Season 11, Episode 13 June 8, 2025

SPEAKER_02 0:00

This is the listening tube.

SPEAKER_00 0:07

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley.

SPEAKER_02 0:13

There's a nice job, but you still show up.

SPEAKER_00 0:15

Shout out to some of the cities around the world that are listening tubers. I might have to come up with a different name for that. But anyway, cities like Nottingham, England, Ashburn, Virginia, and Fenton, Missouri. On this episode, we'll hear about what it's like to be a target of heterophobes. And I'll speak with Evan Turk about the law.

SPEAKER_02 0:40

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_00 0:46

June is Pride Month to many Americans, a month for homosexuals to proclaim their love for each other and insist on everyone's acceptance. Personally, I don't care what two consenting adults do with their lives. I do, however, find it odd that being proud of your heterosexuality is for some reason frowned upon. Many businesses and institutions use the occasion to cater to what was, at one time, the gay community, but has since grown to include transgender people and those who can only be described as queer. And don't forget the plus sign, which creates a space for anyone who doesn't consider themselves an average person for whatever reason. For the most part, I don't have a problem with any of it. It's none of my business what two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom. I probably don't even want to know. Be happy with whomever makes you happy and love who you want to love. I do have some issues with the transgender agenda, and I've made my position clear on this program before. I stand by my statements and opinions there. But I'm not talking about this subject because it's Pride Month, but Pride Month is the prelude to my story. You see, I'm a Baltimore Oriol. Have been since I was a kid. My other favorite professional sports teams are the Miami Dolphins, Phoenix Suns, and the Philadelphia Flyers. About 20 years ago, I realized that all of my favorite sports teams had something in common. The color orange. So I changed my favorite color from blue to orange. I will never change any of my favorite sports teams. So when June 1st rolled around, the Orioles changed their logo to a rainbow theme. I'm also a fan of rainbows and spectrums and prisms and the album Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. I saw my first concert at the Old Spectrum in Philadelphia. When I saw the multicolored logo on the Orioles Facebook page, I admired it for a moment, but didn't like it as much as the original logo, so I commented, That's pretty. Now change it back. Well, as it turns out, I'm one of the most foul specimens of human to ever walk the face of the earth. Within an hour, I was told by a number of people, in no uncertain terms, that I was a homophobe, an idiot, bombarded with insults, accused of being triggered by an image of a rainbow. For the record, I'm not triggered by rainbows. I'm fascinated when God or Mother Nature creates one, and I'll even pull the car over to get out and take a good picture of one. Or even better, a double rainbow. I still have a prism I bought at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago back in 1982. The amount and degree of vitriol that was splashed at me because I prefer my favorite team's true colors was severe but not surprising. The quickness with which I was pounced upon seemed like an orchestrated movement. It was as if there were legions of alternate lifestyle advocates on standby, just waiting for some guy to come along and not give full-throated support for the new color scheme. I'm sure I wasn't their only victim. And yes, I, as well as anyone else who was subject to the wrath of the radicals, is a victim. Here are some examples of replies to my comment. That's pretty. Now change it back. Quote Every year these cowards complain about people who are different than them. Let's hate because we aren't intelligent. Unquote. Here's a good one. Quote, please explain and remember to show all of your work. How condescending is that? He's the one who needs an explanation, not me. One guy asked if I had tried coping harder. Actually, that's a pretty good one. It's kind of like maybe you're not holding your mouth right. But again, it's not just me. Some other guy who chimed in with what I thought was a supportive comment was called a pedophile. Not based on anything he said, but just as a way to diminish him. Two of us were asked if we have secret grinder accounts. I've never been to Grinder, but I heard it's a website for gay people to meet. I don't know how you keep that a secret. Clearly, this gentleman was trying to provoke me into saying something to denigrate homosexuals or diminish their standing in society in some way. Then he could continue to accuse me of being something that I'm not. I don't know what kind of satisfaction people like that get from attacking anybody who even remotely shows a millimeter of posture to the opposite of them. But this guy seems to wish I had a grinder account, and I told him so. Not just me, but another commenter as well. Maybe we fulfill some fantasy he has. I don't know. What I do know is that whomever maintains the Baltimore Orioles Facebook page removed many of my comments justifying my color preference. For example, one person who subjected me to ridicule was countered with the observation that he was the only one displaying any hate in the conversation. He asked me what I was displaying, and I replied, that I like my team colors. Isn't it obvious? I then went on to point out that my comment had nothing to do with any objections I may or may not have to homosexuality, and that those who automatically assume I do and bombard me with the insults are the ones who are truly sick. That thread has been removed from the conversation. My opinions about other people's sex lives literally don't even exist. I am not an enemy of gay people, but I am an opponent of the tactics and mechanisms those who champion the LGBTQ cause use. The gay community has come a long way in gaining acceptance in America. It's a shame there are ignorant and despicable people out there ruining any credibility the gay people earned by just living their lives and minding their own business like most other people. Yes, there were people on that Baltimore Orioles thread that specifically stated that they were against the color change because of what it stands for, but I wasn't one of them. It didn't matter. The blind rage with which I was attacked was a clear demonstration of intolerance from the people who need tolerance the most. Gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk has a Navy ship named after him. Secretary of Defense Pete Heggseth recently ordered his name be removed from the ship. It was, after all, only named after him because he was gay. Yes, he was a sailor, but there have been a million sailors since then who performed their duties just as well who didn't get a ship named after them. As long as there are vicious people out there who condemn and ridicule anyone not falling in line with the LGBTQ plus agenda, it will be difficult for them to win over the hearts and minds of the rest. But I'm not sure it even matters to them. Many of them might not even be gay, but take it upon themselves to speak for a segment of society they support, not realizing they're doing more harm than good. As for the homosexuals who just want to live their lives and be left alone, maybe it's time they speak up and put a muzzle on those zealots who are alienating the majority of citizens with their vitriol. But they won't. Probably for the same reason women's rights champions don't seem to have anything to say about boys competing in women's sports. They're afraid of alienating the alienators.

