Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dismantle the January 6th investigation as a pretext for a domestic war on terror against Trump voters, criticizing Attorney General Merrick Garland's silence on federal agent presence and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's obstruction of security inquiries. They further condemn Reason Magazine's Elizabeth Nolan Brown for defending parents bringing children to hypersexualized drag shows, arguing her "mental gymnastics" ignore the abuse depicted in images of toddlers near scantily clad performers. Ultimately, the hosts assert that these narratives serve progressive agendas rather than uncovering truth or protecting minors from inappropriate environments. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
January 6th Investigation Start00:02:27
Fill her up.
You're listening to the Gash Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
You're listening to part of the problem on the Gas Digital Network.
Here's your host, Dave Smith.
Go after reasoning.
Yeah, and then go into fucking Biden stuff.
All right, let's do it.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith, and of course I am joined by my partner in crime, Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks, COVID Jesus.
Hi, Dave.
It's nice to be here.
Oh, look at that.
I like this very innocent, energetic energy that you bring today.
Very good, Rob.
What's new?
Summer Pork Store is in session.
So, you know, click the link in the episode description.
Come out.
I'm all over the country.
Hell yeah.
Hell yeah.
Go see Robbie the Fire.
Absolutely hilarious comedian.
And Porkfest.
You got to join the Free State Project.
They're taking over the state.
Pork Fest.
We're looking forward to seeing a bunch of you guys out in Chicago coming up soon.
And then I'll be at Freedom Fest again this year as well, which is coming up, I think, just about a month away or something like that.
So that's fun.
All right.
So for today's episode, I guess we'll start with this January 6th investigation.
You know, when Congress is having an investigation, you know, we're going to get down to the bottom of things.
But this has been dominating a lot of the media the last couple of days, and it is underway.
It's begun.
I don't know.
Before getting into some, we got a couple clips that we're going to play and go through that were that were very interesting.
I guess before getting into any specifics about it, there is something, the bigger picture with this January 6th thing and with this being made out to be, you know,
Mueller Record Correction00:15:33
I don't know, the greatest crime in the history of the world and how this, you know, it's being used as this kind of like proof that we have this real problem with domestic terrorism and that they would have overthrown everything about our society if only given the, you know, if only things had gone just a little bit differently, everything that's good would be gone and, you know, all of this stuff.
It's obviously being used as a pretense for kind of turning the war on terror in inward and making it a domestic war on terror.
It's being used as a pretense to turn all of the tools of the kind of national security apparatus in on Trump voters.
It's being used as a tool to argue that these aren't, you know, that Trump voters are a legitimate threat to our nation.
It's not just somebody who has a political difference with you.
This is really, you know, we are under siege and all of that.
I also think one of the things that just drives me crazy about January 6th being treated the way it is by the corporate press.
And it really, it really shows you, you know, it's everything that's wrong with the corporate press.
It's that, you know, over the last two years, if you think about, say, things like lockdowns, Vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, you know, think about things like that.
There have been these incredible crimes perpetrated on the American people by their government.
You know, like, I don't know how else to describe it other than that.
Like a genuine crime.
Like the effects of lockdowns will be felt for at least a generation.
You know what I mean?
Like we're so much of what we're living through right now with price inflation and, you know, so much of that.
So many people's lives are so just like profoundly fucked from that period.
And who knows to what degree they'll ever recover from that?
Children's development being thwarted, like people's livelihoods being destroyed.
How many, you know, how many families have broken up in the last two years that was a direct result of lockdowns?
I don't think there's any way to actually measure the number, but it ain't zero, you know?
And to now know that this was all for nothing.
You know what I mean?
Like this did nothing to even mitigate the virus.
It still wouldn't have been worth it if it did something to mitigate the virus and it didn't.
If you look at vaccine mandates, how many people like lost their jobs?
How many people, even after the mandates were struck down, had already lost their jobs?
You know, I mean, it's, it's, it's, you know, there's profound effects from all this stuff.
And of course, you had the vaccine passport, how much damage was done to businesses, how many people were, you know, discriminated against and disenfranchised, kind of removed from their own communities and societies.
So you have these crimes that were perpetrated by the government against the American people.
Egregious crimes.
You know what I mean?
Millions, tens of millions of people's lives ruined.
But none of those are the crimes that the corporate press wants to focus on.
No, no, no.
We don't focus on the crimes of the government that the government has perpetrated on the people.
We focus what?
On the crimes that the people perpetrated on the government.
And see, forget about all of that.
The real threat to our society, you see, is that some government property was damaged on January 6th of 2021.
That's really what you're supposed to be focused on.
Now, it was a tragic event because, you know, a cop shot some girl for no reason, but that's, we don't focus on that either.
No one cares.
No one cares about the crimes perpetrated by the government on to its people.
The corporate press is sitting here telling you.
I mean, is there anything like, could you, could you think of a better example of how much the corporate press is the enemy of the American people and the protectors of the government?
That they literally don't care.
They have no interest.
It means nothing to them when the government perpetrates crimes against its people.
But when the people commit a property crime or whatever against the government, well, that is, this is the holy building.
This is the cathedral has been damaged.
And so now we must have these huge investigations.
So already, before you even get into any of the details of this stuff, it's just so sick and backward that this is even what we're talking about.
I think holy building is the best way to put it because as I'm now being reminded of the way they covered it, you know, I guess, what was it, a year ago, two years ago?
Two years ago at this point?
Yeah.
It was about two years ago, but that's the best way to describe it.
Like they desecrated the Temple Mount and how much coverage was there over, you know, minority-owned businesses that were burned by Black Lives Matter protests.
Like, why is that churches that were vandalized?
You know, but like, our government can afford its repairs.
What about these other people who literally lost their businesses or people that were stomped out in front of their businesses and cops did nothing, you know?
So I agree with you that the corporate press definitely gets to pick what it magnifies and what people can get outraged about.
The Casahoge thing was a good example of that.
You know, we never hear about any of the other crimes by Saudi Arabia against Yemen, but this one person gets sliced up and all of a sudden because it's a journalist, you know, it's the worst thing that ever happened.
Or in this case, hey, protesters are destroying a building, but it's a government building.
So it's the worst thing that ever happened.
Yep, that's right.
Well, it was the protesters that they wanted to demonize and it was the building that you're not allowed to vandalize.
But right, you know, so, yeah, I mean, again, like throw that into the list of kind of crimes against the people is that the cops completely across the country standing down as rioters and looters just vandalized and destroyed, you know, created billions of dollars of damage.
And the whole time, what was the corporate press saying?
It's a largely peaceful, right?
Fiery, but peaceful protest.
So anyway.
COVID-13.
