so Jordan Peterson got suspended on Twitter for making a tweet about an
An actress with the last name Paige.
I'll just put it that way, who's in Umbrella Academy.
He made a tweet referencing an individual named Ellen Paige, who now goes by Elliot Paige.
How does that work for you?
And is refusing to apologize, so it looks like it's going to be a permanent suspension, but there is really, really big news.
Jordan Peterson and Dennis Prager have signed with The Daily Wire.
The Daily Wire announced they got 890,000 paying subscribers, and I was so jealous I punched my monitor.
I was like, oh, The Daily Wire!
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm really excited for these guys because their victory is our victory.
Watching the corporate press and the establishment fizzle out and implode, CNN Plus couldn't even fail on time.
They ended up imploding a few days early.
It's amazing.
And then the Daily Wire is taking off to see all of this success, to see Jordan Peterson getting more funding, to see money coming in, to see everyone supporting the Daily Wire.
It's just good news.
It's just all around good news.
And that's because it's not all good news.
So I decided, you know, we were originally going to leave it with the Joe Biden story where he said, you're going to pay high gas prices as long as it takes for him to win in Ukraine.
Great.
Joe Biden's political ambitions are going to dictate why you can't afford to pay for gas.
But, you know, I decided it's a little dark and, you know, let's switch it up and talk about the good news.
I mean, it is kind of bad news that Jordan Peterson got suspended.
We'll talk about that.
Plus, we got some crazy news.
The EPA is lost in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court basically said the EPA can't regulate carbon emissions, which is a huge knock on federal authority.
So now, it's just hilarious.
All of the losses the left has received.
Gun rights, Roe v. Wade, and now the EPA.
They are freaking out!
AOC, of course, going on Colbert and saying that the Supreme Court's illegitimate or whatever.
Nancy Pelosi says they're extremist.
Well, they're really, really upset, but the Democrats are going to use all of that energy to try and win in the midterms.
We'll see, because I'm not convinced.
After all of the really bad stuff that happened to the left because the Supreme Court made correct rulings, when Joe Biden comes out and says, you're going to pay high gas prices as long as it takes, I'm pretty sure people are going to be like, as long as it takes is until you're voted out of office, dude, because it's not going to be that long.
We'll talk about all that, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
The Daily Wire has 890,000 subscribers, so we just need to add about 800-and-some-odd-thousand people to our website and then we can be as big as they are.
But we're doing a lot of stuff here.
As well, we brought in Jamie Kilstein to help us do the vlog, Cast Castle, which we're slowly building it up to kind of like a fictional version of our office, so it'll be like a sitcom with gags and bits.
We've always been trying to do that, but you have to slowly build up to it, and we're not just throwing tons of money into it.
But with your support, We can ramp up production across the board.
We got Tales from the Inverted World launching season two tomorrow.
It's gonna be big.
Plus the book.
So we got a bunch of stuff in the works.
We've got new people coming on board.
We've got new shows planned.
And with your support as members, there won't just be one massive company taking over the cultural establishment.
There will be two!
Tim Cass will be doing it as well.
So sign up.
We're gonna have a members-only show coming up for you at 11 p.m.
That will be at TimCast.com.
Smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Without further ado, joining us to talk about all of these fun stories is Spike Cohen.
I am the founder and chair of an organization I started about a month ago called You Are The Power, which is a grassroots libertarian political activism group.
I am a retired business owner.
I am first and foremost the husband to, objectively, the greatest woman to ever walk this planet, Tasha Cohen.
And in my spare time, I cyber bully federal agencies and elected officials until they delete their social media accounts.
Yeah, so I should say, cyberbully is, and we don't threaten or anything like that, but really just, I'm actually almost, like, saccharine sweet in a way.
I'm like, hi there, how are you doing?
By the way, can we talk about this thing?
And so I'm almost, I'm very congenial about it, but in a way that makes them want to leave the internet forever.
All right, let's jump to this first story from the National Post.
Jordan Peterson, suspended from Twitter, says it might as well be a ban because I won't apologize.
Quote, if I can't be let back on because I won't apologize, I could care less, Jordan Peterson told the National Post after Twitter suspended his account over a tweet about Elliot Page.
I don't think Jordan Peterson said anything about Elliot Page.
On June 28, the controversial author, I like how they say he's controversial, clinical psychologist and professor emeritus at the University of Toronto lost access to most of his Twitter account features because of a tweet he posted earlier in the week that used transgender actor Elliot Page's former name and suggested he had his breasts removed by a criminal physician.
So he said, quote, I penned an irritated tweet in response to one of the latest happenings on the increasingly heated culture war front, Peter told the National Post.
As far as Peterson is concerned, the temporary suspension might as well have been a ban because he would rather die than delete the tweet in question, he said.
Right, but then there's also, I mean, like, Facebook's removed all sorts of stuff I put up over the years, and I'm sure Twitter has actually been fairly good to me on most stuff, but in terms of, I mean, I think they can remove stuff, but maybe only if it's, like you said, violating the terms, and if this is something that doesn't technically violate their terms, they're like, okay, well, We're just gonna make you remove it.
I'm honestly not sure what it is.
It also might be because he's so prominent, they don't want to remove it.
They want him to remove it and make that, you know, like atonement for it.
So by posing it as a question, the issue is with, you know, YouTube and all these other platforms, they don't want you attacking people.
That's the real issue.
They don't mind you criticizing people, but what Twitter, YouTube, and these other platforms have said, you know, behind the scenes, or I mean, actually they say it overtly, is their goal is a healthier conversation.
So if you're being critical of someone, but you're doing it calmly, they're fine with it.
But if you start calling names and stuff, then that's when they... So you think it was more about the criminal accusation than about calling Elliot Ellen?
It's kind of vague, but the idea is these big social media platforms, they don't want to cultivate a culture around everyone throwing rocks and mud at each other.
Just as a side note, I looked up the terms of service for Twitter and it says they do prohibit targeting others with repeated slurs, tropes, other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade, or reinforce negative harmful stereotypes.
This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming.
They just nuke you in two seconds, they don't care.
For Jordan Peterson, putting criminal in there, I think is what put him over the edge of, they're saying like, you're attacking, you're being mean and nasty or something like that.
I don't think it was the deadnaming, it probably played a role.
But I don't think Jordan Peterson knows who Elliot Page is or anything about that.
It is true that for a while YouTube, Twitter and Facebook and big social media platforms were seeing a lot of people become very prominent off of just being really nasty.
Now the problem is the left is still extremely nasty and they get away with it all the time.
So I recognize it's a problem.
My problem is like maybe you guys should actually actually do something to to calm people down and foster healthier conversations instead of just banning conservatives.
This is why last night we talked about Christianity.
I brought up like the cult of Christianity.
I think when you're criticizing a cult, it's different than criticizing the individuals.
If you're criticizing the tenets of a cult, like the transgender ideologies of like, I was born in a male body, but I want to call myself a woman now.
If you question that, That's really not a big problem.
If you go after the individuals that are experiencing it, then you're on hot water.
Like he brought up Elliot's name, Elliot Page, and now that's like, yo, now you're bringing someone into it, an innocent bystander, someone that's part of it.
Yeah, I think there's something to be said a difference between someone giving their in their mind principle take either way on the transgender debate or discussion and like for example on the on the anti side you know going after you know making fun of suicide rates or something and You know, going after individual people with memes about suicide or something like that.
That goes over the line of having a discussion about their disagreement with the idea of gender not being tied to biological sex and actually saying, well, I'm going to attack this person.
So that would be an example of that.
And obviously there are other examples on the other side as well.
But, you know, it's the difference between having even a heated debate and going at someone personally, like you said, to your point, attacking them.
Should he just say, fine, delete the tweet so he can carry on saying the more important things to his 2.8 million followers?
This is the challenge.
