Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #928 Democrats FURIOUS Over Migrant Crisis, Airlines Fly Them WITH ID w/Marianne Williamson

Episode Date: December 22, 2023

Tim, Ian, Phil, & Serge join Marianne Williamson to discuss Democrats up in arms over Delta Airlines migrant scandal, Tim Pool & Marianne Williamson discussing book bans across the United States, and a discussion exploring the reality of critical race theory. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. It's been a wild year. And this is our second to last TimCast IRL of the year. We've got some big stories.

Ashley St. Clair breaking a big story that there are illegal immigrants who are flying on airlines without IDs at all and being given premium economy. But it's not just Ashley. There have been many journalists, many commentators who have bumped into this, interestingly, because of Turning Point USA's AmFest. Many of these individuals were flying out of the Phoenix airport and they could see that these airlines are transporting illegal immigrants from border states all over the country. They have packets. They have information.

Many of them didn't speak English, and many of them don't even know where they're going. The concern now we're hearing is coming from pilots of these airlines who don't know who they're flying. There's no security screening. They don't know where these people are coming from. There's no medical screenings. And so, of course, naturally, people are quite upset. But it's even affecting big cities like Chicago, where we're actually seeing Democrat voters standing up and they are challenging the mayor.

They are criticizing Joe Biden. We even have an alderman in Chicago, a Democrat, saying that these policies are causing them great problems. So we do want to talk about all of that. But more importantly, I think it's a good opportunity to talk about a lot of issues because we have an awesome guest, Marianne Williamson, will be joining us and we'll talk about her policies, her plans, the polling. And I think it'll be fairly interesting considering she's actually polling quite well among Democrats. But for some reason, I think everybody gets it. The media and the Democratic establishment are not too happy. Before we get into that, my friends head over to the best song ever dot com and buy the song. Click download your for your price. It is 69 cents and it's looking pretty good. A lot of people have purchased the song. This is the final call to action. The final call to action is today at midnight. The tracking officially ends and we will see

one week from then where we end up on the billboard charts. And we're hoping that we did fairly well. The song actually did better than all of our other songs that we've put out. So we're really excited for that. Apparently we were trending in Toronto and Hong Kong, surprising and a special shout out to the daily wire crew, Jeremy Boring, Michael Knowles for the original song, the lyrics, which we used and for helping promote as well. It's looking really, really, really great. So let me just say to each and every one of you who want to help us smash through the gates of these institutions and the machines that seek to keep us from it download this song for 69 cents it's the last opportunity and we really do appreciate all of your support it's looking pretty good

but uh i gotta say we are finding out just now in the 11th hour they're saying that something's wrong with the tracking and the online streams sorry but we don't know if we're gonna be able to count these. And we knew this was going to happen, which is why we heavily prioritize sales instead of saying, go watch the YouTube video like we did in the previous releases, because they keep trying to play this game with us. It is what it is. If everybody was listening right now, downloaded the song, we would shatter our way into the billboard charts. So with your support, we can make that happen. Also head over to timcast.com. Click join us. We are going to have a members only uncensored show coming up. It should be a lot of fun. So smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with

your friends. As I already mentioned, joining us tonight is the lovely Marianne Williamson. Hi, thank you for having me. Thank you for coming. Do you want to introduce yourself? I'm Marianne Williamson, and I'm running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. And yeah. Right on. Right on. Is there anything else?

I mean, I know you're an author. Is there anything else in your career that you'd like to? I've had a 40-year career. I've written 15 books on inspirational spiritual subjects. I write and talk about the universal spiritual themes at the heart of all the great spiritual religious traditions. I wrote a couple of books that are about politics. I've been a non-profit activist. I founded non-profit organizations. One that was an AIDS organization that has served 16 million meals to homebound people. It began as an organization that would serve meals to homebound people with AIDS. and as it has continued through

the years, it's to all homebound people dealing with critical illness, because fortunately, there's less of the AIDS-related situation in Los Angeles today, although it still exists, obviously. And I've co-founded peace organizations. I was once a non-denominational minister at a non-denominational church in Warren, Michigan. So I've done a lot of things. And this is my second time running for president. Right on. And we actually have one of the recent polls showing you at 13% among Democrats. So it's actually, you're doing fairly well. Well, I'm sorry. Oh, no, I was going to say, so we'll get into all of that. Thank you.

But I'm really excited to have you here. It's an honor and a privilege. Thank you so much for coming. Thank you very much. Phil Labonte is hanging out. Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte, lead singer of heavy metal band All That Remains, very failed musician, anti-communist, counter-revolutionary. We're here with Ian.

Yeah, the guy, I'm going to make some, I want to bring some scientific realism to these crystals in front of me because people made fun of me in the past. Crystals actually do vibrate. You know, there's something called sympathetic vibration where harmonic resonance can cause one crystal to start vibrating. And then other crystals across the room will start vibrating. And your bones are made of crystal called hydroxyapatite in conjunction with other materials. So we're vibing. This is why whenever Allison and I go out, we buy Ian rocks.

Oh, and that's also why I got to chill. Keep your tone cool. Cause a lot of communication is in the tone. So let's have fun. Thank you for buying those rocks for me. Absolutely. He has a ton. Vibrating rocks.

I think what you said relates to what we were talking about with Twitter before that a lot of communication is in the tone. Yeah. And with text it's lost. Text is just throwing a piece of paper at someone basically. Yeah. yeah i mean i've had uh somebody once said to me something about something i i didn't like your tone or something i said it's a text there is no tone yeah yeah well let's get into it we got search pressing the buttons yeah i'm hanging out uh let's just start the show we're gonna start with this story from ashley. Clair because, you know, I'll be completely honest. I think we have a great opportunity to talk about much, much larger issues as we're ending out the year.

Tomorrow we'll have James O'Keefe, and it will be our last show of the year, so we're really excited. But this is still a very interesting story coming from Ashley St. Clair, which can kick off an immigration discussion. Ashley St. Clair tweets, I am in possession of legitimate major airline boarding passes for migrants that quite literally have the name printed as no name given. Incredibly, incredibly difficult to post these without putting the insiders at risk working on it. This will continue to unfold over the coming weeks. But I confirm these are legitimate boarding passes. I am at a loss for words for what I am verifying.

Thank you to everybody reaching out. Ashley St. Clair also tweets, receiving all of these tips, I was able to call many sources directly here on X. A pilot who wanted to remain anonymous was able to create a burner account, join our space, and use the built-in voice change feature to stay safe. She then celebrates X, the best platform so far. But the big news that we've been seeing over the past couple of days is record-breaking illegal immigration flowing into Eagle Pass.'re seeing now over 10 000 per day they're estimating around 270 or so thousand individuals coming in just this month and it's resulting in even democrats in cities

like chicago where we're getting uh a lot of anger let me see if i have this one uh not that one where where's the the story yet do we have the uh well we have this one from the daily mail furious chicago resident rips into mayor brandon johnson for throwing open the door to thousands of migrants and letting down black communities i think this is obviously a major issue and some of the latest polls on donald trump show that he is uh rising significantly especially among young people. And it's because the economy and immigration are huge issues for people. But let's just we can just kick off the conversation with you, Marianne.

And I'm curious what your thoughts are on all of this. I think that in this, as in so many areas, we have to treat root causes. We have to ask. We have to ask, why are people working, going through sometimes the most hideous journeys, like through the Darien Gap? The Darien Gap in Mexico is one of the most inhospitable areas in the world. So what would make someone walk across the Darien Gap with two small children? Well, obviously, desperation. So what is the despair? There are two main categories. One has to do with economic destabilization in these countries, which has caused all this economic desperation. And the other is the U.S. foreign policy over the last few decades. One of the things that we have to do, for instance, we need to end the sanctions on Cuba.

We have to end the sanctions on Venezuela. I think a lot of people have no idea what violence this does to the lives of ordinary people. We say to ourselves, well, we're going to have a sanction on this country, and it's a sanction against the bad guys who are the leaders. And then the story went that the ordinary citizen in that country would realize that this is what was causing it, and they'd rise up against the leader. Well, it doesn't work that way. First of all, the leader has cryptocurrency. The leader has bank accounts in Switzerland. The leader has castles in Monte Carlo. We saw this with the sanctions on the Russian oligarchs at the beginning of the Ukraine war. They're like, whatever, right? So how ironic that in countries like Cuba and Venezuela, our sanctions are leading to a lot of the despair that is then making people come here. We give something like 200 million in general in humanitarian aid to Latin American countries. I think if we really look honestly at what we have done to many of these countries over the last few decades, we would see a lot more of a reason and a justification for us

seeking to stabilize, helping stabilize some of these economies. I also think that we should end America's war on drugs, because our war on drugs actually contributes. It helps the drug cartels because it creates all that black market. So I think that we can talk all day long. I was in Eagle Path several weeks ago. I saw the concertina wire. I saw the buoys that a federal judge has now told Greg Abbott that he cannot use. I saw where 1,500 people drowned in the Rio Grande River. And I heard officials down in Eagle Pass say to me, we feel a... Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game

and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more, make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today.

You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an

operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Pressed by the state government and we feel neglected by the federal government because those people who are down there know how to handle this. They know how to do the processing. They know what is needed and they're not listened to. And so this is interesting. We have this story. I want to I just want to pull this up this is from abc appeals court orders texas to remove floating buoys from rio grande that was earlier in uh the month but we also do have this story from the post-millennial federal judge forbids biden administration from removing texas's border barriers so i think they the the the buoys over the water i think had to come out because of international waterways restrictions. But we started to see with the razor wire, federal agents were lifting it up and allowing people to enter.

And now I believe that's being barred. And Texas has just passed a state law banning illegal entry into the state. But the state, Greg Abbott, is overriding federal jurisdiction. He does not have, once again, this is why they're saying oppressed by the state government and neglected by the U.S. government. Greg Abbott is taking on authority that governors do not have. These are laws that are to be passed by Congress, not by state governors. Well, what happens when you have 10,000 people per day entering your state in your city? Once again, there's nothing you can do on the level of symptom that's going to fundamentally fix this. This is why we must address the underlying causes. We can talk about whether or not people are detained. We can talk about whether or not people are deported.

But until we actually address the root cause of the problem this is going to remain with us i agree but we can't ignore 10 000 people per day i mean if uh if we use an analogy if you say symptom i'd imagine someone gets shot we do need to stop shootings but you still have to tend to the wound and also the people that are coming over they're they're not really predominantly from south america they're coming from all over the world so i I understand your point about addressing the problems in South America or addressing some of the things like sanctions and stuff. I understand that. But doesn't that not cover the problem if most of the people are coming from other places like Africa and Asia? I think we also, though, need to look at the overall picture of immigration in this country, because we can have an argument at numbers, and it's a legitimate argument.

But I think we also need to stand back and look at the overall picture, which is, statistically, an immigrant to this country from anywhere, if they are given for one year the help that is necessary to integrate, etc., Within a year, they are self-sufficient. And if you look at the big picture of immigration in the United States, the immigrant population is a contributor to the U.S. economy and not a suck on the U.S. economy. You know, 150 years ago, it was don't let in the Jews, don't let in the Polish, don't let in the Irish. And there's a lot of that same kind of racism that is going on today. So we have to ask ourselves, it's one thing to have a conversation about the numbers and the Polish, don't let in the Irish. And there's a lot of that same kind of racism that is going on today.

So we have to ask ourselves, it's one thing to have a conversation about the numbers and the overwhelm, but it has, to me, now leaned over into a mean-spirited attitude towards immigrants, which is not in keeping with the better angels of our nature. Where did your great-grandparents come from? I mean, all four of my grandparents came here seeking to escape oppression. What about yours? But they came legally. None of you are descended from enslaved people. I am.

Or from indigenous people. Are you? I'm part Korean. Well, but not by the United States. They were not enslaved by the United States. But my family was persecuted during World War II with Japanese internment because they didn't care for the difference between different types of Asian people. So my family was forced to flee and hide. And my mom's side of the family, which was mixed race, had to pretend like they weren't actually related because it was illegal at the time because of miscegenation laws.

And so the stories I grew up hearing was my family fled 12 different states once people found out that it was a mixed race family, you know, pre 1967 and would be spit on by people for being what they would call Japs, despite the fact that I am part Japanese, but mostly Korean. So that is a component. And not to say that we're descended from American slavery or anything like that. But my point is, so your family found safety and asylum and a better life in the United States, right? Oh, yeah, absolutely. So isn't there a moral responsibility that those of us who are descended from people, like your parents, like my grandparents, who found that we don't have a moral responsibility to make sure that others experience that blessing as well?

No, because there's a whole lot of people in the world like that. If we have a moral responsibility to some, wouldn't that mean we have a moral responsibility to the world? And then that's a moral responsibility to everybody on earth? Not everybody's trying to come here. Nor would anyone want to come here. I imagine there's a lot of people that want to but i i i i think the answer is yes legal immigration i'm sorry oh sorry i was gonna say i was gonna agree i believe the answer is yes however it has to be legal right we we right now

what you know with with i think your view on we must treat the symptoms there's a lot of symptoms and i can respect absolutely i question when we give money to these south american and central american countries and their oligarchs and their autocrats steal the money and it doesn't help the and I can respect, absolutely. I question when we give money to the South American and Central American countries and their oligarchs and their autocrats steal the money and it doesn't help the people at all and exacerbates violence, the drug or all that stuff.

