THOUGHTCRIME Ep. 32 — Working 40 Hours = Boomer? Prosecute Shooters' Parents? DignifAI?

Hey everybody, today on The Charlie Kirk Show, Thought Crime. We talk about a new AI that is making certain people online very, very upset.

Should parents be held accountable if their kids commit heinous crimes? Fascinating conversation. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Subscribe to our podcast and get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. And email me as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Become a member, it's members.charliekirk.com.

Buckle up everybody, here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie, he's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold.

Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. Happy Thought Crime Day everybody. We have Blake, we have Tyler, we have Jack. Let's get right into it to be the most efficient we can. Blake, what is our first story? First story, it's coming out of Michigan, a state that gives us many bad things like Detroit Lions football most years and the Detroit Tigers and, you know, Gretchen Whitmer. Excuse me, we're going to Michigan this June. We love Detroit.

We love Michigan so much now. Don't forget. All right. All right. All right. But anyway, this is, well, I'll just say in an alternate universe, Trump's still president. The Detroit Lions have made it to the Super Bowl and Toby Keith's probably still alive. But I'm just saying we're just in an alternate timeline. It is the alternate one, unfortunately. The one we are in, we have this story out of Michigan from Pontiac.

A Michigan jury has convicted the mother of a school shooter of manslaughter. So back in 2021. 2021 Ethan Crumbly was this teenager and he did a school shooting, killed four other students tragically. He was 15 at the time.

And what he actually lived. So I think he already took a plea deal life without parole. But what prosecutors also did is they're prosecuting the parents and they're trying them separately. So this was the mom, Jennifer Crumbly, and they charged her with involuntary manslaughter because of her son's shooting. And this week they actually convicted her. So she has been convicted of what her son did. So I saw the news story. So fill me in.

What is the fact pattern before I can have an opinion? Did she know that her son was making violent threats? Did she know that he was playing around with weapons? Did she not lock up weapons? What are the facts? So she gave him a gun is a big key thing that they claim.

They claim she knew or should have known that he was showing bad unstable tendencies. Was he a minor? He was 15. Okay. So that doesn't that plays into the parents responsibility. Exactly.

True, true. And she gave him the gun. And despite there were being warning signs of him being a dangerous person, and I'd have to check specifically, but I think it was literally something like she and her husband gave him the gun as a gift literally a day or two before he goes on this shooting.

So it's a very good fact, direct cause and effect there. And then was there evidence presented that he was going to be violent, that she knew that he was making so there was definitely things where he'd written statements or sent text messages that in a vacuum sounded violent. But she argued and I think it's other than the fact that he did become a shooter, the plausible argument like, oh, he was kidding around, you know, the way teenagers say insane sounding things to be crazy, except this one was crazy and shot people. Did he go see psychiatric help or no?

I don't know off the top of my head, but I don't think they did. I think that actually there was so this all comes to a head and I'm sure you're going to get to this Blake, but this comes to a head where there's like a school, they actually had pulled the parents into the school on the morning that the shooting took place, obviously before the shooting and had said they had found some, I mean, the fact pattern is really, really bad in this case, right? That's why they're using it.

For sure. They want this to be the example for everyone. And said they wanted him to get help and the parents, we don't know exactly what the disposition was, but the parents sent him back to school rather than like pulling him out immediately.

And so as Jack and I were discussing- I'm torn on this, sorry, go ahead. Because you have a 15 year old minor who actually kills people and a parent who gives them the weapon. There's more info to this.

Yeah, tell me. The parents, if I recall correctly, had a history of being violent in front of the child, I believe that was documented by him prior to this with a psychic, like a school psychiatrist. I don't know if it was like a school or like a real professional.

Sorry for people that I didn't mean that that are out there, but you know, a school psychiatrist versus like a professional outside the school. This is school officials left a voicemail and email for Jennifer Crumbly, the mother. She did not respond, but she later texted her son saying, LOL, I'm not mad at you. You have to learn not to get caught. I got to be honest, I'm not very sympathetic with this mom. Well, and this is the real kicker though. I was trying to get to it. I'm sorry.

I was studying around this. They made him bury his own dead dog. So I guess the dog died. The kid was left alone all the time and I guess this was documented. He killed the dog?

No, he didn't. Well, I don't know. Who knows how the dog died. The dog died.

The parents did nothing and they made him figure it out on his own. I'm getting more here. According to prosecutors, Crumbly's, Ethan Crumbly's, only friend moved away at the end of October 2021, so just before the shooting, and the family dog died, causing him to become depressed. As early as March 2021, he had been sending his mother disturbing texts about his state of mind, which included claims about demons and ghosts being inside the home. I mean, Jack, if you disagree, I don't hate this. It's just not first degree murder.

So here's one last thing. Remember, we were very quick during the Sandy Hook tragedy to blame the parent for not locking up the weapons, right? That was a big part of the talking point. Why shouldn't there be a statement that parents, if you have a potentially lunatic child, if they're a minor, if you're dealing a 19 or 20 year old, Jack, am I wrong? Am I processing this incorrectly? No, I don't think you are, but I do think that we're in a new area, right? We're in a new gray area here because, look, I don't think these were good parents. And I don't think anyone is making that argument. And I don't think anybody I've even seen anywhere on the spectrum is making that argument, the political spectrum, of course, not any other spectrums that we might be talking about in regards to this case. But the situation here, Charlie, isn't necessarily about this one case. It's actually about whether or not this precedent will then be continued to be used in other cases. And really, where does this precedent end? Because it is a new precedent. And it is a precedent that has, and all of media, you know, sent this way out. And I certainly don't think that these are sympathetic parents. And I think that we see this from sort of the liberal legal establishment or liberal legal complex, wherever you want to call it, they always use unsympathetic characters, unsympathetic targets to push new precedents. And so even though we can certainly agree that the facts of this case do warrant some kind of accountability for the parents, we should also, I think, take a step back to say, this is a new precedent, the Overton window is being moved in one direction.

