has no place in a school there's a snopes highlighted a chap uh a section from the book i want to find it in the book who put the notes in the book was that wasn't carried at that oh okay so maybe maybe the notes

show uh no there's a is that it how to argue with Sodom and Gomorrah yeah so Ian and I were going back and forth between the show he was like reading the supposed like these objections to the Bible and they were

all very weak they're all very bad and also objections the islamic teaching on it the book instructs young kids i'm going to say kids because it's sold to 14 to 17 year olds the book instructs kids how to argue uh against religion christianity islam i want to talk about gay sex so right at the beginning of the chapter that starts talking about sex, it says, This chapter is about sex, therefore it has sex in it. Well, duh. If you're a younger reader and you feel you aren't ready for the finer details of same-sex pairings, then simply skip this whole chapter.

However, before you do, I'd like to remind you that we taught you all about straight sex when you were 11 years old during 6th grade. The fact that they didn't also teach you what same-sex couples do is nothing less than institutionalized homophobia. Straight sex was presented as the norm to make 5% of the population feel abnormal. Is there something icky about gay sex? Is there something wrong with it? I challenge any politician to discuss this with me. I will ruin them. This chapter is simply all the stuff teachers should be saying if they want to be inclusive of people with same-sex feelings. Two things I want to point out. The first sentence, the first couple of sentences in the introduction is,

if you feel you aren't ready, skip this. It then says, however, before you do, I want to remind you, meaning, if you're not ready, consider why you should read it anyway. That's kind of insane. But more importantly, when we teach sex ed in schools, we are not explaining to children how to use bondage gear. We're not teaching children about sex clubs or apps.

Sex education is about reproduction. Maybe I'm wrong, and if it's happening, it shouldn't be. But what I understand about sex ed is it's like, here are the reproductive organs. Here's how they work. Thank you, students. Here's the test. Or if they even have one. This book is eating poop.

That's wild. There's other parts in there that I can't even begin to describe. I know. I want a full, uncensored discussion on this book. It is so hardcore. But that is not sex ed. That is fetish education. Kink ed, yeah.

Exactly. It's is fetish education. Exactly. It's perversity education. And they're trying to justify it like, well, we taught kids about general reproduction, therefore you should teach them about eating feces? Like, what? Yeah. That's disgusting.

That is what's making parents say enough. And also, I think this is something people fail to realize. There's a conversation I very distinctly remember having in high school. Another student said to me, while we were in our sex ed class, and they were being completely unironic. They said, how do you think people figured this stuff out before they had sex ed? I said, people don't need to go take a class to know how to have sex. The purpose of sex ed is to tell you what not to

do right you're going to get older you're going to become an adult you're going to start engaging in these activities what's important is that when you were young when you were developing your parents ideally had a conversation with you about what the boundaries are and the things that you shouldn't be doing because you're going to figure out what you can do. I don't think it goes that... I think that's over the top. Sex Ed, when I was a kid, was like, here is a diagram of the male reproductive organs. Well, but when I say what not to do, by the way, I'm not saying, like, giving people details

on these kinds of things and saying, don't do that, kids. I mean just telling them, this is sex, this is what it does. It makes people. And it's something you should do with your spouse and not with someone before you meet your spouse. That's what I mean by what you should not do. It was there to place a restriction,

to let people know, these are the things that are going to make your life more difficult if you do them. Ideally, you're going to wait until you're married. You're going to get married. You're going to have a family. Don't go fooling around outside of marriage. We had a super chat earlier. Someone said that they were out of booze for the rest of the week and they were hoping i would not say two specific words because they otherwise they would have to drink if i said these two words oh i know what words can i say them can i definitely definitely civil

you can say because if i say it they have to drink but if you say it's okay just point to me whenever you want. Civil War. So we have this tweet from Rick Scott. He said, I'm warning socialists and communists not to travel to Florida. They are not welcome in the Sunshine State. Beast! I'm going to play the clip for you. Sooner, Rick Scott here.

Let me give you a travel warning. If you're a socialist, socialist communist somebody that believes in big government i would think twice think twice if you're thinking about taking a vacation or moving to florida we're the free state of florida we actually don't believe in socialism we actually know people and we some people understand lived under it we know people lived in our socialism it's not good it's not good for anybody so if you're thinking about it, if you think about communist order and you're a socialist or communist, think twice. We like freedom, liberty, capitalism, things like that. Say it.

Civil war. I am kidding, by the way. Yeah. But a lot of people were tweeting about it and tweeting at me. Yeah, they're freaking out. What? I can't go to the place that I'm constantly claiming is the worst part of America? No, you can't.

You should be happy. There is something about people. You still can. He's just telling you you won't like it. No, no, you can't. I'm fine with them thinking they can't.

There's definitely an aspect of taking things for granted in the modern age that I don't think a lot of people understand that if they trash this country, what kind of lockdown could actually,

like, what could be lost? By the way way the ability to walk around freely and stuff like that do you think that like if if gavin newsom or some governor of a left-wing state went no fascists are welcome here that people would be going oh he's excluding people based on their politics what about tolerance what's happening what happened to tolerance man i gotta balance if if gavin newsom made a video and he said fascists aren't welcome in california i'd be like okay i'd like, how did you get elected? Sure, right.

But my view is like, that doesn't apply to any of us. It's just a term that means bad guy. So it's like, okay, whatever. But when he said socialists and communists aren't welcome, leftists legitimately got mad. They were like, how dare you? They were like, well, why not? Yeah, why can't I? What is

this? We make everywhere we go better. I saw, I think it was a tweet from Michael Malice, and he was just, he said something about like the fracturing of the states is going as planned or something like that. I should actually pull that one up, try and find it. But yeah, I mean, I don't take it seriously, to be completely honest. But I do think that when you look at the election in Florida, when you look at here's what Michael Malice said, our nation's growing ideological self-segregation is proceeding nicely. Actually, it's a really good point. It is people leaving California who are more conservative leaning going to Texas and Florida, people leaving New York for the same reason.

Where does this self-segregation lead to? I just love that. He says he's warning them. Potentially. I'm warning. I'm warning you. You're not welcome. A decentralized federation of state authority. I mean, I think that's kind of what we're supposed to lead.

That's where we were. It's where we came from. And then what happens when you have. It's one thing when California is a sanctuary state and they let illegal immigrants, criminal immigrants enter their state. But then these people who enter can now easily access any other part of the country. So what happens when you're Arizona, dealing with a border crisis,

and then California keeps their border open, lets people come in illegally, and then, very easily, they cross in Arizona? Okay, if this hyperpolarization keeps happening, Arizona sets up a border. They set up a checkpoint. And they say, we have way too many people coming in from California that we don't know if are citizens.

So we're going to do a border checkpoint. And now you got to show your ID if you want to get through. You know, it's reasonable. It's a big inconvenience for 99.9% of the people going from California to Arizona. But it's maybe for a weekend they could try it. I don't know. That's a big cost and i it not that much just administrative cost i'm thinking putting putting putting uh a booth i don't i don't i don't think it's it's that expensive to put a

couple booths on a few highways that go in and out of the state they would like check the trunk of every car that came by and they just stop and say how do you what's your business in arizona where you headed and then i'm just driving through them on the okay have a nice day i see your id kind of thing got an id so if you don't have an id you won't be able to go across state border i'm not saying it's a good thing i'm saying that's where we head that's that's where we go if we're getting to the point where you look we've already talked about how in some of these blue states, there's child sex change sanctuaries. There's already the fear.

This is what I'm worried about. Some kid on TikTok sees all these videos, finds a book like this, calls the number, meets a stranger on the internet who says, I'll drive you to Washington and get you your treatment, effectively kidnapping the kid, bring him to Washington. And Washington says it's legal. Now what happens if you're in Montana or Wyoming? Wyoming is the number one Trump supporting state in the country.

What happens if you're from Wyoming and someone takes your kid and brings him to Washington? Now you've got a very, very serious border dispute because Washington said, oh, that guy who kidnapped your kid, he was doing your kid a favor. And then you say,

I want my kid returned to me. And they say, no, because you're the criminal. Federal government doesn't intervene. What happens? You are going to get Wyoming being like, we're going to set up checkpoints to make sure people aren't kidnapping children

to bring them to Washington for lewd and lascivious reasons. Yeah, you just got to have the feds. The feds are supposed to protect. They're not going do it that's the only the only way to prevent these states from going rogue is to have federal enforcement and oversight you need to protect then you're talking about stronger federal law enforcement and we don't have that and if anything the feds will protect washington and the kidnapper that's so messed up yeah even under trump even under trump trump made the mistake of thinking that these people would operate any differently protect Washington and the kidnapper. That's so messed up. Yeah. Even under Trump, even under Trump,

Trump made the mistake of thinking that these people would operate any differently. What do you mean? Who are these people? The FBI. Trump literally thought, I can't, that dude made so many mistakes in trusting these people over and over and over again. Yeah, it was like he's on autopilot.