I want to treat that. But then there is another issue. The American citizens of Eagle Pass are suffering. And I don't believe it would be appropriate to just say, we will provide no reprieve for you in the immediate

because we're dealing with larger issues internationally. But wait a minute, what you just said, I was just in Eagle Pass. Go down to Eagle Pass because I think you might be surprised by the stories that you hear from the people there. You know, I grew up in Texas. I grew up in Houston. People have been walking back and forth, Mexico and Texas, literally for centuries. Literally for centuries. And the people in Eagle Pass that I spoke to absolutely know how these processing centers could work, how the medical could work. It could be set up very differently than it is. And the people in Eagle Pass are the ones who would know what to do.

What about, for instance, the people in Chicago, the black community specifically, that has been an uproar over the past several months? You said that plane came from Phoenix. So my question was, which governor, like we know, for instance, remember when Greg Abbott sent all those immigrants on a bus to Massachusetts? Is Massachusetts a sanctuary state?

Pardon? Is Massachusetts a sanctuary state? To Nantucket? Yeah, it was to Cape Cod or something. And now when you read the follow-up stories, they're all doing well. Well, they didn't stay there.

Well, they were deported out of Nantucket. Pardon? They were removed from Nantucket. The local residents revolted and then put them all in buses and sent them out. Yeah, they were there for like a week, and then they were like, get beat it. Get out of here. They were complaining. They were having meetings, town meetings and stuff.

We don't have a place to put all the people. We're a vacation town and blah, blah, blah have a place to put the put all the people we don't you know we're we're a a vacation town and blah blah they could have put them yes massachusetts is a sanctuary is is a de facto sanctuary state according to wgbh.org so the argument i suppose from the likes of texas is if the federal government is going to remove border barriers allow these people to enter under their federal jurisdiction why not send these people to states that welcome them no i understand but then you end up with chicago residents and so chicago it's devastating because i'm from that i bring that up only because i'm from there i know this is affecting a bunch of other cities my friends are saying the police departments are done they're shut down basically

because they were overrun in the past few days they've announced they're removing the migrants from the police stations to try and find other places. But the scary thing now is they're talking about building camps to put these people in. Like with like that's I think that's the situation to be handed at the handled at the border, obviously. But what I heard and saw at legal at Eagle Pass was that there are ways to handle it at the border. It's Congress that has there's been a dereliction of duty for years because everybody says on the left and the right we want them to be able to legally immigrate I think people want to legally immigrate but the probe but the Congress has laws or there there are plenty of laws to to that can moderate the people coming over the

border that are coming at least people that are coming over illegally if if they would enforce it but the Department Homeland Security is not is not enforcing the the laws at the border if i understand correctly mayorkas was just on the hill recently and and if i understand correctly provided exceedingly unsatisfactory testimony about what they're doing he was swearing up and down that he was doing what his what he's supposed to do but the evidence is that we continue to have record numbers of people crossing the border and we have had i mean this year is is the the the highest record you know on or the this month particularly yeah i mean 10 000 people per day millions and millions of people are coming over the border so what do you do when the government when the the the executive

won't enforce the laws won't tell the the the guy that runs the border security't enforce the laws, won't tell the guy that runs the border security to enforce the laws. And then when the guy's brought in front of Congress, he's just like, nah, man, we're totally doing it. And everyone's like, well, I guess he's doing it. And nothing gets done. I didn't see that testimony and I didn't read the- They were talking about impeaching Mayorkas.

Wow. You know, right? If I remember correctly. I think if we zoom out and take like a macro look, and i didn't i didn't read the they were talking about impeaching mayorkas wow you know right if i remember correctly i think if we zoom out and take like a macro look regardless of what an individual community like chicago or eagle pass might be saying you have uh abbott in texas at a state level takes the view that this is a serious problem that is not being resolved by the federal government and the federal government's view is that for whatever reason, it should be encouraged and facilitated, encouraged in the sense that they were using heavy machinery to lift up Texas's border barriers or filing lawsuits to remove the barriers and bring these people in and then fund the transport of these people on planes and buses

into other places. So something is happening in Texas where locally the governor says it is politically expedient for me to end all of this illegal immigration. And then something is happening federally where the administration says we will not do anything to stop it. And this creates a conflict where the state is putting up razor wire, suing the federal government to stop them from impeding on their borders and then sending these people out on their own buses to Chicago, to New York. And then you have the federal government trying to actually bring more people in. I mean, I see that as an untenable situation. I saw the buoys and I saw the memorial that was erected to the people who had drowned. It is absolutely morally unacceptable. Those buoys,

people drown because of those buoys. Well, I mean, if the people choose to enter a river and come here with those risks... Once again, for me, that goes back to the trauma in someone's life that would make them take a journey like that on foot over a desert through the Darien Gap. And for the United States to look at in what ways have we contributed to that despair.

If you look at U.S. foreign policy in Latin America over the last few decades, you see how many ways we have not supported democracy. But we talk about... But American foreign policy has been... I mean, you guys were talking about the CIA and all that stuff. All the things you were saying about the CIA before we went on, you think that those things were not happening in latin america i think that most of our immigration is if i understand correctly most of our immigration problem is not coming from latin america that's honestly a lot of a lot of people being reported are from north africa or uh and i think a lot of it is economic destabilization through the federal reserve system this this fiat currency this we just

totally annihilated the global economy by printing 880, whatever, to 8 trillion in the last few years. So the symptom is it's caused by the United States corrupt economy over the last 50 years, basically. The problem is when you look at a body, you can say like, look, we're causing a problem in the body. We're causing a problem in the body. Something bad is going to happen.

And then all of a sudden it explodes. And now we don't really have it. We remember what was causing it, but now we need to treat the explosive result. And the result is 300,000 people came. If it takes one person one year to adapt, we have 300,000 new ones this month. That's like almost untenably unadaptable. I don't understand. i don't know how how we can ease these people in at that rate well you gotta stop well no i mean look in chicago

i i find i find this unacceptable in chicago they are building i i i hate to use the term because i don't know what other term there is but concentration camps i want to draw the distinction between obviously world war ii but they are building camps and they are forcing these people into them and it's causing a major crisis the locals are furious the winter in chicago in the winter in chicago schools parents are screaming that they started putting these people in the gyms of of of middle schools the last thing i think anyone will tolerate is hearing that the federal government is loading people up on buses and trains but it wasn't the federal government that did that that would have been that would have been a governor that would have been a state what illinois it's the mayor i

believe the mayor and the governor mayor is receiving it that uh johnson is the mayor in chicago but i see what you're saying he's receiving them well the so we do know for a fact that the administration is facilitating the the the transport of migrants to various locations. How do we know that? So there was numerous reports, notably one out of Tennessee, where Republicans actually filmed the transport of migrants. Underage illegal immigrants coming from the border were load on the planes and flown into Tennessee. This particularly enraged, I think, was a senator from Tennessee who then came out and said, why in the middle of the night are planes being chartered by the federal government to send these people into our state? There was actually whistleblower footage from Westchester, New York, where I believe it was a police officer said,

if the American people knew what the government was doing, paying for the trafficking of these minors from out of the country into New York. Wait, paying for the trafficking. Be careful with that word. You just said paying for the trafficking. Yeah. Trafficking is a specific word. It doesn't just apply to transportation. Well, if you take a minor who's not from this country and facilitate their transport from out of the country into a part of the country, that's human trafficking.

So the coyotes, for instance, are human traffickers. So when you have someone in, let's say, either it's Southeast Africa, one of the big reports is a large amount of people are paying for travel to Brazil and then traveling from Brazil up to Central America and through here, they're paying human traffickers to do that. So the traffickers facilitate a plan, a path, and then the Biden administration administration working with the traffickers facilitates the transport of minors into uh deeper into the united states from the border it might actually be considered human smuggling trafficking is specifically um for commercial exploitation sexual slavery or forced labor and i don't think that the u.s government knowingly facilitates that but they may be smuggling people in well smuggling people in is definitely part of the trafficking problem there's no doubt about that i mean by definition they're smuggling people

and it can happen um in inner inner country like internationally or intranationally there's there's one thing that i want to talk about when it comes to immigration. One of the things that people neglect to address is when you have people like that are leaving. I mean, yeah, look, I'm sorry. Just this is this was a huge story a couple of years ago. And this is NBC New York, 2000 migrant children undocumented flown into Westchester with bipartisan politicians demanding answers from the Biden administration who won't tell them what's going on. And the smuggling is distinct because it characterized by the consent of the person being smuggled. So smuggling is probably a better answer or better, better word to define it. And the question then becomes, why is it that

if Democrat and Republicans in the area are demanding to know why the federal government is doing this, do we not have we don't we don't have answers as to what's going on so you know in in the big picture i can say this certainly the people who are watching this show are furious about what's happening in in texas and florida and the southern border states because they're they're bearing the brunt of this so greg abbott ron desantis other governors say why don't we send these people to sanctuary states that have passed laws to protect them because they seem capable and willing to help them? But now we see Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania furious that it's happening and arguing that it's in fact the fault of Greg Abbott that they're facing this crisis when, I mean, as you argued,

it's the federal government who has the authority to do it. And Greg Abbott actually has no authority to stop the waves of migrants that are coming in. Well, I would be very interested in reading that. But also when you talk about the people who are so upset about it in Texas, I think a lot of the issue of who's upset about it in Texas has to. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game

and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more, make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun. And make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

19 plus to wager. Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. To do a particular political orientation. But does that matter? Yes, it does.

Because there are, listen, I'm not arguing about whether or not too many people are coming in. But I do think a lot of the hysteria, even before, even a year ago, before it was as many numbers as it is, there was a lot of anti-immigrant fervor that was based not on a realistic appraisal of what was occurring, but rather on racism and anti-immigrant perspective. You know, Ronald Reagan gave six million immigrants amnesty when i was growing up if you wanted to come into this country uh if you wanted to be a citizen all you had to do was walk down to the to the registry office do you think that that the united states is a more racist country now than we were say 20 years ago or 50 years ago oh that's an interesting question no

because we're not we're not a monolith but i, you know, so you can't say what kind of a country we're, but I will tell you this. When I was a younger person, I'm not whitewashing or glamorizing or romanticizing the America I grew up in. But I will tell you this. There was a greater consensus that we were not supposed to be. But this is not just about race. This is about everything. When I was growing up, obviously, we've never been without racists and homophobes and anti-Semites and bigots. Of course, we've never been without those people. We're human beings. But when I was growing up, there was a greater sense we weren't supposed to be those

things. And you had a sense that neither major political party would give the megaphone, a major megaphone, to anyone who spoke from those kinds of places. Today, largely because of social media, people have felt now free to give voice to sentiments that when I was growing up up at least there was a healthy sense of shame in the country and we knew you know yeah we should try not there's no shame anymore there's no shame and and some and there is such a thing as healthy shame and that's what disturbs me that people feel so permitted to express views that are so morally repugnant to a conscious person. Do you think that it's better if people don't express morally repugnant views? Because it's my assumption, or maybe it's my guess, that it's better to hear people express bad views so you can challenge them, or at least so you know who they are and what they're thinking as opposed to

people that don't express their bad views and essentially are hiding you know bigoted or whatever thoughts i think it's better if if we know what people are saying and where they're coming from and so that way we can push back on the ideas or so that way you can avoid those people. Like, I'd rather know if someone didn't like it. Well, I think social media has changed all that. I think before social media, there would be a degree on which I would agree with that. Social media, when people are saying these things

for the clicks, you know, it's like I remember hearing Sasha Baron Cohen say, if Hitler were alive today, he'd be taking out 30 second ads on Facebook. We some truly, truly hateful things are being said in a way that I do not believe makes for healthier society. So this is this was one of the big stories. October 2021, Biden secretly flying underage migrants into New York in dead of night.

They had Westchester County police standing by as passengers were arriving. And this was just the first. Well, that's the New York Post though. So I'd have to read that, Tim. I can't, if the New York Post writes an article like that, I don't know. I mean, I'm interested, trust me. I mean, I will follow up on a lot of this, but I don't look at an article in the New York Post and go, oh, that's totally what's happening. I don't know. You know, I find that like, I have a lot of love for humanity in general just in general i see humans eyeballs and i'd see like consciousness but i mean there's also a concept nbc is sufficient though right there's a well let's go into it that's disturbing and i and i don't see it as a left right issue that that's disturbing that's

disturbing i think i think this is one of the reasons why joe biden's failing in the polls i think more and more people are waking up to realize that, you know, although it was initially reported by the New York Post know to what level he actually knows is actually engaged in the practice of what word we want to use smuggling uh technically non-citizen and i'll be very very careful i'm very very light in my language children who are not from this country and do not have status are being flown in by the biden administration in the dead of night to various states without the consent of the people who live there or the local government sparking bipartisan outrage this sounds criminal i think the reason uh this is actually exactly what i was talking about that people love want to love and want to be there for all the other people but there's this concept called toxic compassion that i've been thinking

about for the last couple years where it's like you want to help everybody and then you end up helping no one and and people are so obsessed with helping every person that comes by that it ends up like a white-tailed deer overpopulation. We destroy. So I'm very – I just don't think we can help everyone, and I don't even think we can help most people. We have limited time, so I would like to move on to some other subjects and then definitely get into the area of the media you're pulling so but one thing i did want to uh ask you about was your position on one of the big culture war issues in this country is in florida they announced that that that they would be barring certain books from curriculum that contained adult materials this resulted in big headlines like this about uh well, this is another one.