And this will certainly only be used against, I would say, a certain class of people. Oh, hold on. But is it really that crazy of a precedent? If I'm not mistaken, there's been criminal convictions of people for manslaughter when someone says they're going to commit suicide, and they encourage them to do that. Yeah, right.

Like if they really egg them on into it. Yeah. Well, if you hand someone a gun, and then they kill themselves, then you could be an accessory.

You for sure will be. Yeah. So is it really that far reaching? We're talking about a minor here, where there were multiple warning signs, and they did supply the murder weapon.

Yeah. And it's very, very old fashioned, I would say that, you know, children are kind of their parents are responsible for their children and what they do to some extent. Certainly in civil court, that can happen, you know, if you're negligent with your child, and the child does these things.

But yeah, I guess what stands out to us is, are we actually going to see this principle applied? A lot of gang murders, gang murders, and there's a lot of cases where parents are super absentee. And that's a huge impact on their children becoming violent criminal. Should we should we have the law point towards parental responsibility? I think when it comes to murder. Yes.

Yeah. I mean, for gang, you know, if there's a gang kid in Chicago, and the mom is like, yeah, you know, go shoot up the rival gang and hit handsome a gun and hands the gun like, you know, go, you're an excuse to go teach the Crips a lesson or even what but what if it's something in the middle? What if the kid just has friends who are obviously criminals, gang members, and the parent doesn't take action to say, these people aren't allowed in our house, you can't hang out with them.

If they come here, we will call the police. If they're negligent in that sort of way, and then that person becomes a criminal, a violent criminal, should they be responsible for that? Yeah, but that's that's why it's up to a jury at that point to but I think I think what we're talking about here is But this jury was just I mean, I think we're just going to be some basic facts here, which is if you hand a crazy person a gun minor, that you're responsible for in your household that you claim on your taxes, 100% and then that person kills someone. Yeah, just the same way. And by the way, this already happens with cars. Yes. So if you let your minor child have access to a car, and then they go and kill someone, you will you will become an accessory for sure.

In that case, yes, for murder. It's and that's probably I don't have an example of it. But I guarantee that's happening. Jack, but I want you to Jack, what what is the precedent? I must be missing this.

I mean, let's pretend the worst, most Stalinistic. What what is the precedent here that I'm missing? Because the fact pattern is minor weapon days ahead, ignoring warning signs of text messages.

Yeah. What with that fact pattern? What precedent should we be concerned about? I'm not saying that sarcastically.

I just must. Well, Charlie, it's not it's not it's not about the fact pattern. It's about the precedent of a someone connected to someone else, in this case, a child, then commits a crime, a person and then the person connected them associated with them becomes liable for the crime. So in this fact pattern, you've clearly got a direct line from the actions of the people to the crime being committed or the actions or I guess the inactions as well in this case.

But at the same time, I would also point out and I remember seeing the time looking at the case looking the same fact pattern when I said, Wait a minute. So the parents were called into the school. And they were asked about the child, they were shown some violent, I guess, drawings and writings that the student had made, I shouldn't say child is 15 that the student had made, that it seemed that seemed very violent, asking for getting help, and saying, you know, and saying, I need help, I hear voices, the voices are telling me to kill. At the same time, the school, the student resource officers, they had an officer security guy at the school didn't never check the backpack of the kid never once checked the backpack of the kid after seeing something like that. The teacher never checked the backpack, the principal never checked the backpack, nobody checked the backpack to see if there was a gun in there. And so I guess my question is, when we're talking about these issues of legal liability, you know, why would you not find any liability for the school, given the situation that again, how many times do we talk about, oh, the FBI had someone on their radar, but then didn't do anything about it, and the FBI is never found accountable for any of these things, or many cases where, you know, the FBI was, you know, working as an informant with somebody and directly tied to some crime that took place, and they're trying to get them or, you know, they don't end up catching them. And so the crime actually takes place. But they again, they were on the FBI's radar, should the FBI be found accountable for not arresting them in a weird way, though, this ruling?

And so where does this end? But hold on, this ruling actually uses tradcon conservative belief that a parent is responsible for the kids, as long as they're a minor, doesn't invert our own value system against us if we find this agreeable, right? Because our own belief system, for example, we're the ones crying foul that a parent should know if their 15 year old is going to transition parent is in charge parents in charge. So just to be consistent, if the parents in charge that comes with responsibility, right? The security resource officer isn't their parent that they might be guilty of gross negligence, or, you know, civil responsibility, civil type action. So I'm just thinking out loud, because we're the ones, the left would be the ones that actually would say no, the parent has nothing to do with the kid, the kid can make up their own mind, this kid can get their genitals chopped off.

This is where I start having practical worries, I suppose something about this doesn't sit right with me. And I think it's the fact that we aren't starting, we aren't having an up or down vote on should parents be responsible for this whole gamut of crimes that kids can commit. Instead, what we're doing is we're giving the state a new tool to prosecute essentially by political targets, political targets, I think they chose specifically because it's a gun case and a shooting case.

