Should Republicans See Wicked?

Hey, everyone. Welcome back to Under Reported Stories, where I cover the news that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News failed to report on or don't report on. Enough. I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving. We are absolutely going to be talking about Wicked underreported stories, and we even have random racism today. So feel free if you wanna get right to all those things. Use the chapters or time stamp features in the description if you just wanna get to the stories.

But, if you are here, if you are regular, a real one, please let me know where you spent your Thanksgiving, and how it was after breaking the internet. Just kidding. After pissing a lot of people off by advocating for the abolition of Thanksgiving actually, I went down to Florida and had one of my favorite Thanksgivings yet actually. It was kind of a polar I guess because it took it was the worst drive.

So we have to drive from Nashville down to South Florida, like, the worst, the pits every single time. But this time around, it was a 12 hour drive that turned into a 17 hour drive down. And then usually okay. You hit a ton of traffic on the way down. You don't hit it on the way back up. Oh my gosh. It was it was 12 hours from South Florida to Atlanta, which is supposed to be, like, a 7 and a half, 8 hour drive. It was brutal. We never caught a break. So the drive down to Florida, the worst.

But the Thanksgiving was actually super fun because I don't know if you guys know this TikTok trend. I'll just kind of explain to you. It's called the suitcase trend and it's spelled s o o t and then case. Suitcase. And it is actually derived from politics. It's derived from an old clip of Barron Trump talking to his mom, Melania. And he talks in this, like, in her accent. He says, I like my suitcase, and he says it over and over again.

And it's so odd because no one really hears him ever talk, and when they do, in this instance, he has an accent, and no one really expected that. So that clip of Barron Trump really went viral. Everyone was saying it. It was kind of across party lines. It transcended politics into just a hilarious Internet meme. And loud luxury, which doesn't really matter who did this, but they're an EDM band, that person is.

And they took Barron Trump saying, I like my suitcase, and remixed it into an entire how do I put it? Like, a whole song. I wouldn't I don't even know what to call it a song, but, like, this whole it's got a beat and everything. And so it became this huge trend on TikTok, so I got my whole family involved, and we did the suitcase trend. Watch this. I apologize if that stuck in your head for the rest of the day. It's such a good one though. Like, the song, we were singing it all the time.

And then, anytime you have to pack now, I would get my suitcase out. I like my suitcase. So lame. So funny. But, we had a blast. So, yeah. That was pretty much by Thanksgiving. The other big thing that happened since we last chatted on the podcast is that I got announced as a turning point speaker at our upcoming event. So if you guys didn't know this, I got my start in all of this, in all politics things in 2016 through Turning Point back when I was in college.

And I started doing pretty much all of this, like, commentary stuff since I was 9 19, 20 years old. And Amfest is our big turning points, big, huge event. And it is not just for students, it is for everyone. I believe we're anticipating 15 to 20000 people. Like, it's going to be huge. And it's always been my dream since I got involved at Turning Point, and these events used to be, like, a 100 people. Now they're, like, 100 of that, like or not 100 of 1000, but tens of 1,000.

And And it's always been my dream to speak at one of these. So I'll be speaking at a breakout session really on how to have dialogue with Liberals that moves us forward, something I've prided myself in. So I really hope you'll come. If you use code Chrissy, you can get an additional 25% off. I linked the registration in the bio just in case you're interested. It's in Phoenix, Arizona. I'm pumped. Like I said, I'll be speaking. And, yeah, I really hope I see you guys there.

Alright. Before we get into our stories today, I wanna talk about the Wicked movie. So, other than the fact that Ariana Grande who plays Glenda, and her co star Cynthia Erivo who plays Alfaba. Those are the 2 main characters in this movie. They have been doing this whole cringe worthy promotion of the movie that's kind of funny, kind of annoying. Other than that, there really hasn't been much negative feedback about the movie.

