B (2:56)

Maybe.

A (2:57)

Well, I think that's an act of war and I would think that us,

B (3:00)

well, that was an xr. Yes. Bombing US was an active war.

A (3:03)

Yeah.

B (3:03)

So talking about the precursors for it, but go ahead. Yes.

A (3:06)

Oh, sure. Yeah. Don't get, don't, don't just put add, don't add nuance to a conversation. But, and yeah, you can say, well, and that, that is a good point, Taylor, because people will say that was different circumstances and there's all kinds of nuance to what's going on now. I'm like, yeah, there's a lot of nuance to what happened during World War II that people don't like to talk about. That Japan didn't just suddenly lose its mind and decide to bomb us. I mean, there was lots of precursors to that the United States had a hand in economically that was, made it able for the, made it possible for the ruling class of Japan to talk its people into going after the United States. So it just like now there's all kinds of precurs, cursors and all kinds of rhetoric and propaganda that the administration here is using to justify their actions in Iran. And the big. And here's the thing, man, you can listen to all the rhetoric you want. It's just like it did the first time during the 12 Day War. It just keeps, the goalpost keeps shifting. It's about the nukes and then it's about the supposed 30,000 people that were killed in protests in Iran, which I don't remember what podcast I was listening to, but they were talking about, you know, 30, 000 people. Might have been. Dave Smith, like, that was one of the worst, you know, single losses of life during World War II. So you're saying that Iran has committed like the worst genocidal, you know, atrocities in American or in world history, recent world history. And we didn't go to war with them then. Like just, just the number. I know we get kind of like hardened to these numbers, but you're telling ME Iran killed 30,000 of its own citizens? 30,000 people. And, and that's like, there's no evidence of it. Like, people just say it like, okay, and then it's the, the age old we talked about in here before, since the 90s, BB Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, has said, oh, they got nukes. They're going to get nukes. They're about two minutes from getting nukes. I saw them, they're kicking nukes out of their doorway. You know, they're ready to strike America. And it's 30 years of saying that they're about to get a nuke. And then again, you know, we obliterate. They use the word obliterate. Their destroy, completely destroy their capacity to make anything nuclear. And now we're back to, well, we got to stop them from making nukes, even though we destroyed their capacity to make nukes. And I don't like to use the whole rhetoric that the ayatollah said that they have a religious, you know, mandate not to create weapons like nukes, because you know how that goes. I mean, it's not like they're a super trustworthy government. But he has said that, and now he's dead. So the guy who said that is dead now. So, yeah, Taylor, the, the, the thing I want to talk about, because neither of us are, you know, political strategist or war theory experts, and you can plot out all this stuff and, and listen to experts talk about it, but the stuff that I've seen, Taylor, is Iran is not taking this lying down. And the, the thing to me about the, the gas prices, that's the thing, the stuff that's going to affect, affect us based on this decision. Saudi Arabia is getting shelled by Iran, and they have a missile defense system that we have basically given them to, you know, shoot the. It's like the Iron Dome in Israel. And just about every, you know, modern country has these things where if Iran lobs a rocket at them, they have a defense system where it shoots out all kinds of rockets that can take those out. Well, they have said that they have about a week, a week's worth of this, of the, of these rockets for this defense system. And so what happens when they run out and Saudi Arabia is saying in public, we feel like we've been abandoned by the United States. And so you, you've created this situation where you've done diplomatic relations to get oil prices down with Saudi Arabia, and then you start a war in their backyard where, because they are our ally and we have bases there, Iran sees them as a threat as well. So you've created these conditions. And you can say that Iran was always going to do this and this is, you know, this is the risk is there just a hair trigger away. Well, they had all this technology, they had all these rockets and never launched one of them at one of their neighbors without, you know, some sort of. And again, I'm not defending Iran. I'm not saying their government is great and, you know, they weren't a risk to the People around them, but clearly the risk to their neighbors is us, our relationship with them is the risk. And we called their bluff and they, even if it leads to their eminent destruction, they're saying, no, we're going down swinging and they are killing people. Including what estimate now, like six. Three soldiers have died and six are gravely wounded from these attacks on our bases. So that's the thing to me, Taylor, is this isn't going well. I don't think anybody is estimating that's going well. So what kind of stuff you've been hearing?

B (8:27)

Yeah, I think it's important to, for individuals to listen and watch closely what we're, why we're being sold this war. I think you touched on a couple of them. One was regime change. Right. And our regime, not that we obviously support regime change, but if your regime change strategy is to go in and assassinate one or several of the top leadership of a country and then you just say out loud, all right, people of Iran, take over your country, that what that says is we're fine with a power vacuum and we don't care what actually happens next. I'm not for us installing puppets or anything along those lines, but neither strategy is successful or strategic or intelligent. Right. And we just basically said to them, now we don't care. We just don't want this one guy or any of his acolytes in there. So I think that shows one just terrible forethought and logic and reasoning behind this. Secondly, to your point, oh, we had to do this because there was an imminent threat to us. Well, the imminent threat was probably in response to us parking some of the most advanced and the largest conglomerate of our military personnel and weapons right in their back door since, effectively, since we've done anything like that, since 2003 when we invaded Iraq. Yeah, I would probably be pretty pissed if, you know, some, another country parked a significant amount of its navy right in our backyard as well. So it's like, yeah, maybe they would have attacked, but probably they were pissed that we were, you know, right there. Secondly, the whole, you know, nuclear and ICBM development again, either we obliterated it back then and then or we didn't and that was what, how many months ago? And now they turn it around and they're back operational again in that short amount of time. That seems extremely unlikely given the stabilization of that country over the past six months. I mean, they're, they're fighting off tens of thousands of or maybe even 100,000 or more protesters. They have a water crisis. I'm not saying that that's mutually exclusive of them rebuilding a nuclear program. I just don't think it's very likely or to be above the 60% enriched percentage or even close to that in that amount of time. The ICBM things, again, you know, all, all of this, all of these steps that countries take. While, yes, they may say terrible things like death to America and they're really, they really don't like us, it's part of this mutually assured destruction. And you see all these pundits come out and they'll say, well, why, why does North Korea want nuclear weapons? Why does Pakistan and all these countries want nuclear weapons or large missiles that can travel very far? It's so that countries like the United States and Russia don't do what we did to Iran and what Russia has done to Ukraine. That's not always because they're immediately going to turn right around and start lobbying them at their neighbors or at the people they don't like. It's possible. I'm not saying it's not. But to operate under the sense that just because a country has certain weapons that they're bound to use them then puts us on a perpetual war front with any country that we necessarily don't like or may publicly claim that they don't like us. Another terrible reason to, to go to war.

