All Episodes
Previous Next
June 19, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
48:25
🔴 Gay Anti Trump Ads, New Juneteenth Racism & Tucker vs. Ted 2025-06-19 18:08
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Yeah.
And there's a component of truth.
Yeah, that is in the New Testament, that the church is now part of Israel.
And notice that I said part of and does not replace, right?
So if you adopt somebody into your family, they become, you know, my last name is Morgan, they become a Morgan, right?
They don't necessarily take me out a natural-born son.
They don't replace me.
They become part of that family.
I don't think it makes any sense to say, and replacement theology...
It was what was used in the 1930s to fit in a lot of anti-Semitism, and even before that in the 1920s.
You know, I'm not saying that this is why Hitler did what he did, but it was certainly a part of his understanding of the world.
It was something he used to manipulate people.
Right, yeah, they were like, ah, he was a pagan.
Screw the Jews because they killed Christ.
Actually, it was the Romans that killed Christ, but that was the whole point of the story.
Yeah, that's your big claim to fame before you guys collapsed.
It's just, there's a lot of inconsistencies, and it matters to get this right, because you can really run off the deep end of some stuff that I'm just like, listen, you'll end up fighting against God if you're not careful, and you do need to be careful on this.
No, that's wrong.
Well, the covenant doesn't apply to Jewish people, only to Christians.
No, and I understand they say, well, why would a covenant apply to people who both accept and reject Christ?
And of course, the New Testament basically ends with the Jews being given a last chance to convert, right?
So this is the 70th week of Daniel prophecy.
And some people will try to say that the pre-preterist or the partial preterist, I guess, will try to say that that was fulfilled in Jesus Christ or that that was fulfilled in 70-80.
I can't find any biblical support, and I mean any biblical support for that.
I understand the Schofield Bible crowd and everybody.
I can't.
Unless you have to.
Don't allegorize things away because that's the only way these things happen.
The entire reason for the book of Revelation, the entire reason is to catalog things.
This is Israel's last chance.
There's a reason that it's very easy to read Revelation 1 through 3. Chapters 1 through 3, maybe into chapter 4. And then it becomes incredibly filled with symbolism that is all dependent on your understanding of Hebrew culture in the Old Testament.
It is primarily written as a Jewish book saying, hey, here is the last chance.
And oh, by the way, Gentiles, thank God that you've been grafted in.
I am so glad we were chosen.
To come into this group.
But that certainly doesn't mean that God is through with Israel.
Otherwise, whole swaths of the Bible would make no sense whatsoever.
That would make no sense.
Now, all of that being said, none of it makes a basis for foreign policy.
No.
To be clear.
None of it should be based on that at all.
And when you're talking about foreign policy, it comes back to, is it a good thing for Iran to have a nuclear weapon or to be nuclear capable?
And I get it.
You don't believe any of the intelligence agencies who were right that Iraq could not create or have nukes.
So they're all in on it.
But is it a good thing for Iran to have a nuke or not?
I think not.
Should the United States get involved or not?
I think not, by and large.
None of this has anything to do with foreign policy.
As far as domestic policy, I think that AIPAC should be treated like any other foreign lobbying organization, along with...
Qatar, along with China.
A lot of people sort of skirt that.
Russia.
Russia.
Ukraine.
All of them, to be clear.
Can't stand AIPAC.
Now let's do everyone else as well.
You know who AIPAC likes?
Hakeem Jeffries.
In this case, they like Ted Cruz.
Well, I know in this case they like Ted Cruz.
They actually came out and said, thank you, Ted Cruz, for being a champion of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
And I'm like, ah!
Ted's like, no, not right now!
Wait!
Ted did a horrible job of defending his association.
Can we give the answer on AIPAC?
He seemed tired.
Yeah, can we give the answer?
Do we have that clip?
Yes, we do.
Okay, the answer on AIPAC, which is just a terrible answer.
It's a three-minute clip.
I've never taken money from the Israel lobby.
Have you?
Taken money from the Israel...
So AIPAC raises a lot of money for me, but it's actually a misnomer because the people who raise money are individuals.
So it's not the PAC itself, but they're individual members who believe in the American-Israeli friendship and relationship.
Is AIPAC a foreign lobby?
No, it's an American lobby.
AIPAC stands for the America-Israeli Political Action Committee.
What is it lobby for?
So, to be honest, not a whole lot effective.
Listen, I came in to Congress.
I've worked every day to do that.
AIPAC, a lot of times, That should not be the basis of your campaign if you're here to represent the United States.
This is what people have a problem with, and I wholeheartedly agree.
That was a horrific answer.
Horrific.
You know why?
Because he has to.
He has to, otherwise...
I'm sorry, there is truth.
He has to answer that way or APEC goes, I came into the Senate to make sure that I was the leading defender of my constituents who voted for me and sent me here.
Yeah.
Why in the world would an answer like, can you say, hey, I place a high premium on the relationship that we have with Israel?
Even if you disagree with that, I can understand that.
That's fine.
But that can't be the, I'm going to be the number one defender of this thing.
Are you kidding me?
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's a horrifically bad answer.
He was, he was.
On the flip side, I don't think, I don't think that Tucker Carlson wants anyone who can have it and go, oh yeah, APEC sucks.
And move on.
That's his legs out from under him.
Yeah, there's even the whole, like, Jesse Ventura thing that Tucker was doing, like, the, I'm just asking questions, tough guy.
And it's like, well, let me try and answer.
I'm just asking questions.
All right, fine.
So there's a lot of, Payback sucks.
And going back to...
Ideal scenario here, to me.
