• • • • All right, here we go. It is 420 22. It's a lot of 20s • • • • if you added up some of those two to come up with four. But if you add up all those twos, you'd come up with eight.

So that's great.

That's eight is a round table. • • • • • • • • •

Racist math, man. You're a, um, white supremacist.

Yeah, that's an Infinity. • • • • So take with that. Take from that what you will. Either way. It is roundtable time. We got, uh, Norm is here yet again. We got, uh, Brett from circle 270 media. • • • For those who don't know. Here you go. We are at the Round table, taking on all the hotbed topics of the day. Norma's slinging the news like.

Um, Tom broke all back in the day when they do my usual preamble. Um, I apologize, number one. • • • • Number two, I love everybody. • • There are no human beings I do not love. • • • • • • • • • I got to kick this off with something this show accomplished, in my opinion. • • I think we were the reason the former President of the United States, Donald Trump, endorsed JD Vance. • • • • • I think he tuned in to the roundtable. He listened to our podcast down at Mar a Lago, and he decided, • wow, those insightful questions that Steve and Norm or Pop and JD • • really brought me around. And so I'm going to endorse that guy.

Uh, making it simple, making it understandable, • • • making it.

Uh, massive appear simple, but highly complex.

Yeah, highly complex.

Very sophisticated.

Right.

Maybe we ought to get old DT here. • • • • • •

Yeah, I want to go right to a major story in Ohio that sort of fits into one of our other previous guests, uh, litigates. And that is, uh, • • • • the areas of free speech. So down at Shawnee State University, which is a state University here in Ohio, meaning not private. • • • Um, Steve, why don't you roll with this? Do you know the facts involved? Go ahead.

I think I know of the facts. I may not get it right, but there's a professor down there, filed a lawsuit, and the lawsuit was premised upon the fact that he didn't want to use certain pronouns. • • Uh, he didn't want to be forced to use • • • • • Miss instead of Mr. Or some other pronoun. And basically, he was a professor. Anybody who is even in high school, a lot of teachers did this. They would call you Mr. Palmer or, uh, they'd use Miss or Mr. To, uh, address you. And law school was that way for sure. We had • • a professor at Cap that was notorious for this. He had sort of a Canadian British accident. And he'd say, Mr. Palmer, and you would stand up there and you'd have to recite the facts of the case or whatever. • • • Um, but, uh, this, uh, professor • • was, uh, told that he had to use Miss instead of Mr. And he didn't want to do that. He felt that that was, uh, an overreach, uh, violation of his, • • uh, • • rights under the first amendment. And this is sort of different because you're compelling speech. • • • Um, • you're not preventing it, but it's an interesting twist on it. Um, • and then they went so far to say, look, just use the last names. And he goes, no, I'm not doing that. It is what it is. You can't tell me how to address people. Now, I think if we really talked to this guy, and I actually saw this story, Norman, I kicked around • • calling his attorney and asking because • • my experience dealing with things like this is the people behind it, the professor behind it. If you asked him in a social setting to use Mr. Or Miss, he probably would. He probably would do it on a very individual level and not, • • • uh, • look at it like I'm just doing it to cause somebody offense and harm. • Um, I think his bigger cause was that he didn't feel that the school sanctioned by the state of Ohio, by the way, this is a state run school, had the authority to tell him what he had to say, compel his speech in this fashion. And, uh, I think he initially filed a lawsuit and was thrown out of court, but then I believe it was the • • • • • • • • Six Circuit down Cincinnati, • • uh, reversed it. And he does have a cause of action. I think it ultimately settled.

I'm not sure settled for $400,000. This reminds me of • • who's? The Canadian guru? He's all over the Internet.

Jordan Peterson.

Yeah, it reminds me of Jordan Peterson. He had a similar thing happened when, uh, he was a professor. • • Um, and he, uh, absolutely refused to call, • • uh, • • a man or a woman by some other • • • • • at somebody's insistence to change their gender. Basically, • • • • the argument by Jordan Peterson and probably by this professor is, hey, if I see a giraffe, I'm not going to call it a rhinoceros.

Well, but it's broader than that. • • • • • • • • • •

You can't redefine reality for me. I'm going to stay in my reality. And, yes, I think in a social setting, • • • • I read the facts of the case. This student went up and gotten a grill of the professor after the class was over and threatened the professor with, um, • his job, and, in fact, filed a complaint with the University. And the University, • • • • • • uh, did initiate, uh, • • • • • • • • • as you would expect with a public employee. • Did start to initiate things in his file, • • uh, that could ultimately • • add, uh, up, uh, and lead to dismissal. • • • That was also part of the reason, I'm sure, the professor filed his action.

Yeah. So they took disciplinary action against him. And based on this student's threat, so when we do these things, you're giving the students power over a professor's job. Uh, and really, what's happening is • it's not just about being courteous to somebody or • • • dissing somebody or causing them some disrespect. • • Um, you've got a state run entity compelling you to say and call • • • students things, • • • • but people • • • • in a certain way. • • • • • • • It's a lever of power that maybe has never really been explored, uh, to its extent. And it's very Orwellian right. It's under 1984 there.