SPEAKER_02 9:59

Let's go back through.

SPEAKER_00 10:02

Hold on, booth announcer lady. No time for history this week. We'll just wait for more of it to be made.

SPEAKER_02 10:10

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound.

Interview with Evan Turk

SPEAKER_02 10:16

Send email to thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_00 10:22

My guest today is an author, lawyer, and chief executive officer of American Rights Alliance. His name is Evan Turk, and he spoke with me from his office in Boca Raton, Florida about government, the Constitution, lawfare, and divorce. Now you are the Chief Executive Officer of American Rights Alliance. Tell me a little bit about that organization and what your mission is.

SPEAKER_03 10:52

We are a 501c3. We were actually started about two, two and a half years ago. We were originally funded by Donald Trump Jr. as a way to help support January 6thers as a legal defense fund. As things evolved, we evolved and we became a First Amendment rights nonprofit organization. I like to consider ourselves similar to the American Civil Liberties Union in the sense of what we're fighting, similar to what we're fighting about, different, what we're fighting for. Family values is our biggest thing to pass this country off to the next generation in a way that our children's lives are better than ours multi-generationally, and uh protecting the fundamental rights of freedom and uh freedom of expression, you know, freedom of being able to say something, even if it's going to offend you, but having the freedom to know that you have that right to say it.

SPEAKER_00 12:00

Now, a lot of the students, the college students protesting at places like Harvard and Columbia, they are claiming that their free speech rights are being violated when they are uh taken into custody or their visas are revoked. Are these actually free speech issues?

SPEAKER_03 12:22

These are issues that um, you know, it's it's very easy and comfortable to say that you should have a right to free expression. But there's a line that people pass, uh, especially at the universities, when you have especially Jewish students who have their freedom of expression taken away. And they're not peaceful protests, they're they're forced riots with a purpose. They take over the campuses, and that takes away others, other students' freedom of expression. So there comes to a point where it's no longer freedom of expression, it's more of a planned activity that's at the borderline of a riot. And it's no longer a protest when violence is a likely outcome. That's really where it gets very difficult because you want to protect the ability to express your right to have an open discourse, even a public discourse with people that you may not even agree with 1%. But when it gets to the point where it is no longer discourse, but it is violence, you have to put an end to that. It's only freedom of expression when it's their freedom of their ideas, um, but antagonistic to others' freedom of their ideas. The whole idea is not to control viewpoints, the whole idea is to have the freedom of expression so people can have differing viewpoints without a fear of physical violence. I think what's been going on is that physical violence has been really brought to the main front of what's been going on. If you look at what happened in Boulder, Colorado, and you look at what happened with the Israeli, I think they were Israeli diplomats, the engaged couple that got murdered. At some point, violence is going to occur when you're no longer advocating for freedom of expression, but you're advocating uh violence. If you look at the core of what's going on at the universities, the core mission is not peace, it's violence. Um, when they say things that uh include the death of all Israelis, not you know, peaceful, not like a Martin Luther King attitude or ideology, but more like an annihilation of a people based upon their idea of what they think is right.