Now, the truth is that there is, and to be clear about this, there are some things that would be very interesting to investigate about January 6th.
So I'm not trying to pretend like there's not something kind of interesting here.
But anyway, it seems like maybe we won't get to the bottom of this.
In fact, this first clip we're going to play is probably about as much information as we're going to get about what really ought to be investigated about January 6th.
But anyway, here's Thomas Massey.
Present on January 5th and January 6th during the protests.
And I've got some pictures that I want to show you.
If my staff could bring those to you.
We need to go into the Capitol.
I'm afraid I can't see that at all.
Is that a new video?
Just pause it right away.
What's funny is that they have to sit there and he has to be like, oh, I can't really see the video.
I can't make it.
You're not familiar?
You're not familiar with this video?
Is this the first year seeing of it?
That's the most, I think I just heard in the background, which I hadn't caught till just now, someone saying, is that an approved video?
Which that is the hypocrisy of government in a nutshell, where it doesn't matter if it's approved.
If we're going to have a discussion about January 6th, this is the most important conversation to have.
And I have visual evidence.
So don't weasel out with the, oh, I can't, that's pulling the Mueller move of, well, I can't hear you.
What was that?
Yeah.
Sorry, can you repeat that?
Oh, I'd like to, I can't quite see it.
Fucking weasel shit.
Like you would think just right away, if, right, if you were dealing with even people pretending to be honest, someone would just go, well, yeah, I'm familiar with the video that you're talking about.
For anyone listening to the show, my assumption is everyone's familiar with it.
But this is the video of, I'm blanking on the guy's name, but this is the guy who was outside, big burly guy who's the day before and the day of.
So, January 5th and January 6th, he's screaming at everybody that we're going to storm the Capitol.
And everyone turns on him and starts calling him.
They start chanting Fed at him.
And then he's like leading the whole charge, but then himself, I think, doesn't go in.
You know what I mean?
Like when it comes down to it.
And this guy has not been charged with anything.
So it's raised a whole lot of questions about who exactly was this guy working for?
You know, like what's going on here?
And there's been other court documents that have showed that law enforcement agents were involved in January 6th.
So it's like, oh, okay, well, what law enforcement are they working for?
Would this happen to be maybe like a federal bureau?
Like, let's get some information about this.
So this is the stuff that kind of should be investigated.
And of course, leave it to the best congressman in the House, Thomas Massey, to be the one who is bringing this up.
Okay, let's keep playing.
All right, you have those images there and they're captioned.
They were from January 5th and January 6th.
As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying he'll probably go to jail, he'll probably be arrested, but he wants every, but they need to go into the Capitol the next day, is then the next day directing people to the Capitol.
And as far as we can find, this individual has not been charged with anything.
You said this is one of the most sweeping investigations in history.
Have you seen that video or those frames from that video?
So as I said at the outset, one of the norms of the Justice Department is to not comment on impending investigations and particularly not to comment about particular scenes or particular individuals.
This is the first time I'll give you an opportunity.
So that's, you can bring it back a few seconds because then Massey moves into the question, which really is the most important question.
But isn't this also interesting too?
This is like the thing about like Congress congressional hearings and congressional investigations and all of this.
It's like, so you're here to talk about January 6th, but you're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.
Like, all right.
So then what the hell is the point?
So this is this is the so like, what's the point of having the attorney general testify before Congress?
Let me let me come here to it's like this is just a complete show.
Like, well, we like to pretend there's some level of transparency.
So I sit here.
But then whenever you ask the question that you'd actually care about getting the answer to, I'll just go like, oh, no, well, no comment on that.
And the other thing that's always so weird about this is like, there's been lots of comments about January 6th from the Justice Department.
You know what I mean?
Like they comment about it all the time.
It's just as soon as it's a question that they maybe don't want to answer, then it's like, oh, well, we don't comment on ongoing investigations.
So anyway, let's play the rest of it as well.
I mean, it's also a bullshit line to say it's not the norm.
Well, does that make it the law?
Is it the law that you're not allowed to comment?
Like, what does that mean that it's the norm?
What exactly is the procedure?
If we pull you in and you're supposed to, and by the way, like you were saying, they'll comment on what the exact same thing with the Mueller investigation.
He was more than happy to comment on anything that, you know, kept the thing moving, that kept people intrigued about whether or not, you know, Donald Trump was a Russian agent.
Well, that was one of the things.
I've made this comment a bunch of times before, and it probably won't be the last, but that was one of the things that was so revealing about the Mueller investigation, right?
Was that he, when he came out, when there was that BuzzFeed article that claimed that Michael, what's his name?
What's his name?
Trump's lawyer, his personal lawyer.
Anyway, when The BuzzFeed ran this article.
No, no, no, that's Stormy Daniels.
When BuzzFeed ran the article that basically said that they had seen evidence, remember the authors said they had seen the physical evidence.
Never got too many follow-ups on that.
They had seen evidence that Trump instructed his personal attorney to lie to Congress.
And so that's that.
We got there's actually going to be crimes and indictments against Trump coming out of the Mueller investigation.
And Mueller came out and said, no, this is not true.
This was in the last couple months, maybe less than even a couple months, maybe the last month before Mueller finally presented his, you know, wrapped up his investigation.
And he came out and said, no, that's not true.
That we have not found that.
It's like Cohen.
I'm sorry.
Yes, Michael Cohen.
That's the lawyer, Trump's lawyer.
And so it was a really interesting moment.
Now, he was about to turn in his investigation.
He was about to complete his report.
And so he was just kind of like, look, just, I'm tempering expectations here.
We don't have anything like that.
There's no evidence that Trump directed his attorney to lie to Congress, which of course would be so incredibly stupid.
Even Donald Trump, who can be a bit of a buffoon, would probably know better than to ever put in writing instructions to his lawyer to lie, to cut, right?
Like if you would think even he would be smart enough to go, if you're going to ask your lawyer to lie to Congress, you'll probably just whisper that in his ear and not like shoot him a text.
You know what I mean?
Like anyway, while you're under, while you're the subject of the biggest investigation in the history of the country, yeah, where they're clearly trying to get you.
So, but when Mueller comes out and corrects the record, it was so revealing because it was like, oh, oh, okay.
So there's no norm, I guess, or rule that says you can't come out and correct the record because you've let the media speculate for two years now that Donald Trump is involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government and never once felt the need to come out and go, guys, we have no evidence of anything like that, even though you know you didn't.
You sat on that one, but only corrected the record later.
So once he corrected the record later, it kind of showed, it kind of demonstrated like, oh, you're willing to do that.
And so I think to your point, in the same sense, it's like, oh, you guys are willing to comment on January 6th.
You're just not willing to comment about whether this guy's a Fed.