Well, it's a trap, if you think about it, because as often as this changes, • • • every month, it seems to change. Because I know we were one extreme that • • • people wanted to be called it. • • • • And I refused to do that because no one is in it to me. Thank God that went away pretty quickly. So how are we supposed to stay ahead of the curve • • • • in regards to respecting and I get the respect. I understand that. But at the same time, we cannot. We can't do that. • • • •

There's a broader problem underneath all this. And that's this notion that, uh, we have individual rights not to be disrespected through words of others • • • • • • like you point out, Brad, it's a very slippery slope. So if somebody calls me Miss instead of Mr. • • • Um, do I have the ability to do something like • • • get that person fired? • • • • Think about that. • • • When I grew up, if somebody called you a name, you'd go home and your mom would say, well, sticks and stones may break your husband, • • Steve.

I coached a little football, and I recall some of my fellow coaches. I may have done it myself. I don't specifically remember because it caused no trauma. I mean, the boys knew what we were doing, but almost any football coach has said, hey, okay, get over here, you girls. Let's get in the huddle, you bunch of Sissy's or whatever. • • • • • Come on, man. It's just like it's speech. Get over it. Sticks and stones and all that. • • • But words cannot hurt me.

Look how timid. Look how fragile we are creating, or look what we're doing to our site. We're creating a very fragile society.

Well, this is a Snowflake thing. • • • • • •

If I'm going to be so distraught that I need safe spaces that I need, um, • • • uh, individual counseling and therapy. Because somebody said Mr instead of Miss or miss instead of Mr. It's like we're not helping people. • • We're not. Because guess what? Sooner or later, somebody is going to punch in a damn nose.

The real world is going to come right into your face. • •

And it also shows the empowerment that this group behind the kid.

Well, they're just given them, um, right, because they're going to force everybody to call something • • that it's not. And when you can do that, • • • • • • if you can call one group who are obviously men, • • if you're being forced to call them women, then what else can the government or somebody compel you to call something else? • • Should I call • • all Jews like the Nazis did? Rats? • • I mean, what if somebody compels me to do that like the Nazis did? I don't think you compel people to call anybody anything.

You teach that at home, • • uh, in the community. • • By teaching, I mean, you learn those lessons at home and in the community to respect others and how to treat others. And the more you destroy the home in the community, • • • • • the less you learn those lessons. So I learned at home that you don't treat people poorly, • • • • you don't overstep. And there's, uh, an order to the world. And • I also say this, that in the name of righteousness like this • • • • has come, um, every authoritarian dictatorship • • • absolutely ever blessed its presence on the Earth.

Redefining things, uh, • • • in the name of righteousness.

I'm correct. It always goes too far. It always goes too far.

Well, you started out with, uh, • some math here, and I kind of jokingly said, well, • • if you're saying two plus two equals, uh, four, that's white supremacy. But yet another news item. The state of Florida, uh, under Governor DeSantis, has rejected 40% of the math. Math? I said not social studies, but math textbooks.

Yeah, I saw that.

Yeah, that contains CRT, Common Core and various other progressive bullshit. And • • • • • I think that is where we are today. • • • • • Almost half of the textbooks submitted to the Department of Education in Florida are now containing this junk. • • • • I even saw where, um, • • • • a teachers group came out yesterday and said that, uh, • • we need to de emphasize actual reading and become far more visual oriented.

That nonsense. • • •

This is grade school teachers who are now saying, Come on, • • • why are you making us teach reading? And yet here we go on math. • • What could be less racial? What could be less sex oriented? What could be more logical and more.

Well, here's the thing.

It's in math. I mean, math is like. There is no bias.

In fact, here's the thing, though. There is a bias, uh, in math in the sense that some people are good at it, others are not. • • •

Um, • • • • • and that's why we have schools.

Sure.

It's to make everybody good at it.

In other words, you may tend more towards mathematics, and I may tend more towards the arts. Sure. And, um, it's just inherent and it's totally okay. Right. It doesn't mean that I can't learn math. It just means I need to work harder at math.

Well, I think learn different tricks about it, don't you think? • • Ben Carson, doctor Ben Carson, • • pediatric neurosurgeon, • • or, um, let's say Thomas Soul or Clarence Thomas. Don't you think those guys are pretty good at math? I kind of do.

I don't think math because they don't agree.

I don't think math is a deadly squat to do with race.

But it's also true that there's other things that are true, that people sort this way.

Like you could George Washington Carver.

There are more people in the math in sort of Stem field, like engineering, hardcore mathematics, hardcore physics. There's more men than women. And you could say that that's because of discriminatory application of whatever. I have no idea. But it also could be true that more men tend towards those fields than women would tend towards those fields. And of, um, the men in those fields, • • • certainly. Look, I was not a math guy. So it's like if there's only a few people at the top of the mathematics field, • • you, um, can't just say it's only men. It's just of the few.

No, not at all. There's a big movie not too long ago about three African American women that were key to NASA's space mission. • • • • • • • • • •

It doesn't mean that there's some discriminatory impact. And I would also always ask people this, too. It's like, do you really want that job? Do you want to be the guy or the Gal sitting in some cubicle doing math? Well, all day, it's like, I don't want that job. That sounds horrible to me. It sounds awful. It sounds like nothing I would be good at. It nothing I would want to do. • • • • • • • Even • in the, uh, subset of men. • • It's a very small portion of men that can do that stuff.

But to imbue a math textbook or a reading textbook with a load of political messaging, • • it's lunacy is wrong. • • •

It's deeply wrong. And it's going to result in this huge backlash sooner or later of, uh, a rejection of public schools where parents are going to say, you know what? Screw this. I'm going to teach my kids myself. I would probably right now, I'd be very close to doing that. I'd be homeschooling if I were going through it again with kids. • • • • • • • •

One state out of 50. • • • •

You know what's happening everywhere.

Yeah, you know what's happening everywhere. • • I want a list of the States that you have just accepted all these things.