SPEAKER_00 14:58

And that's when you draw the line. So these students aren't being apprehended and possibly deported because of what they said, it's because of what they did.

SPEAKER_03 15:08

It's a lot of what they did, but you have visas, and you have there are two completely different issues right now. You have students who are here on visas, you have other students who have the ability or are applying to you, Ivy League schools in particular, because that's on the forefront, that have visas that uh that want to come to this university. And that brings another issue, and it's more than just a freedom of speech issue, it's an issue of what this country wants to do when it comes to allowing people from foreign countries to benefit from American institutions, um, which those seats are no longer taken by Americans, but they're taken by uh people from foreign lands. And how are we making sure or ensuring that the people come over are going to contribute to the welfare of this nation one way or another? So it draws many different issues rather than just a freedom of speech issue.

SPEAKER_00 16:20

Mr. Turk, is it accurate to call you a libertarian?

SPEAKER_03 16:26

I I would have said I was a libertarian years ago. Um maybe 80, 90 percent libertarian. There are certain things that I disagree with on the libertarian idea. I I think it's just a fall short on certain things. So I wouldn't truly say that I'm a libertarian, but uh as to a philosophy, it's probably one of the closest philosophies that I adhere to.

SPEAKER_00 16:52

I follow uh libertarianism as an interest, and I I wanted to ask someone, and maybe you're the right person to ask, what is the easiest way to draw the line between where people should be self-reliant and where the government should supplement the people? Is it easily defined or not?

SPEAKER_03 17:15

It's not easily defined, not even close. Well, are there simple answer? Uh yeah, I'll give you a simple answer. Is I believe in a system that encourages people to go out and be productive citizens. I encourage people to live the American dream, which means, at least according to me, is knowing that this country gives you an opportunity to go from one class but still have the opportunity to uh you know live in this country 15, 20 years later at the top 1%. So the whole idea that I think is uh really fundamental in this country is giving everyone the freedom to obtain success however they define success. And here's the libertarian in me, as long as it's not affecting other people's interests, uh you know, taken from others to give to them. I think this is where the American ideology has been so successful over the years, is the idea that people can come to this country, not even speak in this language, and not in two or three generations, in their generation, take nothing and bring it into complete everything. And uh I think we're lost and forgotten about that because when everybody is labeled a victim or an entitlement, entitled to something, you take away people's mission and their initiative. And that's the trouble of trying to help others and especially uh the the problem with with with I have the word equity. Um I don't believe in equity, I believe in freedom. When equity takes away from freedom.

SPEAKER_00 19:14

I agree with you there, Evan. I have uh often criticized the concept of equity on the program a number of times. But now one of the missions uh of the uh American Rights Alliance is to defend civil liberties, and so that's why perhaps I thought maybe that was there was a libertarian slant there. But one of the other things you you do in the American Rights Alliance is fight government overreach. Can you give us uh an example of government overreach that that you hope to eliminate?

SPEAKER_03 19:50

Yeah, you know what? That's a that's a great question. One of the things that I really uh think is fundamental in this country is a free press. And uh a perfect example of government overreach is uh during the 2020 elections, when, first of all, there has been a lot of irregularities with the election. I'm not saying it's stolen, but I feel that if you even accuse the government or say that in public, you're ashamed to think that the number of votes just didn't add up. How Biden got more votes, black votes, than Obama ever did. And there were a lot of irregularities. And the here's where the overreach is is that you were forced or compelled to have to keep your mouth quiet in fear of being not only ridiculed, but in some regards, not only chastised, but you know, eliminated from you know certain governmental employment opportunities. And then you have January 6th where the evidence will show that there were a lot of things that happened, a lot of lives, innocent lives, like Ashley Babbitt, who got killed, and um that got suppressed. And hopefully those things are you know gonna be exposed shortly. You have the the fact that during COVID our our freedoms were taken away with uh with arbitrarily with each state being completely different. But it it seemed that if you had one position to stand up for a specific cause like George Floyd, you had rights. But if you wanted to go assemble in church or in temple, those rights weren't afforded to you. And that's really a lot of government overreach and you know, not allowing or taking away certain freedoms, but allowing other freedoms under notions that really aren't adding up. And uh so what we are trying to do under the charity is to just really make people accountable for why that has happened so that it won't happen again.