Federal Agents Oversight Questions00:14:54
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show.
God, I love these guys.
Sheath underwear.
Sheath makes the most comfortable boxer briefs I have ever worn in my life.
It is the only underwear that I own.
It is the only underwear that I wear.
You guys get yourself a pair of it.
You're going to love it.
It's just going to be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you've ever put on your body.
Their stretchy fabric is made out of a moisture wicking technology.
They feel super soft and they keep everything cool and comfortable right in place.
They're great for the summer, which is here upon us.
If you're out there in the heat, you need to have a pair of sheath underwear on your body.
Of course, they have the dual pouches, keeps your man parts separated, makes sure everything doesn't stick together.
I was a little skeptical about this, but it is a game changer.
You'll never want to go back.
And if you don't like the idea of the pouches, you don't have to use them.
You can just wear them like a regular pair of underwear.
They'll be the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you ever put on your body.
So go get yourself a payer at sheathunderwear.com.
Use the promo code problem20.
You'll get 20% off your entire order.
That's sheathunderwear.com, promo code problem20 for 20% off your entire order.
All right, let's get back into the show.
No, I also think in the same hearing, Cruz Grilled him, were there any feds working that way?
Well, this is what Massey, well, this is where Massey goes right now.
So let's, now Massey gets to the big question.
So here it is.
Okay, without, I was hoping today to give you an opportunity to put to rest the concerns that people have that there were federal agents or assets of the federal government present on January 5th and January 6th.
Can you tell us without talking about particular incidents or particular videos, how many agents or assets of the federal government were present on January 6th, whether they agitated to go into the Capitol, and if any of them did.
So I'm not going to violate this norm of the rule of law.
I'm not going to comment on an investigation that's ongoing.
Let me ask you about the.
All right.
So, and by the way, to your point there, Rob, you know, he kind of slipped in there.
I'm not going to violate this norm, the rule of law, blah, blah, blah.
But there's no law that says that he can't shoot you a no.
And there might be, but he's not saying it.
It's very, it's a very vague thing.
It's a norm.
This is how we've traditionally done stuff.
It's not, there's no actual law that says he can't tell you that there was no, this wasn't an inside job.
And so anyway, it's look, that's probably about as much as we're going to get out of what would really be interesting to see investigated.
I'm glad that Thomas Massey asked the question so that we at least get this.
I mean, there's something to getting this on record, but you just, you do with this what you will.
But this event that the corporate press is making the biggest thing that ever happened, which is being used as a justification to like create this whole domestic war on terrorism, when asked point blank, and now this is, this is now, I think, maybe the third member of the Justice Department, high-ranking member of the Justice Department, but here we have the number one guy at the Justice Department, the nation's attorney general, asked point blank,
can you tell me whether there were like whether this was in any way instigated by federal agents or informants or people working with federal agents?
Was January 6th instigated by any of them?
And their response is no comment.
Not no.
It just seems like, and I think this is reasonable to say that it seems like if the case were, that of course there's no, this was not an inside job.
Of course there's, there was, there were no like agent provocateurs here that like led to this whole thing.
It seems like they could shoot you a no.
It's not really breaking with the norm.
He's not really commenting on any of the specifics of an ongoing investigation to just be like, no, what?
No.
Or I think the two important follow-up questions might be, so is there a specific investigation into the FBI to see if they instigated January 6th?
Well, no.
Well, then you're not commenting on an ongoing investigation because you're saying the FBI is not being investigated.
Right, right.
Okay.
So then is there concern for that?
That would be interesting.
Yeah.
And then the secondary question would be, well, if you're not allowed to answer that, then how do we have oversight over these other departments if they could be engaging in this behavior and we can't get answers about it?
How do we do our job of oversight?
Yeah.
How does this work as a system if you even theoretically could have instigated this event and then you get to just come here and just say no comment?
You know, and how, how the hell are the American people supposed to like have any faith in this system?
And look, just to be clear, the FBI has instigated many crimes before and then busted them up and then posed as the ones who solved the problem.
This is not like something without precedent.
This happened in Michigan.
Right.
Right.
It's a good example.
And in fact, and this was determined in a court, you know, it's not just like podcasters saying this.
Like this is, this is, you know, something that's been conclusively shown to be true.
And so anyway, it's just, it's really something that they can't shoot you a no on that.
It really, I don't know, it reveals a lot about what really happened that day.
I think it also just reveals a lot about the way this whole system works and how insane the whole thing is.
So, anyway, there's that.
All right, we got another video clip that you sent over, Rob, that was Jim Jordan, I believe.
So, let's.
Yeah, and so what's important about this clip is from what I remember when they put together this committee, Jim Jordan was selected by the Republicans to be on it, and they did not allow for that.
He was thrown off.
And they were calling into looking into Nancy Pelosi as it seemed like there wasn't adequate security that day and that there wasn't calls for reinforcement, which would play into the narrative of the fact that the FBI was involved and was trying to stage this entire thing.
And so, at a minimum, you know, you might want to look into it to just confirm, hey, that's conspiracy.
Or if you just wanted to prevent it again, you'd go, well, who's in charge of just calling for backup?
And why didn't they call for backup?
And do we have backup available?
You know, just the simple questions that if you were really concerned about insurgents and domestic terrorism, you would just look into the protocols for preventing it in the future.
But this clip is him and I think the other person who was removed from that committee mentioning the questions that they weren't allowed to look into.
Okay, let's play it.
Before the sham investigation even started, Speaker Pelosi blocked me and Jim Jordan from investigating January 6th.
She discredited the sham committee before it even started.
So you have to ask the question: why would she do that?
Because it isn't only a partisan witch hunt.
It's an attempt that we now know based on reports over the weekend that the committee is being used to advance the radical Democrat agenda that includes abolishing the Electoral College.
But it's also a cover-up.
Speaker Pelosi blocked us because she's afraid of what a real investigation would uncover.
She doesn't want Americans to find out what really happened on January 6th and leading up to it.
And she doesn't want anyone asking questions about her role and her responsibilities in securing the United States Capitol.
That's why the committee is refusing to answer basic questions about January 6th.
In fact, blocking these questions from even being asked.
Questions that must be answered to keep the Capitol safe and to prevent another riot or incident like January 6th from ever happening again in the future.
What questions am I talking about?
First of all, Capitol police officers we now know were half staffed on January 6th because of COVID.
How is that?
Two, why were our Capitol Police officers under-equipped?
Why were some officers forced to face down a riot with either expired helmets or no helmets at all?
Three, why was the United States Capitol Police never trained to deal with riots after all of the riots that were going on in the summer of 2020?
Four, did Speaker Pelosi communicate with the House Sergeant at Arms on January 6th or in the days leading up to the riot?