It's total crap.

And then I would send my kids, as you say, to private school. There's no way.

Even the private schools. • • •

I would let somebody teach my kids at two plus two sometimes equals five.

So are they infusing this in, like the story problem? Is that how they're doing that? • • • •

I don't have the textbook.

I'm just curious because to your point, one plus one equals two. You can't.

Well, they say it's not necessarily getting the right answer as long as you tried hard. I think that's sort of the only way. Yeah. It's like they're not grading people on getting the right answer. And I remember in high school, • if I did a whole problem on the little graph paper with advanced algebra or whatever it was, if you got the formula right, you would get some credit. But if you made an arithmetic mistake, which often happened • • • • • in the heat of the moment, • • • you didn't get it right, and you got some credit for getting the formula right. So it's already somewhat baked into the equation, right? I mean, if you got the formula correct and you get the wrong answer, • • in my experience, you get some credit for that. • But just to say that you're not going to be graded on • • getting it right or it's not a benefit to get it right. Well, that's lunacy.

Well, the camel's nose under the tent here, so to speak, was years ago. This goes back to the 70s. You might recall the term Ebonics, • • • • • • where instead of teaching, uh, innercity children how to properly articulate a sentence • • racist to do that. So, uh, they can come on, go, Yo, dog, all y'all got to do this. • • • • That's not helping that child. That child needs to know how to go on a job interview and speak correctly.

This is fascinating. This is a fascinating topic. We go for hours on this. But language and the evolution of language and where dialects come from, etc. And there's a book called The Mother Tongue. I remember reading this a long time ago, and it's sort of interesting how it works. And I remember also • • • I saw this linguist • • one time • take • • • his point was the Southern draw, the Southern accent is really a British accent. And he • • talking through a sentence, showed us the evolution how it got to that. And it started with this prim and proper British accent. And then in the context of, like, two sentences, he had transformed it into that Southern drawer and sort of showed how it happened. But if you don't, the point is that at some point, you still have to be able to communicate. Now, um, if you go down to that's.

The whole point of having a common baseline, you have to have where we can all communicate. • Yes, you can go back to your family and speak Hungarian or speak Swedish or speak whatever language, • • • • • whatever you want to speak. But if you're going to communicate with customers in the Walmart aisle, when they say, • • • • Where are the towels? What aisle can I find the towns and you can't talk to them, then we don't have a working team.

Do you remember it? Remind me, Airplane. Do you remember Airplane movie where there's just nothing, that's there's these two guys and they're talking to what he understands. She goes, Excuse me, I speak Jive.

Exactly • • right. • • • • • • And the reason that's funny is because it's absurd, right? • • • • • • •

That movie never make it anymore. I know, but, man, it's funny. It's still funny. I don't care who you are.

There's a long list of movies they couldn't make any more, starting with Blazing Saddle. Uh, so moving on, if I may. • • Um, • • • • • • • • • this is • • • driving a little bit about COVID. We, uh, were talking before the show a little bit about this, but I think it's interesting that somebody picked up on something, uh, our own CDC and NIH weren't doing, but they were doing in England. And that is weekly results of, • uh, • who's vaccined and who, uh, got covered that week and the percentages. And somebody tapped into Walgreens, Walgreens having been one of the most • pernicious • • • • • pushers, uh, of faxes that I've ever seen. I mean, if you went in a Walmart over the last two years, you were literally bombarded with signage about getting backs, getting boosted, getting shots. • • • • • • You felt like you were a pin cushion. • • • Um, • • • • • um, • • they have some data up at the Walgreens, • uh, • • • of their survey. So they survey their customers. • • • • 60,000 tests for COVID. And of those, 62% of the positives nationwide were both vaccine and boosted, like our governor here in Ohio, • • • the, uh, unvaxed people who never got the vaccine. And obviously, if they never got the vaccine, they didn't get any boosters either. They were only 17% of the positive • cases this week. • • • And, um, the theory is, supposedly, I'm not a biologist, just like the new associate supreme court justice. So • • I, um, may get this wrong. She didn't know what a woman was. So forgive me if I make a mistake.

I love slips. •

Yeah, let me just try that. Yes, sir. • • • Um, so • the theory is that successive boosters • • • and this is why • • this is part of the outcome of not doing long term tests on these vaccines. • • • Uh, • • these boosters apparently cause • a short term gain • • in immunity, so you'd get a small benefit early on after the booster is giving you. But then as they weaken, they actually caused, • • the theory goes something called immune suppression. And the name for that is original antigenic sin. So • • • original antigenic sin is the biology term for it where the boosters • • actually start weakening your immune system.

Yeah, and I saw this Doc one time. It was a holistic Doc, and I'm sure it was censored all over. So I saw him on an alternate platform, but • • he, uh, had a patient who had to get the vaccination for work • • • and had to make the choice lose your job or get shot. Well, he's, like, looking. I need to raise my finger. I got to work. And the doctor said, look, I'll get you the shot, but please do me a favor. I won't disclose your identity, but • • • • let me take a comprehensive blood panel from you before • • • • • • • and right after he got the vaccination. • • This is just an anecdotal one example. So I'm not drawing any huge conclusions from it, but it was interesting. Right after the vaccination, the guys • basically T cell immunity, • • • the power cells that kill or your antibodies • • • • • plummeted. Absolutely plummeted. • • Um, just through the floor. • • • • • • • I think it's because • • • • • • his body immediately went to attack what • • was put into them, the vaccine itself. And that caused this decline. And now I didn't look back, and I don't know if he ever went back and tested it, like, six weeks later, whether it went back up or not. But the theory goes that's how • • • • • people • were, uh, getting compromised with cancers, et cetera, because their initial immunity drops, and then the vaccine does what it's supposed to do, I guess. I have no idea. I'm not taking any position on it. But you're right. There was no testing on it. And we would get, like, six months ago or a year ago, we'd be like, censored off the air for even having this conversation.