I think Jordan should probably set up a truth social account or something where he can tweet all day about these ideas, but not give up the battlefield over this one thing.
It really comes down to, he has to decide how important what he was trying to say in that tweet was, right?
Like, is that worth giving that up?
And it's not just what's in that tweet, but the idea of... Something that Jordan Peterson has said a lot is, I'm not going to say something that I don't agree with just because it'll make things easier.
So if that's the hill he's willing to die on, even if it's not necessarily in and of itself that important, he may back away from the whole thing.
I'm not even saying that I agree with that decision being made, but he's the one that built that audience and it was on that kind of principle.
It feels like a metaphor for this would be, or some kind of example, Jordan Peterson, they swept the leg.
They knocked him down.
And he says, you're not supposed to sweep the leg, so I'm done fighting.
And it's like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, you didn't lose.
The fight's still happening.
Don't walk away just because they pulled a cheap shot.
Get up and try and win.
And so the concern I have here is, I get that it was bad that they're censoring him.
He should be allowed to express these ideas.
They should not be censored.
But if Jordan Peterson has a million important things to say, and one of them got him knocked down, It's not only did he say it, what he said has been blasted off a million fold.
I think you made a good point, Spike, that he's made kind of his career around, or a big part of his career is like, I'm not going to use compelled, you cannot compel me to say something I don't believe.
And in this situation, I think if he did recant and say, okay, fine, I, fine, I'll do whatever you want.
I'll, I'll bend the knee that he'll lose 40%, 30% of his followers, or like they'll just lose faith in him.
And right now he's got the faith of humanity on his side.
So wherever he goes, whatever he does, people will listen.
He also could be playing the long game of expecting Elon Musk to purchase Twitter so he can come back triumphant however many weeks, months from now and say, see, look, I didn't bend.
I said what I said, and I'm not going to back off.
And you can take that to the bank.
Then I'll never back off of something that I believe.
And, you know, if that ends up playing out that way, then he ended up playing a much longer game than the rest of us.
He can take his tweet down, and then as soon as his account is reopened, issue a new tweet saying, follow me on Truth Social because screw this platform, they're censorious.
Try and pull as many of their users off the platform as possible to make them suffer.
That's one way to do it.
I mean, look, if Jordan Peterson's saying he's never coming back to Twitter, it's like, alright, give him one final show.
Come back on and be like, come on everybody, party's out here.
I have to give a shout out to my friend Reed Coverdale because what he does is whenever a new, you know, so-called free speech platform comes out, he immediately goes on, creates an account and says a bunch of stuff that, that, you know, ticks conservatives off.
And so, you know, immediately go on there and be like, you know, I'm not even sure if I should say this stuff because we're streaming on YouTube, but saying a bunch of various things that might tick people off on the center right and see how quickly it takes him to get kicked off.
And it's usually measured in minutes or hours.
And so he says, you know, these typically, and I'm not sure about Truth Social particularly, but in general, any of these things, it's typically, it's more, not necessarily free speech, Entirely, but more conservative-friendly speech, as opposed to the Twitter version where it's more progressive or centrist-friendly speech.
He's batting a thousand for getting knocked off these platforms.
Let's talk about what's going on with Jordan Peterson, man.
This is Jordan Peterson Newsday.
Daily Wire, the new streaming service, Daily Wire Plus, signed Jordan Peterson to a multi-year deal.
I was laughing all night.
So this news came out basically during our show yesterday.
And then when I found out, I started laughing.
I'm like, this is amazing.
CNN plus couldn't last three weeks.
They were supposed to implode within a month.
And then even a few days early, they couldn't even fail on time and watching their just collapse.
Then CNN had this announcement that like their daytime host, which is like, I'm quitting.
I'm tired of being tired.
I don't want to do this anymore.
And then Daily Wire is expanding rapidly.
They're signing new shows.
They're launching new shows.
They're bringing in Dennis Prager and Jordan Peterson.
In April, they had 600,000 subscribers.
Now they have 890,000 subscribers.
And so it's just a good day.
You know what I say?
I was saying this earlier.
I'm not motivated by money.
I'm not doing this because I want to buy a Ferrari, a Lambo, and build a mansion.
No, I would love nothing more than to walk out of my hut into a field of fresh fruit and farm them and smile upon a grateful universe knowing that we have snapped out of existence the corporate press and the establishment garbage manipulative trash.
I want to see the liars called out.
I want to see accountability from the establishment.
The Daily Wire is doing that good for them.
We want to do that too.
That's what I want to do.
Every single day.
So when I see the Daily Wire pulling this off and I see CNN failing, I know that we are winning.
I saw a picture from a Canadian airport and they were like, there's like four hour waits or six hour waits at the airport and it's just I just don't believe these people are happy.
Like, I didn't want to lead with this story, but I was talking about the DOD earlier saying they're going to keep performing abortions regardless of whether the states ban them.
And I'm like, what happens if a woman... Let's say you've got an active service personnel who lives in Texas, where they just banned abortion.
And she goes to a military base to get an abortion.
And they have a civilian doctor contracting on the military base to perform abortions.
I'm pretty sure.
I don't know about Texas, but I know there are laws that say that if you leave to pursue an abortion or aid in a bet someone getting an abortion, you can be criminally charged.
So I'm feeling like in Texas.
If you live in the state, then go to federal jurisdiction.
The federal government's like, don't worry, you can't be prosecuted for what we do here.
It's legal.
When you come back, they'll be like, no, we have a law that says it doesn't matter where you go to do it.
It's illegal.
So I think about stuff like that.
And I'm like, yeah, I think the U.S.
is kind of about to explode, you know?
But, but, you know, I say that just to provide a little like juxtaposition to this good news about the culture war, because I don't think it means that the end is nigh.
What, I mean, from the libertarian take, what we're hoping for is to move towards peaceful decentralization.
And the first step in that is, and this is something I'm working on with You Are The Power, is local, county, and state-level nullification of bad laws higher up the food chain that they don't like.
Yes, and what the ATF has already said, and Border Patrol had to say this with the Immigration Sanctuary States, and I mean, we know that they've had to do this with all the Cannabis Sanctuary States, that without the local authorities doing the, like, over 90% of the heavy lifting and the actual enforcement of these laws, it's functionally impossible for them to be able to do it.
And the beauty of that is not just the real-world implications of being able to nullify bad state and federal policy at the local level.
It also empowers the citizen to know that their vote isn't just cast into the ether.
They can take over their city, their county, and eventually their state, and get rid of all the garbage that they don't have the wherewithal to stop at Capitol Hill.
They can just stop it from being effectively enforced where they live.
Where we are right now in Maryland, there are, I think, I think it's three counties signed letters saying they wanted to secede from Maryland to join West Virginia.
It's never gonna happen, but the county we're in actually declared a two-way sanctuary.
It doesn't mean a whole lot, because the state didn't, and so you still gotta get clearance from the state police to make sure, because the laws make no sense here for guns.
But up in New Hampshire, the governor just signed a bill that said they're no longer going to cooperate with the feds, and people need to understand, the feds don't have the ability to police this country.
So the interesting thing is, when I'm reading about what was happening with the DOD basically saying, like, we're gonna keep doing abortions regardless of what the state law is, I'm like, Can federal agents be arrested for breaking state laws?
Well, they say that federal, so this is an interesting thing, they say it's a supremacy clause, things like that.
The federal government's laws supersede the state.
So if California says weed's legal and the feds say no it's not, the feds can go into California and enforce their law.
But what about the inverse?
What if the feds say a cop carrying a high capacity magazine, as it's defined by these blue states, they say, no, no, no, police aren't allowed to carry those either now.
I think you've predicted one of the next big contentious things to be handled at the federal court level because that is likely to happen.
As the gap between what the federal government's priorities and rules are and what the state's priorities and rules are, that's going to lead to conflict.
And it's not happening in Washington, D.C.
It's not happening on federal land.