That was weird. I think he just actually had faith in the system i think trump thought it was busted but he could fix it and he saw the general good in you in the united states i think now it's the opposite now he's like these people are corrupt the whole thing's got to go but this is my point when we're looking at rick scott jokingly say socials and commies don't come here and then the left actually gets mad because they actually are socialists and commies like we're we're heading to a dark place how would you guys define socialist what would make somebody a socialist public ownership of the means of production yeah so so yeah communism is like worker ownership over the means of production and then how socialism

is different from communism changes based on who you're talking to some say that like social i think as a general rule when you look at how they've operated in the world communism usually happens because of like some revolution or state takeover and socialism is usually voted in but that's not actually definitive well that they um some some say socialism is economic and communism is political yeah well people say communism encompasses everything right so even your culture becomes modified by it where socialism just refers to econ uh but there are a bunch of different ways people define it and i've heard it defined even by official sources multiple different ways so it's every communist state is socialist but

every socialist state is not necessarily communist yeah yeah i suppose so what would that be like state ownership is communist but if it's just state communism is is typically characterized by a single party controlling everything in like an authoritarian or thoracratic mean gulagging people disappearing people socialism is where the people own everything socialism can actually socialism is interesting because there's like a threshold for it right if you're looking at a spectrum, you could argue America is a capitalist country, right? Yeah, except half of our money is taxed and goes to the public.

So actually the United States is not a capitalist economy. It's a mixed economy. At a certain point, you can call it socialist or capitalist. What's that line up to you? Maybe 70%. If 70% of your income is kept by you and 30% goes to the public that's the

threshold for being a capitalist country anything from 70 up to 100 of the money you keep is capitalist and then anything in between is mixed and then 70 taxation and higher is socialist i don't know to be fair it's not just about government taxation yeah socialism is basically like the workers own the factory communism is like everyone owns everything but there's actually a military in control and they'll execute you if you disagree but it it can be it can be a bit uh vague the simple thing is socialism is basic economics the further you go towards the public owning everything is the further you go towards socialism the further you go towards private ownership the further you go towards socialism the further you go towards private ownership the further you go towards capitalism and capitalism is better yeah unquestionably yeah i i think also

like just in terms of how the word is usually understood um communism has much more baggage associated with it on the cultural question which i think is part of why people associate it with a complete cultural takeover and because it's also what you saw in communist states like the ussr or communist china and so people people will almost view socialism as just sort of a moderate form of communism but that's not really an accurate way of looking at it either we have a lot of people pointing out there already are border checkpoints some saying when you uh you generally stop at state borders to pay tolls already so those could easily be modified to stop and check your id other people mention that there are way stations and agricultural checkpoints already between states

i'm saying it becomes like country to country effectively arizona's dealing with a mass influx of illegal immigrants texas is as well at a certain point they might just be like we have to control our borders but that would be like if, because there'll be vans and trucks, you need to stop the van, come around out back, open the van, look through the stuff. Dog walks around the truck. Yep, absolutely. That's a lot of labor. It sure is. And I'm saying.

I don't know if it's a bad thing, though. Whether you think it's good or bad is not the point. What matters is if we are segregating to this degree it will happen when when covet happened they had checkpoints new uh i think connecticut had checkpoints because they didn't want new yorkers fleeing because of the lockdowns into connecticut for safe haven so they were like checking license plates and stuff like that yo crazy and who would have ever thought that would have happened before covet right yeah to your point. Now, it's like, you know, Europe used to have checkpoints between the countries

and then you get the European Union and the Schengen zone. But I think the U.S. actually headed in that direction. Because you're going to have, I think, Wyoming and Washington are a really good example. I think you got Idaho in between. But, so maybe it'll be Idaho, actually. Idaho's a pretty conservative spot. And they're going to get issues.

Wyoming's going to be like, why are you allowing these people to take our kids through your state and they're going to say okay and wyoming is going to be like we expect you to cooperate with us on law enforcement so i know it's going to be like we got this corridor that goes to go to goes to montana to washington whatever we're going to set up checkpoints it's i think what is it one highway it's probably it's probably some smaller roads i think it's one highway up north yeah it's one highway i'm actually fearful of how the federal government might try to crack down on that. How so? Well, I could just see if you have a regime that's as far to the left as the one that's in power now is, and that wants to push for this mutilation of children.

I could imagine them saying, no, you can't tell someone they're not able to pass through your state in order to get their quote-unquote gender-affirming care. To be fair, there's one federal highway, one big, it's I-90. Right, one interstate. But then there are a bunch of smaller roads. Smaller state highways, yes. But to be completely honest, I can count them. Yeah, it's not a lot. I can go all the way,

what are we looking at? Up north, you mean? So from, if I'm looking at just out of Washington, you can, man, it's really annoying. Yeah, it's rugged up there. There's one, two, three, two three four five six seven eight nine ten and in wintertime a lot of those 10 yeah 10 roads so if you got to the point where washington act there actually was an issue of kids being trafficked into washington for child sex changes and states like idaho were like no way i mean actually let's use idaho as an example relatively conservative place they don't want their kids being brought there so what all they

need is 10 checkpoints 10 no that's 20 guys 20 guys on rotation working a border yeah and like i said in the winter time a lot of those places aren't even you can't navigate them they're like covered so there's no way through it. It's mostly just going to be one or two roads. They might exit to another state. You'd have to have your entire border blocked off or covered.

I don't know if you do that. It's so rugged, dude. No, Ian. It's 10 roads. Going west? The whole border. You're just talking about the western border?

Going east, yes. If you're in Washington, it is 10 roads out of Washington. You have to go south. Oh, they said Idaho. Okay. Into Idaho. So Washington into Idaho. There are 10 roads. of washington you have to go south i think it's in idaho okay into idaho yeah so washington into idaho there are 10 roads there's probably many smaller ones but there are 10 main roads one main interstate highway and then i think a couple state highways

and i counted on the map zooming in even to the small ones it looks like it's about 10 so i'm not i'm not saying i know for a fact it will happen i'm saying if this is the path we head down abortion is also a big issue what happens if i've talked about it before yeah you got you got a man and a woman they're together they're maybe married they they get pregnant start fighting woman says i need to leave this guy for whatever reason and he says i forbid you from getting an abortion and she's you can't idaho doesn't allow it. So then she goes to Washington and he goes to the state and says, she's kidnapped my child.

A better example is states that have completely banned it. I think like what Oklahoma banned it outright. Is it Oklahoma? Who banned it outright? Texas. Texas banned it outright? Are you sure? Let me double check on that.

Yeah. I mean, after, I mean, no, no, no, no, no. There's been, I think Oklahoma was a on that. Yeah, Shane. I mean, after a heartbeat. No, no. It's a heartbeat. No, no, no. There's been, I think Oklahoma was a total ban. Yeah. I mean, it might have been Oklahoma had the total ban.

It looks like there are, so New York Times actually has a tracker for which states have done a complete outright ban. So a full ban in effect versus six-week ban. It does look like, you said Idaho? Or did you say? No, no, no. Oklahoma. Oklahoma.

Yes. Oklahoma does have a full-on ban. Full-on ban. that's also if we're going to go with the and then colorado right um so let's say someone uh there's a couple in oklahoma something happens and the woman says you know what i just don't want to have this baby because it'll it'll it'll keep me locked with this guy colorado is it's it's right on the this is crazy they they they they share a border colorado let's see is uh what road do we got here 385 campo to boise city so you can have a woman who's in oklahoma drive 100 miles cross the border into colorado where there's no restriction at all what happens when that father says, my unborn son has been kidnapped and is going to be executed? What does Oklahoma

do to prevent that from happening? Nothing. The federal government won't do anything either. You're going to have border checkpoints. And Oklahoma's going to be like, ma'am, why are you leaving? Why are you going to Colorado? There's going to be serious, just outright. And even the left agrees on this one

because the left has talked about this that they're going to be trying to stop women from fleeing to get abortions in states where it's illegal yep i think that when i brought up you need border if you're going to do that you need like border protection on the entire state of oklahoma because although it does share a border with colorado in one spot people could go through like new mexico no, and then go north. Or they could go south and then west and north to avoid that border checkpoint.

And they can get on a plane. They go to Kansas and then west into Colorado. So you would need a robust border patrol system. No, you wouldn't. You are incorrect. I mean, if you're trying

to prevent people from leaving the state, that is not the way to go. They're going to try and prevent specifically the trafficking for the purpose of abortion. But how would you have to get her to say she's doing it at the border crossing too and why would she

just be like no we're just i'm just going on a vacation ian i think you misunderstand that's irrelevant they you will get enough people in oklahoma who will be like we demand a checkpoint well but do you want to like it's like facial recognition eye scanning and like dna you misunderstand what you want to do in you completely misunderstand simpsons bear patrol you guys remember that yeah yeah a bear one day wanders through springfield so they all panic and demand a bear patrol and get it it doesn't matter what you think they need to do need is immaterial if enough people say you know i i i had a girlfriend she got pregnant, and then she crossed the border to get an abortion, and now my son is dead, was killed, or my daughter was killed, they will just vote,

and the state will do it. And sure, you could argue it's ineffective. That's not the point. The point is people will say it, and it will have to happen. You cannot have two states side by side where one has totally banned abortion and one has totally unrestricted abortion it is very obvious what will happen oklahoma will say to these women it is illegal to get an abortion the women will then be like i'm going to colorado and they'll say we're setting up a checkpoint at the border to colorado and then we're going to arrest you i mean what's yes it's illegal arrest her for what it's illegal they totally what's illegal it's crossing the border okay ian you don't get it i I 100% get it. She has not gotten an abortion at this stage of illegality you're claiming. So what's illegal?

