All Episodes

September 20, 2025 90 mins
In today’s episode, we are going to discuss the firing of Jimmy Kimmel. Is the left going to be held accountable for their rhetoric? We will also be talking about AG Pam Bondi and her comments regarding “Hate Speech.”

Email, Website & Other Links
hoho@thehohoshow.com
https://WSPRadio.com
https://TheHohOShow.com
https://link.thehohoshow.com/Rumble
https://link.thehohoshow.com/WSPChronicles
https://StinkPikle.com

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-hoho-show--2639419/support.

Thank You for Listening, 

For All Things "The HohO Show"
Email, Website & Other Links

hoho@thehohoshow.com
WSPRadio.com 
TheHohOShow.com
The HohO Show / Rumble
WSPChronicles
StinkPikle.com / Merch Store
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Yes, welcome to the show. Ready the number one most
listened to podcast on Fluida. So join us now as
we discuss news, politics, current events, and so much more
so through the airways and strapped in as we do
constitution because there Burr broadcasting live from WEAPONI Seloft Production

(00:37):
Studio B. Welcome to the ho Host Show and as
always I'm your host. He So, Hey, y'all's doing I
hope you're doing good. I really do, because today we've
got some things to talk about. Boy, howdy, we really do.
We got some things to discuss we want to be
talking about. Oh, let me scroll down a little bit.
Let's see, we're going to be talking about Pam BONDI,

(01:00):
you know, her words regarding hate speech, and I don't
exactly have the same view that a lot of other
people do. I really don't, you know, because well, I
mean it's kind of clear whenever you listen to what
she said, what she was talking about, and it seems

(01:20):
as though a lot of people on both sides actually are,
you know, kind of blowing this out of proportion. I think,
you know, we're going to be talking about Donald Trump
with you know, his H one B visa application proclamation
that he made. Let's see what else we got in here.

(01:40):
Of course, we're going to be talking about bias of
you know, news media. I think that's pretty clear. And
we're going to be talking about oh yeah, this this
thing regarding an al Qaeda plot. Yeah, that's that's kind
of interesting. But first, you know, let's let's go ahead
and get into the the broadcast bias and you know,

(02:04):
of course, you know Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, yeah, we're gonna
be talking about that too, because that one, that one
cracks me up. I mean, it really does, and it
really stems from or at least in a matter of
speaking from from this within. You know, a lot of
these things that we're talking about today, they're all connected,
you know, they they really are. The the the broadcast bias,

(02:27):
the you know, firing of Jimmy Kimmel, you know a
lot of the things. It's it's all connected. It all
kinds of stems from the same thing. It really does.
But let's get into this first article right here from
Fox News. And of which case, if you would like
to check out all the articles that I will be using,
all the sources are available over at the Hoho Show

(02:51):
dot com. Just click on the news feed tab and
you will see the magazine over there. On flipboard, which
is my go to hub for news. I put all
the sources available over there, So head over there check
that out if you want to follow along and too,
you know, just check out the articles that I use,
and there's a butt ton of them as far as

(03:12):
magazines go. I mean, not so much articles I'll be
using in this show or in this episode, but you know,
there's a bunch of like over two hundred freaking magazines.
Holy crap. I've been using flipboard almost since the beginning.
I really have been. Anyway, This headline from Fox News
broadcast bias. Networks can't handle truth behind Charlie Kirk's assassination.

(03:39):
ABC CBS reporters played down political motives of shooting despite
bullets with anti fascist messaging. Now, this article, it has
got some interesting things in here, interesting points of view.
But let me let me go ahead and get into
this article a little bit. It starts out by saying,

(04:00):
in their own minds, the makers of broadcast network news
thinks their mission is to hold powerful institutions accountable, to
bring the facts to bear on public issues and inform
the public for the most robust version of democracy. Okay, now, look,
I want to stop right there. We're not a democracy.

(04:21):
We're a constitutional republic. You know, I really don't understand
why there's so many people out there, news networks, broadcast
news networks, representatives, senators, you know, the whole nine yards.
Why there's so many people out there that are like, oh,

(04:43):
it's a democracy. No it ain't. Actually it's not. It's
a constitutional republic. There is a difference, and it is important.
You know, our founding fathers didn't want to be a democracy.
They spoke out against it. The reason being is the democracy,
simply put, is mob rule. That's what it is. That's

(05:04):
why we're not a democracy. They knew that in the
end it was bad, that it had some policies that
it wasn't a good way to go, because I mean,
let's just face it, okay, All in all, if your

(05:26):
country is a democracy, it has a lifespan, right, I
mean it does. It has a lifespan. And you know,
one of the reasons regarding their lifespan is really a
slippery slope that we entered into quite a while ago,
and it's basically the production class versus the recipient class,

(05:51):
you know. I mean, in time, there comes a point whenever,
you know, too many people voting for handouts. And that's
one of the things that is a democracy. I mean,
we entered that slippery slope quite a while ago because
there's too many people that Teresa the United States of
America as a democracy. But any rate, let me go
ahead and continue. Oh yeah, and by the way, let

(06:12):
me let me also know in this as well, because
news organizations, I mean, they really do have you know,
they consider themselves and they're supposed to be journalists in
a matter of speaking, you know, they should be focused
on the when, the where, the what, the why, the how.

(06:34):
When you're talking news, it's not about commentary. This is
news commentary. That's what this is. You know. I'm taking
the information that I find, things that I hear, things
that I read. I take all of that. I try
to make sure I learn the journalist things of it,

(06:58):
the whind, the where, the what, the the how. But
then I put my own spin on it. I talk
about what I feel is important. I mean, don't get
me wrong, you know, I am very interested in the facts.
I want to know the facts, but I don't need
to necessarily put a spin on it to make myself
feel better about it. But unfortunately, for far too long,

(07:22):
I mean, that's what we have received out of so
called news. They're not concerned as much with the the when,
the where, the what, the why the how. They spend
way too much time putting their own bias in it.
And they're all guilty of it. You know, every one
of them, legacy news out outlets, they're all guilty of

(07:45):
the same thing. They all you know that they all
give you a spin, which is commentary, but they try
to tell you that it's news, and news is supposed
to be the win, the where, the what, the why,
the how. So they've all been lying to us, even
Fox News, they've all been lying to us. You know,

(08:10):
this is news commentary. I do focus on the when,
the where, the what, the why the how. It is
about information. My goal is to be truthful. However, it's
still my opinion. It's what I think about certain things.