Sure.

Right. • • But let me push back a little bit. So you said 17% of the unvaxed were positive. • • •

That's right. Only 17%.

Now, here's the problem I need to know. • • •

Um, • • • • whereas those who were faxed. Let me just repeat it. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Here's the problem, though. I, um, would need to know. • • • • • • • • • • • • Are the unvaxed less likely to go get a test? • • • • • • • • • And that could skew that stat • • • as well as the unvaxed.

Are they taking additional measures, as in staying at home more? Or maybe they just decided they're not going to be out in public.

Maybe they're healthier, and it could be healthier, too. Maybe they're not overweight. Maybe they don't have any comorbid conditions. Maybe they're taking Ivomectin. Maybe they're taking quercetin. Maybe they're taking their B and C and D, and, uh, • • they're drinking their tomato, uh, juice. Whatever it is you do, that your body, • • their zinc. So, uh, it's like there's a lot of variables. Now, again, Norm, here's the point that I always make from this, and a good one that you made, which is we haven't studied this. And shame on everybody out there in the field who didn't studied. We don't know. And they screwed up the controls. Early on, they had, like, all, uh, the placebos were disclosed. So • • all that was ruined. So we have no control group to know.

Well, it's totally legitimate. Also, Steve, for us to question the facts because our CDC has been hiding data.

You bet.

As a matter of policy. And they have admitted that they've hired hiding dates.

Literally hiding, hiding it.

And their argument is so exposed, their argument is that we're too dumb. Um, we could not understand the data. • • • • We couldn't sit there and patiently have it explained to us that we couldn't figure it out once they tutor us.

These are the assholes calling us anti Democratic for even challenging this. Because the fact is that democracy dies in the darkness, right? It just does. And you've got the CDC making the government making decisions for me, and they're all getting rich. I immediately have a problem. It's like Falcon is a millionaire. How does that happen?

Well, it's just like the government is hiding, • • uh, • • • • • • illegal crossing data. And you have congressmen, like Chiproy or • • other congressmen from Texas demanding the Border Patrol cough up some numbers on • • terrorist arrests or whatever, uh, down at the border. And, • • um, • • • • they've had the Du FOIA, • uh, request to get some of this data and • • • • • the CDC data. There's no excuse. The Brits have been publishing this data for their public on a weekly basis, and the United States has not. And it's clear that we have something that • • • those in charge want to hide from us.

Look, the data from the PCR testing, they've now admitted that that was just way out of whack the data on • • • • all the deaths. They've had to walk that back and say we over counted deaths. I mean, all the same crap that we were talking about, right? Here at the Round Table at 511 South High, Studio C. Two years ago that we had nailed. I was sitting down here, we were sitting down here saying, I want to know.

Right?

I want to know.

Sure.

And even, uh, by asking • • • • • decision. That's right.

How do you make an informed decision when people are hiding data?

Frame. Yes. And now it looks like, speaking of data, the masks that you guys follow this. So a Florida court has ruled that the CDC • • • • • federal Florida court, a federal court in Florida has ruled that the CDC's • • airline, uh, mask requirement is unconstitutional • • • and, um, exceeded their grant of authority. And this is an administrative legal action, • • and it involved the rulemaking authority of the, uh, CDC and the administrative agency. And it goes beyond just the masks. Right. • • It goes beyond that to say you can't just Willy nilly promulgate rules. You actually have to have • • to follow the Administrative Procedure Act. If there's, uh, an emergency, you have to have verification of that, and you have to have some reasonable basis. That the rulemaking. Or that, uh, the rule you're promulgating is related to address the problem that you're looking to solve. And they didn't mean any standards. Of course, we've all known this. The CDC itself has admitted that cloth masks don't work, that they don't do anything. • • •

The World Health Organization, their standing policy • • was masks do not work for • • a pandemic, uh, involving a respiratory illness.

Yeah, they don't work. • •

And that was before COVID. And as soon as COVID hit • • the powers that be through, that right out the window.

If you recall, • • it started along those parties.

Dr. Falchy initially agreed with the standing who policy. • And then a few months into covet, he reversed himself and pretty much has admitted ever since that it was theater.

It's almost like it was just safety. Almost like a cartoon character saying, I wonder if we can get them all to wear masks now. We totally didn't need let's see if we can get them all to wear masks now. Right. So we're going to save this and see if it works, and we're going to cause this. • That's how you felt.

Right?

And I'm looking at this like, • • • • these are easy questions to me. When the masking first happened, it's like, what about the people touching their face 20 times a day because they're wearing a mask? What about the people touching their eyes and scratching and then touching other things because they're wearing a mask? Aren't there contrary consequences? What about the people getting less oxygen because of wearing a mask? • • • These are legitimate questions. I don't close to the answers, but they're good questions.

Closing down every health club, every restaurant, every this, every that every other thing.

We have fast food. • •

But we could go to the grocery store where people are fingering apples.

