August 28th • 3h 19m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
GenZ
Welding Program Curriculum – CTE - Welding – Father Judge High School
Hi Adam!
Attached is a link for you about a trade program in a high school here in Philadelphia.
Listening to you and John discuss lack of trades being taught in schools, I thought I would share this.
A
local Catholic High School started a welding program a few years ago.
It has been a huge success. The kids graduate with jobs lined up for
them and making serious money. (Like 70k)
It
has been a popular topic with the local news and newspapers. I hope
this encourages more schools to adapt other trade education programs.
Love listening to you and John. I look forward to each episode.
Take care
Sincerely
Ann Marie Barton
Millennials - no one of coming to save you
Gen Z, we're here for you
GenZ BOTG
From Anonymous Ranchers.
In recent great shows the generations have come up numerous times. A gen Z ranch myself (man) who married a late millennial smoking hot wife.
I would say we Gen Z (and I would rope in late Millennials) saw what the Millennials screwed up. We looked further back to how our parents raised us before books not recommending spanking. We are back to spanking! We’re back to trying to have bigger families and staying together as a married couple! The generation before us showed us that giving your children iPads early on was a horrible idea!
Gen Z is also the generation where cursive stopped being taught and schools generally started teaching less relevant subjects. We had a high school math teacher stop class for a period and explain to us how credit card companies screw you over with the high interest rates. I use that day more than the rest of that Algebra 1 class!
On the whole I would say Gen Z and following generations are doubted by the older generations just like for generations before them into history. Generally the same struggles, just new and more vices.
Sorry for the long note, great show as always! Not sure what I’m going to do after 4 more years.
In the morning.
Big Tech AI and the Socials
Private Equity buyouts now cutting salaries by a third this year and a third next year data centers
Big Pharma
Transmaoism
Moorkop name change
In de ochtend
Negerzoen heet nu chocozoen.
Moorkoop is “dessert gebak”
Ham Sandwhich
Climate Change
Trump Show
Key paragraph in Trump Flag Burning EO
Let’s break down the sentence from the executive order into its key components to understand its meaning and implications clearly:
**Sentence**: "Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections, the Court has never held that American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words’ is constitutionally protected. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989)."
### Deconstruction:
1. **"Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s rulings on First Amendment protections"**
- **Meaning**: This phrase indicates that despite existing Supreme Court decisions that affirm First Amendment protections (which include freedom of speech and expression), the statement that follows introduces an exception or clarification.
- **Context**: The First Amendment generally protects expressive acts, including symbolic speech like flag desecration, as established in cases like *Texas v. Johnson* (1989). The use of "notwithstanding" suggests the executive order is highlighting a limit to those protections.
2. **"the Court has never held"**
- **Meaning**: The Supreme Court has not ruled or established precedent. This phrase sets up the claim that follows, indicating that the Court has not extended constitutional protection to certain types of flag desecration.
- **Implication**: This suggests a gap in legal precedent that the executive order may be addressing or emphasizing.
3. **"American Flag desecration conducted in a manner that is likely to incite imminent lawless action"**
- **Meaning**: This refers to acts of desecrating the American flag (e.g., burning, defacing, or otherwise disrespecting it) performed in a way that is likely to provoke immediate illegal activity, such as violence or riots.
- **Legal Context**: The phrase "incite imminent lawless action" comes from *Brandenburg v. Ohio* (395 U.S. 444, 1969), where the Supreme Court established that speech loses First Amendment protection if it is directed at inciting imminent illegal activity and is likely to produce such action.
- **Implication**: Flag desecration that meets this threshold is not protected by the First Amendment, according to the executive order’s interpretation.
4. **"or that is an action amounting to ‘fighting words’"**
- **Meaning**: This refers to flag desecration that constitutes "fighting words," a legal term for speech or actions so provocative that they are likely to elicit an immediate violent response from the audience.
- **Legal Context**: The "fighting words" doctrine was established in *Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire* (315 U.S. 568, 1942), where the Court held that speech that inflicts injury or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace is not protected by the First Amendment.
- **Implication**: If flag desecration is deemed equivalent to "fighting words," it falls outside First Amendment protections.
5. **"is constitutionally protected"**
- **Meaning**: This clarifies that the types of flag desecration described (those inciting imminent lawless action or constituting fighting words) are not shielded by the First Amendment.
- **Implication**: The executive order is asserting that there are exceptions to the general rule that flag desecration is protected as symbolic speech, as established in *Texas v. Johnson*.
6. **"See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408-10 (1989)"**
- **Meaning**: This is a legal citation directing readers to the Supreme Court case *Texas v. Johnson*, specifically pages 408–410 of the decision, published in volume 491 of the United States Reports, starting at page 397.
- **Context**: In *Texas v. Johnson* (1989), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that burning the American flag as a form of political protest is protected speech under the First Amendment, striking down a Texas law criminalizing flag desecration. However, the cited pages (408–410) likely reference the Court’s discussion of exceptions to First Amendment protections, such as the "incitement" or "fighting words" doctrines, which are not protected.
- **Implication**: The executive order uses this citation to support its claim that certain types of flag desecration are not constitutionally protected, even though the *Texas v. Johnson* case generally upheld flag desecration as protected speech.
### Overall Meaning:
The sentence argues that while the Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protections for flag desecration as a form of symbolic speech (as in *Texas v. Johnson*), it has never extended those protections to flag desecration that either (1) is likely to incite imminent lawless action or (2) qualifies as "fighting words." These exceptions are rooted in established legal doctrines that limit First Amendment protections for certain types of speech or actions. The executive order likely uses this point to justify a policy or action targeting specific forms of flag desecration that fall into these unprotected categories.
### Key Takeaways:
- The executive order acknowledges the general protection for flag desecration under the First Amendment but highlights two exceptions: incitement to imminent lawless action and fighting words.
- It relies on *Texas v. Johnson* to support its claim, likely citing the Court’s discussion of limits to free speech protections.
- The sentence is carefully crafted to align with legal precedent while emphasizing unprotected forms of expression, possibly to justify restrictions or penalties for certain acts of flag desecration.
If you need further analysis, such as the broader context of the executive order or a deeper dive into *Texas v. Johnson*, let me know!
TDS Flag Burning
I guess you don't actually listen to the show or you would know what our and specifically my opinion is of the Iran bombing, which make your complaint quite specious.
As for the Executive Order, you clearly didn't read it. Burning the American Flag is absolutely permissible under 1st amendment protect of Freedom of Speech, but that's not what the order actually says, now is it?
You are the one with TDS brother, as it is blinding your eyes and deafening your ears.
AC
On 8/26/2025 5:37 AM, Spencer Reuter wrote:
> The bombing in Iran, which was done to please Israel, was an act of war. It didn’t escalate into a bigger war, you got me there, but to think those actions don’t radicalize people in the Middle East, is silly. And do you really think it was about Iran not having nukes?
>
>
>
> [https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/prosecuting-burning-of-the-american-flag/](https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/prosecuting-burning-of-the-american-flag/)
>
>
>
> Spencer Reuter
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 2025, at 11:26 PM, Adam Curry wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, what war did he start?
> > And where is this executive order?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On August 25, 2025 7:12:13 PM CDT, Spencer Reuter wrote:
> >
> > > You two are just trump is right about everything guys. You’re anti war until it’s a Trump war. I can’t wait to hear you defend him for executive order banning flag burning. I am sure you know it’s covered under free speech but TrUmP is right, again I’m sure. The other kind of TDS.
> > >
> > > Dave Smith sticks to his values no matter who he goes against
> > >
> > > Spencer Reuter