So they want to they want to basically send the message. Don't allow your kids to be around guns because anything that happens with it could get you in trouble. Don't teach your kids guns, don't take them to the shooting range, don't go hunting. What the left loves is the idea that if you have a gun in your home for any reason, if anything bad happens, it can ruin your life. They want to create that reality because they want to get rid of, they want to disarm the public. And think of also how we see this on other cases. So, you know, Trump, they're going to say, well, Trump should have known that what he said, even if it wasn't normally criminal, what Trump said on January 6th, because he's Trump, he should have known it would have driven his followers into a frenzy and they stormed the Capitol. They really like, the left really likes the idea of transferring blame for one person's actions onto another person. And they do this in other ways. You know, this gang banger shoots someone, but really society is to blame. Actually, you're to blame for the thing this person did. And this is that in miniature.

Does it change if they're a minor? Well, that's why I think it's a tough question. And they chose a good case. I have a different spin on it. I have a different spin on it. And it goes hand in hand with, with Dan Crenshaw land, which is, this is where this plays into what the left wants. And to this point is really on the red flag law point, which is, is not just if you have any kind of mental disorder that you shouldn't have a gun that someone in your household that has an issue means that you shouldn't have a gun in your household.

And that's the only place I generally like think that parents should be totally responsible for parents that do. So if you can prove that, like, I gave you the gun or gave you open access, or you're messing around with a gun and I knew you had, you know, issues, then yeah, you're going to be held liable for this. But red flag laws, what the left wants to initiate is that if I have someone in my household that potentially has issues, then maybe I can't even own a gun. And that's probably that, that's the angle here in this conversation.

That is probably we haven't discussed yet. That's the only issue that I have with that. Now, the facts of the story are, it's pretty clear that the gun was basically essentially provided to a kid. Which is like the worst fact pattern for this woman.

So I think there's a happy medium, which is like, I don't want red flag laws, but I also want people to know that if you have someone that's sick in your household or you're sick and you do something, you're going to go to jail. Yes. Like, and that's, and that's, and that's fine too. You know, that's.

Yeah. I mean, the inverse is that the mom who gives the weapon to the kid, and by the way, she's having like an affair and she's doing some sort of crazy. And she's talking about suicide and she's like, not texting back her kid and her dog's dying.

And apparently the kids having to bury the dog himself and like, this kid was a volcano ready to erupt. This parent sucks. And do we just say, does the law just is indifference to, I mean, but the other, it might not be the right criminal code, but we punish parents for being bad parents. Like you can go to jail for abusing your kids.

And to your point with gang barriers, a lot of parents should go to like, we're, we're dealing with this in Arizona with like the Gilbert goons thing, right? Like, I don't, we don't know the facts of this yet, but some parents should have to be responsible for things that kids do. And you can kill people a lot of different ways, right? Like you can curb, stomp someone, you can knife someone, you can shake someone, you can shoot somebody. Parents that let this action happen and they enable it, you know, should be held responsible to a certain extent with minors.

Jack. Yes. Here's my, but is that you know, I think it's, it's very easy to get caught up in the fact pattern of this case. And as we've stated, it's bad, right?

These are not sympathetic people. But at the same time, we, you can't divorce this from the culture war that we are currently in, in the law fair situation that we are currently in where one side has the initiative and one side is constantly on the defensive or counter offense every once in a while, where we know that every new precedent that gets set by the people who are anti gun by the people who are on the left by the people who are coming after our rights is going to be used against a specific class of people. And this is what I was getting to earlier, we do live in a three tiered system of justice, we don't live in a flat, balanced system of justice. So yeah, by the way, if this were going to be the new precedent, and we were going to put this up to a vote in every every state, I'd probably be for it.

I'd absolutely be for it. Again, if we lived in a normal country, but we don't live in that country, we live in a country where conservatives, Republicans, gun owners, etc, are the ones that get cracked down on and not anybody else. In fact, many most violent criminals in this country, particularly in the major cities are let go of violent illegal aliens are let go. And so you can't divorce these new precedents that are being set from the context and the general trend and the tenor of the culture war in which we are currently in or soft cultural revolution, whatever you want to whatever your name you want to use for the quasi communist uprising, proto communist uprising that we're living through this precedent will be used against us. And it's part, I would say it's also part of the left's wider understanding, and their new conception using red flag laws, and other types of judicial punishments to because they understand that they can't get rid of the Second Amendment with the new Supreme Court, there's no way they're going to be able to get rid of the Second Amendment in really our lifetimes. And so what did they do next, they go to the next level, and they say, we're going to take away your ability to use your weapons, or they're already taking away our right to self defense. And by the way, this was the same exact argument they tried to use against Kyle Rittenhouse, they tried to say he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.

That's why those people are dead. He was not allowed to have a gun, he crossed state lines, again, these completely superfluous and trivial arguments that actually had nothing to do with the legality of the case of the facts of the case. But again, they're still trying to criminalize the use of guns. I'm not saying they were used rightly in this first place.

But I want people to understand that the left's anti gun matrix has shifted on the on an operational base point, the same way that they've shifted the operational matrix on our elections to the operational situation. Well said, Jack. Okay. Jack talk.

By the way, there's some goofy stuff. Tyler, you and I without going to details. I think we got bio blasted. I think the Republican establishment bio blasted us in Vegas. I think there might be like miniature robots that entered my body. By the way, so I was listening to Brandon Tatum's show on Friday and he was like, I've never been so sick. I have the weirdest symptoms, like goofy stuff I've never, ever dealt with before. Jack, you got sick as sick as a dog, right?

I mean, I don't want to get ahead of myself. If all of a sudden in April, they're like, oh, by the way, there's covid to point out, I will have been and you would have been in the front like. And where did they hit? Where do they hit Vegas right before the Super Bowl? I'm just I'm telling you, there is something going in those halls of Vegas that I think over my house, I have Kim trails that go over like all the time.