A (12:11)

Yeah, I saw a pretty funny, a pretty funny meme and it said Iran is creating WMDs. We have to go, that go attack them so that they don't get WMDs. And then the other person says, well, okay, so is it Russia and North Korea next? And they said, God no, they have WMDs.

B (12:33)

Yeah, so exactly.

A (12:35)

It's a very, it's hard to digest if you understand how the world works. And you know, you say it at nauseam and it doesn't seem to get through to anybody. I don't know, it's a good argument, but nobody seems to care. It's like, no, there's desperate leaders all over this world, you know, oppressing their people that are threats to their region and which we, I mean, I was about to say, are we going to go bomb all those countries? Well, it seems like that is our plan. I mean, that's what we've done.

B (13:05)

So yeah, only if, only if Netanyahu wants us to. Right. So then the, the other thing you kind of touched on was like Saudi Arabia and some of the countries in and around there. We are seeing reports and, you know, take it with a grain of salt, do the extra research and a lot of this will obviously play out here in the coming weeks. But a number of these countries are running low on their anti missile missiles or their anti drone defense because for a number of reasons. One, they don't develop their own, they buy them from us. And two, we've been giving so many of those type of defense weapons to Israel and Ukraine over the past, you know, four to five years because Ukraine is our puppet against Russia and we let Israel do whatever they want and then we'll defend them when they piss people off. So now we've gone over, we've kicked this hornet can and what's happening is Ty, I've seen a number of credible intelligence people come out and say that the Ayatollah has been assassinated, A number of his acolytes have been assassinated. But he knew or they knew that this was likely going to happen. So they've already kind they created this succession plan and this like, you know, what, what happens if kind of scenario. So they why a lot of these people are still fighting and they aren't just like keeling over and waving the white flag is because some of this planning prior but what they know is that the United States has pretty significant capabilities to destroy their missile systems and their drone supplies and so on and so forth. So they're aggressively, but yet still strategically to damage infrastructure and destabilize the region, launching as much thing as much drones and missiles as they can get out and as far as they can get out creating a wide radius of damage. So to your point about Saudi Arabia and the same thing with Qatar and Jordan and all these other places is that we kick the hornet's nest being you know, 6,000 miles away or whatever it is. And then the people who are feeling the aftermath are those countries and civilians and troops and bases in and around that region. Now we might not go to full on boots on the ground, but that does not already deny or negate the fact that the retaliation by Iran is being felt by a number of countries in and around that region. And we talk about blowback on this podcast a number of times and so do another number of other great podcasters. This is the kind of thing that that creates terrorists down the road. I think it was either Rand Paul or Thomas Massie when they were voting on the War Powers Resolution act that came through the other day is what this is doing is creating people not just in Iran, which makes a lot of sense, but people in all these countries that their family members are being killed because of Iran and they are not going to Blame Iran, and maybe they should, but they're going to blame the United States for going over there and kicking this hornet's nest.

A (16:11)

Yeah. And that's the main thing is I'm not under any delusion that Iran is coming out of this in any way other than completely reshaped. I don't. I think there is a possibility that the current government, you know, obviously the Ayatollah is dead and it's not going to look exactly the way it did. And I saw a thing that Israel bombed a meeting where they were getting together to vote for the next Ayatollah. And that's, you know, ironic and, you know, comic irony, but the Iran isn't. This. I don't. I don't believe that. You know, their rhetoric about, you know, well, this is just our old stuff. You just wait till we start using our new missiles. And that kind of. That's political posturing. And I don't know if I buy that at all. And I'm not saying that, you know, Iran is sitting in some sort of strategic advantage and, and, you know, they're going to win this war. I don't know about that stuff. What I do know is what you just said is it is damaging our relations in the Middle east more than it already is. And you could say that Trump was working to make relationships with places like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Turkey and strengthen our relationship over there through diplomacy, which is something we fully support. And that was one of the reasons a lot of libertarians supported and voted for Trump, because that's what we saw. The advantage we saw for all of the flaws is that he was a negotiator and he wanted to negotiate and, you know, PR be damned about the way it looked about him, you know, making relationships with Cutter and stuff. And, and that was a good thing. And now he's just thrown that all out the window with these actions. And you can say what you want about us being, you know, people being anti Semitic or whatever, but obviously this. Nobody is not reporting that this is an Israeli American strike. That's the official stance is that Israel is striking Iran with us, and, well, they're our strategic partner. Okay, cool. What? Somehow Israel always seems to find its way in the mix when we're these operations in the Middle east, you know, whether it's intel or direct involvement or, you know, support or whatever. And it is damaging our, you know, relations with these countries. And I've heard people give this, you know, and this is the other problem. There's so many Nuances. This, Taylor, is to the point I originally made that the, the goalposts keep shifting it. People in the administration have said that one of the, the things you have to consider was that Israel was going to attack them either way. And we needed to, you know, make it so that it was something that we were controlling. So it wasn't Israel doing something that we wouldn't necessarily support. Obviously they're not against obliterating entire, you know, cityscapes what we saw in Gaza. So that's, that's one thing. And then people are saying, oh, no, no, no, that's, that's ridiculous. And, and it's like, okay, well stop saying it then if it's ridiculous. But the other thing, you know, theory I've seen floated around is that, you know, Iran is supporting a lot of these brics nations and strengthening the advantage of China in where it's sending oil and resources and having these relationships with these, you know, communist countries like China and Russia. And we need to take one of the chess pieces off the board. Honestly, Taylor, if Trump just came out and said, similar to what he said in Venezuela, come out and say, look, Iran is a problem, they are threatening Israel. They're saying, death to America. They're, you know, they're not a stable country and they are one of the main supporters of, with oil to our economic and global enemies. So we're going to take them off the chessboard. That would be more reasonable than the crap they're trying to tell us. Now. Would I support it? Absolutely not. Just like we didn't support Venezuela, but at least you're being honest. And I don't necessarily think that that's what it is. I think this is purely just my feeling of it. This is purely about making Israel happy and strengthening our partnership with them. I don't know if that's true or not. I mean, who knows? It's funny because this is such an open thing and so many people involved, but you will never get a straight answer about why we did this. And the other thing, Taylor, we need to talk about is the support for this war is next to nil with the people in America. The American voting populace is not supporting this war.