It's just been kinda wonderful that we we all have, a movie that's kinda bringing us together. It's not like Barb and Hammer. It's just nice. We all get to watch, Wicked and sing that that really high note that I'm not gonna I won't do that to you guys. Enter annoying liberals on TikTok, because, of course, we can't have anything nice without annoying liberal women on TikTok ruining everything.

There's been this discussion online, a separate discussion, about whether this movie is actually secretly about Republicans and Donald Trump, and whether Republicans should even be allowed to see this movie. So I pulled up one example of the types of videos on TikTok that people are posting, And this one is titled, Wicked is not for actually, it's titled, Wicked is not Wicked is not for Republicans, but it's got a period. So it's Wicked is not for Republicans. Gosh. What lunches?

They do really quick check-in. There were no Trump voters who went to see Wicked and thought that that movie was for them to enjoy. Right? Because it was no. Like, the neurons in their brains are not firing properly if they thought that that movie was for them. If you went to see that I'm confused why a movie can be or cannot be for somebody. It's just a movie. It's just just a movie. Just a movie. Movie after just voting for Trump. And you left, and you were like, that was really good.

You didn't get it, dude. I don't think you got it, dude. I know. Can you explain it for me, dude? Like, the other thing here with this video is that there's no explanation as to why this is not for Republicans. It's just that she does it. She thinks that the messaging is more in tandem with her worldview, and she's trying to project that onto other people.

And you can see that because she's not even actually making a a coherent explanation, she just starts calling people idiots and morons as the video goes on.

But in case you don't understand the plot of Wicked or why people are believing that Wicked is not for Republicans, long story short, Wicked is about The Wizard of Oz, who has a lot of power, and he is trying to control the narrative of what is happening in Oz by silencing people and not allowing animals to talk, which is, symbolic of, like, suppression of speech, and suppression of individuals and they're not allowed to quote be who they are.

And then the main character, Elphaba, she becomes kind of the rebellion to all of this, to Oz, to his, how do I say it, powers that be, and he she ends up becoming more powerful and more of a threat. To take away from that, that that is solely about Republicans, I think you could do it for either side.

I could watch that and say, the powers that be are typically very liberal, especially when you're talking about shadowy people who don't, when you're talking about shadowy people who don't necessarily explain who they are outright as The Wizard of Oz does, that they suppress speech, that they try to cover things up. I think you could say that about both parties. I actually think you have to be intellectually dishonest to not see that this movie is about people, not about any individual party.

You know, I'm late to the party talking about Wicked. I'm sorry. But that movie was so overtly political in so many ways that are still applicable to what is happening in this country, like, right now. You can't be more of a pebble brained donkey hat if you actually voted for Trump and then thought that movie was for you. Or I don't understand why you can't you can't watch the movie because of who you voted for.

Again, I think my analysis is far more apt than hers, goes without saying, and I don't need to call you a donkey brain or a pebble hat in order to prove that point. The other thing too is that the director, Jonathan Choo, as well as Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo, who co star in this movie, have answered the question, do you think this movie is political? And they have answered multiple times, no. This is not about political undertones. This is just a movie. It is a rip off of not a rip off.

It is just a copy and paste of Wicked Broadway, and Republicans have been going to see that show for a long time. This isn't new news, but, of course, liberal women on TikTok, they gotta do what they gotta do when they gotta pretend like they've come up with something genius. Maybe it was your political awakening. You went and saw it and you were like, wow. Look at all these obvious parallels between Wicked and this country.

Those political themes, I guess, were not represented in any other type of media that I consume. No other movie I've ever watched where those political themes represented, but I saw Wicked. And now I know that I made the mistake of voting for the fascists. Yeah. That was it. You just, we needed Wicked to tell all the Republicans that they need to vote vote differently. Like, do you not? Do you that that that don't make any those are making any sense. People were not gonna see that movie.

It was never gonna change votes. It was never gonna change the outcome of the election. Y'all are psycho. I realized how that came across. Anyways, Wicked was so good. I did cry from probably minute 10 to minute, 2 hours and 40 minutes. The idea of someone calling Republican psycho for wanting to enjoy a movie while simultaneously talking about how she cried the whole time, I mean, you see it. Right? And the online Discord for this went beyond just TikTok.

