Timcast IRL - TRUMP CHARGES DISMISSED, Federal Prosecutor May Face Criminal CHARGES w/Dudley Brown

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Tim, Phil, & Ian are joined by Dudley Brown & Ronnie Adkins to discuss, a judge dismissing Trump's election interference case, the CEO of Axios losing it after Elon Musk claimed X is the media now, Trump announcing he will implement 25% tariffs against Mexico & Canada, and Donald Trump announcing plans to ban transgender individuals from the US Military. Dudley Brown is a prominent gun rights advocate and political strategist in the United States, known for his leadership roles in organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guests: Dudley Brown @dudleywbrown (X) Ronnie Adkins @RonnieAdkins_ (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The charges against Donald Trump at the federal level have been dismissed. Jack Smith filed to drop him. The judge agreed they're dismissed. However, they're dismissed without prejudice, meaning it sounds like they are hoping they can charge Trump again once he leaves office. So they may be dismissed, but they want to play ball. Pam Bondi said she's going to prosecute the bad prosecutor. So maybe they go after Jack Smith. I don't know what's going to happen, but things could get particularly

spicy. So we'll talk about that. Then we got this viral clip from Axios where the CEO is screaming about how X is not the news. How dare you? And everyone's making fun of them because their viewership is in the gutter. Turns out, Timcast Media is three times the size of Axios. Sorry, guys. Hope that investment paid out. And then we've got big news. This is actually from a week ago,

but it's been getting bigger with more outlets picking up the story. Rural counties in California and Illinois are voting to secede from their states. Now, the biggest impact, of course, is Illinois, where 73% of people are in favor of seceding because they don't like Cook County, which is basically Chicago,

which is pretty interesting. And as always, head over to castbrew.com until midnight tonight. I believe still in effect, let's see, let's make sure that it is, should be the Thanksgiving discount. There it is. Look at that. I clicked the bag for Alex Stein's Primetime Grind.

There is a discount on everything. 30% off because we wanted to make sure you guys could get your coffee in time for Thanksgiving. So if you buy literally as this show is live, it's not a guarantee, I don't know, but we're going to give you that discount and hopefully it does make it to you by Thanksgiving. And we thought it would be a delicious treat

for all of you guys who like Casper Coffee, Appalachian Nights, of course, everybody's favorite. And as always, head over to Tim by Thanksgiving. And we thought it would be a delicious treat for all of you guys who like Casper Coffee, Appalachian Nights, of course, everybody's favorite. And as always, head over to timcast.com, click Join Us to become a member and support our work directly. And you'll get access to the uncensored members-only show. And we're going to be talking a lot about guns. We're going to be talking,

we're going to get into the deep lore of guns because our guest here was here when it was written. So would you like to introduce yourself, sir? Dudley Brown, I'm the president of the National Association for Gun Rights. We're the largest gun rights group in America since obviously the NRA isn't a gun rights group.

And I've been doing it for 31 years now. If you live in a state that has permitless carry, concealed and open, you can thank me. Chances are good we were involved in it. So including here in West Virginia. So deeply involved in the 2A fight and space and been doing it for a long time. Have a lot of really great employees and people who care passionately. And we're big fans. Right on. Well, thanks for coming. We have another guest here. Who are you, sir?

I am Ronnie Adkins. I am the Industry Relations Director at National Association for Gun Rights. I'm also the Vice President of Funker 530, and it's a little tough to follow that. I'm not sure what I'm doing here. I'm really just wearing pants against my will. All right. Ian's hanging out.

Yeah, man. I'm a bit of a gun noob, so it's good to see you guys have a little pregame chat. We'll be gentle. Yeah, I'll be asking the layman questions, and we'll maybe suss some of this stuff out. Ian Crossland, reporting for duty. Hello, I am Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary, and yeah, let's go. Smash that like button, my friends.

Share the show with everyone you know. And then let's jump into that news. We got this from ABC News. Trump election case is tossed after special counsel Jack Smith requests dismissal, citing categorical DOJ policy. The judge left open the highly unlikely possibility of a future prosecution. The judge overseeing Trump's election interference case dismissed the case Monday after special counsel Jack Smith asked the judge to toss the case due to longstanding DOJ policy that bars the prosecution of a sitting president.

What I find interesting here is that Trump is not the sitting president, but they're they're dropping the case even before he gets in simply. And he's not even legally president elect. He's only he's only, I guess, in the media. We call him that he's not president elect until they count the media, we call him that. He's not president-elect until they count the Electoral College votes on January 6th, and he's not president until January 20th when he's sworn into office. So as of right now, he's just the guy who the media says has won, and they're already dropping the cases against him. They say Smith also asked the judge in Trump's classified documents case that his appeal against Trump's two co-defendants in that case, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, be allowed to continue. U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan dismissed the election interference charges

against Trump without prejudice, leaving open the highly unlikely possibility of a future prosecution. Now, here's where it gets interesting. Pam Bondi, Trump's choice for AG, says that she has a she has a past vow. She will prosecute the bad prosecutors who indicted Trump. NBC News reports in 2013, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's office faced a decision where they joined investigations from other state attorneys general into Trump University, where students paid $35,000 for business classes that critics claimed were fraudulent. Blah, blah, blah. Since then, two former state attorneys general have followed polar opposite political paths.

Let's get to the point. Bondi spent the last decade, et cetera, et cetera. Bondi called the prosecutors who charged Trump with crime members of the crimes, members of the deep state, spreading a false conspiracy theory that DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents were part of a secret cabal trying to undermine Trump. Bondi, without citing evidence,

said that since they were no longer hiding in the shadows, they can all be investigated. Now, I love how this is an opinion piece. NBC News loves doing that. Heavy opinion injected into this. Very little news other than Pam Bondi has in the past said prosecute the bad prosecutors. So we're all hoping. But I will add, if they're saying outright that this is the charges being dropped without

prejudice and there's a possibility of Trump being charged in the future, they are basically screaming at the top of their lungs to Trump's AG to criminally charge them. I mean, look, I don't know. I mean, I just want to see the see Pam Bomdy go after what's his name? The the special counsel, because if I Jack Smith, if I understand correctly, he was appointed illegally, right? Yeah, I believe this. Wasn't there a court ruling that he was not eligible? Let's pull that up. Yeah, I'm not sure what the details were. But if I understand correctly, he was appointed illegally.

I believe it was the Supreme Court that said that his, his role as special prosecutor was, was, it was, there was some procedural reason that he wasn't. But, you know, if he is not, if it's not legal and he's been spending all this time going after President Trump or President Elect Trump, whatever you want to call him, I would like to see this get taken out because I personally don't think, I mean, regardless of your opinion on Donald Trump as a president, um, you know, if, if the existing administration creates a scenario where it's a politic, where it's just political motivation to go after a president, I mean, this is unprecedented. This it's something that has historically, uh, you know, presidents that break the law and do things that are questionable, questionable legally or the legality is questionable. That's been something that, you know, Washington and the opposing party hasn't gone after presidents for.

President Obama with the with the with the drone strikes that killed American citizens. Yeah, Judge Eileen Cannon ruled, this is back in July, that Jack Smith's appointment as special counsel was unconstitutional because he was not appointed by the president or confirmed by Congress, leading to her to dismiss the entire case. So this is back in July. Who was he appointed by, does that say? By the DOJ. Right, yeah.

But we are losing sight of an issue here, though, because the core issue we're talking about is is the claims of fraud that that the 2020 election was stolen. And should that be should it be taboo to question and make wild claims about a stolen election. I don't know. I don't know where the law says. There has to be. You have to be able to. Well, you have to be able to question it, but should you be able to make any claim you want and not have to prove it? And in the case of a sitting president, who at the time anyway was sitting and was calling, we know he was calling a secretary of state in Georgia and saying, can you find 8,200 votes? Find me 8,200 votes or whatever it was. Yeah, that does, basically what it does is it degrades our faith in institutions.

And without faith in institutions, we are not a country. We are not. I'd argue that we're not a country when the Supreme Court refused to issue a ruling on Texas v. Pennsylvania, when Texas was challenging under original jurisdiction whether or not Pennsylvania violated the Constitution by altering the rules of an election outside the legislature. And the Supreme Court said, we're a bunch of cowards who won't look into this. And only Thomas and Alito had the gall to actually say, well, this is our jurisdiction. We need to answer this question because of that. So you can argue that. I think it's fair to say, you know, we've got one side that's arguing Trump

was wrong. He shouldn't have done this. I say, sure. The other side says, well, Trump has to do this. I agree that any anyone who questions an election has an absolute right and duty, especially a president, to investigate or push in all facets the challenges under the law. But when the courts start throwing out every challenge on standing so we don't actually get rulings and the Supreme Court refuses to actually hear the challenges when we see states where judges and governors were changing election rules, then you're going to get absolute chaos. Because if you go to the courts and you actually argue on the merits, the judges didn't do this.

They threw him out on standing for the most part, meaning, oh, we don't think that Trump's has has standing in this. He's not party to the damages. Then what ends up happening is one side says we are not being heard and the election was rigged. That that's the only conclusion they're going to make. But hasn't Trump already said that he he did lose 2020? He just recently said that. No. During the debate, he was challenged on that. And then he snapped. It was like, what? No, I never said that. I said I said it was stolen. It was stolen. And and that was actually a point of contention in the Kamala in the debate because they said Trump started. It's it's it's this this trap that they've laid for Trump consistently in the press where they want him to yell about previous election or the previous election instead of this current one. Trump ranted on it and said, I didn't lose.

I didn't lose. And then finally went, I don't want to talk about the past anymore and decided, which which actually I don't want to talk about the past. Wish that had happened much earlier. I mean, it worked out. But but the fact was, but we've got to stop prosecuting this 2020 i i mean we all agree that there should be election integrity and we got to make the efforts to do it but just literally talking about destroying the institutions completely and saying we need to terminate the constitution is not the way a conservative should a conservative should i don't think trump trump ever said he wants to terminate the Constitution.

I mean, well, he's been he's been he's a little wishy washy on when it comes to when it comes to fidelity to the Constitution. But I mean, look, the argument I think that the argument that Trump would would would make or was making that the the 2020 election was novel because of COVID, because of the way things that went, because of a lot of things that went down. It was completely and totally different from any other election in history. I don't think that anyone is going to argue that it was normal. The fact that there was so much ballot harvesting, that there were ballots mailed out to people based just on the census, right? And so all those things changed the way that the election, the results of the election. And so whether or not Trump articulates properly

the arguments that he's making, because the guy never articulates arguments properly. He's talking with his gut, and that's how people hear him too. And how he connects with people. Exactly. That's what resonates with him. It does. And so fair enough, people that are and how he connects with people exactly exactly that's what resonates it does exactly and and so fair enough people that are going to go ahead and look at the letter of the law they're going to say trump said this and he said that and it was wrong and blah blah they're probably right but the fact of the matter is the everyone does is does agree

that because of covet and because of the way the election was it was a novel election and to for trump to say look find me look, find me the votes because I know they're there. That's not saying go create votes. That's saying go count. And they did find votes later on. Yeah. They were like, oh, look, a USB with a bunch of votes on it. Yeah. But that's the point. So Trump never called for the termination of the Constitution. This is a lie from the corporate press. CNN runs the headline. Check this out. This is hilarious. Trump calls for termination of Constitution and Truth Social Post. Of course, the people who then don't follow the media or who don't follow who don't follow news just see the headline and believe it's true.

What Trump actually said, quote, Do you throw out the presidential? Do you throw out the presidential election results of 2020 out? Do you throw the presidential election results of 2020 out and declare the rightful winner? Or do you have a new election? A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Then big tech, blah, blah, blah. So the issue there is, this is not news, this is an opinion piece. Real news would say, Donald Trump made a statement about fraud in the election and what it could result in. They would then go on to say, while some in the Democratic Party are saying this is Trump calling for the termination of the Constitution,

others are pointing out Trump is saying that should there be a fraud, the rules have been thrown out and this allows people to to navigate beyond the Constitution. He never called specifically for doing it. They just lied because CNN is opinion and not fact. When it comes to having faith in the institution, I agree it's important, but I think it's also legal for people to lie, politicians to lie. And if they say there's fraud when there's no fraud, I'm pretty sure it's legal to do that.