(08:30):
I mean, that's thrown in there too. I make no
qualms about it. I'm not going to lie to you
about it. I'm not a journalist by any stretch of
the imagination. This is not news. This is above anything
else commentary, and it would at least be nice, right,
It would at least be nice if these other places

(08:52):
were as honest as others. I mean, there's a lot
of places you can go to, there's a lot of
people you can listen to, and they're quite honest about
what they are that it is commentary. It's not news,
it's commentary, you know. And really one of the best

(09:14):
people that I've that I've watched, that I listened to
that really is kind of the best of both worlds.
Steven Crowder. I mean, they have a good team behind
that show. They do provide the wind, the where, the what,
the why, the how. They have their own investigated journalists

(09:38):
that are there that focus on that, and they also
provide the commentary while still honoring the journalistic aspect of it,
the wind, the where, the what, the why, the how.

(09:58):
And in this article, you know it it's like it's
almost like they're trying to tell you that this bias
started with the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Let me go
ahead and continue with the article a little bit. That's
not the picture that emerged of their coverage. Since Charlie

(10:23):
Kirk was mercilessly murdered in Utah on September tenth. The
first I'm sorry. From the first moments of authorities identifying
the alleged shooter as Tyler Robinson, the network surrounded like
or I'm sorry. The network sounded like they didn't want
to hold the suspect accountable. That's accurate that they couldn't

(10:44):
acknowledge the emerging facts, and some network journalists and entertainers
aggressively misinformed the public. That's one of the reasons why
Jimmy Kimmel kind of got thrown in the hot water
there for a second. Everything they present as news is
manufactured in political calculation, and in the case of the

(11:07):
Kirk murder, they haven't wanted their site to be blamed
for the assassination, even if it's painfully obvious that the
alleged shooter was a leftist. This first came to light
with Robinson's arrest on September twelfth. Yeah, bias, you know,

(11:28):
when really, I think it goes beyond bias that they
don't want to, you know, say that it was a
leftist that was responsible. I think it goes beyond that.
I really do they want to paint this picture that
is the Right's fault because they don't want to accept

(11:51):
any responsibility that they may have had something to do
with it, because of their own rhetoric that has been
coming out of their mouths for quite some time, their
own rhetoric about Trump, calling him hitler or at least
hitler esque, referring to those who support Donald Trump, calling

(12:17):
us all Nazis. I mean, they don't want to accept
any responsibility whatsoever. Of course they don't. There's a person
that I listened to, or at least I mean, I
haven't really for a little while, but you know, no
fault of theirs. But Andrew Wilcow, host of The Willcow Majority.

(12:39):
One of the things that he says, which you know,
kind of brought about the title of today's episode, it's
the history of today, forget tomorrow. I don't know why
he worded it quite like that, because you know, it's
it's the history of today, forget yesterday. Really, you know,
because they don't focus on the things that they've spoken

(13:04):
about in the past. You know, everything that they talk about,
every point of view that they have, every stance that
they take. It's they want you to forget what they've
said in the past. They don't want you to acknowledge
anything that they have said previously. It's all about what

(13:25):
they're saying now. And this really, you know, it comes
from every point of view that they take, right. I mean,
you've got all kinds of different you know, uh, political
figures and whomever else out there that you know, before
they may have had this position on a particular subject,
and now they've changed because it's politically necessary for them

(13:49):
to do so. Case in point. You know, you have
various people that there was a point in time whenever
they didn't support gay marriage, and then whenever it was
politically advantageous for them to do so, they changed their position.
But they didn't want you to remember that they had

(14:09):
a different position before because it was the history of today.
Forget yesterday. What happened previously no longer matters. We're supposed
to forget this. And the sad thing is it seems
as though, especially on the left, because that's the majority

(14:33):
of the people that listen to ABC, NBCCBS, CNN, you
know they're left people because these are you know, left
wing propaganda experts, they fall for it. I mean, I
really don't understand that. I Mean, how can people be
so stupid. How can people be so stupid that they

(14:57):
don't remember what these people spoke of, you know, in
in days past, in weeks past, in months past, in
years past. Why don't they remember these things? Why don't they?

(15:19):
I mean, you are getting more and more people, you know,
just your regular, average, everyday citizen. You are getting more
and more people that are, you know, remembering that they
have changed throughout their history whatever, you know that they've

(15:42):
that they have changed their things. You know, you have
a lot of people that are remembering what they have
said previously, their stances that they've made, the things that
they have said against their political enemies and adversaries. I mean,
you you have a lot of people that are kind
of waken up to it. But why did you know,
why did it take extreme things to open their eyes?

(16:10):
Maybe before they just didn't want to hear it. I
don't know, it seems strange to me. There are many
people out there that just don't want to accept responsibility
for the things that has come out of their mouths,

(16:31):
and they don't want to even consider that maybe they
had something to do with it. They don't This headline
from the Washington Times, Democrats learning lesson of toddlers. I

(16:52):
found that funny, I really did. And yes, this is
talking about ABC yanking g Ammy Kimmel live from the
Late night lineup indefinitely. No less is one of the
things that they say. Now. Look, I am an advocate

(17:14):
for free speech, I really am. I am a constitutional conservative,
a principled constitutional constitution conservative, constitutional concern Yeah, whatever, principled right.
I may not agree with what you say. However, I
do and always will support your right to say it.

(17:43):
I do not believe in the Democrats and narrative of
you know, whenever they claim hate speech, because all speech
needs to be protected by the First Amendment. Let me
get that clear. All speech needs to be protected by
the First Amendment. In fact, the First Amendment doesn't really

(18:04):
protect accepted speech. It doesn't protect speech that you like.
I mean, if you agree with a point of view,
if you agree with what somebody's saying, then why would
there be a necessity to protect it. Free speech, first
and foremost protects what you would consider hate speech. It

(18:28):
protects your right to say it. And let's also be
clear about something else too, because the First Amendment doesn't
necessarily stop the shutting down a speech from a private organization.
It blocks the government from interfering with free speech, with

(18:52):
shutting down free speech, with prosecuting free speech. I mean that,
in all honesty, is the whole purpose of the First Amendment.
Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to peaceably as symbol,
to worship as you see fit, freedom of religion. I mean,
that is the whole purpose of the First Amendment. It's

(19:12):
to protect retaliation from the government, prosecution from the government.
That's the whole point. Hate speech is protected speech. Speech
you don't like is protected speech first and foremost, because

(19:32):
if everybody liked what you were saying, there would be
no reason to protect it. Right. But I mean there
is a disconnect, though, isn't there. I mean, it's I
love it how you have all of these people, you know,

(19:53):
Stephen Colbert, Jamie Stewart, you know, they're all crying over
the cancelation, Jimmy Kimmel alive. But it's like, where were
you when the left was being silenced? Where were you
when X deplatformed, removed him, you know, removed Donald Trump

(20:22):
from X. Where were you? Where was your outrage? Then?
Where were you when Roseanne Barr got her show, Roseanne canceled?
Where were you when all these other things happened. Where
was your outcry? Where was your oh you can't do that?