It's happening on state property, in state jurisdictions.
That's who's likely to get arrested.
We know the feds will arrest someone at the state level, you know, in a Texas second.
The military will continue providing abortions in cases of rape or incest, or when the mother's life is at risk, a top Pentagon official said.
Okay.
Texas does not allow those exceptions.
Rape and incest.
Only the health of the mother.
Right.
The life of the mother.
So my question is, Let's say you have a civilian doctor and a female army personnel.
She lives off base.
She's married.
Civilian doctor does not live on base, but he contracts the hospital on base.
Or not even that.
He doesn't need to be civilian.
Let's say he's active duty military as well, lives off base.
They both, living under the jurisdiction of Texas, are subject to its laws and rules.
If you are in the army and you break the law, you face military court and civilian court.
You get in trouble two times.
So we know they have to obey the laws.
Obviously, you can't have a person to be like, I'm in the military so I can do what I want.
So they go into the military base, she gets an abortion, the doctor performs it.
There is now a record of that having occurred and the US government has said you cannot be criminally charged or penalized civilly for having this procedure regardless of the state law.
But some of these states have actually, I don't know if they've passed them yet, they say if you aid and abet an abortion you're guilty of a crime.
So that means the doctor and the woman, regardless of where it's performed, coming back into that state could be arrested because they have committed the crime, according to that state.
What happens if the state then says, we don't care what the Fed said, and they arrest this contractor or two active duty military and the military is like, you can't arrest them.
And the guy's just like, I refuse to allow you to get an abortion.
I reject this.
So he reports her.
It doesn't matter if the feds are tracking it or not, if you have a witness come out
and then the feds take the active duty person in and say we're going to interrogate you
for part of our investigation.
And she says yes I did it and it was legal, it was on federal jurisdiction.
And they say, okay, stand up, hands behind your back, you're under arrest, you have a
She's like, what?
How is this happening?
And they say, the law states if you aid and abet an abortion and go somewhere, it doesn't matter where it took place.
I don't know if Texas has that ruling, but the general idea, I suppose, is it's not necessarily the same thing as, I think it might have been like Iowa or Idaho, where they said if you aid and abet.
But if this military base is in Texas, The feds might be like, it happened on federal jurisdiction.
Texas might still say, you're still in Texas.
You still live under our laws.
And regardless of that, let's just say, letter of the law.
No, no, no, they can't do that, right?
Okay, well, according to James Buchanan, states weren't legally allowed to secede either, didn't stop them.
So what happens if you get a Christian conservative prosecutor in Texas who says, we have made it illegal to kill babies.
And then you went into a military base and killed a baby, I'm gonna charge you and I'm gonna take it all the way to the top because I believe it's the right thing to do.
It doesn't matter what the federal government thinks they're protected on, and then what?
The feds are gonna be like trying to pull their people out of the jail, filing lawsuits.
Does it end in a legal battle or does it end with the state police surrounding federal law enforcement vehicles at gunpoint and saying you're under arrest?
What happens then if a federal agent tries getting the woman out even though she's a known fugitive of state law?
Is it possible Texas then says you've aided and abetted a fugitive?
I don't care if you're doing it.
The feds have no authority to undermine our laws.
Think about it this way.
Let's say a federal agent, let's say a female member of the army murders a kid, hits him with a car, And it was on duty driving a military vehicle and the kid dies.
And the state says, you were driving recklessly.
We have a witness.
You're under arrest.
And then the military says, no, she was on, she was active duty.
Like if it's, if it's, if it's on, you know, in the jurisdiction of the state where this gets mucky would be if she did it on a military base and the military said, we're handling it.
And the state said, no, it's in our jurisdiction.
My understanding of that is that that wouldn't be their jurisdiction.
Yeah, I was gonna say, I believe that there's already some long-standing precedent, both, I'm not even sure if it had to be judicial, I think that's understanding that on military base, that is federal land, that's not state jurisdiction.
So where the question arises then, where this starts to become more akin to the civil war is women going to federal military going to military bases when they're not active duty to get abortions the state knows they're doing it does the state say to the federal government stop breaking our laws or else and the feds say it's our military base you can't do anything about it and they say we will send in state police to arrest these women the moment they step foot out they're getting arrested because you are like
If people start going on a military basis, they say, and again, I know this is a bit of a stretch, they're gonna be providing abortions.
I think it's typically only done for military personnel on military bases.
But there are people on the left arguing for effectively using... Making them sanctuaries for abortions.
Right, exactly.
So my suggestion is, is this the direction we may be going?
There is a gap between those who see this as, you know, a woman exerting autonomy over her body against a clump of cells, a parasite, and other people are saying, no, this is a murder of a baby every bit as much as if the woman were to turn around and murder someone standing next to him.
And it's hard to have a compromise between that, right?
And so if this plays out and both sides are willing to go to the trenches over it, this could lead to what we're talking about, or even worse, on just even this specific subject.
The abolitionists would be like, don't know, don't care.
You can't do this, it's wrong.
So what I fear is, it's just crazy to me that Texas would come out so strong.
No exceptions for rape or incest.
And the military says, we will.
We're getting to that point where You just need to imagine it this way.
If abortion is murder, at least in the eyes of the Christian conservatives, what they're basically saying is, we will keep killing children and you can't stop us.
I mean, that would be the level that would be at if they were... Could you imagine if the pro-life movement took it to the place where they were killing mothers for having abortions?
And I mean, we could talk about my concerns about how a war on abortion is just as successful as the war on drugs, war on terror, war on poverty, everything else.
What happens when you get government involved as a regulatory body on something like pregnancy and the harm that comes from that?
But just inside of this, the biggest thing I'm concerned of on a broader scale is the idea of, oh, you did that over there?
Yeah, no, don't ever come back or we'll arrest you.
Take that to its logical conclusion.
Are there any other instances in the United States?
I don't believe that would be held up.
There may be some rule, but as far as I can think, I can't think of an instance where going... because, I mean, you take that to its logical conclusion.
It's not just within the U.S.
That could mean someone that goes to, you know, the Netherlands and tries, you know, ketamine or tries cannabis or something, and then comes back to a state where it's illegal, gets arrested because they put it on social media that they did it.
Um, and then you could even get more obscure with things that like violate a bylaw in your county, but they don't violate a bylaw where you were.
The enforcement mechanism there would be horrific, and yeah, it needs to be... if there's going to be a semblance of rule of law, it's...
The jurisdiction you are under, those are the rules that you are under.
Not the crimes you committed and then come back, or the things you did there that were perfectly fine and legal, but then you come back home, or wherever you reside, and now it's illegal there, so now you're gonna be charged for a crime.
I mean, imagine, hard enough to figure out what's illegal in a given place where you are, to try to figure out what's illegal any place you would then go after that?
Yeah, I can't see that being held up.
That would be a major problem.
And like Tim said, we don't even know if Texas has that, but there are other states that have tried implementing that for abortion and some of these other things.
And it's politicians, honestly, virtue signaling to their base.
Not only can't they do it here, they can't do it anywhere.
Well, that's probably not going to be held up.
And would you want that to be held up?
Like, would you want the government to tell you what you can and can't do when you aren't even in under their jurisdiction?
Ian, I know you said, um, abortion is not murder, uh, from the legal standpoint of the word, but then what do you make of, uh, murdering a pregnant woman being considered double homicide?
Murder, manslaughter, it depends on... I believe it's state by state, because I know in California, and a lot of people thought how ironic California, which is, you know, when it comes to abortion, the most, you know, liberal on that subject.
But when Scott Peterson killed Lacey Peterson and her child, He was charged with double homicide, with double murder.
Yeah, no, if it comes down to, if a state, because really it comes down to personhood, right?