And since, you know, politicians lie, I lose faith in the industry. I just, I can't do this, dude. Liz Cheney, this is an article from 2022. Donald Trump believes we should terminate, quote, all rules. He never said that. Imagine said this said it like this section 230 allows for people to post obscene disgusting far-left psychotic content on social media and throw out all norms as it

pertains to free speech does that is that me calling for the overturning of free speech and that's what they do whenever trump Trump says something, and by all means, I'm not going to defend Trump on his, on his accurate, on him having accurately articulated anything pertaining to the 2020 election. He gets criticized right now

because he went on Joe Rogan and when Rogan asked him about what happened in 2020, he didn't really have much to say. But I digress. They run these smears and you know what? All that matters is

he won the popular vote because people have seen through Liz and Dick Cheney's BS and the corporate press screaming and crying about how they're the real press and no one else is but in reality they're just lying the whole time. Well it didn't hurt that he was running against someone who had run a coup against the sitting president Joe Biden and had 107 days to campaign and was a horrible candidate. And frankly, I think he...

When you throw somebody in sideways, you know... That did not hurt. But I agree with you. He resonated with people unlike anybody expected. And, you know, to the point that Dudley was making earlier, like, you know, you can be critical of President Trump. But when you when you factor in the things like the novel election and stuff, it makes it really hard to say, OK, yes, Trump has to else. The, the, the, the borders are kind of fuzzy or, or the,

the distinction between legal and illegal or, or procedure following procedure and not following procedure. If all of those situations are all fuzzy and kinda, and you're not sure and blah, blah, blah. But then when, when it comes to Trump, everything is, it must be the letter of the law, exactly. Blah, blah, blah. He said this, and that alludes to this and blah, blah, blah. Then you're, you're going to have people that, that look at the situation and the law, exactly, blah, blah, blah. He said this, and that alludes to this, and blah, blah, blah. Then you're going to have people that look at the situation and they say, well, I don't trust either side. I don't believe that either side actually has honesty as their goal. There were a lot of claims about 2020, and I just largely say, I don't know.

I think it was just ballot harvesting. The funny thing is that article says that Pam Bondi was alluding to some kind of secret cabal or whatever but uh as we know it was time magazine that uh actually coined the phrase shadow campaign and i think they actually referred to it as a cabal didn't they they did so let's cabal when i read yes they did they said a well funded cabal of powerful people were conspiring they literally say conspiracy uh so time magazine wrote this article molly ball did and i love bringing it up because this just refutes so much of what they were saying the secret history the shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election where they say a conspiracy was unfolding where a well-funded cabal was engaging in electioneering blah blah, blah, blah. Journalism at its finest. When I read this, I was blown away that they actually printed it

because I'm like, this is coming out and literally admitting to doing everything they can to rig the election, right? That's the way that it reads. All of the verbiage they use and stuff like that. And I sent it to some of my left-leaning friends. And of course, they're like're like well that's just politics well i'm like then what the hell do i care about if donald trump is saying oh find me the votes because they're there he wasn't saying find me the votes as in create them and it and it becomes it becomes really hard again like i said earlier it becomes really hard for me to think oh well you know donald trump has to be be squeaky

clean and and write to the letter of the law when time magazine publishes this and everyone on the left says oh well yeah i don't know if that's the case it's like up yours i think they just act smug and say yeah this is this is power this is february 4th 2021 It is just after the inauguration, well before the criminal charges against Trump pertaining to January 6th or anything like that. They were writing articles where they outright, I should say, Democrats and their allies in media had published an article where they outright explained that they engaged in a conspiracy. Their words, the conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, resistant CEOs and powerful unions and a shadowy cabal. And then Donald Trump's like, maybe we should investigate the election. And they're like, lock him up. If the LCAO is not what we'd call a right wing cabal, nor is the chamber of compromise. So, but back to the original point about a potential AG coming in and wiping the slate clean and saying,

all right, I'm going to prosecute these people for what they've done. Let's shine some light on the rats and see what happens. Now you're talking my language, Dudley. Let's put lawfare over. We feel like a banana republic because we've seen these using the judicial system to prosecute people and put your political opponents in jail rather than just beating them in an election. You know, the issue I have with targeting Jack Smith with lawfare is that he got appointed illegally. It wasn't him. I mean, technically, once he was appointed, he was doing something illegal.

But the people that appointed him should be investigated. Like whoever that was at the DOJ that appointed an illegal special counsel should be investigated. Multi-layer accountability. Sure, it's Merrick Garland. I mean, who else? The individual himself, but each of those layers that ultimately contributed to the end state. The man who's not a Supreme Court justice, Merrick Garland.

That's how you should refer to him all the time. Let's jump to the story from the post-millennial. Axios CEO goes on tirade, labeling Elon Musk's declaration that citizens are the media now as BS. I love this because the dude is just absolutely losing his mind and it's fun to watch.

Got any popcorn? Oh, it's on MSNBC. I want some popcorn here. Watch this. Where's the audio? We got no sound. Is it muted? What's going on? We just have no sound. Give me the sound. Mute it. Oh, there we go. I see.

Nope, nope. Sound is just, we just don't have sound. Have you tried the ONOFS? Twitter, everything we do is under fire. Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or X today saying like, we are the media. You are the media. My message to Elon Musk is bulls**t.

You're not the media. Yeah, we are primal. You having a blue checkmark, a Twitter handle, and 300 words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter. You don't do that by popping off on Twitter. You don't do that by having an opinion. You do it by doing the hard work. What hard work are you doing there, buddy? Tim, this is really like the candle makers being furious at light bulbs.

Yeah. I mean, they are so far behind the swing here that they don't, do they not know that their occupation is basically dead? There's a great line in iRobot because I watched it a couple weeks ago and Will Smith's character

is talking to the CEO and he's like, your robots are bad basically. And he was like, I got a commercial idea for you. It's a carpenter working really hard to make a birdhouse and the robot comes in and does it better

and then you call it, you know, our company, ishing on a little guy and the guy says, you're the kind of person that would ban the internet to save libraries. And that's what I see with this guy in the corporate press. The issue is, they're not the media. What does it mean to be the media? Did he say, you're not the news?

Let's play that again. Thank you. My first question was going to be, we are the media. My message today is saying, like, we are the media. You are the media. My message to Elon Musk is, bulls**t. You're not the media. Hold on.

And that's the important distinction. He didn't say news. No, exactly. He didn't say they're doing fact-checking. He's saying we are the elites who control the broadcast towers, and the little people, the rabble, are not allowed to speak up. That's what he's saying well the age of internet video you are the media you are your own producer you are your own

creator and media is much more than news and journalism you make a song and you put it on the internet that's a piece of media you control your media now well look at that picture what he's standing at the national press club and doesn't that strike anybody as weird? It's the press club. Why is it the press? Because they were pressing ink on paper. That's how far back we are talking about. You can say, oh, it's tradition.

No, these are dinosaurs who are extinct and they don't understand the nuance and energy that goes into some of this content creation that you have now that's bringing reality to people's faces when the media, you know, mainstream media, whatever you want to define that as, is, right? So the effort, like you alluded to, to, you know, produce your own content, set up your own studio, fund your own studio. I mean, I'm in one right now that has kind of built itself. What work is he talking about that's not there for that? Funker's an example. You guys put like head cams on soldiers. Well, you don't do it, but head cams on soldiers, body cams. So we send our team members into conflict zones, right?

You know, I mean, we're a step beyond that. You know, I'm talking about more of the people that try to provide that expert nuance on things where you'll have, you know, this media segment that's like a four minute long hit on such a nuanced topic like war, you really need these, these creators in spaces that are available, like Twitter to really provide the additional context and nuance necessary to distill something like that. Because watching the news, you can ingest the entirety of the news, but being able to then digest that information, do you have enough context and nuance to do that? I don't think you do because, again, and I've done some of these spots, it's a four-minute. You get four minutes to relay your information.

The fascinating thing about this guy losing his mind is that I'm like, bro, it's been 14 years, right? X has been around for a long time, Twitter at the time. And I remember during the Arab Spring and then during the Spain, what was it like an M24 movement was called. And then, of course, Occupy Wall Street. Everybody was using Twitter to report and relay information. And the news media at the time was saying, look at this social media, citizen journalism. Now, the funny thing is, these people lost their minds. And to this day, they still don't know what citizen journalism is. And I'll give you the distinction because this is important. The only reason anybody gets the definition of citizen journalist wrong is because scumbags like this guy

and the elites who face losing their job want to make sure they disparage and discredit an independent media. Citizen journalism is this. A guy is walking his dog. A car crashes and he pulls out his phone and he films it. He uploads the video. He guy is walking his dog. A car crashes, and he pulls out his phone, and he films it. He uploads the video. He walks home with his dog. He never engages in journalism again. Citizen journalism was coined as a reference to regular people

posting video and photos to the internet. However, what ends up happening is we now have on X, and we've had for some time now, but now it's getting particularly more prominent, especially with the ability to make money, accounts that exist solely for the purpose of reporting news. That would just be a journalist, a regular journalist. Mario Noffel, for instance, a guy who has a team, they collect information, they disseminate it on Twitter. He's got, or on X, he's got a big show. This is a guy who is not a citizen journalist,

but the corporate press has long called any independent personality citizen journalist, because in these circles, in the press club and at these events like News Exchange, they all understand that to mean these people are not journalists. They accidentally are reporting news. So that's why when I hear people using their language, I reject. I say that's not what citizen journalism is. And I'm proud to say that 11 years, 13 years ago, I went to, or this is 11 or 12 years ago, I went to News Exchange in Morocco and I sat in front of a crowd of several thousand journalists and I said they should all be fired from their jobs, every single one of them, because they have no idea how to use technology and they're reporting in archaic means, in archaic ways that do not reach regular people. And here we are, finally, this guy is now screaming, having figured it out.

But I love it because there's another moment I want to shout out at. It was Black Hat, I believe, the hacker convention, much more corporate than DEF CON, but they happened around the same time. And there were these like powerful,

there was some panel was happening on digital media, social media. And the people who run these big companies, there were a couple of people on a panel. Someone asked in the audience, why should we care what you have to say? We can get information from regular people on social media, and they lost their minds. Dude, it's about time these dinosaurs accept that they are trying to ban the internet to save libraries. The situation that he doesn't seem to, that he neglects to even address is the fact that the corporate media failed miserably during COVID. That's a big reason why you see podcasts and you see new media or the media had been pushing back as opposed to doing exactly what the government said they should do, then they might be in a position to say what the service that we provide is valuable, but they were a literal arm of the government.

They were a propaganda machine and they did whatever the government said. There was so much pushback about the idea that it came from China. Just saying that it came from China would get you called racist and stuff. And I'm not going to get into the many things that turned out to be untrue during COVID. But the fact that the media was doing exactly what the government wanted them to do, and they did it because they wanted the access to the government and they wanted to be able,

they wanted to know that they would get a cushy job or they would be able to get someone's home phone number so they could get the scoop, so they could get the information out to the population fastest. And they totally abdicated their initial job, which was to hold powerful people accountable. They became just a propaganda arm, and they totally missed the whole point of their existence. So for them to say now that they're upset that the new media, that other sources are out there, is absolutely ridiculous. This is just them.

He's chanting, look at me, because you people are ignoring me. As Tim said, you guys, Axios is what? How big compared to Timcast? Oh, they do. So someone posted a report. They do like 24 million per month. And I'm like, wow, that's crazy. We do like 70 to 80.

From a certain perspective though, right? So my military background is in like information operations, right? So I also see an open-ended platform like this as kind of a gold mine if I was still performing that function from a dissemination perspective. As a dissemination medium, something without checks and balances from a level of expertise, what you're really looking at is the opportunity to really shape narratives in whichever direction you want with some false sense of expertise, right? So you'll have these, you know, anonymous Twitter accounts, kind of, kind of, ex-accounts, excuse me, kind of posing as this, as some level of expert on a topic when in actuality, what you're really seeing is something regurgitated with a couple words changed.

So where exactly the balance is to that, you know, I'm not really nuanced or eloquent enough to understand, but I do know that when I look at something like this, I see a breeding ground for misinformation, disinformation, stuff like that. And you can't say that that's not there. And the design is that the community is supposed to weed that out. But what's going to need to happen over time is it's going to take time, right? Rather than being told somebody is an expert and presenting bona fides over time, you'll have to eventually, as a society, weed out those accounts. Yeah, we've got community notes. That's a really good stab at that.

And it's kind of like saying, reality is a breeding ground for murder, and how do we navigate around the way of laws, and we have rules and social morals? Because it is. Real life is a breeding ground for all the horrible things that can happen in real life. We've just tempered it

so that it's very unlikely for it to occur. And it's the same thing with disinformation on social media. The level of anonymity opportunity is orders of magnitude higher when you can just throw up an anime profile pic and then make broad-ranging claims on topics that you don't necessarily have the expertise yourself, but if it's confident. So those that have studied communication styles know that delivery of information confidently

increases the likelihood that somebody's gonna believe what you're saying, right? So if you deliver that information confidently and it seems to be contrary to what a wider opinion is, then those of us that are open-minded, myself included, are going to pay a little bit of attention to that. But what we can't see is the orders of magnitude below that or beyond that, where the origin of the information is coming from.