Well, first off, most hilarious scenario would be if Russia just reached their wits end and just came in and just dropped Bunker Busters on Iran.
We're like, screw it!
We don't want to deal with this!
And then the people wouldn't have, like Ian Carroll, people like that would have no idea what to do.
I think ideal scenario, number one, you guys tell me, let's look through it.
Israel is able to take care of this.
Somehow is able to take out the nuclear capabilities.
Use the penetrator bomb.
We just talked about it.
Maybe some clandestine operation.
Number two would be that, okay, we come to talks here where Israel says, all right, okay, we'll stop.
If we have access to everything, this is basically disarmed, and we have the ability to inspect.
And, of course, at the same time, Israel allows the United States to.
That should be part of our negotiations as well.
IEA has to go in there.
Yeah, I have to go in there.
Less ideal scenario would be if the United States sells, gives a bunker buster or whatever artillery, whatever kind of bomb and planes to fly it to Israel to do the job.
And then worst case scenario is sending in Americans and any kind of clandestine operation.
So these are the different possible scenarios.
I'd like Israel to handle it without us.
I really would like to see that because here's what bothers me about Israel.
That means that Israel went in to start a job that they knew they needed us to finish.
That's right.
And that's backing us into a corner, and I don't like that, and friends don't do that.
On the flip side, when Tucker Carlson goes, should we be paying Israel to spy on us?
We're not paying Israel to spy on us.
And Ted Cruz couldn't just say, well, it's bad that they do it.
You know who one of the worst offenders is, as far as espionage?
It's France.
Historically, they have been the worst.
I don't like.
I think it's a bad thing that Israel spies on us.
France.
What do they do with it?
Yeah, what do they do with that information?
France has a serious nuclear power, too.
A lot of people don't realize.
I know, because they suck, but you don't realize until you look at it on a sheet of paper.
I think it's bad that the United States spies on Israel.
I think it's bad that Israel spies on the United States.
I don't think that Israel is as great of an ally as people make them out to be.
All of that I agree with.
But to only single out Israel, and of course Qatar is one of the worst as far as spying, as far as trying to infiltrate.
Well, and funding terrorism.
I know Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.
That's right.
Man, Qatar, they've got their eye on the prize.
Yes, they absolutely do.
But it's not honest to say, like, should we be paying Israel to spy?
No, we're not paying Israel to spy on us.
I think the annual budget is somewhere between three and four billion dollars.
We're paying Israel for other intel.
And unfortunately, But it's a misrepresentation to say we are paying to be spied on.
All foreign governments essentially accept this.
They do their best to curtail it, but they understand that it happens even amongst people that are technically allies.
I get it.
I don't like it.
And Ted should have been saying, no, of course not.
It's not in our interest.
We don't like that at all.
Also, Tucker should have been able to say that maybe, maybe Putin is not our best friend.
He also shouldn't have been so easily fooled by one subway and one grocery store when he made the come to Russia video.
And Ted rightly pointed it out, like, hey, you're doing this.
And Tucker's answer was terrible on that.
So they both had some very...
They were both off yesterday, I'm telling you.
It's like watching two great fighters who did...
I think Ted Cruz is when he's debating other politicians.
But he has to give these political answers.
To me, with Tucker, what I don't understand is he goes, okay, what is the exact ethnic makeup of Arendt?
But he interviewed the Tate brothers and didn't know the charges.
So it's like, well, are you doing due diligence or are you not?
That's what I'm saying there.
I think a lot of it is gotcha.
Adversarial from the very, very get-go.
Yeah, it looked like he couldn't wait to get at him.
Yeah, and Tucker was a twerp for most of the interview.
He really was.
Hey, watch your language.
I mean, just...
Yeah.
The whole thing was annoying.
I don't think either view represents most of mainstream America.
And if you look at the polls, most of mainstream America, they say, hey, it's probably not a good thing for Iran to get a nuke.
It would be good for them to not get to that capability.
And then as far as American involvement, a majority support that.
But I bet if you frame it in, hey, should the United States sell?
For example, the equipment that's needed to Israel to finish the job, you'd probably have a pretty high percentage.
And I would say that's the one where it's still a question mark for me.
I would like Iran's power to be done once and for all with this.
I understand no regime changes have really worked all that.
I understand that.
That's not about regime change to me.
It's about removing the nuclear capability because that's a bad thing.
But I don't like Israel starting something.
And by starting, I do mean responding to hundreds and hundreds of missiles.
I don't like them going in knowing full well that if they need something from us, expecting that we will give it to them.
Exactly.
Exactly right.
That's a perfect way to put it.
And a good friend doesn't do that.
Yeah, we'll see if they actually did that, though.
I mean, I highly doubt that they did.
I think they probably had conversations about this and said, look, if we're going to take this last place out, it's going to have to be you guys.
We don't have the capability.
Yeah, maybe.
And maybe Donald Trump said, no, take everything else out, but we're not going to do it.
I don't know.
I don't know what those backroom conversations are.
There's a lot of ambiguity by design right now because that's a military strategy.
Yes, exactly.
This is Donald Trump negotiating.
I just want to throw out one quick theory and then we move on to chats that I heard yesterday that was very perplexing.
See if you guys can follow this.
So first of all, it's illegal under Islamic law, apparently.
So a fatwa issued in 2003 saying that a nuclear bomb is counter to Islamic law and so therefore Iran will not, under any circumstances, pursue an atomic bomb.
And the only reason that Iran ever pursued an atomic bomb in the first place was because of an arms race set off by Israel when they developed nuclear weapons.
Which is why Iran is enriching past any reasonable point of peaceful use with uranium.