It actually the New York Times went out and wrote a review of Wicked, and some of the comments were absolutely unhinged. This one was my favorite from Cali Buckeye Girl saying, part of me says if only this movie and its anti fascist message had come out sooner, then maybe enough people would have elected someone who people close to him refer to as a fascist.

Yes, maybe people would have realized Trump truly is the wizard with scare tactics and bluster masking, that he's truly just a sad little man hiding behind a curtain. Yes. Maybe if this movie had come out, everybody wouldn't have given a shit about all the other problems in the world. They would have realized that Trump is a me bobbini.

The comic goes on to read, but then but they knew all this anyway and voted for us to live in a patriarchal Ken society instead of Barbie world, which did come out before the election. Funny how the price of eggs was so important 3 weeks ago, but 80,000,000 people managed to afford traveling this week, and afford movie tickets which are much higher than eggs, because it was never actually about that, and this movie proves it. Let's unpack this.

Okay. So Trump is the wizard because he uses scare tactics and manipulation and hides. It sounds like Joe Biden to me. Like, this could just be applicable across the board to politicians. Period. The fact that people think they're, like, owning the conservatives or winning this argument because they think that rep this is only representative of a Republican politicians all across the board. Cali, Buckeye, girl, all across the board. Every one of them does this. They all use scare tactics.

They all manipulate, and they all act bigger on stage than they are behind a curtain. Congratulations. 2nd, yes, I do think that more people want to live not in Barbie land, because Barbie land sounds like feminist nonsense, and no one wants to live in that world. And finally, yeah. The reason why 80,000,000 people went to travel and still complain about eggs is because, yet the price of eggs are still too high. Doesn't mean you're not going to go about doing your other things.

Those 80,000,000 people who traveled by the way, in on the plane, they're probably not the people who are, that actually cannot afford to have the eggs. Right? Like, there are you can care about an issue and it doesn't implicitly affect you. Right? Like, I don't like the fact that I had to pay so much for eggs. But it if the eggs went up another dollar, it doesn't affect my ability to get eggs. I still don't want to do that. Does that make any sense to people?

You don't want to pay for things that are higher for no damn reason because our government is incompetent. People don't want that. That's like never gonna be a winning issue for you. And saying, oh well, you can afford to travel or you go home for Thanksgiving. It's not the same as, like, taking a vacation, by the way. And you can afford to, buy a movie ticket. Okay. I don't think 80,000,000 people afforded the movie ticket.

And, yeah, the people who actually can't afford eggs are obviously not going to see fucking wicked. Dumbass. This is the people at the New York Times. They're so stupid. I don't like reducing people to just their stupidity, but, like, the inability to have nuance in this is just stupid. You have to have nuance about these kind of things. But we can have nuance, and we can realize that it's just a movie. But my question to you is are you going to see wicked?

If you already saw Wicked, what did you think? Should Republicans see it? Let me know in the comments. I am actually very excited to see Wicked. I loved the Broadway musical. I'm not a psycho, so I can separate a movie plot and politics, And I've actually heard very great things about it, so I'm very excited to go see it. Anyway, let's get into our docket for today.

While we were all enjoying the Thanksgiving holidays, there were a lot of big stories that came out and I was here to report on them for you. We have an MSNBC MSNBC host, sorry, accepting half a $1,000,000 in donations from Kamala Harris' campaign before hosting an interview with her. Candace Owens, political comment you guys know who Candace is. Let's be honest. She has actually been barred from 2 countries. Crazy. We'll get into that.

Texas is suing a homeless shelter for a litany of reasons, but it's really really wild at the end of the day because this homeless shelter is located next to an elementary school, And we also need to talk about a town that is getting fined for refusing to celebrate pride month. So without further ado, let's get into the 5 underreported stories that you need to know. Today's show is brought to you by Based, my merch line.