Five, was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay the National Guard assistance on January 6th?
Six, why didn't the Capitol Police intelligence unit raise the alarm about potential violence when they had evidence and intelligence for weeks leading up to January 6th that something violent could happen at the Capitol that day?
Seven, why did the FBI deploy commandos to Quantico on January 3rd with shoot-to-kill authority but fail to send the U.S. Capitol Police a single threat assessment or intelligence bulletin?
Eight.
Why did the House Sergeant at Arms refuse to cooperate with the Senate Homeland Security's bipartisan January 6th investigation?
Those are just some of the questions that Jim Jordan and I were prepared to ask if we participated, if we were able to participate in this investigation and in these hearings.
But Nancy Pelosi blocked us from the committee because she knows that those questions leave a trail of breadcrumbs right back to the speaker's office.
Today in my hometown in Columbia City, my constituents are paying $5.25 for a gallon of gas.
So, I mean, look, again, I don't think those are necessarily the most interesting questions.
I think the question Thomas Massey asked would be where I would open with, but they're certainly fair questions, you know, and there's certainly questions that if you were going to do a real investigation on this thing, you'd probably want to get to the bottom of all of that.
So in other words, we're going to investigate January 6th, but we will not be getting answers to any of the questions that would possibly lead to what involvement federal agents had in January 6th.
We will not get into any of the questions that might lead you to what either, let's say, the range would be between being involved in January 6th to just being negligent in your responsibilities somewhere in that range.
We're not going to get to any of the questions there that could reflect badly on, you know, Nancy Pelosi or on anybody who was in charge of how anybody, you know, like failed to prepare the Capitol Police or any of this stuff.
None of those.
So we'll have an investigation, but we will only be getting down to the bottom of how bad the Trump supporters are and what their plan was.
So it's this very narrow investigation about this event because looking in any of these other ways just kind of blows the whole thing open and makes you look at it in a completely different way, which is not what the corporate press is looking for or the politicians.
I mean, this whole thing is a sham for everything that we just outlined.
And in my opinion, they should be ditching any conversation about domestic terrorism or, you know, the storming of the Capitol.
There should, however, be an investigation.
The problem is that you'll never prove this.
Did Donald Trump sit down and specifically hire lawyers with an agenda of, hey, if I lose the election, can you figure out a way for me to claim that I'm still the president?
Now, if lawyers fed him bad information and showed up and said, hey, I think there's a way that you can stay in office, right?
Then he's not at fault.
Or if people were feeding him bad information and going, hey, we think there's election fraud.
In other words, like if Donald Trump legitimately thought that there was election fraud, then there was reason for him to go, hey, we can't certify the elections and the whole thing is legitimate.
If at no point in time do they actually have any evidence or of election fraud and they were just trying to play a game.
So if Donald Trump initiated that game, then I do think that there should be a conversation about whether or not he can run again.
But these two issues are completely separate.
Like you see.
No, I agree.
And then there's also like, you know, it's unclear to me.
And I really don't know.
I mean, it looks to me, right, like, let's say this.
It looks to me like it's very, some of the people involved in January 6th are, let's say, very suspicious.
And our own attorney general will not give us a no that they were in fact feds or working for the feds.
Okay.
So there looks like there is this inside job aspect of it all.
Now, on top of that, I think there were amongst the group, like you have all these different groups, right?
The huge group of people who were there to see Trump speak, then you have the smaller group that walked over to the Capitol.
Then you have the much smaller group than that who actually went into the Capitol.
Now, within the group, the small group that went into the Capitol, a lot of them, if you remember the coverage and the video footage of it, a lot of them are just kind of walking around the Capitol.
Like, oh, look at that.
That's pretty cool.
These people weren't there with any plan or anything.
You know what I mean?
It was just that.
Then there did seem to be a much smaller group in that group who were kind of there with some type of plan.
Now, I don't know what exactly their plan was.
These are the reports you hear about about the ones who were looking for Mike Pence and stuff like that.
What would a couple of those guys have done if they had gotten their hands on Mike Pence?
I don't know.
I don't, I don't know.
Maybe something.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't know.
Now, from Donald Trump, the Donald Trump angle, you're like, was his plan, did his plan really in his mind involve people going into the Capitol?
Or did he think that just by having his people march to the Capitol, what?
What was the benefit to come of this?
Did he think that this would just be like a strong enough showing of force that they'd be like, I mean, it's so goofy to think that he actually had some plan here.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but like, was his plan actually, well, if we're just loud enough and we march around the outside of the building, then they'll go, well, well, we can't certify these electoral college votes.
Capitol Force Showing Analysis00:16:17
Well, I just like, how, how could this have like you'd almost, if that was the plan, you'd want to like sit down with him and be like, take me through how this could possibly work.
How does this work?
If there was a plan, it's TV optics.
And that the same way Donald Trump was smart enough to start putting the fans behind him when he was talking on stage, so you couldn't pretend like people weren't there.
I think the TV optics would have been, hey, look at how much support there is for me as president.
But in that case, if that's the truth, there's nothing illegal about that.
Right.
If the plan was just like, well, I'm going to go out, but I'm going to go out looking awesome.
Like, look, there were all these people who really supported me.
They don't believe I could have possibly lost this election.
If that's the extent of the plan, then there's nothing illegal about that.
I mean, that's like, I don't know.
It's, it's, you can't really blame him for what then some people chose to do after he said, hey, I want to have this peaceful protest, which is what he said.
He used the word peaceful.
Um, so yeah, maybe they'll get to the bottom of some of that stuff, but it seems like what's much more likely is going to happen is that they will take some of these people and like really ruin people's lives.
There's already been a couple charges of a sedition that's come out of this whole thing, and they'll use some crimes that like, you know, the same way that like, or I should say in the opposite way that, you know, people who were like Black Lives Matter rioters, who you hear about, you know, they had bail money raised for them and they're out back on the street in 24 hours or something like that.
These people are going to be, you know, going to jail for decades, which is what, you know, I said, if you remember the night of January 6th, when we did a live stream that night, this is literally what I said about it right away.
I was like, you know, I think a lot of these people think this is like a fucking game or this is like an adventure.
And a lot of these people are going to have thrown away their entire lives.
It's going to be not fun for them.
So I think there's a lot of that going around.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is yo delta.com.
This is for responsible adults out there over the age of 21, living in states where Delta 8 is legal.
If you're into Delta 8, go on over to yodelta.com and stock up on their vapes or gummies.
Delta 8 is found in hemp naturally and can be shipped legally to various states.
Unlike the CBD, though, this does get you high.
So make sure you know that going in.
This is for people who want to get high in some states where it might be more difficult to get marijuana.