So when there is a prosecution, Donald Trump, let's use Trump as an example. Did Trump break the law with classified documents? Yes or no? No. Hillary Clinton had classified documents. She wasn't prosecuted. Joe Biden had classified documents. She wasn't prosecuted.

Joe Biden has classified documents. He wasn't prosecuted. Donald Trump has classified documents. He does get prosecuted. So what's the crime? It doesn't matter. A state prosecutor will find something on the books. Show me the man.

Show me the crime. My point is, if Oklahoma says it is illegal and a woman traffics an unborn baby for the purpose of terminating its life. They will say they will treat it as if it's murder, period. Yeah, but they'll say this is unknown. That's the point that I'm making. They they argue this in court.

This is the purpose of an indictment and a criminal trial. So you can't make the argument that you drove the car at a high speed, crashed into a person and they and say well i mean you could certainly make the argument they'll be like we don't know exactly why they did it yep you did you did okay you did the woman will come back from colorado having gotten an abortion and they'll say now we know exactly she goes back to the state yeah she's probably right yeah bro i'm telling you but arresting her at the border i don't know about that you cannot have these two states coexisting this way. Yeah. The left made this argument that states will start setting up, like, police forces because it's illegal.

Not even an original opinion from me. I'm like, I agree with what they're saying. It feels like a dumb, heavy-handed thing to say. We'll just put cops there and then it will stop. No one believes that. How deep do you want to go? No one believes that, Ian. No one believes that we'll just stop because they put

cops there. They're saying we want cops to try and do something because the only thing people ever say is do something, do something. So they'll do something and that's what you'll get. It could be worse than doing nothing. Absolutely. But I think most people would argue it's not worse than doing nothing because you'll get a lot of people in Oklahoma

who are like, we need to go get an abortion and the cops are going to be at the border and they're going to be like, I can't do this. Turn around. Or there'll be like, people will be like, we suspect she may get an abortion. We have an anonymous tip. Let's tap her phone lines. You're right. That's dirty, dude. You are right.

Now, I don't know. I don't think Oklahoma criminalizes the woman, though. They criminalize the practice. So I think the doctor is the one who gets in trouble. But what you need to understand is I am not talking about the world is not a machine. Human civilization is not a machine that functions on logic. I love this idea when it comes to business contracts. I hear all the time from

people who don't know how to run businesses and they seem to think, I can't remember what movie I was watching. It was like someone had a contract with a company and then their whole company got seized or something happened. And they were like, this is absurd. How could our company be taken over this way? And then they went to the court and the judge was like, I'm sorry, it's right here in the contract. And they're like, no, no. And I'm like, courts don't work that way. Like you can come to an agreement with someone

and a judge can nullify it. Judges are human beings. They can be like, this is ridiculous. People seem to think that contract law and legality is like, I'm sorry, sir. It says right here, there are judges who literally have imprisoned children for cash, regardless of what the law says. We know human judges basically can do what

they want to do. They can hold you in contempt and lock you up and just end your life basically. And then you can beg. They can do these things. There are judges. Trump is the perfect example. Let's jump to the Trump story. Let's talk about Donald Trump. This is a perfect segue. Here's a story from Fox News. Trump reacts after a leaked recording shows him discussing classified documents. Former president tells Fox News Digital he did nothing wrong in secret document case. I have the audio here.

Let's play it. Sick people. That was your coup, you know, against you. Well, it started right at the beginning. Like when Milley's talking about, oh, you were going to try to do a coup. No, they were trying to do that before you even were sworn in. That's right. Trying to overthrow your election.

Well, with Milley, let me see that. I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to attack Iran. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look. This was him. They presented me this. This is off the record,

but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. We looked at some. This was him. This wasn't done by me. This was him. All sorts of stuff. It's pages long wait a minute, let's see

here I just found, isn't that amazing this totally wins my case you know, except it is like highly confidential secret, there's a secret information, look at this you attack

Hillary would print that out all the time she'd send it to Anthony Weiner the pervert by the way isn't that incredible I was just saying because we were talking about it and he said he wanted to attack

Iran he's in the papers this was done by the military given to me And he said, he wanted to attack Iran. He said it paid. This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably... We'll have to see. We'll have to try to figure out... See, as president, I could have de-glessed, but now I can't.

But this is... Now we have a problem. Isn't that interesting? It's so cool. And you probably almost didn't believe me, but now you believe me. It's incredible. So there you go. That's basically it.

And here's why I brought this up. For one, it is a big story, but my point is this. Hillary Clinton had top secret information on her private servers. She had her phone smashed with hammers, and she used an open source purging software to destroy all of those public records. Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring these charges. Joe Biden had classified documents in multiple locations. Maybe they'll bring charges against him.

Doesn't seem likely. But Hillary is the really obvious one. Before an election, Comey said, no, we're not going to do that. That's ridiculous. And she wasn't even the president. Donald Trump has classified documents and they say, give him 10 years. The view is screaming, lock him up 10 years. This is the point about anything pertaining to legality or law.

It doesn't matter what you think is right and what should be done. What matters is people with power wield it. The left certainly understands that. The right has this problem of being like, you know, but is and the left is just like do it anyway and that's where we're at the biden doj going after trump on charges that the obama doj would not bring against hillary yeah well yeah i kind of want can i ask you a few questions about this just as a lawyer absolutely so when trump says i could have declassified them or should have declassified them, is that an admission that he didn't declassify them properly? And is that going to be held against him? Well, look, I think that one of the things that we're all

missing is the context of these papers that you can hear in the background. What is it that he's actually looking at? And what is he actually flipping through, right? I mean, is he flipping through some kind of a description? Is he flipping through some kind of a picture? I mean, we don't know what was actually in front of them. But I think one of the things that matters here is what Tim just pointed out, which was Donald Trump was the President of the United States. Hillary Clinton was only the Secretary of State. You know, Joe Biden, the records that he's talking about are records he got as vice president or previously as a senator. Right. And so classified documents are controlled by the president of the United States.

Documents are only classified secret, top secret, confidential because of an executive order from the president of the United States. All classification authority derives from the president with one limited exception set by Congress about atomic energy related documents. And so you have this whole kind of, that's one angle and a lot of people have been talking about that. But one of the things that I think is an interesting thought that I hope folks start to think through is you have all this discussion right now about, oh my goodness, President Trump violated the Presidential Records Act, and those weren't his documents, and he couldn't have those documents. Those are the people's documents. And I'm sorry, for me, from coming from a first principle

standpoint, under the Constitution, the Congress of the United States has no authority to tell the president of the United States which papers are his and which papers aren't, right? That is ultimately under the Constitution, the president of the United States has to have that power to decide which documents are his. And so if he has that power, then how can he, and then he takes those documents with him, which is the standard practice of presidents, for almost 200 years. George Washington took his papers with him after he left office. It was actually the subject of a court case later on down the line. He deeded them to his nephew. So how is it now that we fast forward and Congress passes this Presidential Records Act in 1978.

Jimmy Carter signs into law and says, oh says oh well these are all the people's records and the president no longer has you know kind of a an ultimate say-so the president possesses the documents from the first instance and has that absolute authority to to do so then how can he be prosecuted under the espionage act for unlawful possession of these documents it's insane i mean it just doesn't make sense but not only that first we're gonna we're gonna find out in a week or so that there's something more to this video where like right after this clip trump goes i mean these aren't actually any of the real documents the real the these are just you know memos it'll be something like that right and you'll be like oh i wonder why that context wasn't provided because the media does this all the time. But then let's get down to it. Let's get down to it.

First, what does this audio prove, if anything? Donald Trump is an idiot? Maybe. Is that it? Is it criminal? It's not. I'll tell you, in two seconds, Trump's legal team is going to be like, he was bragging. He was lying.

It's not real. Those are the documents, the papers. You hear that audio? It wasn't even those real papers. Where was this audio recorded? audio recorded oh it was in this room the papers were in a different place the whole time you you can't see anything you can't hear anything someone's saying something about look at these papers their secret doesn't prove he actually had secret papers and showed them to anybody right so it's it's circumstantial at best it does it is bad for trump don't get me wrong yeah but they're acting like it's this big bombshell

and my thing is you know i think i think trump was just speaking off the cuff and being a braggart and then when it actually came down to the legal matter he said look i'm the president they're declassified because i say so and that's his argument now i don't think this tape does anything all that's going to happen is if you're on the left you're going to think it's a bombshell if you're on the right you're going to say it's stupid as and i'll tell you this if the left says trump must get 10 years for this actually they do they do let me pull up the the little little article here we got from media lock him up already the view gets wild as host suggests trump selling docs predict he gets 10 years in prison okay all right i'm down yeah you know

hillary's next in line let's get it and now course, we can get Obama on that, killing that 16-year-old American citizen. Bring them all. Bring them all. Let's lock them all up. Joe Biden next. He was selling documents? I mean, these people are insane. Oh.

But the point is, the reason why this tape doesn't matter is because we know Hillary Clinton had top-secret information. We know that she had no authority to have it. We know that she had phones with the have it we know that she had phones with the records on them destroyed with hammers we know that she had uh the server purged with bleach bit and comey said no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges on this so then am i supposed to think it's reasonable for trump to be charged no of course not well i'm i'm curious again as a lawyer what do you think this does in a court of

law like this kind of evidence i mean it really depends on what gets admitted and there's all kinds of tests for what gets admitted and what gets heard and what the the jury can see assuming it goes to a jury um but again tim's exactly right his lawyers go in and they start punching holes in this well how do you know what documents was he he talking about? Do we have witnesses who can recall and take the stand and they'll tell, oh, they'll testify, oh, yeah, it was this precise document that was marked top secret, no foreign, your eyes only document, and he was showing us all of these precise battle plans. No.