Like if a state has decided that personhood doesn't begin until birth, or some point after conception, and this fetus, unborn child, whatever you want to call it, hasn't reached that point of personhood yet, well then that would mean whether it was through an abortion, or through someone killing the mother, or attacking the mother, and the fetus, unborn person dies, you would have to, it would either always be Homicide, or a crime, or it would always not be that, because that thing doesn't have personhood.
Yeah, I would think there's a value to the intricacy of killing an unborn fetus that maybe isn't considered a person, that's different than just destroying a cell block, but also maybe not as horrific as like a murder charge.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence.
The law defines child in utero as a member of the species of Homo sapiens at any stage of development.
The law is codified in two sections of U.S.
code, blah blah blah.
The law applies only to certain offenses over which the U.S.
government has jurisdiction, including certain crimes committed on federal properties, against certain federal officials and employees, and by members of the military.
In addition, it covers certain crimes that are defined by statute as federal offenses wherever they occur.
So, look, to put it simply, if you kill an unborn baby, since 2004 it has been considered a crime and the embryo is a legal victim.
Yeah, that was the Bush administration and the GOP Congress's kind of foot in the door of normalizing the idea of like, you know, this is an unborn child.
It's also a victim for future reference as, you know, and this is also why abortion should be banned or restricted or whatever.
Not just signaling, but actually creating the legal mechanism to build upon in the future.
The camel's nose under the tent, and a few years later you've got a full camel in your tent.
The purpose behind that, as Tim noted, that's for federal offenses or for federal personnel, like military personnel or whatever.
So like, if it's outside of federal jurisdiction, that doesn't apply.
So the whole purpose of that, even though it's very limited when it could ever be used, the whole purpose of that, yes, was to signal to the base, but also to create that infrastructure or that legal mechanism to make future build-upons in the future.
This would mean that in Washington, D.C., for instance, If you committed one of these listed crimes against a pregnant woman resulting in the death of the fetus, then you're... You're charged with this.
But I could imagine this argument happening where they're like, well, abortion should be considered part of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
So we got to be real careful that they don't start interweaving these without people understanding what's happening.
Because if a mother goes in for an abortion and then gets charged with murder because of some stupid law, that's going to just unravel the fabric of society.
This is, I believe, a gray area right now, because the Roe v. Wade decision, they decided, they sidestepped the question of, is this a Ninth Amendment issue where abortion is an unenumerated right, or is it a Tenth Amendment issue where this was never covered under the Constitution and therefore it should be left to the states or the people?
Instead, they sidestepped and said, well, it's really a question of privacy.
It's a violation of privacy.
And so, in overturning this, the current Supreme Court said not only it's not a privacy issue, they said it's also not a Ninth Amendment issue, but they said it's a Tenth Amendment issue, meaning it should be left to the states.
So, at least as it was decided, it did not sound like they had an appetite for a federal ban on abortion.
The fascinating thing to me in all of this, there was a tweet from a personality I saw on Twitter who was wondering why, he said something like, name any medical procedure where you have no right to privacy.
Why isn't this a thing, blah blah blah, and I was like, did you read Roe?
Because I don't think any of these people actually know what the point of Roe was or the decision, one of which was stated by the Supreme Court.
The fetus itself is a living being with a right to privacy.
Therefore, the question of an abortion is not about a single person, but about two persons, which is why we ended up with the trimester ruling.
Basically, they said, okay, in the first trimester, you can get an abortion, but afterwards, now you have to consider the person's life, which is the baby.
And then with Casey, they said it's viability, it's not trimester.
I don't think any of these people realize that.
They keep saying things like, my body, my choice, and you're like, read Rowe.
They're specifically saying at a certain point, you have to recognize there are two bodies here.
They don't even recognize that.
In the federal law, they actually have a photo here on the Wikipedia page of a woman named Tracy Marciniak holding the body of her son.
She was seriously injured in an assault during the ninth month of her pregnancy.
So that's what I often say.
I don't understand why there is a legal distinction Between two babies of the exact same amount of time since conception, but one has been removed from the womb and one hasn't.
Why is there a legal protection for one but not the other?
I don't understand any logical or moral statement.
Like, if a mother was shielding her baby from your assault, and you ended up hurting her hands and killing the baby, you still committed homicide against the baby.
When does this cease to be a clump of cells and when does it become a full-fledged person that has the same legal and moral and ethical protections that anyone else would have?
A secondary debate is, even if it has personhood at some point before birth, which I think, it's hard to argue that, like there's some magic moment passing through the womb, like, oh now it's magically a person!
But the secondary debate there becomes, you know, at what point, if ever, does one human life have the right to the, you know, connection to another human life for its subsistence?
And so that has been an argument that, you know, the mother, and that's why it comes down to what the mother wanted or intended or decided, is the idea, well, that the mother shouldn't have to be, you know, should the mother have to be, you know, tied to and be providing, you know, subsistence to and risking, you know, her life and health for a second person, even if it is an actual, you know, recognized person.
Oh no, I was gonna say, this is where it gets interesting, because if you look at polling across the board over the past several decades, most people, you'll see the left will be like, 80% of people are pro-choice.
And I'm like, yeah, but they also really resent and reject elective abortion.
Because the average person, when you're asking about abortion, they think, they imagine this woman who's crying and being like, I have no choice, you know, I need to make the right decision for my life and my family, and I wish it wasn't this way.
But instead you have like 93% of abortions are elective, no reason given.
Many women use it as a form of contraception.
Most people don't like that.
So when you look at... I actually went through tons of data!
All these different polls, all these different institutions.
Because I'm like, okay, they're saying, I can't believe that most people in this country are just like totally fine with abortion as contraception.
And it's like, when you actually look at the questions asked, you realize, actually, they're not okay with elective abortion.
And they're very much in line with, I think, how Oklahoma's been handling it.
Meaning, abortion is legal in any legitimate circumstance.
Legitimate being a very, very narrow band of acceptable causes for why abortion can happen.
And most people, I think it's more than two-thirds, around 70, say abortion should only happen with a legitimate reason.
And I'm like, that's actually very restrictive.
That would get rid of 93% of abortions.
You're not hearing that when it comes to what the left is actually arguing when they're talking about this.
So I bring that up because you mentioned the woman is providing her body to the child.
And this is an important distinction.
In the issue of rape and incest, I actually think you have a very, very difficult position.
But in this instance especially, I think women have a right to abortion, particularly because If you're going to make the argument that women made irresponsible choices and then got pregnant.
And so here's the challenge, because I've argued this with Seamus.
If a woman says, I'm gonna go party tonight, I don't need protection, and then gets pregnant, then someone makes the point, the government can't mandate she provide her body to another being, it's like, well hold on, she made the choice to provide her body to that being, and now wants to rescind it.
It's not that she made the choice specifically thinking it would happen, but she engaged in the behavior which results in that it happened, and now theirs are being dependent upon her.
So it's like, If you agree to a medical procedure that would provide a direct link to another person's blood, and then after two weeks said, I want to shut this down, they'd be like, well now you'd be killing the person.
It's a different story as opposed to someone forcefully jammed, you know, fused your body with someone else, human centipede style.
Then I'd be like, you had no right to do that and you can't hold it against me.
Well, there could be rape involved in an incest situation, but if a brother and sister decide to have a baby together, I don't understand how that would be different than having a child with some sort of deformity in the womb.
I mean, it's a good point, because we certainly are not okay with the idea of eugenics-based abortion, where it's like, I don't like the baby.
I'm told the baby will not be well, therefore get rid of it.
Because if the incest is the same argument, then...
But I want to point something out because I saw a meme and it's the two arms coming together with like two distinct ideas and then coming together over one.
I want to tell you, I mean, I don't know how much longer you wanted to talk about this, so I do want to get this in.
I actually personally consider myself pro-life.
I think that abortions are more often than not gruesome and regrettable things.
The reason that I really do not like the idea of government getting involved in this is because if you look at how government handles things, they never just handle this.
They, by their very nature, there's mission creep and they just keep getting more and more and more involved.