Orlando newspaper publishes spread of 673 books banned in Florida County in 2023. I was curious if you knew a lot about what was going on nationwide with the removal of certain books from school curriculum and what your thoughts were. I'm very much against book banning. I think book banning is basically fascist behavior. Some of the books that are being banned, there'll be a suggestion of homosexual feelings, so they call it pornographic and something children shouldn't read. I trust teachers and librarians, and I don't like the idea of the U.S. government or state government

telling librarians or teachers what they can teach. You don't think there's, you don't think we should have laws on, like what about a Playboy? Like if a Playboy was in a grade school, would that be an issue? A Playboy magazine? Yeah. Yeah. As a parent, I'd have a big, big problem with a Playboy magazine. What if, what if there was a book being given to middle schoolers that depicted giving blowjobs? Yeah, well, okay. Once again, if, yeah, I wouldn't want my child to read that. And I definitely would be wanting to work on. This is the book.

Okay. That's school board. That's not government. Not the U.S. government or I don't want the U.S. government and I don't want the state governor telling me the books cannot be taught. If I were a parent and my, I am a parent, if my child in the eighth grade, I would definitely be going to the school. I would definitely be working with the school board and I definitely would have a problem with that. Is it, what if the school board, if it doesn't do anything about it, then do you have to appeal to the state? I don't want a governor telling colleges what classes they can teach. This isn't colleges. This is a grade school.

Yeah. No, I don't think the governor is to be telling schools what they can teach in the eighth grade. I would have a problem with that, but that's school board. And then you elect people to your school board. If you had a child between the ages of 10 and 12, and the teacher was providing them instruction on how to use anonymous gay sex apps, would you call the police on that teacher? I would definitely go to the principal right away.

Police, I have a problem with bringing the police into that. Going to the principal, you better believe I would. And I would show up at the school board as well. So the reason why I bring up these, these are very specific examples. This book is gay. We have this story from ABC. Parents call cops after teacher offers this book is gay

to middle schoolers in Illinois. This book provides instruction for the use of gay dating apps for anonymous sex. And these are middle schoolers. These are 10, 11, and 12 year olds. So the parents finding out that the teacher was doing this, I mean, that's pedophilia that's that's grooming behavior that

is outright egregious and illegal when i don't even want to say conservatives but it seems to be the case when uh let's say someone like me i'm from chicago and i grew up with a democrat family when i find out that adults are providing children this kind of stuff i say that's a bad thing we shouldn't allow that however for some reason i end up with uh we had the woman um what was her name from the majority report emma viglin emma viglin came on and actually defended that these books be kept in middle schools no i would not agree with emma viglin yeah i think she hadn't read the books either when she made that statement so this is the this is the culture where i and the reason why i bring it up is i often find that people who would align themselves as more democrat or left-leaning

are not familiar with the books in question that are being challenged by parents and so you end up with these stories that are not correct they'll say say something like, you know, oh, to kill a mockingbird. And it's like, I'm not concerned at all about ideas and philosophy. You know, I think critical race theory as a philosophy, it can be taught in schools. But as praxis, I don't think that's appropriate. So the criticism became with Florida, it's not that they had books on critical race theory. It's that they had critical race praxis in books, which what do you call in critical race practice praxis? So, for instance, there is a what was one example we had?

I forgot the woman's name. Was it Asra Nomani? Yeah, that was her name. One of the a lot of the books that they were bringing into Florida would say say something like you know we have the classic math problem where it says a train leaves cincinnati traveling 50 miles an hour and a train departs pittsburgh traveling or whatever and you know at what point do they pass but now what the books are doing it'll say evan is white and has been detained by police two times in the past year jamal is black has been detained 17 times what percentage of the times

have police been racist? And these are the kinds of questions that are being put in books. So this is called praxis, where the idea of the ideology is embedded in a separate subject. Parents were upset saying, hey, this is ideological and not relevant to the subject of science or math. We don't want this as part of the curriculum. And so then what ended up happening is they say, okay, well, we're going to remove this from curriculum. But then, of course, the media reports it as Republicans banned books. But, well, let's see, even the way we're contextualizing the conversation, I don't think is very helpful.

I don't think it's a left-right issue. For instance, if you are a parent and you don't want your child in the seventh grade reading a book about blowjobs. I mean, to me, that's not a left-right issue that the child is learning about that in school. But to me, as an American, not as a left-winger, but as an American, I do want my child to learn, for instance, about unequal application of criminal justice when it comes to race. If a black person is given a sentence in a courtroom in the United States, that black person is liable to have a 20% longer sentence. What I didn't like about what you said was there was a specific projection

onto the police when not every policeman is racist. That's praxis. onto the police when not every policeman is racist that's practice however yeah the idea though that the white person is stopped so much less than the black person i don't have a problem with kids learning that in high school but shouldn't those shouldn't topics like that be their own subject as opposed to mixed into other topics because what ends up what ends up happening is if you're teaching kids math and you're adding additional subcontext, then you end up with people that aren't learning the subject they're supposed to be learning. And that's part of why our schools have such a problem with making test scores. And we have kids that are graduating that can't read at grade level. Some can't read functionally that can't read at grade level some can't read functionally can't read at all and a lot of it is because of these kind of this means of teaching

the this for the for the type of the type of teaching and the framework they use it's part of the reason i mean there's a lot of reasons there's there's there's parents aren't aren't making sure their kids are getting to school and stuff parents aren't you know aren't taking care of of their parental duties there's a lot of things. Opioids. Yeah, kids dropping out and stuff like that. Absolutely. There's a lot of reasons. But you do see the more a whatever institution, whatever you're dealing with, whether it be an institution or whether it be corporations with their HR departments focusing on like DEI and stuff like that. When you have the, when you have those types of departments and that kind of focus,

you are taking away some of the, at least a portion of the resources that are supposed to go to actually teaching. And you're putting them to things that don't teach them or, or hinder them teaching. Because if that were its own class in like, whether it be social studies or whatever in civics or whatever, if the,

the type of, of, you know, awareness or social justice it was it was its own class that's one thing but if you're mixing it in with other things then you're going to have have a water you have a problem with uh this sorry i think you're making some some some points that are understandable however the what those of us on the left are arguing that children should learn for instance our racial history in this country. Well, no one's arguing against that.

Yes, many people are arguing against that. I'm sorry, many people are arguing against that. And there's this hysteria about critical race theory, and they think just teaching people about the history of slavery in the United States should not be taught. But that's not true. That's not critical race theory. That's not critical race theory. Do you know that there are schools, there are schools, I remember I was in South Carolina,

and there's a law that if any child goes to the teacher and says, that made me uncomfortable, that then the teacher cannot teach that book. Yeah, and that came from the left because of people that, like from microaggressions and stuff like that. If you feel uncomfortable in a class, it was the left-leaning people that wanted. I kind of agree with that, actually. Yeah, the left-leaning people were like, go away. The point is, a child, all that has to happen in that case is that the parents tell the child, tell the teacher this makes you uncomfortable. Once a child gets into high school, you start reading books about things that, I mean, part of literature, part of art, part of movies,

there are some things that are going to make you uncomfortable. And if you're reading on history of the United States, some things are going to make you uncomfortable. And if you're really not in the United States, some things are going to make you uncomfortable. Do you agree with critical race theory? Critical race theory was just something that had to – it's so misunderstood. It was something that had to do with a legal theory that people were talking about in like law school. But there are things that have to do with – Are you not familiar with the ideology of critical race theory? It has to do with the idea that many things are seen through and filtered through the lens of race. But many things that parents have been lining up to complain

about in school boards around the country just were anything that had to do with race and calling it in this almost hysteria about critical race theory. I think there's a big difference between critical race theory and teaching children the truth about the history of the United States, which I believe, regardless of our politics, is a requirement for conscious citizenship. So outside of perhaps there are a lot of ignorant people who aren't, they're complaining for a variety of reasons. I won't speak to them. I'm sure they exist the political stances taken by uh many people uh that were fighting books on critical race theory was what's called critical race praxis and that is to take the ideology from kimberly crenshaw and derrick bell and apply it into schools through science and math and other subjects unrelated to say social studies

so you'd end up with a lot of uh political commentators saying things like my position for instance take the literal book critical race theory and bring it to any school you want and let children read it and even give them a lesson on it but critical race praxis was when they did like a math problem like you were just talking about right yeah so the issue i take with critical race theory is that it is an abhorrent racist ideology that uh advocates for segregation and the critical race praxis was to take that ideology and apply it and teach children we ended up with two uh or i should say we ended up with a wide range of extremist beliefs that we saw manifest throughout the country, such as what they call it non POC and POC groups. They began actually creating in Seattle.

I think it was Seattle. There was a library where when people were allowed to come, if you were white, you had to go in a white room only. And if you are not white, you went to the not not white room in Dearborn, Michigan. You had the digital cafes. This was during, I believe it was during COVID. And they said, everybody come hang out online and talk in a chat room. But if you're white, you go in the room only for white people. And if you're not white, you go in the room only for not white people. For instance, an example of this, Derrick Bell, pioneer of critical

race theory, actually argued that Brown should not have dismantled plessy versus ferguson a core component of critical race theory is that schools should remain segregated so in i believe with sacramento school district they created white racial affinity groups based on critical race theory i think i think that should be a lot in schools and if teachers are teaching critical race practice to children i believe it's illegal under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and should be barred from schools. But what we end up with, once again, is you're banning books. Conservatives are banning books.

They're trying to stop teaching our history. Some of the books that they're banning, grapes of wrath. Yes, grapes of wrath is one of the top 100 most banned books. Grapes of wrath, The Portrait of Dorian Gray, because someone has a homosexual feeling.

Or we've been talking about To Kill a Mockingbird. So I don't think we have to separate this. I mean, some things are just kind of outrageous, no matter what your politics are. But other things, I think American children should learn our history, and I think they should learn great books of literature, great works of art. I think we all agree.

OK, good. So we don't have to turn this into a war. But I think the issue is if, say, Ron DeSantis comes out and he put this on FloridaGov.com or I should say they did. Actually, I think, no, this is. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption,

UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Ron DeSantis.

The books they banned were Gender, Queer, Flamer, This Book is Gay, and Let's Talk About It, books that contained pornographic and adult materials and instruction on those things. For junior high school? This is middle school. No, I wouldn't want that. But so the issue then becomes the media widely reports he's just banning books in general. When you get, I mean, this is Ron DeSantis from his own mouth saying, these are the books we banned and why we banned them. But then all of a sudden the corporate press just says he's banning books in general.

And the conversation shifts from, we don't want children getting access to adult content, them but then all of a sudden the corporate press just says he's banning books in general and and the conversation shifts from we don't want children getting access to adult content to the perspective which you have is oh they're trying to ban books like grapes that's not what i just said i agreed with you that there are books that i would not i don't i'm not comfortable with the governor doing it but there are are books with overt sexual or whatever at a certain young age that I just would be fine with the school board saying too young. This is like you were saying when you were younger,

ideas of like racism were just shameful and that society wouldn't allow those things to get a mainstream megaphone. And now it's similar with books. We're in the age of self-publishing. People can publish ideas without a central authority, like saying, hey, that's a little shape. Like a publisher, there's no gatekeeper.

Yeah, and so we kind of have to be more vigilant in our censorship methods. Well, I think that nothing is a substitute for an ethical revolution. We all have to just uh that's why the work of just what is an ethical person you can't there is no substitute for that i i have a problem with with the the uh your your talk of censorship just because it's one thing to to like we've talked about you know what can go into um libraries and stuff and it's one thing to to curate

what goes into school libraries and stuff like that. Censorship is a totally different animal. I think it's a form of censorship, curation. I just want to generalize. No, I don't. I mean, a library curates, an art director curates, somebody curated what was on the wall here.

Oh yeah, mostly me. Censor is mostly a neutral term. It's just you're looking at something and deeming is this permissible or is it not in the current situation? No, I think curation is neutral. Cens is mostly a neutral term. It's just you're looking at something and deeming is this permissible or is it not in the current situation? I think curation is neutral. Censorship is not neutral. Well, you can censor something and allow it. So if you censor something, you're just deciding yes or no. Censure versus censor. I think censoring is just the act of observing and deciding yes or no. Censoring is when you... It's specifically removing information.

It can be good or bad. But what about these great works of art? You were talking about the things you were talking about. Many of us are upset about things like To Kill a Mockingbird, Grapes of Wrath. But we all agree on that.