Let's jump to this story from Reuters. Trump pledges 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico, deeper tariffs on China. So this story was breaking just a few hours ago. Donald Trump posted on January 20th is one of the many first executive orders. I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada 25, a 25% tariff on all products coming into the United States and its and its ridiculous open borders. Trump said the tariffs would remain in place until the two countries clamped down on drugs,

particularly fentanyl and migrants crossing the border illegally. On China, the president-elect accused Beijing of not taking strong enough action to stop the flow of illicit drugs crossing the U.S. border into the U.S. from Mexico. Until such time as they stop, we will be charging China an additional 10 percent tariff above any additional tariffs on all of their many products coming into the United States, Trump said. Trump has previously pledged to end China's most favored nation trading status and slap tariffs on Chinese imports in excess of 60 percent, much higher than those imposed during

the first term. I got to say, based AF, I'm very excited for this and I look forward to seeing how it plays out. Wow. Am I the worst case scenario? They raised the price of everything by 25%? Well, that's right. I mean, everything.

Yeah, nothing could go wrong with that. So, I mean, inflation, anybody familiar with inflation? So I was really critical of Trump in his first term when he talked about a trade, when everyone was talking about a trade war, right? And the trade war never materialized. We never had the negative consequences that we were told were going to happen when Donald Trump comes and gets in office and there's a trade war never materialized. We never had we never had the negative consequences that we were told were going to happen if when Donald Trump comes and gets an office and there's a trade war because the trade war never happened. Right. This is the so the complaints about these tariffs is just first order thinking what's going to happen. Mexico and Canada are going to say, please,

for love of God, know what do we have to do to stop this? And then Trump's going to say, I want these concessions and then the tariffs never materialize. The concessions should be that Alberta becomes greater Montana. I don't know. I like that idea. Territorial. Beautiful, man. I just got back from a trip up there, dude.

It's awesome. Well, the big problem is that if they don't materialize, fine. It's a trade negotiation. Yeah. But we have imposed tariffs. It's one of the many factors that drove inflation. So what- Look at Chinese goods and whether they're almost anything you buy from over there, which

if you say you don't buy them, you got a phone in front of you. Sure. Sorry, you do. Well've got a phone in front of you. Sure. Sorry, you do. Well, this is made in Korea. Okay. I think actually iPhones are China, and I think Androids, well, actually some Androids are made in China. And ViewSonic, who makes those monitors?

Oh, it's all China. Yeah, yeah, yeah but but um of course the negotiation and trying to close the borders down and make sure we're holding tight but sorry i'm not a tariffs guy and i never have been and and no and no austrian economist um will make that argument no sorry and look like i i have a lot of libertarian leanings in my in my pat like my past there was a time where i called myself a lot of libertarian leanings in my in my past like my past there was a time where i called myself a libertarian and that's exactly how i thought of it when it when they were talking about the trade war i was like this is bad news all the people that i listen to and and read read stuff about they all said this is a bad deal and like i said it never

materialized so all i can say is i like if this was the when the first time I was thinking, oh, this is what the the Austrians tell me. And I agree. Maybe, you know, and I was wrong and I was proven to be wrong. So, again, I'm not an economist and I don't know what's going to happen. But I would I would at the very least say I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt this time because it was fine last time. Let's start here. Do you know how skateboards are made? No. Not a skateboard expert. That's for sure. Just because we make skateboards and I've been skateboarding my whole life, I know this. Skateboards are made of North American rock maple, either coming from the U.S., usually from Canada.

They don't make the skateboards here. They take the wood, they chop the trees down, put them on big shipping containers and send them to China, where Chinese laborers for dirt slave labor costs turn them into skateboards, then putting on big cargo ships and sending them back to the United States. I never understood why that made sense. That's actually consuming more energy and more wasteful. But it's okay because the Chinese laborers work for 50 cents an hour. So you can get a skateboard for cheaper so long as it's made by Chinese slave labor. The problem? The American companies that used to make skateboards go out of business, and now people can't afford skateboards anymore.

Skateboards end up costing $80 for a pro model where they used to cost $55. And it's because the companies that used to make them locally and could get them to you easily, and the people whose lives were sustained and supported doing it. So what really, really bothers me largely about the shipping off of skateboarding manufacturing to China is that basically skateboarding is dead in this country. What is now an Olympic sport, which used to be a massive multi-billion dollar industry, is watching massive collapse across the board. One of the reasons, I think, is that all of it was outsourced to China.

The people who worked in the industry, who make the products lost their jobs. Now they're not working in skateboarding, advocating for skateboarding, doing sponsorships and promos. They're just out of work. Ain't no Chinese factory is going to come to the United States and put on a skate demo for kids to get them to buy skateboards. So what ends up happening is all of these these factories start going under. And now our culture, our economy and everything is worse off for it. It's an addiction. And I say we put 100 percent tariff on all of these goods and force the factories to come back. So when we make skateboards over at boonies, HQ dot com, they are all made in America. And that means our profit margins are smaller.

But we still sell the boards for fifty five bucks, whereas the other people are making them in China, sell them for more. And, you know, we I'll say that we try. We try. But I'm asking, you know, all of these guys in the industry, why is it that the industry has collapsed? And this is just one example. So you see the auto industry flee Michigan and they start opening plants in Mexico. Donald Trump, this is Michael Moore's famous speech, comes in and he says Donald Trump goes to the auto manufacturers and says, I'm going to slap a 30 percent tariff on all your vehicles

and no one will ever buy them again. It was the first time someone had stood up for the autoworkers in the Rust Belt. When Donald Trump got elected in his first term, what did he do? He did put those. I don't know if he put tariffs down, but we ended up seeing a three billion dollar reinvestment from from these trade restrictions into Michigan to bring back autoworker jobs. Donald Trump loses, Joe Biden gets in. What's the first that happens? That factory leaves once again, and now the autoworkers are under an EV mandate, and they're starting to lose their jobs because nobody wants to buy these things. And what happens to these people? Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that workers and unions, whatever, are guaranteed work when technology is shifting or

changing, but you're not going to do it by government mandate. And shipping off factories to foreign countries doesn't make any sense. And this is a little out of my lane. I'm a gun lobbyist, right? But I studied economics, and I consider myself an Austrian, a big fan of Ludwig von Mises, and a lot of libertarian friends love to school me on that world. I'm a free trader and all it ends up doing is hurting the consumer. Phil, you say, oh, no, I didn't see anything wrong. I'll bet you two years ago you were complaining about inflation.

It doesn't happen immediately. This stuff is a cascading effect. The trade war never materialized. That's what I'm saying. He was saying that he was going to start a trade war, and that was used as a big ask. And then the trade war never actually materialized. So he wasn't even saying that. The media was claiming it was a trade war.

Well, the trade war is a loaded term. But you notice that the Biden administration kept the same tariffs. They didn't even get rid of them. So they agree. To me, it's exactly what the unions want us to do. It's a great way to destroy economies. I don't know the skateboard industry. But look, you're saying you're producing skateboards that are cheaper than the ones in China.

Sounds like you're doing less. That's incorrect. We are losing profits, sacrificing to make sure we can try and revive a dead industry and bring back the jobs that were lost. Because these scumbags, these companies, they don't care about the long term. They're addicted to short term gains. And they think to themselves,

because I've talked to these companies, and they say, look, just do the China board. You got Chinese slave labor, 10 bucks a board. You can sell them for 70 bucks. You'll make 60 bucks a board. And I say, then what happens to the shops? What happens to the factories in the United States? Why are we sending wood from Canada to China to make a board to send it back here? And they're like, because the Chinese will do it for 50 cents. And I'm like, I want people who are specialists who say I can make a skateboard. I know how to take the wood. I know how to put in the press. I can cut it and

we can innovate. Instead, what ends up happening is all these shops go out of business. All of these factories go out of business and they struggle to keep up all because these greedy short-term morons are like, I'm going to make 50 bucks per board this year. And then four years, five years, six years later, there's no one to buy skateboards anymore. And now we're wondering why it is the biggest media outlets in skateboarding have collapsed, why pro skateboarders are now destitute. And it's because they sold off the industry to China where all the garbage clothing is made. The brands have died. It's all centralized under one Walmart. No offense to Walmart. It's not Walmart specifically, but a corporate generic garbage brand. I don't want to live in that world. We need local factories that can compete,

that are able to, and they can't compete with China. It's impossible. Americans have standards of living. We have rent we got to pay. We got health care bills. And the Chinese don't get any of that. So here we are saying, who cares if this Chinese labor at Foxconn, where these phones are made, are walking off a building committing mass suicide? That's the American consumer saying, we don't care.

I care. And you know what? Sometimes there's got to be some hard asks and some big asks. I don't think these tariffs manifest. They may. But so what? I don't care. I care. And you know what? Sometimes there's got to be some hard, hard, hard, hard asks and some big asks. I don't think these tariffs manifest. They may. But so what? I don't care. Force these companies back. The idea that the United States is dependent upon China for all of this. And it's only because the American consumer doesn't care that Chinese people commit suicide in mass at Foxconn labs. That's the only reason. So when you've got 16 people crammed into a four in a dorm with four beds and we're like, what do we care? That's the only reason. So when you've got 16 people crammed into a four in a dorm with four beds and we're like, what do we care? It's cheap for us. Maybe we should be like,

this is not the way the economy should be functioning and we should bring jobs back here. The other the other principal issue is what we're basically doing is extracting the economy and giving it to our adversaries. All of this money being sent to China, even if it is 50 cents on the dollar or on the hour for these laborers, means that the money made by American citizens is sent to China to build up their economy while our suffers and our industry is collapsing. So I'm with Trump on this one. He tried it again. He tried it in 2020 also. His tariff situation in 2020 is in 2018.

He did a 30 to 50 percent tariff on solar panels and washing machines, then 25 percent tariff on steel. This is worldwide. Ten percent on aluminum. And then the other country struck back. That was 2018. It's pretty wild that in 2019 we were being told we had the best numbers of our lives. In 2019, he ended up printing and giving aid to the farmers about some 28 billion or something. 12 billion, increasingly at 28 billion, which is a third of the's income in the United States to make up for the retaliatory tariffs from these other countries back in the United States

eventually lifted the trade war. And what were the results in 2019? Record low unemployment, wages were growing, outpacing inflation. No, no, that's a fact. That's a fact.

The deficit was going up, though. That's true. And Trump said, as long as you're under-levered, now, I'm not sure I completely agree, but Trump's position was be under-levered.

Grow more than you're accruing debt. And you are seeing improvement. And that's called supply side economics. And that has been tried. And I'm the old guy here who can look backwards. Art Laffer in those days. Yes. Art Laffer came up with that, but explained on a napkin. But the simple fact is that really hasn't worked very well

and um just spend money and somehow you'll get it back it's like going to las vegas saying i lost on the roulette wheel i'm just going to keep doubling my bet every time pretty soon i'll win and we are spending ourself into oblivion we don't have the money to spend on this the philosophy of like you take a big loan to pay people to build a water mill to irrigate the crop so that you grow a bunch of food to pay back to sell that to pay back the loan and then you've got excess surplus makes a lot of sense and he to scale that out domestically i understand the philosophy i don't know the jury's out whether or not it would work we could re you know invest in our industry we need to i think that's the only way because you can't compete with slaves you just cannot compete with slave labor

you guys are talking you guys are talking like keynesians we need to do this the the uh the austrian and which austrian economics is really the libertarian side of economics and they hold that it's human nature is what is what you want to pay attention to. If you tax goods, guess what? They will do less of that particular good or that activity the more you tax it. And so the whole point is that don't make self-licking ice cream cones. We're not trying to make that system. Don't try to make a system that that so how do we compete with slave labor well that is a great question because the fact is we're dealing with countries with incredibly low standard of living and and there may not be no true solution to that except

except you produce a good like the skateboards that are high quality made in america um and and you probably advertise that right and so they sell to people who care about quality and and the individuals have to care about that i care about quality so i only buy things that that are higher quality and i value it much more but there's people who are entering uh the the market and they can't afford the higher quality the chinese skateboards are of comparable quality they're they are high and they are all well made and they're made by slaves one of the one of the ways to deal with with um with slave labor and stuff like that would actually be to get rid of things like unions

and stuff in the U.S. because unions drive up the price. You get rid of your minimum wage laws, you get rid of your unions, and you get rid of the incentives. Like a right to work law. I'm not a big fan of unions as they are institutionalized and have weird laws all around them. The idea of collective bargaining, I get. I'm totally fine with that. Unions are these weird amalgams of quasi-governmental institutions like the bargaining collective bargaining is basically uh it's it's a bizarre concept you cannot be a professional and collectively bargain because it's not a meritocracy right i i laugh because airline pilots and association it absolutely is

you you these guys are being they're on a scale like a teacher you're on a scale how many years you've been there not it's not a performance space how many years have you been there and therefore that's your pay that's not merit that's just how long you've been sitting but but real collective bargaining outside of unions is completely within market norms if you have 100 employees and they're not getting paid well and they go, I don't want to work here because I'm not getting paid enough. And they all walk out. You, the employer, go, wow, I'm not competitive. And they're going to go somewhere else because I'm not doing that. You have to raise the rates. The problem is unions are weird quasi governmental organizations that have you can't strike now, but you can strike then. And then you get fined if you do it this way. And'm like that's that's nothing that's not real that's some weird garbage but uh i have laws written to

make that right work very well for them for the union fat cats most of the money that your union dues don't go into your negotiations goes straight into politics exactly left-wing politics that's what unions do um so and then so that's not real collective bargaining right i my idea is like if you've got a handful of employees and they're all like, guys, I just can't afford to work here anymore. So I'm leaving. Then the boss goes, oh, we're seeing a bunch of people quit. Turnovers super high. What's not collective? That's if everybody banded together and say, we're all going to work for this wage or we're all leaving. Yeah. What's wrong with that? And that I mean, they can legally do that. But essentially, it's a union. And this is what I'm saying. You know, in the early days, a bunch of employees being like health, you know, like security, like safety.