(20:48):
You know. One of the things that that they they
stated that they repeated a stance that they had back then,
was hey, you may have the freedom of speech, but
you don't have the freedom of reach. It's one of
the things that they said. Seeh I mean, I don't

(21:15):
understand why all of a sudden they feel as though
they are being targeted. Whenever we just got done witnessing
not that long ago, conservatives being censored, being deplatformed, being

(21:42):
demodetized over what they said, not that long ago. You know,
when all of a sudden they seem to have a
problem with it, you know, because I mean, here's an
important thing to know, because before the left had a

(22:03):
monopoly on the flow of information. They really did. They
had a monopoly on the flow of information because it
was legacy news outlets. That was the you know, the
place that everybody went to. And slowly but surely things
have been changing, but you know, they had they controlled

(22:25):
the flow of information through legacy news outlets, through different publications.
You know, they had the monopoly on it. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC.
You know, they they had a monopoly on the flow
of information. They also controlled social media X Facebook, well okay,

(22:58):
sorry not x Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, even They controlled
the flow of information because they were run by owned
by people who were Democrats and were all too comfortable
in silencing, deep platforming, censoring, shadow, censoring, shadow, shutting down

(23:26):
leftists or I'm sorry, right people not as incorrect, but
you know, people on the right, Conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, they
were all too quick to shut this speech down. I
mean twenty twenty, you know, they shut all kinds of

(23:47):
people down for what they said in opposition to the
COVID vaccines. They weren't interested in free speech. Then they
were all too quick to shut down people who and
rightfully so question the twenty twenty election. They were all

(24:07):
too quick to do that. Where was their free speech then,
shutting down Roseanne Barr, Whenever they shut down parlor because
the left didn't control it. They were all too quick
to cry out about freedom of speech when it's Jimmy Kimmel.

(24:27):
But whenever people were shut down because they went against
the narrative regarding COVID vaccine, regarding the twenty twenty election
that was protecting democracy. Where was their outcry over freedom
of speech then? Because the Democrats want you to only

(24:51):
remember today, forget yesterday, with any argument that they say,
with any argument that comes out of their mouth, that's
what they believe. But things are changed now we have
Elon Musk in control of Twitter, renamed it X. Now

(25:12):
it's not a bastion of liberalism. Now it is closer resembling,
not perfectly so, but it's way better than what it
was free speech. It's still not perfect, but you know,

(25:37):
like I said, it is way better than what it was,
way better than what it was. And the left at
the moment are throwing a temper tantrum over what's going
on with Jimmy Kimmel. The real reason why Jimmy Kimmel's

(26:04):
show is getting canceled isn't about what he said. It's
because he is irrelevant. I mean, that's really what it
amounts to do. He's irrelevant. Okay. They canceled Stephen Colbert

(26:29):
not because of the things that he said, but because
nobody was watching him. Stephen Colbert's show was losing their
network money. That's the bottom line. That's really what it
amounts to. I mean, the thing that got him in

(26:52):
trouble was what he said regarding the the killer, Tyler Robinson. That's,
you know, the thing that really got him in hot water,
because you know, he lied, He openly lied, willingly lied.
He misled his audience into believing that the killer was

(27:18):
a Republican, was a conservative, you know, what have you,
and that's just not the case. And even at the
time they knew that was a lie, but they still
repeated it anyway, because again, they didn't want to accept
responsibility because if the killer was some right wing extremist,
then they don't have any liability in it. I mean,

(27:44):
not liability, that's maybe not the right word, but they
don't have any accountability for what they said if it
was somebody on the right, which wasn't true. And they
knew this even then, whenever he said what he said,
information has already come out that very clearly pointed to

(28:07):
him being a left wing extremist. But they didn't want
to accept accountability. They didn't want to accept responsibility. They
wanted their audience. They wanted other Democrats to believe that
they are free and clear to do and to continue
as they always have relentless attacks against Trump, Republicans, Conservatives,

(28:30):
their supporters flat out to what an amount of tude? Right,
he was canceled because Jimmy Kimmel sucks and people aren't
watching him anyway. Isn't it amazing?

Speaker 2 (28:48):
How?

Speaker 1 (28:51):
You know, you believed that the left had so much power.
You believe they had so much power. But now after
you know usaid different in go's now after the funding

(29:11):
is running dry, Now, all of a sudden you get
shows being canceled. You get a lot of different people
that are kind of changing their tune with things. Right,
because Stephen Colbert wasn't canceled because of things that he said.
He was canceled because he was irrelevant. He was costing
the network money. And the same thing goes with Jimmy Kimmel.

(29:37):
They're not making any money off of his show. They're
losing money off of his show. You know, in these
organizations ABC, you know, they have a responsibility to their shareholders,
they have a responsibility to their board, they have a
responsibility to make money. It is a bit business. That's

(30:00):
what they're there for. They've wanted to get rid of
Jimmy Kimmel for a while, but unfortunately they really couldn't
do it because he was under contract. And the only
thing what he said changed was it gave them an out.

(30:24):
It gave them the ability to use the morality clause
in the contract in order to end his show because
they were losing money on it. That's really what it
amounted to. What he said was only a reason, an excuse,
that's it. That's all it was. It was the excuse

(30:47):
they needed to terminate a contract to somebody who has
become irrelevant, that not enough people listened to him and
it was no longer worth it for them to continue
to do it. That's what it amounted to, bottom line,
That's what it amounted to. It wasn't the government that

(31:17):
stepped in and had anything to do with this. This
wasn't the government that silenced Jimmy Kimmel. It really wasn't.
Unlike what happened to a lot of conservatives out there
regarding you know, the COVID vaccine and regarding you know,
the twenty twenty election, where the government coordinated with X

(31:43):
well well I'm sorry, with Twitter, with Facebook, with news
organizations to silence the you know, the release of the
information regarding the Hunter Biden laptop It was the government
that came in and said, you will silent these people,
you will shut down their account. I mean, the government

(32:07):
went in and silenced them. That is a First Amendment violation,
and the left didn't have any problem with that going on.
In fact, it was the you know, it was the
government that had a hand in it, that wanted them
to do this. That's the First Amendment violation. But that's

(32:31):
what happened to us that dared to speak out against
the vaccine. Doctors were speaking out against a vaccine, saying, hey,
you know, maybe we should do this. All kinds of
people speaking out against the election, all kinds of people
speaking out against the shutdown, but they had no problem

(32:52):
with the government stepping in to silence people's freedom of speech.
I had issues with that from the beginning. But that's
not what happened here. Jimmy Kimmel was losing the network
money and a lot of it. The morality clause gave