If they take the turn of saying, this is a constitutionally protected person inside of your body and we have to make sure this person is not killed, that doesn't end there.
It is also, we need to make sure you're taking care of this person.
And if we're making sure you're taking care of this person, we need to make sure that you're getting regular inspections.
And if there's a miscarriage, we're going to have to investigate that.
And you know what?
You're going to need to be taking, you know, keep your vitamin levels at a certain level and keep your BMI below a certain level.
This inevitably, if you look at the history of how government ends up regulating things, This will inevitably, at some point, especially once the progressives decide that they've lost this battle and they're just gonna fight it on the other side, it will lead to pregnancy licensing.
And if that sounds insane, by the way, for anyone who thinks that sounds insane, go back a hundred years and tell someone all the things they have to have a license to do right now.
And now go forward 10, 20 years and tell someone that you could have an unlicensed pregnancy and look at the look of horror on their face.
And whenever something has to be licensed or regulated, here come the rent-seeking crony lobbyists who want to make sure that their prenatal vitamin is mandated.
So now what used to be $8 a month is now $500 a month and who knows if your insurance is going to cover it and you're going to end up inevitably in a situation.
Because abortion, illegal abortions will always be available, there will always be a black market for it, where poor women who are unable to afford a legal, regulated pregnancy end up getting an illegal abortion who would have otherwise kept the child because they can't afford the burden of getting a legal pregnancy and it's way easier to hide an illegal abortion than an illegal pregnancy.
I think that's a ridiculous notion that anyone's miscarriage would be investigated in the circumstance that, you know, abortion would be federally banned or... But then anyone could just say they miscarried instead of having an abortion.
Roe v. Wade was the start of the government encroaching upon women's bodies.
Like that's the... What do you mean by that?
That's the new precedent.
They shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
Yes, but it led to an investigation. And the problem is if you've criminalized abortion,
then the easy loophole, if they're not actively investigating miscarriages, is to just say,
oopsie, got a miscarriage, right?
And so that can trigger... I mean, it's not like every single time they're gonna, you know, have someone and they're gonna be drilling them and putting the lights on them and all of that.
But at the very least, there has to be some follow-up by law enforcement to make sure this was a legitimate miscarriage.
Now imagine being a woman who's just had a miscarriage.
No, actually before 1973 and really before the restrictions that started a few decades prior, abortion was actually something that was largely unregulated in the U.S.
And so it wasn't really coming into the late 19th and early 20th century was actually when you saw the ban starting.
I will tell you, I mean, if you take it to its logical conclusion, because otherwise, if that's not the case, then really there is no effective ban on abortion.
The reason you might have seen bans on abortion starting in the early 20th century is that's when contraception was taking off, but that's a whole other discussion.
No, I mean there were reasons for that, and the only point I'm making is that we haven't seen this exist long enough to see the logical conclusion of what happens when government gets their hooks into something.
That's what concerns me about the Roe v. Wade overturn, is that now instead of one government involved in the regulation, there's 50 governments regulating it.
If you argue, you know, decentralization should go to the individual, right?
Ideally.
So if you're arguing that this is a woman's rights thing, then the obvious argument is that it goes back to the individual.
If you're arguing that there should be some regulation of this, then the argument would be that it should be handled at the state level.
I'm kind of transcending all of that and saying, I really just, the idea of government getting involved in something like this, you know, the war on drugs, more drugs.
I hear you on government involvement.
uh... the the the criminalization of otherwise peaceful human behavior
uh... the uh... militarization of the police no knock rates all of this came
from trying to uh... regulate the use of a substance in and
if you get them now involved in pregnancy then i'm just i'm very concerned that's gonna lead not not
immediately but you know years decades down the road what that leads to
especially once progressive say
and you know it's group will just regulate a lot of it that i i hear you
Well, above reasons that are given economics is the main one.
And so the point of that is that, you know, I think that I wish that there was more focus put on addressing the concerns and reasons why women get abortions, getting rid of some of these ridiculous restrictions on adoption, which, by the way, pro-lifers agree with.
I hate watching pro-choicers or pro-abortion, whatever you want to call them, on Twitter and on Facebook going, well, you know, if these pro-lifers really cared, they'd want to loosen the restrictions on adoption.
So at a time when the Democrats are desperate to find someone to run in 2024 because they don't think Joe Biden's going to make it, Joe Biden's giving them all the reason to try and find someone else to run in 2024.
You know, here, I like the theory that, you know, there have been people that have said that he keeps like giving calls for help.
That he doesn't really want to be doing this and that he's like, you know, they won't just let me go eat ice cream and like he'll like come to like at different like candid moments where he'll be like, they told me to come out here and say this.
Yeah, if you remove as long as it takes, this is an axiom.
This is as long as the policies that are in place are in place, the gas prices will remain high.
And it's crazy because it was, I believe, earlier this month that Biden did correctly acknowledge that right now the biggest bottleneck, at least in the U.S.
when it comes to domestic gas production, is at the refinery level.
But then he blamed the refiners and said, oh, you're not producing enough and you're profiting, you know, you're price gouging us.
And then the refiners came out and said, we're at like 96, 98% capacity.
If you, right now, lessen some of the environmental restrictions and regulations on us, we could increase capacity by double digits.
And if, at the same time, you allowed us to build some new refineries for the first time in decades, while simultaneously reducing some of these tariffs on the materials that we need to build the refineries, we could short-term fix it with reduction of regulations, and long-term fix it by building more refineries.
But, you know, he'd rather say hashtag Putin price hike.
And I'm like, okay, break, break down for me the corporate profits thing.
And they're like, what do you mean?
Like, explain to me how much money they make.
Like, I don't know.
I just saw a meme on Facebook.
And I'm like, if inflation is through the roof, and the cost to produce oil has gone up, and the cost to drill for oil has gone up, that means their profits will increase to the same percentage point.
So I'll put it simply.
If you make $100 in profit and it costs you $75 to produce the oil, that's a 25% profit.
If the costs increase by 25% and then you increase the cost of fuel as you sell it by 25%, it will also look like your profits went up 25% but you retained the same level of buying power.
These people don't understand that.
So sure, maybe you can say, but they're still getting lots of profits.
That is true.
They are still making billions of dollars, but it's also absurd to be like, well, they should, they should sacrifice their profits for the sake of Joe Biden's energy policy.
No, no, look, I'll be, I'll be fair and say, yeah, they probably should work alongside with the government to lower prices, but we still can point out Joe Biden enacted a bunch of policies specifically to transition us off of fossil fuels.
But now what they didn't realize is transitioned isn't like rainbows and unicorns.
Transition means make this prohibitively expensive so you have to do this.
That's what a transition that's forced by government looks like as opposed to a market-driven transition where it is unicorns, where it is look at this new thing that's way better as opposed to we're going to make this thing way worse in comparison.
I have gotten on an airplane, gotten a notification that the flight had been cancelled, and then just start getting up because I realize they're about to announce it to everyone else too, and they've done that before, yeah.
And we ended up having to stay, that was at Charlotte Airport, we ended up having to stay the night there.
And, like, I'm looking at it, I'm like, No, we're on the, we're on the plane.
I looked and the doors open.
I'm like, I'm like, we're getting off the plane.
And we did.
And sure enough, like as I'm getting off the plane, they're like, uh, everyone, we have an update.
And I'm like, yeah, the update is this flight is canceled.
See you tomorrow morning.
Uh, they said it was because of, um, oh, what did they say?
They always say maintenance.
And that's because of some kind of thing with the flight insurance.
They don't have to pay as much out or something like that.
But the reality is, uh, I talked to one of the pilots as we were leaving and they're like, yeah, we already went over our hours.
And they thought that these other pilots coming in would be able to do it, but they went over their hours too.
So we went out, we went to the movies over Labor, I think it was Labor Day, and there's nobody anywhere.
And I'm just like, where are the humans?