Does that make any sense to you?
What's also why Iran launched hundreds of missiles in April and October of 2024?
Because they're so concerned about Israel's nuclear capabilities.
Exactly!
So you're telling me, let's just start off with the premise that it's always been against Islamic law.
They're cherry picking.
But you're saying that you started an arms race because Israel has a bomb.
Do you enter an arms race to not create a bomb to create parity?
Or do you enter an arms race to at least match your opponent or exceed their abilities like Russia and the United States did during the Cold War?
Like there was an arms race for a reason.
And then going on to say, well, yes, but we're never going to create a bomb.
You don't have to worry about that.
Iran's never going to create a bomb in the first place.
It's against Islamic law.
Never mind the fact that they started to enter the arms race.
I got a question.
No civil purpose at all.
It's against Islamic law.
It's in the Koran?
It's not.
I was going to say, the atomic bomb.
Came around, what, 1950-something?
I haven't even seen this chat.
I think they're basing it on saying, for example, Islam is such a humane religion that during war they say, do not even harm a tree if you can avoid it, right?
They kill you for not converting.
That's the only basis that I can think of.
And people do that.
There is some, I mean, they may be pulling it from somewhere.
I don't have much of an issue there, but it's like the mental gymnastics you have to do.
To believe that the guiding principle behind the Iranian regime right now is that an atomic bomb is against our beliefs and against our understanding of how this world should operate.
Yet, we're enriching uranium only.
And then to go back and to go, yeah, we're enriching uranium.
So, it's because they have a bomb.
But I thought you couldn't create a bomb.
I will say this.
The more I think about it, I understand the argument.
I think politically it would be a mistake for the United States to strike.
To do an airstrike.
I think politically it would be a mistake.
I do too.
Well, I think it would be better for...
I think, in other words, we start from the premise of...
I think that it would be a mistake.
What if they do a strike and it's over at that?
There's no ground invasion, there's no regime change.
I still think it would be a mistake.
Politically, I think it would be totally fine.
I don't agree with it necessarily, but I think it would be totally fine.
I would be against it.
The polls are with Trump on this one.
I mean, the polls I read last night.
Like 73% even, you know, are with them.
I thought you said the polls, like Rand Paul.
You said polls.
Oh, no, the Pauls are here.
are all for this.
They're all.
I was like, what?
What if we get the UK to do it?
Oh, they're a nation of pussies.
They're not going to do anything.
They are, but maybe they can do one thing.
As Archie Bonka said, England is a fair country.
It is.
That's what he said.
I would be, if I had to give you an answer, unless something changes, I would be against a strike right now.
And I get it, Soleimani, and I get it, the Houthi.
It's not just because of how charged this is right now and how the left and the far right will unite and say, see, more of the same, even though it's not accurate.
Well, you don't know what will happen either.
So I am with you in that I don't want the airstrike.
Today, I would say, no, I don't want it.
If we could guarantee, somehow, someway.
That the airstrike would be the end of it and there were no boots on the ground.
Then yes, but you're right.
You can't.
So as of right now, I'm like, then no.
Right.
And I do, honestly, an alternative may be to have one of these other countries do it.
They won't.
England, if you really want to support these guys, they're sending a carrier over there, so okay, fine.
I think it was a carrier.
Maybe it was just a battle group from England.
Do you still have any carriers?
Let's get Haiti.
Do you have a little weird jumping off thing at the end of them?
Yeah, throw some dirt cookies at them.
All right.
It's time for Chat Thursday.
Chat.
And of course, we'll be here tomorrow with you.
Woohoo!
Rumble Premium, that's just for you guys.
All right, chat Thursday.
Thursday.
Oh, and by the way, I know Nick DiPaolo, well, you're going to, so this weekend, Josh is going to be in Indianapolis and St. Louis.
Go and show him you love him because these clubs.
So supporting live comedy, funny, it's going to be a great show.
St. Louis Club is a lot of fun, disregarding the fact that it is in St. Louis.
Chat.
All right, first chat from Professor Savage Dad.
Question for the crew.
What country would a regime change campaign be best carried out in for Americans?
Iran, Canada, or Mexico?
Oh, a regime change?
Yes.
None?
I'd say Canada.
I'd say Canada, just because Canada is close.
Canada, you know, we could take advantage of the resources more.
We could set up more fair trade deals.
We don't have to change the regime, though.
You just take it.
Like, that's one of those things that we never do.
But then in Mexico, I don't want to take it because of the cartels.
I don't want to deal with your problem.
Yeah, I don't think you could have a regime change, because the truth is, it doesn't matter who's in power, the cartels are the ones in power.
In Canada...
How about that?
We'll take Alberta.
I'll do it if they bring in Don Cherry.
Yes, exactly.
He should.
He's that guy.
That guy should be given asylum.
He should.
They fired him just for saying, wear a poppy.
Just like saying, you know, support your veterans.
Really on Iran, it has to come from the citizens.
I'm not, I don't, you know, because Nick, you said Iran, and I understand the thought behind that, but if it doesn't come from within Iran, I'm not for it.
And I'm also not sure that it's going to be better than what we currently have.
We've dealt with that several times over in the Middle East.
I think it will for a short period of time if they bring back the Shah's son.
If they do that, yes.
If they do that.
But I will say this.
I don't have any faith in the Islamic world getting it right long term.
Because people go, Iran was great.
Well, sure it was.
But you could say that about Egypt at a point in time.
You could say that about Turkey at a point in time, right?
And then they end up getting it wrong again.
I mean, we do have to acknowledge that there was the overthrowing.