I'm constantly just going straight out. There is something I'm going straight outside a gas mask between my house and my car. And like, you know, trying to you got to check out COVID. I was like, this is this is manmade. It's it just felt, you know, the symptoms I've been having, I'm like, this is not normal.

It's like the weird stuff that's like very fringe. OK, so if you want life saving medication, Jack, you just got your ivermectin, didn't you? I just took ivermectin for the very first time, I guess, what, three or four days ago. I've yet to grow horsemane or a horse tail that I am aware of.

I've been galloping a little bit lately when I'm in the gym. But, you know, that's that's fine. That's normal. So if you want your own ivermectin, because there is something if you guys haven't yet had the pleasure of getting if you think you were sick over Christmas is a whole new thing. This is not conventional. This is asymmetrical warfare. When you get it, you'll know it.

It's right, Tyler. It is goofy stuff that I've never felt before. Go to TWC dot health slash CJ. The wellness company's medical emergency kit includes eight life saving medications, including amoxicillin Z-Pak and ivermectin. So you can rest easy knowing that you have an emergency meds on hand. Don't wait until you need it. Take control today with the wellness company's medical emergency kit that is TWC dot health slash CJ TWC dot health slash CJ code CJ saves 10 percent out at checkout.

Any final thoughts on ivermectin, Tyler? Oh, yeah, it's it's a lifesaver. It really I mean, can I it saved my life and I can't repeat this enough. Every time I post this on Twitter, it goes viral.

I get like ten thousand likes. But I took I was on my deathbed. He was third, I think, day 12. I was I had one hundred and four degree fever. Your oxygen was like eighty one.

I was I was literally just like, oh my gosh. And I took ivermectin. The next day I was fine. Next day.

Jack, you want to give some thoughts here for TWC? Yeah, no wellness company. So this kid and yes, it does have the ivermectin, but people need to understand that they've you've got antibiotics in there. You've got we got amoxicillin. I got the Z pack, zithromycin. You get a ton of stuff in these packs. That is just it's sort of your normal run of the mill stuff that you would get that's normally impossible to get unless you're going to one of these urgent care centers or you're trying to get a you're trying to get on the calendar to have an appointment with your your PCP, your primary care.

And it's so hard to do any of these things. And oh, by the way, your co pay is going to be one hundred hundred twenty five for some of these things. With with the wellness company, you can just go and get one of their packs directly. You put in your information. I put in my information. I got my kit.

It was delivered directly to my house. Boom. And now I've got it when I need it. And for me, for a guy who's on the go, who doesn't like taking time out of the office or time away from doing shows like this or my own show or other hits, I just thought that the wellness company was incredibly convenient. I was able to talk to some of their doctors. It was just super easy to use.

And now I have the peace of mind of knowing that if some if I get bio blasted again or just even I come down with like a winter cold or something, I've got what I need right there. There we go. Okay. Next topic, Blake. All right.

This is an interesting one. It was going on last week. So we love having debates on Twitter and we love Zoomers whining on X. And so what's going on Matt Walsh, our friend over at The Daily Wire, kind of got a lot of heat because of how he responded to this extremely upset Zoomer.

And I thought we should talk about it because there was actually a very strong split between myself and a lot of friends and a lot of conservatives on X. It's a bit of a long clip, but this is basically some Zoomer. She's about 22 and she's complaining about her life. And it's a clip.

Yeah, it's clip number 69. So let's just play that. Why is it that I have to work 40 hours a week, just so I can have a place to live? 40 hours a week makes me $2,000 a month. And my rent is 1660. So I work 40 hours a week so I can have a two bedroom apartment and an extra $300 a month.

Like it doesn't cover my phone, internet, food, you know? So not only do I not have any extra money, but just working makes me so exhausted that I don't have time either. Like I get off work at 5.30, come home, I'm just so tired. I'm so tired that like anything that I need to do outside of work, I then just push off to like the weekend and I'm like, I'm just too tired to do this after work.

I'll wait until Saturday. So then I end up with so much to do on the weekends that ends up having to be split into two days. So I have to do stuff on both Saturday and Sunday. So then I don't get a day off. I don't get a day to relax. I don't get to decompress. So it is really like working seven days a week constantly. And I don't want to do that anymore, right?

Like I don't care how poor and miserable I would have to be, but I literally can't have a place to live without this, you know? Like, I don't know what to do. I'm not. I'll explain after this is done.

In fact, I think we've got the idea. You guys can cut it now. I'm sick of you on her side.

I'm on her side, please be on her side. Here's what happens. Where does she live? I'm not sure.

I'm not sure. But 1600 for a two bedroom, she probably doesn't live in a major city, to be honest. That's like, you would not get a, she's got to get some blood work done. Two bedroom here is more, she's got to get her vitamin D level checked. She's got a vitamin B deficiency. I think she acknowledges that something is physically wrong with her. Anyway, she's got some magnesium, probably potassium, sodium. She's got some electricity. What makes this interesting here.

Matt Walsh, he replies to this in a way that seemed pretty reasonable to me. He replies, you can put number 70 up on screen. Honestly boggles my mind that so many people think 40 hours of work a week is a lot. That leaves you at least five or six waking hours a day during the week to yourself and two days on the weekend. How much more free time do you really think you should have?

And then he continues on number 71. Of course, the reason you see women in these videos so often is that most women don't actually want to work professional careers at all. But they've been pushed this direction by society. But even so, we should be clear that taking care of children will mean working more than 40 hours a week.