You can go get yourself some Delta 8.
Go to delta8.com.
I can tell you this stuff works.
The folks over at Gas Digital swear by it and they all use it.
And they're all quite high all the time.
All right, go to yodelta.com, the official Delta 8 sponsor of the Gas Digital Network.
Use the promo code GAS.
That'll get you 25% off your entire order.
One more time, yeodelta.com, promo code gas for 25% off your entire order.
All right, let's get back into the show.
All right.
So there's, we'll, we'll keep talking about this, I'm sure, as the investment.
Prime time, too.
Got to love these Democrats.
I don't know.
Usually these things are dead of the afternoon.
The only people watching them are me.
These guys, they pushed it to prime time.
Well, they want to make a big deal out of this.
They want to make a big show, you know, out of it.
And you understand why, because their play here is that they think to Americans on the fence, to regular, you know, average Americans, you know, if you see people storming the Capitol building and you tell them that this was a plot to overthrow our democracy, that is enough for them to go, whoa, that's a little bit far.
We don't do that in these here United States of America, you know?
And so that's the, that's the plan.
And they want to get a lot of people to see this.
So we'll see.
We'll see how it works.
All right, switching gears a little bit.
So there was something else that I wanted to address.
We had talked about on the show a couple episodes ago.
We had gotten into this new, incredibly bizarre trend of taking young children to drag shows.
And so after we had recorded this episode, there was a Reason magazine article about it, or kind of like a blurb about it within like a Reason article that got a lot of, that it got a lot of pushback.
Yeah, right.
There you go.
So this was the Reason tweet.
Parents are perfectly free not to take their children to events with drag performers, but parents should also be free to do so too.
Not too many people came out to support that one.
No, they got ratioed in a brutal way.
I don't know, Brian, if you have that tweet up to see what it was, but it was quite something.
It did not get a good response.
And this is the type of stuff where I really feel obligated in a way to respond to this stuff because I really,
if as people who've listened to the show for a long time, know it's really one of my major grievances when people insist on attaching these kind of like these extra libertarian values onto libertarianism and insist that it's sold with these things.
That is, it's like a poison pill for our movement.
That it's like, you, you know, like, hey, do you believe in, you know, do you believe in private property rights and non-aggression and like the process of civilization and like free markets and all of this stuff?
Are you anti-war?
Okay.
Well, are you also cool with six-year-olds having men's asses in their face?
Because you got to take that too in order to be a libertarian.
And it's just like, what is this designed to do other than turn a whole bunch of regular normal people off from wanting to be a part of this movement?
And I feel almost this obligation to be like, hey, that last one, you don't need to be down with that last one, actually.
You don't at all.
And so this, anyway, let's get into the piece, I guess, a little bit here.
I also think this is part of what the, at least from my perspective, right?
This is a big part of what the Mises caucus has pushed back on is this culture within like libertarianism that goes, well, we have to adopt all of these woke cultural views and then package that together with libertarianism.
Like you, you know, like, and we're like, no, no, no, no, you don't have to.
You don't have to add that in as well.
You can have whatever feelings you'd like to about that.
You're free to do that.
The only thing you have to care about is non-aggression to be a libertarian.
And there's almost this like this, the woke libertarian thing, which is very dominant in amongst Beltway libertarians, very dominant at Cato Reason and with the old guard who we just overthrew in the Libertarian Party.
With a lot of those guys, it's dominant too, where it's this thing where it's kind of like, well, to be a libertarian, you have to believe in libertarianism and you have to be totally cool if your son wants to have genital mutilation surgery.
And we're like, no, no, no, no, not the second part.
You don't have to be cool with that.
You can actually, it's completely fine and normal if you would be like appalled by the idea of that.
Okay.
And then they respond by being like, well, you guys are just a bunch of right wingers pretending to be libertarians, you know, and we're like, no, no, we're actual libertarians.
You guys are the deviation.
This is weird.
There's no need that any of this stuff.
Like, why would it be that we would insist that you must borrow the cultural preferences of the last five years of progressives and attach it to the theory that is the antithesis of progressivism?
Why?
Why would we insist that?
Doesn't that seem like such a losing battle?
You know, I also, I found larger, longer foot, and I was disturbed watching it where I was like, I shouldn't even be able to see these kids in this setting.
It was like watching a fucking horror movie that was real life.
It was legitimately disturbing.
You feel like it's a good way to say it.
It feels like I shouldn't be allowed to watch this video footage.
You literally feel like you're like showing me some borderline like kiddie porn thing right now.
What are you showing me?
Don't, please don't like, I feel like it's inappropriate for me to look at this.
And then the idea that like you somehow you must be standing up for this happening is I don't know who could watch that and want to defend it.
So Elizabeth Nolan Brown, by the way, is she's she's an author.
She's a writer for a reason.
She's been a writer for them for a long time.
She's certainly, she's no fan of mine.
And she has me blocked on Twitter.
Although we did meet at Freedom Fest last year and she was nice enough.
She's she's would my guess is that she would consider us to be like very right-wing libertarians.
I kind of consider her to be a left-wing libertarian.
Whether we're accurate about that or not, who knows?
I've gone back and forth with her a few times on Twitter and not the most complimentary exchanges.
But, you know, she's somebody who's, she's big on the kind of like, she's like a sex work advocate and just that's kind of the world that she's in.
She also, I think when we had our dust up where she ended up blocking me was because she called, she said that the Ron Paul movement was a racist movement or something like that.
And I just, you know, I, again, with all of these things, it's not even anything personally against her.
It's that I, truthfully, I feel a bit of an obligation as kind of someone who a lot of people look to as like the libertarian guy.
And I'm, I don't know if I am that, but I'm a libertarian with the big platform.
And so if someone's going to like smear the movement that I belong to, I feel an obligation to like stand up for that, to stand up against that and be like, don't fucking, don't put that on us.
Like, fuck you, you know, as the Ron Paul movement was not about racial animus.
It just wasn't.
It was about hating wars and banker bailouts and shit.
It just wasn't about that at all.
It was like a love of peace and prosperity and Austrian economics.
It was not about hating other races.
And so don't act like it was.
I don't know.
Okay, so here is the piece by Elizabeth Nolan Brown.
Drag shows for children under fire in Texas.
The title reads.
I regret to inform you that Texas is at it again.
It being absurd and melodramatic, culture warmongering, of course.
In this latest round, Texas state rep Brian Slayton is trying to ban minors from seeing drag queens in response to a Dallas bar.
My head keeps pumping up.
In response to, sorry, ad popped up.
In response to a Dallas bar's quote, drag the kids to pride event, which it billed as quote, a family-friendly drag show.
Quote, drag shows are no place for a child.