It means there were enough people there who wanted to thrust themselves into the third world, which means there's still a significant portion of them there.
So if there's a regime change, I do think that it would probably be better than the Ayatollahs because they have sort of a government in waiting, but I don't have faith that it would last long term.
So that's none of my business.
My business is making sure that they cannot, the people who chant death to America, and I don't care, plenty of people chant death to America, yeah, the leaders who chant death to America, that they don't have the ability to bring death to America.
That is it.
California chants death to America.
Yeah, exactly.
I think we should bomb them.
I would.
I like a regime chant.
Leave Temecula.
You know, parts inland.
Just bomb the coast.
Next check.
Start with Newsom's house.
Yes.
Brought up the cartels.
Amaya Kata asks, question for Stephen and all, are the cartels making so much money mostly off the U.S. or other countries?
What?
I don't know.
They make money in everything.
Here's the thing.
There are certain areas in Mexico, there are certain cities where you know they are run by the cartel.
Like, it's well known.
And that's not necessarily everywhere in Mexico, but they make a lot of money off of the poorest border.
And here's the thing, when people say, Well, we've seen that the states that have legalized, just using weed, for example, there are more under-the-table weed dealers than there ever were because now you've increased the demand pool, right?
So people will try and avoid those taxes.
So that hasn't ended them.
Legalizing all drugs doesn't, but let's say that it did, okay?
Drugs were no longer a marketable commodity.
You have to understand that cartels, that Professional criminals, they don't view themselves as drug dealers.
They don't view themselves as armed dealers.
They view themselves as professional criminals.
They're going to find a way to make money through crime, whether it's human sex trafficking.
The libertarian answer is, well, legalize all drugs.
Obviously, guns should be available because of the Second Amendment.
And then sex work is real work.
Okay, what about child sex work?
And like, well, come on, that's...
No, no, no, we know that that's what the cartel...
There's no doubt about that.
So, the only way to deal with them is violently, and to reduce their ability to be effective.
And we've seen that, by the way, with the Southern border.
You seal that up, and we've got to make sure we do the same thing with Canada.
That's why our eye is on them, because it's just like two holes in a boat.
Plug one, more water's coming in.
You've now increased the pressure through the other.
So I don't know where they make most of their money, but they do absolutely thrive in an environment where we do not have a locked down border, for sure.
They like that.
It'll never go away completely, but you have to remove as much of the profit motive as you can.
Killing them has never worked because somebody else just comes up.
I mean, because there's money to be made.
Right.
So somebody will step into that void to try to make the money.
So you've got to try to attack it on that end, which is...
So we can control access way more than we can control people being addicted to drugs, so let's try to make that access so costly to get around, or almost impossible, that it's no longer financially viable.
Right.
Yeah.
Or libertarians say, well, libertarians are classical libertarians.
Yeah, no borders and legalize all drugs.
That's a stupid idea.
Like, yeah, that'll render them useless.
Yeah, you wouldn't be able to find a cartel member if you legalized all drugs and opened up the borders.
But people want to buy it, Stephen.
They should be able to engage in commerce.
Okay.
Fine.
I just think it's a stupid argument.
It goes apart so quickly.
You know, Bear, the company management used to sell heroin.
Yeah, and they stopped.
Next chat.
Next chat from MPTigerT.
Question for the crew.
A lot of secular folks believe in simulation theory.
Wouldn't that just be God?
Pretty much.
Yeah.
It's like The Matrix to a degree.
That's why I don't like The Matrix.
I don't like it because I don't think it's as good as people think it is.
Oh, stop it!
It's like now everything is a multiverse.
Everything is a multiverse.
Like, yeah, okay.
I took humanities and philosophy and I get it.
And you combine it with quantum physics and parallel universes.
But then you come back to God.
So the idea is, for every way the world could be, there is a world which is that way.
Every time a decision is made, it splits a reality.
It's like, okay, what determines a decision?
My decision, is that a decision?
Is there a world where I just don't do this?
And what cosmic force determines what constitutes a decision?
Because literally every single syllable scratch movement from all of us right now, we just created five zillion universes right in here.
And I haven't heard an answer that's very clear on it.
So people will do anything they can to avoid coming to grips or terms or facing like, okay.
Is there a God or isn't it?
You can call it the universe.
You can call it a cosmic force.
You can call it a simulation, but that would mean that someone has had to create a simulation.
At a certain point, you have to make your own decision, but you call it whatever you want.
And then, here's the thing.
To me, if you just say, I don't believe in any of it.
We don't have answers, but I think eventually we'll get there.
We don't have any answers for how the world started.
We don't have answers for the Big Bang.
We'll get there eventually, and so I'm willing to roll the dice.
No God.
Okay, fine.
But, if you say, Simulation, if you say a higher power or the universe, okay, now you have to come to terms with which is most likely.
Any of these other explanations or the one that says there's only one way of the truth and the light, and that is through the Son and Father, Jesus Christ.
Now you've stepped over.
You go, okay, I believe there's something greater.
Okay, now you have some decisions to make, and I get that it's scary.
If you're just an atheist, okay, fine.
Enjoy hell.
Next chat.
Next chat from Rumble Forskin.
Do you think the left will claim crime went up under Trump's term because they started reporting the statistics again?
Have they?
Is that a rhetorical question?
Of course the left will.
I mean, no matter what, even if crime goes down, period.
They're blaming him on what's going on now.
They're blaming the riots on him.
I love this.
You're doing something illegal.
We're coming to stop it.
You start throwing rocks and shit, and Trump's the chaos.
Yeah.
I mean, at what point?