B (20:37)

Right. It's, it's less than, it's less than a third of, of American citizens polled. We're supporting it. The thing barely squeaked through. A recall, effectively a recall of the War Powers Resolution for it. And even the people that voted for it were openly coming out and saying, like, you know, we need more details about what the plan is and all this stuff you know I I give this you know maybe a couple weeks at most before even folks even more die hard. You know MAGA and I mean MAGA and the wearing the red hat MAGA not you know Marjorie Taylor Green maga more like those folks are starting to kind of pull back from this and and it's he's under when he's already underwater pulling wise but it's entirely even within this base.

A (21:26)

Yeah. And I will be here's the thing is people like JD Vance and some of the other people that have clearly put themselves in the administration for political advantage in the future. I think he's completely and a lot of people predicted this that JD Vance shouldn't run for shouldn't be vice president because he Trump is poison to people's political careers. Look at just about everybody that was in his admin the first time. They all are all relegated to political history and this is he's basically destroying any chance of being president in 28. And I think overall I mean if they weren't going to lose the primaries before I think this is putting the nail in the coffin that you know all of these advantages in the window dressings that Trump is putting in with his executive orders and Congress doing nothing, it's all going to be a mooc point in 2029 when the Democrats have complete control over the government because they are going to lose the primaries and likely unless something dramatic changes lose the presidency because they are doing every they seem to be doing everything they can to make that happen.

B (22:28)

Yeah, I just wrap on the Iran thing which is to say this, I mean again depending on how long this holds out and what capability Iran itself also Hezbollah, the the Houthis and you know, other groups in and around that region have the ability to impact the state of Hormuz and constrict oil to the rest of the rest of the world. I think you're going to see a strong and to your point about the elections and everything else, you're going to see a significantly long lasting impact on gas prices and therefore the economy. When we talk a lot about inflation what that does but high gas prices is one of the drivers of costs in the United States. And if that continues to trend upward anymore then I think it's going to have significant impacts on people's wallets and therefore to your point significant impacts on the election the 2028 election cycle. I don't know if they lose the Senate, I think they'll likely lose the House which is still effectively making Trump a lame duck for the rest of his term and then again, depending on

A (23:40)

how, which doesn't matter because they're not doing anything anyway.

B (23:43)

Well, true. Right. And everything he's doing is effectively administrative processes. But I think the significant thing, well, the civilian thing, is always keeping the Senate in case you lose a Supreme Court justice. But, yeah, but I think you're right. If this drags on too, too long, I do believe there is enough time for this to wrap up in, say, a month. And then the next, you lose the midterms, and then the, the Democrats will go on an impeachment blitz like they, you know, did last time, and then use that to drum up a Republican base for a Rubio or a Vance or whomever. But we'll see. I mean, it definitely plays into the multilayer chess game that is political politics. And I think that Trump got a, or at least he perceived to have gotten a win in Venezuela because it was so quick and so precise and so, you know, without casualty or really any risk. And that they were going to do something similar in Iran, which we thought we were going to do in Iraq, which we thought we were going to do in Afghanistan, which we thought we were going to do in all these places, and we've never done besides, you know, the assassination of Maduro or the capture of Maduro. So, yeah, I think it's going to be egg on his face for a while. Unless, I mean, if they're going to face already, in my opinion, obviously. But if this extends any further than what it has for any significant amount of time, it's really going to impact the Republican Party's chances down the road and obviously the global economy, global market.

A (25:16)

Yep. So let's move on to more pressing matters at West Virginia state legislature. I think the theme that I'm seeing is the communist one. Taylor. I don't know if we've talked about it on this podcast, but, you know, there's. I, I know you are as well, but I'm always kind of rest. Resident. Resident. What? I'm just going to take that word on my vocabulary, Taylor. I can't say it, so why am I even trying? I'm always hesitant to use the word communist and call people communist because it's hyperbolic and it doesn't necessarily fit everyone. But when you talk about cultural Marxism and the, you know, influence that the Soviets and the communist, you know, mindset had on the world at, you know, the 60s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and, you know, we obliterated the Soviet Union and they failed and they're gone. But I mean the theory that they inundated are educational establishments and our culture, it's not something I really took seriously. But the more I hear people talk and my previous, you know, as you say, you're a recovering Republican and I'm a recovered Democrat. I used to think a lot of this stuff and I can see it and see how dangerous it is that we have some bills coming through this, the state legislature that really hone in on some of those, you know, I don't want to say liberal but you know, social, socially, I don't know, communist based, there's not a better word for it. But the Raley's Law. So I think we've talked a little bit about here and this one is kind of less, it's more the cultural part. But the Raley's Law is a bill that delegate Sean Fluharty has basically sponsored every year for probably five or six years. And there was this little girl that she was being abused and she was. Had a CPS case open on her and she was taken out of school by her parents to homeschool and they ended up killing her. And what this law would do would say. And it went through the Senate. And here's another thing the. Which I don't have any problem with them using the rules but in the Senate this bill, the Senate version came through and Senator Garcia, he, he was the sponsor of it and they got it whittled down to. Basically what the. The bill said was that if a family or a child has an open CPS case there is a. Would be a 14 day waiting period before they were allowed to take their child out of school so that they could be evaluated by CPS in the school system to make sure that was safe. And it was.

B (28:00)

I think they got it down to seven days.

A (28:02)

Oh everything I read said 14. But anyway the week, two weeks, whatever, a waiting period and the. Because the original bill was they weren't allowed to take them out of school at all until the CPS case was absolved or whatever. And the Senator Garcia used a Senate rule that says that every bill. I don't think it's a Senate rule. I think it's in the Constitution and they've kind of changed it through rules in the Senate that every bill that comes across the floor has to be read in full. And obviously you could see where that would be a problem because it would take up a huge chunk of time. Go ahead.

B (28:41)

I was gonna say the, the rule is that you have to read it. What they do before every reading of the bill is the Senate president or the House speaker asks for unanimous consent to substitute a summary in lieu of reading.

A (28:53)

Right. So you'll hear this.

B (28:55)

What they do is no one says anything and then they get up and summarize the bill.