Okay, and I think we all agree on a lot of stuff, yeah. So this is more ambiguous. I'm curious your thoughts on this. It's kind of hard to read. I tried to find a higher resolution. And for the record i was right you were wrong censure is uh official rebuke or an expression of strong disapproval someone yeah but a censor c-e-n-s-o-r is just the act of deciding yes or no you can say yes that's okay but you still censored

it or you can say no it's not okay and you censored it or is it it's sort of the opposite of what we are since yeah and so sorry to interrupt society's taken this i understand what you're saying they become society will try and tell you that it means saying no it only means saying no but it's just the act of deciding yes or no is to censor yes but by definition if you say no you are censoringoring. You could argue that, yeah. You said it's neutral, but I don't think it's neutral. There's a reason why it's censored. I want to get, this is a more ambiguous example from a book in a school. I'm curious your thoughts.

Are you able to see it? I'm trying to find a good high resolution image of it, but this is from a book called Not My Idea. Particularly a page from the book about contract binding you to whiteness. It says you get stolen land, stolen riches, special favors. Whiteness gets to mess endlessly with the lives of your friends, neighbors, and loved ones and all fellow humans of color for the purpose of profit. Your soul, sign below. Land, riches, and favors may be revoked at any time for any reason. It depicts a hoofed footed demon with fire on top of um with money on fire a devil's tail and a hand reaching for a handshake

no i think that's terrible so this is critical race praxis when they take the ideology from derrick bell or kimberly crenshaw and they put it in a children's book and this is critical race praxis when they take the ideology from derrick bell or kimberly crenshaw and they put it in a children's book and this is one of the books they want removed from schools whiteness is a bad deal it always was dude we can see your pointy tail this is what's in great schools and this is this is the the reason why like this is the stuff that that as much as conservatives are are trying to get stuff out and there is going to be or there are going to be attempts by more authoritarian conservatives to try and attach their limits on people's rights and stuff like that. That's going to happen. But at the same time, stuff like this, your average person doesn't even know.

Like they're not even aware and then when it's presented to them by the media which you understand exactly how how duplicitous and and difficult it can be with today's modern media when it gets presented to the average person by the media they do everything they can to make this seem like this isn't the situation they make it seem like it's it's all racist and all bigots and blah blah blah but then you you actually look into it and the situation is no there's really objectionable stuff being placed in put in schools that parents are objecting to and then the fbi goes after the parents for protesting you know this is yeah there was this is the government that that we have right now this is the real federal government fbi going after a parent because his kid was was sexually assaulted this is state level so in

virginia uh uh loudon county are you familiar with the loudon county conflict which has been gone so loudon county is about 30 seconds from here loudon county virginia and there was a uh i believe she was a pre-teen girl was raped in the bathroom by a boy wearing a dress the conservative uh conservative center reported as a trans boy but i don't think the boy was trans i think the boy was like non-binary identifying or something just wearing female clothes and using the girl's bathroom the thought the school covered it up it led to a huge scandal which was a huge component in why northam didn't win re-election and why youngkin did uh the father got arrested when he went to the school board demanding no why the school covered up the rape

of his daughter so these are the these are these are the extreme stories that are popping up for the people who are you know attuned to it the corporate press of course is not talking about it so you know i think they slander people that do of course like i think much of what you experience how they lie about you it's so widespread it's actually hard to break through i did just bring up this site just to show you this not my idea that the passage i just showed you this is a children's book where they say this about whiteness and uh i do want to talk about this and and this is i don't know i figure i bring this this story up to see what your thoughts are there's a movie coming out called the american society of magical negroes it's got people very angry because in the trailer for the film they say uh actually let me let me see if i can

just play this and i'll get your thoughts on it let's see if we have i might have to unmute the site no we're good i know you can feel their discomfort aaron watching you walk through a room full of white people was the most painful thing I've ever seen. Excuse me. Sorry. I don't want to take you to a job interview. There's a recruiting class starting right now, and we've got to get you in it. Welcome to the American Society

of Magical Negroes. I don't really understand. It's easier said than done. What's the most dangerous animal on the planet? A shark. White people, when they feel uncomfortable. White people feeling uncomfortable precedes a lot of bad stuff

for us. That's why we fight white discomfort every day. I'll pause right there and say, show this. A meter showing white tears next to a police officer. So the premise of this film is that the most dangerous animal on the planet is white people. And a group of secret magical black people have to use magic powers to keep white people placated. Otherwise, the white people will turn on them and kill them.

So this movie's got everybody pissed off. The Root wrote about it it and they're actually angry many well i shouldn't say they're angry but there's a lot of criticism from more of the left-leaning people that it depicts an interracial relationship which is surprising i guess not really and then the criticism from the right is that the premise of the film is that white people are the most dangerous animal on the planet this is what people would refer to as critical race praxis in mainstream media and film. And this is a major movie. This is like, you know, Hollywood level production.

The question that comes up for me is what you were saying before. Is it better that stuff be out there and that people hear it? Personally, I think it's better, you know. But at the same time, like stuff like this, like this is hidden from the public. And until it's burst into an ugly form like this. That book. Which one? Not my idea.

That book with the devil telling that kid, you know. I mean, it's all so toxic and so illiberal. And there are people in the media misrepresents all of the objections to it as coming from a place of bigotry, as coming from a place of evil and stuff. I can understand that. It's rough. I can understand that. This is why when it comes to a show like ours, we have every conservative in the world emailing us asking us to come on. And not a single liberal emails us asking us to come on. We actively have to fight to get liberals to come on the show.

Well, but wait a minute. Let's look at me. I'm very left wing in my political views. But I agree with most of what you're saying. That's why you're sitting in this chair. I mean, this to me is, we're talking about a lot of things here that I don't even see as left-right issues. I agree.

They've been turned into left-right issues. So the issue is when you have high-profile, prominent, liberal, or leftist commentators who know exactly what we're talking about, they will not come on this show because they would have to put themselves in a position where they're in opposition to their tribe. Do you consider, you know, my own tribe? It's not very nice. But you see, that's exactly it.

People who are trying to remain within the circle of the dominant left ideology have to agree with critical race theory. And if they speak out against it, they will get canceled. They will get banned from media. They'll get lied about. they'll get smeared well that's why i said earlier if we could just stay away from that term uh the the term is so it's such a hot potato it's not helpful it's this uh what we're talking about here it doesn't help to even talk about in terms of critical race theory it seems to me but this is what critical race theory is. This is- Well, but there are those who would argue differently. But they're wrong.

Well, this is critical race practice. This is practice. But more importantly, when, like we have the book, we have Kimberly Crenshaw's book, Critical Race Theory, The Core Ideology. And it explicitly talks about what the ideology means, what it represents, what their goals are. Derrick Bell, of course, famously said he thought Py v ferguson was wrong and he wants segregation in

schools so when someone comes out and says i would argue critical race theory is something different they are lying to you there's two things that that they could be wrong too but anyone arguing in favor of segregation i think is is doing bad first of all i i wonder do you consider yourself a liberal or do you consider yourself a progressive? Well, this is what I feel. I feel everybody needs to come out of their silos right now. I think these labels are not helping any of us. I don't even think they help us at this table. I think this table has been an example of the labeling is the one places where we've gotten off. And when we didn't have the labels,

we were just talking as Americans. And I say that all the time. I'm running for president, and I feel that so strongly. People say, who do you talk to? I don't give a different talk, depending on if they're black, brown, white, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, non-binary, rich, poor. I'm speaking to a place in the American heart, the American conscience, American decency. And I think all of those labels are disserving us right now. So on a superficial level, I'm a progressive, but I see stuff now that just makes me think nobody has a monopoly on truth and nobody has a monopoly on the smugness and arrogance and my way is right and your way is wrong. It's almost mean spiritedness that I see in everyone right now. And I think we all need to get off our high horses.

I think I agree. I think the issue is, you know, for us, for instance, it comes down to the simplification of terms and their general understanding so we end up in this world where i am a i when i was younger i was a punk rock anarchist skateboarder uh listening to you know anti-flag and bands like that against me baby i'm anarchist i can still play that song and i still know all the words and uh now they call me far right so i still wear the same clothes i don't think of you i mean just hearing you today i mean i don't know i don't watch your show all the time because they're lying right well they lie about me all the time exactly so they'll lie and they'll say i'm a conservative despite the fact that my

politics are actually fairly middle of the road yeah you know i i have i have arguments with pro life individuals on a more traditionally democrat pro-choice position. That's what I mean. Let's drop the labels aren't helping us right now. Yeah, getting people locked into boxes and silos of what they think they are. I think that's a tactic used by people that want to maintain control of a society. And they also are creating an artificial dichotomy as a kind of screen to hide the real division.

The real division is the powerful versus the powerless. The real division is the corporate elite versus those struggling to get by. The real division is those who have capital and access to more capital versus those who are locked into circumstances that deny them the opportunity for economic growth. But there's an Occupy Wall Street, man.

Tim, you brought it up multiple times. It was working. Occupy was working and Bank of America was shaking. And then, man. Tim, you brought it up multiple times. It was working. Occupy was working. And Bank of America was shaking. And then all of a sudden, you start to see identity politics. They wouldn't let me speak because I was white. They said, you can't. We've had too many white people.

I was like, I'm about to read the Constitution. Doesn't matter. That made it worse. And they were like, oh, why? I was shocked. There was another component to this. I agree with you on the corporate elite and those who struggle. But then there is the international versus nationalist view where you appear to be more of the internationalist sentiment and Trump supporters appear to be more of the nationalist sentiment.

And what I mean by that is. Yeah, you're right. I am. Nationalism is not a good thing. The one thing to love your country. Patriotism is a good thing. Thinking your country is better and the only one that matters is not a good thing. Well, that's not nationalism.

I mean, perhaps there's a better word for that. I think maybe chauvinism, which used to be like bias for males or something, but now is typically represent. Actually, no, I think chauvinism was originally you're boastful about your own country. But to clarify what I mean, Trump supporters love America and many of them will say we're the best country ever. Well, we love America. Right. But so for me, for instance, I don't want foreign war. I don't think we should be sending money to Ukraine. I don't think we should be engaged in the Middle East and Syria. I don't think we should be occupying Afghanistan. We shouldn't have for as long as we did. It's a disaster. Iraq, all of the same. Now you've got Lindsey Graham calling for war around all that's bad. I don't think we should have economic hitman going to South America. I think we should have legal immigration. Everybody in the world can come here, but you got to come

through a process so we can make sure the economy is functioning and everyone's happy. I think we should have manufacturing brought back. I think that we should stop sending our jobs and our factories overseas through failed trade policies. Help the American worker. Help the, you know, your average working class individual. But that also means we can't just have porous borders with 10,000 people coming in every single day. That negatively impacts the people all over this country. And we can see they're angry over it. Where I come from everything

you just said was moderate and many things that you just said that i definitely think of myself as left wing agree with for some reason the media calls me far right huh pardon the media calls me well they call me kooky crazy well that's the thing they're lying about everything this nationalism where they want to put i kind of decide i'm not really a nationalist i mean reading what it actually means it's the ideology that says that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation state surpasses the individual's other groups or interests so it's like your family your your local community should be the most important thing to you yeah or the rest of the world but i don't i don't god created all men our declaration

of independence says all men are created equal. And that's not just all Americans are created equal. All men are created equal. That's our mission statement. This is correct. And non-citizens who are in this country, like a tourist is a good example, have constitutional protection, same as any other person, whether they're a citizen or not. I suppose the challenge then becomes, I think it's fair to say that American classically and traditionally liberal worldviews don't align with, say, like fundamentalist Islam. Yes, correct.

But if we have a porous border where 10,000 people are coming in every day, eventually you end up with communities that are overwhelmingly fundamentally Islamic and will pass laws that say uh result in female genital mutilation right and we see this we see this in in parts of the country that's my concern about immigration we want people to come here and integrate with the policies and the plans that have worked and helped so many people but if immigration is unchecked you'll end up with um you end up with what's what's the right word um sharia law? No, no, isolated districts that operate unanimously. Enclaves?

Heterogeneous? Enclave is a good word for it. Rather than when our grandparents, like my grandparents, were eager to assimilate. The term assimilation has kind of an ugly word to it or an ugly tone to it nowadays. The way I look at this this conversation that one right there for instance should be a conversation that we should be able to have without anybody feeling like i have you know there are there's a yin and a yang here yeah there's a yin and a yang here you know president eisenhower, the American mind at its best is both liberal and conservative.

There are high-minded liberal views, and there are high-minded conservative views. And I think it's important that we remember, nobody owes it to you to agree with you. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. And a lot of things can be true at the same time. That's how I feel about the conversation we had about the books in

middle school. That's the same to me about some of the racial things you were talking about and the things we're talking about now. Many things are true at the same time. And the point, the founder's vision was that if we do talk about it, we're all educated, we're all thinking. What's happened is this characterological way that we all jump to a conclusion, jump to an alignment with a kind of knee-jerk identification with what we think our side is supposed to think. And that's what's taking us down. We should be able to discuss these things just listening to each other. Sometimes we want to rush to what is the answer. And sometimes the answer is just the quality of how we think about the question and how we just

ponder and reflect. Well, that was right. This is right. True. What he said was true. What I just said is true. Both are true. That's what we try to do. That's called maturity. Let's go to a very difficult subject. A what? Let's go to a very difficult subject. A what? Let's go to a very difficult subject. Abortion. All right. So, have on your website here, this is Marianne2024.com, 100% pro-choice. Do you want to just break down for us what your view is on abortion, what it should be, access, etc.?