It's like arguing with...
It's an insult to children.
Yeah, it is.
I mean, grown children.
At least children ask why.
Yeah, exactly.
Like, I get tripped up by questions from my kids all the time.
Like, when am I going on a van?
Why is the sky blue?
And I'm like, well, because of the reflection, because of our atmosphere.
He goes, oh, well, why is it reflecting?
Why do we have an atmosphere like that?
You're like, I don't know.
It's hitting particles in the air.
I don't know.
Don't use hairspray because there was a hole in the ozone, but it closed up.
That's about the extent of my...
I don't know.
My father would say to me like I'm five years old, why is this sky blowing?
What are you writing a fucking book?
Not anymore, Dad.
God, I can't read one.
Yeah, Dad.
It's about you.
It's a Harry Chapin song.
Next chat.
It's the chapter on loving father.
Alright, next chat from ChrisWBuckley63.
Question for DiPaolo.
Uh-oh.
What would you do as an ICE officer to get illegal alien roofers who won't come off the roof?
Oh, boy.
Can't imagine.
Someone was sitting there and thought of a layup.
It's very easy.
You pull up a taco truck.
I mean, a real one.
Like a real good food truck.
Yes.
They come down and bing-bang.
Yep.
Unless you were going to start a fire.
I loved it.
Electrical.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Depends on how prickly Nick is in the moment.
That's true.
It's a lot of my mood.
You're right.
Yeah.
I actually bring him out, you know, I bring him out of some basses.
Just start playing Tejano music, you know, welcoming environment.
The carrot is the taco and the house fire is the stick.
That's right.
That's right.
No.
Yes.
I like them.
I just, you know, but I, you know, they have to be here legally.
Yeah.
But they work hard and, you know, I like the Italians of it.
Some of them.
At least the Italians learned English.
I know, that's the thing.
That's the other thing I never understood.
You know, press one for Spanish.
How come everybody else had to learn?
Yeah, I know.
Why make an exception for the Spanish?
I don't understand that.
If you take away the incentives to learn the language, then people just won't.
The big difference is...
I understand, but you can't make the comparison because Italians came here before there was a welfare state.
People coming post-welfare states.
In other words, you can't judge their character the same way.
I was talking about the positive attributes, but yeah, no.
They're few and far between.
I was talking about the Italian.
Sicilian.
Sicilian.
No, but there's a big difference between, hey, immigration, where it's a net risk.
Okay, try your hand at it.
You're promised freedom and opportunity and nothing else.
And basically saying, oh, you know what?
I've done the risk analysis.
I'll get free stuff.
You cannot compare pre-welfare state immigration to post-welfare state immigration.
It's totally different, and it's been different in every country where we've seen that contrast, just to be clear.
Tony Soprano explained it perfectly with Dr. Melfi in an episode about the Italians coming home.
We came over because the Rockefellers, they needed their fucking work of bees and shit, but we wanted a piece of the action.
Yes, whereas Mexicans, you know, they go back in the winter.
They send their money back.
Yeah, they do.
Yeah, I think that that tax should be increased at least fourfold.
Right now, I think it's 5 or 10 percent was what was suggested in the big bill.
I'd like to see it at least at 30, 40. Yeah.
Don't get to come here and send money to a country that you fled.
Either stay there, work there because you love it so much, or come here and become a part of this country.
But don't come here and fleece us.
Take advantage and send the money.
Don't funnel money out.
That's not how any countries should operate.
Next chat.
All right, next chat from Revan's Padawan.
Question for Stephen.
Why does women's empowerment revolve around freedom and choice while men's empowerment revolves around duty, sacrifice, and servitude?
By design?
You're talking about a movement when you're talking about women's suffrage that was, yeah, get the vote, but no draft or paying taxes or bucket duties.
Like, that's the basis of it.
And by the way, that ended up being the basis of a lot of modern woke left, quote-unquote, civil rights movements.
I'm not talking about, hey, we should all start on the same square.
That we should all have the same base level of human rights.
I'm saying feminism was really the first and most pervasive modern movement that said, oh, we should start at an advantage to right wrongs of the past.
And so, yeah, I will tell you this, even when you see conservative women out there, We still want men who are chivalrous.
But then you say, okay, what is your duty?
Meaning, what is a walkable offense?
That's really what we're talking about.
Any woman out there, if she's with a man and he will not protect her and will not provide for her, that's a walkable offense.
That's a duty.
That's an expectation.
What is the walkable offense for men?
And it's a question that you never hear answered.
And I mean, pretty much never.
In other words, if something goes bump in the night, man has to answer it.
That's the expectation.
It's a walkable offense.
If he hides behind you or sends you out the door, what's the walkable offense for him with you?
If it's a walkable offense that he goes, I just don't feel it.
I quit my job and I'm going to find myself.
And now you don't have a home.
That's a walkable offense.
What's the walkable offense?
Is it if he comes home and there's chaos?
You're not the peacemaker?
Is it if you don't do the household duties?
Blowing the gardener.
It's this idea of duty that as a citizen of this country, there are certain duties that come with that.
As Christians, there are duties that come with that.
And I think that's one of the underpinnings of this country being kind of our Christian faith and foundation.
Just look at all the states and the people that founded this country, what they believed.
Duty is a big part of it.
Duty doesn't get you salvation, but duty is definitely spoken about now that I am a believer, what do I do?
What ought I do as a believer?
And that's something that we've gotten away from in general.
And it rears its head specifically in the feminism argument, but in a lot of other ways.
We've gotten off of the what am I supposed to do and gotten to the like, well, what can I just get from the system?
That's right.