Where are the humans?
So the fun conspiracy theory, it's not really a conspiracy, but the fun joke theory is that the rapture happened, and all of the people that got raptured, our memories of them was erased.
So now we're just sitting here wondering why all of the stores have labor shortages, why there's no pilots anymore.
They're all gone, and we just can't remember who they were.
When you pump trillions of dollars into the economy and artificially create demand while simultaneously paying people to do nothing, you create a bunch of consumers and reduce the number of producers.
And we're watching that play out in real time.
The way that corrects is through a massive recession, which is coming.
If it hasn't already started, it's coming.
And it is the reality of when, and this, by the way, Anyone who's still out there promoting modern monetary theory or UBI or any of that nonsense, this was a couple times of them handing off checks and expanding unemployment insurance by a little bit.
And look at what it led to.
It led to such a disruption in the market that everyone became net consumers and stopped producing.
And the ripple effects of that will be felt for years.
Well, so the idea is if the recession is coming and the value of the dollar is going to tank, then the buying, so like a car that's worth 20 grand today is going to be worth 40 grand in a year.
You take out a loan for a $20,000 car and in a year you sell it for 40 grand, you pay off the loan, you got a free 20 grand.
Right before the recession, they know that if they borrow $100,000, and then the buying power of that $100,000 collapses, They basically got a freebie.
Now they can sell whatever they bought because the price will spike.
The value of the dollar goes down, so you'll need twice as many dollars to buy it, so they'll get the free money.
So you look at the difference between the 2007-2008, the housing price bubble that then crashed and then caused the whole ripple effect to the recession, which then led to the whole concept of too big to fail and the TARP bailouts.
Add a zero to that, and that's what we're facing.
This is a whole, you know, this is an exponential, this is a whole order of magnitude higher of what we're facing now.
Like we're literally, instead of hundreds of billions and trillions, we're now talking trillions and tens of trillions.
And it's hard to quantify what the ripple effects are going to be, and they just keep feeding into it.
And that's why you see this, this, you know, they talk about the, uh, um, the, uh, yes.
Yes, 40% of all the money that has ever been made has been made in the last two years.
I think they did that to mask that they were about to start printing and get that upper diagonal, that big one, What is it, like an 80 degree angle instead of a 27 degree angle?
Imagine playing a game of Monopoly, and all of us are playing by the rules, okay?
And every single... I'm going to make you the bad guy here, sorry.
All of us are playing by the rules, right?
You roll your dice, you go to the number of spaces, you decide whether you want to buy, hold, whatever, and then when it's Mary's turn, she goes to the banker and says, give me a trillion Monopoly notes and stick them all with the bill for it.
That's our economy.
And the problem is, the price of living is going up the same for everyone, but the closer you are to that money supply at its initial printout, at its initial disbursement, the less affected you are by the double-digit price inflation, and the more you're exposed to the triple-quadruple-digit increase overnight of your wealth, and that's what we're seeing here.
Bitcoin dropped, I think, to like 19K or whatever.
And everyone's screaming in the media.
And I'm just like, I don't know.
I don't care.
I'm ignoring it.
And that's the deal.
When you have money, you don't care that it went down.
You're like, I don't know what I'm going to do with it anyway.
And then after a year, two years, three years, it starts to recover.
So when people see this stuff and they actually need their money and they're seeing it tank and they're like, I can't ignore that.
And they're forced to sell it at garbage rates.
They become poorer.
Rich people who are more resilient to the change in monetary value and recessions and depressions can ignore it until the recovery happens and then retain all that value.
I would also like to note that Bitcoin has crashed down to its 2017 high.
Its previous all-time high before this last increase.
There's an old video, I wish they had kept updating it, it's about seven years old now, but it's called Don't Buy Bitcoin, It Crashes.
And it's this guy going, there was this one time Bitcoin was worth, and I'm making up the numbers, but it's pretty much like this, One time it was worth .1 cents, and then it went up to 5 cents, and then it crashed all the way down to 2 cents.
And then this other time, it was worth $3.25, and then it went all the way up to $25, and then it crashed all the way down to...
780 and like he keeps doing this and he goes and so the moral of the story is don't buy get Bitcoin it crashes this is the the Cycle of parabolic growth usually some sideways trading and then a crash down To higher than the previous all-time high and now the gaps are obviously not as wide as they used to be It's a lot easier for something to go from $1 to $10 than to go from 20,000 to 200,000 right like there's only so much market cap it can have but The pattern's still playing out.
So it's crazy because, you know, I was talking about this in 2020, 2021, food shortages are coming.
What happens?
Putin's price hike.
Whether or not you believe any of that stuff, the fact is there is a shortage of wheat, which is going to be mind-bogglingly devastating.
Not as much to us.
But Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all these Middle Eastern countries, Turkey, these countries that get much of their grain and food from Russia and Ukraine, they ain't gonna be getting it.
So what are they gonna do?
They're gonna be very, very hungry and very angry, and we are going to be watching.
We're gonna be sitting there, and we're gonna be like, ha ha, remember when we used to watch CNN when they were news?
No?
Well, let's put it on anyway.
You'll turn it on, and you'll just see food riots.
Water and food riots.
And we'll have some of that here.
During the pandemic, remember those lines of cars for miles waiting for food because people didn't have any?
If you think it's bad now, if you think it was bad back then, right now there's nobody producing.
So not only do we have a fertilizer shortage, which led to predictions of a crop yield dropping by 40%, diesel potential shortage, meaning farmers won't even be able to harvest And if they do, it'll be substantially more expensive to harvest, and there will be substantially less food, meaning, for more than one reason, the cost of food is going to skyrocket.
It's almost as if massively expanding the monetary supply and then just handing it out leads to a massive increase in prices because you have much more money chasing the same amount of goods and services.
And then that same amount of goods and services actually goes down because people say, I got all this money, I don't need to work.
It makes you wonder when they advocate for the Great Reset, literally, like calling it that, and then they implement these policies that have just destroyed everything.
You need to get, first of all, you need to get currency out of the control of the government.
Government is a political entity that tries to implement political goals for political purposes.
It should not be in charge of the money supply because this is what happens.
When you have a political entity in charge of the money supply, they implement the money supply not for the best use of its consumers because they're a monopoly.
They don't care about the consumers.
or the people using it.
They do it for their political purposes, which in this case is to try to, you know, push along an economy that they don't want to correct and making things worse in the process and paying off the cronies who sponsored them in the office.
Right, he wanted to tax large drinks because he said, poor people are stupid and buy big sugary drinks and get fat, so let's put a big tax on it so they can't afford it anymore so they stop doing it.
So the government needs to stop being involved in what money is.
Because if you allow the market to determine what money is, now instead of having a political entity manipulating, openly manipulating the monetary supply for political purposes, and destroying the wealth and the well-being of the vast majority of people that are involved in this, instead now you have competing entities who because they want to be You know, have their dominant market share have a vested interest in doing the opposite.
They want their money to be deflationary, or at the very least, not have the value go down over time.
Have the value of the money increase over time.
Have the case use and the ability to use it go up over time.
Have it be an effective and better thing.
This is what we apply to everything else, right?
Like, you don't want to have to buy your car from the government car company, right?
Why would you want to have to get your money from the government money company?
By the way, this is why I don't consider myself a constitutionalist.
I think the Constitution is a useful way for us to use it defensively to protect our rights.
But at any point, there are times in the Constitution where it lays out things that blatantly are bad for us and violate our rights.
And this would be an example of that.
I don't think that government should be involved in money.
They've proven themselves to be a bad steward of it.
And even if you replace the Federal Reserve, because I understand what you're saying.
They're technically a private entity.
If you replace the Federal Reserve instead, If you replace the Federal Reserve instead with just a federal bank, it's effectively the same thing, but just, you know, with different steps.
I think if it was Congress, we'd be able to audit it, or it would be like part of it being the Congress's bank is that the American, the people's bank, is that we would audit it.