SPEAKER_00 22:12

Is the United States Constitution government overreach?

SPEAKER_03 22:19

Is the United States Constitution itself or the government?

SPEAKER_00 22:25

The Constitution itself. I don't see or what it allows the government to do.

SPEAKER_03 22:32

I don't see the Constitution itself allows overreach. I think that the challenge you have is that you have justices in the Supreme Court that historically have decided what is or what is not constitutional based not necessarily on fundamental principles, but based on evolving principles. So there are justices that are fundamentalists that look at it, what was the basis for the constitution written by our forefathers. And then you have other justices who don't adhere to that argument, and they feel that it's an ongoing changing document. And I think as time goes by, um, the more you take on that philosophy, the constitution has less uh of a purpose and it's more of an ideology. And I don't agree with that whatsoever. And even though I'm opposed to certain things that the constitution may prevent, um, I still agree with the constitution as the core principle of this land. It's less stood the test of time. And uh the more we adhere to it, the more we I think will prosper over time.

SPEAKER_00 24:05

Uh you know, we have always heard that the Constitution is an evolving document. And it is, if you can uh change it through Congress, uh add an amendment, uh, remove an amendment, uh, so on and so forth. But if we were to go back and just use the constitution itself as our basis for arguments uh in a court of law without bringing into play other rulings and precedents that have been set, are there a lot of laws that we live by today that would be eliminated?

SPEAKER_03 24:46

Can you just say that again? It won't not take into consideration precedent.

SPEAKER_00 24:53

A lot of rulings today are based on precedent rather than the original document itself. What effect might, if we got rid of those precedents and just went back to the original document, what kind of laws might we not have?

SPEAKER_03 25:10

I think the uh you know the executive orders, the extent of the fact that the uh the executive orders are taking over legislative powers, that's one. Another is uh during I I believe it was during FDR, uh, during the New Deal, the changing of the definition of the word welfare so that we became a welfare nation. The use of that word changed at that time to be more encompassing, so that we have social programs, uh welfare programs, and they changed the term welfare, not for the well-being of the nation, but now the word welfare looks like or it sounds like a handout. So a lot of those things, you know, and some things are good because we have evolved. Uh, women's suffrage, for example, voting only if you are a landowner, uh, needless to say, uh, slaves and ownership. And uh, you know, fundamentally uh speaking, I mean, the certain things the constitution has allowed us to do is evolved because society has changed. But um, other things I think there are just loose interpretations of the constitution. One of the things I've learned in law school, which at that time was a surprise to me, was that most of the justices they know what their verdict is going to be. They then applied the constitution to make it work rather than the opposite way. And then there's certain things in the constitution that the Supreme Court has approved of, but that's not even written there, such as like the dormant commerce clause or the way that they could handle interstate uh issues through the interstate travel laws. That it wasn't based upon the commerce clause itself, it wasn't based upon what they use it today, because you know, interstate roadways and things of that nature, where now they could delegate powers from all different states. I think the the the the if we followed more of a constitutional basis, the states would have a lot more power. You know, a good example is Roe v. Wade. It really doesn't matter what your opinion is, whether you're for or against it, if you look at it from the principle of what the constitution is and what has made this nation um a leader, uh a world leader, is the fact that the states had much more power than the federal government. And sometime, probably around World War II, that has changed. So I'm not saying we need to go back to the way it sh was intended, but I think the the courts should take that into consideration because every time the Supreme Court is having a ruling, it's in essence making the government larger and larger. And once the government gets larger, it now really gets smaller. It's nearly impossible.