If you didn't know this already, I'm an independent creator, and the best way to support this show is by purchasing my merch line that represents your views. Instead of just asking you guys for donations to fund my independent journalism, my business partner and I created a line of merch called Based Apparel. Based means you are the opposite of woke. It means you're based in logic, you're based in truth, you're based in facts. You get it.

Head over to based in logic.com to check out our latest apparel. My favorite, my personal favorite right now is the conspiracy theorist hat. And remember, when you buy merch, you are directly supporting me and this show. And when you do your apparel, please be sure to tag me on Instagram so I can repost you. Right before Thanksgiving, when all of us were sitting around getting fat, not paying

attention to the news, MSNBC came out and finally admitted that one of its hosts accepted half a $1,000,000 in donations from Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. To no surprise, the host is reverend Al Sharpton, who I'm sure you guys are no know he is controversial for so many reasons, very annoying, huge race baiter, incited riots, etcetera, etcetera. But Al Sharpton is now under fire from his own colleagues at MSNBC as well as network leadership.

MSNBC claims it was unaware that Kamala's campaign paid $500,000 to Al Sharpton's nonprofit called the National App Action Network. And this all came before an interview that Kamala did on Al Sharpton's show. Al Sharpton's, all of his colleagues at MSNBC, they're pretty pissed about this. They think that this this takes away from their journalistic integrity, whatever's left of it. They're also saying, though, that he's not gonna face any consequences for this.

And remember, I'm just, like, looking at this not through the lens of, of course, he's MSNBC and he's black and he's just never gonna have consequences for his action, even with this massive lapse in judgment. I'm looking at it through the lens of Chris Cuomo got in trouble. I'm so confused why this guy didn't. But let me read you some of the pushbacks so that you can kind of form your own thoughts and analysis on this.

From the New York post saying that MSNBC weekend host did not disclose to his viewers the apparent conflict of interest before or after the interview, Either did he disclose the donations to his bosses and the network, and people on the back end are saying, no one's surprised that anybody at MSNBC was rooting for Kamala Harris, because, duh. But this feels like another level of nonsense. Like, are you kidding me? This is weird.

Harris could have given Al Sharpton an interview, and it would have gone the same way. So, what are you paying for? There's no way this can't seem weird. This is an MSNBC employee talking to Fox News Digital. This other one says, everyone knows who Al Sharpton is, but this feeling is like a bridge too far. A big bridge too far. This is not landing well. This has a bit of a dirty feel to it. These things happen, and they don't bounce around MSNBC all that much. Like, people just don't care.

This one feels, I'd say, like there's a deeper disappointment. Like a sense of, we don't need this as a network. This kind of feels grifty and gross. Yes. Of course. This is how we've all felt about your network. But to know that there are people on the inside going, fuck. You guys are making it so hard for us to get away from this perceived reality. I understand how that feels. Not saying I agree with them. I just understand how that feels.

The insider says, everyone in MSNBC knows Sharpton is given a, quote, wide birth, and he's not held the same journalistic standard as others at MSNBC since he's far more known outside the network for his high profile political and social activism. That said, the controversy reeks of a pay to play scheme. It goes on to say, there is a sense among the people I've spoken to that this feels like something wrong, and that something that something should be done.

So there should be action taken for this. I don't know what that something is, because that's a lot of money. That's not a small matter. It just doesn't sit well with people. I agree. I don't think anything's gonna happen to him. If MSNBC insiders are saying it's not gonna happen, it's probably not gonna happen. But then again, it happened to Chris Cuomo.

And I think a lot of insiders at CNN back when Chris Cuomo was getting in a lot of trouble for helping his brother behind the scenes, and then pretending to be a journalist. You know, I I think that there is, what's the word, precedent for this. So I don't know. It could be anything. I could kinda talk myself both ways, but what do you guys think? Will Al Sharpton face any repercussions? I don't know. Let me know in the comments.

What I will say is that I think this speaks volumes about the delusion of the left and their role with the media. Because Al Sharpton is an open Democrat, as even MSNBC is happy to admit. He was always gonna give Kamala a softball interview. So why would Kamala, which the campaign was clearly in a ton of debt, we know that.