I would never take my children to a drag show.
And I know Speaker Dale Felon and my Republican colleagues wouldn't either, Slayton tweeted on Monday.
But it sure seems like Slayton is the one who's gratuitously sexualizing things here.
While it's unclear exactly what, quote, horrifying events Slayton is responding to, many conservatives, including U.S. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, were recently outraged over reports of a drag show for kids that was held at a Dallas gay bar last weekend.
The event was swarmed with protesters, despite the fact that the performers were clothed and engaging in non-sexual dancing.
Some kids in attendance tips.
Yes.
This is literally bullshit.
I mean, and I don't understand why you're coming into something this disgusting with an agenda to defend it and not even being honest.
I watched it.
It was disgusting and it certainly was sexual.
To categorize it as anything else, it was not a fully clothed person in jeans and a t-shirt telling giving you a class about what drag is or something.
I don't know how you could possibly watch that.
And you know, it's like that old, what was the Supreme Court line on porn?
I know it when I see it.
Like, don't tell me that that wasn't sexual.
I saw it.
It certainly was.
There's no other way to categorize it.
Yes.
Well, all right.
Yes.
I agree.
All right.
Let's continue reading.
Some kids in attendance tipped the drag performers with dollar bills, which, despite its associations with strip clubs, is not in it in itself a sexual thing.
We hand dollars to street performers too, don't we?
You don't put them in their thongs.
It's like, dude, I mean, just the unbelievable amount of mental gymnastics to bend over backward and go, like, well, they weren't like completely naked and putting a $1 bill in someone's like, like, I mean, yes, it's true.
We also give a dollar to street performers sometimes.
Typically, they come around with a little cup or a 10 and it's not put into their waistline.
Typically, part of their ass isn't showing.
Like, really?
Do we like, how can you not just like, it's unbelievable how possessed you must be by ideology to look at something like this and not just call it out for what it is right in front of you.
Like, just, yeah, okay, that's this is wildly inappropriate.
And of course, this is sexualized.
Like, what?
It's just what is this lady's agenda?
Like, if you were to get her philosophy of what she would like to see in the world, that she will lie and say that this wasn't sexual in nature in an effort to defend it.
So, I'm saying, what is the agenda?
Does she want more kids at drag shows?
Is that like, and what does she think that leads to?
That it's such a noble.
You know, my guess is that it's like, yes, like all of these things should be normalized.
And the argument would be something along the lines of the more these things are stigmatized, then the more likely it is for government to write laws cracking down on this type of stuff.
This is my guess, but let's read a little bit more from her and see what she has to say.
Says, the most risky thing about the event was a neon sign on the bar on the bar's wall, which said, quote, it's not going to lick itself, unquote.
Just listen to your own words, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, Elizabeth Nolan Brown.
There's a sign on the bar that says, God, this ad just keeps freaking popping up.
So annoying.
I'm going to have to scroll up.
Yes.
So there was a sign on the bar which read, and I quote, It's not going to lick itself.
A message that most certainly went over small children's heads.
And in any event, is no worse than things older children might see on TV.
I mean, just look at the mental gymnastics that's on display here.
So now you're going to say that if the message goes over children's heads, well, I mean, yes, Elizabeth, certainly it went over a lot of the children's heads.
Did you see the age of the kids?
Many of them couldn't read.
So, yes, no one's arguing that the kids read it and understood the very obvious innuendo, but like, that's not really the conversation.
I mean, like, I don't know.
If there was a big sign behind these kids that said, I love to take D in the A, that would also probably go over the kids' heads, right?
I mean, literally, Rob, you were talking, there were babies.
Inflation and IRA Solutions00:03:31
They are an event.
So the argument that it goes over the kids' heads, like, yes, I mean, I'm not, but I don't think that's like the point.
The point is, like, wouldn't you still grasp, but grant that that's like wildly inappropriate.
If there's just a bunch of little kids with a big sign, I like to take D in the A.
Well, it goes over their heads.
It's like, yeah, it does.
It's also like, at the very least, you can't just look at that and go, hey, that's fucking weird.
That's really, really weird.
It also, that was not the worst part.
It was all the sexual activity that was going on that you're ignoring.
That to me is almost like if there was a Nazi rally and a guy's giving a Nazi speech.
So the fact that there's a Nazi sign behind him, yes, it adds to the symbolism.
If it wasn't there, you're still listening to a Nazi speech.
Take out that sign.
It was just as bad of an event.
Yes, right.
Exactly.
100%.
And when he says they see, again, saying that they see worse things on TV, I mean, I don't know.
Yeah, possibly.
Yeah.
You probably shouldn't let your kids, like your young kids, watch worse things than that on TV.
But okay, that does not like, again, that's not an argument for why this is okay.
I don't know.
Like, yes, there's TV.
That TV should be for adults if it's worse than what you're talking about here.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is I Trust Capital.
As everybody knows, there is more interest in cryptocurrency, Bitcoin than ever before.
Everybody's looking at it, and a lot of people are looking at precious metals as well.
The reason is because of inflation.
The currency is being destroyed right before your eyes.
It's everywhere.
Everybody sees it happening.
It seems like every week there's a new article about crypto and it's getting more and more ingrained into our everyday life.
A lot of people are looking to invest, and the smartest investors are investing with their IRAs and 401k retirement accounts.
The easiest way to do that is with iTrust Capital.
All iTrust accounts are IRAs, which means you can invest and trade your crypto and gold tax-free on their 24-7 platform.
If you have an existing IRA or another retirement account, like a 401k, you can roll those over with no penalties or taxes.
iTrust Capital makes investing in crypto safe and easy.
You can log into your account 24/7 and invest at the push of a button.
Now crypto can be traded as easily as stocks.
No keys, no complex process.
iTrust Capital also makes investing in physical gold and silver easy.
iTrust uses a blockchain ledger that gives you digital ownership of physical gold held at the Royal Canadian Mint.
This is not a security or a derivative or a future or some other financial contract.
This is fully backed by physical gold that is deliverable upon request.
And the best part, iTrust Capital has low transparent pricing that is 90% cheaper than their competitors.
So if you're looking for an IRA to trade crypto or precious metals tax-free, go to itrustcapital.com.
And right now, if you use the promo code P-O-T-P, you're going to get your first month for absolutely free.
Plus, they're going to send you a free crypto IRA and a gold IRA investor's guide.
So one more time, go to iTrustCapital.com, use the promo code POTP.
You'll get your first month free, and you'll receive the crypto IRA and gold IRA investors guide at no cost.
If you're interested in learning more about this company, I had a quick conversation with the CEO.
He's a great guy, and it was very interesting.
It's up on the Gas Digital sponsor page.