A lot more. Life is work no matter how you slice it. Suck it up and deal with it. Now what's interesting is a lot of people I know and also a lot of the comments from conservatives were super hostile to this. They think Matt is being a spiritual boomer. He's being super dismissive of how terrible it is to be a young person in America.

This is why Turning Point is taking over the world. We get some of these responses. Tyler works like 190. He works 145 hours a week.

This is what they would say. I haven't had a day off since I met Charlie Kirk. A big response was, they're saying, Matt, you're a podcaster. You barely work. You just work six hours a week talking on a screen, which I don't know, Matt, but I suspect he works more than that, much like you work a lot more than when you're on screen hosting a show. We all know that.

If you enjoy what you do, you never work a day in your life. People do point that out. Maybe she has a really draining job.

I don't know what it was. First off, the math doesn't add up. She's getting paid allegedly $11 an hour. Where is she? Jackson, Mississippi. Maybe she's a fast food worker.

Could be really bad. They pay like $22 an hour now. In and out, they have this big thing, $25 an hour to flip burgers. It's literally, in most of these places, the minimum wage is way higher than that. She's either lying or, number two, she has literally a garbage job, which is you should have done this. Not literally a garbage job. Garbage man probably pays like 35 an hour or something. No, I mean a garbage job. She probably has no skills.

That's the problem. This actually goes back to the argument we make all the time, at least when I was at the TPUSA side of things, we talked with young people. Young people should be working in high school. I worked a full-time job in high school where I got paid the equivalent of that. I got paid, I think my first job was $3.25 an hour or whatever it was.

That job, that's when you learn those skills so that beyond high school, you can advance to something else. You're still living in your parents' home. You're working a job that pays too little to actually live on your own. That's another part of this. The second thing is like, why doesn't she live with someone?

She sings as roommates and everything else moves somewhere that is more amenable to you. None of this actually makes sense. And she started her life too late because probably her parents belong in jail like the last parents. This is a phenomenon I have seen though.

This is something that exists. I think it's some sort of Midwestern boomer. It codes as conservative or libertarian to me. There are some parents who really like the idea of having their kids get out of the house right away at 18, you're on your own, live on your own, take care of yourself, sink or swim. And I do wonder if that… My parents are that way. A lot of people are like that. It seems counterproductive to me.

It seems… No. Well, one, if you're throwing people out to sink or swim right away, the answer that a lot of them do is they become huge liberals because they're cut off from all existing structures. That does happen. And also, we talk about the importance of setting a good foundation for your life.

And I think one of the ways you do that is we should be emphasizing you get a huge return on saving money early. So this person is essentially being destroyed because she lives on her own, making $2,000 a month. Can I counter-argument what you just said though?

Sure. So I do think that a lot of people who are kicked out of their house do become liberals, but then they more quickly, more rapidly become conservatives again because they have to figure their own lives out. Now, I've seen just as many people in my life who have lived in their parents' home until they're 35 who have become the most obnoxious liberals because they've never had to leave.

They never had to do anything on their own. And then they end up inheriting the family business or some large sum of money from a family member when their parents die. And then they never learned any life skills their entire life.

And so I think no matter what we have worked to do on both sides of it, but I do think that the entire concept of having a bigger family where you're forced to kick kids out of the home is ultimately better for society than having fewer kids that live under your roof until you die. Well, definitely not live until you die. I think you can easily coddle kids too much or you're Italian and they have their kids live with them until they're 35.

That can be bad. But if you have the expectation or you consider it normal, work at home, work or, you know, start your career while working at home. Go to school while staying at home.

You do not need to race into your own place. But you should do that in high school. I mean, the argument I would make to you is like that should happen in high school. You should have garbage jobs in high school. You should flip burgers and scoop ice cream and work at Target in the checkout line and have to dig ditches and do stupid stuff when you're a high schooler instead of running around, you know, you know, doing bad stuff, you know, that high schoolers are doing now because they're coddled too much in high school or playing full time sports, which I don't I actually think that that's a horrible thing is that we should be like like I see every kid when I was in high school, kids played one sport in high school or or they played multiple sports was they're growing up. Now we've got kids like to travel like they're like going to be the second coming of Wayne Gretzky or something, and none of them are that good. And then they turned into bad kids because they have all this free time because they're focused more on sports and like a half ass, half, you know, I guess we can we can cuss on this, right? So, yeah, a half booty school career. And so then they end up in college and they never learn anything. But I think if you put kids to work, you know, and the family business is a count, by the way.

You should force kids to go out, have to work for someone else, learn real valuable lessons, get fired from a few jobs, do that at an earlier age, and they're probably gonna be more successful. Jack, I want to get Jack's opinion here. Yeah, I think the boomer take on this is really bad. I think it's I think it's like politically stupid. Number one in one election year to tell people that, like, oh, you should you should all work until you die and you should be like Nikki Haley raising the retirement age to 70. I mean, go take a look at five seconds of tick tock and see how Nikki Haley is just being destroyed on there for that take, saying that like every you know, work is the only thing that's worthwhile in life, specifically work at a job, by the way, work at a job, work in an occupation, work at work for some cup, whatever it is, right, you know, defining yourself by your work is something that's just politically I think suicide. I think it's actually suicidal for a movement to embrace that as their as their mantra.

I really do. I mean, it's just the political instincts of like someone who probably backed the wrong horse in in the primary earlier this year. It's it's just really, really, really not smart. And so no, I mean, I think if you want to be out there and you want to actually make sense, talk about the fact that, hey, why aren't we all working four hours a week or four days a week and living off of our Chinese tariffs? Why aren't we doing something like that and saying we can make things so much better for our people? Like the goal of a political movement should be to make things better for you, for your people, not worse, and telling them you're you're forced to work more, you're forced to do more.