You could get McDonald's. • • • • You could go to the grocery store to buy food. You could order Home Depot, but you couldn't go to Ace and you could do these things. • • • Actually, Ace Harvest probably open, but a lot of his mom and pops went out of business. And you could go to all those things because somehow it doesn't matter. There. The point is, • we devastated theater of this. The nonsense of this was so patently obvious. It's almost like I woke up to this because of my job years ago.

So this all goes, Steve, to why I chose not to practice law. So I have a law degree. I did not want to be a lawyer because look what happened, okay? • • These regulations involving air travel were laid on two years ago, and it took two years for this case to reach fruition • • to where a ruling has come out. And • • this is the problem with the election, • • • • • • with Trump and his lawyers. Well, no, I'm just saying the regulation was in place, but it took. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Biden.

We don't get anything done quickly.

You have a White House, and I'm picking on Biden here. And I'm sure if somebody looked back, they could find out the presents, probably even Trump. But when the President says, I don't care if it's unconstitutional, I'm going to do it anyway and then leave it to us, the people, to go fund a lawsuit and challenge it. That's an inherent problem. • To participate • • in our system of government, • • • it's implicit that you have to show up with a little bit of good faith and you have to participate. You can't just say, well, screw the rules. I'm going to do it anyway and let somebody challenge you.

Well, the rules are called the Constitution. • • And I heard Jim Jordan get interviewed this week, and Congressman Jim Jordan from Ohio • • get interviewed, uh, this week. And he said • • • • it is precisely • • • under the conditions of extreme emergency and extreme need and extreme • • • • stress • • that we are to adhere to the Constitution most tightly.

Most tightly. Yes. • • •

And what did we do? We wholesale. This is our safety culture overcoming our Constitution.

It's back. We do the same thing.

We wholesale throughout all kinds of constitutional protections to the point that this billionaire Musk right, is trying to take over the town square so we can all speak on the town square again. It takes a commercial operation to do it.

Two generations of this overprotectiveness that causes kids to complain when they get missed instead of Mr. And feel like they've been violated and their feelings are hurt so badly that it's a transgression equivalent to getting punched in the nose to them. So it's that fear. • • • •

Steve, we told people they couldn't go to Church.

You can't go to Church. • • •

We got a First Amendment.

Home Depot is essential. • •

We have a First Amendment right to our religious beliefs. It's unbelievable.

You just wrote this on a whiteboard five years ago and said, this is going to happen. People would be like, you're crazy.

They arrested pastors in California yes.

For holding Church in parking lots. • • • • • Even in parking lots, it's insanity. If I wrote on a whiteboard five years ago, we're going to get to a place in our country where we cannot go to Church. It will be against the law to go to Church. But you can go to Home Depot, Walmart, Costco and McDonald's.

Uh, can I ask you a question?

Can I be like, what?

Can I ask you a question? I seem to recall • • • I'm dredging up • • law school filth from eons ago.

It's all fifth.

It's fifth. It was a nightmare. • • • • • • • • • • • Could a Supreme Court Justice like • • • • Chief Justice Roberts, can he take judicial notice • • without a lawsuit, without • an appeal, uh, without anything coming to him? Could he take judicial notice that he sees an egregious violation of the First Amendment and actually issue a man Damous or strike down something? No, he can't.

No, they don't have originally.

That really sucks. • See that pastor.

And that would be scary if they did, though.

It'd be scary because • • • • • • • you don't want some guy to have.

That's a good question. I'm just asking, • • • how does that pastor at the retail level in a parking lot in Anaheim? Okay. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hold his service, • • • his or, uh, her service outdoors. I don't care if it's a Satanist service or Christian service.

It could be anything. • •

So I'm not asking as a Christian. I'm asking as a First Amendment advocate. How does that person, in a timely manner, get that?

Well, this has happened. It actually happened.

This is crazy. • • • • • • •

A year and change ago, around Christmas time, right after Amy Kony Barrett was, um, • • • • • • um, • • approved. What's the word I'm looking for? • • Admitted, approved.

The Senate confirmed.

Confirmed. • • • • •

Uh, the court issued an opinion on religion, and it involved a Church, I, uh, think in New York City. And they enjoined, uh, meaning • • the court issued an order preventing New York from, um, • • • not, uh, letting. And there's a lot of double negatives here. Not letting the Church go have its service. • • You need what's called an emergency order. You have to go get an injunction. You have to go file request an immediate temporary order. • • • • • • • • • • • No, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over things like that. But you have to go. The Supreme Court can't just make it up. But the Supreme Court has some original jurisdictions.

You can bypass the federal, lower federal courts.

This has happened a couple of times recently. In this related stuff.

A private, uh, party could do this.

I believe so, yes.

Wow.

I believe so. But it's, um, limited. It's very limited jurisdiction, and people are going to be listening and saying, he's wrong. He's a dumb, uh, lawyer. Well, I might be wrong, but there's a way you can get to the Supreme Court. Now, strategically, you may not want to do that. You may want to pick a forum that you know is going to be friendly to you at first. So Florida is probably a friendly forum for that. • • • •

Meaning the district district.

Federal district court in Florida. • • • • • • • That district court was probably a friendly forum for that action, and they could have filed that anywhere.

Yeah.

So they picked a form that's going to be friendly. She's rather get a win, make the other side appeal, and then go up to a loss. Biden says he's going to Peel.

That right. And that's what drives me Batty about our system.

And what's baddie is it's done in May 1 anyway, or whatever it was • the CDC said we're lifting it anyway. But here's the problem. • • •

The presidential problem.

That order out of that court limits the power to do it again.