All of these things are really bad. I don't want to work here anymore. It's like, OK, let's all walk out. Let's not do this. OK, fine. And the boss has to negotiate with them. I think that's fine. Unions, that's not like I don't think it's fair to call that what unions are. Unions are weird, quasi governmental political machines that even the Teamsters, despite all the Teamsters wanting to vote for Trump, would not endorse the guy because they're political machines to steal money from workers.

I despise how the government operates or how unions are operated within the government. But I love collective bargaining. I love it when people are like, we're going to work together. We're going to decide how we want to be here, how we want to be part of this machine. So like workers unionizing is legitimate philosophy it should be thus but like does the company then have a right to say then you're all out well in states in states with right to work law that's what we're really talking about here states with the right to work law you can't force a worker to join a union as a condition of employment. And so I don't know what states we're up to, but we've had attempts at one vote in particular in the U.S. Senate on a national right to work law. And there's been bills to pass that on a national level.

But they're all around the country. And a lot of the southern states are right to work. And yeah, those states generally find better industry because the union can't collectively bargain for them. They don't have a sole negotiating power. And so if individuals want to work there, they don't have to join the union. I could see in a state if they were like, yeah, no unions, we're going to lower and no more minimum wage. Like if they took it hard and they're like, we need to compete with foreign, like you were saying, Phil, you'd get rid of the minimum wage, you'll have all the right to work laws. 12 year

olds can now work for our company and our factory. And we're going to pay $3.80 an hour. A lot of desperate people would keep that job. And a lot of other people would be like, I can't do that job for $3.80. Then they're out on the street. Well, minimum wage laws don't solve for any of that anyway. 28 states now are right to work. Not as many as constitutional carry. But I think Supreme Court needs to ban the idea that you can only get a job if you join

the union. That is insane. What about child labor? What about it? Should we bring it back? Yes. Like 12-year-olds? Absolutely.

No age laws? Nine-year-olds in factories with dangerous equipment? Define work. Okay. Putting metal plugs in a grinding machine? There's restrictions

on even adult men doing those jobs. What kind of restrictions? It's called OSHA. So is that, you think we should get rid of that? No. Safety standards and stuff? No. I never said that. You're talking about child labor. I'm justHA. So is that, you think we should get rid of that? No. Safety standards and stuff?

No. I never said that. You're talking about child labor. I'm just asking. If a 40-year-old man wants to go do a certain job, the government restricts whether or not he will be able to or not based on certain requirements. If a 12-year-old wants a job, I say absolutely they should. We're talking about being a paper boy.

We're talking about... Like a fry cook or something? Not a fry cook. I mean, if a kid wants to take out garbage at a local restaurant, what's the big deal? Sweep the floor. Yeah, mow the lawn, rake the leaves. I fried chicken at 14. I mean, so what?

Yeah, sure. It sounds like as soon as you say, okay, we're going to get rid of this particular law, right? So you want to get rid of the minimum age to work. I don't really want to. I'm just asking. let me get through it. The your kind of gut reaction is to say, well, what about all these dangerous things that they might do? But the point is, you're going to have you're going to have actually generally intelligent people making reasonable decisions about what is and is not safe for people, right? Like the images that come to mind when people say we're going to get rid of these things are images of like the late 1800s, early 1900s, when work was dangerous for everybody. It wasn't just dangerous

for children. It was dangerous for men. You had men that were, you know, mining coal by hand. You saw like Black Lung was ubiquitous and, and all these things that are, that are terrible, but those things have ended for everyone. So it's not just children that don't do that anymore. Men don't go into coal mines without, you know, some kind of respirator or some kind of cleaning material or some kind of cleaning mask that, that makes sure that they're not breathing in coal dust and stuff all the time. So you're actually talking about multiple different issues, OSHA and the age of how old a person can be to work. There's nothing wrong with a 12-year-old sweeping floors or taking out garbage at their parents or whatever. But Democrats argue that as soon as someone says kids should have jobs, they immediately jump to the most extreme case

and say they're trying to put kids in factories. What they want to do is create a... I call this domestication, where when you look at how dogs came to be domesticated, they were wolves, and then the wolves that were too aggressive were not tolerated near the human camps. So over a long enough period of time,

only the wolves that were more docile, eventually creating proto-dogs and then dogs dogs and dogs are basically permanent wolf puppies. Dogs behave like wolf puppies do like they never grow up. And so what what they're doing now with this leftist policy to make it so that young people can't work in some meaningful way. generation millennials and gen z who are 22 years old and have never had a job bernie sanders never had a job and he's in the forefront of this some would argue he has still never had a job he's never had a job he's literally never had a job correct me if i'm wrong so those of you listening comment below but he's only ever worked in politics so technically you can call it a job right he's never actually had to like lift a sack of flour and move it to the other room for a baker or move a bag, move a bunch of bricks. So what they're trying to do is they're taking away meaningful work from young people. So they grew up and become

inept and incapable and incompetent. So you've got a generation now all voting for the same thing. And what do we find? It is terrifying to see listless millennials who say things on X like, I just want to sit around and watch TV all day because all they want to do is what they did when they were young. But then you look at people who are pro baseball players, pro football players. What were they doing when they were two and three? Working, busting their butts. Well, they're being trained. They were being they were they were they were learning the game. And so these guys are now in their 20s or early 30s.

They're pros at the top of their game. And the only thing they've ever done is been trained to do this thing. They love doing it. I'm open to child labor in the sense of what we're talking. Like a kid can do clerical work, whatever. But what about extending the 40-hour work week, doing overtime? Why? Because we want to compete with slave labor.

We're talking about how to complete. We don't want to compete with slave labor. We do want to compete with China's workforce. Yeah, I say we stop letting companies ship everything off to China. That's one way, but that's a big ask. They need to make it cheaper for labor. Call me silly, but I'm in the freedom corner. I don't want to let people do what they

want to do. And if you don't want to work for a company that has a 45-hour work week, don't work for them. You don't own the job. It's the guy who started the business and has the capital. But salary positions don't get overtime. Overtime's only for hourly.

So if you're on a salary, the expectation is that you're working full-time whenever you need to be working. I don't have hours. I don't wait until 40 hours and go, beep! Yeah, overtime's a lot. So the people that do hourly, should we consider extending the hour, like 42-hour work week? No tax on overtime. And then every year it incrementally goes higher.

Expect in 10 years it's going to be a 48-hour work week. And you're thinking like a Keynesian. You incentivize additional work is what you do. Basically, you're saying government. So whenever you're saying should we, insert should government. Because if you're going to keep making these claims, it's government doing this, guys. It's the government that said it has to be a 40-hour work week, so we're just getting rid of the government's regulation in this sense. So let me ask you a question then. Someone's

selling a product that is completely fraudulent. Should we stop them? I don't know. should we stop them? I don't know. Should government stop them? Yeah, the court should. No, that's government. The court should, by you filing suit as either a consumer or a competitor, filing suit against a company that's a fraudulent product.

So there was a company like 14, 15 years ago, and they pop up now, and they sell these things called power bracelets. You ever see these? Magnetic. Yeah, they say they're ionized mylar bands that give you improved balance. They train their salesmen to do a magic trick, a magician's trick called the center of gravity illusion, to convince you that they are increasing your balance with a piece of rubber, silicon.

They make millions of dollars doing this. Should that be allowed? rubber, silicon. They make millions of dollars doing this. Should that be allowed? Yeah. Yes. Yes, it should. But somebody who could disprove their claims or prove that they are doing their fake trick fraudulently should sue them. But then what happens?

They just win money? They win their money. What are damages for that? They get five bucks? Out of business. Well, they wouldn't go to business. If it's fraudulent, there wrong with them no no no hold on from his class from his perspective there's no enforcement if you did a class action suit you could sue for a lot of the people but you know caveat emptor buyer beware um if you if the claim they make is is uh seems a little off and you bought a $5 bracelet because you bought their garbage and you saw their magic trick, yeah, sorry.

Frankly, you better get a better brain. What if you have three generations eating phthalates and PCBs and disrupting their endocrine systems to the point where they're developmentally disabled? Of course we should. They should be uh so there should be a government entity with the power to enforce and stop them from doing it yeah i'm not suggesting that there there is no place for government i'm just saying when you're making these decisions when you're trying to come up with these theoretical concepts always insert should we should government not right should we that's so so honest question then should government stop companies from putting poison in all of our food yes but so so there

should be some enforcement agency that's going to restrict so we should clearly some standards yes i'd rather have it done on a local level but some things are too big on nowadays because of course you're producing uh goods that are sold all around the country and sometimes all around the world. So I don't see a functional difference then in saying government has the ability to regulate for the protection of consumers if it's the same thing about Chinese slave labor destroying industry in the United States and putting towns and people out of work. I just don't think government does it efficiently. I think the market does a better job.

And I think the courts actually do a better job. I think you see the living tar out of out of companies that that produce garbage that that are harmful or, frankly, dangerous. And I can agree that government is largely inefficient and bloated. So the answer then seems to be like sunset clauses. But the free market has not done well for the Rust Belt. We've got manufacturing jobs shipped off to Mexico and China. This is why Trump wants to put in these tariffs. People lost their jobs, and Michigan has been absolutely destroyed by the flight from the state. More people are leaving the state than coming to the state.

So the existing infrastructure is becoming more expensive to maintain per person, making—this is basically what causes the Flint crisis. Well, Michigan's also facing a big political crisis from the leftist government. But that's a product of the collapse of the state. I mean, if you go back to what Michigan was in the 40s and 50s, and you see it booming, the rise of the auto industry, I know we can give a lot of credit to World War II for destroying our competition overseas. But what we see now is the factories leave, people lose their jobs, families leave, base infrastructure remains the same cost and gets distributed among the remaining population. This is what happened with Flint and why Flint switched off their water from the Detroit lines

into the Flint lines, which basically got a bunch of people sick. They were saying the Detroit water was too expensive. It's the most expensive in the country. And it's because they have an infrastructure that costs X, is divided amongst Y people. But as more and more people leave the distribution, the Y becomes smaller. So X becomes larger per person. I mean, we could debate the audio industry. And, and all I have to say to that is compare a 1982 American made car to a Japanese car. Good luck with that. And because the unions had literally destroyed the American auto industry. Yeah. And they, you know, they made cars to fail, said, don't make them too too good because one, we can, they need to be replaced. We don't want something to last forever. Then people don't replace it. That means the manufacturers are out. And where else do they make their money? At the service, at the far end of the sales side where you're servicing your vehicle at a

dealership. And a lot of that stuff is gone too. In fact, that's why I like Tesla is because all the middleman is gone. There's no sales middleman. There's no service middleman. It's weird. I think the end result of laissez-faire capitalism would just be, you know, probably it's a bit, I don't want to say it's hyperbolic, but I would say that the end of humanity would be the end result. And the reason why is humans, if they're chasing after decentralized carnal desires, it's literally going to be porn and video games. Mechanisms that trigger dopamine is what we tend to see. And so I'm not a fan of communism and absolute government control, but I think there's some degree of restriction of regulation based on a moral people deciding some things are destructive in the long term.