I mean, I highly doubt that Tim's exactly right. Every time we see one of these things play out, which is I think what most Americans recognize now, is that every time we see one of these allegations, whether it's three days or three years down the line, there's more to the story. And the left just keeps coming at him and coming at him and coming at him with everything that they have. And it's always, this is the last straw. This is the death knell for Donald Trump. The walls are closing in. The walls are closing in. And every time there's more to it.

And I think that the left is destroying its own credibility the more that they do this. Because the average Americans sitting at home, Kansas, Georgia, Nevada, wherever, they see this and they say, why do they keep going after this guy? This doesn't make sense. They just keep coming after him. It's counterintuitive. It doesn't make any sense to them. I do want to give a special shout out to Donald Trump

for trusting the corporate press all the time. He just loves allowing these people to come in all the time and just let them record him and all this stuff. He keeps giving them interviews. It's wonderful, isn't it? I don't get it. That's the part of it and i don't get i never got it to go back to the channel that the initial segue to this this is my point when we were talking about the borders and oklahoma banning abortion colorado allowing it it doesn't matter what you think the law is we talked about the other day cohabitation in West Virginia is illegal. Are they going to bring charges against you?

Only if they want to search your residence. Show me the man. I'll show you the crime. So, let's say you're in West Virginia, and you're an activist, and the state's like, this person's causing us problems. Can we find a crime that'll give us a justification for searching their residence? They're cohabitating. That's illegal.

Boom. We got them. I still want to look up that law i haven't been able to find it so like cohabitation is in living with someone of the opposite sex you're not married with or in a relationship with based for like i couldn't find the law um yeah i i agree it's not about doing what's right but the reason i was concerned with the whole setting up border checkpoints thing is because i i'm looking ahead at what problems that could arise from a social movement to install border patrol, whether or not it's legal,

whether or not it's righteous, that it could end up causing more unnecessary spying on the, the people themselves that on, you know, unexpectedly they didn't realize what they had unleashed on themselves by creating some sort of patrol office around them. You try to be pulling up that law yeah it's uh this is weird so yeah how long is this lewd and lascivious cohabitation when persons presumed to be unmarried is the law 6184 but it does say whether married or not afterwards interesting oh so like you're doing lewd and

lascivious things even within the context of marriage they, so like you're doing lewd and lascivious things even within the context of marriage. They're basically saying you're being a freak. Right. Get out of my bedroom. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's, yeah. Okay, so to be specific, it's not about just cohabitation, it's about fornication. It says, in prosecutions for adultery and fornication, lewd and lasciviously cohabiting together, the person's name in the indictment shall be presumed to be unmarried persons unless proof to the contrary so I'm assuming

that the laws oh fornication means unmarried sexual intercourse that's the first I never put that together I think I think what they're saying I could be wrong but I was talking to someone about it recently and they were like yeah what are they called they're called blue laws or whatever they're archaic laws nobody knows they don't enforce them but this is like if you're making a noise violation with your

lady and you're not married they might be like yo stop and if you don't stop and you don't stop and you don't stop they're like hey okay i get it now if any person's not married to each other lewdly and lasciviously associate or cohabit cohabitate together they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be fine not less than fifty dollars yeah like that to clarify if you are not married and you'd be hooking up it's illegal and it's like i think that's particularly if you're hooking up in public like they can know no it's in your house no if people can sense that you're doing it inside like they walk by to hear the noise they see it in a window because lewdness they wouldn't know unless they were there it actually clarifies or whether married or not be guilty of open gross lewdness.

That's a separate clause. So what I read was specifically saying if you are not married and you are lewdly associating and cohabitating, then you will be guilty of a misdemeanor. If you are married or not and be guilty of open or gross lewdness and lasciviousness. You will be guilty of a misdemeanor. So, anyway, that's my point. Yeah, they don't prosecute that stuff anymore. But I'm actually, if they tried to today, though, if they were going after somebody they didn't like, and this was the justification, it would almost certainly be struck down.

No court would convict somebody. There's an issue there. Lewd is such a vague term also. But all laws use terms you struggle to define. And then a judge interprets it. That's crazy. Wicked. court would convict somebody that that's there's an issue lewd is such a vague term also but all all laws use terms you struggle to define and then a judge interprets it that's crazy wicked it means wicked so let me explain ian a woman is in oklahoma abortion is totally banned it's a total ban right ian i mean let me yeah so yes yes there is so the places, yes, yeah, exactly. Oklahoma does have a total ban. Now what we'll need is a judge's interpretation of what then would you call taking a pregnant woman carrying a child that the state deems to be a child across state lines without permission of the other parent. Would that be kidnapping?

Yeah. yeah what i'm saying is if this can can uh continues in this way you will get to the point where the interpretation of the state in oklahoma is that a child carried to another state for to be put to death does it is irrelevant whether it's in the womb or out of the womb if a woman carried a physical child across state lines to bring it to a place to have it killed they would view it identically to a woman with the baby in the womb doing the same thing yeah i'm actually curious about the law i want to look into it but i'm not sure if the laws that are banning it are also defining it as homicide i wonder if some states ban it without characterizing it as homicide that's why i'm saying a judge will have to interpret it yeah because if you this this is

inevitable not that a judge will say it's homicide, but that the interpretation will have to be handed down by a judge. You will get a circumstance in Oklahoma, and it's probably already happened, where a woman gets pregnant, goes to Colorado, gets an abortion. There will be a lawsuit or some challenge if Sly Swenchy returns, and you will have

the father or some family member being like, that was illegal, and then filing some kind of claim and demanding criminal charges for it. It's an illegal act to terminate the pregnancy. She went and did it in another state. What will the judges say about that? It'll have to be interpreted by somebody.

I think Oklahoma, based on this trajectory, will lean towards it is child trafficking and murder. That's wild. child trafficking is interesting because if like an eight month, if a woman's eight months pregnant and she's like, hey, I'm going to see my mom in another state and the dad's like, no, you're not, not this week.

She's like, yeah, I am. I have the tickets already. And he's like, no, you're not going anywhere. And she's like, I'm leaving. And she leaves and it's like, she's trafficking a child. The dad goes to the court. Absolutely. That's, no, that woman has every right

to go to her mom's house across state lines, my opinion and then with an eight-month-old in womb and and then and then two two things happen one yes there will be circumstances where women will be unjustly halted from living their lives the second there will be women who will lie about traveling to visit their parents in order to terminate the life of the child yeah i mean also if if you're pregnant, if you just have a child in general, I think it would be very strange for you to go somewhere without your spouse wanting you to go there.

I'm sure you have some abusive relationships where the husband is a maniac and the woman has a reason to leave, but that's totally different. I think we're headed towards, as the states's fracture well you don't say is this the word i have to say yeah the phrase i have to say i think so i wasn't going to say you're jumping the gun okay i was going to say something something dark because it starts with the the the political polarization of of people into certain states then the championing of of um federalization like states being sovereign

but but then you have to contend with the fact that if colorado and oklahoma are distinct entities with very with extremely different laws you will need border checkpoints this is the this is the fracturing of the united states the point where oklahoma will have to have a border checkpoint with colorado yeah it's also also very interesting because I wonder in 20 years where all of these states are going to be. We've seen states change from red to blue over time, and it's possible. Look, the entire country in many ways, especially on social issues, has moved significantly further to the left. In terms of legislation, i would say in some states abortion and uh in general gun control are kind of the two issues where we've moved to the

right as a country but for the most part the trajectory has always been to the left i'm i'm curious to see if there's going to be a backlash in some of these places that are blue might start to turn red um that's also again not me saying that's going to happen i think that could be wishful thinking but on the on the point of immigration to to uh add to what you're saying ian they already do have random stops in states when i when i first went to california i went i entered through san diego from... Tijuana? No, no, no. From Arizona into California to San Diego. And I was on a bus

from San Diego to LA and we got randomly stopped by immigration. And they boarded the bus and they demanded everyone pull out their IDs and I pull out my ID. And they go and they look

and they hand the things back and they hand it back. And they came up to me and the guy looks at my ID and he goes, what's your favorite baseball team? And I was like, I don't like baseball. Is it going to go to favorite baseball team? And I was like, well, I'm from Chicago.

I can say the Sox, I guess, but I don't really watch baseball. And he goes, you're fine. Hands me the ID back. The reason he asked that is he wanted a fast question that you'd have to be able to answer really, really quickly because if you were an illegal immigrant you wouldn't have a canned response to it. So they already do stuff like this

if arizona is worried about the southern border crisis if gary lake got elected governor she would have to answer the question of the illegal immigrants coming from california not just mexico i saw a video uh uh from jorge ventura on the border and there was like immigrants are coming up but they couldn't get across they're stuck at some wall or something they've been there for three days just camping on the border waiting to get across. Dude, what is the solution to this border? I mean, I don't even want to say it online, man. I just have such horrible, horrible visions of what could happen if we don't stem the tide.