A (28:58)

Yeah. So, so what Garcia did was use his, basically force them to act on Rayleigh's law by making them read every bill. And they acquiesced. Acquiesced. And they, the Senate passed this bill and it went to the House and they had discussion on it in I don't know which committee it was, maybe education, but so it was in the House. And friend of the show, friend of the Libertarian Party, Roy Ramey, he is, he represents the West Virginia Homeschoolers association and he came and gave testimony about why he was opposed to the bill. And you know, if you've ever heard Roy Ramey talk, he can be long winded and detailed. And he basically said, basically the gist of it was is that what happened to Rayleigh obviously was terrible, but there was already an open CPS case on her in cps, as we see with all of these things, failed to do their due diligence. And the concept basically is whether they're in school or homeschooled or whatever, CPS should be doing their job and making sure this child is safe. If they think it's really that dangerous, they should be at that house regularly making sure that this child is not being abused. And if it's that serious, they remove the child from the home. They do that all the time. And that was Roy's basic gist, is that this isn't going to prevent anything. And this law wouldn't have prevented the Rayleigh from being killed and protected her because as you said, seven days, whatever you, you wait seven days and they take them out and like suddenly these parents are changed people. Like, is that what you're saying is going to happen? And no, it's not. I mean, whether she's in school for seven days, that seven days is over, over, and then she's home. So it's, it's, it's a silly thing. Not to mention the, the argument of it being, you know, a violation of a parent's right to do whatever they want with their child. If they're not being charged with a crime, a CPS investigation isn't a crime because if they're being charged with abusing their child, the child is no longer in their home. That's how the abuse cases work. If they've been charged with Abuse, they deal with the criminal actions that come from whatever charge they're being charged with. And almost always that means the child can no longer be in their home. So if that's not the case, then you are violating a parent's right by having the state arbitrate where they can go to school when our law, laws already say you have the right to write a letter of intent to your school board and take your child out of public school and homeschool them. That is the law of the land. And so that was the argument Roy made and to the, the tactics and the. We're often accused, Taylor of not ever criticizing the Democrats, but Sean Fluharty may be the best example of the worst that the Democrats can put out. I don't think that he's put out the worst legislation, but the way that he speaks about anybody who disagrees with him and anything that is, you know, outside of his moral worldview, he is condescending, he is flippant, he is derogatory. And what he said about Roy Ramey and what he said about just about anybody that disagrees with this bill was that Roy Ramey stood up and testified and defended abusers. Now, we're kind of used to conservative, you know, pearl clutching and rhetoric and calling, you know, the demonic Democrats and saying anybody against their abortion bills are for murder. And you know, we don't support that rhetoric either, but we're used to that. But these Democrats are supposed to be these, you know, morally high minded people that are, you know, just for free and open society and they want people to be protected. And the idea, you and I know Roy, and I think anybody that does know Roy knows that kids are something that he wants to protect. And that's part of the pro, the, the reason why he's in this homeschool association is to, you know, give kids the best opportunity. And you're going to get up there and stand and post on social media and say that he's defending abusers because he doesn't agree with your bill. It's, I don't get offended, but if I could get offended, it would offend me. As somebody who doesn't support this bill for perfectly legitimate reasons. I think I've proven that I do care about kids and I don't want any of them to be abused and neglected or killed. It was absolutely horrible what happened to that little girl. But this is, this is beyond even the legislation. It's questioning people's basic morality when they don't agree with your legislation. And it looks like it didn't, the bill didn't get out of committee. It didn't have enough votes. So that's, that's good for, for, you know, our position on the, the bill itself. But this is, you know, we see it more and more and you know, you, they talk about civilian politics and people like Sean Fluharty, he never gets anything done. They talk about people like, you know, Chris Anders and some of the like Mike Folk and Marshall Wilson when they were in the legislature that yo, they're hard to deal with. You're not going to find anybody that's harder to deal with than Sean Fluharty. And if the Democrats want to have any political power, the, the way speaking like that is not going to get you any advantage whatsoever politically. So, yeah, that on that bill. I don't know if you have anything else to say about it.

B (34:34)

But no, the only thing I would add, Ty, is and we talked a little bit about it in regards to the child slavery bill. And it's, you know, my point is just that it's, you know, sad that it's one of these tactics that this, this girl's name and memory is attached to this and is used as a weapon to pass a bill. And again, don't get me wrong. Well, first let me say I agree with everything you said about Shawn Fuhardy. From everything I've seen, I think he probably is one of the worst people to have graced Charleston. But the, the problem that I have is that, you know, you craft these bills and as altruistic as you are in your intent, and I'm not, I will not deny his hope or plan or wish to protect kids, sure. But to do it with hackets like this, you ascribe the name and memory of a child to the bill and utilize it as a weapon against people who don't vote with you or don't agree with you, whose life would not have been saved by the legislation that you originally tried to pass in 2018 or 2019, whenever you first introduced it or through today, I think is just, you know, I don't know, hard to find the right adjective for it. But it's just kind of a low way to go about politics. And you see this a lot of things and Republicans do it too, don't get me wrong. But that always just like strikes a chord with me when you name bills. Certain things to elicit emotions and be able to weaponize it in a way. If you don't get the popular support that you expect on such a heart tugging issue like the death of. Of children. So. But yeah, I think you were spot on with all of your comments in terms of Sean and his behavior and everything. And kudos to Joey for trying to utilize what little power because obviously, given their numbers, you know, if we were lucky enough to get some folks in the legislature, I could, you know, understand the uphill battle that they face for any bill that they try to pass and utilizing procedural tactics. But, yeah, despite all that and despite Sean's best efforts of demoralizing everyone else in the. In the House, they did not get this to any vote post crossover day.