And so what we see now is a lot of calls from conservatives to ban pornography because it's fried the minds of young men to an extreme degree. And all the research shows that their brains are addled and atrophied and look like that of hardcore drug users. So now there's a lot of people saying like, hey, maybe if we unrestrict the market, people will just like the mouse with the cocaine button. You know about that one? Yep. They told the mouse, press the button, it gives you cocaine. And all the mouse did was just pressing the button. And there's a funny meme where it's two lab rats having escaped.

And one lab rat looks at the one outside and says, we did it. We're finally free. And the other one says, yeah, but I'm going to miss the cocaine button. When given the opportunity, humans overwhelmingly choose that. Now, there is another point to be made. I mean, the evidence is just in how people consume sugar. Absolutely. I think they gave rats sugar and cocaine and they chose the sugar.

But here's the alternative. I want to find that study. It may actually not be that humanity just beats itself off to death by chasing dopamine. There are going to be high mental fortitude individuals who, when given the choice, we see this now with liberals. They're choosing to abort their kids, sterilize their kids. Well, the end result is mathematical. Darwinism. None. And those who are cognizant of these things and who are more likely to pursue long-term goals are less likely to destroy their children. And so give it 50, 60 years, and what are we going to see? A staunch conservative government comprised of people who are more likely to engage in certain behaviors. One of my favorite

examples is people often ask why it is that Europe is so screwed up. How come Europe is allowing these people to come in and commit these crimes? We've got one or Canada or whatever. And, you know, one point that I've made and many other made, why the people who came to the United States from Europe were those who are willing to die to land on a barren rock. Hopefully, hopefully they made it if if a third or more didn't survive the journey over several months on a ship. So you've got people in Europe who are like, I'll just grin and bear what my state has to offer despite it being bad. Then you had people saying, I'm going to get on a boat where I might die because adventure awaits and maybe, maybe I can make a better life. So you're talking about the slow and gradual cultural shift away from the foundations, which are a little bit more, what's the word I'm looking for? I wouldn't say rebellious. Well, we are rebellious by nature, warrior culture, if you will. But I'm saying that the history and culture of the people who came to the came to the states is that of defiance.

And the people who stayed in Europe is that of submission. So you look at what Europe is and why it's constantly just in conflict and screwed up. It's because and why the United States has largely been much more unified. I use this argument a lot of times when we get comments about firearms, the Second Amendment, this and that. We're not the same as Europe, and that's okay. We don't have to be. We're just not the same.

Sorry. Let's jump to the story from the Daily Mail. Trump plans to kick transgender troops out of the military with 15,000 service members to be medically discharged on his first day in office. The controversial order would cause as many as 15,000 to be medically discharged. Trump seeks to issue an executive action on January 20th, 2025 on day one of his term, the Times said, preventing any transgender people from enlisting in the military as all branches continue to struggle with recruitment. I've actually heard

that following Pete Hegseth's announcement, they've seen recruitment and Trump's election enlistment numbers have been going up. Have you guys heard that? No, not yet. I've not heard anything about it, but I'd be interested to see some kind of evidence. Look, you can, I was tweeting about this today. You can get sent home for or get disqualified for any number of what in normal society are completely and totally irrelevant to most jobs conditions. You could have ADD. You could be flat footed.

You could have some kind of allergies, I think, are some of the things that you can get. Some kind of food allergies. Any number of things can disqualify you for military service the idea that gender dysphoria would not disqualify you in my opinion is ridiculous like that that should have been totally obvious is bulimia uh eating disorders were named yeah so both bulimia and anorexia could be um and clearly if you overeat that'll that'll get you you'll fail a pt test you know so so it could be 120 from 2013 to 2017 124 active duty service members were discharged as a result of eating disorders yeah and so the idea that people with gender dysphoria

you know would be allowed i think it's the question the the the return question to that right and all of all of those dismissals are ultimately predicated upon the inability to perform a function, right? So if you have an eating disorder of some kind, you can't really be expected to perform your fundamental mission, you know, whatever that might be, whatever your MOS is, you know, whether you're infantry or a cook. If you have an eating disorder, that's going to be detrimental to that. The fundamental question that I would actually kind of throw out at the table here is, you know, does gender dysphoria ultimately cause one to be unable to perform their mission, right? Because that's how I've always looked at topics like this is we have kind of shaped the military into this almost inclusive effort that everybody's individual perspectives, who they feel about themselves is what matters more necessarily than our ability to be lethal, right? So from my

perspective, ultimately, regardless of what your condition is in the military, if that keeps you from being able to perform your fundamental mission, and a part of that is being a part of a cohesive team, it doesn't matter what that condition is for me because your identity doesn't matter when you put your uniform on. That's how I've always looked at that, but I'm interested to kind of throw that question back out. Does gender dysphoria lead to an inability to perform your fundamental mission? I don't, I mean, it depends on how you define being transsexual. If that's the phrase, like, does it mean that you took bottom surgery? Because then, yeah, that's going to be if you've got scar tissue and you need a catheter or whatever the hell these tools, that could be a problem.

But if it's just this burly dude that kicks ass and then he's like, I'm a woman, but he's still a beast on the field, he can still be a soul. Can you do that again? I'm a woman. He can pull it off. No one's going to care if he gets the job done. I have a woman. He can pull it off. No one's going to care if he gets the job done. I have a question. If you have body dysmorphic disorder, they can't discharge you.

If you want these... I think... What's the disorder called? Dissociative body identity disorder or something like that? Let me try and look this up. I'll look it up. It's a disorder where you want to remove a body part. Yeah. or something like that. What's the, let me try and look this up. What's it called again? I'll look it up for you, go ahead. It's a disorder where you want to remove a body part.

Yeah. So there are people who want to remove their hands. Yeah. And they have done horrifying things where they, body integrity dysphoria. How can this even be a discussion that somebody with that problem could be in any level of responsibility? Well, because people would say they were gay to get out of Vietnam draft.

I want to clarify something. Come on. Gender dysphoria, where someone seeks medical transition, includes body integrity dysphoria. So body integrity dysphoria is individuals that feel specific body type does not belong to them or is alien so there's an individual who has male parts and they want to have that removed that means that people with uh gender identity identity disorder or gender dysphoria also have body integrity just like a subcategory of body integrity just all the way around body integrity disorder can exist within people who are experiencing gender dysphoria. Well, as anybody, like women want to remove their breasts,

but then you might feel like it's not part of their body. You don't want to remove a part. You're saying you might still have a gender dysphoric state of mind without wanting to remove something. I, um, yes, perhaps. I don't know. I'm saying that typically what we see is females wanting to remove their breasts, which would be in line with body integrity dysphoria. This is what I'm wondering. What's the definition? What's the official definition? Well, my point is at this stage, because if you're going to remove people that don't have any body dysmorphia, but they just think they're a different sex, is that really a reason to not be in the military? I don't know. I can't see how that would affect your mission. I mean,

I would I would say if you are having trouble aligning yourself with your physical presence, it's probably Brown grounds for discharge. I'm saying if somebody's like, my hand feels alien to me and I need it off. It's like, okay, well, this person's going to not be able to function to the extreme. Like, let's put it this way. How many people, what percentage of people do you think are capable to serve effectively in the military? Ronnie? I don't know a half a percent a small percentage of the of people have the capability to be the best of the best to serve now certainly you're gonna have people say like yeah but there are people in the military doing paperwork and stuff like that i don't think we want to be in the habit of saying we'll take literally anybody and then find a place for them yeah no no you can't so you know like i was saying earlier we've kind of gotten away from the military's fundamental

mission right the fundamental mission for the military is to't. So, you know, like I was saying earlier, we've kind of gotten away from the military's fundamental mission, right? The fundamental mission for the military is to be lethal, right? You know, whether that's, whether you're a soldier, sailor, airman, Marine, that is ultimately, whether you're combat arms, combat support, that is ultimately the mission that you are an enabler for. I do find the assimilation piece to this one that's interesting. So, you know, I've got a lot of friends that went through the Special Operations Forces pipeline, and one of the criteria for them to continue through or pass is the ability to me personally. I went to Afghanistan twice. Can you perform your fundamental mission? Can you do your job, right? If you can do your job, which ultimately does include setting yourself aside, selfless service being one of those tenets and core values, if you're able to do that, then you should be afforded the opportunity to serve. But again, it boils back to selfless service. Can you assimilate

as a part of a team? Can you focus on something not yourself? That's where I think we have this one of these issues in the military right now that I'm starting to get a little bit excited about some of the pathways that are being taken where we're prioritizing individualism rather than ultimately, again, the ultimate mission, which is to be lethal, to be able to maintain the crown. Heavy is the crown, and we need our military to be able to do that. So if we start to focus a little bit more on that as a fundamental, right, rather than, you know, who are you as an individual? You're a soldier. You're a sailor. You're an airman. You're a Marine. You're a Coast Guardsman. Some people, most of you have seen that video of the Coastie banging on the top of that sub.

Yeah. As that is... Total BA. Total BA. I could watch that every day and still not feel full from watching it, right? But that attitude, that attitude, he's not doing that, you know, as an individual, he's doing that as a part of an overarching member of a team, and he is able to fulfill his function. Can you do your mission? That's my question. Regardless of what you call yourself, you know, what gender you are, I don't care. Can you fulfill fulfill your function so do you agree with

trump's uh position on this then no no i wouldn't say i would largely because i think it has to be pulled back a layer right i i think there are going to be some individuals in that 15 000 that absolutely could be a part of fulfilling a mission but again you have to be able to set your individualism aside. And one of the larger issues that comes along with this is individualism. It's the me. This is what I want to call myself. I think the other issue is that this is affecting recruitment severely. I think the woke elements of the military have resulted in people resigning their commissions or just outright not wanting to enlist. And I've personally met maybe like two or three people who said, you know, I remember one guy a couple years ago,

he was a captain and he said it was his goal and his dream to be a careerist and retire. And he's in his mid-30s and says, no, I resigned. I can't be a part of whatever this is. So the ideological divide here, and I think the issue is like, you could say a person who is transgender can easily serve, not if it creates a hyper-political divide to the point where you're going to have someone who's going to say, this is a DSM five mental disorder that is in line with a whole bunch of mental disorders. We would not allow in the military. The military is broken. It has been politicized and I don't want to be a part of it. So that goes, that goes back once again to what I was saying earlier, you have to be able to

assimilate. So if you, so cohesion is a part of that, right? Now, how, how exactly we measure that and how you, I might not just not be intelligent enough to understand how exactly to employ that, but I do know that there is a recruiting crisis, right? I do know, you know, as a member of the military that I still think that it is a positive to serve, right? I still believe in our institutions. I think it's a positive to serve. And there is something that is keeping people from being a part of the military, right? So if there are people out there that can do that, and they happen to fall into this category of 15,000, I don't know where that number comes from. I mean, it's the drag queens that we see in the military ads to promotion. It's the appointment of people who are, you know, I think when you've got a lot of people who,

let's go back to the Army commercial that went viral where it was a cartoon about a girl saying, I have two moms. And then you look at everybody cheering on the Russian commercial where it's like a guy jumping out of a plane and landing one was a was a male ego action movie and one was a feel-good um you know like drama for women and it and it probably didn't actually recruit the type of people you wanted in the military anyway if you're what is the military's job leave all things up. Take care of the bad guys, right? In essence. And the kind of people who are excited about two mommies and or having a drag queen sitting next to you in a sub. You don't want them in your military.

Sorry. I don't think so. I'm totally with Trump. I shock everybody. I think the issue might just be with like, if you want to live your life, you want to do your thing, by all means, go ahead and do it. But if the, I don't know, 99,

if the overwhelming majority of people might say we're tolerant of this, but it doesn't mean they want to be involved in the administration that's doing it. I think it's not just about transgender soldiers, but this is a component of what is leading to recruitment shortfalls. Yeah. And guys, this is not only is it leading to less people joining the military because they don't want to be a part of that, but think of the long-term implications. I mean, if you look at transgender people, they commit suicide at rates.

It's like 30 to 40 percent. It's horrifying. Yeah, it's terrible. And there's clearly something wrong. You don't want those people in the military. They need help. They need professional assistance to live better lives. One of the things we do very poorly from a selection perspective, there need to be better mental aptitude tests. I mean, this is across government. So let's just step beyond just the military. I think mental acuity, setting the individual, I'm going to go

back to the same word, I'm sorry, I keep beating this word, but setting the individual aside. I think if the focus shifts back to that, from a fundamental perspective, our military is off in a better direction. I don't think this specifically is itself the biggest issue. I think it is, you know, a discussion to have as a part of a greater problem. Again, getting our military away from what it's designed and meant to do, which is be lethal. I mean, look at this.