We have to. I mean, and really, this is not overstating things, but in the Trump administration, towards the end of the Trump administration, they had solved the border crisis. Right? The number of illegal entries, successful illegal entries, which is the goal of every illegal alien, is just to get into the United States. It doesn't, I mean, they don't care if they get captured or if they sneak across or whatever. Their goal is to get released. Yeah, their goal is to get released. Their goal is to get released in the interior so they can work, they can provide for their family, whatever, send money back home.

That's their end goal. And so under the Trump administration, what ended up happening was these policies like remain in Mexico, where you had to say, hey, look, we caught you, but now you're going to wait in Mexico. And if you have a court claim you want to make, you're going to make it from Mexico. We're going to let you in for your court date.

But other than that, you wait there. That dried everything up because people realized you don't actually get your end goal. What this administration is doing is, you know, they were letting in all kinds of folks. All kinds of folks were coming in because they were just catching and releasing everybody. But now what they've done is they've done a paradigm shift where they're directing people to the ports of entry and they're trying to hide the ball from the American people. So there's, oh, the numbers between our ports, the number of people crossing illegally, they're going down. They're still astronomically high. Those numbers are going down. But instead, what they're doing is they're sending them to the ports of entry and they say, go to the port of

entry and make your case there and uh what the government is doing is by the tens of thousands every month actually letting people come to the port of entry make an appointment tell them who they are and they just let them into the united states well you can go to your court date someday five years in the future it's insane it has to stop no country can sustain this type of influx nobody can you think like keeping them in mexico was is the best solution or just keeping them on the other side of the border so it happens to be mexico you have to either do that you have to detain people long enough for them to have some kind of a court hearing um to adjudicate if they have some kind of a claim or you have to avail them of other alternatives like safe third country agreements that we'd signed with mexico uh with uh

guatemala el salvador and honduras where it, hey, look, you're seeking asylum in the United States, and you're from Guatemala? Well, guess what? You should have sought it first in El Salvador, or you should have sought it first in Mexico, whatever the case may be. I have an idea. What if we got a big island, and that was like a waypoint?

If people entered, they get brought there for temporary holding. So here's the issue. It's easy to be like, if they illegally enter the country turn them around you can't because what if they're not mexican they come through the southern border and they're honduran we can't then go hey mexico we're putting this person into your country they might say like no you can't do that we don't know that person came from and sometimes for a lot of these people we don't even know if they came through mexico they may have come through other ways they may have flown here overstayed their visas so what if we had an island where it's like uh if you enter here illegally we will detain you transport you to this this island where you will be uh detained

temporarily so we can figure out what country you originate from figure out proper means of deportation or if it's a genuine um case asylum. Now, I think that makes sense because you can't just push them back. And the challenge will be, of course, finding the appropriate location. But I think there is an island up in the Northeast somewhere that we could potentially use

that's very nice. Yeah. And, you know, it's... Yeah, that's a good point. Associated with grapes. Long Island. Fly up, fly up. No.

Yes. Not Long Island. No, no, no. uh uh you know maybe um a vineyard of some sort yeah yeah i think it'd be very nice i actually really like that idea they have plenty of resources to care for these people too in fact diversity is our strength i i think i i actually think that martha's vineyard can't afford not to have all the migrants sent there. It'd make them very strong. It'd be good for their economy. All the things that they say are true for the United States, you know, should be true for Martha's Vineyard.

Let's send them there. In fact, I think it would be even a little bit greedy of Martha's Vineyard to just accept all of the migrants. But you know what? I'm willing to give them, be nice and and do them the favor they deserve it they're good people up there they're good people yeah let's let's give them i want to point out i actually pulled up the actual west virginia code 52102 lewd or lascivious cohabitation no persons not married to each other shall lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabitate together

or whether married or not be guilty of open or gross lewdness or lasciviousness quite literally you cannot live with another person and engage in adult activities with them unless you're married i wonder if uh if people have only fans accounts or do porn from west virginia if they could get arrested under that that's open yeah that's outright yeah so we were looking at these laws because they were doing drag shows with kids. And I'm like, pretty sure it's already illegal. Jefferson County explicitly banned it, saying like this is explicitly defined as, you know, against the law. Berkeley County, which is a little further west, it's not explicit. But West Virginia state law clearly covers having a drag performance and allowing kids on stage. The question is, will the AG actually do anything about it?

Yeah, I guess we'll have to see. We'll have to see if law and order means anything. I'd like to take that lewd law off the books in West Virginia. That'd be like a... Laws should sunset. Yeah, exactly. That one, yeah. It's too vague.

You're going to have an uphill battle. The people of West Virginia will never let you remove remove that law if you have an indecent relationship with your live-in girlfriend they're gonna give you a that's crazy that they could charge you with a misdemeanor but i think it's only like a 50 fine right is that what it said something like that like up to six months in jail up to six months oh my goodness fifty dollars or six months in jail that's what it said pre It was like pre-inflation numbers that updated the law. Let me, what does it say?

Six, not less than six. See, that's the thing. 50 bucks was a lot of money back then. I know, I know. 60 bucks was a proportion of six months. No, no, not less than $50. Not less. Seriously.

That's how you know it's old. Shall be fined not less than $50 and may in the discretion of the court be imprisoned not exceeding six months. And upon repetition of the offense, they shall, upon conviction, be confined not less than six months or more than 12. Wow.

It outright says fornication, too. I would love to see the historical stats to see just how many actual of those prosecutions were brought against cohabitating couples versus how many times it was used to prosecute things like uh prostitution houses or other things that you know that was their way of getting at it back in the day that i mean that would be my uh supposition but i don't know you know it's funny is if you go back like a hundred years when this law is on the books you've got some conservatives sitting around a pub table being

like these liberals they're they're advocating for fornication in the privacy of their own homes that's illegal and it actually was and people did it and now it's not illegal and it's still illegal but nobody enforces it and a court would probably not uphold it if they tried to arrest someone for it yeah the court would not uphold that today right but it's on the books but so i mean you tell me though if you know if your client called you saying they were getting charged with this would you panic would you be like i don't know if i can get you out of this one you think you do it wow is that not social erosion though well i mean certainly certainly it is it's social erosion social uh cohesion is always found in societies where you share a set of values.

And whatever those values are, those are the values that are shared by the community, right? And we can judge them by today's standards, but we shouldn't. There was at least a shared, unified idea that there was some kind of fundamental truth and some baseline morals that everybody agreed to and that carried forth. That's what enables people to have trust in relationships and with each other and build communities. And when you erode those things and when you do things like when we have these drag shows with kids coming to them and parents bringing their kids to these things, that erodes all of that rapidly. And we can see the immediate effects, but I think the downstream effects, the ripple effects, are the things that we haven't yet seen that are the tears in the fabric of our society

that we're going to see down the line as a result of this that we're not even experiencing yet in today's reality. Absolutely agreed. You made this point. You said, I don't think we should judge the people of that time by our moral norms. Quite frankly, I think it would be much more painful

to be judged in our time by their moral norms. Oh, yeah. Like social cohesion or like shared morality. Should we have that on a global scale? I don't know that you can

have it on a global scale. Yeah, I don't think so. Like where does it segment righteously? It used to be every state and then it was like now we have the united states so it has a moral but like does it ever did it ever really have a true a real moral shared moral value in the united states or was it always like pockets of i think so disparate morality i mean i think it was you know the judeo-christian kind of protestant ethos uh that that formed kind of the core of the common values in the united states they carried forth

things for a couple hundred years and now of course as the more of those died down and religion was people will worship something yep and it's a matter of what are they worshiping right and so it used to be they would worship they would go to church they would have a different religion maybe they would be baptist maybe they would be Methodist, whatever. But religion in that traditional sense for many people, especially on the left side of the spectrum, has been replaced with worship of things like transgender ideology. Money. Money. The self, ultimately.

The self. And it's what are you worshiping? What are you following? You're following something. You just might not know what it is. So if you're not following, if you're not worshiping your God, you're worshiping something else. And a lot of times it comes down to money for a lot of people. And unfortunately, a lot of kids these days, as we see the statistics bear out, with the number who are self-identifying as LGBTQIA+++, or whatever the acronym is these days. Well, I just saw a thing today. It said 20% of like Gen Z kids identify as being a member of that group.

That's not coming from a place of a shared morality, shared set of values where things are acceptable and things are not acceptable. That's coming from a sense of worshiping self, worshiping the latest thing, the ever shifting norms of the left. And they're not tethered to anything. They're always going to be moving to the left. There's no core anchor that holds them together, kind of like conservatives. There's at least some common values that we hold

and that we will always, it'll be our mooring that we won't stray far from. Theirs is always shifting, always moving. Yeah, no, I think that's right and what what i would say is when you look at a very broad social scale you know people did believe different things in different areas but anywhere where things have functioned with a very large group the people at least shared the natural law the ten commandments but then they had their own kind of regional customs i think there are laws that are universally applicable that all humans should follow. But then there are certain kind of regional laws built atop those universal laws in different regional stories and in myths and pastimes that can't scale out to groups that are too large like there are certain things that historically traditionally and culturally make more sense for tennessee than california or vice versa so you can't have a universal social cohesion in the sense that everyone's on board with all of the

same stories and customs but i think you can you can ideally have a moral code which is adhered to by everyone in the world i just think it's unlikely like i think it's very unlikely that everyone's going to follow the ten commandments we want them to every culture should expect that but even that it probably won't happen so that's why when it comes to smaller things that are more regional i mean i don't think there's any hope of exporting that stuff we we did that one episode where we went through the ten commandments and we were talking about from a secular perspective whether they would apply to making a better life and i think like the only one that doesn't apply to a secular life is keeping the lord's name and not using the lord's name in vain but like not killing not stealing not adultery honoring your parents

whether you're religious or not following those, you'll have a better life. The thing about the Ten Commandments is they're not just specific rules, they're also categories. So taking the Lord's name in vain, in the most real sense, condemns taking the Lord's name in vain, but there's other things we extrapolate from that, just like using

language properly or improperly, using foul language is like a lesser violation of that commandment, but still a violation. So I think even that would apply. Let's go to Super Chats. If you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, and head over to TimCast.com, become a member. We're going to have a members-only uncensored show coming up for you just about 10 p.m.

And if you've been a member for at least six months or you sign up at the $25 per month level, you can submit questions and even call into the show and talk to us and our guest. All right. I'm not your buddy guy says not to be too hyperbolic, but is this America's last election? I mean, can you imagine sharing a nation with two vastly different ideologies? It's as if only a Julius Caesar character can save the West. I don't know about last election, but I do believe we are entering a very tumultuous period with this election.

Think about it in a couple of different ways. Will Trump supporters vote DeSantis? I would say two to one, no. Will DeSantis supporters vote for Trump? Two to one, no. You know why I think this? They've said it. DeSantis supporters have outright said on Twitter,

if it's Trump, we're not voting. Well, okay. What about Joe Biden? RFK Jr.? It is so divisive that it is just going to be chaos. Will Democrats accept a Trump victory? No.

Will Trump supporters accept a Democrat victory? No. Where we go after this? I don't know. It seems like, I don't disagree, a Julius Caesar character, like we're entering, it feels like we don't disagree a julius caesar character like we're entering it feels like we're at that crossing the rubicon moment that from the republic to the empire

officially we're always vulnerable to it but i it strikes me more like we're in another sexual revolution that's less violent than the one that happened in the 60s but there's more media coverage so the little bits of violence that do happen or get blown out of proportion sexual i would say it's more violent like another sexual revolution with all this trans ideology being pushed in schools and things like that i i oh sorry go for it no no i mean i agree i i agree um i don't except i would say i don't think it's another sexual revolution so much as it is the inevitable fallout from the first and i actually think it's more violent the violence is just being done to children i agree with jamis but how do you define violence but it's more violent. The violence is just being done to children. I agree with Jameis. But how do you define violence?

But it is explicitly violent. I mean, you've got people going around smashing things, destroying things. It's violent out on the streets. In the 60s, it was pretty bad. I didn't realize it. And every once in a while, I'll hear about how much there was terrorism, the weather underground, bombs. It was crazy violent back then with a lot of death. But there was newspapers.

I think the weather underground only killed, what, couple people they were more about structural damage and it was shock and all late late in the night to scare people and terrify was like overt terrorism but for the amount of fear that people have been whipped into in the last five years it is not that violent the system is has doesn't seem that violent i get really i'll watch a violent video and then i'll find i'll watch it three or four times and i'm like did i just watch four bouts of violence even though it's the same thing four times because i feel like it happened four times now all of a sudden all right let's uh let's grab some more super chats raymond g stanley jr says tim my guy some good news your call to create culture has is being heard i got a sneak peek at salty draws comic book silence do good it slaps i really think

you and others will dig it right on very very glad to hear it we we need to get that we got we got we need someone to run the grant program however we're doing i have no idea like i say these things like here's the thing i want to do and then it doesn't happen because like someone has to run the program but we want to do a thing where once a month we give 10 grand to someone for their cultural endeavor and you know a lot of people are like i'm gonna do a podcast and it's like you know like there's eight yeah you know, a lot of people are like, I'm going to do a podcast. And it's like, eh, you know, like this 8 billion podcast. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, if like you're going to paint something

or do a series of paintings or something or a comic or music or I don't know. One thing we definitely want to do is more bands for Trash House Records. So we have another song in the works, but we are working on signing a very large musical enterprise. And then we're looking at a few others too, so we're really excited for that.

All right, what do we got? Dino Karosi says, Mr. Timothy, is your coffee ever going to be available for order up here in commie Canada? I need a damn fine cup of Roberto Jr. I don't know. I guess we'll have to figure it out. International shipping.

We got to figure that one out. But the answer is it will eventually. We're hoping that in 10 years, it's a big brand. It exists everywhere. For that matter, I want to give Mr. Beast a shout out. That dude's amazing.

Oh, I love him. He's got candy bars. He's got cheeseburgers. Feastables. Feastables. Feastables is his candy company. So check this out. Mr. Beast is doing everything

and I think that's fantastic. His candy bars have five ingredients. I was at 7-Eleven and I see these things. I'm like, I look at it and it's like cream. It's like milk, cocoa, sugar, and there's like no garbage in it. I thought it was great.

They melt really easily though. But that's very inspirational to me. How old is Mr. B? He's like 26. I got like a decade on this guy. But he's hitting the nail on the head with the hammer. He's got his show. And so what does he do?

He's expanding all of his business in a bunch of different areas. And I think he's doing good things. Cheeseburgers are fantastic. Not the healthiest thing in the world. But the fact that he's making candy bars that actually get rid of a lot of the gunk and the garbage, I think is a positive step forward. So I got mad respect for him. He's actually 25.

25. I got 12 years in that game. He got invited onto the Titan Submersible, I believe. I'm glad he didn't go. Turned it down, yeah. Yeah, I mean, you know you know if candy bars are not good but if we can replace the garbage plastic candy bars with basic ingredients candy bars because of people like mr beast we're moving in a positive a little bit of them is okay but

the addictive quality of sugar is what's really the the challenge once you eat one piece you've got to kind of set it down and and not let it over overcome it's true dude it's dude we have wine wine berry season has begun and it's like nature's sour patch kids when when you get them when they're perfectly ripe and big and red and juicy it's more like a swedish fish they don't actually taste like it but if you get them just before they're red there's a little sour tart to it and it is so good and there's like 50 000 of them right behind this window right here it's amazing tim tim picked some and there's like 50 000 of them right behind this window right here it's amazing tim tim picked some and he's like hey here why don't you try one of these and then

i like started eating it i was like wait have you had one of these you're like no i was like wait that was the cherry i think oh okay not the wine that's right dude we made wineberry ice cream we took an ice cream machine and then we took the wine berries and we just threw them in and the most amazing thing happens. It breaks the wine berries up but doesn't pop the, what are they called? Droplets? The little pods? They freeze, and so when you eat the ice cream, you have little

frozen droplets that basically pop. It's amazing. It's so good. Yeah, we're going to make wine wine. We made jam with it. Plus we got mulberries, but I'm alert. I can't have mulberries. We have Allegheny and Himalayan blackberry everywhere. Nature is great.

Oh, yeah. Nature is good. I want to do more ice cream. Yeah. We want to do. We want to make. Oh, and we got. You can tap black walnut trees for syrup.

Really? Wow. Yeah. And they say it tastes like butterscotch. So we're going to make black walnut syrup because we got big black walnut trees everywhere here black walnut oil i think is like a a good medicine for uh super excited for uh like anti-parasite medicine it's used in parasite cleanses yeah apparently the black walnut nut is actually anti-parasitic i don't i don't know enough about that to get anywhere near that apparently you can't eat them but i read that you so there's farms out here that actually sell it's thick dark but um uh black walnut syrup and it's like it's

like syrup you can put it on pancakes and dinner it's like butterscotch and so we're gonna we're gonna make some we're gonna tap the tree and it takes a long time and you gotta filter it boil it down filter it again boil it down filter it very excited plus we do have some maples we're thinking of tapping get some maple syrup, too. Super cool stuff. Yo, it's crazy. You walk outside, and I have this app called Picture This,

and we can see all the different edible fruits and stuff. Yo, the grapes are everywhere. From a distance, you aim it, and it tells you? Take a picture. You take a picture, and it's like, this is the plant. There's an insane amount of grapes. The vines have taken over everything.

Wow. Yeah, nuts. When you're like driving into the property you can probably see like 7 000 grapes yeah yeah they're getting bigger and lots of greats out there grapes sorry yeah all right let's grab some more super chats what have we here my hill said ford did a 2024 ranger with the militant pride flag as a paint job there you go all right let's see max reddick says i heard you mentioned in a previous segment that maybe you will invite sam on the culture war

podcast i think how emma looked after her segment really showed who she is you should consider doing the same with sam the i think i think we won't and the reason is when you know we what ended up was like we something came up where we ended up talking about the majority report and then emma vigeland hit us up saying she wanted to come on the show because they know that we're basically like we invited sam on before he played us and used it for drama and clickbait so i said no more not doing it she came on the show and we offered her a tour of the property we offered her sushi she stood in the center of our skate park and met some of our staff and then afterwards she lied and claimed she didn't see the show and we offered her a tour of the property. We offered her sushi. She stood in the center of our skate park and met some of our staff. And then afterwards she lied and claimed she didn't see the skate park. We didn't show her around and it was the weirdest thing ever.

It's because they're just lying to get clicks. They're apparently upset now because we ran a segment that says leftist defends, you know, adult book and dating apps for kids. And they're angry, but she literally she literally said it was a good book i was actually shocked right because i i i've seen a bit of of her content on the majority report i responded to one of the videos they did but for her to come say something was a good book without knowing what was in it was shocking to me and the question is this one when you point out i opened genderqueer and showed her and she, I don't care about that and I don't believe in censorship.

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Shane. I'm not trying to rehash that. I'm trying to make a point just about Sam. The reason why I don't want him on this show is because what do we like to do? Serious conversation around these issues and our passions. What will Sam do? He'll come in here and he'll like jump from the rafters and body slam the table and do other but we could talk about socialized medicine and why like people taking risk kind of violates the ethos of social medicine he'll pretend to misunderstand something to make you say something

to make a clip out of it yeah that's what they do and then he'll lie about what happened when he came here like emma did i think i have a bulletproof defense on socialized medicine and anyone that thinks we need that is crazy, in my opinion. At first, when Emma said she didn't see the skate park, I'm like, did she not realize she was standing next to us? Maybe she walked past and didn't realize there's ramps everywhere and rails and a seven-foot-tall vert wall. And then I was told by the staff that she actually stood in the center of it

after they parked their car and she walked through it. And it's like, okay, so she's just lying. If we invite Sam on the show's if we invite sam on the show if you invite sam on your show that's what he does when i invited him on twitter he he lied and said yes i'll come on the show and then dm me privately saying i'm not going on your show it was a trick it was it's it's just let him you know what by all means sam do your thing if you're just making reality tv make reality TV under the guise of politics, I'm down.

I'm not whatever. I just can't stand talking about them. I would love to either never mentioned the majority report, Sam Cedar, Emma Vigeland, never mentioned him again and keep doing what we're doing or have them on, get over it. And then never mentioned him again. We're talking about him because we just had him on,

I'm on last week and now they're lying about what happened for clicks. So it's, it's become something we'll talk about. Will we talk about it in three days? Probably not this weekend i was wrong i said we were gonna have two guests on this friday yeah next week that's next week yeah this week we will have a good show as well that i think we'll probably and probably be talking about abortion or something so we'll see should be interesting that next week is like stacked not this friday but the next yes the next one pardon me yeah it's gonna be a blast it's a lot very excited

it's gonna be cool we should I'll reach out to our guests talk about like promotion for the shows cause we'll make like graphics for it and everything and then if they're cool

which they probably are I just don't like to say things before because like I'll give them a heads up although they may have talked about it already I like the graphic

for the Emma Vigeland episode that you guys did how it's kind of fading and there's like graphics in the background it's really cool how'd I make it graphics in the background. It's really cool. How'd I make it? I don't know. Let's grab some more Super Chats.

Daniel Domestix has greatest side hustle. Buy Bud Light for $12, get $50 rebate and make content destroying Bud Light. Double dip monetize on both. Well, I think the rebate's up to the purchase price. So actually, the hustle would be to buy Bud Light, get the rebate, and then

walk around with a cooler at baseball games or something. Which you should not do because you can't sell alcohol. But I'm saying that would be a hustle. I'll also add this. The reason they're giving the rebates is because they want you to take the product because it's worse for them if you don't. They have to pay to get rid of it. Exactly. Bud Light

is in more pain when you don't take their product because they have to pay to get rid of it. That's why they're doing this. Do not take the rebate. Don't try to do any kind of hustle. Do nothing with this. All right. They need to feel the pain. This is interesting. Sam Sam who rises, we need a strictly enforced tiered Internet with ratings like movies and TV shows. We must have this discussion in Congress and pull up actual porn for congressional record in seconds for America's to see. This is interesting because in the early days of the Internet, we were all very much 100 percent pro free speech. You should be allowed to post whatever you want online.

Then we saw people were posting and we're like, you know, maybe this free speech thing isn't all it's cracked up to be. There are limits to what you're allowed to do in public. Of course. And so right now we have the worst of both worlds you are allowed to go in public with pictures of aborted fetuses and protest against abortion you are not allowed to do that on the internet they will they will delete your content they'll ban it they'll say it's graphic and offensive so the internet is allowing the worst porn and stuff censoring political debate it's the worst of everything. You cannot go into public and show lewd and lascivious activities of

adults. You will get charged for breaking the law. That's not free speech. Unless you're a teacher for whatever reason. Then it's totally fine. You're not going to get in any trouble. Talking about what we should be allowed to do on the internet versus the real world, I think it should be comparable. You can't go into

Times Square holding a big picture or holding up a TV that's playing porn. They will immediately come and be like, take this down. You can't do this. It's illegal. But you can do it on the internet. You can do it on Twitter.

If kids can have access to it, we should seriously question whether or not it should be allowed. At the same time, you can go into Times Square with pictures of aborted babies and protest abortion. They can get mad at you about it, but that is free speech.

That's protected. But people do it. Yeah. In a lot of places. And so, but if you go on Twitter and do that, they'll flag you. They'll censor the video and say it's inappropriate. I think this may have changed under Musk, but if you just misgendered somebody on Twitter, like if you don't use someone's fake made up pronouns, that could could get you kicked off twitter in real life you could do that so we

need to make sure kids don't have access to obscene content it should be a crime to be sharing it with kids or let me put it this way right now you have these porn websites that are like are you actually 18 you click yes like that's ridiculous imagine if a guy was outside in the street and he had a bunch of nudie mags and a kid walked up and he was like, are you old enough? And the kid said, yep. And he goes, works for me. Imagine if there was a casino

and a 10-year-old kid walks in and the security guard goes, are you old enough to gamble? And the kid goes, yep. And he goes, works for me. I just went to AB InBev's website to find out if Stella was one of their products. And he was like, hey, wait,

before you view our website, are you 18? Enter your date. And I was like, yes. And they were like, okay, good. How do you, I didn't go into a bar. Yes. A 10 year old kid walks into a bar like,

Hey, hold on there a minute. Are you old enough to drink? Yes. Works for me. That's not how it works. There was, there's a classic bit from the first episode of the Simpsons where Bart sits down,

he goes to get a tattoo and the guy goes, wait a minute. Are you 21? He goes, of course, sir. And he's like, all right.

It's a weird, weird conversation. Cause the internet's not public. It's not the public. Like we know the public before the internet. Like it's, you do it from your own home if you're sending an email to someone there's no public activity going on if it's a website that everyone can access technically we consider it kind of public but if someone doesn't have a computer they have no ability to access it so it's not really publicly available unless you have money to buy a machine

to no no that that's like saying if someone stands in time square with with a picture it's not publicly accessible because you can't travel to time square everyone can travel to time square everyone can walk there no they can't yeah everyone has access foot foot traffic no not yeah everyone can get there there's no like that's not true financial if you're if you're in seattle you're not going to survive a trek oh but you could you could do it legally and physically you physically could could take a bus and go there and walk there and be there without having to well technically you'd have to buy the bus ticket i guess in that position i'm saying like if you just walked you you'd have the resources to do it but if you can make the argument you can go to a library because the computers are there for public use or you can see the images on a tv in a in a in a bookstore

uh display window so like it's it is publicly accessible. Just because you don't have the means to do it is not the argument. Publicly accessible is different than public, I guess. I want to mention something. Tim, you mentioned that there needs to be stronger age verification on pornographic websites, aside from someone just going, yes, I am 18. In Utah, they implemented a law

requiring strengthened protections so that children can stumble on porn, and what Pornhub did was they boycotted Utah as a result. They said, nope, we don't want to show stuff to people in Utah. It's like, well, that's a win on both fronts, but also you are making it abundantly clear that it's extremely important

for your business model to be able to show pornographic content to minors. I want to mention something. You mentioned the 21. Someone asked you if you're 21. We went out to eat a couple months ago, and we were ordering drinks, and the waiter was like, are you 21?

And I was like, no. I'm 37. What am I supposed to say to that question? Are you 21? No, I'm not. I'm older than that. As I said, I was like, no, I'm older than 21. It's like a weird question to ask.

Are you at least 21? Exactly. Are you 21? No. He's like, wait, what? I think a better formulation would 21 exactly are you 21 no he's like wait what i think a better formulation would be have you 21 years because if you have 37 years you do have 27 you do have 21 that's actually how they phrase it i think in like french and cns yeah yeah like how many years do

you go yeah and then like do you have at least do you have 21 years i do i have more than actually i do yeah are you 21? No. All right. John Stewart says, when I had sex ed in high school in the 90s, it was about contraception use and STD prevention and we had to have signed parental consent.

Yeah, that's what I remember. You mean they didn't give you BDSM education and talk about eating poop? They did talk about how... I guess those were the dark ages, Tim. Even in fifth grade,

they told me it was like 1988 or nine or something. They said like, it is pleasurable and abstinence they have accepted abstinence doesn't work as a thing like they weren't saying don't do it they were saying if you do it be very careful

use a condom and they were like because STDs and pregnancy that was like the idea that abstinence doesn't work comes from Kinsey and all that data was fudged and well that was a funny thing too about when we had Emma on because she asked me two things that didn't apply to this show or me she asked me if like well what if should they allow the bible in schools like isn't the bible i was like no i think there's things in the in the

bible that parents should probably be talking to their kids about like uh uh what is it um ezekiel 23 20 the the meme uh verse talks about emissions of horses and stuff like that yeah that's like something the parents probably, so sure. And then she asked me if I was in favor of abstinence-only sex education. I was like, no, of course not. It's like, oh. Dude, what do you think? What was I going to read?