A (36:59)

Yeah. And just to stay on, my theme, to kind of prove my point is the part where the communist ideals come in is that they view the state as the arbitrator of morality. And that basically, though they don't say it, they insinuate that, you know, children are the purview of the state and you are simply a vessel to raise them. And, you know, this teacher saying, my kids, my students, we're all a community. These kids are all our responsibility. It takes a village. And their. Their view of that is the state. They don't really think the village. The village is not the government. The village is the people in it. And they don't believe that, you know, you and I are arbiters of our own children's future and their safety. They believe the state needs to be monitoring that. And if they. Then there has to be action from the state to cartel your actions. And, you know, while that isn't a direct, you know, purely communist ideal, it just goes along with a greater theme to our next issue of foster care that, you know, we've talked about this on here a lot, but one good bill did go through, you know, the House and it's in the Senate to basically allow in. My delegate was the one that sponsored. It was the virtual school that if a child. And. And this is. Was universally supported that if a child comes into foster care, sometimes they're sitting in a foster home or in transition or whatever for quite a while, and they aren't placed in a school, they aren't enrolled. And so what this would do would allow them to immediately go into virtual school so they're not missing any education time, which is a good thing. And nobody had any arguments about that. And if everybody saw that as an appropriate thing for government to be doing. But then we had a bill come out of the Senate that would privatize part of the CPS process with foster children. And I'll put the bill a link to the bill Text in the show notes. But I read the bill and basically what it does is as it sits right now, CPS is responsible for every foster child. From the time an investigation is open, they do investigations, they remove the child or not or whatever. They, they come up with the placement plan and all this stuff. And then they. The. The foster care agencies that exist, your KVCs, NECOs, Children Home Society, there's, I think, seven of them in the state in total. They. And DHHR even has a version of this where the foster care agency is responsible for training foster parents, placing children in specific homes that are, you know, appropriate to whatever the child's needs are. And then they, they transfer the payments from the state to the foster parents or whatever that payment plan is, whatever the different things are that, that people get paid for and they do some other supplementary, you know, care stuff and they're supposed to be meeting with the foster parents once a month and, you know, addressing those kind of issues that they have the power to do. Well, as it sits right now, CPS is still responsible for everything else. They're the ones that are representing the child, representing the state in the child's, you know, court hearings. They're the ones that are responsible for collecting all the information on their, you know, Social Security, Social Security numbers, doctors records, you know, the authorizing authority for anything to do with the child as far as, you know, therapies, doctor's appointments, surgeries, things like that, getting all the information for them to be enrolled in school. And they're responsible for that part. Well, what this bill would do would take. It would basically, CPS wouldn't be responsible for anything passed when the child is, you know, placed. They would still do all the investigations and all that part of that stuff, you know, coordinate with the state police, all that stuff. But then all the rest of it would be given to what they called a private entity, which in the bill it says community care groups, which is these foster care agencies. And what it would do is basically take these foster care agencies that already exist and give them the authority that the CPS has now, now to do the rest of that. And what do we hear? Taylor? Repeatedly? CPS is understaffed. They have too much work. They have too many cases. And what the, the idea of this, it's a pilot program for five counties. So it's not like it's being initiated. The, the idea is this pilot program is going to see what the flaws are in it, what, what could be done, all these different things that a pilot program would. Would be advantageous for. And there are arguments against it. And the main argument that, you know, my wife has made and a lot of people have is that the, A lot of these foster care agencies aren't any better than CPS is. There's things that they're supposed to be doing that they don't do. They're understaffed as well. They're underpaid. And so those things would have to be dealt with and, and hopefully in a good pilot program, these are the things that would be seen and evaluated and the government would come up with, you know, some sort of plan to pay these people, decide how much it costs. But the foster care advocacy, advocacy groups in this state and a lot of Democrat legislators and even a lot of Republicans, the first thing they hear when they hear privatization, what do you think that they say, Taylor,

B (42:27)

that they're going to sell our children away?

A (42:30)

Yeah, they basically are saying, oh, this is a destruction of the, the state system. All these private entities. When they privatize anything, the only thing that happens is these companies are trying to make money and they'll charge more. It's going to cost. Going to be the destruction of the cps. And one of the foster care advocacy groups, one of the leaders who I was at the state capitol, you know, with, in. In a lobby day that was coordinated by this group, and we talked to our legislators about foster care and we did that independently, but it was a part of this greater lobbying day set up by this group. She was saying things on this Facebook group that were like, oh, it's going to end. It's going to lead in the, the elimination of wic. It's gonna delete, it's going to get rid of the adoption subsidy, it's going to get rid of a lot of services. And I read the bill, Taylor, and none of that stuff is in it. And I, I'm sure she could come up with some sort of loose way to create, to, you know, justify everything she's saying. But the first instinct of these people is to say that privatizing anything is nothing but a capitalistic power grab to get money and, you know, destroy this system and create, you know. You know, it's basically just big government trying to give its cronies money. And I'm not sure my main gist is, is that is a very socialistic, communistic reaction to anything. And I wanted to make the point, Taylor, that I'm not sure if people are aware of how the government works, but just about anything, you know, substantive that the government does, every agency has Private contractors, because there's work that they require to be done that the state is not capable of doing. Every single bridge you see being built, major construction, all the lighting being put up along the side of the road, those are all private companies that are contracted by the government. That's privatization. Excuse me. And any failure, you might see it taking too long, it costing more than it should. I can say firsthand, almost all of that is because of a mass amount of government requirements and regulation that wouldn't normally exist if you were building a bridge like across a creek on your driveway. They overbuild. They have monitoring requirements that don't make any sense. You have people at the state that don't know anything about the subject monitoring a lot of these projects. If you look at our state's finances, almost all of the financial holdings of the state are managed by private companies. They're private financial companies that manage all of it. And are they simply in it for a paycheck and to get big government contracts? Maybe that's why, you know, they decide to do it, is they get a little bit more money because it is a government thing. But people miss the part. And this is the thing that's not taught and is lost in this is I have a news flash for everybody. The main driver of every business isn't just to make as much money as possible by swindling everybody out of money. If you are a company and you are doing something, whether it's for a government contract or an individual or a private company, you have to provide a service at the best price, a quality service at the best price to be able to do your job well. And the advantage to privatizing things is if the government is doing its job and being a good arbiter of the tax dollar, they are monitoring whether or not they are doing a good job. Now, that often doesn't happen. But that's not a flaw of privatization. That's a flaw of government. When government is involved, they are as bad at writing contracts and monitoring those contracts as they are at everything else. So the idea that CPS is going to give part of its duties to a private entity that already exists, that's the. That's been our biggest issue with the foster care system. One of the biggest issues is that you have this go between that is these foster care agencies that our thing has been like, why doesn't CPS just do all this? Because they don't have any power. So if you're giving an entity that already exists more power to do its job, Better. I don't know if it will be successful. My wife doesn't think it'll be successful. But it is something. You have been talking forever about CPS being overburdened with work and the Senate presents a bill to take part of their workload off and give it to agencies that already exist. And your first reaction is this is evil government. And to me that is a, a mindset that is being drilled into people wherever that's coming from. I don't know if it's specifically from college or culture or whatever, but this mindset is pervasive in government from the left and the right.

B (47:34)

Yeah, I would just add ty that, you know it's wild that and maybe it's just the little bit of autistic nature that libertarians have to read and learn about and know what happens when you give government expanded power and scope and throw more money at the problem. That is a government run entity and or agency or solution to a problem. But it just gets bigger, it consumes more and the quality of the service provider, whatever it's supposed to do, only maybe incrementally increases in association or correlation to the amount of taxpayer dollars that are thrown at that problem. And I, we've talked about it before. I think the problem with libertarian solutions to things, whether it's privatization of certain services and processes or what have you, is that both the Republicans and Democrats through the state or whatever have implemented solutions and agencies to solve our problems and they are working to whatever extent they exist and they are doing a thing. And the problem with libertarian solutions like in this case to privatize certain parts of this process is the expectation is that it has to be perfect.

A (48:58)

Yeah.

B (48:59)

The standard is oh well, some bad thing may happen and it may not be ideal to what we want to happen now. They don't have the self reflection or the ability to, you know, circum look at the whole picture here to say our current system is absolutely broken. I mean it is unbroken, it is shattered in unrecognizable pieces. We have overburden, overstaffed CPS losing, literally losing kids in the system. And we in the population we have exacerbates that situation obviously. But it's not like okay, well what we have right now isn't perfect but you're, you're fine with the status quo. But then they'll say oh no, no no, we're not fine with the status quo. We want, we need more, more resources, more money. And then you say to them okay, but in one example, name another entity. Another problem in society that has ever been solved by throwing more money at it that to be the government, because it never existed. What generally happens is you create more avenues for failures and oftentimes that failures is fraud, is embezzlement. It's all kinds of things. The more of the get rich mentality that they're worried about via the capitalistic free market privatization model than they are within the government because there's so little oversight. Because then as it gets bigger, then you need more oversight to get bigger. Whereas when you contract with a private company, there's an expectation in that contract that certain things get done and when they're not done up to the par of that contract, then you hire another company who is regularly working on their own own to increase their efficiency, provide a better service at a lower cost. Because that's the whole mechanism behind capitalism in the free market. So it's frustrating. But you know, I like the idea again segmenting and doing pilot programs and improving this. I think in a lot of these situations you have to boil the frog to prove to people that we need to take some of the responsibility back from the government. You can't just snub your fingers and overnight turn the entire process into a private corporation or a private marketplace for this service and for these needs. But I think if we can prove through them or through these pilot programs that this is at least more efficient, it saves money, it reduces response times and things along those lines and make the process easier for foster parents that we can make the win. But, but just like with everything else, the immediate response is this vitriol reaction that oh well, you want to do this because you want to sell the kids. And it's like they equate us now with like Epstein island just because we want the process to work more efficiently than what the government can and has been providing.

A (52:02)

Yeah, and it's, it's the proving the negative thing you're talking about is it's similar to what we talk about with Iran. It's the same concept of oh well, the standard is, is that Iran could get a nuclear weapon. They don't have one, but they could get one. So when does that stop any country around them or anywhere in the world, they could get a nuclear weapon. So the standard is now, well, we have to stop that from happening. And so it's, the CPS system is absolutely broken. You have presented what the problems are. The solution is we want to try privatizing part of it to agencies that already exist that are doing similar work and are already accountable to the government, are plac in these communities and have offices in places like Spencer. But they could abuse how they get money and they could charge more money than it actually costs. That could happen. So nope, get rid of it. Don't even try it. It's like proving that negative is just, it's silly and it doesn't happen anywhere else. And again, if government is not doing their job, yes, they can abuse that system. I'll give this last example and then we can move on. But one of the big issues with contracting for the state road or anything, the government contracts is you'll have people bid on projects, they bid low and then they know they'll make up what they're not charging in change orders and they'll make more money that way so that they'll get these change orders and it'll be way more than what their original bid was. But that's how they win these contracts. Well, one positive of the gym Justice Administration administration is Jimmy Wriston at the doh. He made it harder for them to do that. He made them have to jump through more hoops to be able to do change orders. And so that put a wrench in the gears of these, this bid process where these companies had to be more honest in their original bids to win contracts. That was government seeing a problem where people were taking advantage of their contract contracting process and putting something in place to correct that. That's what government can do. If you are having somebody build your home or build a road or something, a private company and they're doing a bad job and they're, they're, you know, gouging you on prices, you go, look, this contract is being voided. We're going with somebody else because you're charging too much. And then that company learns through market incentives, we can't do this again or we're not going to get any contracts. Well, the government is perfectly capable of doing that if they choose to do it. So that's the problem. The, the government part is the flaw, not the private part. So we want to go ahead.

B (54:44)

I was going to say and most of the things that, you know, a lot of these pearl clutchers on, on Facebook and other places are complaining about or the hyperbolic like scenarios, those things are all crimes sergeants charging more more. And the pricing mechanism obviously needs to be monitored. And the free market fraud is a crime. Yeah, yeah, the free market will work on that. And to your point about contracts, that's where the government should be having some oversight. But abuse of children Crime, selling children a crime. All these things. Crimes, you know, straight to jail for all of these things that you're worried about. Straight to jail. Those are crimes. Enforce those laws. And we say this about a number of other things. We talked about it with the concealed carry for 18 year olds. There are crimes for utilizing a firearm to kill somebody. There are penalties for mishandling a firearm. There are penalties for selling to a felon. All these things that were the. Well, what if the 18 year old does this thing? Crime, straight to jail. And it is libertarians following the non aggression principle for the most part. Not necessarily selling to people, but hurting people. Crime, fine, put them in jail. They did a thing that we don't approve of and it's just like. And again in the same thing with the homeschooling and all everything else, all that kind of, all the abuse and things people are worried about happening in the home school and it's happening in schools like 20% of of children K through 12 are sexually abused or physically abused while in public schools. Stat. Just, just a stat. Now maybe it's lower here in West Virginia, whatever, But that's still 1 in 5 kids has some type of abuse happen to them in the public school section. We don't abolish public schools because of that. But heaven forbid if we ever found out that it was that high in homeschooling, oh my God, we would not be allowed to homeschool ever again. Right. But again, I just go back to that point of the self reflection of the policies and procedures and things that you're okay with the government doing being flawed. You can't see that you have blinders on to just throw the baby out with the bathwater with any proposed solution to our current problems, or at least change in the solution to the current problems. And all the while the safeguards of 95% of the things you're afraid of or concerned of are already crimes. Just enforce those crimes.