Why would he pay his nonprofit, or why would she pay his nonprofit right before an interview, unless the Kamala campaign was actually so delusional that it believes, which hear me out. Kamala's campaign, I think, believes the mainstream media is not in their pocket, which is now a talking point on the left, that the media isn't in the bag enough for Democrats. And so they have to pay Al Sharpton in order to get a softball interview. So dumb.

You and I know that's, like, actually the most nonsensical borderline r word conversation you could ever have. The only only logical explanation for this though is that Kamala's campaign actually believed that. Because I can't the only other thing, I guess, I can I can kinda think of is that the payments weren't just for the softball interview, but also maybe to ensure that Al Sharpton would go to bat on the back end of the conversation to edit out any unflattering moments for Kamala?

But, again, I really think that Al Sharpton would have done that anyway. So it confuses me. Anyway, if you've got other theories, please let me know in the comments. Because I've been racking my brain, and I I don't know. And please, I when I say comment, please comment. Since I do this show alone, the best way for me to get feedback and have discussion is with you guys in the comments, and I do respond.

I do read them all. So please type away, my friends. Alright. Let's get into our next story, which is that Candace Owens has been barred from Australia and New Zealand for a speaking engagement. Candace was scheduled to speak at a series of events in February March of next year, and she was refused a visa to enter either country because of previous remarks that she made.

My understanding of the situation is that she was initially barred from Australia over her political commentary, and New Zealand did not make any comments about her political commentary. New Zealand then denied her visa because her visa was denied from Australia. So New Zealand, according to an immigration spokesperson, says that they don't accept visas from anyone who's barred from entering another country like Australia.

So they're just kind of following the lead of Australia, not necessarily taking a stance against Candace. But I really want us to take a second and think about this story because it just it's a good reminder of our right to free speech because she was literally refused to enter the country temporarily to give a speech because of her speech. And and listen, I know that Australia doesn't have our same speech laws. I'm not dumb.

Okay. You don't need to point out Australia doesn't have the first amendment, Chrissy. No shit. I know that. Okay? My point here is that regardless of your facts or your feelings, I should say, about Candace, you can love her, you can hate her. When you silence people, it just makes them bigger. It makes them more interesting and people are more inclined to do this. When governments attempt to censor someone over beliefs and over viewpoints, it usually makes people more interested in someone.

It's very, very basic psychology. So I believe by Australia and by New Zealand governments, barring Candace, they're actually just making her more intriguing to their own people because there's and ultimately from doing that, I think they're then spreading her message wider than if she just came and spoke. And I I think a good example of that is what we saw in America over this is Richard Spencer, I believe is his name, the white supremacist.

He, you know, he was very popular and people would make a big stink about him. And it was I I mean, it's I think his viewpoints are disgusting. But then he would go and he would do these college camp I'll never forget. He came to Michigan State, and no one went. No one's interested in what he has to say. If and this is if you don't like Candace. If you don't like Candace or you don't like someone or you think their viewpoints are horrible, let the free market do what the free market's gonna do.

And her like, people will stop listening. They'll figure it out. Now I'm not saying I'm encouraging that or that I I'm not gonna opine on Candace. Okay? I'm just saying, I don't think silencing her is the right answer to this. And I actually made this point of video last week, and I got push back for it. So this is a conversation between me and my friend Deb. In all honesty, full transparency, like Deb and I literally got on the phone after this and like yap yap yap.

They'll around for more like an hour. We're good friends. So no hard feelings here. It's just good to have discussion, but she's Jewish. So, she said, love you so much, but I disagree with this. Australia and New Zealand do not have the same first amendment and subsequent supreme court rulings related to free speech. Australia and New Zealand aren't censoring her. They're refusing to allow her to profit off her hate in their country. Free speech in the US still has consequences.