It's a terrible place.
And it's reflected in divorce laws, by the way.
They go, well, marriage is, you know, it's a...
It's supposed to be a covenant, but it's a contract.
But you have states, many states, I think most states, in this country, where if a man has worked his ass off and does really well and he marries a woman, she can cheat on him.
She can cheat on him, leave, and still enforce the contract because of a walkable offense.
He has to pay for it.
He has to fund the lifestyle she's become accustomed to.
There is no enforcement on that contract that says, yeah, but you don't get to walk from the duties that you signed on to in being a wife.
It doesn't exist.
You can put numbers on a paper that say, this is what a husband, this is what a man is required to do when you sign on a dotted line.
And you can apply it to primary earner, but that's usually men because women won't marry men typically who make less than them.
But you can apply, you can go, okay, here's a number, it's quantified.
Your value is this and you're required to continue providing it.
One side is incentivized to break it and there is no similarly applicable enforcement.
That is a problem, and it's why a lot of young men aren't getting married.
So it's by design to answer your question.
Next chat.
All right, next chat from Mr. Never Miss.
I live in Jersey and every Walk it back.
I live in Jersey and everyone here hates higher taxes, but studies show we have lower crime and better education and quality of life.
In Jersey?
Is this a valid argument for higher taxes?
What are you, what are you, jeep?
I feel like that's a miss.
Yeah, that's a miss.
Tell me about Camden, New Jersey.
Yeah, exactly.
Say hello to Newark for me.
Yeah, exactly.
That's more of a municipal thing.
New Jersey City.
Yeah.
And no, it wouldn't be an argument for higher taxes.
I don't care what you have in a survey.
If you take from rich people and give it to poor people, the poor people in the survey are going to be like, yeah, this is a fantastic gig.
We did this with healthcare.
Healthcare based on surveys around the world.
If you have free healthcare, you might feel good about it, but you might still die.
People in Colombia are more satisfied with their health care than people in the wealthy areas of Beverly Hills.
I will say this.
It's just a bad idea.
I get it.
It's lazy to say correlation doesn't equal causation, right?
Because sometimes we have to make an inference from what we view as a consistently strong.
In other words, if there's a correlation that keeps reappearing.
Every time we sort of remove for other variables, okay, you can make the inference that there seems to be some causation here.
Often we make the inference and sort of assume causation.
So I get that.
So people just say that to any stat.
That being said, I am willing to bet that if you were to look at the different municipalities in New Jersey, in other words, if you compare Camden and you compare, I don't know, Red Bank, I don't know, Tool Man knows New Jersey better than I do, compare them, the strongest correlation that you will find is not going to be the tax rate.
As far as why crime is lower in one.
In other words, that is not the strongest correlation that we have.
I guarantee you would probably see demographics.
You would probably see more intact families.
You would probably see less crowding, a less urban area.
You would see other correlations that pop out at you long before you go, oh, there's a difference in the marginal tax rate of 4.2% or whatever it is.
So that is where I would say.
Be careful to jump the gun on saying this correlation of taxes causation because you haven't eliminated for other variables that have a much stronger tracking with the end result.
I know at one point, Jersey had the highest car insurance.
Yeah, because of carjacking?
Probably, but...
Detroit invented it.
Yeah, highest car insurance in the United States, so...
Yeah.
I don't know if that's still true or not, but...
Most densely populated state?
New Jersey?
Yeah, it makes sense.
Yeah.
Because it's a small state, and then they have the runoff of New York with those cities, and then they still, even their suburbs are pretty busy.
Right.
And there's some beautiful, there are some beautiful places in New Jersey.
Oh, yeah.
They did a few gigs out in the sticks, you see horses and, you know?
Yeah, and people's beds.
I see horses with bullet wounds and knives stuck in them.
Did you ever do Hasbro Heights, the bananas?
What are you kidding me?
In the hotel?
I don't know, maybe 14 times?
Oh my gosh.
That was the most depressing.
I know.
You go in there and you see a picture of...
Yeah, it's like the paper that's rolled out.
Bananas.
Bananas.
That's right.
It's bananas, I always make, 60 years old, I gotta cash a check with this emblem on it.
A banana with sunglasses and a microphone.
And then you look at a picture of Seinfeld when he was like 27. Yeah, exactly.
And you're going, oh my god.
You don't even have any stage lighting.
You're like in Ballroom B, and it's just people with these chairs they toss in there.
It's a function room.
I know.
Somebody throws a bouquet, you catch it when you're doing comedy.
Joke's on you, lady.
Go home with bouquets and garter belts.
They did have one of those.
You can go on my Twitter.
There's steps that go up to the second floor of the hotel.
But they have one of those, what do you call those chairs?
There you go.
There's a banana.
That's the logo on the check.
But they have one of those chairs that stare at.
The old people sit and they go up.
Oh, yeah.
They have one of those.
I took a picture of myself and it was a Budwell.
I said this was in my rider.
And it's always uncomfortable when the club is in the hotel where you're performing.
Oh, yeah.
That's always great.
People think they have access.
They're like, yeah, yeah, I'm going to find your room.
You're like, son of a bitch.
Yeah.
No kidding.
Yeah.
All right.
Don't let them follow.
There's a positive side of that, too.
Go ahead.
Yeah.
Well, I get it.
Grab another chat.
Get a little boy up there.
Throw their dentures on the stage?
Yes.
I have a whole thing.
Literally the last time I was in Hasbrook Heights bananas is you're not far off.
Next chat.
I got hit in the chest with a jar of Bengay.
Alright, next chat.
Parliaments?
They still make parliaments?