Yeah, but you still have a centrally planned authority, right?
So why not instead allow a market-derived series of notes, or in this case it's probably gonna be more electronic, but you could also have physical notes.
There are plenty of people out there that don't want the electronic notes, they want the physical notes.
Why not let the market determine what is best for people?
And the thing is, a lot of what the crony, and at this point it's sort of like a corporatist, fascist extension of government, some of these companies like BlackRock and so forth, the reason they're able to do it is because they get free money that's underwritten by you and by future generations that haven't even been born yet.
You reintroduce, and I'm not saying necessarily this, but you reintroduce having the money being determined by the market level.
They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
And yes, they're wealthier, but they're now going to have to deal with the same supply and demand issues.
They're not going to be able to just... Bitcoin.
Yeah, Bitcoin.
They're not going to be able to just print out endless streams of money and have you pay the bill for it, have you pay the debt for it with the interest.
And then when everything falls apart, they get bailed out and that's paid for by more money that got printed out.
That whole thing goes away when you take away the ability for them to just expand the monetary supply whenever they want to, to pay off their own bills.
This is why I like cryptocurrency, and this is why it's frustrating when you get progressives who are acting like crypto is a really, really bad thing.
It's like, you're just shilling out for the establishment.
If you value right now, all the people with the Bitcoin and the Ethereum, like there are huge people that own massive amounts of that stuff would own the market essentially without any government oversight.
And then they would buy up all the corn and then they would raise the price of corn 13 times and then sell it back to the people.
Well, first of all, are there Bitcoin billionaires?
Absolutely.
But if you look at the distribution of that wealth, for lack of a better term, it's far less centralized than you would see, for example, where you have less than 1% of the population that owns 20-30% of everything.
Like, that's certainly not happening.
And if you took all the crypto bros out there, they're certainly not going to have anywhere near that same market level that exists in this current system, because they can't.
Because it has to be a system that reflects the actual market demands and supply and demand, as opposed to a political entity, a centrally planned political entity.
Saying, all right, well, you guys help get me into office.
And so, you know, I'm paying you off and here's however many trillion dollars.
I'm going to give you a $600 check.
You stay right there.
You should make sure to vote for me.
And, uh, and you know, also you're getting the debt for this guy.
Uh, Oh, this all fell apart.
Okay.
Well, um, we're going to print out more money and bail you out.
There is no utopian system, but the regulation comes in place if suddenly there's a reason for there to be suspicion of how Bitcoin is being used.
It's out in the open and people can see it.
Or if it's not out in the open, if there's some coin that you can't see the back end of it, you can't see the ledger of it, it is centrally controlled, people are going to say, why would I use this when I can use this that's so much better?
That's what happens from the market.
It's like using the car analogy.
If this car company suddenly is making cars that are absolute garbage, You know it, and you go buy a car somewhere else.
You can do this with anything.
Chicken sandwiches, skateboards, whatever, it doesn't matter.
Having more providers makes you more likely to be able to get a better value, and for them to have an incentivization of serving you as the consumer.
But when you bypass that through central planning, now they don't have to serve you as the consumer, they only have to serve the political class that they put in office.
With the wallets, like with crypto wallets, it looks like there's a lot of people that, because everyone has a wallet, but it could be one guy that has 900,000 wallets.
Yeah, so market-derived systems don't necessarily not allow for the centralization of wealth.
But in order to be able to do that, you have to serve the consumer.
If it's market-derived and not centrally planned, in order to be able to grow, maintain, and expand wealth, you have to be serving the consumer.
Better than your competitors, especially if you want to expand it.
If you want to maintain it, you have to at least be doing it as well as your competitors.
In a system that isn't market-derived, in a system that is centrally planned through a centralized monopoly of violence such as government, instead what you have is a system where I don't have to serve you.
I just have to be friends.
You're the bad guy again.
I have to be friends with Mary, the government, who I just so happen to bankroll into office,
and friend Mary too, who's on the other side, other side, and make sure that they're my friends
and that they give me whatever I want. So now instead of having to do the often, you know,
mind-numbing labor to make sure that I am serving you.
you and everyone else as best as possible and where the consumer is king
instead all I have to do is spend a pittance of those resources just keeping
them in office keeping them fat and happy and then getting them to give me
whatever I want that is inherently a system that feeds everything has to feed
a great a profit motive right the profit motive needs to be fed by serving the
consumer instead of serving a small handful of the ruling we've got to go to
I don't know if I'm going to be running for anything in the future.
And right now, and part of the reason I started You Are The Power is until we grow this movement massively, we're really talking about who's the next guy to score the margin of error.
It doesn't matter until we have a much larger movement.
So I haven't ruled anything out for the future.
I just don't really care until we've done the movement growing.
The reality is the government has no business telling you what you can own, a firearm or otherwise.
And you can make the Second Amendment argument of, it says very clearly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can also make just the rights argument of if I have a natural right to defend myself, and you can also make the reality of power argument which is that if a small handful of people have the only effective ability to project violence effectively, no one else has any say in anything.
And that means if you go out and pick up trash, you've made America great again.
Like Scott Pressler does.
If you go out and register people to vote, you are making America great again.
It doesn't matter if it's Trump or DeSantis or whatever.
The point is, start locally.
Build community, meet your neighbors, have a barbecue, invite friends over, learn from each other, and build those strong community bonds, and that makes America stronger.
And also in doing that, you show people that they don't need.
A lot of people, they aren't, you know, socialists or statists or authoritarians or whatever.
They veer into those things because they don't see a viable alternative.
They're not shown a viable alternative for how they can be.
We all want the same things.
We want to be safe.
We want to be healthy.
We want to be happy.
We want to be prosperous.
And if we can show that by building communal bonds, that we can do those things together voluntarily and not needing some centrally planned authority, making some caricature approximation of it that makes everything worse, we can actually reduce their power that is in people's heads of the legitimacy of their bad ideas by showing them a much better alternative, which is us working together.
And, and like the, there are five lights, for instance, Picard knows there's four, but they're like, just say that there are five, even though we know that, you know, it's not real.
We want you to say it out loud to acknowledge that you're one of us.
And I feel like going to a church and having them having you repeat stuff like this bread is actually a physical is his human body.
Or a woman was impregnated by a ghost thing is like, it's not right in front of you, but when you have a piece of bread in front of you and you're made to say that it's a guy's body, you're not made to.
I mean, look at all the scuttlebutt that's gotten us where we are so far with this deal, right?
But I mean, if you wanted to play the game of I'd never, you know, bend to anyone's will, even on something that, you know, in and of itself isn't necessarily the hill many would die on, it's the hill I'll die on because I'll die on every hill.
That's kind of his brand, right?
Like, there isn't a hill I won't die on.
And then to have Elon Musk come in and say, well, you're going to be allowed to say that, I mean, what an ultimate victory there.
Plus, that coupled with the Daily Wire announcement and everything else is like Jordan Peterson's king of the world.
Brie Sullivan says, are you serious about Trump banning people?
It was reported, I'm not saying it's completely, it's true because you know I don't trust these media outlets, that people were getting banned off Truth Social for pushing January 6th reporting.
Like they were saying like here's what January 6th the committee is saying and doing and they were getting banned.
I kind of feel like I don't trust them when they report that because it's probably you know leftists and liberals going on Truth Social and breaking the rules but including January 6th so they can be like look look what I was banned for and it's like Yeah, like I said, my friend Reid, and I'm not going to repeat it because we're on a YouTube live stream, but we'll put up stuff that should not be violating what they purport to be their terms, but it's like, you know, sacred cows on the right and very quickly gets banned, like minutes.
I don't know Truth Social, but knowing him, he's already done it because he did it with all of them.
Anthony Zavaro says, Jordan Peterson joining the Daily Wire was the straw that broke the camel's back that made me join Daily Wire Plus.