She is allowed to say whatever she wants, including denying multiple well documented holocaust horrors like Doctor Death, but she has to accept the consequences. Now, I wanted to, like, go through the argument. Now, of course, I'm not denying. Of course, there's no of course, there's no free speech everywhere. I'm not dumb. However, my my use of the word censoring, I can understand where someone is coming from and saying that Candace isn't necessarily being censored.

However, the inability to have conversations is a form of censorship. Right? I don't think that was the wrong word to use in this. Of course, there are consequences to your actions. I am not denying that. She can say whatever she wants and if people hate that and no one wants to show up to her conventions, that is I I'm not gonna force anyone to go. I'm not gonna stand by her comments.

I'm just saying, my point was the government barring people from speaking in their country makes her more interesting to people. She then becomes more interesting. And if you don't like her ideas, the idea that she's going to become less interesting if you silence her, she's not.

She's going to become more interesting and then people are gonna wonder well if she's maybe she's right about this because the government won't let me and the government is wrong about it is a rabbit hole for getting people to go down a rabbit hole. It's really my suggestion here. And, the other thing that I I just didn't disagree with here is that, where was it? They're refusing to allow her to profit off of hate in their country.

That's so subjective, and I I literally made this point to Deb on the phone. I don't mean to sound like a gossip on my own podcast, but, it's it's true. Like, I mean, if I say, oh, you can't profit off of x y z in America. Like, sorry. I'm not making any point as accurately as I want to. Why is it the government's decision to say that this is a line? That is the point I'm trying to make. And I'm not standing again, not standing by Candace's comments.

But when governments draw a line in the sand over someone who makes some bad comments and some important true comments, you're going to cause more interest in that person and you're going to cause pushback over this. And so I don't think my analysis here is wrong. You don't have to agree, but I don't think my analysis here is wrong on this. But, again, let me know your thoughts in the comments.

I mean, I see somebody's here saying she's a complete idiot who spews complete garbage all day. So, maybe I'm totally off base here, but I really don't think so. Moving on to our next story. Ring doorbell footage shows a hurricane relief volunteer walking up at a hurricane victim's house and saying that she's, quote, conflicted about giving more relief to the family because they have a Trump sign in their yard. Watch this. That's alright. Well, I just I'm really conflicted.

I have a lot more stuff to give, but I am not a fan of Donald Trump. So these signs are a problem for me, and I'm gonna have to think about it. Okay. Thanks. That is your typical case in studying tribalism. It's disgusting. Obviously, I think we can all can all agree that that was important to watch. But what you have to realize when you watch this is that when you're in a tribe like this woman is, these actions make sense to her.

Her ideology in this moment has so demonized her political opponents, and she must live in a bubble where hating Trump supporters is kind of, like, funny. That she actually believes withholding emergency aid from someone is not only defensible, but a good choice. One that would win her the applause of others in her tribe. And also something that she could say kinda off the cuff.

It is like a little funny, like, oh, well, you're a Trump supporter, so I don't know if I'm gonna this is in the middle of a huge hurricane disaster. Are you kidding? And by the way, I don't condemn this woman because she's in a tribe. Tribalism occurs on both sides, but that that is those are comments that are made from a delusional person. Also, by the way.

So funny how this was considered a debunked claim that FEMA and hurricane relief volunteers were discriminating against Trump supporters, and then boom, this comes up. Of course. Of course. Now this doesn't again, doesn't shock me at all. I just do feel like, I don't know if I wanna go here, but I wanna go here. I have this, like, weird feeling about the way that we split up the country. Like, some of the red states are getting more red. Blue states are getting more blue.

And I like that because then I can live in a state where my laws are or my values are implemented into my laws. And I love living in Tennessee because I'm around people that believe like me. But then at the same time, you see this and people get so entrenched in their views that you talk to, like, oh, like, I don't know, really, really hardcore Republican in Florida and a really, really hardcore Democrat in New York. And, like, they're they can't even understand or fathom their own world views.