Yes!
When you bump a cigarette, it's a parliament there.
Chesterfield?
You're right!
Meet me upstairs.
Still has a Reagan on the packet.
Alright, next chat from W.R. Woodman.
Question for the crew.
Alex Jones has a different view of Iran than Stephen.
Would you consider having him on to discuss those differences?
Yeah, sure.
Here's the thing is I don't want to put him on the spot because I think that – And I don't think that most of us are as far apart as the people who scream on social media are.
It's like, okay, should Iran have a nuke?
No, if people say, well, I don't believe that they have a nuke, and they have an argument to make as far as intelligence and as far as...
Okay, I think there's probably a case that can kind of be made, but lacks some historical context.
If Alex Jones is saying, hey, he doesn't care, he doesn't think that a nuclear-capable Iran is at all bad for America, then I would disagree with him, but I don't know that that's his position.
Yeah, I understand a lot.
The thing that I don't love right now is the World War III.
Kind of stuff.
And I understand why, though, that that's coming from Alex.
Because I really do think that he's like, hey, we're being walked into another war.
And that's one of the points that I do understand why people are so hesitant on the right.
Even Dave Smith of the world, like, we've seen this movie before.
And he's not wrong on that.
He's not wrong on that.
And that's why I'm like, hey, guys, you do have to pay attention to that.
You do have to protest the idea of the United States getting involved in another long, bloody, costly conflict in the Middle East to do a regime change and bring democracy and nation build.
Right.
Right.
That you absolutely need to stand.
And we are.
We're saying absolutely not.
I'll get in the streets if I have to.
If that's the decision from this president.
I don't think it's a decision from this president.
We certainly aren't there today.
And to say that this is World War three over and over and over and over and over again, whether it's Alex Jones or anybody else.
I just think that does a disservice to your audience, because at some point we're just going to tune it out.
Right.
Case in point.
Yeah, I stayed up all night.
Yeah, I know.
They've been saying stuff like that over and over and over again.
So every time now that Iran says something, I just completely tune it out because I'm like, I don't think they're actually going to do anything.
They're counting on you doing it.
Maybe.
Well, but the defense apparatus of countries doesn't tune it out necessarily.
Maybe they're trying to do that.
But I just don't think that we are serving our audience as well by constantly telling them, breaking!
This is World War III.
Like, going with the extremes that the mainstream media typically does on the breaking side of things, but then throwing World War III in there.
That being said...
There's a lot of people who do that.
Friends of ours that do it.
And I'm like, I just don't think that's a great idea.
That being said, last night, wasn't there a report out that Russia sent something over to Iran?
Russia, as far as I know, they've said, we're sitting this one out.
We don't want anything to do with it.
I'll have to look it up.
I was a little shocked.
We don't want to do this.
Well, Russia has a giant contract with Iran for drones that they are using in Ukraine right now, so they're probably not going to attack them.
They're saying it was a Chinese cargo plane that landed in Iran.
That's not what I heard.
That doesn't surprise me.
That doesn't surprise me.
It's full of fireworks, guys.
They're getting ready for their version of 5-4th.
It's fine.
Look, for the same reason that Iraq was a mistake, because Iraq was not a threat to the United States at that moment in time, and the regime change obviously created a bunch of instability.
We have a different question to ask ourselves because the same intelligence that was saying Iraq does not have nuclear weapons or capabilities is saying that Iran does while they are saying death to America.
while they're And other intelligence agencies are saying, they're going to get there.
I think it's a very different question because we were not there with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
We weren't.
That's why it was a mistake.
So the same potential mistake applies, that regime change doesn't work out well.
It pretty much never works out well.
And I just don't have faith.
I don't have faith anywhere, I will tell you this, in the Islamic world, and I will tell you this as well.
In the communist world, which includes most of South America, I don't have faith in any of these nations to get it right long term, and I have very little faith in Europe to do so right now.
This is the last spot.
I mean, there's no other place that even is close to approaching opening up more speech, advocating on behalf of speech, granting people more.
Second Amendment rights.
Well, half our country here is pooing on that.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
But that's what I'm saying.
It's half.
In the other countries, it's the majority.
So I don't have any faith in the Islamic world to get it right long term.
I think in any given decade, pick an Islamic country that's making progress.
Fast forward one or two decades.
They're right back to square one.
And I think the same thing when you look at South America.
I mean, look at Chile, for example.
And I get it.
Pinochet put a few people on involuntary helicopter rides, okay?
I'm not advocating for that.
But!
It was Allende before him, right?
You have to look at the socialist, communist, Marxist who was in charge, and there's a reason that people welcomed in Pinochet, right?
It was called the Chilean experiment, where it was this bastion of success and economic development, and then that changed.
I mean, Malay, I think he'll be there for a while, and then I think it'll revert back.
Brazil, hey, they were on the right track.
They're not anymore.
I don't have faith.
In any other areas of the world to get it right long term because they are very different from this country.
So I think regime change is a bad it's a bad standpoint for us to I guess create or base our foreign policy as far as our involvement.
Now do I think would I take 10 or 15 better years from a non-nuclear capable Iran if the people overthrew it?
Of course I would.
Of course I would.
Yes.
But I don't want people 20, 30 years from now going like, well, look, we helped with regime change in Iran and we're back to raping little girls.
Like, because everyone could have seen that coming.
I don't know that you can take anywhere, honestly, could it be, could anyone in the Islamic world have more than 30 years of getting it right?
More than 30 years of continual progress away from barbarism.
I don't think, I think 30 years would be generous.
Honestly.
Lane says Japan.