So go check that out.
iTrustcapital.com, promo code P-O-T-P.
Drag Queen Debate Context00:15:28
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, that might all be too torrid for a lot of parents, which is fine.
No one has to bring their kid to a Pride Week drag show, but the idea that it should be illegal is also silly and smacks more of anti-LGBTQ prejudice than anything else.
After all, we don't see Slayton asking for kids to be banned from Hooters or other establishments with scantily clad staff and winks and nods to sexuality.
Well, as I said in the last show, I mean, there's several differences between Hooters and a place like this.
But we do certainly see kids banned from strip clubs and bars and places that are overtly, you know, like obviously inappropriate for young kids to go to.
And the idea that it's silly, I mean, look, I'm not defending kids at Hooters.
Also, if you were to do an event at Hooters, specifically for kids, that was somewhat, I guess, a sexual learning type thing at Hooters for five-year-olds.
I would be just as outraged by it.
It would be very bizarre.
If there was like a month that was like to celebrate straight dudes, that you were like, hey, I want to celebrate the fact that I like chicks and I like to have sex with women and I want to do an event for five-year-olds at Hooters.
Yeah, that'd be really fucking weird.
And like, again, you can make the argument that like laws aren't the way to solve this situation.
It would be much stronger if you would at least come out and just admit the obvious.
Just don't lie to yourself and don't lie to other people.
Be like, yes, this was a very sexual in nature event.
And yeah, it's really fucking weird.
Just admit that, because that's so obvious.
But yeah, like I said, with the Hooters example, like, first off, Hooters isn't as inappropriate.
If now you added in the fact that the Hooters girls were in much more scantily clad clothes, were doing splits on the floor, and the kids were putting single-dollar bills in like their waistline.
yeah then wildly inappropriate and and then i i don't get why you feel a need to defend this like take you and i you and i we don't have any negative stance against adults that want to go be trans you can go be as trans as you want i support your decision people should respect you be kind just go do it no one gives a we're not talking out against that we'll talk about out against this all day because it's creepy and it looks like child abuse towards sexual child abuse Well,
this is I don't know how you can not see the distinction and think that there's like, oh, if you're talking out against this, it's like when people bring up Israel stuff and people go, you're being anti-Semitic.
And it's like, no, I'm not being anti-Semitic.
Yeah, it's a country.
It's a government.
I'm allowed to oppose their policies.
And right with the Israel stuff, it's like no one ever, I think it was Tom Woods who said this like once, but he goes, no one ever, if you criticize like some policy of like the French government, no one ever goes, oh, you're an anti-Frankite or whatever.
You know what I mean?
Like it's like, no, I'm anyway.
The thing that Elizabeth, Elizabeth, the thing that, yes, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, sorry.
The thing she does here that I find to be so just despicable is to say this smacks more of anti-LGBTQ, you know, prejudice than anything else.
It's like, look, come on, man.
I mean, this is just such a bullshit line of arguing.
The thing that people are objecting to here is that there are little kids involved in a hypersexualized situation.
That's it.
Like, I'm sorry.
If you, if you like, um, had some event where you were like getting, you know, five and six year olds hammered, just giving them big cups of whiskey and getting them hammered.
And someone was like, this is appalling.
This is like awful and inappropriate to do with children.
And they'd be like, well, this just smacks of an anti-liquor bias.
Like, no, it doesn't.
That person might enjoy whiskey.
They may have nothing against alcohol.
They're just saying this isn't appropriate for little kids.
And no one here is saying, no one here, at least, I mean, I'm saying no one to country 330 million people or whatever, but there's no real movement here that's saying adults shouldn't be allowed to do what they want to with their own bodies, what they want to in the privacy of their own homes, blah, blah, blah.
It's nothing like that.
Just saying this is like really inappropriate to have fucking little kids at.
And for most normal people, they have a disgust impulse to this, like a reaction when you see stuff like this.
Like, yo, this is fucking disgusting.
And I don't know how you could not.
I honestly don't understand how any sane individual could have watched what I, that to me is like if you watch that footage of the people in China locked in their homes and were like, well, the Chinese government operates differently than we do.
And so they're trying to protect people from, it's like, I just watched an image of people in hell, literal hell.
Like human beings in hell.
Yeah.
And I could just see it and go, I don't understand how anyone who's not a sociopath could take any position other than, hey, let's not torture people by locking their homes.
I watched this other footage of kids in a situation that they shouldn't be.
I would like to even be in a room with someone else watching that footage and take any other stance because to me, it is literally incomprehensible.
Well, you almost feel like if you could like, yes, I know exactly the feeling you're talking about.
It's almost like your feeling is like when someone's like publicly taking this position.
You almost feel like if you could just be like in a room alone with the person and like lean in and whisper and go, okay, seriously.
Like seriously, it's fucking sick, right?
You know, this is sick.
Like it's almost like a like a human check.
Like you're the same thing I am, right?
We're the same species here, right?
You know that you have the, this is fucking disgusting.
I mean, look, and this is where I was going to say, so here, let me just read a little bit more from the article.
But by the way, one other point I wanted to make when she points, you know, he's not, you know, asking for kids to be banned from Hooters or other scantily clad establishments or something like that.
You know, again, having dealt with this argument a lot before, I do think it's kind of inappropriate for little kids to go to Hooters.
I do.
I find that to be weird.
But not as weird.
But regardless of that, just to be clear here, not only does seeing this and not being disgusted have nothing to do with libertarianism, you can be absolutely disgusted by this and still be a libertarian in good standing.
You can also support laws against what children are allowed to do and still be a libertarian in good standing.
The truth is that children are not allowed and in no sane society would ever be allowed to exercise all of their rights until adulthood.
That's that.
There are laws against children being able to consent to sex.
There's laws against children being able to drink and drive and own guns and all types of other things that we would think are basic rights for adults to do that children just simply are not allowed to do.
And I, yeah, I think there's absolutely nothing like wrong with that.
In fact, it's very reasonable.
Okay.
Another outrage this weekend concerns an image shared by Babylon Bees Seth Dylan, who described it as, quote, a small child, perhaps five or six, stuffs money into the underwear of a nearly naked drag queen as parents look on smiling.
Shit.
Jesus.
So annoying.
The image was in actuality a woman performing at a burlesque brunch.
Again, some parents may still find this inappropriate, but it has nothing to do with drag queens.
This is what's so bizarre to me about writing this piece.
There it is.
Okay.
So here's like, okay, I feel bad even doing this to you.
Whether this woman is a drag queen or not, or whether this is related to pride or not, you know what I mean?
It's really kind of irrelevant.
Do you look?
How do you look at this picture and go, again, some parents may still find this inappropriate?