This was a huge story. This is why people... Why would someone... Look, you go to a young guy, he has a sense of adventure, he has a sense of duty, he wants to fight, he wants to protect, he wants to serve, and then they're like, you'll be under this guy. He's a sense of adventure. He has a sense of duty. He wants to fight. He wants to protect. He wants to serve. And then they're like, you'll be under this guy. He's like, not interested. I am going. Peace out.

There are a litany of problems with this. So that is against AR 670-1. That dude immediately... 670-1 is the uniform standard for the U.S. Army, right? So it tells you what you can and can't wear. Ronnie here throwing out the regulation number. I'm sorry, man. This one drove me up the wall because so that is there are standards right

every military needs to have standards it needs to set baselines of course you'll have units and capabilities that exceed those but across the force there has to be once again a standard because it's meant to for everybody to be effectively the same. You wear the uniform to wear the uniform, not as an accessory. That's what he's doing in this photo here. And to be frank, it's BS. So he needed to be held accountable. I don't recall whether or not he eventually was, but that to me is not performing your function.

That is a full bird colonel. Not performing his function. If they're doing the same thing in drag, what's the difference? If it's on their free time, how does it impact the mission? He's talking about if you're a man wearing a woman's uniform, you're essentially in drag in military uniform.

And they post videos where they're in uniform and then they wipe the camera and then they're in drag. I'm like, is that allowed? They promoted that intentionally. They promoted these individuals. They paid to market that. There's one thing that I want to say that this gets into a little bit of the whole philosophy behind the left, right?

And what's going on here is exemplified. So the left likes to go ahead and say things like we want to center the marginalized. And that's exactly what they're doing. They're taking the people that are on the fringes, and they're making them the focus and the center of discussion. Just like you said, Ronnie, it's supposed to be, the military is supposed to be nameless and faceless. There's no, I remember I was in the military for a second,

and they used to always say, there's no black Marines, there's no white Marines, there's just green Marines. There's Marines. Everybody's all green Marines. There's just green Marines. Everybody's all green Marines. And that's the way that it was. But if you have people that are transgender or have some kind of weird kink that they want to wear a dog mask in uniform, this is centering. And by the powers that be or the establishment saying this is acceptable, that is centering the marginalized in an arena where centering the marginalized is absolutely unacceptable. So this is not about whether they're functional or not.

This is about rooting out leftist philosophy. Setting that foundation poor right out of the gate. Exactly. So get rid of the leftist philosophy in the military. Tim wants to go to something more important. Let's jump to this story from the Daily Wire. I love this one. This this story from the Daily Wire. I love this one. This story is from the Daily Wire.

Washington commanders agree to uncancel Redskins logo. The censorship of the former commander's logo was a classic case of woke gone wrong, the Montana senator wrote. So it sounds like what they're saying is they're going to bring back the, what do they call it? It's the official name is, let's just read it. They say the iconic Blackfoot chief logo. They're not, I do not believe going to say Redskins, but they're going to bring the iconic logo back.

Now, my only disappointment here is that as soon as they banned the Redskins, I ordered on Amazon Redskins Ziploc bags, hoping that they would accrue great value, and now they're probably not going to. I've been a Redskins fan my whole life. This logo is like a part of my childhood for me. So weren't they ignored, and didn't they actually have a lot of tribes come forward

and say, hold on a second, we actually love this? They were like, we were a part of tribes come forward and say hold on a second yep um they were like we actually love this yeah you know they're like we were a part of this we want the the logo to stay yeah it was it was white liberals who who wanted to get rid of the the name and logo chief wahoo was mine i'm cleveland guy akron and and he that was like a sambo kind of like you know 1920s caricature of a crazy indian guy and and that was way more if you're going to call it racist uh that one was this one actually is just a legitimate picture of a native american looking dude and so we'll call him a yay one too like like that is not a guy you want to fool with that guy isn't that what you want your sports team to be associated with like yeah warriors and strong figures.

And red skin obviously indicates like black skin, white skin, red skin. It's a racial thing. Or it's just a slur. I get that. The tribe approved it, though. The actual original art was approved by the tribe. I don't remember the name of the tribe, so I'm not trying to be disrespectful. It's the Blackfoot, right?

I believe so. But they approved it. And if I understand correctly, the tribe, like part of the reason why this is even happening is because the tribe wants it back. They're like, yo, because we've, we've talked about how, like, you know, the Land O'Lakes design, they took the native out on, you know, Aunt Jemima, they got rid of the, the, the black woman on Uncle Ben's, they got rid of the black woman. So you still got the product, but you're erasing people of color from popular culture by trying to be, you know, trying to be politically correct. You're actually removing them from spaces where they're commonly seen. And I mean, overall, that is a bad thing.

If equality is what you want, you're going to have a... You know, you're going to have... They would say that they're caricatures, right? They're caricatures of actual people. But there's no reason to believe that it was disrespectful. You know what I mean? It's a similar thing with the Snow White, the recent Snow White movie

that I think never happened. It was going to be Snow White and, like, the seven crazy dudes instead of the seven dwarves. Yeah, I think so, yeah. And a bunch of dwarves that were actors in Hollywood got pissed off because they were taking jobs away.

Snow White and the Seven Companions. And the movie's not come out, right? So it was Peter Dinklage who was like, how could they be so racist? And it's like, dude, Dinklage said that? Yeah, he got super mad. And it's like, bro, dwarf? Okay, listen.

The use of the term dwarf for little people was to be nice because people were offended by midget. And dwarves are a mythological story, folklore creature of they are small creatures that are born from the clay of the earth and live in mountains. It was never a slur. It was, or it did not evolve into a slur or whatever to, to be for little people. So when they had Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, it's literally a maiden and mythological creatures born from the clay of the earth who mine gold.

And then he's like, dwarf is offensive to me, so they shouldn't do it. So then they do the Seven Companions. I got to pull that image out. Well, then Peter Dinklage should give out all the money he made from being the Lannister dwarf. Exactly. He was typecast.

So it's the Blackfeet Nation, by the way. The Blackfeet Nation is the Washington... I guess Trump. The commanders? Is that what they are now? Dinklage is accused of pulling up the ladder behind him. Right? So like...

Oh, yes. And it's not supposed to be... That's something that has nothing to do with the fact that he's a dwarf. But he was given a high-profile part because of the fact that he is a dwarf. That is a key component for the Lannister character. And his character is literally one of the best in TV. Yeah, and now because he's like, oh, I'm so offended, he's saying that other people that could have had, you know,

important roles or had roles because of their, because of their, because the fact that they were a dwarf. Now he's saying, well, we can't. And it's like, well, you got a role. This is Snow White and the racially and sexually diverse companions. And they got rid of it.

And I think the movie's just dead. I think so, too. Is that Ziegler? Rachel Ziegler? Is that her name? Yeah, she's talking a lot of crap about men. All kinds of insults. All kinds of, yeah. Oh my gosh. Sickening Rachel.

So they had to redo the whole movie basically. Let me pull up this other image. Who was doing it? It's Disney. Take a look at this. Oh, surprise. They had to redo it after everybody was like, yo, that's the cringiest. I mean, at least, are they puppets?

No. No, it's CGI. Oh, that's terrible. Man, that's so horrible. terrible put her in a video game and now what's going to happen is there's going to be like there's going to be a bunch of actors like Dinklage who are saying you mean you got CGI instead of hiring actors there's nothing you can do

when you pursue this woke garbage I just saw it was for what's that Matthew McConaughey movie from 2003 where his family is a bunch of, is it little people or is it dwarves? I don't know what the term is. Wasn't the song like Snow White's Skin was White as Snow or something? Oof. It is. Yeah, I think she's White as Snow.

That's where she gets her name. Well, there you go. She doesn't have white racist. Her skin is not very white. She's probably kept out of the sun. Skin is White as Snow is the description of Snow White. That's white as snow is the description of snow white. That's right. The evil witch describes her as that. Just don't do the movie if you're going to utilize it. Could you imagine if they do this movie and they get the evil queen and she actually says the line,

her skin is white as snow, and then it shows her. The worst part about all this is it cheapens the term racist because clearly there are racists who literally, you know, care about race more than anything else. And, and, but we've literally desensitized people to that term. Now it's gone. I know when they say I'm going to make a woman of color, my vice president, that's racist. And to say that the other guy's racist because he didn't do it is bizarrely unhinged, I guess you could say. So you've got to focus on who are the real racists.

It's the race baiters. It's the people that focus on race. That's racist. Dude, they just. That's so. That's cringy. Well, I mean, not to. Well, we're winning.

Yeah. The chief logo is coming back for the Fredskins. This is called self-cancellation. I like it. I guess the Cleveland Indians, are they a different name too now? Did they change the Cleveland Indians? Did they just change the mascot logo? I think they changed the logo, didn't they?

I don't think Wahoo's coming back. I can't stand these people. It's like, just chill, dude. I mean, Redskin. No, they're the Guardians now. The Cleveland Guardians. The Cleveland Guardians. Oh, my gosh. The logo is the same. I'm going to be honest with you.

The logo is the same? Yeah. I'm not seeing a different logo here. Okay. I don't know. No, no. Oh, is it different? It's a G.

It's a baseball with a G and wings around it. Pull up Chief Wahoo. I stared at this guy for- I'm looking at cached images here of it. That's what it is. Yeah. Especially the Chief Wahoo from the 20s and 30s. Chief Wahoo pops right up.

Chief Wahoo from the 20s and 30s was like, you know, I could see that it got less offensive because that was just a cool looking cartoon. We should ban Elmer Fudd too. Look at that. That bottom one. That's the one that was like Sambo style, like making fun of the crazy Indian. Wait a minute. You have a

1911 in here. You're a Fudd. Come on, Tim. You're a Fudd. I think Elmer Fudd is. You're a Fudd. I think Elmer Fudd is. We got to get rid of Elmer Fudd, too. There you go. Look at that. He's a dumb white inbred.

Yeah, he's a caricature of white people. You can't have it. It's racist. What does the Elmer Fudd say to World Wars? Carries around 1911. I don't think that Elmer fudd actually has ever had a 1911 what's his backstory is it always been a side-by-side or it's always been a side-by-side it's his backstory that he's a hillbilly hick that can't hadn't didn't get a lot of good nutrition

and i don't i don't know i'm gonna be i'm gonna be honest though i mean hunter my favorite gun that i own is like a break action single shot 20 gauge though just to be fair to Elmer Fudd I understand I get it dude you know well you know he's just on wabbits you don't need anything crazy you know what I mean it's not the smartest animal but apparently in his universe they are so there you go no bird but uh you know the idea

that we have to get rid of Chief Wahoo because it's offensive to Native Americans it's like I don't know literally every single cartoon ever that has a depiction, like Homer Simpson. Oh, you got, you know, come on. Like talk about mocking white people. You can't have that.

Can you? Yeah. Homer. Oof. And he's the way Marge talks. Yeah. No, I, I, we got, we got to ban everything that's offensive to anybody, anybody for any reason at any point.

So just nothing's allowed ever. You know, got good real books. That's basically the plot to Fahrenheit 451. We're trying to erase history no the the premise in fahrenheit 51 is that everybody's offended by everything so the government has to get rid of books to stop everyone from being offended i just don't think i don't think getting rid of the past makes it not pop back up you gotta at least know what happened like there should be a monument there probably is a monument they tore all they tore all the statues down, remember?

They tore down Frederick Douglass. They're just communists who want to destroy American history. And the worst part is, now all these new sports teams, they don't know what to do. Like, this new Utah Hockey Club that moved from Arizona, they don't know what to do. So what are they?

The Utah Hockey Club. That's just like the Washington football team. Oh, the Commanders. Their mascot's a pig, right? No, so the Hogs, it goes all the way back to the offensive line back in the late 80s, early 90s. They were the Hogs. So it was like an unofficial mascot for them.

Yeah. But when the Redskins changed their name the first time, they became the Washington football team. Right. And they became the Commanders. Thank you for letting me know. They became the Commanders with their mascot being a pig. Yeah.

And everybody was laughing because it was literally the Commanders and a war pig was their mascot. So, you know. Perfect. They were trying to do an ode back to the Hogs and it was pretty poorly done. You were saying the Atlanta Braves. They're still called the Braves. Chief Nakahoma was the mascot for the Atlanta Braves from 66 to 85. And the Tomahawk Chop.

Come on. That was cool. Oh, yeah, the Tomahawk Chop. Again, I'm a hockey guy. What the heck do I know about baseball? Pull up the Chicago Blackhawks still, and I'm not a Dirty Birds fan, but that's still one of the most iconic logos and sports uniforms in all of... Look at that, 1926. It's a very respectable image.