I think abortion is a moral issue. But I think it is a moral issue that is between a woman and her conscience, the God of her understanding. I believe it is an issue of private morality and not public morality. Traditionally in this country, the divide between right and left, people on the right concern themselves more with issues of private morality. People on the left, issues of public morality. Like that's why you find people on the right talking about abortion, talking about homosexuality. People on the left talking about economic justice is a moral issue. Invading a country that didn't do anything to you is a moral issue.

It's kind of inverted now, though. The Democrats are pro funding for Ukraine and and Republicans are anti-intervention. But see, even that, that's a, can we just get more real and more deep about it rather than seeing, if they're doing it with Israel and Palestine too, everything, people are trying to make everything black and white now. Well, you said the right tends to do this, the left tends to do that. But not in terms of specific issues, I didn't mean. But are we going to stay with abortion? Yeah, yeah, for sure. Okay.

I just feel I trust the moral decision-making of the American woman, and I don't think a government has any right to tell a woman what to do with her body. Do you think there should have been any limits on the amount of, like, how many weeks before? Yeah, and the states came up with those limits. And that's why I think what we had with Roe v. Wade was reasonable. So in your view, do you think it should be a federally legislated or codified issue pertaining to abortion that should affect all states? Like Roe v. Wade, for instance, was overturned. As president, would you advocate for or sign a bill that would federally codify Roe v. Wade?

Yes. Do you think that there should be uh limits uh how do you phrase this properly should there be a time limit like after 16 weeks or 21 there always was there was there was but do you think there should be now is there is there a certain amount of when yes except when the health of the... When health... Issues of health are involved. So let's say there's no issue of health. A woman is pregnant. Would it be...

What's your view? 16 weeks, 20 weeks? When people start talking about this late-term abortion thing, you've got... No, do I think someone, a woman who's eight months pregnant, just decides, you know, I don't want to do this? Should she be able to have an abortion?

No. But that doesn't happen. So then would you have an issue with it being made illegal? Well, it was during when Roe v. Wade was legal. That was not possible. The states had their limits. If a Republican Congress said, okay, it never happens, we're going to ban all abortions after six months. No, because you've got to keep it with medical. I mean, will you see what's happening with Kate Cox in Texas now? I don't think a government should get between a woman and medical decisions. This is the first I've heard of Kate Cox. Tell me about I think Tim's looking it up right now.

Yeah, Texas Tribune, Kate Cox's case reveals how far texas intends to go to enforce those judges saying what that woman has to do and she has to leave texas to get an abortion that was necessary and it was uh for her health and for her the the viability of her uh being it being fertile in the future uh yes but this was i believe the supreme court ruled the doctor did not demonstrate a medical need the doctor doctor, that's, a bunch of men who are judges in Texas should not be determining what the doctor calls medical need. And what the doctors were claiming was that her future fertility was at stake. So that's not for a bunch of judges in Texas to say, you therefore have not demonstrated medical need because they don't consider that a medical issue. And then this is what kills me.

Most of my conservative friends say, we don't want government overreach. To me, that's extraordinary government overreach. That was an issue about that woman and her medical care. I agree. And those old men on some court in Texasxas saying that's not i wouldn't i wouldn't go that far but i do i do uh think when it comes to medical issues it's being debated right now concerto's saying it's a trisomy 18 or something like that i'm not familiar with the uh

the ailment of the child and they're concerned that it could negatively impact her fertility and the child may not even live that long there's a possibility the child could live long but not they're not sure and so that's that's that's a very it is a tough moral position i don't i that's tough for me that's tough for me i just don't to me it's not even tough to me it's government get your hands out of this but let's let's let's go back because I'm going to I'm going to press you on this. If the Republicans said if you think late term abortion, elective late term abortion ever happens, then how about we have a ban? Elective abortion after six months is hereby made illegal. But they that that is already under under Roe v. Wade, that was already true. Discover the magic of Bad MGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck.

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

withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario True. Under Roe v. Wade, that was already true. The states had their limits.

And then beyond that, there had to do with with uh what a doctor had to say sure but is that as yes you would agree with a law banning abortion elective abortion after six months i don't want to give you the set time frame you can choose whatever time frame you want after after a certain after a certain period of time yeah my concern is with um the definition of of what it means to be a medical issue and how do we how do how do how do we protect against abuse of the system i've never been been one to say that potential crimes of an individual individual should then infringe upon someone else's rights for say like medical care and i'm not talking about elective abortion i'm saying you know if a woman has a very serious disease

and is going to hemorrhage or something and the doctor's like man you're not going to make it we have to operate now i think it's absurd to be like but that would abort the baby so we got to talk to a judge or something the concern there however is there have been instances where people have tried to argue mental health qualifies and have tried to use that to get elective abortion it may be rare but this is the concern conservatives have and pro-life individuals have is preventing abuse of the system and abortion as contraception. No matter what law you pass, there's going to be abuse of the system. I agree. So that's not a reason not to pass a good law.

I completely agree. I completely agree. I think, yeah, the idea that some people will break the law means that everyone must now abide by this harsh standard doesn't necessarily solve the problem. No, that's ridiculous. But there are concerns, for instance, in Colorado, the new law now, and I understand what you're saying about Roe v. Wade. Currently, abortion in Colorado is one of seven states without any term restrictions as to when a pregnancy can be terminated.

It is colloquially described as restrictionless and limitless abortion, meaning a woman could be without any medical health issue and at nine months and legally get an abortion. And to the point of birth. So the famous example of this was when I think it was Rep Tran. I could be getting her name wrong in Virginia, argued to a judge that a baby could be at the point of birth and the doctor could terminate the life of the baby under virginia's bill the bill didn't pass uh governor northam gotten a lot of heat over this i think i actually have the the story yeah this is right here some 2019 virginia governor faces backlash over comments supporting late-term abortion bill where whether intentionally or

not he actually described post-birth abortion which is not a real thing but he basically described just killing the baby. In his statement on radio, he said, the baby would be delivered, resuscitated, and then they would decide if they would like to terminate. Oh, come on. He did say that, yes. Yeah, but that does not...

And he said it's not a real thing. Well, no, no, no. Post-birth abortion is just killing a baby. Yeah. But that's what Northam actually advocated for. Well, it's absurd so this this is this issue like this comes up in the press and just like all the other issues you'll end up with me like you know traditional liberal fairly pro-choice but like i think there

should be safe legal rare and you see a story like this and i'll say okay this man's lost his mind you got to vote him out of office then the media claims he never said it they claim it's a lie they say nobody wants this it never happens and we're sitting here like we got the guy on his his audio of him uh basically uh he says they're done in cases where there may be severe deformities i can tell you exactly what would happen the infant would be delivered the infant would be kept comfortable the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother. Oh, so they're talking about severely deformed babies. We can, I will give him all of the benefit of the doubt and everything.

And we will say the most deformed a baby could be. He's still talking about after it's already born and alive, bring it to another room and then talking with a doctor whether you want to end its life it's a question of you know to what degree do we accept deformities to be terminated after birth right i mean this is his quote cnn has it uh you know what is what is uh severe deformity defined as legally i mean is down syndrome considered that to that degree oh god no but i mean one of the most common forms of reasons for abortion is the baby is diagnosed with down you know now we have sonograms and we have um what is that other one called uh not sonogram the they know so much now do you in your opinion if a woman found out that her uh her healthy viable pregnancy the child had down syndrome do you think that's reason for an abortion? I would have the child. I would have a Down syndrome child if I found out I had Down syndrome.

But should it be legally allowed for a woman to terminate a pregnancy that is otherwise healthy if the child has down syndrome to me the issue of abortion whether a whatever the woman's decision has to do with the time and what that state determines is the time so that's the reason and then her reasoning is her reasoning so any reason no reason at all until a certain period of time right no so like but once a child is viable and this is obviously a baby that could be delivered and live, that's a whole different thing. I completely agree. The argument we've run into with progressives is they actually go beyond that. Even a friend of mine argued that a child, a baby is not alive until it's delivered.

Therefore, a baby at nine months could be aborted if the woman wants. Well, I don't agree with that. A lot of the progressives, and it's not a lot, mind you, but a couple. Yeah, I know. See, this is where we, this only bolsters and fortifies this separation. Well, progressives say that. No, I think this is healing. Huh? I think this is healing. That's why I asked.

Yeah. Hearing from you, someone who's running for the Democratic Party, saying we don't want these things is exactly what I hope. It is a moral issue. Of course it's a moral issue. This is what we need. I support roe v wade and i think a woman's right to abortion should be codified by law and i would do everything the

idea of a government telling a woman uh what she has to do is very difficult for me when i was uh when the roe v wade decision came out i was more on the side of perhaps it's good the states can figure out for themselves and have more nuanced laws but now i don't know if i'm for roe v wade but i am certainly for the federal uh legislation and adjudication of when a a baby has constitutional rights so uh i believe life begins at conception however i'm much more libertarian on the issue which is why i'm concerned about having to go to a doctor or panel of judges to determine medical issues it's it's. I don't have a good answer. But, excuse me. I just lost my train of thought.

We're having a lot of, we're hearing everything that we said would happen with Dobbs is already happening. Great suffering among women. You know, women used to have, you know, when I was growing up, it was simply before Roe v. Wade. And I think I was a little girl at the time, but certainly before it was legal. It was about rich women getting safe abortions and poor women getting unsafe abortions. I remember what I was going to say. Excuse me.

I believe the federal government and the Supreme Court needs to issue a ruling on when life begins. They have to. Because the 14th Amendment, under its basic reading, I believe, protects the constitutional rights of the unborn. It says no person, it does not say citizen, shall have their rights infringed without due process but if we were to interpret that verbatim textually that would mean that if a baby is viable then only through adjudication in a court could the woman seek abortion even if it was for medical reasons yeah this says uh a legal person is uh someone that can do things a human person is usually able to do in law so a baby wouldn't i mean an infant in the womb wouldn't be a person if they can't do any you know you got to be able to do things that human can do but then there's that like a seven

yeah it just it doesn't i mean i'm sorry to interrupt born babies are persons yeah yeah but in womb in utero it doesn't have legal personhood yet because it doesn't have the ability to do things that a person would do eat i don't know but that's not been adjudicated that's your opinion that's just my argument and the supreme court needs to rule on their opinion as to when they actually would that's my point legal personhood for babies in utero that'd be well if if there's a baby that's nine months gestated in the womb and a baby that's nine months gestated that's already been delivered you cannot say that they are different biological entities the only thing that's different is the layer of flesh between the birth itself you know roe v. roe was working roe v. roe was working i i disagree clearly when you look at conservatives and the outrage and

the sentiment it wasn't working for them i always felt like that was a minority you could say that i mean a lot of people slavery was working for a lot of people but the but actually that was a minority. You could say that. I mean, a lot of people, slavery was working for a lot of people. But actually, a lot of people were against civil rights legislation. Only, I think, 5% of the country had slaves. Abortion wasn't working for the babies that were getting aborted either. Just like slavery wasn't working for the slaves. Abortion's not working for the babies that are getting aborted. So you don't think that abortion should be legal under any circumstances?

I'm pro-choice for the first trimesterester and then at the end of the first trimester my argument is more so if the baby can survive on its own you shouldn't kill it that's a tough argument because if you don't have electricity unless there's medical yeah and and and then my concern is like i agree with you i think the idea that a doctor says to you like hey you're about to die better call the judge and get an emergency that's horrifying that's just insane i mean but that i suppose if the supreme court ruled on the 14th amendment that the unborn are legal persons because if if a baby is born premature at what what's what's the earliest they they can be they've gone now it's like 30 weeks or something? I don't know. Seamus knows way better than me. I think 26 weeks.

26, right? Something like that. Is that an illegal person? It is. So if a baby is born as premature as premature can be, and it is alive, and you kill it, you will be charged with murder. Generally between 23 and 24 weeks.

And you know that right now, they have the technology to do uh artificial wombs they've raised you know they've they've gestated lambs in an artificial thing just because they can take your three-week-old fetus and make it gestate in a tube doesn't mean it's like a viable yes it does but the power goes out hold on i'm not even arguing like no no no a premature child it can be put in a safe place where it survives on its own you got to feed it and everything but a premature baby is a legal person yeah it has the protections of personhood the only difference between a baby six months that was born premature and a baby six

months still in the womb is the layer of flesh between it's the birth itself in which case i'm i i actually i actually think the supreme court we currently have may argue the 14th Amendment protects the due process rights of the unborn after viability, which is not too dissimilar from Roe v. Wade. But this results in after 16 weeks or maybe 20, a woman who wants an abortion for any reason, even medical, would have to go through a due process system no i just don't think the government should be involved there i suppose the issue is the due process rights of persons uh you know and if not if a baby after six months is considered a person if it's outside the womb then why wouldn't it be inside the womb and then does a doctor have the right to kill someone without due process a doctor takes a hippocratic oath a doctor have the right to kill someone without due process? A doctor takes a Hippocratic oath. A doctor is not who says to who suggests such.