(33:18):
them an excuse, but it goes beyond that really, because
there are like over two hundred affiliates if I'm remembering
my numbers correctly, around two hundred a philiates the air
the Jimmy Kimmel show, and they're like, we're not We're
not going to show that anymore. We're done with what

(33:39):
he said. It was so egregious that we don't even
want him on our networks. And they had to well
at least that was a big reason as to why
they shut the whole thing down. One of the things

(34:04):
that the left has used as a justification for canceling
right wing conservative content is about advertising dollars, right, you know.
I mean, that's one of the things they've used. It's like, hey,

(34:26):
if you're going to continue to have this content on
your platform, if you're going to allow it to be aired,
we're not going to advertise anymore through your network, through
your platform, through your app, you know whatever. We're not
going to do it anymore. That's one of the reasons

(34:48):
why they do it. And these networks and you know,
other content creators, they are able to sell in essence,
they're airways. I mean, that's not exactly the best terminology

(35:09):
to use, but they're able to sell that based off
of how many people listen to the show. Now, look,
I mean, I I'm one of them people that I
don't listen to a lot of network TV, you know,
I do streaming services as I'm sure most of you
out there do. You know, I don't have cable, I

(35:32):
don't have satellite TV. I don't listen to scheduled broadcast television.
I don't do that. I haven't done that for quite
some time. Right. I don't really watch football games and
you know, different things of that nature. If I'm going
to watch it, yeah, okay, whatever. But the biggest thing
that a commercial break gives me is the opportunity to

(35:55):
refill my glass, grab another can of soda, go to
the bathroom, let the dog outside. I mean that, you know,
those are the things that commercial breaks give me the
opportunity to do without having to hit the pause button, right,
And I'm sure a lot of you people out there
are the same way. That's what it gives you the

(36:16):
opportunity to do. Take a quick break, a small interlude,
get right back into it. There you go. That's what
it affords us the opportunity to do. But advertisers use
that opportunity to sell products, right, I mean, of course
that's what they do. But I mean here's kind of

(36:45):
one of the things that amounts to whenever it comes
to advertising on various shows and whatnot. You know. And
I'm not like some other people out there that are, like,
you know, boycotting. I'm not for boycotting this, that or
the other, you know, because innocent people that just work
for a company are the ones who end up getting

(37:07):
hurt first, you know, it's not the people that are
actually in charge and are the decision makers. And of
which case, I understand the point that they're making. However,
I extremely disagree. There is a place and a time
for boycotting a product based off of a point of
view or whatever something somebody does. And yeah, we're going

(37:30):
to go ahead and take a quick break. When I return,
we're going to get into this a little bit more so,
just a few minutes and I'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (37:46):
I o up this morning, putting my boots on tight
reach for my jeans.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
They were faded jus dry.

Speaker 4 (37:55):
But when I bend down to grab my fishing pole on,
I noticed.

Speaker 2 (38:00):
Something about my favorite fair with the hole holes.

Speaker 4 (38:04):
In my underbreeches, freezy and torn, worn out in places
where the fabrics are worn, but they make me feel
free like.

Speaker 1 (38:17):
A country's song.

Speaker 4 (38:21):
Holsing my underbreeches.

Speaker 1 (38:25):
I'm wearing them strong.

Speaker 4 (38:35):
Saddurday night out at the county fair, dancing with Sally
without a single care.

Speaker 2 (38:44):
But when she spawned me in the moonlight.

Speaker 4 (38:48):
Showed who she laughed and whispered, that's a mighty big
holes in my underbreeches, freezy.

Speaker 1 (38:56):
And torn, worn.

Speaker 4 (38:58):
Out in places where the fabrics worn, but they made
me feel free like a country's song on.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
Holding my underbreeches.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
I'm wearing them strong.

Speaker 4 (39:24):
Sunday morning, hidding off to church.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
Mama loved Abby left me alert.

Speaker 4 (39:33):
She said, boy, you need some new breeches to wear.
But I just smile and said, Mama, I don't care.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
Grandfather always told me wearingm with five every tears rip
of memorine.

Speaker 4 (39:52):
Inside a life.

Speaker 3 (39:54):
Well, little, the story is to tell holds in my
underbreeches up.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
They serve me will.

Speaker 2 (40:06):
Now?

Speaker 1 (41:02):
Do you love your occasional Mexican dish or your musical fruit?
Are you tired of walking by family members and crop
dusting them? Well, if this has ever happened to you,
might I introduce you to Tampon's brand butt plugs. Tampon's
brand butt plugs is that particular type of butt plug
that allows you to walk in public in confidence no
one that you're not going to accidentally crop does somebody.

(41:25):
Tampa's brand butt plugs now with the plastic applicator, not
just for women anymore. Tampo's brand butt plugs. All right,
and we are back. I apologize about that little bit
of a preemptive break going on. Had somebody ringing the doorbell,
and uh, maybe I shouldn't have answered that one. That
was a you know, I just I don't know why, mean,

(41:45):
oh my god, let me alone, people. I didn't really
want to talk to him. I really didn't solicitors of
a kind, you know, it happens from time to time.
But anyway, we're back, and let's go ahead to get
into this whole censorship thing. You know, what have you?

Speaker 4 (42:04):
So?

Speaker 1 (42:04):
Like I was saying, you know, Jimmy Kimmel didn't necessarily
get canceled. His show didn't get canceled because of what
he said, you know, spreading lives and misinformation about the
assassination of Charlie Kirk. That wasn't why he got canceled.
He got canceled because he sucks. He got canceled because

(42:27):
a third of the roughly two hundred affiliates that aired
the show said, we're not going to do it anymore.
And these same people that are you know, that are
advocating for free speech and have a you know, and
are saying, oh, you can't do that, and you know

(42:49):
this is unconstitutional and what have you? You got no
leg to stand on because where were you whenever it
was happening to us. They didn't care because it's what
they wanted. Now, look again, I am a free speech advocate.