Isn't it kind of funny that Americans just loved the Native Americans for their sporting teams? They were competitors. The Cleveland Indians, the Redskins, the Blackhawks. A lot to the death kind of people, you know, a lot of them. Yeah, they had a tremendous respect from people in the United States. Well, yeah, they still... You said the Utes. Utah was like a tribe.

Utes was the name of the state after the tribe. That's impressive. I mean, you don't want to erase history. The Romans would have just erased all the names. The commies want to erase history. That's kind of their thing. That's completely their thing. Yeah.

But you don't want to mock the people that you've subjugated either, so I kind of their thing that's completely their thing yeah but you don't want to mock i mean the people that you've subjugated either so i kind of understand i mean i i was i always said hockey won't go that way because you know we still love hiding fighting and hockey and and uh at least it'll be a safe haven and then they started doing pride week and all that garbage and i think the blackhawks are safe because that's a cool picture and is the blackhawk tribe is that the name of the tribe yeah i think so it's a respectable game. And is it the Blackhawk tribe? Is that the name of the tribe? Yeah, I think so. It's a respectable name.

With this shift, I was saying a few years ago that if the wokeness trend continues, we would eventually see co-ed professional leagues. The argument would be made that there's no reason. The rules are arbitrary. We decide what the rules are of the game. We could easily decide the rules should be half men, half women. Every team must have an equal amount of men and women playing, and they have to have equal time in the court, in the field, whatever it is.

If wokeness continued, I think that would be the outcome. They would be like, no, no, no, we don't have enough diversity in these major league sports. Now that they've been crushed and defeated, what we're seeing with the revival of the Redskins logo, I think it's actually starting to go the other way. I think people generally just didn't like watching males beat women in their own sporting events, and it's causing a lot of controversy. The Wall Street Journal called it a sleeper issue in this election.

One woman interviewed by the New York Times said it radicalized her into voting for Trump because even though he's psychotic, he seems more normal. I mean, when Martina Navratilova, the lead lesbian in professional sports as a tennis player, came out and said, this is wrong. Women should compete against women, period, biologically. Who cares if you're butchy like she is? But you're a woman.

That's what your chromosomes say. You guys see the Bill Maher thing with Neil deGrasse Tyson? Yeah, I saw clips. So if you go back a year, Neil deGrasse Tyson kept arguing in favor of males competing against women, saying maybe we should just make a different determination as to how we have different competition between different people. And everyone's like, yes, men versus women.

And then weight, class, next question, and skill. And he kept saying it. Now that he knows on the wrong side of this, Bill Maher was just ripping into him. And he was like, come on, you're the guy who couldn't tell me why the WNBA couldn't beat the Lakers. And so, you know, he got absolutely just annihilated on the show. Yeah. Everyone's so just done with it. I'm kind of like, I'm a Bill Maher fan.

I mean, the guy's just hilarious. And I was. I mean, if you read the news, I'd have more respect for him. I liked Neil deGrasse Tyson in 2007 when he was like, hey, everyone, let's focus on science. Regardless of your feelings, let's focus on science. I thought that's very cool that this dude is coming out of nowhere and he's talking about science. But, man, I don't normally rip on and he's talking about science. But man, I don't normally rip on people when they're not around, but that guy is totally over for it. Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the worst.

He's so annoying. He's so full of himself. He let his ego get to his head. He thinks he's great. He's anti-science. His whole persona is consensus, not science. Yeah, exactly. He repeats crap that he hears from his peers without going outside of his own ego. It's disturbing. He wants to kiss himself on the lips in a mirror.

I want a Jordan Peterson, Tyson DeGrasse cageback. And force him to debate. My issue is that he aligns his expertise to things that he has no claimed expertise. Alright, like Bill Nye, too. Certainly. People that are

speaking out because they're renowned experts in a certain field in other fields that don't really relate. It's like apples versus a book of matches. Two very different things. That's what Bill Maher's ripping him on. He's like, you're a physicist. Why? You can't talk about public health like you have any kind of credential. He's like,

but I'm a scientist, Bill. We're going to go to Super Chat, so if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know, literally everyone, and become a member by going to TimCast.com and clicking join us. We're going to have a members only uncensored show where we go deep into the lore of guns and their infringements. And the gentlemen we have with us know all about that. They were there when it was written. All right. We're going to grab some Super Chats.

And it's not an age joke. It's a it's a yes it was no it's uh it was it's an aslan uh joke from um what's that book called narnia chronicles of narnia there you go he was like do not cite the dark magic to me i was there whatever i use that meme a lot when i'm responding i was there when it was written. All right. All right. All my members are like posting on Twitter. Come on. Get Tim talking about guns.

Let's talk about guns. We should touch on in this show a little bit during Super Chats because you're running one of the probably the best, the number one charity on the planet that's supporting the individual gun rights. Let's grab some Super Chats and then we'll grab some gun questions. Yeah. So we got Hal Gailey saying, NAGR has always had the best

patch and hats. Well, there you go. And we've redesigned some of our stuff. You can see the logo on Ronnie's shirt. We've got two different logos, but one of them we just replaced it. There's a brown vest on one side, which is the weapon used in our Revolutionary

War by both sides, really. And then the other one is a Nemmo arms 6.5 creedmoor exocarbon rifle i actually that's my rifle with a burris scope on it and a thunderbeast suppressor and like i just decked it out and then took the pick give my art guys do the picture like yeah that's a cool gun to put on there because we don't want to just put an ar right that's right here we go we got emperor's champion saying I get the feeling the NFA and GCA will be replaced in the next five years or so. What is your opinion on that? Good luck getting it through Congress. And I'm saying this from a federal lobbyist who's been doing it for a while and would love to do that.

I think we're going to do it in the courts. All you have to do is prove common use and that weapons are just unusual or dangerous. They have to prove that. I'm sorry. They have to prove that they are either dangerous or unusual in courts, and they can't. I disagree. Because they are actually usual.

An AR-15 is more common than the Ford F-150 truck. I agree with your assessment of what you need to prove, but I disagree with that being the standard. And if I was on the Supreme Court, I'd say all guns legal. There will be no infringements. There can be no law restricting any weapon of any type, period. Thank you, and have a nice day. I would do that too, but they're not going to make things up they have to look back and look at previous decisions and the great part was they've got

heller yeah um i'd look at heller and then mcdonald and then of course now they have bruin and they can go back to the original intent and and when they had privateers and corsairs with cannons and grape shot they'd say the intention of the founding fathers was sometimes you hire dudes with warships. Private individuals can have warships. Absolutely. And nothing has changed by today's standards except for the technology. But that is not grounds for restricting a right. States will have to amend the Constitution. Ergo, you can have nukes. You can have the realistic possibility of something like that happening, though.

Right. So you have you have people are all cowards. You have the. But see, that's that's kind of my point. Right. So you have this more. I have more faith, actually, in the Supreme Court. I actually think they were waiting for a case that would,

that after it's gone through its interlocutory appeals, and that's just a fancy way that my attorneys tell me, and I'm not an attorney, you know, they tell me it's all these little motions, but then they get to the merits of a case. And in the post-Bruin world, if the Supreme Court will take the merits of a case. And in the post-Bruin world, if the Supreme Court will take the merits of a case that are broad, like they may on the Maryland assault weapons ban, which is the Snope case, if they do, they probably rip apart every single restriction in America. Magazine bans, assault weapons bans, any ridiculous notions of pistol braces and bump stocks. And sorry, both parties are complicit in that and many of those.

And force reset triggers, if you've ever seen that issue. But you know that quote they say from Trump about banning bump stocks and banning guns was fake, right? So I've heard Luke say this over and over again about how Trump said, I go for the guns first and then go to the courts later. That's a fake quote. That's not real. Sorry. That is a live recording. I watched it live. Out of context. And he wasn't saying literally what I will do. I watched the whole thing. I had people in the room. That is not true. Donald Trump was terrible on guns.

But, of course, Kamala Harris was worse. And, of course, Joe Biden is worse. But in terms of taking steps in the wrong direction, the big thing that was really bad about the bump stocks, I don't own a bump stock. I own real machine guns. I think bump stocks are kind of lame. But I don't want to ban them. And I don't think it's going to save any lives whatsoever. However, the problem was it was an executive action that Donald Trump took to ban an entire class of AR-15 part.

And that's the exact same map that Joe Biden used to ban pistol braces. And both of them are wrong. Both lost. Well, ultimately they lost. But it was very, very close at times. And the simple fact is that is what politicians will do. My job as a gun lobbyist is to hold the ground and hold people accountable. The politicians must be held accountable from both parties. And they can't get away with just saying things and pushing things, pushing for

restrictions on suppressors. Trump did that. He did that when he was in the UK. And many of the things that, of course, Joe Biden tried all the way back to Barack Obama. We stopped them. Everyone said, oh, you couldn't stop Barack Obama after the Newtown, Connecticut shootings. And we did. In fact, the NRA stood on the sidelines and gave padded Harry Reid, a member of the Democrat leader of the Senate, padded him on the head and gave him the highest ratings. And then they gave John Cornyn their highest rating, even though he ran the red flag law in Congress, right at the same time as the Bruin decision, 22. Let's grab some more superchats.

We got I'm Not Your Buddy Guy saying, It's short-sighted to say institutions are beyond reproach, and to maintain civilization we must do everything to maintain them. This is how you get to abuse of authority as we have all lived through. Accountability is necessary. We agree with that. We actually agree so i'm not sure you took me in context but uh i just believe that at some point you have to trust institutions and i mean most people i saw some articles that said americans uh believe that this was a fair election in 2024 it sure seemed like we had a lot more

people watching um paying attention to the uh the potential fraud and election abuse and uh but we do have to have some faith in our institutions because that is what we built as a country but faith is not uh meant to be blind so in in 2020 when trump won all the bellwethers and lost people had questions how is this possible understand then in 2024 when trump wins all the bellwethers and i, people had questions. How is this possible? I understand. Then in 2024, when Trump wins all the bellwethers, and I mean most of them, and then wins,

people are like, what is happening? No, he won all of, all the swing states. All seven. The bellwethers. The counties that overwhelmingly, they always,

these are the bellwether counties that always in majority, like great majority, it's like 19 counties, 17 or so will always vote for the winner. Whoever they vote for ends up winning the election. And you go back, all these different elections, you can see them. They were accurate up till 2020.

And then everybody had questions. And then in 2024, they were back to being accurate. 2020, everything was busted and it didn't make sense. I think 2020 was pretty busted anyway. I mean, we were dealing with all-mail ballot, which I don't like. I live in Colorado where they've been trying to do mail-in ballots. They started that, what, 18 years ago, I think, and doing all-mail ballots. And it's a disaster.

But unfortunately, I think it's here to stay. If we could ever change it, we should. All right. We got the text of that. He says, if tariffs make things $3 more expensive, but him slashing taxes lets me keep $4, that good is $1 saved, let alone all the jobs that are created here, keeping money in the U.S. instead of going to China or India. I work in bank. So Donald Trump was talking about potentially getting rid of the income tax in favor of tariffs like it was way, way back in the day. I don't see that as being reality.

That's not just a heavy lift. That's trying to knock over a skyscraper with a hammer. I always worry about the Senate can be worries that it means tariffs and taxes. Yeah, always. Always. It's like we're only going to increase texas by a little bit and then 100 years later it's 37.5 or it's only temporary right how many people live in a municipality that says we're gonna just temporarily increase the taxes yeah any of those gone nope nope how many times have we temporarily increased the taxes at this point

oh yeah basically every time it was temporary. Just for this war. Well, and then just for this one. Well, now we just don't declare the wars. It's just permanent. And we're all under states of emergency, too. All right. Clark Christos says, I'm overwhelmed.

I take care of my mom, brother, sister, and nephew, and I only make $21 an hour. None of them will get a job. Yikes. Oh, man. Time for some ultimatums. Yeah, I think you got to maybe stop enabling. For real. Yeah.

You know, how old's your nephew? If he's a little kid, then I get it. But for the people who refuse to get jobs, you just got to say, no, no, why won't you get a job? You know, one thing you can do is help them with half of their bills if they get a job. Or you can say goodbye. You can also kick them out of your life. But if you want to help them, literally, sometimes, like my mom, it was something she did with me. She's like, look, you can get no job and you're all on your own.