Well, the baby has to die in the abortion. But if the doctor is suggesting that procedure, there is some medical reason having to do with the mother or the child. Well, I agree with you. Right. And so in this circumstance, man, excuse me, frog my throat. Imagine there's a woman who's six months pregnant. The baby is viable, can survive on its own. The woman, the doctor says there is an issue where if you continue this pregnancy right now, 97% chance you die in a week. We need to abort now. Otherwise you will die. The baby can survive you will die but no if this if that baby that baby could be delivered right now i mean why couldn't the baby be

delivered right now well i agree then in which case we would say no to the abortion you're saving the baby and you're saving the mother i it's interesting because i think you you actually agree 80 with many of our pro-life friends yeah i feel that way about so many things right and it's just divide the media divide creates hyper polarized views of what it's not just the media who does it it's it's not just the media who does it no it's the activists too i think yeah i totally i totally agree with you because because what we're because what really what it boils down to we are talking about you know the edges here when it comes to most abortions are at form birth control. Most abortions happen early, the majority of.

But then when you start talking to partial birth abortions or whatever, they are the edge cases. And so it's not the primary concern. These things tend to come up when you're dealing with political conversations. You know, there's another thing about social media. I'm just thinking, I would bet you

that somebody's going to take something I said here tonight. I'm just sure of it. I was sitting there thinking, my God, this is why people said that. You know, they're going to take one sentence out of context. They're going to show me

agreeing with Tim Pool about something out of context. And oh my God, look, she's one of context. They're going to show me agreeing with Tim Pool about something out of context. And oh, my God, look, she's one of them. I mean, there's already this meme about me that actually I'm a Christian Republican. And I'm a mole or something. This is why liberals don't. That's a large part of the problem. And that's also social media did that.

I mean, somebody did that with Israel and Palestine for me the other night. One sentence out of context and then one slip of the tongue or one, you know, like, well, we misspoke that one word and you're, you know, you're dead in the water politically. So we're on the other side of the fire. And this is why many liberals don't want to come on the show. Yeah. Because they know. I understand now. Like, you can't say, no, I didn't say to come on the show. Yeah. Because they know. I understand now. They have to show the light.

Like, you can't say, no, I didn't say it. It just doesn't work. You got to keep making media. Keep doing it to reinforce who you are. I believe that's the way to counteract spin. You can't counteract spin. You can't really ever counter. Well, you can diminish it by making your own media and being in control of your own platform.

I think about that a lot. So the issue with spin is that the corporate press will always do what it does. They are interested in either their political narrative or their clicks. And what clicks will they get from saying Marianne Williamson gives reasonable view on moderate position? Nothing. It's not just the corporate press either. Because sometimes what I've seen in my life with all this is the corporate press will say it, but people who like to think of themselves as sophisticated and

invulnerable to social media manipulation are so vulnerable to it. They'll see one anonymous tweet or one article on the internet as though, oh, well, then that's true. It's just so debased, our level of public dialogue. And what's wrong with, why do we all have to agree on every little thing? We don't. And I see in politics, I see, I have never voted for anyone expecting that I agreed with them on everything. I've never voted for anyone expecting that during their term in office, they would agree with me on everything. We're living at a time when you have to line up.

And if you agree on any little thing, or like we were just talking about, somebody will take something, a clip on the, you know, like it could be tonight, right? I could hear tomorrow from my team. It went viral. A million people saw you say something out of context. My advice would just be, screw those people. Well, which is when you're not running for office. This has certainly been my feeling.

I'm an author, but it's sad for politics because it keeps people of nuance and deeper reflection. So this is... Sort of, it disqualifies you. This is why my view is just good versus evil. When someone, a parent, sees a book with a blowjob in it given to their kids, stonewall honor book, and being given to middle schoolers and that parent says you know i take issue with this and they go to the school board and they say

i don't know why you have this book in the curriculum i don't think it's appropriate for children then all of a sudden you get a wave of activists in the media lying about what happened those are evil people the people who lie about you and misrepresent you i believe that's evil they are they are causing damage and destruction to this country. They are harming you, who, you know, obviously you're trying to do good. You're trying to help people. You're trying to be a good person. We respect it tremendously.

But the media thinks you're a threat to their power. I shouldn't say the media, but elements of the political establishment. Political media industrial complex. Absolutely. I think these people are evil. I find the good and evil thing to even be too polarizing. But it is evil. It's just a simplification method to divide people.

I disagree. Because we all have it within us. We can all turn on a dime. We could stay with right and wrong. Given that there is evil in the world, and I do believe there's evil in the world, I agree with you that we could, even believe me i'm watching it i'm living it right now i'm living it with the way the uh the corporatized political party system is struck you know keeping me out of the conversation planting stories uh planting people in your all of that

i see it as wrong i don't see it as evil i see it as evil i mean look uh i think you are a good person we we in 2020 you are in 2019 the primaries everything we we we watched you uh we had michael mouse here yesterday who said that he thinks you're so wonderful and fantastic you've helped so many people and the media lies about everything we we none of us here or any of our friends have any issue with disagreeing with you we think we disagree we do you know enid i disagree all the time let's get to it but so here's my issue i don't think i'm right about everything i certainly think i'm right about a lot but i think i'm wrong about a lot too and so what i think goodness would be is recognizing that there's a strong possibility i'm wrong about everything therefore the best outcome for the people of this country for the

world for the working class and even the wealthy. We want everyone to succeed and strive. And this means we must be as honest as we can, advocate for what we believe, and represent the positions of others as best we can. So if you tell me your position on abortion or race or whatever, I want to make sure I have it exactly as you're saying it. We'll break down the core argument, let the people hear it. And then they can say, you know what? Marion's actually right about that. I agree.

Because then they can make better decisions, which a rising tide lifts all ships. What we're seeing with the political, what did you call the political? Media industrial complex. And it is that. What they're saying is, I don't care if she's right. I deserve the power. So lie. That lie exactly correct trick people into giving us the power and we'll do what we want because we're smarter than you that's that

is that is totally correct i you know not just to clarify because i'll clip you i said i say that's evil you said they're doing wrong i think it is evil for someone to trick people into stealing power well let's talk about it in terms of the foundational principles of the United States. We could stay away from right and wrong, good and evil, and go right to undemocratic. It is an assault and an undermining of democracy. So I think, you know, the founders, and I've heard you, actually, I heard a clip of you the other day, because I said, oh, I'm going to look at a little bit before I go on his show. And you were talking about the Declaration of Independence and first principles and total agreement. So the founders did not expect that we would come to the quote-unquote right decision every time.

But as Jefferson said, the only safe repository free speech, the whole idea of a free press, the whole idea of freedom of assembly was so that we could discuss things, that we would have critical thought processes that were educated. And so what the founders said is if that's the case and we really have the right to discuss these things, more often than not, the truth will out. There's something so profound about that. So this corporatized media and social media suppression of truth, smearing of people, mischaracterizing people, and believe me, I don't think anybody knows it more than I do, actually, is a way of suppressing the democratic process.

Agreed. I'm concerned about the public school because you were saying education is key, but like this John Dewey Rockefeller public school thing that got built in like the late 1910, 1913. Yeah, that's not the founding fathers vision of how education would happen. It creates uniformity of thought. It doesn't build critical thinking necessarily. It creates centralization of indoctrination.

Well, it was a post-industrial thing. It was really creating workers more than creating free thought. The bell rings. What is the shift change? What's the best way to create critical thought? They even look like factories and prisons. How do you inspire critical thought?

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

Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Cool thinking. Great teaching. Great teachers. That's why I have so much respect for teachers. We are going to go to Super Chats and take some questions. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

Head over to TimCast.com if you want to watch the members-only uncensored show where we will have guests call in and ask some questions. And don't forget to go to TheBestSongEver.com. Click download at your price, 69 cents or whatever you want to give, and you can buy the song to help support our work and our cultural endeavors. It is it. This is the final run. It's the home stretch. If everybody bought that song right now, we would shatter our way into the Hot 100. So if you want to support us, that's how you do it.

Otherwise, you know, feel free not to. But I asked. What can I say? All right, let's grab some super chats. We got Clint Torres says, howdy, people. Dearest Chet, I must leave you. Why I cannot say where you cannot know. How long i be there i haven't decided but the one thing i can't tell you is that anytime you hear the wind blow it will whisper the name tim cast and so let us part with a love that will echo through the ages let's see you later clint that is one hell

of a super chat i think that's a quote from something it's what is it from oh it's two two super chats raymond g stanley jr says tim now that these now that those people polled and the media readers will be like who's tim pool and why would would he be influential it'll expand the reach of you and jack so uh this organization i i'm being told it's like affiliated with ron desantis's campaign or not his campaign is super pack they did a poll and they they wrote this story up saying uh poll finds tim pool and jack posobic are not influential and i'm just like now hold on there gosh darn minute why would you write a story about two people you think are unknowns with no influence who's going to click this so imagine someone wrote a story and

said you know john aaron ferguson and bill dershley are not influential you'd be like who like why would you click it but i will say the funny thing is is what raymond's referencing the poll actually found and this is wild despite the fact they're saying no one knows who tim pool is he's not influential the poll found one in three people are familiar with me which is freaky so i think the polls probably bunk but it certainly did not produce the results they were trying to claim it did yeah they they said it's like 69 we're unfamiliar with well like 31 of people you asked knew who i was that's crazy why did desantis care if you're in what was that about well i don't know about him personally but uh we we are um not fans of

the desantis campaign and his staffers and his surrogates i think they are just despicable people absolutely speak for yourself you said we i don't know him personally i'd like to meet i'm talking about his campaign we got to have christina pashaun here to defend herself because i am not happy the way no no santas's campaign you know i'd like to talk to her face we invited her before but i think she's made it clear as to why she shouldn't be on the show and it's because like you know sometimes we do want to get some fans to call into the show but we don't do full two-hour segments where we just invite some random person off the street to come and talk politics we usually try to find someone who has a body of work in some way. You don't have to have a million followers.

Some people come on the show, they have like 3,000, you know, or none at all. They don't even have a social media account, but they're doing something relevant work. Christina Pasha views herself as just a fan of politics. She's on Twitter and having flame wars with like random Twitter accounts.

Get out of here, Christina. No, I'm not interested in grabbing a random flame war Twitter account and having him come on the show. I'm very disappointed in the way his campaign was run. I will admit that. Basically, they do. They lie. Like, the idea that a polling agency

affiliated with his pack would make some ridiculously stupid story saying Tim Pool is not influential, it's just the like, stupidest thing I've ever heard. because like i was saying media i published a story saying paul finds tim pool is not influential well then why would anyone click the story who wants to read about a guy they never heard about for no reason to find out a guy they don't know about has no relevance how many people did they pull for that i don't

even know but like the point is would you read an article that says poll finds John Ferguson does not is not known by you? You'd be like, yeah, you're correct. They used your name on purpose because they knew it would get clicks. Exactly. Which contradicts the poll. And the poll found that one in three people actually do know who I am. That's kind of insane to think about. And they frame it as though Republicans don't trust Tim Pool.

I'm not a Republican. I don't like Republicans either. Why are they making this fake this fake story so what happens is you have uh trump gets kicked off the ballot in colorado actually real quick you know what are your thoughts on that do you agree with trump what uh the thing about the supreme the court saying he can't be on the ballot yeah i think and certainly i disagree with uh trump politically. I have extreme disagreements. But he has not been convicted of insurrection. And I think that what is better for everyone is that Donald Trump is given a fair treatment before the law.

Completely agree. That's what I believe. So what happens with the DeSantis camp is the fake Ramaswamy says I will withdraw from the primary unless they allow Donald Trump to be involved. Ron DeSantis was asked, would you also withdraw? And he says, no, I earned the delegates. This is how it's played. And I intend to win. But I do think it'll be overturned anyway. I find that despicable. I think every Republican should refuse to participate in an election for which one person has been unconstitutionally removed. Well, you know, we have our own stuff going on on the Democratic side. Trust me. And I think what they're doing to you and even Cenk Uygur, despite his constitutional arguments on citizenship, I think that's completely wrong. And I think they should have a primary. Yeah, but we have a system of justice. I mean, this case, it's now in Colorado, will go higher and let the system play out. I mean, I think that we have to have some trust

in the justice system. It'll be interesting to see what the Supreme Court says, but the Supreme Court, I'm sure, will be weighing in on this. They could just say, no, we won't get involved. In Texas vsylvania in 2020 the supreme court said not interested shocking a lot of people are you familiar with what happened with what texas v pennsylvania was a lawsuit in 2020 and 2021 pertaining to procedural changes

that violated the constitution and uh in in the elections held by several states and the supreme court said we will not win at all and so that meant uh issues pertaining to constitutional procedures in federal elections went unanswered and this is a huge component in why trump supporters think the election was stolen it's a it's a huge component as to why january 6th happened at all it may be one of the biggest if not the biggest yeah if if the supreme court had heard that case if they if they had actually heard the case and just had a had a decision on it i am willing to bet that january 6th doesn't happen at all there's no this is this is 48 states involved in a lawsuit this is for so 48 states were involved in a lawsuit to the supreme court asking the supreme court to weigh on the legality of executives and judiciaries altering procedure and elections. Texas argued that the Constitution gives unilateral authority to the legislature to

determine how an election is run, and the legislature has to have final say on the certification. If the election is changed outside of the purview of the legislation, then the legislature, the legislative branch of the state must approve those changes. So in Pennsylvania, for instance, you had changes to voting laws. In Georgia, you had the governor making changes. Texas said,

how are we supposed to participate in an election when these states are in violation of the rules of the election for which we are participating? And the Supreme Court which we are participating. And the Supreme Court said, not interested. Because the Supreme Court was leaving it to the states to be in charge of their elections. Well, this didn't answer the question of, the Constitution says the legislative branch has the final say. The Supreme Court saying, we don't care if a governor ignores the legislative branch,

outright says, there is no answer to be given as to whether or not this violates the Constitution. So everyone's left in limbo shrugging like, what do we do? But look at what happened in 2000. The Constitution says that states are in charge of their elections. Talk about judicial overreach. The Supreme Court said Florida couldn't count its own votes. That is unconstitutional. The date came and went, though. Pardon?