(43:11):
I will stand up for free speech regardless of whether
or not I agree with what you're saying. But they
were saying that you may have freedom of speech, but
you don't have freedom of reach. And they want not
just freedom of speech, they want freedom of or freedom

(43:33):
from consequences. I mean, isn't that really what it is
that they want? They want freedom over consequences. Now, I
was saying a little bit before that, you know, the Democrats,

(43:56):
these news broadcast as stations, they don't want to claim
responsibility over what happened to Charlie Kirk based off of
their rhetoric. Representative Jasmine Crockett, she rejects claims that hitler

(44:21):
rhetoric fueled the violence that led to the assassination of
Charlie Kirk. Have you also ever played the thought game,
you know, game of thought regarding going back in time

(44:42):
and killing baby Hitler, that doing so could save millions
of people, It could stop World War two from even happening.
If given the opportunity to kill Hitler as a baby,

(45:03):
would you do it? A thought exercise, and there's a
lot of people out there that would say yes, unfortunately,
because I mean, I don't mean unfortunately as in it
shouldn't be done. I'm just saying that unfortunately as in

(45:30):
justifying somebody's killing. I mean, I get it, I do.
If a lot of people are honest with themselves, they
would take that same position. If you had the opportunity

(45:54):
to go back in time and kill Hitler as a baby,
knowing the atrocities that he would later do, Yes, of
course you would. And the less rhetoric as claiming that

(46:15):
Trump is Hitler, that people like Charlie Kirk are Hitler,
all of their supporters, voters like me, like you, that
we are Nazis, deranged people. Of course they would do

(46:38):
what Tyler Robinson did, but they want to claim that,
you know, their rhetoric didn't have anything to do with it.
I mean, it only takes one person to change what's
been going on, you know, and not just get Jimmy Kimmel.

(46:59):
I mean, there's been a lot of people that have
been fired over what they have said. After the assassination
of Charlie Kirk, a lot of people have been getting fired.
You know this article from iHeartRadio. Is it constitutional to
be fired for your personal opinions? That's a good question,

(47:23):
isn't it? Is it constitutional to be fired for your
personal opinions? Today's day and age is kind of different
than what we've ever lived in in the past. We
live in the information age. It's not the Dark age,

(47:46):
it's not the industrial age. This is the information age
where you can pick up a phone and simultaneously be
talking with somebody on the other side of the planet,
in the other side of the country, and somebody that's
right next door or in the very location that you're

(48:09):
at simultaneously. You can do that an amazing time. Right,
the left wants freedom from consequences. They don't care about
what they say, they don't care about their positions. They
want freedom from responsibility. That's really what it's based on.

(48:33):
That's what they want, that's what they advocate for. They
want you to be held accountable for everything that they
claim you did, and even things that they claim or
that you didn't do. I mean, the left is notorious
for doing this, right, I mean, they they blame Republicans
and conservatives for things that they are actually doing. I mean,

(48:56):
they've done that a lot. That's kind of their standard
operating procedure, isn't it. But is it constitutional to be
fired for your personal opinions in a matter of speaking,
I would have to say yes, because again, the Constitution

(49:20):
protects your freedom of speech from the government. It doesn't
protect you against retaliation from a citizen, from a company,
a business. It doesn't do that. I mean, did you
may have the freedom of speech, but you don't have
the freedom to speak in my own home. You don't. Granted,

(49:42):
you have, okay, in the public arena, you have the
freedom of speech. You don't have the freedom from speech.
You have the freedom of press, but you don't have
the freedom from press. You have those freedoms, and that
distinction is clear. You have that in the public arena.
In the private arena, you don't. You come into my house,

(50:06):
you got to play by my rules. It's my house.
You go to a private business and you don't have
permission to speak to solicit to try to sell your
own products. You don't have the right to do that.
They have the right to kick you out. There's all
kinds of signs that businesses and other places no solicitors.

(50:32):
Is it constitutional to be fire for your personal opinions? Yes.
Let me put it in another way, especially whenever we're
talking about in the information age, right, especially in the

(50:58):
information age. You know, before you know, ten years ago,
fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, whatever, before social media,
not so much before the Internet, but before social media,
it was way easier to hide your points of view,

(51:21):
your your thought processes, the things you believed. It was
way easier to hide that because well, unless they were
people that knew you, and unless you spoke spoke out publicly,
or you know, maybe was seen as some type of event,
it was way easier to hide what you believed. Now,

(51:45):
with social media, it's not the case. There are a
lot of businesses that utilize social media in order to
see who a person is before they hire them. You
may not like it, but that is the world that
we live in. You want to protect yourself from being

(52:09):
held accountable for staying stupid shit. Maybe you just shouldn't
say stupid shit, right. And as I mentioned before, a
business has a responsibility to its shareholders, it has a
responsibility to its board. A business is going to protect

(52:29):
its brand. And if a business is full of activists
one way, shape or form, and if it doesn't coincide
with the business's culture, then that business has the right
to terminate the relationship between them and their employers. Employers

(52:52):
and their employees, they have the right to do that.
You may not like it, but they have the freedom
to do so. I mean, there are so many state
out there that are right to work states. That means
you can quit at anytime. That means they can fire
you at any time. That's what it means. They have

(53:16):
the right to protect their brain. You may not like it,
you know. I'm a fan of Matt Locke, Voice of
the Workingman podcast, and he has mentioned several times that
there has been numerous businesses that refused to give him
a job or outright fired him because of his political views.

(53:43):
Did he whine? Did he cry? Did he go after
them legally and claim that you can't do that is
my constitutional right freedom of speech? Hello? No, he didn't.
Because he's a big boy he understands the difference between

(54:04):
the federal government not doing that versus a business protecting
their brand and culture and whatever. I mean, he may
have disagreed with them for doing it, but he's still
they still had the right to do it. The Left
is so used to being able to do and say

(54:26):
what they want without consequences that now all of a sudden,
after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, they're answering for that.
People are being fired, shows are being canceled. The left

(54:48):
is pissed. They can't claim high ground anymore. Is it constitutional? Yeah?
Is not the government going after them as businesses, as corporations.

(55:12):
You may disagree with them, that doesn't mean they don't
have the right to do it. They do. Absolutely. We
live in a weird day. You can't get away with
the Bravo Sierra that you used to could. Now it's
the information age. I mean, there's a lot of businesses

(55:32):
out there that use social media. Before they hire somebody,
they'll look at your LinkedIn account, they'll look at your
Facebook account. There are some businesses out there and this
is where I kind of you know, where I don't
like it, right because we do have the right to privacy.
I do believe in the right to privacy. I do.

(55:53):
In your personal space, you have the right to privacy,
and what I have heard some companies do, I'm going
to I'm I'm going to put it out there that
I completely disagree with it. Because you know, on Facebook,
you have the ability to make your account visible, and

(56:19):
you have the ability to make your account hidden. You
have the right to block certain people or I'm sorry,
you have the ability to block certain people. You have
the ability to restrict who sees what based off of
your friendship status, whether you are a friend, whether you
are an acquaintance, whether you are a complete stranger, what

(56:41):
have you. There's different tiers in that, and you can
decide who sees what. There you go and of which
case I'm okay with that. That's a right to privacy
and we should have that. One of the things that
I've seen happen is certain companies telling them that you

(57:05):
have to friend me on social media in order for
me to gain access to the stuff you post as
terms for you being hired. That is an aspect where
I completely disagree with. I really, do you have the

(57:26):
right to privacy? They don't, you know, it's kind of
like the hippa thing, right, you know? I mean you
can't necessarily ask me for my vaccine status. That is
medical information. I am protected by law against being forced
to answer such a question. I'm not one hundred percent sure.