Or if you get a job, I'll help you out with half your rent. So I got a job. It was like a double win. And then I got a job. All right. Let's see. The text says, this dude's a lobbyist talking about collective bargaining being uncompetitive. Talk about a pot calling a kettle black and all his trashing of unions is same to lobbyists. I don't think that I don't think all lobbyists are the same. I think they're associating with like a big corporation. I'd love to make the kind of money

most traditional lobbyists make. I turned that down a long time ago. Well, let's clarify what lobbying is, too. Like, if I personally go to a representative from Congress and say, hey, man, we should be allowed to carry weapons, I think you should do something, I'm lobbying. Well, you don't have to actually register as a lobbyist to do that. There are some thresholds in which if you're being paid to go and represent people, you know, I represent millions of members who asked me to do this. And I'm not the only lobbyist I have. We have a score of federal lobbyists and work for NAGR. And then we lobby in states. I think I've been, I've lobbied 31 states, legislatures, and then Congress at some form or another.

And some states have all little different requirements. The term comes lobbying means you sat in the lobby outside the legislative body and, you know, talked to legislators as they came in and out. But because it's a controversial issue, it's a very different type of lobbying. I always look at myself as, you know, we don't wear Gucci loafers and take people out for $500 dinners. We literally deliver pressure from members, grassroots pressure, and tell the politician, these are our people. We deliver the petitions saying, we want you to vote this way. Thomas Massey and I delivered 1.4 million petitions,

physical petitions, into the U.S. Capitol several years ago, opposing red flag. Do you think people should have the right to own nuclear weapons? No. Why not? Well, I'm going to stick with the Second Amendment and my knowledge. And again, I'm no academic. I don't even pretend to be i'm a bare

knuckles brawler in politics it's all i know how to do uh legitimately but i do know that the second amendment was written to protect the rights of individuals for small arms it didn't say i'm not opposed to people owning artillery pieces i have friends with an anti-tank gun uh world war ii anti-tank gun, a World War II anti-tank gun. I've got, I know lots of people with stuff like that, but the Second Amendment actually applies to small arms. So what you're saying is when, back then, people did own cannons and warships, they were basically saying, yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, that can't, it's legal now, but if they want we could ban it you can't have those things i don't know because you can still have cannons i mean i wish i said i knew

i don't honestly know about why they wrote what they wrote um i was listening to a podcast irl uh just from a couple days ago when you guys were talking about that and christianity right with milo and which was a very fascinating discussion. Article 4 of the 17 articles, I think. Yeah. But I will say that, remember the Miller case, you guys familiar with the Miller case? That was the seminal court case the Supreme Court ruled on or kind of didn't rule, but Miller set the tone. And this was, Miller's an interesting case in that it was a couple of moonshiners who got caught with a still,

but there was no alcohol in the still and the revenuer had to charge them with something. So they charged them with a violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act because they had a short shotgun. And here's the problem. They appealed it and they kept going, the decision kept going up the court.

And what their defense was, this shotgun was used by the military problem uh they appealed it and they kept going the decision kept going up the court and what their defense was this shotgun was used by the military and therefore um by a by an infantryman in the military and was standard that they would use it and therefore um we we get to own it because uh we the second amendment says so and uh they got all the way up the u.s supreme court and guess what they are moonshiners they didn't show up you know what's what's funny i just pulled up the bill of rights wikipedia not that it's a great source but it says the federalists were concerned the bill of rights would actually create procedural uncertainties and that the states could guarantee rights better who cared the federal government wasn't that strong

and that's a horrifying thing because especially after the Civil War, this country became under the boot of the federal government who then decides what you can and can't do. So thank the heavens for the Bill of Rights. Yeah. So, but the Bill of Rights really covers small arms. And I like the joke.

I mean, we make that joke with politicians when we're vetting them before they run for office. We ask them, are you, what's your stance on guns? And a couple of them said, a tank in every garage. And it's a great joke, but the Second Amendment actually doesn't cover. So clarification, it was the fifth article in the first iteration of the 17 articles, ultimately ended up in the Second Amendment, which stated, a well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people being the best security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It doesn't say anything about small arms. Why do you think it means small arms? By the debates and the records we have of the Second Amendment during the Bill of Rights debate, that's where it came from. And I think we're going to end up essentially finding out exactly where those limits are. And the question was repeal of the NFA and 68 gun control act. And I believe we're going to end up there. Cause it kind of like,

it might be one of the lines we get to, it's not really about size. It's about explosive force. And that just indicates electrical power. Cause if you have enough physical electricity, you can create like a rail cannon that can go through solid steel. And like, it's not,

where does the line start? It starts to blur with energy. Hmm. That's a good question. Um, I do believe, uh, it's going to stop where infantryman carries an M four.

Um, well, so if, if that's the case, you, you would include, you know, all belt fed man, portable, even if they're team, correct. I like the way you think, Phil. I you would include, you know, all belt fed, man portable, even if they're team, correct? I like the way you think, Phil.

I mean, you know, saws and a 240, they all would be considered, you know, small arms. I mean, darn right. So for me, when you start to talk about small arms, the term small and big are relative, and I'm happy that they are. But, you know, I mean, Dudley is, he's the president of NAGR. I'm relatively new to the team. I've only been here for about a month. And the guy taught me to shoot extreme long range, had me shooting and hitting at over 1,800 yards the first time really trying that. He's a shooter.

We might personally disagree on where the boundaries of the Second Amendment are, but what I'm learning, though, is that he better knows the levers necessary to apply and enact change. So I think that's one of the things

that kind of always drew me to NAGR. So I can only look this thing up so far. The Virginia Constitution, one of the precursors of the Second Amendment, says that keep among us in times of peace standing armies and ships of war, affecting to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power. Standing armies and ships. Say that one more time. That was cool. And they have the Declaration of Rights that a well-regulated

militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state that standing armies in times of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination and governed by the civil power ships of war that was the uh virginia constitution and so then you have pennsylvania at the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defense of themselves in the state that standing armings in times of peace are dangerous to liberty they ought not to be kept up and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the state, that standing armings in times of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. That's interesting.

Remember you had privateers. Yep. And Corsair, yeah. Privateer warships who supplemented the civil powers and, or rebelled against the civil powers, however you look at it. Some of it, of course, was what really kicked off a revolution? What started a revolution?

It wasn't... They were trying to seize the guns. They were trying to seize the guns and conquer it. And, by the way, a place where you can't actually carry a gun on Lexington Green.

And Springfield had to leave. Isn't that crazy? They had to leave. That's why I don't live in Massachusetts anymore. That's one of the major reasons why I don't live in Massachusetts anymore.

So I would argue that if... So we've got Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia. All of these, they're all saying standing armies should not be kept because they are dangerous to peace. The civilian population must be trained and armed. How could you actually defend the state if these people did not have cannons? And you can, of course, have cannons now. I mean, black powder cannons, yeah, you always could. And bowling

ball mortar. You ever seen one of those? You can literally make out of an acetylene tank and make a mortar. You just cut the end off. It's legal. And you can shoot bowling balls. With black powder. And I'm telling you, it's so and you can shoot bowling balls with black powder. I'm telling you, it's so much fun. It may not be legal in your area, consult your local lawyer.

Free Syrian armies. Don't do that at home. Alright, here we go. The text vet says, it takes money to sue and most people don't have the money to go against multi-million dollar lawyers. That is why you can't win against government. Just sue is an elitist position reserved for people too out of touch. I'm an elitist apparently. Wow. I don't think he's talking about

you. You also can enact class action if you really need to fund a... Come on, if you've got a good case, there are always lawyers who want to do it. Yeah, the issue is that the government has infinite money. Yes, that's correct. And so... Tim, right now, our foundation

has nine federal lawsuits against the Salt Women, magazine bans, the ATF's restriction on forced reset triggers. We're all over it. And we know we're running against government. When are we going to see the Supreme Court rule on selective state weapons bans and overrule them and say you can't do that anymore? That's where it's probably going to be if they grant cert to Snopes. That's the Maryland assault weapons ban case. It's the one furthest along. Good, because Maryland's got the stupidest laws. Yes. And it's furthest along in the court system. Now, we had a case that was being propelled quite quickly in Superior, Colorado,

and it actually got wrapped up with the city of Boulder and the county of Boulder, and we had four municipalities in one case. And it's an assault weapons ban and magazine ban in one little tiny town. And when they enacted it and then the Bruin decision happened, we're like, well, let's file suit against this little tiny town and make them defend it. Well, of course, it's attorney who's actually doing the defense they fly in from new york for for all the court cases and so all we had to prove uh is all we have to prove is common use that that an ar-15 is in common use and therefore it's it's not unusual

i think that's just a weird standard but so so i always complain about this because it therefore it's not unusual. I think that's just a weird standard. So I always complain about this because it happened to us. In Maryland, M1As are illegal assault weapons. They are totally banned. SCAR-20S, totally legal. So Luke Ricasi comes by, and he's like, I have a SCAR-20S. And I'm like, wow, that's really, really cool. 6.5 Creedmark?

No, no, I think it was 308. What's the justification for that? I have a SCAR-20S. And I'm like, wow, that's really, really cool. 6.5 Creedmark? No, no, I think it was 308. Really? And – What's the justification for that? They're insane people who don't know what they're talking about. No, they wrote the – they were by definition restriction instead of a broad, you know, certain categories. And so the SCAR-20S was not out when they wrote the ban. No, that's – that was true. That's stupid. That was true.

That was true of a lot of states. Well, they don't write it, but the quote smart ones, are there any smart commies? They write those bands to say, oh, well, it's got a pistol grip and it's magazine fed. And some of them, they just go way over the line. 7.62,

but I think that's largely indistinguishable. When you're proving usuality and commonplace. Well, Luke, the SCAR-20S, I think 7.62 is what, I think that's what Luke had. If it's a.308, it's 7.62x51. Right. Yeah, okay. But the guy at my gun store is like, don't mix them up because one goes one way, because the pressure is different or whatever.

Yeah, so the pressures are different between the NATO 7.62x51 and the.308. Like you can put one in one, but not one or the other because the pressure is different or whatever. Yeah, so the pressures are different between like the NATO 7.62x51 and the 308. I thought the 20S designation was just 6.5 Creedmoor. Actually, it's both. That was the issue. I think we were both using 7.62, and I was like, why is this with a 10-round magazine

illegal as an assault weapon with iron sights, and then Luke's got this modern weapon with a 30-round magazine, and it's totally fine. They don't care. It's because they have no idea what they're talking about. The laws make no sense,

and they're insane people. Well, unfortunately, here's the problem, is sometimes our people become technocrats, and they go and explain to the commies how to go ahead and change their bills, and they do that. Let's talk about this in the members-only portion. We'll go crazy on guns. So smash that like button, share the, and they do that. Let's talk about this in the members-only portion. We'll go crazy on guns.

So smash that like button, share the show with everyone you know. We are going to talk big guns over on the members-only show right now. So go to TimCast.com, click join us. If you want to watch that uncensored portion of the show. Of course, there are certain things on YouTube they don't allow, so we won't do those things. But maybe in the members-only we can get a little spicy for you guys. So again, TimCast.com.

You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. And Dudley, you want to shout anything out? We would love to have you sign up for our email address. Our email communications are our fastest way to get you involved in the fight for your Second Amendment rights. And right now, we're doing our very best to hold people accountable. We didn't talk about Pam Bondi, the potential new AG, and she's got a long history of supporting Red Flag.

We need to hold her accountable as she may get confirmed. But join us at gunrights.org. We're the group fighting for you in the trenches, in your state capitals, and in Washington, D.C., and we'd love to have you. Right on. No, I would just echo what Dudley said. You know, again, I'm relatively new to the gun rights team. I joined it for a reason.

My work at Funker 530 has really sustained me. It's, you know, what I've been doing now for quite a few years, and I was enamored with the work that's happening behind the scenes. And I chose to work at NAGR specifically because of the people, because they're shooters, because, you know, Dudley's out on the ground with me by himself, working booths, trying to talk to people, help people understand exactly what's happening behind the scenes. So I would just echo what Dudley said.

Right on. Ronnie Adkins, ladies and gentlemen. And shout you guys both out on X. It's Dudley W. Brown and Ronnie Adkins with a D underscore, Ronnie Adkins underscore. That's me, brother. Dude, I appreciate you guys for coming, man. We didn't touch too much into Funker,

but that kind of really opened my eyes to some battlefield trauma. I mean, getting the fight from the perspective of the soldier. Getting that reality out there to people so they better understand it and make better decisions around ultimately the mission there. Thank you. Absolutely. Great to see you guys. And I'm at Ian

Crossland. Follow me there. I'll catch you later. I am Phil that Remains on Twix where you can subscribe to my ex-account. I am Phil that Remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. You can check out our new videos. There's one for Forever Cold, Let You Go, No Tomorrow Divine. They're all available on Instagram. The band is all that remains. You can check out our new videos. There's one for Forever Cold, Let You Go, No Tomorrow Divine.

They're all available on YouTube, Amazon Music, Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. We will see you all over at TimCast.com in about a minute. Let's talk guns. We'll see you all there.