The culture war pendulum swings.
And I will say this too.
The more power the Daily Wire generates through subscriptions, the more they're able to sign people like Jordan Peterson, which will in turn make the snowball get bigger and bigger and bigger.
I try to picture the condescension and the low effort that's being put into trying to create so-called diversity by saying, you know, you know, remember Thor?
Well, now she's black.
And it's like, how, you know, why not instead, I mean, there's all sorts of African folklore.
Why not create new characters and have them be black and female or gay or whatever else?
Like, why take existing characters and say, oh, it's okay, we're going to include you.
And I picked, I don't follow any of this, but I've just seen so many examples of like, okay, this character is now, you know, gay or black or Muslim or whatever else.
And it's like, why not instead have a new character that is that, and that is uniquely that person?
Like, that seems like that would be far more powerful and empowering and inclusive and embracing diversity than just saying, this one's black now.
Dude, I thought of that while we were talking about how badass How awesome if we were all, I mean, I think if they tell you, if, if the American Canada became one United States and we were all like living in this decentralized freedom state, like able to do it, Mexico is the United States of Mexico.
That's the name of the country.
So like, if we, I understand that centralization isn't the, isn't the goal.
I don't want like a federal government controlling the Canadians, but dude, we're basically the same people with like these similar ideals.
I think I want to work from the bottom up to nullify the bad crap we have and then export that elsewhere.
Like, create a domino effect of people more locally and more in tune with their actual community, their actual culture.
And culture, by the way, does not have to be geographical or ethnic or anything like that.
It can be values-based.
It can be an online community that spans the entire globe.
Community-based, decentralized order.
with a eye towards nullifying the bad centrally planned order that's being imposed on them.
That's something that can become essentially worldwide, but it's focused at the local level and it's focused on the empowerment of the individual and on voluntary solutions over bad coerced ones.
We got, uh, Albedam says, Tim, per the UCMJ, Uniform Code for Military Justice, if a crime were to happen on a military base or off, the federal authorities, base commander, defense council, have jurisdiction over the military member first, as far as active duty goes.
Yes.
And on the military base, they have, like, exclusive right to criminally try.
But the point I was trying to get at with that is, What happens when you get to the point where the ideology is too strong?
And someone in the state says, this person who lives in our city took a baby Against its will to be killed on a military base.
Imagine it this way.
If there's a baby kidnapped and brought into a military base and then killed, and then the person comes back off, you might actually get people in the state rioting and demanding justice.
It may then fall upon the federal government to say, okay, they literally killed a baby.
But if the federal government doesn't recognize that as a crime, you could end up with people rioting.
You could end up with federal government saying, we will do nothing.
And that's the point of conflict.
So it's a, it's like you were saying the reality of power.
So it's just a question of, I understand it's not legal, but secession wasn't according to Buchanan either.
It didn't stop them.
Will we get to that point where, it reminds me of V for Vendetta, when the inspector says, someone will eventually do something stupid, and then it shows the little girl skipping, wearing the mask, and then the cop shoots her, and then all of the locals just walk up and just beat the cop to death.
They don't care what was legal at that point.
Will we come to the point with abortion?
And I've talked about this before.
If we get a national ban on abortion because Republicans end up codifying it, Mike Pence says he wants it nationwide, just not enforced by the federal government.
Seamus says he wants a national ban.
If blue states then say, no, we won't stop.
Do you, let me ask you this.
Do you think there are, there's one person in this country who would, who would take it upon themselves just to stop them?
And it's quite possible the federal government even does.
Because if the federal government says it's illegal at the federal level, then the federal government will go and enforce the law, which they say supersedes, if the will is there.
Because, you know, marijuana is illegal, but they're not going into these states.
So it really just depends on if they're willing to do it.
So the Hyde Amendment is basically an amendment that was added at some point to, I believe, Medicare funding that said that the federal government dollars cannot be used directly for abortions.
So even like Title IX funding for Medicare or Medicaid supposedly isn't supposed to, it can go to Planned
Parenthood, but it can't go towards the abortions.
It can go towards everything else and then that frees up money for the abortions, but
it can't go towards the actual abortions.
This would be a case where they are actually funding abortions, but now I'm trying to remember
Because if you if you send a pitch, and then I don't even read it, but then we end up making the thing coincidentally, you can come at me for stealing your idea and it's not worth it.
It's also but so it's just basically like, we don't want there to be any misconceptions or It will, because you couldn't respond to all of them.
Right, right, right, right.
And then people are like, I had this idea, and then we had a similar idea, and it's just like, it's better that we just take solicited pitches directly, which is the reality of the industry.
You know, I will say, we try to be scrappy and punk rock, but every day we learn exactly why businesses function the way they do.
You know, I've got friends at bigger companies, I won't name them, big CEOs, and they're like, it really is just the more people you hire, the more you become corporate, not by choice, by regulation.
So we're learning a lot about what the government mandates, and it's crazy.
You know, people are like, man, my job sucks.
The way they do these policies, I'm like, oh, those are legal.
Yeah, you either, there is not, you are not allowed to climb a steady ladder.
You have to choose a lane.
And the lane is either you grow up to a certain point, you don't get any bigger because it's not worth the hassle.
You dive into it and become a company that is making way more money but is just subject to so much regulation and becomes almost stagnant as a result.
Or you go to the next level where you just own everything.
And you see someone like Jeff Bezos.
Amazon literally has gone through each of those stages.
And to the point now where Jeff Bezos is buying entire media companies and putting out hit pieces against the Pentagon because they didn't approve his $10 billion no-bid deals.
It's almost like becoming Lex Luthor.
He originally started his company out of a small office and went from small business all the way up to, you know, the biggest mega company ever, almost.
So that's the progression of what happens.
And that's all because of the fascist, corporatist system that government imposes on the market.
Alright, B. Anderson says, if they're not going to enforce abortion bans on federal property, what's going to stop them from not enforcing acts against little ones' crimes?
I'm thinking about this.
This is interesting.
I tried looking up instances in which something is illegal at the state level, but not the federal level.
But then you have a state like West Virginia, where it's illegal.
And they're going to say, yeah, well, federal law supersedes state law, but hold on, hold on.
They're taking the law off the books.
Just because it's not criminalized at the federal level doesn't mean you can do it.
So what happens then?
If you have people in West Virginia going onto federal bases to do illegal drugs, as West Virginia would see it, are they going to be like, we're okay with this?
What if it goes even crazier?
What if the Democrats actually say, like, heroin?
And now you have heroin addicts wandering off federal property for whatever, maybe a military base, and they're all strung out, and they're causing problems in the state.
And the state's like, we gotta arrest these people.
Like, I don't think the state would tolerate people going into a military base, committing serious crimes, and then coming out.
The thing that might be worth looking into is post-prohibition.
You had, you know, it was legal but regulated at the federal level, but there were still many dry states and towns for quite some time after that.
The dry states now it's more like you know you can't drink it in a restaurant or whatever but like there used to be like it's still illegal in this town do not be caught drinking or possessing it here.
It would be interesting to see if there are any cases where like there was a military base there and there were people getting drunk on base and then you know wandering out into town and whether or not they tried to arrest them because of that.
I would guess that it would be no.
That it would be because federal usurp state and it is federal property that they would likely say no you can't do that.
But again, reality of power comes into place.
If it reaches a cultural level, if it reaches a political level where it is most politically expedient for the people in charge at that state to say, you know what?
I also have a show, actually a multi-time a week show, on Muddy Waters Media.
That's MuddyWatersMedia.com.
We too are a scan 800 and so thousand away.
from subscribers away from beating the daily wire.
So if you join us over at anchor.fm slash Muddy Waters, you can become a subscriber today.
And if you want to find out more about the grassroots revolution for liberty that we are building to set communities free and grow the liberty movement in America, go to youarethepower.net and see how you can get involved.