That's exactly • the presidential. This is not President. • • • • • •

And shame on every other Mofo out there. It's oppressed that power. Like, shame on you, shame on you, shame on you. You don't deserve that kind of power if it bothers you to lose it. • • • •

Um, shifting to another billionaire, I think he might be is this Jack Dorsey guy who I detest Twitter.

Twitter, Twitter. • • •

I love him like I love all human beings, but I detest this man. • • • • • Um, • • • he's a guy that kicked a sitting President off of his forum so that the President could not communicate. And I would be against him kicking Obama or Biden off Twitter. Okay. Because I'm pro, um, free speech, just like Musk. So Musk is trying to take over Twitter, as we all know, old news. But Dorsey said recently on a rare tweet, apparently, he doesn't tweet much. • • • • • Um, • • • I don't know. He's gotten a • • • • • • • • • little bit of sanity recently. So, uh, he said he was in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, during the Antifa BLM riots and that he himself. He Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter himself, • • • • witnessed CNN news crews making up the news, staging news. Okay. And he's telling us about something that happened, I think in 2014. He's telling us in 2022 about something that happened eight years ago. And I want to know where the hell he was. Right? I want to know.

Because • • • if you witness that eight years ago and you're the head of Twitter, you're the guy.

You're shitting me, right?

You need to tweet that exactly. • • Cnn, make up news as I speak.

Or • • • • instead, you leave it up to outlets like Fox News or the Washington, uh, Times or some. • • •

Here's the thing, though. • • I'm far more hopeful about this stuff than maybe I was just a few months ago. And maybe others are now. And that is here's what's happening. There's a backlash, and it's coming. It's honest. Guys like Musk are now saying, you know what? Screw this. I'm buying Twitter. And if I can't buy, uh, Twitter, I'm going to create my own. And Twitter is going, uh, out of business. And you can see Twitter scrambling. They're talking about the poison pill. They're talking about doing things that are really going to destroy. • • • They're going to devalue itself to the point where it's very difficult and it's already down. •

It was 60 per share. Now it's down to whatever 42.

And Musk, he's motivated financially, so he may be doing this all might be a place for him to buy more stock cheaper.

I don't know which.

In essence, it was a little bit because • • • • he gets on the board • • stupid about that.

Yeah. He buys it initially, as I'm sure it spiked the stock price. He was invited on the board and all was good. And then all, uh, of sudden, a he says he's going to buy the whole thing.

And now they're talking about poisoned pills because I think Dorsey did a back end on him and split the stock • • • is out. Yeah. Something happened to the back end.

What they did is they did this poison pill thing where. And I didn't know this beforehand. I'm not a big corporate rater guy, but it was like they, uh, offer shares of the stock at a diminished value to everybody except Musk. So everybody buys in more and it dilutes the shares. So Musk's percentage immediately drops • • and his, uh, stock is worth less. But the problem with that is, so is everybody else's. • • And the shareholders turn around and sue the crap out of the company for acting in bad faith because must offer was a good one. It's like, wait a minute. $54 a share? I think it was. And it was selling at 44 at the time. Yeah, • • that's a good offer • • • • • • • to turn that down based on some ideological and here's what's great is it exposes these idiots to the core.

They're like it does.

We believe in free speech. • •

But no, you don't.

We don't want the other side, uh, to have full access to our platform, to engage freely in what they want to say. It's like they're saying that in the same sentence.

Right. • • • I guess going back to where Twitter banned • • • the acting President at the time or the President at the time, I guess I don't really have an issue with that ultimately, because it is a company that makes money. Sure, they can be on anybody they want. • • • • •

Here's the problem. They have immunity, too. And this is the Rob Muse debate discussion.

Exactly.

So they enjoy a little bit, a lot of federal immunity. And their immunity stems from the fact that they don't moderate content • • • like here at Lawyer Talk. If I engage in censoring, you Brett, or you Norm. • • • Now, I'm not. • • This is a gross underexample of the problem. But now I'm engaged in content control. • • • Then I, in theory, could be sued for things like slander • • • and, um, I'm open to public lawsuit. But through federal law, • • • Twitter's protected. Now, as soon as they start engaging in content moderation and taking down stuff on the bulletin board, so to speak, • • • • the argument goes that Rob Muse would make, I think, is that they should lose their immunity. And I'm with you. If a private company doesn't want to let me on. Fine.

It's the same thing as not selling wedding material stuff, too. • •

Exactly.

The problem becomes when.

Other than that, federal regulations. Yeah.

The problem is twofold, they get the benefit of federal protection and they are subject to the levers of federal authority. So when you get Pelosi up there and the rest of the Democratic, uh, I'm saying Dems because they were the ones doing it at the time. I'm sure it would go the other way. • • • • • The problem with threatening regulation, unless you do something. Well, that's a government law now. It's government action.

The other problem that Brett's comments bring up, everything, um, Brett said I would agree with if you had an open, fair playing field. But we don't. Right. • • • • • If you recall, some people • • • • • did try to set up an alternative to Facebook.

Correct. • • •

And what happened? Google went in. I believe it was Microsoft. Google went in and • • • • took, uh, away their ability to connect to the servers. Right. • Exactly. • • • • • • They're operating • in a trust type of • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Amazon, • • like at and T. Like Judge Green broke up at and T. There are some people in JD Vance was on talking about breaking up places like Twitter, Facebook.

I'm going to be more libertarian on this than maybe others, because to me, as long as they're not under any control by the government and they're not getting protection by the government, then they can do what they want. • • • • The premises aren't true. • •

And they're also operating in • • • • their engaging in anti competitive behavior.