And I also hate that. I don't know where I fall on that. I I hate both, but I like both. I don't know where I fall. That's the fun of this podcast is you're just gonna figure it out as we go along. Damn. If that doesn't sum up my time on TV, podcasting, all the things. Anyway, let's get into our next story. This one's whack as shit. I saw this while I was driving home from Florida.

I was like, we need to talk about this. How wild. So a small town got a $10,000 fine for refusing to participate in Pride Month. Not condemning Pride Month, just refusing to participate in it. And they also, this town, refused to fly the Pride flag outside of their municipal buildings, and that was also problematic as well. So this took place in Emo, Ontario in Canada. And Emo has about 1300 people. So really not a big town in the grand scheme of things. Right?

But the town is being fined, like I said, $10,000 because they violated the Ontario Human Rights Code by refusing to proclaim June as Pride Month. And the town also received citations for refusing to fly the pride flag. Interesting part here though is that the city doesn't have an official flag. It's a tiny ass little town. It doesn't have an official flagpole to even fly the gay pride flag. And the last like the American flag. I don't I don't know where these people are going with this.

It does get more insane on two levels. First, the mayor of the town received a personal $5,000 fine because he personally said no to flying the flag, and also made a mean statement where he said, well, there's no straight flag that's being flown, so why would we fly any other flag? Why won't we just fly the American or sorry, in this case, the Canadian flag. I think I said American flag before. This is Canada. Canadian flag. Right? So odd. The other weird part is this.

The gay pride, borderland pride organization that put this whole thing on or started this whole lawsuit against the town back in 20 20, said that it was going to donate 1 third of the financial compensation paid to them from the town over this by giving some of that money to the Imo Public Library. But they weren't gonna do that because the public library is failing.

They're not gonna do that for the good of the people or because people need books or because they want the town to be maybe perhaps more literate. No. No. No. No. They're going to do that on the condition that the money then be spent on drag shows being hosted at the public library for everyone, including kids to attend, at a date of this gay pride organization's choosing. That is what we're gonna do with the $15,000 settlement is use it on drag queen story hour.

Good. Whether you like this or hate this story, let me just be so so so clear. When people push views and opinions down the throats of others, that does not make your cause more likable. In fact, I think it makes it more polarizing. I think the same goes for, like, our conversations. Like, if I'm trying to push my views of Christianity down your throat, you know what? You're not going to like Christianity. You're going to find it polarizing and annoying.

And I think that's exactly what's happening with LGBT rights in this situation. Okay? And listen, I understand Canada's a different beast because those Looney Tunes have created laws that say if the government, a small government, doesn't outwardly support someone's right to sleep with whoever they want, that should be punishable by a $10,000 that is nuts. That is nuts to begin with. Okay? But it's still gonna cost pushback even if you enshrine it into law. Because we saw that happen in the US.

Right? Most people, no matter what MSNBC tells you, most people, conservatives, liberals, they are on board with acceptance of governmental rights for LGBT marriages. Now they might be they might not be accepting of them, but they understand that that that people have the right to have maybe, like, a civil union and that the government should understand that and, observe that. Right?

I cannot think of a single person who isn't on board with equal rights for all people, no matter their orientation. Equal rights for all even if you don't agree with how they act. Right? Now I did see one guy on x actually who said that he wants to get rid of gay marriage. And then community notes just came up and said, like, 70% of Republicans agree with gay marriage legally. Like, this is this isn't a polarizing thing like it was 20 years ago.

My point here though is that force feeding the ideology down people's throats of the minority that don't agree with this, and then finding a local government not not for opposing anything, but just for refusing to promote the ideology, it's asinine, and it's not gonna get your cause anywhere.

And I agree with that across the board. Anyway, for time's sake, let's get to our final story. It's kinda wild. Texas is suing a homeless shelter because it allows drug use and public indecency right outside of an elementary school. Some wild notes from this story that you could just bring home to your, dinner table tonight because it's quite wild, is that this homeless shelter is not just any old homeless shelter. It's actually become a magnet for a bunch of crime, drug abuse, public indecency.