Well, that's not the Islamic world.
I didn't say the Islamic world.
Oh, Islamic world.
Yeah.
Yeah, I didn't say the Islamic world.
And in Japan, they still can't own guns.
Yeah, there's a lot of issues.
So what I'm hearing you say is that, you know, nation building and regime change is not really your thing.
But what about colonialism?
A huge colonialist fit.
Okay, fantastic.
See, if we're going to do anything, it should probably just be that.
Yeah, no, the principle right to keep India over there and just use the resources.
Yeah.
You stay there.
Yeah, yeah, you stay there.
Yeah, you stay there.
Right.
Keep your poop.
Yes.
Keep your poop.
Of course I'm joking.
Send us your raw minerals.
All right.
Final...
All right, final chat from DadLife20.
Okay.
Why show any mercy towards Islam?
It's a cancer that threatens mankind.
Legit question.
I'm thinking.
I get it.
Call London.
I get it.
I will say this.
When people say, oh, if I need a flying spaghetti monster to tell me not to kill or not to steal, then I must be a horrible person.
You need God as a crutch.
You are a horrible person.
Sure.
Yeah, but mercy.
Not you.
Mercy was not considered a virtue throughout all of human history until modern Christendom.
You know that?
You think Native Americans?
We're judging people based on how merciful they were?
Of course not.
That's a modern Christian ideal.
And unfortunately, mercy is, or your capacity as a Christian for mercy, is not meant to be endless.
Right?
So you do need to know when to apply it.
With Islam, when you say mercy, I guess, what do you mean?
If you're talking about bombing Iran, that's very different.
We're talking about foreign policy.
If you're talking about mercy for Islam, I'm going like, ah, it's their culture.
None.
I think we need to call it out as a terrible, backwards culture from an awful, violent religion.
Sure, there are plenty of good Muslims here in the United States.
Most of them are largely secular, just like the Shah there in Iran.
I mean, this is a guy who was a Muslim who drank, for crying out loud.
But I have no tolerance for it taking over large swaths of the United States.
Anyone who believes in Islam as a prescription.
Sharia law, as, you know, you're talking about Dimitri, when you're talking about, for example, a poll tax, all of curfew, right?
Different treatment for citizens of different religions.
That can be tolerated 0%, and there can be no mercy whatsoever.
And I do think that we do need to start from a negotiation point if we're dealing with anyone from the Islamic world of, all right, kind of like you talked about the cartels, of mitigation.
Mitigation because they always, the Islamic world always gets it wrong.
Long term.
Always.
And here's the big difference.
And this is why, unfortunately, Christians have been browbeaten and have allowed our white guilt to get the better of us.
It goes back to the founding, right?
And you've heard me talk about Jesus Christ versus Muhammad.
Look, if every single person in your neighborhood, okay, if every single...
You might think he's weird, but I don't even think you'd have a complaint filed with the HOA.
If he made it the hangout spot for the disciples, he'd be like, come on, these guys, that's too many, it's beyond capacity.
But it would be a guy who wouldn't commit any acts of violence.
It would be a guy who honestly was doing nothing but serving.
Most he might be preaching.
I don't think you really have a problem with him.
If every single person in your neighborhood acted like Muhammad, you'd have no more neighborhood.
And you'd be a slave.
Very different.
And that's why you look at the founders of the feast, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, okay?
Now let's compare the spread of the religions.
The initial spread of the religions.
Because I know someone's going to go to the Crusades.
Christianity.
When it initially spread.
If you were a Christian, you were persecuted.
You can look at the first martyrs.
And my name is after the first martyr.
Thanks, Mom.
Thanks, Dad.
Laying that one on me.
Why my name is for martyrs?
Different spelling.
They were flayed alive, some of them.
Boiled alive?
Thrown off of rooftops?
Meaning, if you were known to be a Christian, you were persecuted, tortured, and murdered.
And it spread by word of mouth.
Initially.
Not by war.
Islam.
At this point in time.
Muhammad starting it.
There were no known oppressors because people didn't really know what Islam was.
And initially, people weren't concerned about it subverting any type of government.
So no known oppressors.
The initial Muslim converts weren't being tortured.
And killed as a matter of policy was always spread by the sword.
From its inception, it was spread by the sword.
Including Muhammad's sword.
You understand that, right?
So if you're going to start, even if you assume it's nothing but archetypal, okay, let's just consider it an archetype.
How it's affected the world.
Because whether you agree with the idea of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior or not, okay, you still have to agree that it's an archetype that has impacted the world.
More than most any other religion, you could probably add Islam to that list.
Okay.
So what's the impact?
All right.
Well, Jesus Christ never took a wife, never raped a kid, never killed anybody, never waged a war.
All right.
That's the starting off point.
Made people come back to life.
Made people come back to life.
There you go.
Wash some feet.
Muhammad did rape a kid.
Sorry, she was nine.
Only humped her thighs until she was six.
Did kill people.
Gross.
Did advocate for killing of people and had an open-ended call for the specific second-class citizen treatment of people who did not agree to convert to his religion.
And it was followed to the letter.
To act as though you expect any other impact from these religions other than how they initially grew would be foolish.
To say, yeah, sure, Muhammad did all that.
And called for all that.
And that's how Islam was spread initially.
But there are some really nice Muslims in Jersey now who have some flat screens is silly.
Anytime you go to the Islamic world where they gain, where they coalesce and they have a significant amount of power to the point of impacting and determining the foundations and policies of government, it ends in a nightmare.
We shouldn't expect anything else.
And we should treat it with the expectation that it will result in a nightmare.
▲
Export Selection