And to the part where I do agree with Walsh, though, is that it is society that pushes these things. It is society that pushes us to overwork. Americans are absolutely overworked. We work more hours than anyone.

We're unhappier than anyone. We're all on SSRIs. And you can see why you can see if she goes to some therapist, the therapist is never going to say, like, oh, you should work less or you should, you know, try to find a less stressful job. The therapist is going to say, here, take this take this medication, take whatever benzodiazepam, whatever it is to, you know, beta blockers to make yourself feel better and then go about your day. So you're going to drug you up rather than saying, hey, you should find some work life balance. It is just interesting to me how hostile it was like. I'm friends with a lot of people who work hard and they were pretty negative about it. And you can put up 72. So what are they what are they negative about, Matt?

These are some of the top results. This is from a guy, Hafios, Matt, I respect you, but you did radio and you run a podcast. You work hard, but you cannot compare that to blue collar work. Even retail restaurant work is harder than what you do. Stop being a boomer.

Next person. Easy take when you make six or seven figures doing a job you love, Matt. Try working 40 hours at a job that drains you mentally and physically and emotionally so that you can afford rent and groceries. Some guy, dissident soaps. Matt said that about working with Ben Shapiro. Bad take.

Her husband should be able to afford a house and two cars working 40 hours a week so she can stay home like people did before 1975. And then B.S. five days out of seven is not a good work life balance.

I'm just speechless, like, I mean, I don't I don't know what country I live in anymore. I guess I mean, first of all, I take one day fully off. So I do what the Bible says. I literally stop for one day and I love what I do.

I think Tyler's on my team here. Like if you don't you're not creating, then you're dying. I personally think that, I mean, the Soviets put people on a six day work week, OK? So these same people that don't want to work have no idea what's coming for them when we actually get to the American Soviet rule, which is what we're trying to avoid. That is a funny part. People will say, this is why we need communism. Capitalism has failed. Aha, comrade.

The Soviets said you shall enjoy your time in the lithium mine. They had a 48. They had an eight hour work day, but it was six days a week. It was 48 hours.

So you could look it up. But I mean, this is this for me, it's you know, you're going to have jobs in your life where you're not the boss and you're going to have jobs in your life where you would become the boss. And some people never get to become the boss because they don't ever figure out how to become the boss. And that is called capitalism. And so for me, it's like you're going you're never going to enjoy not being the boss.

You just aren't. If you if you're not in control of certain things, if you're not creating, you're not doing things that you enjoy, you're you're probably not going to love that job. Every job where I wasn't creating and being the boss, I didn't enjoy it. I learned something from each of those things so I could hopefully at some point in my life become the boss. Am I the only one that enjoys work days more than weekends?

No, I like it's more work to be at home. Jack. Jack. Oh, my God. No, no. Being a wife is harder.

I'm not saying I'm normal, but these things. That's not true. True story.

No, he's doing that. Walsham. Most do not. Walsham. Jack. All these people hate work from home, which is good. I moved from D.C. to Phoenix because I was going crazy not having an office. OK.

I need to be at a workplace with people. Is this sound super out of touch or distant when I say that weekdays give me more fulfillment than weekends? Well, I don't know about fulfillment, but I will say this and will air answer your question. I'm going to score points right now because my wife's job is way harder at home. No.

100 percent. Managing three children, then doing anything that I do at work. We have one kid and I need a nap after like two hours.

I have to go for a walk. And I think this is a male female thing, right, which is like my wife might disagree and she might find things uncomfortable about working and doing what we do every day. But like it's it's hard to do those things and everybody has a role.

Yeah, I just I don't I know I'm different. I just I love when I get to wake up super early and I think we could say there might be a crisis in terms of less work is giving people a sense of meaning, even if it's sure, even if it's a very blunt work of the past. You might have built something. You were in a factory. You saw that car get made or you worked on a farm. You saw that crop grow and feed people, whereas now your real grind job could be something you work as an Amazon delivery person.

You work as a telemarketer. And it's a true grind job that is the same every day with no change. And often you're very policed in it.

You have these workplaces that spy on you and they penalize you if your bathroom break is two minutes too long. And I think that can be really oppressive and draining to people. And it is something for conservatives to think about, because if we are pro work, we should want work to be something that people will, if not enjoy, at least understand and pro creation. I think we're made in the image of God and God creates work is a bad word for it because it feels like toil or it feels as if it's just kind of digging a ditch to fill it back in again, which is a form of hell. What I'm advocating for is creation, building new things and innovating and being creative about different problems.

And by the way, that is that you could be you could do creation in the family unit to your creating kids, your building kids. I this this young lady sounds as if she's she looks at work as soul sucking. And yeah, I mean, but you said in Japan that if you come and you see a bus driver, he's like, I will be the best bus driver I can be. But isn't that to my argument, you can make even unfulfilling work fulfilling if you believe in duty and obligation for sure. But it is very much the miasma of society around it does play a huge role. It's hard to be the only one at your job who cares.

And they'll like, I'll hate you for it. And if the job doesn't give you any incentive to, you know, yeah. But we don't live in a society where we're assigned these foreign jobs.

You can still find you could still I think about this all the time. I'm like, man, it would be a beautiful vacation to have one of those jobs at some point. Right. I see. Sometimes I'm like, I would love to be an Uber driver and just spend all day long chatting with people live in like, yeah, do that whole thing. And yeah, some people think that this is I talk to some Uber drivers who are like, man, I hate Uber.