(57:49):
Let me be honest about this when I'm not one
hundred percent sure if a company is can be held
legally accountable for asking the question, or if I'm just
protected from retaliation for not answering the question. I'm not
exactly sure how that really plays out in court. I'm
not sure, but regardless, I know for a fact, through HIPPA,

(58:13):
I don't have to answer the question, and you can't
hold me accountable for not doing so. So whenever they ask,
you know, have you been vaccinated? I don't have to answer,
and you can't do shit about it legally speaking, is bullshit? Right,
you know? I have certain protections when it comes to

(58:35):
my health hippa. I don't agree with companies saying that
as terms of you being hired, you have to give
me access to your posts on your social media accounts,

(59:00):
and there are companies out there that have done that.
I've heard horror stories. I don't agree with it. Now,
if you make your account public that anybody can see
regardless of friendship status, then that's one thing that's you
that made a choice to allow people to see it regardless.
But if you've marked your account as private, you block

(59:23):
access to certain people based off of friendship level or
what have you, you should have the right to your privacy.
I disagree with the company basing their employment, basing their
their work. I have a problem with them doing that.
I don't think that should be done. But I mean,

(59:46):
if you're going to post on social media about the
good time you had last night, share pictures of you
drinking in a barring getting shit face plastered, and then
you're going to call in sick the next day for
work and somebody that you work with says you son

(01:00:10):
of a bitch, or your employer looking at your Instagram
going huh, you're not really sick. You got the brown
bottle flu. Don't be surprised when you get terminated FAFO, right,

(01:00:31):
you know, I mean, you can't be whatever I think.
Y'all's understand what I'm saying on that one. I want
to move on speaking of hate speech, free speech. You
know I told you that all this stuff is going

(01:00:52):
to go for full circle. Right. I told you that
everything's connected in here. So there's something else that I'm
wanting to talk about. I want to talk about Pan
Bondy and what she said regarding hate speech. And we're
going to get into that right after this. In just

(01:01:13):
a couple of minutes, I'll be right back. The acoustick
smooth on my hands, all wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:01:29):
Line it up and the game feels long. The balls
just laugh as they roll away.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
I guess the fool.

Speaker 5 (01:01:41):
Gods ain't with me today.

Speaker 1 (01:01:46):
No balls in the pocket, no matter of the queue.

Speaker 3 (01:01:49):
I'm the king of the table till today It's all untrue.
I bring a like thunder bud, this cat of lacary,
each shot of disaster and.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
Is driving me insane. The eight ball winks like a
nose my dread. The nine just spins and shakes its head.

Speaker 3 (01:02:16):
My buddy's grinning while it's sweating chalk.

Speaker 1 (01:02:20):
It feels like I'm stuck in a cruel trick. Shot
talk the felts the desert and them dry. It's dust.

Speaker 2 (01:02:30):
The breaks are.

Speaker 5 (01:02:31):
Broken, the angles are rus.

Speaker 2 (01:02:33):
The wreck was ready.

Speaker 1 (01:02:34):
But my name's off course, and.

Speaker 3 (01:02:36):
I swear this table feels cursed. Of course, don't falls
into the pocket, no matter the que I'm the king
of the table till.

Speaker 1 (01:02:43):
Today is all true.

Speaker 3 (01:02:45):
A break lack thunder, but the scatter like rays, each
shot of disaster.

Speaker 1 (01:02:49):
And is driving me insane.

Speaker 3 (01:03:02):
The jukebox arms of melody off key.

Speaker 2 (01:03:08):
Like it's mocking this misery.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
And me, my swagger's gone, my rifle's got it all.

Speaker 1 (01:03:20):
I just can't get a.

Speaker 5 (01:03:22):
Single ball to fall, No balls.

Speaker 3 (01:03:26):
In the pocket, No matter you. I'm the king of
the table till today's all true. I bring black thunderbucket.

Speaker 5 (01:03:33):
Scatter like rain, he shut a disaster, and it's driving
me insane.

Speaker 1 (01:03:54):
Have you ever had an ailment that a normal over
the counter remedy just couldn't fight? If this is the case,
then boy, if I got the solution for you, it's Tousin.
That's right. Tousin, cough, tousing, cold, Tousin, running nose, Tousin, itchy,
watery ice, Tousin, broken leg, Toussin. Tussin is the ultimate cure,

(01:04:16):
all guaranteed to stop anything that ails you. Tousin available
wherever OTC's are sold. No, All right, and we are back.
So this segment we're going to be talking about. There's
going to be the last segment before we close everything out,
we're going to be talking about hate speech. More specifically,
we're going to be talking about what Pam Bondi said
regarding hate speech. Now, this headline that we're going to

(01:04:41):
jumpstart this whole conversation about came from Loud with Crowder.
Actually headline Pam Bondi slanders Charlie Kirk's legacy by adopting
the leftist definition of hate speech. Now, look, I I
know what they are referencing, because she was at a

(01:05:04):
talking you know, she's in the White House whatever, talking
with people in there, and Letitia James was Letitia James
am I saying that, right? Was that whatever? Listening to that?
And I heard firsthand what it is that she was saying. Okay,
I heard what she was talking about. I understood what

(01:05:26):
she was saying. I did. And okay, I don't know
about you, but you know, language has a purpose, right,
Language has a has a reason for being so we
can communicate ideas, positions, you know, and so that other

(01:05:46):
people can understand things where we're coming from, to teach
what have you. That's the whole purpose of language, written
and verbal. That's the whole purpose. You know, I I
despise grammar Nazis. I really do. There's a lot of
them out there. They're everywhere grammar Nazis, and granted, in

(01:06:07):
some cases, I love it. You know, it's funny, it's hilarious. Yeah,
you know, you your YadA YadA blah blah. You know
where you put your you know your your thingy. You
know the comma that's up in the area. You know
where you put That is important. You know, punctuation is important.

(01:06:29):
You know what have you? But I mean, I hate
grammar Nazis. I really do. Sometimes I find myself to
be one. But that's only whenever other people like grammar Nazi.
And really, you're going to be a grammar Nazi whenever
you can't use grammar. That's the only time I really
use grammar Nazi. But the whole point is to communicate
an idea, right, and the best and easiest way to

(01:06:53):
do that is to not argue over grammar per se,
not to necessarily make sure that you call out proper grammar.
Let me give you a couple of examples. I correct

(01:07:22):
the left using the term democracy by saying, no, we
are not a democracy, we are a constitutional Republic. I
know the difference. You know the difference, right, I Mean,
it's pretty simple. You know, we both know the difference
between the two. We know that we're not a constitutional republic.