You know, it's like you can't, if you can't look at this and go, holy shit, that is wildly inappropriate.
Wildly inappropriate, like disgusting level inappropriate, then I don't know how we can have a conversation about inappropriate.
I don't, and that's it.
We could take it down.
I don't want to look at this anymore.
Like, I don't, you know what I'm saying, Rob?
Like, if you can't just look at that picture, which you're putting up in your article and just go, well, yes, this is obviously wildly inappropriate.
Then what are we even doing discussing standards of what is appropriate and what is not?
And it's the same way I feel about the video of the drag queen, drag queen thing, the drag kids to pride or whatever.
It's like, if you can't look at this and just be like, yes, obviously this is like way over the line of what is appropriate for little kids to be around, then I don't know.
Now, you could make, you could try to make an argument that you still think it should be legal.
Like, okay, you can make that argument.
But if you can't at least concede, like, yeah, no, I completely get it.
I completely get why this disgusts so many people, then it's hard to even be, it's like, what are we even talking about then?
Dude, I don't usually have very strong feelings.
I look at that.
I don't like looking at that.
That shit's disturbing to me.
And I usually am pretty open to that other people might have a different opinion or a different perspective.
In this case, if you're looking at those images and you think that behavior should be defended, I honestly think you probably have to meet with the psychiatrist and address whether or not you're even a human being.
And I'm not, I'm not, I don't even, I don't even think I'm overstating that.
I honestly don't understand how you can have a reaction to looking at that and feel anything other than disturbed.
Yeah, I get it.
Okay, here, I'll just read the end of her piece here.
Baked into all of this outrage is the idea that drag performances are always too racy for under 18 year old eyes.
But dressing in drag isn't overtly, isn't an overtly sexual act.
And while drag shows often contain sexual humor and themes, this is far from a requirement.
Drag performances events can certainly be tailored toward children of all ages, including the drag queen story hour at libraries that has so riled folks up a few years back.
Social conservatives may object to their children being exposed to cross-dressing in general, but this doesn't make drag inherently sexual.
And letting minors see drag performers doesn't necessarily mean exposing them to anything lewd or lascivious.
Yeah, I guess if someone showed up like Mrs. Doubtfire, I guess conceptually, there's a more folks here.
I guess even that is still fucking weird, but like, yes, you could theoretically right.
You could dress up like Mrs. Doubtfire and still kind of be a bizarre thing.
But like, yes, you're right.
It could theoretically not be so sexual in nature.
But again, that it's like you're like to take this line of arguing, it just shows like the mental gymnastics on display here.
You, you have videos that are out where people see clearly, overtly sexualized events with children here.
Okay.
And yes, drag queens like do tend to be sexual in nature.
Okay.
We have the video of them.
And now you're going to go, yeah, but theoretically, I mean, you could be in drag and not do any of this sexual stuff.
Like, yeah, okay.
How about the ones where they are?
How about the ones that we all just saw where they are sexual in nature?
Can we start by condemning those?
And then could we move on to whatever this other weird obsession is?
It's also, there's this fake concession here where it's like, it's like, well, I'll concede that social conservatives don't have to bring their kids to drag shows.
It's like, wow, thank you.
Thank you for that concession.
Well, that's a nice modern, you know what I mean?
Where it's this language of like, I'm coming from the position in the middle here.
So I'm the one being reasonable.
It's like, no, you're not.
Obviously, we're not forcing socially conservative people to send their kids to these shows unless you want to see a real violent revolution kick off in this country.
But the idea that, you know, this stuff isn't over the line.
She closes out with the final, the final line to my point.
Parents are perfectly free not to take their children to events with drag performers, but parents should also be free to do so too.
Well, what about the really overtly sexual ones?
Maybe I should ask, you know, Elizabeth Nolan Brown or people who would defend this article, is there any line?
Is there any line of what parents should not be free to take their kids to?
I mean, like, really, what do you think it is?
Like, how about just like a sex show?
Should parents just be free?
Would that be your opinion?
You know, if you, if you saw a video of someone bringing their five-year-old to some like sex show, some, you know, guy is just like dildoing himself on stage, would you go, well, look, you're free not to bring your kids to this, but these parents also have the rights to bring their kids to that.
If the answer to that is yes, you really need to reevaluate your philosophy on everything and never talk about what is and isn't appropriate ever again in your life.
If your answer is no, okay, you're over here in the sane people club.
Let's build off of that.
Where is the line drawn exactly?
Okay, I'll grant you can argue.
It's somewhat arbitrary and debatable where exactly the line should be drawn.
But a lot of people are looking at these overtly sexual images and going, yo, this is over the line.
This is like really sick.
And yeah, that is getting into an area where not only should it be condemned is disgusting and all of this shit, but yeah, there could even be a conversation about like whether this should be allowed.
I don't think that's that crazy.
And so, you know, if you wanted to say, I mean, I think it would be kind of reasonable, I guess, for her to say, if she's like, well, there could be a drag show where there's nothing sexual about it at all.
It's like, okay, well, in that case, then it should be allowed, you know?
But these ones over here where there is clearly something very sexual about it, and there's a big sign that says it's not going to lick itself in the background.
Yeah, maybe that shouldn't be allowed.
Maybe it shouldn't.
Whether the sign goes over the kids' heads or not, it's still pretty goddamn weird and disgusting.
All right, that's our episode for today.
Go ahead, Rob.
You can use any final thoughts.
And Reason Magazine, what are you doing?
I mean, you're supposed to be a voice of like liberty.
There's so many injustices to report on and so many topics of freedom that you guys could be reporting on.
That to me is like if a conservative decided to defend a Nazi for some random article, why would you do that?
You're going to bring down your entire magazine.
This is visually disgusting.
I honestly don't understand why you feel a need to take this on or defend it in any capacity.
I just don't get it.
Yeah.
And it's almost as if like there's this inability, I feel like sometimes to like, I was talking about this with malice the other day on his show, but there's this inability to adjust to the new reality around us.
And I think there are some of these libertarians who it's like they had in their head, well, conservatives just fight these stupid culture war fights and it's kind of anti-freedom.
They're trying to censor things and, you know, this kind of moral majority, you know, stuff.
Culture War Reality Adjustment00:00:47
And that might have been true in the 80s or 90s.
Like it might have made sense at one point to be like, oh, they're trying to stick parental advisory stickers on all the hip hop music or whatever you're talking about.
But like, that's not really the case today.
That's really not the case in this fight, at least.
This is not, this is like, this is not a case of like these crazy conservatives just trying to push their religious values on everyone.
And they're so uptight about like cultural, you know, alternative cultures that they don't like as much.
It's like, no, these are people like seeing images of very young children in pornographic situations and being like, this is fucking disgusting.