SPEAKER_00 28:24

Ain't that the truth? Yeah. Now, there have been hundreds of court cases filed against the Trump administration, and a number of them have resulted in U.S. district court judges handing down rulings that affect the entire country in any similar cases nationwide. The administration calls it law fair. The proponents call it checks and balances. As an attorney, how do you see that shaking out?

SPEAKER_03 28:53

It's it is law fair. It is not I don't even understand how you say it's checks and balances because they're picking judges that they know that are going to rule in their favor. I mean, we have this case right now. I don't know if you know who James O'Keefe is, but James O'Keefe, it's just a simple libel case. But the judge that we have to appear in front of is an extreme judge. And or at least I shouldn't say that. It's just that that's an opinion. But it appears that something that's so basic we now have to question, not because of the law, but because of the judge. And what goes on is every time they want um one party or another, but right now Trump's in office, so it's the the the party who's not in office, it's the Democrats or where the left, they seek friendly judges and friendly jurisdictions and file things that have a national effect, even though it's in a state or district court. And it's really making a lot of uh issues that are only gonna escalate because whoever is not in office is gonna do that, and whoever's in office is going to fight it. And it's just a wrong precedent. But I've seen people who you know have would have not been guilty in 90% of the courts, but because they're able to uh you know forum shop, put them in the right court, they're guilty. And the thing that really drives me nuts is that the saying that these congressmen women say is no one's above the law. Meanwhile, they look the other way when it's their people. And that's a major concern. And what has transpired when Trump was not in office, how they went against him, and people who thought he's guilty can't tell me why he was guilty and what crime he committed, but yet he's guilty. And that's just a horrible precedent that I don't know how else that could ever be changed. You know, who's ever in office now has to worry if they're not in office next time around, they may go to jail. I mean, and that's not what this country was founded on. You have so many people who are so extreme on one side or the other that they don't care about the long-term impact on society. They're more concerned about winning the battle, even if it costs them the war.

SPEAKER_00 31:30

So, do you think that the the issue that the administration has with these uh district uh U.S. district judges will be resolved either through Congress or will it have to come from the Supreme Court?

SPEAKER_03 31:46

I think it's not going to get resolved for a while, but it'll probably have to come through the Supreme Court, not because it should come from the Supreme Court, but you have nobody become um in in Congress now using the word bipartisan. It just doesn't exist anymore. There's Fetterman is somebody who is the only resemblance of bipartisanship in the Democratic Party, and he's and he's getting raked over the coals for it as well, I might add.

SPEAKER_00 32:21

Exactly.

SPEAKER_03 32:22

Exactly. So what does that teach you? If you want to stay in office, you know, you either have to switch parties or you know drink the Kool-Aid. Otherwise, you're going to not get the funding, you're not going to get any of the appointments that you need to make change. And uh politics becomes even bigger politics.

SPEAKER_00 32:47

There seems to be a lot of confusion about due process and who gets it, especially when it comes to migrants, uh, specifically illegal migrants, migrants who did not enter the country through a designated port of entry or, you know, swam across the river to get in. In relation to the Biden border policies and the Trump remedy, where do people who swam across the border stand? And how does family law affect what happens?

SPEAKER_03 33:20

Well, this is a great question. First of all, there was no border policy under the prior administration. So we have all these people who I'm gonna take a step back for a second, but I think I need to address this is um free speech and and the ability to change free speech to get your um point across, such as they change the term welfare, as I mentioned. All of a sudden you can't say illegal immigrants, but by definition, that's what they are. So now you have to change the term to migrants, uh, which means that they've come to this country, you know, with the understanding that they want to make a better life here by contributing to the system. And yet that's not really what's happening. But yet, God forbid you go on what's considered mainstream media and use the term illegal immigrant, you'll get ridiculed. You'll never get asked to go back on any station except for maybe Fox. I don't even know if you could do that with Fox nowadays. But to get back to your question is it's fundamentally impossible to have due process for 15, 20 million people who have come across here illegally. And it sets the wrong precedent for those who've done it the right way. Yet we are encouraging people to break laws, don't even call it criminal, not even given the name criminal, you know, criminalizing the act, the actual illegal activity, and then use families as a pretense of why it needs to be done or handled one way versus the other, and not realizing what's truly going on is that these families aren't true families, they are used a lot, more so than the press is covering, to take advantage of our vulnerabilities. And you have children that have no ties with adults that are in this country, and what what about their due process rights? They have no rights. So then they say separation, you shall not separate children with their parents, but we don't even know if these children are, you know, these people are their parents. In in this country, if you get pulled over for DWI or a domestic abuse, you get separated. So why are we treating people who come to this country unlawfully better than people who are here with rights? The challenge that you have with due process is that when you have so many people, by the time they have their day in court, it's 15 years from now. And at what expense? And now you have another generation of people here that are born in this country, so they have rights. And now you're causing even more problems because somebody who came here illegally 15 years from now, who has now created a family, has to leave the country, it makes no sense. The solution, I think, is also the problem is Congress. You need Congress to actually do something.