Well, see, even then, • • • • I'm going to tend to be more libertarian on this. But • • • • the two premises that I have are not met. The government does control them, if not only by threat of regulation.

Okay, so we broke up at and T, we broke up Standard Oil using • • • • • • antitrust act. Okay.

And I think that's rot with peril.

Okay, well, JD, • • • • • I know • • there are people who think that we need to use the antitrust act, of course, to go after some of these anti competitive.

I think you can solve it by just getting the government out of damn backyard.

Okay.

You could get the regulatory because you get Pelosi saying, well, • • • • unless somebody takes some action here, the government's going to have to step in and regulate Facebook and then Zuckerberg kissing ass in Congress.

Well, if you remember, though, the antitrust provisions were put in by Teddy Roosevelt, • who I, uh, consider a conservative. And so, • • • • • as a conservative, I believe in a fair and open marketplace. This is Thomas Soul talk.

Sure.

You don't have a fair and open marketplace when you've got somebody's thumb on, um, the scale, and when big tech won't allow competitors to use the infrastructure to compete against them, • • • • • they're operating like sailors.

How is big tech getting to the point where they can do that? And it is because of a relationship with the government. It is because of that.

Okay. Well, you're in.

If you eliminate a good relationship with the government, then they can't get that big and you don't need to break them up. So it's like in the relationship could be a tacit one. I deal with this all time. A tacit conspiracy is good enough. If you and I nodded each other, we have an understanding that we're going to go do this together. Well, that's a conspiracy. The government is a co conspirator in this crap • • by Congress standing up on the floor and saying, this is so dangerous that we're going to have to take action unless they do it themselves. Like, will somebody rid me of this menace? • • • • • • •

You want to talk menace that they created? • • • Yeah.

Well, you guys, uh, want to talk a little bit about Disney, and I think that's, uh, fascinating that in Florida, DeSantis and the GOP are moving to strip Disney World of its cityhood, uh, ability to self police.

Uh, I got to think this through as well. So, first of all, I think Disney. Well, sorry, the premise. Disney has come out and basically said, we're going to gay up all the TV. We're going to try to gay up all our cartoons. Well, that's not grossly overstated.

Yeah, and I don't think that's why the Santa's doing this.

Well, and they came out and basically said and opposed • • • • • the Santa's bill that they called it don't say gay bill. That doesn't really ever say don't say gay. But Disney came out. Well, now • • it's the law. Now, Disney came out and basically opposed this, and there were these secret recordings of their executives, uh, saying, • • • • I'm doing everything I can my not so secret agenda to put gay and trans, uh, and whatever it is, into our content. • All right, fine. They can do that if they want to. They can do whatever they want. We don't have to participate. We don't have to buy it. Fair enough. Uh, • then you got to understand that they're getting a benefit. I didn't know this. • • Florida has basically given • • • • • • they can.

Um, operate as a municipality.

Essentially given governmental benefit and protection to Disney. And DeSanis is now threatening to take that away. I don't know if I like this. • • • •

I like it.

I don't know that I like that they had the benefit in the first place.

Do you talk to people in Orlando, ever, Steve, about how dominant they are? I know.

I'm with you. I'm not saying I don't like • • • it away.

It'll be like intel.

I like that the government has the power to give it and then take it away because it gives the government more control over private industry than it should have. I don't think Disney ever should have had that protection in the first place. I think Disney should be treated like every other company. Well, that's why it's • • fine. Take it away. But they're not saying we're going to take it away and never have the power to give it back, • or if they are, fine. But if they're not, then the implication of taking away is to say we can also give it back. What happens is the government has a control over what Disney doesn't say.

If I smack you at Disney World, right? • • • • You don't, uh, call an Orlando police, right? • • It's a Disney World • • municipal policeman that comes and charges you. Now, I don't know if they have their own court system, • • • • • but they very well may have a Mayor of Disney World • • • • • • that you might have to appear in front of. Uh, • • • • the whole thing. Um, with Disney, • • I think none of us should be shocked. That Fantasys • • people who want to live in a pretend world in a make believe world • • would tend to • conglomerate, uh, into the employee of a company • • • that trades in make believe world.

But it's still a minority. And look, here's what's interesting to me. I was just down there. I was just down there. My son was playing in the Orchestra down there for his high school. We went down, we had a trip. I didn't go to any of the parks because apparently need reservations now to get into parks.

I wouldn't give him, uh, a deck of myself. •

But my son was there, so I was a little bit conflicted. • • • • The trip was planned two years ago. But anyway, • • • • • uh, it was an interesting • • experience. • • • • • • • I was looking around, like, is there any evidence of all this sort of controversy that I could visually see, observe or feel? And the answer was, no, I really didn't. • At the same time, um, I'm reading news stories where there's this tremendous backlash where Disney's get like, people are just saying, I'm done with these idiots. I mean, we're not going to play this game. We're not going to buy their content. We're not going to subscribe. I don't know how much power the consumer has over Disney. And then at the same time, we've got the Santa's pulling back this authority. • • • • Um, • • • • it was an interesting experience, uh, just to be there when this is going on and see really nothing. There's no change at all. It was all the same as what you would expect. Tons of money getting thrown around. It was packed everywhere you went. I couldn't even get into the parks. It was crazy. • • But I guess back to my point. If DeSanis takes away whatever government benefit they've been vested with, I have no problem. In fact, I'm all in favor. But he should also take away the ability to ever give it back.

Yeah. The other thing Disney is doing is they keep getting extensions on copyrights for things that should be public domain by now.