Badass Superchip. Oh, here we go. Thomas TJG says, Reuters claims that every living president are descendants of slave owners except Trump. What? Wait a minute. They're all descendants of slave owners except Trump wait they're all descendants of slave well his mother was white so maybe her ancestors were Trump's because I think Trump's uh didn't Trump's grandparents immigrate here yeah they were from Germany yeah it's funny that they said that about

Obama too I just threw him yeah wait did is that hold on i want to look that up i want to see if it's true that obama's grandparents i was i saw this article earlier grandparents yep no way yo but that's that's that's that's not shocking for the united states right like people you need to realize what that means it means that slave owners were raping slaves like it's that's screwed up yeah and so there are a lot of people in this country who are black or descendants of slave owners for for very messed up reasons often when i explain to people why you know my whole life i was told i was korean and then you know found out that i was part japanese it's not for good reasons that my korean ancestors have some japanese in them you know what i mean like well i i is is that why they talk about it because i would imagine if you're if that was in

your ancestry because of a slave being you know abused by an owner that you wouldn't like consider yourself a descendant of them no you still are i'm just saying there was that there was that um black activist woman i forgot and rachel dolezal no no she wasn't really black no there was like a prominent uh black activist who found out that she was the descendant of who was that i don't remember her name but i remember the clip. And everyone started laughing about how funny it was. And I'm like,

guys, that's not funny. Like that proves her point. That proves her activism. That's a good point, dude. They were trying to make it seem like because she was against racism and like fighting all this stuff,

it was somehow discredited because she was actually a descendant of slave owners. And I'm like, no, that bolsters all of her arguments. Well, and also be like, yeah,

you're against this thing. And why did your ancestors do it what excuse me yeah i'm like i tell people like oh yeah for most of my life i said i was like you know park park korean but now i know that i'm five percent japanese and like oh that's cool i'm like actually it's not like it's kind of actually it's not no it kind of is i don't know but it's like kind of horrifying when you think about it yeah not a lot not a lot of good. I don't know, but it's kind of horrifying when you think about it. Yeah, not a lot of good things were happening over there a long time ago,

if you get my drift. All right, let's see what we got. GS059 says, Ian, people demanded gun-free zones. Now there are signs everywhere. It doesn't matter if they work or not. That's a good point. They were like,

hey, we don't want guns here, so put up a sign, and then people are just, criminals just going to criminal. Yeah. Doesn't matter. Not going to stop them. PowderPZ says, why aren't we talking about the actual content of the audio tape

not just that one line they were trying to force him to evade iran yeah i know like he was like look millie millie drew up these documents to invade him that's why they're going after him partly because trump was like we're not gonna invade this are you nuts and they were like we want to and you're gonna do it trump didn't start any new wars that's why they don't like him partly or they don't like him it's a big reason oh this okay i'm totally sidetracking here but i just realized when you mentioned the thing about obama potentially being the descendant of uh people who own slaves but but obama's not a descendant of slaves like his his dad was from kenya yeah he's not the descendant of American slaves. So if he does have slaveholders in his past,

it wouldn't have been because a slave was abused. I still don't think that matters, to be completely honest. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. I don't want to punish people for the sins of their ancestors, but at the same time, you can imagine that being used against any Republican. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had a lot of really, of really really awesome ideas owning slaves was not one of the good things he did yeah however the the ideas and the seeds that were planted by the founding fathers led very quickly to the abolition of slavery look people point out that the um the commonwealth

countries abolished slavery well before we did. And it's true. And then we had to fight a massive civil war partially over slavery, over the issues around it. Economics, it's a lot more complicated than that. And a lot of people died because of it. And, you know, so I think the founding documents and the founding fathers, for all their faults, planted some good seeds that made this country fantastic. I would agree and people will argue well the founders wanted the united states to be this new free country but then they didn't put anything in the constitution that forbids slavery okay we're not going to get the 13

colonies to ratify the constitution and the bill of rights if you had something in there that banned slavery it doesn't mean that all of the founders were in favor of slavery it just means that as a political reality they were not going to be able to have their system of government pass unless the colonies ratified. And if they couldn't get it to pass, then they would just go back to England, which was not based on principles of freedom. And so there would be less reason to believe slavery, whatever. And the power that Thomas Jefferson had was a lot of it was because of the slaves that he owned doing his labor for him. And without that power, he wouldn't have been as influential and able to go to Congress

and be a congressman and all those things. So it was, you know, it's double-edged sword. The Cranky Gen Xer says, wait, I don't know what that means. I'm not gonna read that one. Dave Dowell says,

Ian, Cali has border checks for produce. They check random cars, not just farmers. True. If a state wants checkpoints, it's legal. Also, the whole point of defunding the police is to create a national police yeah many many people pointing out that there are checkpoints for fruit laws yes california and nevada yes crazy yeah actually i

think wine berries are illegal to transport interesting because of the bugs no because they're an invasive species they choke out other other plants. Yeah. But they're so good. They are massive. They're raspberries. They're a Chinese kind of raspberry. And they're called wine berries because people make wine with them. And we intend to harvest them. And we're going to juice them.

We're going to make a syrup with the wine berry juice. We're going to cook it down, maybe add a little lemon juice and some sugar. And then we're going to use the pulp to make cakes and cookies yeah it's gonna be awesome and we're gonna make ice cream to be honest so great we're gonna make ice cream machines really fun you like scrape it it's getting cold on the top we have two we have the one that automatically spins and then we have the the cold sheet where you you pour it on and then you scrape it and mix it around yeah it's so much fun yeah you can buy them on Amazon. Good fun stuff.

All right, let's see what we got in the old Super Chats here. Ian Kinney says, did you reach out to Ice Cube for the culture war or IRL? I think somebody did. I don't handle booking, so. He's going on a tour.

He is? Well, not a musical tour. He's going on a tour to talk about how he can't stand the, I don't know what he said, the global economic order. I'm not sure's he's frustrated about something he wants to let people know the gatekeepers ice cube yeah ice cube says the gatekeepers he's gonna bypass the gatekeepers and do shows and stuff uh all right brin terra nova says is trash house taking demo

submissions i don't know so uh soul stations are very very hard i think we'll have to confer with carter on how we want to handle that moving forward and then he's basically in charge of it also but uh i will talk to him about it we have a new song coming out shortly and we're in we're negotiating with another band about releasing some songs that i think are absolutely fantastic so we'll see what happens and then yeah we want we want more absolutely let's grab a couple more here is monsters i can't believe i really heard seamus say society survived because of the ten commandments let's just ignore all those other civilizations that existed before christianity killed everyone else hold on no no no that that's completely ridiculous uh people had something

approximating the ten commandments in very many cultures throughout world history and if if your culture ended up rising to a point of prominence we were able to amass wealth and have a large-scale civilization it's because you were following something approximating the 10 commandments dude you cannot have a functioning society and you cannot build wealth if one person is sleeping with every woman in the community people are committing adultery people are stealing people are killing what's happened in various societies historically is as they become wealthy and as they've become insulated certain people who were very high status ended up being able to routinely violate those moral principles without suffering consequences and there wasn't the same Christian

framework to tell them that even as powerful people there would be eternal consequences for their actions but people at the bottom of the hierarchy and people who were living in a state of nature basically always came to the same moral conclusions and if they didn't come to those moral conclusions their tribe never rose out of its more um natural state to build a large-scale civilization i guess the aztecs is all i'm thinking about they weren't't really large-scale, I guess. Yeah, well, no, no, no. But even the Aztecs, right? The Aztecs had a horrific culture,

and I acknowledge that there have been many horrible and satanic cultures throughout history, but the masses were not encouraged to do things like steal, kill, and rape, and if they were, then those civilizations crumbled. And let's talk about that in the members-only show, so smash that Like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, head over to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member, because the uncensored Members Only

show will begin in a few minutes. And you don't want to miss it. It's going to be good fun. You can follow the show at TimCast IRL. You can follow me personally at TimCast. Gene, do you want to shout anything out? Hey, just thanks for having me on. Go to our website, aflegal.org.

Check out all the work that we're doing on censorship, parents' rights, everything, fighting the culture wars for everybody. I make cartoons. I have a YouTube channel called Freedom Tunes and a website called freedomtunes.com. We're releasing a video this Thursday about the Pride Month that wasn't. I think you guys are going to enjoy it. And I think you'll also enjoy the video we released last week where I reviewed a bunch of Pride Month memes. I fixed them. I actually made them funny. It's a 10 minute long

video. I think you'll like it. And there's a 30 minute long cut of it behind the paywall. Head over there, check it out. Thank you so much and have a wonderful day. Have an extremely awesome evening and day tomorrow as well. Have a great week. I'm Ian Crossland. Very happy to see you guys. Happy to be a part of the show. Good to be here, Gene. People are going to see you guys happy to be a part of the show good to be here gene people are gonna follow you on twitter it's at america first legal that's though it's a one america one st legal you got it oh yeah dude good to see you again man likewise serge take me out yeah i am serge.com i'll be in the comments this evening because uh i feel like seeing what you guys have to say um follow me on twitter at serge.com spell it out let's it. We will see you all over at timcast.com. Thanks for hanging out. you