The reason they had to stop is because the end date came. No, they said that because they felt it would be an unusual burden on George Bush. You know, I got to be honest. I just don't think I'm old enough to have that be relevant to my view of what happened in 2020. Yeah. So I absolutely respect your position on it. My point is. So the Constitution actually says the legislative branch is up to the legislative branches of the states to determine how the states.

That's my point. Right. Not the governor and not judges. So if a judge changes the rules to an election, the question raised by Texas was, hey, whoa, whoa, whoa, the Constitution and per the Supreme Court's own rulings, you know, the legislative branch should be determining the final outcome of their how the auctions are run, not a judge changing at the last minute. And the Supreme Court just said not interested. And so this was an original jurisdiction lawsuit. It wasn't an appeal. There was no answer given as to whether or not states, the legislative branch must be the principal factor in determining their elections.

So you end up with 48 states involved. I believe it was 48, Texas v. Pennsylvania, and then every other state joined sides either with Pennsylvania or Texas, amicus briefs flying through the air. And it was only Thomas and Alito who said, we need to answer this question. The rest said, leave us out of it. So what happens? Trump supporters say the Supreme Court has abandoned us. They've not answered the question of how the elections are supposed to be run, combined with the fraud narrative and a bunch of other things results in a lot of people losing their minds. But I agree with Phil. I think that if the supreme court weighed in and gave a simple

opinion then you don't think that uh that donald trump would have claimed that the election was stolen he wouldn't have had to because well no no you're wrong the crowd would have walked over to the capitol the supreme court took the case and ruled on the merits donald trump would be president oh well okay all right so fair enough but he i certainly don't agree if they if they had ruled if they had ruled that it was if they had actually taken it and said no it's fine the supreme court ruled that a governor does not have the right to change how votes are counted without the approval of the legislature mike pence would have been required to send those votes from numerous states back to the legislature to approve the legislatures were Republican and probably would have partisanly just sided with Trump.

Trump would have had nothing to complain about because the Supreme Court, I believe the only correct ruling and the reason why they didn't take it up was that in Georgia, you had the governor issuing rulings on how the election would be run in violation of the Constitution. It was the secretary of state also in violation of the constitution which says that the legislative branch runs the elections and determines how they're so if this i think the reason the supreme court rejected this is they knew the end result would be not that they would determine trump as president but that they would say only the legislative branch decides immediately then the legislative branches of these states would say we hereby nullify those results let

me ask you a question. The constitution says the states are in charge. Does the constitution say the state legislature is in charge? It says the state legislature has final say on the running of the elections. Yeah, specifically. And that's why there was a challenge brought because it wasn't the legislature making the change. For instance, in Pennsylvania, this was big,

a lower court judge ruled that the uh the the universal mail-in voting bill was actually unconstitutional on the merits but it was appealed by democrat groups to the state supreme court and the supreme court ruled despite the fact the constitution does bar you mail-in votes we will allow this to happen that's why texas sued penn sued Pennsylvania saying, whoa, whoa, your own state constitution says you can't have universal mail-in voting and you're doing it anyway. So they said, Supreme Court, you need to stop this. This is in violation of their own constitution. But maybe the state legislature had given that. Maybe the state legislature had. They did. All right. Well, if the state legislature had said to the election board or to the secretary of state, or he had given that, then that is the final say.

It is not. Because the law of Pennsylvania states that in order to amend the Constitution legislatively, there's a series of procedures that must be done. The state legislature abandoned the procedures for amending the Constitution and decided to force through a bill anyway. It was a bipartisan agreement between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans thought that if they got rid of the single party voting, that the idea was someone could go in and just hit all Democrat and then throw their vote in and not have to worry about names. The Republican legislature said we'll give

you universal mail in voting if you get rid of down down ballot party voting. However, many people in the state said, whoa, whoa, you can't do that. That violates the constitution. This is an unconstitutional deal between Republicans and Democrats. They went to court and a lower court judge ruled. Correct. It is unconstitutional to have universal mail-in voting. Democratic groups appealed to the state Supreme court who said, no, no, no, this should be

allowed. Texas that intervened and said, how can we be party to an election in this country if a state's in violation of its own constitution and a judge altered the rules in violation of the federal constitution? They asked for an answer from the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court said, not interested. Everybody loses their minds. Because Pennsylvania had the right to do what pennsylvania wanted to do pennsylvania does not have the right to supersede its own constitution

but the government is still the government still has yeah like hold on if they want to change the law if republican if republicans right now in the house voted to ban free speech would you say that's okay no well the constitution protects us right but we have a supreme. That's why there are three co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court would then have a chance to weigh in on that and would say that that law is unconstitutional. And what if the Supreme Court just said, we're not going to weigh in? Well, I would agree on that one.

You know, that's the point. They refused to weigh in on something that was... I don't think... Even if there's... You know, a lot of the things you're bringing up. I do remember vaguely that there was this stuff with Texas and Pennsylvania, but I'd have to like think about it and read about it to weigh in too much on that. I can tell you this, however, I do not believe that that was the reason, no matter what he said, that Donald Trump, you know, I don't think Donald Trump was taking this big, sophisticated reason. Yeah, I'm sorry.

Not the reason. And I don't think that the people who went over to the Capitol that day and bashed in the window said, you know, it's all because of Texas and Pennsylvania. What do you think about the criminal charges against the people from January 6th? I think that we have a criminal justice system. But a specific example enrique taria was not there pardon enrique taria was not in dc but the what the jury and there was a jury there this was the bit with the proud boys he's enrique tar was the chair of the problem yeah so

the jury said based on things that he had had done with groups of people that he had done on facebook etc a jury decided his culpability. Do you think that a D.C. jury was a jury of his peers? Well, I think that that's, if he had wanted to argue that he could not get a fair trial in Washington, then the legal system is such that he could have made that argument. He did. They said no. And they said no.

Listen, this is interesting. There's going to be a civil war in this country. You're saying there's going to be? I think it is an absolute fact. And I'll tell you... So you think that the law is being weaponized against everybody having anything to do with January 6th? 20 years? Oh, oh, oh.

So, first, did you know that there are people who were acquitted on January 6th because they showed up, opened sidewalks, no gates, police fanned them in and opened the doors, and then when they went to court, they said, Your Honor, here's a video of the cop welcoming me in. The cop said, You're right, case dismissed. Did you know that? And they should be dismissed in that case. Did you know that's hundreds of them? If that is all that someone did, then they should be acquitted.

And there are people who are going to people I've met who are going to jail for 18 months because an hour after the riot on the other side of the building, Trump was speaking. He finishes speaking. The riot is already happening. After the riot was cleared out, there were many people who showed up, no barricades, no signs, and the police opened the doors. There's one family that I met. They were not party to any violence. They walked up the sidewalk with little American flags. They were cops holding the door open. They waved, walked in, looked around. They said they were there about three minutes, shrugged and said, oh, that was cool. And then a few months later, the FBI came to their house in the middle of the night

or in the early hours of the morning, arrested them in front of their children, brought them to trial. And when they argued, we were there an hour after all this. There were no signs. There was no barricades. The police let us in. They said, we don't care. Guilty, 18 months. Well, that sounds wrong to me. And that's a lot of these people. Well, you know, that is like hard to believe.

It's true. Well, and I'm not, listen, I'm not saying that the legal system never makes mistakes either. Was that a case that was tried by a jury? Yes. So what did the jury say? What was the prosecution's argument? Trump supporters are insurrectionists. You go to jail. I don't know. i'd have to read about this tim i mean i i i agree i think you should but yeah i mean i don't i don't i'm not trying to say you're not saying the truth

but i'm saying some of these conversations i would have to read i completely understand so the reason why i said there's going to be a civil war is I do not think you will find 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump are willing to accept that a man who is not at January 6th is going to prison for 20 years for posting on, I believe it was Getter, quote, don't leave. And for that, they sentenced Enrique Tarrio to 20 years in prison. They're not posting. They're not sending him for 20 years only for that. sentenced Enrique Tarrio to 20 years in prison they're not posting they're not sending him for 20 years only for that what did he do they say that he had to do with the entire setup and the entire planning and the entire uh making it happen he's not going to jail just for saying don't leave are you have you read the court documents I read an article about it I have not read the court documents so my point could be let's put it this way. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you're wrong. We can shake hands on that. And so the issue then

becomes a man is going to prison for 20 years. Donald Trump voters will not accept that. Well, Donald Trump voters need to read the court documents as apparently you and I do as well. But I did. I did. That's my point. My point is I did read the case. We covered it quite extensively. We've had Enrique on the show several times. So you're saying that he's being a jury is sending him to jail for 20 years and you're saying it's only because he said don't leave. I think they're sending him to jail because he's a prominent Trump supporter and the chair of the Proud Boys. But you're this this argument would suggest that this massive conspiracy by which every jury member is talking to every... Do you think that if you were tried by a trial of Trump's most ardent supporters, they'd be fair to you?

This is why you have jury questioning before someone is even allowed onto the jury. I would hope... But D.C. is 90 plus percent Democrat. But still they have. But a Democrat is different than whether or not. You think Joe Biden would get a fair trial in Montana? I think that there are. I think we are, in essence, a purple nation in our hearts.

And I think people are interrogated before they're allowed to sit on a jury. And if they say things that are clearly prejudicial, then they are not allowed to sit on that jury. So let's try this. The people who supported Donald Trump enough to go and storm into the Capitol, right? Yes. Trump got 74 million votes. Not every single person would agree with that, but 250,000 people were in D.C. that day to support Donald Trump. People holding that sentiment, do you think they would fairly assess a criminal trial against a Hunter Biden? Listen, I have two very close friends who are Trump supporters, but I think that they would wish to give someone a fair trial no matter who they were. I don't think that who you support politically, I like to think that there is a center of conscience in this country. The fact that I support someone politically doesn't mean I'm going to sacrifice my integrity or my adherence to the law.

So where are the criminal prosecutions for the rioters in 2017, on January 20th? Does it set fire to vehicles, torch things in the streets, smashed windows, beat police. Any time there is anyone who acts outside the law, there is a reason for them to be held accountable. So my question is- That's why Lady Justice has a blindfold on. If it is fair, then why is it that the far left extremists who set fires and vandalized and destroyed things in D.C., not only were they acquitted uh i should say not even acquitted the charges were dropped but they were paid out a million dollar settlement why is it that in in washington dc when the far left destroys burns and and vandalizes and bangs on

the doors and smashes their way into these buildings nothing well first first first of all rioting in the street is different than no but i mean like when they like the united states i mean like when they go in for the death of the vice president with the sure but let's let's let's compare say like uh a guy who uh the q shaman for instance right you're familiar with the q shaman he was escorted into the building by police they walk him around on video trying to open doors for him and lead him to the senate chamber why did that guy go to prison but the people who occupied and disrupted congress for say abortion rights or for the for the dakota access pipeline when they do when the when the left goes and occupies congressional buildings by force wait a minute wait a minute we're talking about individuals right our elected

our elected representatives were afraid for their lives the The building was stormed. But I'm not talking about that. But but but you are when you're talking about the difference between the shaman who was led in by police, I'm saying, pardon, who was escorted in by police. police officers who give him a tour open the door for him and show him where to go he's he's surrounded by cops they give him a guided tour on video it's this is all you can watch it my question is in that particular instance this one guy who's like notorious is he goes to prison or how about better example owen schroyer did not enter the building owen schroyer was at a permitted rally on the capitol grounds and he went to prison and just got out last week. And what had he said? Had he exhorted people to enter the building? Had he exhorted people to violence? He said things like Democrats are communists and communists should die or something. Well, that's not against the law. Well, he went to prison for it. Well, you know, once again, Tim, I'd have to read about that. I mean, I don't know about that particular case. So I think we can agree that people should be held accountable, but should be held fairly accountable, and that the legal system should be fair to everyone.

That's what we can agree on. When it comes to a general conversation with the public, they believe lies from the corporate press about what really happened that day and on other days. And it results in torture, solitary confinement, political persecutions. And this is all actively happening right now. You do think that some of the people who came into the building that day were acting violently. We see that as well. Yes. You do believe that some people. I believe a lot of them.

Okay. And I believe they should go to jail for a good amount of time. Okay, good. 20 years, however? Well, once again, that's up to a jury and a judge. It's our legal system.