SPEAKER_00 36:37

Now the legacy media seems to be soliciting sympathy for the situation in which many migrants find themselves illegal immigrants specifically. How does public perception affect the way law is applied? Does it have an effect or should it?

SPEAKER_03 36:56

It definitely has an effect, and no, it shouldn't. You take George Floyd as an example, how much time we have placed on George Floyd because George Floyd sold. It raised money, and people put their eyes on the tube to speak what really happened and what his true cause of death was, and the fact that here is somebody who they have turned into an idol, just like Martin Luther King. But unlike Martin Luther King, Martin Luther King never took a gun to a pregnant woman's stomach and threatened to shoot her. At what point do we forget common sense and we idolize somebody who really isn't the person that you really want to have everlasting change follow through? They wrote a story about George Floyd's life as an example. It's not somebody that we should inspire generations to become. Yet he created whole movements and uh raised hundreds of millions of dollars, which haven't made, from what I understand, any black lives better, except for those who were in charge that got to live in nicer houses. So at what point do we forget common sense? And this is the media's responsibility, but the media is so interested in extremism, you know, saying things that are just so far one way or the other that we have to subscribe to one newsletter or the other, and there's no middle ground anymore. And that's that's a problem.

SPEAKER_00 38:30

Now you have a book out called Divorce Your Spouse, not your money. Yes. What's what's the key there? Get a good lawyer?

SPEAKER_03 38:40

The key first of all, the key is to understand that marriage has evolved over time. And at one point, people entered into a marriage because there was clear defined responsibilities, uh, a man and a woman. Changes in society and the women's movement has caused a lot of people to uh enter the workforce. And what we forgot about that is that one time in the 50s and the 60s, it took one person to support a family of four. Now it takes two. But yet it's still antiquated in the sense that we assume that one spouse or the other, and it's not male-female anymore, it's breadwinner, non-breadwinner, that the non-breadwinner is the victim and hasn't have the ability to get back on their feet. And the breadwinner has the responsibility to make sure that the non-breadwinner has a quality of life for the rest of their life or for some period certain. So the whole idea of the book is really to just open your mind to think what you're doing, and the ultimate goal, quite honestly, of doing this is so that people could create trusts and uh structures where they involve their children and their family so that it's more so creating a plan that stands the test of time through marriage or after marriage. You could get a bad spouse, you could get two bad spouses, but your whole livelihood and your family structure should not be devastated and you shouldn't be penalized because you're the breadwinner.

SPEAKER_00 40:43

I've been married three times and never divorced. Have you ever have you ever had a client like that before?

SPEAKER_03 40:50

No, but I don't practice in Utah. Well, that's that's not how it happened, but uh I know, unfortunately. I I sorry I shouldn't make a joke about it, but I'm sorry, I assume that you've had uh a lot of losses in your life.

SPEAKER_00 41:09

So well, just one. I'm still married to the third wife. Okay. But and the first one was annulled. So that that's how that that's how uh that all worked out.

SPEAKER_03 41:20

But uh Well, I really wanted to thank you. Um it's it's it's uh it's nice to to be able to speak to an audience to want to hear you.

SPEAKER_00 41:29

Special thanks to Evan Turk for not charging me his hourly fee for all of his insight and perspective. He's got a good sense of humor, too. That book again is called Divorce Your Spouse, Not Your Money.

end credits

SPEAKER_00 41:46

The Listening Tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2025. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. If you like the program, support the show on the homepage at thelisteningtube.buzzsprout.com.

SPEAKER_01 42:03

You can text the listening tube from the home page if he says something stupid.