(01:07:44):
You know, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic, for which
it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and
justice for all. We know this. We're not stupid, We're
not ignorant. We know this. But if I'm actually talking

(01:08:08):
to a leftist, I'm not really going to waste my breath.
I mean, I may point out the fact that, hey,
you know, we're not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic.
There is a difference, and that difference is important, but
I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing

(01:08:29):
with them, because most people are wilfully ignorant, and I
really consider that to be stupidity. I really do. I mean,
when you know better and you still, you know, repeat
the same thing, that's willful ignorance, And I really do

(01:08:50):
I consider that to be stupidity. But I'm not going
to you know, I may point out the difference, but
I'm not going to argue the difference, right, I'll point
it out, but I'm not going to argue the position.
It's a waste of time, it really is. What I'm

(01:09:12):
more apt to do is use the language you use
in order to clarify a position that I'm taking. Whenever
I heard Pam Bondi's remarks and the context surrounding her
use of hate speech, it was clear that she wasn't

(01:09:36):
talking about hate speech as we define it. They were
talking about hate speech as they define it. She was
using the common parlance of the people that were in
that room, which mostly consist of Democrat leftists. That's what

(01:09:58):
she was doing. Did you hear what she said? Did
you listen to her actual remarks? Did you not pick
up on the contextual clues that were clearly there? Because
context matters. I mean, we claim to hate how the

(01:10:22):
left will strategically edit clips of people saying certain things,
and how they strategically cut out different articles and whatnot
in order to better promote their agenda. And then here
we have not just people on the left that are

(01:10:42):
notorious for doing this all the damn time, we have
people on the right that are doing the same thing
that aren't taking into consideration context. Because context matters, not
affording Pam bondy little bit of grace by saying, look,
we understand what you're talking about. We just would prefer

(01:11:06):
that you wouldn't use the word hate speech, because that's bad.
All speech should be protected. I agree, you agree, We
all agree all speech should be protected. And whenever she's

(01:11:26):
saying that hate speech, we're going to go after you
for it. We're going to prosecute you for it. I
can understand that there may be alarm bells, but hello, people,
let's acknowledge what's clearly their context matters, and what she
was talking about is something totally different. Let me show

(01:11:46):
you this post over.

Speaker 6 (01:11:49):
On X.

Speaker 1 (01:11:52):
Which clearly outlines what it was she was talking about.
Let me go ahead and get into this and read
it a little bit so from Pam Bondi. And again
you can find this over on X. I might even
go ahead and repost this to make it easier for
you to find it. You can find me at Hoho
show over there on X. But hate speech that crosses

(01:12:16):
the line into threats of violence is not protected by
the First Amendment. It's a crime. For far too long,
we've watched the radical left normalized threats call for assassinations
and cheer on political violence. That era is over. Are
you picking up when I'm throwing down here? She's not
saying hate speech. She's talking about speech that advocates violence.

(01:12:44):
That's what she's talking about. She's not talking about just
saying that you are a piece of crap. They're not
talking about hate speech, name calling, things of that nature.
She's talking about speech that calls for violence. What she

(01:13:10):
said continues under eighteen USC. Eight seven fives, Section C
or however the hell you're supposed to read that, it
is a federal crime to transmit any communication containing any
threat to kidnap any person, or any threat to injure
the person of a of another. Okay, Likewise of eighteen USC.

(01:13:36):
Eight seventy six and eighteen USC. One point fifteen make
it a felony to threaten public officials, members of Congress,
or their families. You cannot call for someone's murder, you
cannot swatch a member of Congress, you cannot dox a

(01:13:58):
conservative family. And I think it will be brushed off
as free speech. These acts are punishable crimes, and every
single threat will be met with the full force of
the law. Free speech protects ideas, debate, even dissent, but
it does not and will never protect violence. It is

(01:14:24):
clear this violent rhetoric to you, I'm sorry is designed
to silence others from voicing conservative ideas. We will never
be silenced, not for our families, not for our freedom,
and never for Charlie. His legacy will not be erased
by fear or intimidation. And there is a community know

(01:14:51):
on here. The US Constitution protects most violent speech. The
Supreme Court ruled it legally to justify or celebrate violence,
or advocate to teach the duty, necessity, or propriety of it,
but not insentiment to imminent violence. Example, telling a mob

(01:15:15):
with weapons to kill somebody. That is not protected speech.
It isn't. The distinction is clear. The Supreme Court has
ruled there is a difference between what we would call

(01:15:38):
hate speech and what the left has done as using
speech to incite violence, to incite imminent violence, telling a

(01:16:01):
mob with weapons to kill somebody is not freedom of speech.
So when Pam Bondy was saying it, I understood what
she was talking about. Yes, she used the words hate speech,
and I can understand why a lot of people would
be criticizing Pam BONDI for that. But again, it's like, dude,

(01:16:26):
listen to the context, listen to her actual words, pay
attention to her post because we're on the same page.
We really are. We're on the same page. Context matters,

(01:16:53):
and she's being clear. I'm not going to We're not
going to accept it anymore, you know, the time for
grace with the rhetoric, with the calling for acts of violence.

(01:17:16):
I mean, I played this a while back ago, I
think at any rate I did. Let me go ahead
and find it real quick. Oh crap, that was the
wrong thing. Let me, I gotta find it. Oh, there

(01:17:36):
we go. I found it, all right. Let me let
me get into this. Now. This is a little long,
all right. It is roughly two minutes fifteen seconds ish,
two and a half minutes. And this is the Democrats

(01:18:00):
calling for violence. And this compilation is a variety of
different people. You've got actors in here, you got singers
in here, you have politicians in here, even the former
president of the US Biden. You have people in news

(01:18:27):
organizations in here. CNN is in here. You may recognize
some of the voices, but I want you to listen
to this. I just don't even know why there aren't
uprisings all of the country. Maybe there will be. People
need to start taking to the streets. This is a dictator.

Speaker 3 (01:18:47):
You know.

Speaker 6 (01:18:47):
There needs to be unrest in the streets for as
long as there's unrest in our lives.

Speaker 5 (01:18:51):
Enemies of the state.

Speaker 1 (01:18:53):
Show me where it says that protests are supposed to
be polite and peaceful. Do something about your dad's immigration practices.
Effect less?

Speaker 4 (01:19:01):
Com on, they go low. We can't.

Speaker 2 (01:19:03):
How do you resist the temptation to run up and
wring her neck?

Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
The biggest terror threat in this country is white men,
most of them radicalized to the right. I thought he
should have punched him in the face, They said, even
if you lost, he insulted your wife, he's on the
escalator and called Mexican's rapist immersed. He said, well, what
do you think I should have done? So think you
should have punched him in the face and then gotten
out of the race. You would have been a hero.
I'd like to punch him in the face, I said,
if we're in high school, I take you behind the

(01:19:27):
gym and beat the hell out of him. Punch some
people in the face.

Speaker 3 (01:19:31):
When was the last time an actor assassinated in a president.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
They're still going to have to go out and put
a bullet in Donald Trump. And that's a fact. Look
is his character is stabbed to death.

Speaker 3 (01:19:44):
Where is John Wilkes's booth when you need? I have
thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House?

Speaker 1 (01:19:56):
A Missouri state senator is under investigation by the seaq
At Service after saying she hopes President Trump is assassinatees.
I will go and take Trump out to night.

Speaker 6 (01:20:06):
And if you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant,
in a department stop, at a gasol station, you get
out and you play a cloud and you go back
on them and you tell them that not well, God
anylloy anywhere.

Speaker 1 (01:20:26):
And sadly the domestic enemies to our voting system and
are honoring our constitution all right at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue.

Speaker 4 (01:20:35):
They're not here in that for election day in November.
And they're not going to.

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
Stop after picking up what I'm throwing there.

Speaker 6 (01:20:40):
And that should be everyone should take note of that
on both levels, that this is they're not going to
let up, and they should not. If you think we're
well now, you ain't saying nothing yet.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
This is what the left again. This is from libs
of TikTok compilation. You may have recognized some of the
voices in there, Robert de Niro, Nancy Pelosi, several other actors, Madonna.

(01:21:13):
Let's be clear. They are telling those extremists that they
are justified in their desire to take action against Republicans,
against conservatives, some of them outright calling for acts of
violence against political leaders, against MAGA, against Trump. This isn't

(01:21:41):
merely hate speech. This is actively calling for violence. That's
what they were doing. Let's be clear, Let's be honest,
that's what they were doing. And after what happened to

(01:22:07):
Charlie Kirk at the hands of a deranged individual, we
cannot tolerate this type of thing anymore. We can't. I've
been listening to a lot of Crowder for a while.

(01:22:29):
I listened to the interview that he had with Tim Poole.
I believe this was Friday, and he's pissed, right he is.
Where once we have afforded these people grace, now we

(01:22:51):
cannot afford to do that anymore. I just like him.
I'm not advocating for retaliation. I'm not advocating for acts
of violence. However, if you are approached aggressively from somebody,
you need to aggressively protect yourself, defend yourself. We need

(01:23:17):
to curb this, We need to nip it in the
butt where we once have afforded grace. Now because Charlie Kirk,
his assassination changed things. I mean, it's a shot that
will echo throughout history. Right, because Charlie Kirk wasn't a president.

(01:23:52):
He's not sitting in the House of Representatives, he's not
a senator, he's not.

Speaker 3 (01:23:58):
You know, the.

Speaker 1 (01:24:01):
He's not a political or he's not. He may be political,
but he's not in politics.

Speaker 3 (01:24:09):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:24:09):
He is a civilian that advocated for debate, peaceful debate,
the exchange of ideas. Let me granted, he treated people differently, right,
he did. If you were somebody whom was like truly

(01:24:34):
asking a question, regardless as to what side of the
political owl you were on, he was respectful, he was polite,
He gave his position lovingly. He wasn't aggressive. But if

(01:24:57):
you came at him aggressively, just trying to you know,
spew stupid talking points, and he'd call you out on
your Bravo sierra, he'd shut you down. He would shut
you down with facts and information. It wasn't propaganda base,
it was facts and information. And he did treat the

(01:25:19):
two different because they are different. If it was somebody
that was actually wanting a debate, wanting to actually ask
a question, asking for advice about lifestyle choices that they had,
he was very respectful and there was a difference in

(01:25:39):
how he treated the two. Most definitely, he did advocate
for freedom of speech. He wanted the open debate, but
with his assassination, his very extreme, unfortunate, eye opening assassination,

(01:26:13):
is not the debate that we no longer want to have.
It's the acts of violence that we're no longer going
to tolerate. And speech that is openly calling for violence
is no longer going to be accepted, nor should it be.

(01:26:41):
I'm going to revert back to a couple Jeff Cooper
quotes former marine. If you find yourself under lethal attack,
don't be kind. Be harsh, be tough, be ruthless. We

(01:27:05):
don't know their intentions. Where we once afforded grace, we
don't know their intentions. We don't know what they intend
on doing. You need to protect yourself. And in regards
to criminal activity, here's another Jeff Cooper quote. If violent
crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended

(01:27:28):
victim who can do it. The felon does not fear
the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore,
what he must be taught to fear is his victim.
That's why he's calling for harsh protection for yourself, for

(01:27:56):
your family, because these people need to live in fear.
If they are going to even think about coming at
us with violence, it's the only way you're going to
stop it. That's it. I agree with Crowder's position on this,
I really do. I don't live with the same kind

(01:28:18):
of threat that he does. I don't. I'm small fish,
I'm nobody. He's a big name in the space, but
he's lived with it for years and it has kept
him from doing things that he believed in, like doing

(01:28:42):
the change my mind. It has changed how he operates
because you just can't stop them all. Sometimes one makes
it through. That's what happened to Charlie Kirk. Things are changed.
I rest on that. That's all I got for y'all today.

(01:29:05):
That's it. If you want to check out the articles
that I have used in the show, head on over
to the Host Show dot com. Just click on the
news feed tab and you'll see the magazine over there
on flipboard. And if you want to help support the show,
head on over to Stinkpickle dot com. That is s
T I N K P I k l E dot com.
Pick yourself up some merch and as I've mentioned before,

(01:29:27):
if you see a design over there that you like
but you just don't see it on a product you're
wanting to buy, let me know and I can make
some changes. I can add that in there. Send me
an email ho Ho at the Ho host Show dot com.
Let me know on some of the things that you
have heard in today's show. What you think about Pam
Bondi's remarks, What do you think about, you know, the

(01:29:50):
the ending, the cancelation of the Jimmy Kirk Live Show,
whatever the hell the name of it is. Let me
know what you think. Send me an email ho Ho
at the Ho Ho Show dot com. Anyway, that's all
I got. Y'alls have yourself a great one and I
will see you and the next one. This has been

(01:30:10):
the Ho Ho Show. For more information, you can head
to the Ho Hosshow dot com and for the merchandise store.
You can head on over to stinkpickle dot com. That
is s t i n k p i k l
e dot com Until next time,
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.

24/7 News: The Latest

24/7 News: The Latest

The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.