So the problem then becomes at a certain point, if Antifa, the Summer of Love riots, firebombed the White House, which they did, where's the May 29th hearings? Why do we not have a May 29th commission on the fire firebombed the White House, which they did. Where's the May 29th hearings? Why do we not have a May 29th commission

on the firebombing of the White House and St. John's Church? Listen, once again, this is why Lady Liberty has a blindfold on. This is why prosecutors should try to be fair, obviously. Well, no, no, I get it. So what it comes down to, I believe, is that you don't know about it.

And I don't mean that disrespectful. Don't know about these specific cases on January 6th. No, no, no. The firebombing of the White House on May 29th, 2020. May firebombing of the White. No, I don't. Firebombing of the White House on May 29th, 2020. So I assume that you're saying it's because the corporate media did not want me to know.

I mean, no, I honestly it was reported widely. There were photos of smoke rising all over D.C. It mass riot they were making fun of donald trump's he had to go down to the donald yeah donald trump was forced into a bunker the police came out and started pushing people out but there's been no hearings there's been no commission saint john's church was set on fire this is a historic american church where i know that church it's set on fire i live far left extremists firebombed the white house grounds the reason you don't know 70 70 firebombed throwing molotov cocktails at the white house and torched a guard post 70 plus police officers were injured so what happened nothing the reason you don't know about it is because the media doesn't make a big deal about it i disagree i disagree i think it's because

without with all due respect i don't think you read the news the way Trump supporters and we do. I'm not saying we as Trump supporters. Well, those two things are not mutually exclusive. I think that the average liberal— I mean, the algorithms and so forth, because I do read the news, and I do watch, and I think of myself as informed, and I'm not—I'll look. Trust me, I'll look. I think what happens is the average liberal is getting their news and information from pundits, not from news sources. Well, I think that's what's wrong with our with our news media today but more people's

opinions than it is uh accurate reporting so for uh we we're being we get smeared all the time as um we have this one agency trying to smear us as fake news despite the fact we use news guard which is a certification agency which gives speaks highly of the new york times and all the corporate press all the sources we use are always certified as credible, but they attack us because in terms of punditry, if you watch Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow, they're lying to you. John Oliver is one of the most deceptive, manipulative people. Jimmy Kimmel is is I view him as malicious evil. He wished death upon his own friend live on television with a despicable man.

And then if you watch Fox News, it's like fairly bad, but not that bad. You definitely got to do your own reading. But we should read Super Chats. I know when it comes... Because I'm just ranting. When it comes to a lot of the people that you were mentioning,

you know, on MSNBC and CNN, what I experienced, which is really chilling, is just complete invisibilization, erasure. You know, when I first announced that I was running for president, I heard a woman say on CNN, she was obviously very miffed that I was running. And she said, I think we should just ignore her. We should just pretend that she's not running. And I thought, well, good luck. And that's exactly what they did. That's their playbook. Yeah, absolutely. And like you said,

at 13% this week on Quinnipini Act, which is really amazing considering the fact that I do not get that exposure on those channels. Let's just pretend she's not there. I'll go a little bit long to read Super Chats

because that's my fault. And there are some very nice things people are saying to you and some good questions. Allie L says, Marianne, I've been blessed by your work for 15 plus years and I appreciate you. Please consider reading the early church fathers and their writings pertaining to Jesus Christ. God bless you and Merry Christmas to the whole TimCast crew.

Cheers. Very nice. So they're nice, right? Positive people. Yes. The Sig P. says, with all due respect, as soon as they show her the JFK photo, she is going to fold to the will of the party. Acknowledging the issue is not enough. What?

Which JFK photos are we? Just a plain old picture of JFK. The joke is, the reason why we don't get change is, take any presidential candidate who says good things. Oh, I see. The moment they sit down in the office, a guy from the CIA sits down and says, just wanted to leave this with you. And they slide a picture at JFK. The implication is. Yeah, I understand. I would like to say I would like to think I would get on television immediately on live television.

Let the people and say I am. I guess I would say that I'm resigning right now, but I want you to know what's going on in your country. I appreciate that. Gnarly Marley says the grapes of wrath, Tom Sawyer and to kill a mockingbird were banned by leftists, not the right. No, that's not true.

I know. I know Tom Sawyer was banned by leftists. Oh, the Tom Sawyer issue is different and it should not have been banned, but grapes of wrath and to kill a mockingbird. Not. I think the issue is different and it should not have been banned. But Grapes of Wrath and Kill a Mockingbird, not. I think the issue is there's a difference between not in the curriculum and banning the book outright.

And a lot of what the argument is around curriculum. How can you say that the Grapes of Wrath should not be in a curriculum? I'm not saying that. It's one of the great works of American literature, of world literature. Maybe age appropriate or something. So the issue is... The idea that Grap works of American literature, of world literature. Maybe age appropriate or something. So the issue is- The idea that Grapes of Wrath, anybody saying Grapes of Wrath should not be read by anyone

for any reason is chilling to me. I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that a lot of what conservatives are saying is don't put this in curriculum, leave it in the library. Why? Why if a school- I'm not talking about Grapes of Wrath. You were asking-

I'm not talking about Grapes of Wrath. You were asking... I'm not talking about Grapes of Wrath. I'm saying a lot of the books that even like we have say shouldn't be in the schools, a lot of conservatives are like,

no, no, no, no, just it shouldn't be required reading. So when I'm talking about Grapes of Wrath or particular Mockingbird, I'm saying that a lot of the books

that have been brought up by the right that they say should be removed, they're not arguing for an outright ban. But like, name a book.

It's one thing to talk about whether kids, you know, stuff about sex in the seventh grade. But that's what it is. Okay, well, that's very different. Some of it is like, if this one should be age appropriate, then it should not be available to children in the library. It can be presented in sex ed with parental permission or whatever. So it's not about a ban. It's about how they present it.

I was reading about this woman who comes up with this list about about what books should be banned. And she admits that she hardly ever read a book in her life and anything that has any any implication of sexual feelings to her is pornographic. This is about this woman. This is I think telling a literature teacher what they can teach is awful. Let's Ken says, how hard will Marianne fight back when the DNC doesn't allow her on the ballot? Bernie didn't fight back at all. Okay, well, right now, I've been posting about it. We've got Florida. We've got Tennessee.

We've got Massachusetts. We've got North Carolina. The issue is how do you fight back? Are you going to fight back with a lawsuit? Well, you talk to a lawyer and you say, well, what would be the cost of going after this on the issue, let's say, of Florida, where the Democratic Party of Florida basically said to the state of Florida, to the Secretary of State, Joe Biden is the only person that we're going to have on the ballot, which is so wrong. I'm an FEC-filed, registered candidate. I've been out there.

I've been campaigning. I've been covered by the news. But that right there is an estimated $75,000, just for that one case in Florida. So as a candidate, you say, where do I spend campaign funds? It costs tens of thousands of dollars, ultimately hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get on these ballots, plus $10,000 for the voter files in every state. So are you going to spend $75,000 fighting Florida? And then you begin to see what has happened, which is, oh, this is not just Florida. They're doing it in Tennessee. They're doing it in Tennessee.

They're doing it in North Carolina. This week they were doing it in Massachusetts. So I'm sort of holding powder dry because the bigger problem is that it's a pattern. I think the main point here that matters has to do with the function of political parties. George Washington warned us about them in his farewell address. And he said that they could form factions of men who were more loyal to their party than to their country. And John Adams said that they were a threat to democracy. So the point here is that traditionally, the political party stood in the

background, let the voters decide who the nominee would be, and then the party came in. So to me, candidate suppression is a form of voter suppression. So how much will I fight? Certainly as much as I can. Spending $75,000 just to go after a case in Florida when you also have the cost of everything else and the fact that everything is so expensive is one of the ways the system is rigged.

That to me is a bigger issue. So elegant news. I'm going to rephrase your statement because it's kind of a question, but I'm going to rephrase it so it's easier to just read out. In reference to Enric Eitario and the sentencing, would you agree with black people being sentenced to long prison sentences if the jury determines that's what should happen? I believe in the jury system. I don't think that it's always perfect, but I believe that we... Listen, like I said,

I don't agree with the Supreme Court decision in 2000, but that doesn't mean I was going to burn down the Supreme Court building. So juries come up with their decisions. Some of them are fair. Some of them are obviously unfair, but it's the best that we have. Do you think like a jury of white people from a wealthy suburb are going to be fair to a impartial to like a black man accused of selling drugs?

Well, I think that's why they have this. That's why this question. That's why often it is, you know, there is a movement for a case to be tried elsewhere for that reason. I mean, that's part of the system that one can argue that one, this person could not get a fair trial in this area. I mean, that happens all the time. If a judge were to say a fair trial would not be possible. So we're going to do it here anyway. Would you find that acceptable in terms of how our system is supposed to work? No, but I've never heard a judge say that. A judge, I've never heard a judge say, and by the way, I'm having a little difficulty here

because I think now it's a little too loud and I don't know if I'm talking weird because I'm... No, you're fine. I've never heard a judge say, I admit you couldn't get a fair trial here, but we're going ahead with the trial anyway. And I don't agree with every judge, but that's just something. And what do you think would be, like, let's say that hypothetically happened, and there was someone who was being charged with a crime, and the judge said, they petitioned for a change of venue, and the judge says, there's nowhere you can go that will free you from the

bias of this place, so we're doing it here anyway. I don't think that would be right, and somebody would be petitioning somebody. I mean, even in those cases, there is such a thing as judicial prejudice. Somebody would be would be arguing that there was judicial prejudice. And this is the case would not stop there. What if the case did stop there? And the case did stop there. I'd be the first to say this is wrong. So will you stand up in defense of Derek Chauvin? Wow. Derek Chauvin petitioned for a change of venue and the judge said

there is no venue you can go to where you'll be free of any bias so we do it here anyway. So is the issue... Wasn't there some legitimacy to that given the fact that everybody saw the video? Everybody saw the video

so how could there be lack of prejudice anywhere right so are you saying so the question is about uh the constitution and what is fair in the court of law and not what we want to have happened because of our feelings so if the issue is a judge says there will be no fair trial for you my argument is then there's no trial at all and the man should be released because that's a limitation of our democratic system that's what your argument would be absolutely okay so you and i totally disagree on that one if a court cannot grant a fair trial under under the constitution then the court cannot imprison a person yeah well you and i don't agree on that one so you think you

think that uh people should be the state should be allowed to imprison people even without due process i think that there that that was an overriding circumstance of the fact that the judge was correct. There were very few people in the United States who had not seen the video. That's all the judge was saying. The judge was saying, we're going to do our best. We're going to do our best in the way we interrogate people

to make sure that they will be as non-prejudiced as possible. But the judge was admitting there's no location where it's going to be any different. Do you think it was fair that the other officers involved who were not, other officers who were there but not involved in the handling of George Floyd, do you think it's fair they went to prison? I think that there's a lot of accountability in a person who stands there knowing if you know that somebody is murdering someone and what he was doing, it was reasonable to assume that he would die. Absolutely, I think trying those officers makes sense. What if it was for one of the officers who was holding back the

crowd? I wouldn't say holding back, but standing in front of with his arms out, because I don't think he made physical contact pushing them or anything he's going to prison and uh his defense was he wasn't actually looking he didn't know what was going on and as far as he knew what chauvin was doing was in line with the training okay so if i was a jury i'd be listening very very carefully did he did he see what was going on or not i mean that's what a trial is for a trial to to prove you know if if saw, if it was clear to me as a jury member. No, he saw and he chose to do nothing. But if somebody else was holding back the crowd and said that he didn't even see, I would listen very carefully.

And I would listen to testimony and I would see video. And it would make, obviously, a huge difference whether he knew or not. We're going to go to the members only uncensored show. I really appreciate it. So we'll be back in about a minute. We went a little long because, you know, I didn't read enough. But smash the like button, subscribe to the channel, share the show with your friends. Head over to TimCast.com.

Click join us, become a member because we're going to take some calls from the audience. Really do appreciate it. And download the best song ever. Go to the best song ever.com. Click download your your price this is the last call to action we will have if everybody listening bought it we would smash into the billboard charts jeremy boring michael knolls me carter banks we would get to uh hit that uh hot 100 and that would be fun i don't think we're gonna make it but with your support it's possible uh you can follow the show at timcast irl you can follow me personally at timcast marian, do you want to shout anything out?

No. Do I want to say anything? Shout anything out, your website? Oh, yeah. My website is Marianne2024.com, and I would welcome people going there. We didn't really talk about political issues as they pertain to my campaign tonight, but if people want to see my issues, please go to my social media and go to maryann2024.com absolutely and i appreciate it right on thanks for coming i am uh phil that remains on twix i'm phil that remains official on instagram the band is all that remains you can find us on spotify apple music amazon music pandora youtube you know the internet i'm ian cross and follow me at ian cross on the internet and maryann you are at mar williamson on twitter great to see you wonderful night you too we just got started that was hot surge talk me out yeah i'm excited for the after show uh pleasure to have you here

marianne thank you much for coming appreciate it so it's good to have people with uh different viewpoints than uh the average on the show as far as our audience is concerned anyways guys i'm surge.com yeah let's go to the after show. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com. Thanks for hanging out.