I'm just doing this for a short period of time. And then there's people who love it. Right.

And it's and it's just to that point that Charlie said is that you can make anything great. The beauty of America is that no one is stuck with there's a there's a lot of different jobs that you can find a lot and you can hop around to a lot of those different jobs. Right now, we have a problem in America where we don't have enough of these jobs filled. And that's that's part of the problem that we have, because we aren't training our people at a younger age to take these jobs, learn something from them in advance.

And that's part of why I think society is collapsing a little bit is because we're trying to force forty five year olds to learn things they should have learned when they were 15. I want to tell you about Tax Network USA. Do you back taxes?

Well, pandemic relief is now over along with hiring thousands of new agents and field officers. The IRS has kicked off 2024 by sending over five million pay up letters to those who have unfiled tax returns or balances owed. Don't waive your rights and speak with them on your own.

They are not your friends. Tax Network USA is a trusted tax relief firm. They've saved over one billion dollars in back taxes for their clients, and they can help you secure the best deal possible. Whether you owe ten thousand dollars or ten million dollars, they can help you.

Whether it's business or personal taxes, even if you have the means to pay or you're on a fixed income, they can help you finally resolve your tax burden once and for all. One eight hundred, two, four, five, six thousand for a private free consultation, visit TNUSA.com slash Charlie. That is TNUSA.com slash Charlie's eight hundred, two, four, five, one eight hundred, two, five, four, six thousand. We were just on the phone with these guys.

Super impressive. If you have tax issues, give them a call. Tell them Charlie Kirk or Jack Posobiek sent you.

That is TNUSA.com slash Charlie. Based on the emails, I'm surprised by how many people have tax issues. There's no shame.

If you do, totally understandable. Maybe you decided not to pay taxes for a year. Not the best decision, but maybe it's because you had to pay for medical bills or because you had to pay for something more important. That is the moral thing to do. Now get yourself legally figured out. So go to TNUSA.com slash Charlie. Pay your taxes, everybody.

What I'm saying, though, is I find there's actually more good reasons than not of why people are behind on their taxes. Not everything is because you were just trying to go to Vegas for twenty five hundred dollar ticket Super Bowl. Five thousand dollars to take it now. Are you kidding me?

Cheapest ticket available is five thousand dollars. You know, that that would be a good thought crime topic. Why is it so expensive this year? What is I have my own personal this this NFL season has been the most commented by non football people. Is it the Taylor Swift effect?

What is it? Or is it that I finally got over the woke stuff and we kind of forgot it? We are truly reaching the point where the NFL is the only unifying cultural force in American life. It is the only thing everyone watches. They said it was the most popular. It's the only show anyone watches on TV anymore. No one watches network television.

No, that's that's smart. Totally dying. It's all live sports. And the only live sport that really dominates is football and its ability to just now it's sucking in all the gambling money.

It's sucking in. No, that's another music. We have to draft Kings revolution by we should do whole thought crime on the morality of gambling. Have we done that yet? I think we did. We talked about. Oh, that would be such a good one, but we did not do a full like it came up in the course of our last discussion. Oh, next up.

Do you just want to do the real topic? We can do that. What is what is the next one?

A.I. and oh, no, that's too good. We can't miss.

No, we have to know. But I just want to say I think that also the fact that it's in Vegas, I think people are getting free hotel rooms basically like 30 bucks a night. So maybe there's more demand to go to the Super Bowl and cheap flights to Vegas, like every place flies to Vegas in America. They all just want to gaze upon the sphere, which we must all bow towards. You know, by the way, have you seen that thing? It's incredibly impressive. It's so cool.

I saw it when we were there last week. It was I wish you do more. Actually, you could you do there. All right. Let's do a dignify A.I. Dignify.

I just didn't say it. This is A.I. This is one of my favorite stories. Erica loved the story when I showed it to her.

She thought it was the coolest thing ever. Walk us through it. Who wants to who wants to Jack? Do you want to drive on the bus here? Do we have something written or do you want me to, like, kind of explain it?

We have a ton of photos, so you can describe it and they'll just put them up while you go. Yeah. So we finally found a proper use for A.I. And so for all of the thoughts out there who are attempting to use only fans or social media to reel in their you know, their catch, their prey, their simps, their betas, whatever you want to call them, basically what 4chan has developed. And there's this great guy on Twitter, X has created the account at Dignify A.I.

It's called Dignify. And it exists as this really interesting tool where it's going through these pictures of scantily clad women and also women with egregious tattoos or any tattoos and cleaning them up. It's absolutely making women look more beautiful, more dignified. And it's really speaking to something in our culture where this Miley Cyrus from the Grammys where it almost seems like the women look better when they are dressed more dignified or or attired, more dignified. And it speaks to something in our culture, I think, where where these these women who and and by the way, so this one right here, for example, I actually kind of disagree with in a sense because, you know, it's funny, right, obviously. But I do think that you can go a little bit too far with these things where I don't think that she's dressed like a hussy walking around in or trying to, you know, use use her looks to generate money on the Internet.

I think that she's just a model dressed as you know, I guess like a Greek, you know, Greek kind of figure here, like Helen of Troy or whatever. And so I do think there's a tendency for dignified to go a little bit too far. But where it's most effective for is for is for trolling the thoughts and patrolling the thoughts and the thoughts like this one right here will absolutely be patrolled. And anytime you can do this, I was a huge supporter by the way of the thought audit. Do you guys remember the thought audit? I remember we were just talking about taxes. They should have given her something.