A (57:05)

Yep. And to enforcing crimes.

B (57:08)

Speaking of crimes.

A (57:09)

Yeah. Owning machine guns. So there was a bill that came out of the Senate that was advocated for by gun owners, Gun Owners of America, that basically the idea is they would take advantage of a 1980 something Hughes Amendment that basically said the idea of it was the that individuals, even if you were an ATF approved gun shop, you couldn't sell machine guns to people that were made newer than 1986. And what this bill would do would take it. But what the Hughes amendment did say was that states and federal entities could sell these machine guns to people and in individuals and entities. And so what this bill would do

B (57:51)

would say, well, did it actually say that? Or. My understanding was, I don't know, I didn't read it. Yeah. So I think that the way that this came about was the 1986. 1986, 1986, firearms prevention, or whatever it's called, forget the acronym that the bill was. But effectively, to your point, guns made post that year, machine guns made post that year could not be sold basically on the free market. So private, private entities could not sell these weapons. Now, you could get a hold of an older machine gun if you had class A license and blah, blah, blah, all the rules that most gun gun nuts know about much better than I do, but it was still a process. You still had to have, like, lots of money and everything else. Okay, so we've had, what, 40 years now, I think, since that bill passed. There was a couple of court challenges to this bill over the years, Most notably one that happened back in 2011 regarding the constitutionality of the restriction of purchasing these firearms by a private citizen. It was stopped at the 5th Circuit of Appeals and it was not taken up by the Supreme Court at the time. So effectively, precedent and everything else states that for 40 years we've been told you can't own machine guns. Okay, so to your point, fast forward Gun Owners of America, which is a national gun rights or gun ownership group, probably, I would say, based on my understanding of them, a little bit more extreme than the npr. Not in their nra. Yeah, what did I say?

A (59:43)

Npr, npr.

B (59:45)

Well, they're definitely more extreme than npr. Let me tell you that right now. But in terms of like their support of the second Amendment, they are a lot more fanatic and I would say originalist in their understanding interpretation Second Amendment compared to the nra. So through them, Senator Chris Rose and I believe someone else in the Senate pushed a bill that would, again, from my interpretation and understanding, identified a loophole in the 1986 bill that said, okay, well, private citizens can't sell these guns, but what about the state? And they. Yeah, they wanted to utilize through police state barracks where there's generally armories and they can store these weapons, the state police, to sell to qualified individuals a small list of machine guns. Right. And these were like fully automatic M4s. So you're not getting like the full belt chain or anything along those lines. I mean, these were again, just one step up into the automatic rightful type of weapons. But the police would be in charge of selling and overseeing this whole process. Now, it is important to Note that there was no support of this bill by the nra. There was no support of this bill by the West Virginia Citizens Defense League. I think they obviously had a lot of concern about how the bill was written, the involvement of the state and the police and selling it, et cetera, et cetera, which I will say I fully agree with. I think we don't want the state selling us weapons just because then it already adds to the level of their knowledge and oversight of who has what, and we obviously aren't in favor of that. Okay, long story short, the bill worked its way up through Senate Judiciary. It got some support by some notable individuals like Tom Willis, who was running for U.S. senate against Capito and a few others. It moved through there. I think it then had to move over to another or also get through another committee, maybe Finance, and it didn't do that in time for crossover day. So it effectively died on the vine. Okay, I want to attack some of the arguments against it that I've heard by pundits and news people and all the rest. First, the question is the no one is clamoring for this argument. Why are we doing this? No one wants this. Well, here's the problem with that argument. We have been Stockholm syndrome for the past 40 years by everybody, including the. The court system that we cannot own fully automatic weapons. It's just like the, the sky is blue, the earth is. Is round. Maybe you know all these things. But also, you can't own firearms. Don't even think about it. Don't even try it. No reason to, you know, assemble and grassroots for. It's just. It ain't gonna happen. Sorry, Charlie. Okay, well, that's not, again, proving a negative. That doesn't mean that people don't believe in a interpretation of the Second Amendment, that we should have the right to do that. Obviously the Libertarian Party does. Obviously a number of conservative gun enthusiasts do. So I think that is a, again, proving the negative fallacy in terms of why that was being pushed. Second of all, there was arguments regarding constitutionality of the bill itself and so on and so forth. I'm not going to weigh in a whole lot because, you know, I'm not a legal expert and I haven't delved in too much of it, but here's my take on the situation. I believe that based on their novel idea of having the police do it, if it were to get passed, I believe it would be very quickly brought up and moved through the court system and challenged to the Supreme Court and the now different and much more Originalist Supreme Court would be hearing a case on the constitutionality of machine gun ownership again for the first time since the passage of that bill in 1986.

A (63:59)

Yeah.

B (64:00)

So if nothing else, and, and I don't want to, you know, ascribe knowledge or lack of knowledge, anybody, but perhaps the individuals who crafted this bill knew that it wasn't great to begin with, but they just are trying to poke holes in this, you know, long held understanding of the second Amendment to preclude this and they wanted to bring about a challenge in the courts. Now maybe that is giving too much grace to the individuals, but guess what? That's likely. What would have happened would happen if the bill were to pass is that someone, somewhere, very quickly, probably upon its passage, would be ready to challenge it and sue for an injunction and prevent it from actually going into effect. And it would go up and through the courts and very possibly heard by a Supreme Court, which is drastically different in its makeup and much more originalist, especially in terms of the second Amendment than we've seen previous courts being. So the attacks on it I think are somewhat well founded, but some of them are definitely not. And I think more than anything, it's probably just a venue or a catalyst or a delivery system for this to get back in front of scotus.

A (65:07)

Yeah. My first action is, my first reaction is the state police don't want it. So that makes me want it.

B (65:14)

Well, yeah, okay. Yeah. And that's a good. Here's the other thing I want to say to that, sorry for interrupting type, but I hate that argument because you know who was one of the loudest opponents of constitutional carry when that bill was moving forward?