I can't wait to start drawing Mickey Mouse on everything. • • • • • • • • •

Right. • • • •

It's like Bachelorsweet, uh, number one. By now, it's become public domain. • • • •

Yeah, • • • • • that company is used to special treatment.

They are, for sure.

And you know what? They've been a city down there. I mean, they've been a great positive influence on a lot of things for a long time. But • • the quiet part finally got said out loud and • • • they finally let a little glimpse into what's going on behind closed doors and people don't like it.

Yeah. • • • •

I don't want my kids to be taught by Disney about gayness or straightness or trans.

But Disney's been doing. Not that piece of it, but they've been doing the sexist thing.

Yeah. For a long time. • • •

What do you mean? • • • • • • • • • • • •

Have you seen a Star Wars movie recently? Well, like the last three ones. • • • • • • • So my sons, who are not bigots, okay, • all of their friends laughed out loud, right. • That • • • • in this Star Wars world that Disney now owns, having, um, bought it from Lucasfilm, • • • • • um, that they have gone to • • • • • this diversity thing. • • So you see people on a planet, right. That clearly this is not whatever. It's not a planet that has Asian people or African American people or Caucasian people even. Right. It doesn't have any particular race. Right. And what Disney has done that the old Star Wars films didn't do, Disney will have people who are aliens on a given planet. Right. They'll have them be diverse. So it's a diverse set of aliens. And you're just like really, the people from Pluto, • • you've got to have like two Asians, a Mexican worst, three Blacks, • • even a guy in a wheelchair. And Mike, I sound like some kind of racist ass here, but • • even my kids have picked up on you're preaching to me. Just tell the Effing story.

But it, um, is a fantasy world. You can create anything you want, • • • • • I guess • • • • • you can create the Spanish. • • • • • • • But if you think there's a message there • • • • • • totally up to you, you can go there. That's cool. • • • • • It's a fantasy world.

Okay.

Develop anything they want.

So I happen to like a couple of these Viking things that are on Netflix, right. • • • • I have started having African Americans, like from Norway, and I'm just now that's an issue. • • • • • • • • • • •

Here's the thing. And then we got to wrap it up because I roll. But here's the thing. • • • Every show I look at, it drives my wife crazy. I call this out because every movie now is a female • • driven • badass. You can kick the crap out of every, • • • no matter what. And they can do like superhuman things.

Right.

And look, I get it. I don't have any problems • • • • in the tomb of the um • • times 50. • • • • So you're watching these movies and these girls who weigh £110, they're kicking the crap out of these three other term guys. • • • They're not just normal guys. These are like, • • • • • • these are other male trained badasses. • • • It's absurd on its face. And they can do things like stay in the air longer than the guys. I mean, it's so stupid.

It's the craw trap around their head. That's what you want to see, right? • • •

Yeah, exactly. So I get it like wonder Woman Is Fine Because She's Got A Magic Glass. Magic Powers. Get A Girl Magic Powers Again. Fine. But she Can't Kick Superman's Ass. • • • • • • • Maybe Not Even Super Girl's Ass.

Probably not. Yeah. I Mean. • • • • • • •

I'm Not Sure About Batman. I Have To Think That Went Through. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Brett's Nailed It. • • • • Disney. • • • • • They've Gone From Cinderella.

Yes. • • • • • • • • •

They've Gotten Woke, And They're Pushing An Agenda. And It's Not Just, uh, To Entertain The Kids Anymore. It's A Little Bit Beyond that. And Maybe That's What Everybody's Got A Problem With. So With That, We Got To Wrap It Up. I'm Sorry. I Got To Be Over At, um, Court, And It's About Time. I Do, uh, that.

Hey, By The Way, I'm Doing My First Car Show At Lunchtime Today, So Wish Me Luck.

Good Luck. • • • • • • • Nor Is Going To Have A Racing Show Here, So Let's Do A Couple Of Quick Announcements. Norms Racing Show Is Coming, I Promise. We're Talking About It. We've Been Talking About It. We've Been Talking About It. We've Been Talking About It. But We Actually Bought Stuff Now. So Now We Have To Do It. We've Got The, um, Set Coming. Uh, We're Going To Build It. It's Going To Be Right Here At Channel Five One One. And Guess What? If You Wanted Your Own Show At Channel Five One One. That's Easy. Go To Channel 511. Com. Send Me An Email. Check Out Brad At Circle 270 Media.com. • • Mypodcastguy, um, At Circle 270 Media. • • • •

Mypodcast Guy.com.

Mypodcast, um, Guy.com. So There's A Lot Of.com Mypodcast Guy.com. If You Want A Question Answered, Do You Want A Topic Discussed? You Want Me To Just Hang Out And Chat With You? No Big Deal. • Check US Out, Lawyertalkpodcast.com. We've Got A, uh, Client, Or We're Called A Listener Interaction Form, Which Is Really Just Like A Little Email Thing. So You Just Fill In Your Question, Send It My Way, And I'll Cover It Right Here At Lawyer Talk, Where We Are Taking On All The Topics At The Roundtable. I'm Taking On All Questions, At Least All The Ones That I Can Get To On The Q And A Series. And I'm Breaking Down The, um, Complex Legal Stuff. That Doesn't Need To Be Complex. Why? Because I Like To Make Things Simple, And Almost Everything Can Be Made Simple As Norms. Give Me The Hand. Gestures over. Uh, There. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • All Right. So this Is Lord Talked Roundtable Off The Record On The Air, At Least Until Now.