We've seen public, how do I master master space baiting. We'll call it that. Yeah. And this homeless shelter has seen a lot of break ins in the nearby neighborhoods and businesses and is accused of allegedly distributing drug paraphernalia to the addicts that are under the facility's care. Incredibly disgusting, but what kind of prompted the lawsuit is that where is it? I saw this. I'm missing it. Where is it? I I I don't remember where I saw it. I could sworn that this was in here. Oh, here.

People who frequented the area where this drug facility is have seen homeless people threatening other people using machetes. Okay. We are in woo woo territory. We're not in like, oh, we need to shut down homeless shelters.

We are in taxpayers have been funding up to $1,000,000 and could be up to $4,400,000 in funding for a facility that then uses the money on DEI training for homeless people, drug paraphernalia for homeless people, and then allows them to wield machetes and master space bait on public property in front of a bunch of elementary schoolers. So I feel like there is a critique when you initially see this headline.

Like, oh, we shouldn't be shutting down homeless shelters, and maybe the homeless shelter shouldn't be on the hook for the actions of the residents. When it's this bad, I feel like not every homeless shelter is that bad. But as always, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Should homeless shelters be on the hook for its residents? And by the way, if you haven't already watched my video from Monday, it's available on YouTube, Rumble X, and Facebook.

I went on the streets and asked people what they would do if they were president, and want somebody said something absolutely whack. They were like, we should send all the homeless people to Ukraine.

It would fix the, it would help Ukraine in the war, and it would fix our homelessness crisis. I don't know if you find that to be brilliant or evil. You let me know, but it's a really funny video, and you guys should go and watch it. Anyway, the whole inability to stop bad behavior brings us to our final segment of today's show, which is random racism.

And if you're new here, random racism is our segment where we chat about people inserting racism into situations where discussing race is utterly unnecessary. Random racism. This video is titled point of view trying to shop in Walmart. You know, it was the gentle parenting here that was driving me absolutely wild. I don't know if you guys could hear it.

There was obviously, she was a white woman in the background telling employees and all the concerned shoppers around, some of whom were black, because the little girl in the video is black for those in the listening audience. She was telling them to ignore the behavior because we don't know what this little girl is going through. And the little girl is about, probably, somewhere in the, like, 8 to 12 range. I'm not really great with kids ages, but she's somewhere in that range.

And there was a slight insin insinuation that no one should else no one should get the authorities involved either because of this little girl's skin color. And then, you know, you think of it like, oh, like the school to prison pipeline and blah blah blah blah. Okay. First off, no matter what she's going through, she shouldn't be encouraged to break stuff over her emotions. No matter her skin color, no matter her class, no matter her age.

That is just basic teaching of how to operate in the world. Doesn't matter what she's been through. It doesn't matter about her emotions. The response is never to loot and destroy as a child. That's just not the option. I don't know where the parents were, that was also very confusing. But all that that does is just it breeds more bad behavior, if the initial behavior of shattering grape juice bottles at Walmart goes unpunished.

And if the parents aren't there to do it, then yes, it is society's job to take that over. So I don't understand what was so controversial about that, or why this woman would would say, oh, no. We can't stop the little girl from going on a tirade because we don't know what she's been through. I don't care what she's been through. The answer is not shattering merchandise. It never is. But I guess that's just a difference to worldview. Right? Okay. That's all I got for you.

Just wanna remind you guys, register for Amfest. Come hang out with me in Phoenix. Let's take pictures. Let's make TikToks. Let's have a blast. Okay? And if you're a real one and you made it to the end of today's show, will you drop the witch emoji as an homage to our conversation about Wicked? And again, let me know if you're gonna go see the movie in the comments. Thanks, friends. Thanks so much for watching.

If you liked what you heard, please be sure to give this video a thumbs up and leave a comment about how beautiful, stunning, and funny I am. And if you want more content based on logic, be sure to click over here for more videos and clips of my show. If you have the means to financially support the show, consider purchasing from my merch line Based Apparel, linked right below. I really appreciate it, and I'll see you back here next time. Bye, friends.