A (65:26)

Yeah, the state police.

B (65:28)

Yeah. The Sheriff association. They were one of the most constant lobbying groups and speakers against constitutional carry. Of course they don't want, they don't care about your second Amendment, folks. All your back to blue stickers right next to your don't tread on me stickers are such oxymoronic antithesis of one another because the people who are going to be treading on you are the ones wearing the blue stripe and they don't care about your second Amendment. They are going to lobby against any type of expansion of your second Amendment. So quit saying that. And to utilize that, especially as you know, for our conservative and Republican friends, to utilize that as your basis to not support this bill, I think is abhorrent to the understanding of the second Amendment.

A (66:10)

Yeah. And I think that their, believe it or not, their, their main argument wasn't even about, you know, Safety. And if we have machine guns, people are going to die. It was mostly about their liability that if the state police are selling, you know, automatic firearms and something comes up with the, you know, federal government, they would be liable. And that's ridiculous because if the state passes a bill and says they have to do this and they are following the law, they're not liable for anything. And just like a normal gun shop that is approved by the atf, if you go up and shoot a, shoot somebody with a gun you bought there, unless they're selling it to you outside of the purview of the law, they're not doing a background check or whatever, they're not liable for you shooting somebody. So that's ridiculous. And the, the, here's the thing. The, the only thing I worry about is the state police doing things that are nefarious, that, you know, maybe they're, they're responsible for selling these guns, but then they just don't do it, or they make it hard to do it, or they don't want to deal with you, or they pretend they're closed or something like that. You know, those kind of things is what I'm. But nothing changes with how you buy these. You still have to pay the $250, you know, fee and the go through the same enhanced background check you have to go through to get by a pre1986 machine gun. And nothing changes. The process doesn't change. It's just, you'll be able to buy one. That's it. That's the only thing that changes. And here's the thing, you can argue that it will put more machine guns on, on the stage, on the streets, the mean streets of West Virginia, and it will, because here's the thing you're talking about, you know, what, what machine guns are allowed to be purchased. And, and these prohibitions. Well, just like every other prohibition of any kind of firearm, there are more machine guns, pre1986 machine guns owned by individuals in this country than there was before the ban. Because people saw the ban and went, oh, I want one now. So they went and bought more. So there's more machine guns on the streets. Now, granted, they're, you know, pre 1986 machine guns. So some of them aren't, you know, they're, they're not the, you know, choppers you see in rap videos, but. Or the, you know, Glock switches or whatever, which are illegal and they exist anyway. Crazy concept, but. So all you're doing when you prohibit these Things is make more of them be purchased. You know, bump stocks. More people bought bump stocks after Trump banned them. These pistol braces, more people bought them. So it's, it a stupid point anyway, but there is no real good leg to stand on, in my opinion, as far as legality of it or, you know, the police being liable for what's going on. My honest take is, I don't, I think you're probably, you've got a good point with the whole, you know, Supreme Court, you know, angle of it. But I, I honestly think, you know, it's, it's a chipping away at these, these tyrannies. And I think the most charitable way is to say they're just trying to get it where they can. And do I like the idea of the state police selling guns? No, I don't. But in a state like West Virginia, we're probably the best state for that to happen. And honestly, it's a feather in our cap. And this law is being presented in other states right now for. Through the gun owners of America. And it would have been cool if we were the first state that said it was legal to buy machine guns. So, yeah, that's just my take on. I don't really care. I'm not gonna buy one. I'm not going to spend the thousands of dollars that it costs to buy one.

B (69:36)

Yeah, I agree. And again, to emphasize, no, the Libertarian Party, West Virginia does not want the state police selling us any gun, let alone machine guns. But the point goes back to. I think this is a novel idea. And again, this is. Well, why isn't the argument was why isn't the CDL or the NRA thought of it before? I don't know. There's a lot of things people haven't thought of before that we don't just throw out because it wasn't thought of before.

A (70:01)

Well, the NRA is garbage, so.

B (70:03)

Well, the NRA is also garbage. But there's a lot of things that we're like, oh, you know, we haven't tried this. And, and that's how a number of cases get to the Supreme Court by novel either legal theories or, or, or cases that no. Or sometimes pieces of legislation that no one has tried before actually end up in front of them and then chips away at whatever the thing is. So.

A (70:26)

Yeah, and nobody, nobody wants the state police selling machine guns. Nobody wants that. This is the position that the federal government has put us in. That's the point, is that. That's the charitable point.

B (70:37)

It's, it's based on the the law that is in place now, it is the only loophole maybe that we've, I would say only because we just realized this one. But from what as we've realized thus far, it's the only loophole that's been, you know, investigated and explored. And if that is again, the foot in the door that gets us to possibly repeal that, that bill or other, in our opinion, unconstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment, then I'm all for that being the first step. We have to start somewhere, just like we've started somewhere with constitutional carry and all the rest. You it's a blowing the frog. You have to be pragmatic in these battles, folks. You can't just expect us to be able to somehow swoop in, snap fingers and we're going to be back to or get to a libertarian utopia. You have to eat some crap pie before you get what you actually want to eat. That's unfortunately the mess that has been given us over the hundred years of growth and expansion of government and encroachments on our liberties.

A (71:34)

Yeah, some delicious machine gun pie.

B (71:39)

Hot lead pie.

A (71:40)

Yeah, the lead is poison. Taylor the the convention is coming up March 14th. We have our Libertarian Party convention, West Virginia Libertarian Party Convention. And we have speakers. Scott Horton and Matt Kibbe will be speaking. It is a $25 charge to hear the speakers. The business meeting is open to everyone, but if you want to vote, you got to be a member, a paying dues member of the party. So come join us there. It's in Charlestown, West Virginia at the Casino Inn. So yeah, that's going to be fun. Follow us on social media, Instagram, Facebook X Contact us info@lpw.org mountainstatelibertycast gmail.com Any other bookkeeping?

B (72:30)

Teller no, that that's about it. Just through the convention. Again, we're looking for delegates to our national convention on behalf of the the state. We're also looking for folks to help us represent the three regions of the the Party on exec board that are still vacant. And we're looking for folks to help us stand up county or regional affiliates in and around West Virginia to help grow the party. So we can do all that while we're there next weekend.

A (73:02)

Awesome. All right, well, thanks for tuning in. And until next time, don't hurt people and don't take their stuff until.