She was lifting here though, to like make it more. I want to remember that just to just to explain it for those because we're talking about taxes. So the thought audit was for people to go and they were matching with girls on like OnlyFans or some of these other things. And they were saying like, Oh, what do you how much do you make? And do you do you report that to the IRS, you must pay a lot in taxes, and then getting them to say something like, Oh, I don't report it, and then taking their information and reporting that to the IRS, because 4chan found out that apparently you can you can receive a bounty like a percentage of the taxes that aren't being paid.

If you find someone who's not paying their taxes. And so it became called the thought audit. And I actually coined that term thought thought audit when it was going on back at the time and it's it's it seems like we should bring it back.

I want to Jack, they're also doing that. So they were encouraging people to do that with with servers, too. So they're like, every time you go out to eat, report your server.

Oh, no, I wouldn't do that to a server. Well, I know. Absolutely. That's where it came from. That was the original thought on it.

Was this? Those aren't those aren't those aren't the same as he thought. No, I wouldn't. I don't. I would never do that.

I think I think it's wrong. Don't feel bad for those poor people who are, you know, getting audited. No, and I'm a I'm very bad to roll the video. I'm a I'm a big tipper. Like I'm, I'm totally for all that.

Totally for all that. Maybe that girl in the video got audited because somebody out had a bouncy on her. Wasn't there? So do we have the Rolling Stone? I have it on screen. So we just want to show it here.

You can just bring up my screen here. So this is an actual article in Rolling Stone. I did not initially believe it was real. 4chan death by snoo snoo 4chan chuds used AI to clothe her. She fought back. How did she fight back? Dignify it apparently.

I'm not sure. I think she actually had AI on her edited AI actually remove her clothes. So now it's a completely and I am not a subscriber to Rolling Stone so I cannot read the text of this article.

But apparently she fought back. Bad is some is this kind of slang term for kind of right wing dude. Well this interconnects with everything with the girl that wanted a better job too because maybe I don't know what she's doing out there to make up for the disparity in her income because she only had $200 to live off of.

Hopefully it's nothing bad. But some of these I know people are using AI for better headshots that they're putting on their on their applications to places like on their resumes. Some of these pictures that dignified is doing are really great for resumes. So you know maybe they'll get him a better job even.

Yeah. Just go on Instagram. Take your sauciest photo and then just oh now you're in a suit. Now you're in. Now your people want to hire people with kids and wear crosses.

They're fully closed. So like use this your dignify picture now. Oh I'm in the Rolling Stone article. It's nice.

Let's do a resume. You know let's you know create an entire account around your dignify pictures. Jack Pessobic a far right influencer excuse me not far right. You mean right so far. Who on Friday posted four examples of the tool being used on what he referred to as e-girls. A derogatory term for women with front facing personae on the Internet that it's I'm not really sure exactly how she's getting us back. I think she's just she's just yelling like she's basically just complaining about it. Yeah. Death by snoo snoo.

I'm not really sure how she has fought back on in any way other than like taking her clothes off more like I'm so confused. All right. What's the final topic that it. Oh we could talk about real quick. Elon Musk.

Let's do that. Elon Musk is going to go to war with Disney. So this is a lawsuit going to be filed. I can't say more. I have heard some stuff that it seems legit.

He seems very interested in this and this is all because yesterday he's been on a bit of a war path. So yesterday Elon Musk tweeted an anonymous source just sent me this from Disney. It is mandatory institutionalized racism and sexism.

And before we show the image I just want to say this has been seen forty three million times has one hundred and eighty six thousand likes forty four thousand reposts. This has been seen by a huge number of people and it's Disney's general entertainment content inclusion standards as they call it. And so they have four different categories here that apparently within Disney you have to fulfill at least three or two or three criteria in each standard and they're trying to hit all of them to hit this.

So for example standard A on screen representation A1 characters 50 percent or more of regular and recurring written characters must come from underrepresented groups which they put in capital letters or you know A4 series premise meaningful integration of underrepresented groups in overall themes and narratives and similar stuff for actors secondary characters and episodic storytelling. And you need to get three out of five of those to fulfill standard A and it continues like this standard B is creative leadership so who's writing it who's the casting director who is in senior creative leadership and then below the line which is production staff crew members and then finally industry access and career development and this is paid employment opportunities such as apprenticeships it's the vendors you're hiring the contractors you're hiring and all of these are based on increasing representation for so-called underrepresented groups and then you know obviously there's other groups that are going to lose out purely based on identity categories and Musk has been getting more and more vocal about this just over the past year he kind of starts off oh that's interesting and he's getting more and more aggressive about this and now he's just he's straight up a saint if you feel you've been discriminated against by Disney contact us and we will try to provide you legal help. I'm not sure why he's at war with Disney specifically but I think we can all agree the House of Mouse might be due for some of these lawsuits. He has a good track record. Well no I think it's clear why he's in war with Disney because if you look at what he's doing with X he's trying to position X as a streaming service and I think Disney Plus outside of you know it's sort of in like normie world is one of the top streaming services against Netflix. Keep in mind you're not just talking about Disney Plus you're also looking at ESPN, ABC, all their corollary networks, Marvel etc etc and so anything that he can do to take to me it just shows Elon getting more into that entertainment media space the same way that obviously he's you know he's promoting Tucker for coming on.

I think what's the name from Don Lamont is coming on X so he's it seems to me as a way of him going after a competitor. Very good. All right.

Until next week guys. Keep committing thought crimes. Thanks so much. Talk to you soon. Thanks so much for listening. Everybody email us is always freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless.