Latest / The Mark Belling Podcast / Mark Belling Podcast #95: If somebody is scamming, they're doing it with Democrat cover. Example: Evers vetoes the bill cracking down on fake service animals. Also, Obama bragged about all of his terror strikes; why are Trump's drug smuggler strikes any different? And the former head of the CDC wants mRNA vaccines pulled from the market.

Transcript

Mark Belling Podcast #95: If somebody is scamming, they're doing it with Democrat cover. Example: Evers vetoes the bill cracking down on fake service animals. Also, Obama bragged about all of his terror strikes; why are Trump's drug smuggler strikes any different? And the former head of the CDC wants mRNA vaccines pulled from the market. · The Mark Belling Podcast

0:00
Speaker 1: The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
0:03
Speaker 1: quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
0:08
Speaker 1: Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
0:12
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
0:19
Speaker 2: You know how those magicians start all these tricks. Take
0:22
Speaker 2: a card, take any car, all right, I'm starting that way,
0:26
Speaker 2: sort of, Take a scam, any scam. Now. The thing
0:31
Speaker 2: with magician card tricks is, I imagine every now and
0:34
Speaker 2: then the magician's trick doesn't work. Something screws up, or
0:37
Speaker 2: the magician screws up, or something happens. But usually if
0:41
Speaker 2: you're any good at magic, these tricks work the same
0:44
Speaker 2: thing with this. Pick a scam. Just pick any scam.
0:46
Speaker 2: You can all pick one out in your own mind.
0:48
Speaker 2: Just pick a scam. There's zillions of scams. I love scams.
0:54
Speaker 2: They helped me prove my point. Paul doesn't know anything
0:57
Speaker 2: about scams. He's very very naive. I think that if
0:59
Speaker 2: you you know, if I was a scammer, I targeted
1:01
Speaker 2: him right and left, and just again and again and
1:03
Speaker 2: again and again and again and again. Nonetheless, Pick atty scam,
1:06
Speaker 2: all right, you've done that. Whatever that scam is that
1:12
Speaker 2: you've picked in your mind. Tell me that it isn't
1:18
Speaker 2: enabled by Democrats. There's a reason that almost all scammers
1:24
Speaker 2: are Democrats. For instance, are there any Somali Republicans? I mean,
1:29
Speaker 2: I swear they talk about, Well, the Democrats pandered the
1:32
Speaker 2: Somali vote. That's why yilan Omar and all of that.
1:34
Speaker 2: That's why they couldn't go the whistle other thing in Minnesota?
1:37
Speaker 2: Are there any Somalis that are Republicans? Look at all
1:42
Speaker 2: of the people who scam welfare programs here in the
1:45
Speaker 2: big American cities. They're all Democrats. They all know who
1:50
Speaker 2: it is that provides cover for them. The Democrats are
1:54
Speaker 2: the offensive line and the scammers of the running backs.
1:59
Speaker 2: Now we're going to start here with a story that
2:01
Speaker 2: we covered only a couple of podcasts ago, because there's
2:04
Speaker 2: a big update on it. If you are behind in
2:09
Speaker 2: your podcast, or if you're somebody who commits the terrible
2:11
Speaker 2: sin of not listening to every one of them. We
2:14
Speaker 2: did a segment on the people that are scamming here
2:18
Speaker 2: in Wisconsin the Service Dog program in order to get
2:25
Speaker 2: around the requirement, get around the restriction against pets in
2:28
Speaker 2: a rental property. A lot of rental properties say no pets,
2:32
Speaker 2: but the law requires that you accept service animals even
2:40
Speaker 2: if you don't accept other pets. You can't say no pets.
2:43
Speaker 2: In therefore, the service animal can't commit. So what happens?
2:46
Speaker 2: There are people out there that are certifying every snail, duck, snake,
2:52
Speaker 2: pit bull as a service animal. We talked about that recently.
2:56
Speaker 2: There's an update on that, And again, where did I
2:59
Speaker 2: start this? Procrasts provide cover for all scammers. First, you
3:03
Speaker 2: Line moves fast, almost as fast as I'm talking here.
3:05
Speaker 2: You line moves fast so your business doesn't miss a beat.
3:08
Speaker 2: From shipping at industrial supplies to office furniture, you line
3:12
Speaker 2: offers a wide range of products that are in stock
3:14
Speaker 2: and ready to ship the same day if you order
3:17
Speaker 2: by six pm, even the big stuff. You Line's expert
3:20
Speaker 2: customer service team is available twenty four to seven to
3:23
Speaker 2: answer your questions, help you quickly and easily place it, order,
3:27
Speaker 2: or assist with any other business needs. Visit you line
3:31
Speaker 2: dot com. Anyway, we were discussing this issue with regard
3:37
Speaker 2: to the fake service animals and emotional support animals. The
3:43
Speaker 2: Republicans well, the Wisconsin legislature passed because the legislature writer
3:47
Speaker 2: is controlled by Republicans. It has got to be done.
3:49
Speaker 2: With the Republican votes, they passed a bill that will
3:52
Speaker 2: crack down on the abuse of this. It has become
3:56
Speaker 2: a significant issue and problem for a lot of rental
4:00
Speaker 2: property owners and their residents. Many people, for example, prefer
4:05
Speaker 2: to move into a building with no pets allowed. Obviously,
4:09
Speaker 2: if you have a pet, you don't want to move
4:11
Speaker 2: into that building. Some property owners simply don't want the
4:14
Speaker 2: damage caused by pets, etc. And a whole lot of businesses,
4:18
Speaker 2: including a zillions of hotels, they say pets are welcome
4:21
Speaker 2: because a lot of people have pets, et cetera. So
4:24
Speaker 2: it's a situation that the marketplace can easily work on. Nonetheless,
4:27
Speaker 2: it's become a major problem because there are a lot
4:30
Speaker 2: of people who have animals and want to live in
4:33
Speaker 2: places where no animals are allowed. So they just get
4:36
Speaker 2: a certification that they're a service animal, even though they're not,
4:39
Speaker 2: and even though the person doesn't need any kind of service.
4:46
Speaker 2: There are guide dogs for the blind. I swear I
4:50
Speaker 2: don't know really of any other kind of people who
4:52
Speaker 2: need a service animal. There are some They started this
4:55
Speaker 2: whole thing of emotional support and it's just I think
4:59
Speaker 2: it was for people that had extreme neuroses where they
5:03
Speaker 2: were just scared of life, and some having an animal
5:07
Speaker 2: make them feel better. Now it's everybody with anxiety, which
5:11
Speaker 2: apparently is everybody under the age of fifty. I start anxiety, anxiety.
5:15
Speaker 2: I watched these YouTube videos of somebody being pulled over
5:17
Speaker 2: for a cop I have anxiety. How come they all
5:20
Speaker 2: have anxiety? It's the cop. Yeah, you want to find
5:24
Speaker 2: somebody as anxiety a cop? See. I see. The thing
5:28
Speaker 2: is everybody has anxiety. It's only people that are like
5:33
Speaker 2: under the age of forty who decided that their anxiety
5:36
Speaker 2: is something that the rest of the world should give
5:38
Speaker 2: a crap about. Of course you have anxiety. You've been
5:40
Speaker 2: pulled over by the cops and you have drugs in
5:42
Speaker 2: your car. Of course you have anxiety about that. Anyway,
5:48
Speaker 2: So we passed this bill in Wisconsin, passed the Assembly
5:51
Speaker 2: on the Senate, pulling back on this and requiring much
5:56
Speaker 2: more stringent regulations to provide certification for a service atible.
6:00
Speaker 2: Tony Evers vetoed the bill. So far as I can tell,
6:06
Speaker 2: this bill wasn't even controversial. You wouldn't think that abuse
6:14
Speaker 2: of the service animal thing would be a Democrat versus
6:18
Speaker 2: Republican issue. I'm sure some of the people who scam
6:22
Speaker 2: the service animal thing are Republicans, and I'm sure that
6:26
Speaker 2: some of the people that are bothered by the scam
6:28
Speaker 2: and victimized by it are Democrats. But when it comes
6:31
Speaker 2: to any type of scamming, the party that gives cover
6:33
Speaker 2: for the scammers is the Democrats. So you know, when
6:38
Speaker 2: evers is is a veto, he's got to give reasons
6:40
Speaker 2: for it. Now, I'm gonna tell you what the reason
6:42
Speaker 2: he vetoed it is. You know what the real reason
6:44
Speaker 2: he vetoed He's an idiot. Well, I mean, that's a
6:51
Speaker 2: part of it. The reason he vetoed it is because
6:53
Speaker 2: the Republicans passed it. This is just this snit that
6:57
Speaker 2: they have. You see, at the same you talk about
7:01
Speaker 2: prompt arrangement syndrome, but it's really becoming Republican rangers and well,
7:05
Speaker 2: Republicans passed the bill. We're just we're just against it.
7:09
Speaker 2: But he's got to come up with raisins. And he said,
7:10
Speaker 2: first of all, you should have included the disability community
7:13
Speaker 2: and your discussions on this. First of all, I don't
7:18
Speaker 2: even know who's the disability community. People with legitimate disabilities
7:23
Speaker 2: and have an advocacy group, or everybody who just Clay,
7:28
Speaker 2: I mean, who is supposed to include. Secondly, what does
7:32
Speaker 2: that have anything to do with whether or not the
7:34
Speaker 2: bill is properly crowded. He doesn't put anything in his
7:37
Speaker 2: veto message as to what is flawed in the bill. Well,
7:41
Speaker 2: it should have included these people, and it may not
7:44
Speaker 2: take it a consideration. This and a letter of the
7:47
Speaker 2: Wisconsin Assembly. Evers said he wants to prevent fraudulent representation.
7:52
Speaker 2: But see that's the thing number goods. Well, yeah, I
7:55
Speaker 2: want to do that, except, of course they never can
7:58
Speaker 2: come up with a way to do it. For the Democrats,
8:05
Speaker 2: every scammer is a Somali, and as we've seen in Minnesota,
8:08
Speaker 2: they all knew that the Somalis were scamming the programs
8:12
Speaker 2: that dealt with COVID and so on, but they didn't
8:15
Speaker 2: want to do anything about it because they didn't want
8:17
Speaker 2: to lose the Somali vote. Now, the only way that
8:19
Speaker 2: makes any sense is if they assumed that all Somalis
8:22
Speaker 2: are scammers. I don't know if all Samalis are scammers,
8:24
Speaker 2: but we know the Democrats think that way because they
8:26
Speaker 2: didn't want to stop the scammers for Somalis, for fear
8:28
Speaker 2: that all Somalis would then turn against them. Bringing us
8:31
Speaker 2: back to Ebers, but vit to the bill because he
8:33
Speaker 2: felt it unfairly affects people with disabilities who have legitimate needs.
8:39
Speaker 2: He doesn't specify how that legislation does that, he just
8:43
Speaker 2: says it. He also said the bill should have been
8:45
Speaker 2: developed with input from disability advocates and stakeholders. Okay, we're
8:49
Speaker 2: gonna move on now, but hold that thought there. No
8:53
Speaker 2: matter what the scam is serious level of serious like this,
9:01
Speaker 2: trivial Democrats provides provide cover for the scammers. This doesn't
9:15
Speaker 2: fall directly into the level of scam because it's something
9:20
Speaker 2: beyond that. There's a very interesting development on the issue
9:28
Speaker 2: of the m RNA vaccines Mountain. There is significant confusion
9:33
Speaker 2: here with regard to COVID vaccines. Not all of them
9:37
Speaker 2: were mRNA vaccines. One of those that is still available
9:42
Speaker 2: is a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines were the
9:45
Speaker 2: ones that developed were developed by Moderna and Pfizer. They
9:50
Speaker 2: were thought to be the most effective against the COVID
9:52
Speaker 2: nineteen virus, but they were very, very new and radical
9:56
Speaker 2: in the way that they worked. They caused this development
10:00
Speaker 2: of spike protein in your body, and this is supposed
10:02
Speaker 2: to help out your immune system. So the focus here
10:07
Speaker 2: is only on the mRNA vaccines. When they were developed,
10:12
Speaker 2: they were given an emergency approval, and the emergency approval
10:16
Speaker 2: means that meant that you didn't have to go through
10:18
Speaker 2: a long term check of side effects, downsides and so on.
10:24
Speaker 2: The vaccines have now been out that vaccines were developed
10:27
Speaker 2: right at the end of twenty Most people didn't start
10:30
Speaker 2: getting them until twenty twenty one, so about five years
10:33
Speaker 2: into this if people having gotten them, we're beginning to
10:37
Speaker 2: get And as I said, I think it would take
10:39
Speaker 2: fifteen to twenty years to know long term whether or
10:41
Speaker 2: not these things were a good thing or a bad thing.
10:43
Speaker 2: And since that was the case, best to be very,
10:47
Speaker 2: very cautious. The greater the risk you were for COVID,
10:51
Speaker 2: the more it seemed to be that it was a
10:53
Speaker 2: good idea. The less you were at a risk, the
10:57
Speaker 2: less if you would be dying of COVID, then for example,
11:04
Speaker 2: dying of a side effect from the vaccine, maybe you
11:06
Speaker 2: would err on the side of getting the vaccine. On
11:09
Speaker 2: the other hand, you're somebody highly unlikely to die of
11:11
Speaker 2: the vaccine. You would seem to err on the side
11:15
Speaker 2: of not getting it because the downside of the vaccine
11:18
Speaker 2: may outweigh the downside of you getting COVID or getting
11:23
Speaker 2: a serious case of COVID. Anyway, the head of the
11:27
Speaker 2: CDC during the time that these vaccines were approved is
11:33
Speaker 2: now calling for the mRNA COVID vaccines to be pulled
11:37
Speaker 2: off the market. This is a story you will not
11:41
Speaker 2: I shouldn't say not. You will likely not see in
11:45
Speaker 2: the mainstream media, and if it is in the mainstream media,
11:48
Speaker 2: downplayed Robert Redfield. He was the head of the CDC
11:52
Speaker 2: from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty. And you said, well,
11:54
Speaker 2: he was a Trumper. Remember that the vaccines were developed
11:57
Speaker 2: under Trump, they were beginning, they were distributed under Biden.
12:01
Speaker 2: Operation warp speed was Trump and Trump was putting on
12:06
Speaker 2: the gas fitalist. Let's get going with the vaccines. Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines.
12:09
Speaker 2: So the CDC during the period of Trump was not
12:12
Speaker 2: anti vax not in hisharst term. Robert Redfield. Let me
12:20
Speaker 2: quote from an interview he gave to the Epic Times.
12:24
Speaker 2: COVID vaccines from Pfizer and MODERNA should be pulled from circulation.
12:29
Speaker 2: Centers for Disease Control of Prevention official said in a
12:31
Speaker 2: new interview quote, I would really like to see the
12:34
Speaker 2: mRNA vaccine use curtailed, and personally, I'd like to see
12:37
Speaker 2: it eliminated. There are simply too many unknowns. Robert Redfield
12:44
Speaker 2: said he's been treating patients who have so called long COVID.
12:50
Speaker 2: For I heard about long COVID. No one knows for
12:54
Speaker 2: certain if long COVID is directly because of COVID nineteen,
12:58
Speaker 2: but it's suspected. Long COVID are the people who didn't
13:02
Speaker 2: bounce out of COVID and just have developed a number
13:05
Speaker 2: of long term kind of their lengthy malais in their
13:08
Speaker 2: lives and so on. Anyway, Redfield, who's a physician no
13:11
Speaker 2: longer than in the CDC, he said he's been treating
13:14
Speaker 2: a number of people with long COVID. Now listen to
13:15
Speaker 2: what he has to say here and again, this is
13:18
Speaker 2: a guy who has a bias toward thinking that the
13:20
Speaker 2: MRA vaccines were good because they were developed when he
13:23
Speaker 2: was at the CDC. But he apparently has an open mind,
13:26
Speaker 2: he said, as well as people suffering from vaccine injuries.
13:33
Speaker 2: He said he still favors a protein based COVID nineteen
13:36
Speaker 2: vaccine from Novavax. Now again, Novavax is the one that's
13:39
Speaker 2: a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are Pfizer and
13:43
Speaker 2: moreto He said he still supports the one from Novavax,
13:46
Speaker 2: but no longer advises receiving the mRNA shots, even though
13:49
Speaker 2: he thinks they prevented deaths among seniors early in the pandemics.
13:52
Speaker 2: He said, Look, I do think these shots did provide
13:57
Speaker 2: some protection against COVID, and of course, as we all know,
14:01
Speaker 2: I think we knew it at the time, but we
14:02
Speaker 2: certainly know in retrospect who died from COVID, old people
14:06
Speaker 2: and people who had lots of other abidities. So Redfield
14:09
Speaker 2: saying he did think that they did provide help for
14:11
Speaker 2: that group that was at highest risk. Now, you recall
14:17
Speaker 2: my commentary on all of this is the one size
14:19
Speaker 2: fits all, one size fits all, I just as I
14:21
Speaker 2: can teach it just it was insane to me that
14:23
Speaker 2: people would give these things to kids. Find the long
14:28
Speaker 2: list of kids who died of COVID. It doesn't exist.
14:32
Speaker 2: So what are you in the world are you doing?
14:33
Speaker 2: Putting a jab of something that you have. We've never
14:36
Speaker 2: have any idea what it's going to mean long term,
14:38
Speaker 2: because a brand new kind of thing and giving it
14:40
Speaker 2: to a kid who isn't going to get not only die,
14:42
Speaker 2: or get even very sick from COVID. So again Redfield
14:46
Speaker 2: saying he does think that when COVID was really roaring
14:50
Speaker 2: through in twenty one and twenty two, it did work
14:54
Speaker 2: to aid some people extremely high risk by knocking down
14:57
Speaker 2: the seriousness of the virus they got. Anyway, quote, I
15:04
Speaker 2: don't advocate the mRNA vaccines anymore because as you get
15:08
Speaker 2: to the idea of vaccine injury, which I give you
15:11
Speaker 2: an mRNA vaccine, what I do is turn your body
15:15
Speaker 2: into a spike protein production factory, and spike protein is
15:20
Speaker 2: a very immune, a toxic protein. In other words, he's
15:23
Speaker 2: you know, when the mRNA vaccines redeveloped. Okay, it gives
15:25
Speaker 2: you spike protein, but it's going to fade right out
15:27
Speaker 2: of your body real quickly. There's a strong body of
15:30
Speaker 2: evidence that it's not that the spike protein sticks around
15:34
Speaker 2: long term, and that can strew up your immune system.
15:38
Speaker 2: We want to have an immune system that works, but
15:40
Speaker 2: you don't want an immune system that's too strong, because
15:42
Speaker 2: the MS is too strong creates all these autoimmune diseases
15:46
Speaker 2: that are out there. So Redfield saying now that we're
15:49
Speaker 2: deeply into COVID and the forms of COVID that are
15:51
Speaker 2: out there are not as deadly as people who develop
15:53
Speaker 2: their outamidity, he does not believe that we should be
15:55
Speaker 2: giving out the mRNA vaccines anymore. Scam probably isn't the
16:04
Speaker 2: right word for this, although some people would use it.
16:09
Speaker 2: There's a theme that we're gonna available for the next
16:11
Speaker 2: couple of podcasts though, and it's this most government regulators.
16:18
Speaker 2: It's changing now with Kennedy and the Trump administration. Most
16:23
Speaker 2: government regulators with regard to health and drugs and so on,
16:28
Speaker 2: I believe are no more than lobbyists and shills for
16:33
Speaker 2: the drug companies. There are numerous ways of combating illness
16:38
Speaker 2: and creating wellness and so on. Drugs are merely one
16:41
Speaker 2: of them. I mentioned on one of the podcasts last week,
16:45
Speaker 2: the old debate about it. You have a heart problem,
16:48
Speaker 2: you go to a cardiologist, he says, take medication. You
16:51
Speaker 2: go to a heart surgeon. He says, you need surgery. Well,
16:53
Speaker 2: of course, don't both say that that's the thing they do.
16:56
Speaker 2: Plus it's the way they make money. It's the part
16:58
Speaker 2: they do. Likewise, the drugs. Is there a role for vitamins?
17:02
Speaker 2: That's there a role for exercise? Is there a role
17:04
Speaker 2: for this? Is there a role for that? There's probably
17:06
Speaker 2: a role in certain cases for certain things. But what's
17:10
Speaker 2: happened is is that the companies that make drugs want
17:12
Speaker 2: drugs to be the answer for everything. Not surprisingly, they
17:16
Speaker 2: sell drugs. You go to one of the local gas
17:20
Speaker 2: stations in town. Ask him, if you want to ask
17:22
Speaker 2: the guy who owns the gas station, do you want
17:24
Speaker 2: everybody to buy a Tesla? I wouldn't think so. He's
17:26
Speaker 2: selling gas. Did you follow that analogy or not? Let
17:37
Speaker 2: me turn my attention to this. If there's anything I understand,
17:44
Speaker 2: it's human nature. Trump's advisors, according to recent reports, almost
17:59
Speaker 2: to the point of being unanimous, are encouraging him to
18:03
Speaker 2: more focus on the issue of affordability. It's clearly, right
18:12
Speaker 2: now a powerful political issue. I know why Trump is
18:20
Speaker 2: resistant to this. Trump's resistant to this because he's aware
18:28
Speaker 2: that inflation stopped growing almost the moment he started changing policy.
18:36
Speaker 2: The problem is the massive spikes in prices are still here.
18:46
Speaker 2: The fact that they happen because of Biden and the Democrats.
18:51
Speaker 2: It's frost and Trump that somehow he's being blamed for
18:55
Speaker 2: a problem that he has helped to solve that was
18:57
Speaker 2: created by the Democrats. And I think what his advisors
19:01
Speaker 2: are telling him is, I know you're frosted by this,
19:04
Speaker 2: and I know that we're asking you to buy into
19:06
Speaker 2: something that isn't your fault. But the reality is that
19:09
Speaker 2: this is a powerful political issue and you have to
19:12
Speaker 2: be out there on it if nothing else. Start pointing
19:16
Speaker 2: out that all the inflation, all the problems that have
19:19
Speaker 2: been created here happened under Biden and the Democrats, and
19:21
Speaker 2: happened because of what they consciously did. From the Wall
19:25
Speaker 2: Street shurtle. During closed door meetings of recent weeks, the
19:29
Speaker 2: president's aids have pressed him to calibrate his message on affordability.
19:34
Speaker 2: Aids presented Trump with surveys from one of the president's
19:37
Speaker 2: own posters detailing voters concerns about the cost of living.
19:42
Speaker 2: His team has begun showing him social media posts that
19:45
Speaker 2: illustrate how Americans view the economy. Top advisors have taken
19:50
Speaker 2: turns talking to their boss about his economic messaging and
19:54
Speaker 2: the need to emphasize what voters are feeling. Almost every
19:58
Speaker 2: senior White House official is involved in the effort. So
20:02
Speaker 2: again I understand why Trump is resisted to this. On
20:04
Speaker 2: the other hand, like it or not, this is becoming
20:09
Speaker 2: an issue that it's just insane that it is because
20:11
Speaker 2: it's becoming a democratic issue, as they say, the folly
20:15
Speaker 2: of the party. Everywhere Democrats run things, the cost I
20:18
Speaker 2: shouldn't say everywhere. Virtually everywhere Democrats run things, the cost
20:22
Speaker 2: of living us higher than it is. Republicans run things
20:25
Speaker 2: in part because of the macs of taxation that they
20:27
Speaker 2: have that not only is the taxes that we pay,
20:29
Speaker 2: but are built into all of the products that we buy.
20:33
Speaker 2: Look at the inflation that we had during the period
20:35
Speaker 2: of time that Biden was the president, a conscious decision.
20:43
Speaker 2: They wanted to lift us out of COVID by inflating
20:45
Speaker 2: the economy, figuring that we remember the court it be transitory.
20:50
Speaker 2: So here's Trump. So one of I note today a
20:53
Speaker 2: big statement was released by the Trump administration talking about
20:56
Speaker 2: the fact that gas prices continue to go down and
20:59
Speaker 2: that the trend it appears to be long term. No,
21:03
Speaker 2: there's always regional fluctuations, and gasoline prices the only standard
21:10
Speaker 2: I go buy are the gas stations that I buy
21:12
Speaker 2: my gas from normally, which is usually the ones out
21:14
Speaker 2: here with the radio station, because it's cheaper than in
21:18
Speaker 2: the city of Milwaukee. And it still seems to be
21:20
Speaker 2: pretty dog onload of me, and the trend seems to
21:22
Speaker 2: be downward, and then overall national average has been downprending
21:26
Speaker 2: for a lengthy period of time. Whether or not that's
21:28
Speaker 2: because of Trump or not, he's obviously pointing this out,
21:31
Speaker 2: which means he's getting at least some of the message
21:34
Speaker 2: from his advisors that you need to be talking about
21:36
Speaker 2: these things. I would argue the best way to talk
21:42
Speaker 2: about it is to draw attention to people as to
21:47
Speaker 2: why this is happening. Everything democrats do drives up the
21:51
Speaker 2: cost of everything else. Simple example, there are millions and
21:58
Speaker 2: again part of the problem is is that you you
22:00
Speaker 2: have to expain millions of examples by not punishing shoplifters.
22:04
Speaker 2: And in most big cities, even if they arrest you
22:06
Speaker 2: for shoplifting, the cops and the das don't do anything
22:08
Speaker 2: to you. We drastically drive up the costs of the
22:12
Speaker 2: prices because the businesses have to include all of the
22:16
Speaker 2: lost What do they call it. There's a term for it,
22:20
Speaker 2: something edge slipage, whatever it is. But whatever, you know,
22:24
Speaker 2: all the stuff that stole it from them, they have
22:27
Speaker 2: to inflate the prices of everything else to cover those
22:30
Speaker 2: amounts of losses. Now, going back to the original premise
22:34
Speaker 2: of all of this, if there's scammers out there, it's
22:36
Speaker 2: Democrats providing them cover. I want to quote from a
22:38
Speaker 2: column on the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel. Republicans
22:42
Speaker 2: in recent years were handed the gift of California, that
22:45
Speaker 2: collapsing paragon of climate virtue, an excellent argument for the
22:49
Speaker 2: GOP's own better at energy agenda. Their Christmas present this
22:53
Speaker 2: year is Minnesota. If the party has the wits to
22:56
Speaker 2: seize on the moral of that state's epic frauds story,
23:00
Speaker 2: America's welfare system is irredeemably broken. Now. The point that
23:05
Speaker 2: she's making here is that the Somali thing in Minnesota
23:10
Speaker 2: was not a one off. The Somali's was simply an
23:14
Speaker 2: example of a huge group of people who share the
23:18
Speaker 2: same ethnicity getting involved in doing something that's going on everywhere,
23:23
Speaker 2: which is scamming the welfare programs we have. Back on
23:29
Speaker 2: my old TV show, my old pair of the late
23:31
Speaker 2: JJ Planyan made the famous comment running an aunt of
23:34
Speaker 2: profit agency in Milwaukee has a license to steal. I
23:37
Speaker 2: quote it because he's exactly right. It doesn't mean that
23:40
Speaker 2: all the anti property agencies in Milwaukee's were stealing, but
23:43
Speaker 2: every one of them that did was able to get
23:45
Speaker 2: away with it. It's really really easy because you're stealing
23:48
Speaker 2: money from the government, and the government it isn't coming
23:52
Speaker 2: out of any government officials pockets. And often the same
23:55
Speaker 2: with the Somali situation. If a Milwaukee anti property agentgency
24:00
Speaker 2: and they've been a zilly good take away, say take
24:02
Speaker 2: any of them is swiping something. Those agencies are run
24:08
Speaker 2: by influential people in politics. In that case, it's in
24:11
Speaker 2: the central city, so the politicians give them cover, not
24:15
Speaker 2: wanting to hack them off by cutting off their scam.
24:19
Speaker 2: By creating all of these programs, we make it very
24:22
Speaker 2: very easy for all of them to be ripped off.
24:26
Speaker 2: And in the case of the situation in Minnesota, you
24:28
Speaker 2: had the governor and state officials there fully aware the
24:31
Speaker 2: scamming was going on, but they didn't want to stop
24:33
Speaker 2: it because they wanted to let the Somalis get away
24:36
Speaker 2: with it. Back to Strassol. The Minnesota story in which
24:42
Speaker 2: Somali frauds there's built taxpayers out of more than one
24:45
Speaker 2: billion dollars has many ugly storylines to choose from. It
24:49
Speaker 2: is a parable of failed assimilation and the need for
24:51
Speaker 2: policies that heat the melting pot. It's another warning of
24:55
Speaker 2: identity politics, of fraudsters using quote minority owned status to
25:00
Speaker 2: cash in and crying racism to evade scrutiny. It's a
25:04
Speaker 2: scandal of politicians who look the other way, more eager
25:07
Speaker 2: to win votes than to enforce the law. There's an
25:13
Speaker 2: editorial also in the Wall Street Jennal the Great Entitlement
25:16
Speaker 2: State gift Grift. It's the same thing when you create
25:23
Speaker 2: all of these Let's suppose we have I'll just use
25:25
Speaker 2: round numbers here, one hundred government programs. Now, let's imagine
25:29
Speaker 2: instead of one hundred, you have one hundred thousand government programs.
25:32
Speaker 2: There's going to be more scamming with one hundred thousand,
25:34
Speaker 2: because there's more programs to scam. If there's only one
25:37
Speaker 2: hundred of them, maybe you can keep an eye at
25:39
Speaker 2: all of them, but the more that are out there,
25:41
Speaker 2: there are gonna be scammers that look at every single
25:43
Speaker 2: one of them. In terms of the ethnic component of this,
25:49
Speaker 2: there are certain ethnic groups that seem to specialize in
25:51
Speaker 2: certain frauds. The Nigerians are all over the Internet. The
25:56
Speaker 2: Somalis apparently are all over COVID eight program. There are
26:03
Speaker 2: other ethnic groups that specialize in Often this is done
26:10
Speaker 2: from overseas, contacting elderly people who may have lost some
26:15
Speaker 2: of their skepticism and try to scam a mount of money.
26:20
Speaker 2: The thing about, well, your credit cards are all going
26:23
Speaker 2: to be frozen unless you send us one hundred and
26:24
Speaker 2: ninety five dollars right now, etc. Some of these are
26:31
Speaker 2: government programs, some of them are out and out scams.
26:37
Speaker 2: Generally speaking, though, if you have one of these programs
26:40
Speaker 2: that it is being scammed, the political party and the
26:43
Speaker 2: political movement that will try to allow the scam to
26:46
Speaker 2: continue and oppose any effort to crack down in the
26:49
Speaker 2: scam will be the Democrats. There's a whole other issue
26:56
Speaker 2: about this that we're going to be addressing in the future,
27:01
Speaker 2: dealing with why so many children are being diagnosed with autism.
27:08
Speaker 2: I'll give you a little bit of a hint on this.
27:11
Speaker 2: In order for somebody to build the government or build
27:14
Speaker 2: an insurance company for autism treatment. You need an autism patient.
27:19
Speaker 2: It's the same thing as what's going on over a
27:22
Speaker 2: children's hospital. In order for all these gender therapy quacks
27:26
Speaker 2: to be out there chopping off body parts, you need
27:30
Speaker 2: to have kids who think that they're of the other
27:32
Speaker 2: gender so that you can start mutilating them and counseling
27:35
Speaker 2: them and filling their heads with crap. You have a
27:40
Speaker 2: vested interest in claiming a problem exists if you make
27:44
Speaker 2: money by addressing the problem. There should be a rule
27:48
Speaker 2: of law with regard to that, or a billing's rule
27:50
Speaker 2: on that. But I'm not pithy enough to come up
27:52
Speaker 2: with one off the top of my head. This is
27:54
Speaker 2: the Marked Belling podcast. This is the Mark Belling brief rule.
28:03
Speaker 2: Here as a way of delving into the next topic.
28:09
Speaker 2: Government officials never get credit for the problems they solve
28:15
Speaker 2: because the public tends to look forward. I'm going to
28:17
Speaker 2: give you a perfect example of this and how people
28:21
Speaker 2: misjudge the politics of something. After the First Gulf War,
28:25
Speaker 2: the first one, remember Schwartzkoff and Desert Storm get a
28:36
Speaker 2: rack out of Kuwait. We sent in the American military
28:42
Speaker 2: and it not only got a rack out of Kuwait
28:43
Speaker 2: to chased all of the Iraqi troops right back to Baghdad.
28:48
Speaker 2: There were virtually no American casualties. It was as simply over,
28:51
Speaker 2: we's not only solved the problem we knew Toed Saddam
28:54
Speaker 2: Black knocked out a lot of his stuff, drove them
28:57
Speaker 2: right back to Baghdad, and he knew that knew enough
28:59
Speaker 2: not to try to invade anybody ever again. Following that war,
29:05
Speaker 2: Bush's approval rating was over eighty percent. So everybody just
29:09
Speaker 2: assumed that he would sail the reelection in nineteen ninety two,
29:12
Speaker 2: and the big shots at the Democratic Party Cuomo at
29:15
Speaker 2: the time was one of them. They all said, well,
29:17
Speaker 2: we're not going to run in ninety two because there's
29:18
Speaker 2: no way Bush is going to lose a weight until
29:20
Speaker 2: ninety six. That's where you got the second string. That's
29:22
Speaker 2: where this no account governor from Arkansas Clinton got into
29:25
Speaker 2: the race. But then what happened was Bush's popularity decided
29:30
Speaker 2: to skid because of the economy and other factors. Nobody
29:35
Speaker 2: voted for him for reelection on the basis of what
29:37
Speaker 2: he had done solved that problem in Iraq because they
29:41
Speaker 2: were looking onto an oh thing. One of the issues
29:45
Speaker 2: that I think is frustrating Trump is he thinks that
29:48
Speaker 2: he's accomplished a lot of people aren't getting credit for
29:50
Speaker 2: and that's because you never get any credit for what
29:52
Speaker 2: you'd Okay, fine, that's not a problem anywhere I'm looking
29:54
Speaker 2: at this. Why haven't you fix this hair which brings
29:57
Speaker 2: us to the border. You will not see much coverage
30:02
Speaker 2: of not only the fact that the border crossings have
30:06
Speaker 2: been reduced, but how many lives we have saved by
30:10
Speaker 2: identifying the children that were smuggled into this country. Tom
30:14
Speaker 2: Holman gave an interview over the weekend. Let me remind
30:19
Speaker 2: you of the number of children that came across the
30:22
Speaker 2: border illegally under Biden. The best estimate is three hundred
30:25
Speaker 2: thousand unaccompanied. That number is stagger when you think about
30:29
Speaker 2: how many of the people that is, and you'll recall
30:31
Speaker 2: what the scam of the smugglers were get the kids
30:36
Speaker 2: across the country. And once the kids got across the country,
30:38
Speaker 2: the parents figured it would be easier for them to
30:40
Speaker 2: get across as well. The problem is they were simply released.
30:46
Speaker 2: They weren't with their parents, they weren't with anybody, and
30:48
Speaker 2: Lord only knows what happened to them, as I said.
30:52
Speaker 2: ICE has estimated that the number was three hundred thousand
30:55
Speaker 2: over the weekend. In an interview, Tom Homan has said
30:57
Speaker 2: that they've managed to identify and find sixty two thousand
31:01
Speaker 2: of them, and many of them were in the sex trade.
31:05
Speaker 2: Of course they were in the sex trade. You're thirteen
31:07
Speaker 2: years old. You need some way to support yourself. The
31:10
Speaker 2: smugglers that are bringing you what are going to monetize you?
31:12
Speaker 2: Elsey to monetize a thirteen year old. Not only by
31:21
Speaker 2: finally ceiling off the border, are we stopping all of
31:24
Speaker 2: the new ones from coming in? ICE and the related
31:29
Speaker 2: agencies are rescuing children from this human trafficking that's been
31:35
Speaker 2: going on on. That term human trafficking. How long has
31:40
Speaker 2: that term been around you? Fifteen twenty years. When it
31:45
Speaker 2: first came up, it was an issue of the left.
31:49
Speaker 2: I don't recall anybody on the right really talking about
31:51
Speaker 2: human trafficking. It was the media started to discover and
31:53
Speaker 2: focus on all of the children that were being exploited,
31:56
Speaker 2: and for that matter, women that were being traffic simply
31:58
Speaker 2: means being moved around, moved around for the purposes of
32:02
Speaker 2: prostituting them. Out almost having them in slavery. There were
32:04
Speaker 2: a number of people who would come from eight countries
32:06
Speaker 2: in Southeast Asian which they were living in somebody's basement,
32:09
Speaker 2: almost enslaved. Numerous other instances of people, you know, fifteen
32:14
Speaker 2: year olds being brought across the border and put into prosity.
32:17
Speaker 2: It was an issue that was brought up on the
32:18
Speaker 2: left anymore, though the Left doesn't talk about human trafficking
32:23
Speaker 2: at all, and I contend the reason they don't talk
32:25
Speaker 2: about it is it's become apparent the overwhelmingly the largest
32:29
Speaker 2: sources of human trafficking was the bringing of people across
32:32
Speaker 2: the border that Biden stopped and forcing. Once they realized
32:36
Speaker 2: that human trafficking was something that their side was causing
32:39
Speaker 2: by their non enforcement of the border, they shut up
32:41
Speaker 2: about it. Now, if IUCE does any attempt to identify
32:46
Speaker 2: illegal immigrants here in the United States, that's considered to
32:50
Speaker 2: be a bad thing, when in many instance is what
32:52
Speaker 2: they are trying to recover. Here are illegal immigrants who
32:55
Speaker 2: are in children who are in desperately terrible shape, that
32:58
Speaker 2: are not here with their parents, that are being exploited
33:02
Speaker 2: in every ugly manner imaginable. Now, as I stated, Trump
33:12
Speaker 2: is clearly frustrated that he's not getting any credit for
33:16
Speaker 2: solving any of these things, not only from the media,
33:19
Speaker 2: but from anybody else. You can say the same thing
33:26
Speaker 2: for almost every Republican who's ever been elected to anything.
33:32
Speaker 2: The media isn't going to give you credit for anything.
33:36
Speaker 2: But as for the public and sometimes your own base,
33:40
Speaker 2: it's the same as we approach everything else in life.
33:45
Speaker 2: I'll use an analogy. I like to use analogies. When
33:49
Speaker 2: do people pray by and large, I don't mean, I
33:53
Speaker 2: don't mean very religious people. Well, when by and large
33:56
Speaker 2: do most people pray? In other words, of people who
33:58
Speaker 2: only pray occasionally, when do they pray something bad is happening,
34:02
Speaker 2: you're asking God for help. How many people pray after
34:05
Speaker 2: some great thing occurred and they go and pray for
34:07
Speaker 2: forty five minutes, thanking God that this great thing occurred.
34:10
Speaker 2: Not many We've seen, for example, when people, you know,
34:14
Speaker 2: after nine to eleven, people were wondering whether or not
34:18
Speaker 2: there was going to be a Muslim jihad and whether
34:20
Speaker 2: or not there was going to be tear all over
34:21
Speaker 2: the United States permanently, and buildings are going to be
34:23
Speaker 2: blown up all over. People were filling churches and praying.
34:26
Speaker 2: When COVID broke out, people were praying to God, oh
34:29
Speaker 2: don't let this wipe us out. The point that I'm
34:35
Speaker 2: making is people tend to focus on the problem in
34:38
Speaker 2: front of them rather than the success behind them. So
34:47
Speaker 2: the people that are trying to disempower Trump and put
34:49
Speaker 2: themselves back into power want all of you to forget
34:53
Speaker 2: all of the problems they created when they had power.
35:01
Speaker 2: This is why when the left focuses on ice, they
35:03
Speaker 2: always try to find some sympathetic figure whose life is
35:07
Speaker 2: being rowned, who is doing just all of these wonder things,
35:10
Speaker 2: and never focus on all of the out and now
35:12
Speaker 2: crooks that have been caught, or the many children said,
35:15
Speaker 2: these children are being deported in many cases, the children
35:18
Speaker 2: that are being grabbed up, our children that were put
35:20
Speaker 2: in the sex trade, that we're living in abject squalid
35:24
Speaker 2: that were being terribly abused, or that it's still running
35:27
Speaker 2: around with these bracelets because they still owe money to
35:30
Speaker 2: their smugglers. And how's a thirteen year old kid going
35:31
Speaker 2: to pay back a smuggler? You can only imagine. Woman's
35:39
Speaker 2: an interesting character. He's also right now a ping pond ball.
35:45
Speaker 2: As many deportations as there ben Trump is frustrated that
35:49
Speaker 2: ICE has not gotten more people out. From the perspective
35:52
Speaker 2: of Homan, He's trying to explain that, look at the
35:55
Speaker 2: abuse that we're getting when our agents come in, we
35:57
Speaker 2: not only we have to be extremely peaceful, we've got
36:00
Speaker 2: civilians that are trying to obstruct us. In the meantime,
36:03
Speaker 2: Trump is wondering why the numbers aren't any higher from
36:06
Speaker 2: the perspective of Home and he is a hard guy
36:08
Speaker 2: who thinks the illegal shouldn't be in here. But he's
36:10
Speaker 2: also if you just listen to him, because he's seen
36:13
Speaker 2: so many of these cases of children that have been
36:15
Speaker 2: put in terrible situations that they've rescued. And then to
36:18
Speaker 2: hear lefties try to claim that they're on the side
36:21
Speaker 2: of humanity and human compassion and concern when they were
36:25
Speaker 2: perfectly fine with eleven year old girls being used as
36:30
Speaker 2: sex toys for twenty five gang leaders. And let me
36:35
Speaker 2: be well, that isn't what's going on. Well what do
36:39
Speaker 2: you think is going on? How do you think those
36:42
Speaker 2: children are getting By the fact that MSNBC isn't telling
36:47
Speaker 2: you that that's what's going on doesn't mean it's not
36:49
Speaker 2: going on. Now, let me move to an issue that
36:52
Speaker 2: is making some people on my side uncomfortable, not uncomfortable
37:01
Speaker 2: about it. Let's back into the story this way. I'm
37:11
Speaker 2: going to quote from the twenty seventeen Pharawell address of
37:15
Speaker 2: the outgoing President of the United States. For those of
37:18
Speaker 2: you who don't even know recent history, that would have
37:20
Speaker 2: been Obama. See when presidents leave, they give a farewell address.
37:25
Speaker 2: George Washington's was the most famous turned out to be prophetic.
37:30
Speaker 2: This is a section from Obama and the farewell addresses.
37:34
Speaker 2: In the case of Washington, he was warning about issues
37:36
Speaker 2: that needed to be confront of the future. When you've
37:38
Speaker 2: got an egomaniact like Obama, his farewell address is going
37:41
Speaker 2: to be to draw attention to and pat himself on
37:43
Speaker 2: the back for every great thing that he did. I'm
37:45
Speaker 2: pretty sure Trump's farewell address will kind of be like that.
37:48
Speaker 2: You think Trump's farewell address will be looking forward to
37:50
Speaker 2: future already. You think it's going to be a legacy
37:52
Speaker 2: of going out about all the great and wonderful things
37:54
Speaker 2: that he did. Anyway, here's Obama again. This is Obama
38:02
Speaker 2: and what he's bragging about. We have taken out tens
38:05
Speaker 2: of thousands of terrorists. In fact, under Obama, drone strikes
38:14
Speaker 2: increased tenfold, which created anti US backlash in several nations.
38:20
Speaker 2: When Obama campaigned for president in two thousand and seven,
38:23
Speaker 2: he said, quote, we will again set an example for
38:27
Speaker 2: the world that the law is not subject to the
38:30
Speaker 2: whims of stubborn rulers. Many Americans voted for Obama two
38:35
Speaker 2: thousand and eight expected a sea change in Washington. However,
38:37
Speaker 2: in his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret
38:41
Speaker 2: attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when
38:45
Speaker 2: drones slaughtered wedding parties and other innocents. In twenty ten,
38:50
Speaker 2: Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Senatece Blair, stunned Washington by
38:53
Speaker 2: announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing.
38:57
Speaker 2: Blair revealed a Congressional committee that the news stand for
39:00
Speaker 2: extraditional killing sport and again, this is Obama's guy. Whether
39:05
Speaker 2: that American is involved in a group that is trying
39:08
Speaker 2: to attack us, whether that American has or is a
39:10
Speaker 2: threat to other Americans. We don't target people for free speech.
39:14
Speaker 2: We target them for taking actions The threatned Americans. In
39:18
Speaker 2: other words, Obama's rhetoric was to brag about the terrorists
39:24
Speaker 2: that he was killing is dropping drones all over the place.
39:29
Speaker 2: Most Americans supported this, and if anything, some wanted even
39:35
Speaker 2: more of it. Most Americans were perfectly fine with bombing
39:40
Speaker 2: out terrorists in other countries so that they could stop
39:43
Speaker 2: their plotting to attack and kill people here. Now, where
39:50
Speaker 2: am I going with this? Let's accept whether you agree
39:54
Speaker 2: with that or not. Let's accept Obama's premise for a
39:57
Speaker 2: moment that going out and targeting and killing terrorists is
40:03
Speaker 2: a good thing. Obama did it right and left that
40:07
Speaker 2: he bragged about it, and he bragged about it in
40:08
Speaker 2: his farewell address. Our foreigners were smuggling drugs into the
40:18
Speaker 2: United States terrorists? If not? Why not? Now, I think
40:29
Speaker 2: you're grasping at what issue I'm driving at, which is
40:33
Speaker 2: the attacks and the drug boats. And in particular, this
40:36
Speaker 2: was a second strike on that Venezuelan on the drug
40:39
Speaker 2: the Venezuelan drug boat that was hit a second time,
40:42
Speaker 2: apparently under the authorization of Hegesath.
40:45
Speaker 3: Well, why did you hit it again? Why is it
40:54
Speaker 3: okay to kill vague people.
40:58
Speaker 2: That Obama says were terrorist, but it's not okay to
41:02
Speaker 2: kill foreigners that are smuggling drugs into the United States.
41:06
Speaker 2: Are the drugs that are being smuggled into the United States,
41:09
Speaker 2: the highly addictive stuff that is coming in, any less
41:14
Speaker 2: dangerous than the threat of terrorists, I would argue not.
41:20
Speaker 2: There are a lot of issues out there that I
41:24
Speaker 2: worry about, a lot of issues that are difficult ones
41:27
Speaker 2: you wring your hands about, and so on. Whether or
41:30
Speaker 2: not we dropped a second by bomb and killed a
41:33
Speaker 2: few of the smugglers that didn't die at the time
41:34
Speaker 2: we dropped the first one is not anything that's causing
41:37
Speaker 2: me to lose sleep. As for the people who arguing, well,
41:42
Speaker 2: this is an extradicial action, how is it any more
41:46
Speaker 2: extra judicial than all of Obama's terror strikes? Now again,
41:51
Speaker 2: what I do, we're bringing up these issues is trying
41:53
Speaker 2: to force people to develop some sort of ideology and
41:55
Speaker 2: consistent thinking. Liberals will never do this because simply what
41:59
Speaker 2: we do is good, the other side does is bad.
42:06
Speaker 2: They focus, I think, on the second strike because they
42:08
Speaker 2: weren't getting anywhere persuading people that knocking out the drug
42:12
Speaker 2: boats is a bad thing. To say, well, the drugs
42:14
Speaker 2: are all gone and all this the only reason to
42:16
Speaker 2: drop the second strike is just to go and kill people. Well,
42:21
Speaker 2: even I don't deny that, but what was the point
42:24
Speaker 2: of dropping the drone, of using the drone bombs and
42:27
Speaker 2: the terrorists? The point was to kill him because they
42:29
Speaker 2: are bad people. So which is it? If there's a
42:34
Speaker 2: democratic president, terrorists are bad, but there's a Republican president,
42:37
Speaker 2: terrorists are not bad. One of the more common sense
42:45
Speaker 2: Republican members of the Congresses, Anna Paulina. She posted on
42:53
Speaker 2: x Obama authorized over five hundred strikes and the press
42:57
Speaker 2: said nothing. She essentially right about that. You go back
43:00
Speaker 2: to the eight years of Obama, see how much press
43:03
Speaker 2: coverage and outrage there were over all of Obama's drone attacks.
43:06
Speaker 2: There was coverage of it, but it was never outrage,
43:09
Speaker 2: and the coverage was very, very minor, and if there
43:12
Speaker 2: was any take on it, it was generally a good thing,
43:15
Speaker 2: a successful hit. Now, an obvious example was the bragging
43:19
Speaker 2: and crowing ensuring when we hit bin Laden, nobody, well,
43:23
Speaker 2: I wouldn't see nobody. Virtually everyone can agree that Obama
43:27
Speaker 2: that Bin Laden had it coming in. It was a
43:28
Speaker 2: good thing that we took out him as the leader
43:31
Speaker 2: of a major terrorist movement that attacked the United States
43:35
Speaker 2: of America, the other people that were underlings in lower levels,
43:39
Speaker 2: at the level of terror and so on. Generally speaking,
43:43
Speaker 2: when we were taking them out with these hits, it
43:45
Speaker 2: was perceived as a good thing. And Anna Paulina Luna
43:47
Speaker 2: is pointing out in her commentary here that Obama drop
43:51
Speaker 2: had authorized five hundred strikes, press had nothing continuing. Meanwhile,
43:56
Speaker 2: an admiral with a strike package and intel reports protects
43:59
Speaker 2: the Americans from narco terrorists. Good term, And all of
44:04
Speaker 2: a sudden people decide to virtue signal the mental gymnastics
44:08
Speaker 2: of politics by those who lack critical thinking skills. Oh
44:12
Speaker 2: is that good critical thinking skills? Someone who would lack
44:16
Speaker 2: critical thinking skills, that would be the definition of someone
44:18
Speaker 2: who's a liberal, a definition of somebody who watches MSNBC
44:22
Speaker 2: and rather than processing to evaluate and decide whether or
44:25
Speaker 2: not any of the things that they're listening to or
44:26
Speaker 2: nodding their head, no, do not completely contradict something that
44:29
Speaker 2: we're listening to a nod in their head about a
44:31
Speaker 2: year ago, that would be the lacking of critical thinking skills.
44:36
Speaker 2: Back to Anna Paulina Luno, who states this so well,
44:40
Speaker 2: those who lack critical thinking skills is truly impressive. I
44:44
Speaker 2: will one hundred percent continue to back the men who
44:46
Speaker 2: stand up and protect this country against those that are
44:50
Speaker 2: trying to murder our citizens. Well done, Secretary of War,
44:53
Speaker 2: Pete hegxith, We thank you for protecting Americans. Now, then
45:01
Speaker 2: there's this whole issue of lack of unity on the
45:04
Speaker 2: right of some of the people who are America First
45:08
Speaker 2: are somehow taking an extremely narrow view of what America
45:13
Speaker 2: First means it. Somehow drug dealers that are thirty five
45:18
Speaker 2: miles off off our coast, boats that are filled with fentanyl,
45:21
Speaker 2: well that's not America First. But if there were somehow
45:23
Speaker 2: in Savannah, Georgia, it would be a different thing. The
45:27
Speaker 2: larger point, though, is this, if there are people that
45:33
Speaker 2: are not on our shores, met them in the water,
45:37
Speaker 2: or in Central Africa or the Middle East, and they
45:40
Speaker 2: are plotting to do approcious things to our people, innocent civilians.
45:46
Speaker 2: We've been established now through several different presidents, that we
45:49
Speaker 2: have accepted that it is okay to kill them. And
45:52
Speaker 2: as they say Obama was the drone attack or a
45:54
Speaker 2: chief problem of global terrorism is still real. It would
46:03
Speaker 2: certainly seem as though a greater problem is the amount
46:06
Speaker 2: of illegal drugs that are flooding this country from overseas,
46:09
Speaker 2: and the more they come in in this great quantity
46:11
Speaker 2: is why they're so inexpensive. It has explained any number
46:14
Speaker 2: of times. The root of the fenodol crisis is how
46:17
Speaker 2: cheap it is. Because there's so damn much of it,
46:21
Speaker 2: they lace fedidol into less potent drugs. It's so perverse.
46:26
Speaker 2: It used to be that drug dealers would water down
46:28
Speaker 2: their stuff. They would use like telcumpowder and put it
46:33
Speaker 2: into the cocaine because it looked the same, so that
46:35
Speaker 2: people would be spending more more pronounce in the cocaine
46:38
Speaker 2: when a lot of it was the tail comporter. Because
46:40
Speaker 2: the tail comporter is so cheap. Fedidol is so cheap
46:42
Speaker 2: that they're lacing it into less potent drugs because the
46:46
Speaker 2: fedool is so inexpensive because it's flowing into this country.
46:51
Speaker 2: So Trump's bombing some of them that are bringing the
46:53
Speaker 2: stuff in. Let's pull the delegation here, Paula, you bothered
46:58
Speaker 2: that Trump is bombing these people?
47:00
Speaker 1: Load?
47:01
Speaker 2: Are you bothered by the second bomb being dropped?
47:03
Speaker 3: No?
47:04
Speaker 2: I mean even if I thought, well, maybe you didn't
47:06
Speaker 2: have to drop the second Bob on my priority list
47:09
Speaker 2: of things that I'm going to be worried about, it's
47:12
Speaker 2: whether or not I have to take a whiz before
47:14
Speaker 2: the end of your day's podcast would be at a
47:15
Speaker 2: higher priority level than that. This is the Mark Belling podcast.
47:22
Speaker 2: This is the Mark Belling podcast. Now, let me explain
47:26
Speaker 2: something about gloating and crowing. Do you want some help
47:30
Speaker 2: on the rules of gloating and crowing? Don't gloat and
47:36
Speaker 2: crow very close to the time that it could be
47:40
Speaker 2: shoved back in your face. You see what I'm saying now.
47:44
Speaker 2: For example, the time for a Brewer fan to gloat
47:48
Speaker 2: and crow would have been after they knocked the Cubs
47:50
Speaker 2: out of the postseason and you aren't even going to
47:52
Speaker 2: play them again for months. You get months of not
47:55
Speaker 2: this coming back to bite you. Gloating and crowing about
47:58
Speaker 2: beating the Bears, I would suggests, is not advisable because
48:02
Speaker 2: you play them again in twelve days. Now, if you
48:04
Speaker 2: beat them then again, it's still dangerous because you could
48:07
Speaker 2: bump into them and the playoffs that they could have
48:09
Speaker 2: the last left. But this is not the time to
48:12
Speaker 2: gloat and crow. You understand that, No, don't you don't
48:17
Speaker 2: let me discuss the Packer Bear game, which is football
48:19
Speaker 2: games go. Aside from the fact that the Packers one
48:22
Speaker 2: was a very entertaining game, do you have any analysis
48:28
Speaker 2: of the game Before I give you mind, I'll give
48:30
Speaker 2: you the opportunity to analyze the game. Paul said, they're
48:34
Speaker 2: evenly matched teams. The Packers defense has stepped out to
48:40
Speaker 2: notch in past years. I can't disagree with any of that. Really,
48:45
Speaker 2: I will say this, I think the primary reason that
48:50
Speaker 2: the game was close is because of unbelievable missed opportunities
48:55
Speaker 2: by Green Bay in the first half. I thought the
48:58
Speaker 2: Bears played extremely well in the second half, but the
49:01
Speaker 2: Packers dominated them in the first half, but they didn't
49:04
Speaker 2: have a massive scoring edge to show for it, in
49:07
Speaker 2: part because of the terrible pass interception by Love really
49:12
Speaker 2: the only bad play he made in the entire game,
49:14
Speaker 2: and I think he said that the cold weather affected
49:16
Speaker 2: his grip. Was a bad read and whenever you have
49:18
Speaker 2: a case of a receiver that's open and there's the
49:20
Speaker 2: defender above and beyond him, you got to throw it
49:22
Speaker 2: high enough to get past the first defender and not
49:25
Speaker 2: to so long that it gets to the second one.
49:27
Speaker 2: It was a terrible pick and it edited a drive
49:29
Speaker 2: and it cost the Packers a scoring opportunity at a
49:31
Speaker 2: time in which the Bears were not moving the ball
49:33
Speaker 2: at all in the Packers who were moving good will.
49:35
Speaker 2: There was also the Packers were just plagued by penalty
49:38
Speaker 2: after penalty after penalty in the first half, one of
49:42
Speaker 2: which just created a Bear drive. I mean, Kishawn Nixon
49:46
Speaker 2: certainly had a weird game, didn't he. I mean, I
49:49
Speaker 2: can't honestly say he had a good or a bad game.
49:51
Speaker 2: It's hard to say because he screwed so much up,
49:53
Speaker 2: but he made so many good plays in the end,
49:55
Speaker 2: you might say it's a wash. He's almost responsible entirely
49:59
Speaker 2: for one of their scores, and then he was responsible
50:02
Speaker 2: partly responsible at the end of the game for them
50:06
Speaker 2: not scoring. But the Packers are very, very dominant in
50:08
Speaker 2: the first half. Now, I have to say I have
50:11
Speaker 2: this general feeling with regard to football games unless one
50:14
Speaker 2: team is just way better than the other. If you
50:17
Speaker 2: dominate a team but you don't have as many points
50:20
Speaker 2: in the board to show for it, it usually comes
50:22
Speaker 2: back to haunt you when you lose the game, because
50:23
Speaker 2: things even out. That's been my experience, and even when
50:26
Speaker 2: the Packers took off to what was it think that
50:28
Speaker 2: they have a I think they had a seventeen seventeen
50:32
Speaker 2: or eighteen point lead at one point of the game.
50:34
Speaker 2: I didn't feel a sense of comfort about the whole
50:37
Speaker 2: thing because the Bears had so many missed opportuity. The
50:41
Speaker 2: Bears rather couldn't do anything, and I just figured at
50:43
Speaker 2: some point they were going to and then they did,
50:45
Speaker 2: and the teams then from that point kind of match
50:47
Speaker 2: scores going back and forth. Next turnovers. The Bears all
50:51
Speaker 2: season have thrived and winning the turnover battle. In this game,
50:55
Speaker 2: technically the turnovers were even, and I say technically because
50:58
Speaker 2: the only Bears turnout was that pick at the end
51:01
Speaker 2: of the game. However, if Nixon had simply brought knocked
51:04
Speaker 2: the ball down rather than caught it, it would have
51:07
Speaker 2: been the same thing. As I explained last week, a
51:09
Speaker 2: fourth down play is the same as a turnover. If
51:13
Speaker 2: the Bears had not completed that pass, it would have
51:15
Speaker 2: been turnover on downs because it was a fourth dound play.
51:17
Speaker 2: So it's sort of a turnover and sort of not
51:19
Speaker 2: a turnover, but the earlier turnover committed by Jordan Loves
51:23
Speaker 2: a score. Turnovers in my mind, usually equate to a
51:26
Speaker 2: score if a team commits three turnovers and the other
51:30
Speaker 2: side commits none. It's amazing how many times the team's
51:33
Speaker 2: loses by three touchdowns. It just happens again and again
51:35
Speaker 2: and again and again and again. I'm not a great
51:41
Speaker 2: believer in home field advantage anymore in the NFL. I
51:43
Speaker 2: don't know that this game in Chicago is going to
51:45
Speaker 2: be that much different. I thought that the Packers had
51:48
Speaker 2: a slight edge over the Bears, but didn't take full
51:50
Speaker 2: advantage of that edge over the Bears. With regard to
51:55
Speaker 2: the ultimate end of the game. That fourth thound play
52:00
Speaker 2: that will be talked about for some time, I thought
52:03
Speaker 2: it was a terrible play called by Ben Johnson. And
52:05
Speaker 2: Ben Johnson is a spectacular coach of the Bears. However,
52:09
Speaker 2: he's learned at the feet of the head coach of
52:11
Speaker 2: the Lions. He came from the Lions, Campbell, and it's
52:14
Speaker 2: just this constant going for broke, going for broke, going
52:18
Speaker 2: for broke, going for broke. The Packers were not particularly
52:21
Speaker 2: effective at stopping the run up the middle, and it's
52:25
Speaker 2: clear that the Packers missed DeVante Wyatt. I thought Kyle
52:28
Speaker 2: Brooks did a very very good job, and so did
52:30
Speaker 2: Engebari and sort of trying to plug the middle on
52:32
Speaker 2: some of these runs, and they tried to move the
52:34
Speaker 2: linebackers closer to the line of scrimmage. But I think
52:37
Speaker 2: Denver's going to try to run right up the gut
52:39
Speaker 2: of the Packers. And the Packers go to Chicago in
52:41
Speaker 2: two weeks, they're going to try to run right up
52:42
Speaker 2: the gut of the Packers and so on. And given
52:45
Speaker 2: the fact that the Bears still had timeouts, the time
52:48
Speaker 2: on the clock was not particularly relevant. I think that
52:51
Speaker 2: they should have run up the middle. Secondly, great credit
52:56
Speaker 2: must go to the Packer defenders. All gay. Caleb Williams
53:01
Speaker 2: of the Bears was getting outside the pocket, usually to
53:05
Speaker 2: his right. Now, interestingly, this play was to the left.
53:07
Speaker 2: He was getting out of the pocket to the right,
53:09
Speaker 2: and that was buying time to find an open receiver.
53:12
Speaker 2: On a play like this, with everyone expecting a run
53:14
Speaker 2: in every and packed into the middle, the Packers right
53:17
Speaker 2: side of the defense our left as we watch. In
53:20
Speaker 2: other words, the Bears left offensive side is the Packers
53:22
Speaker 2: right defensive side. They all contained going wide, and when
53:26
Speaker 2: Williams kind of rolled out in that direction. None of
53:29
Speaker 2: the Packers were in there biting on a run play
53:31
Speaker 2: and so on. They were all off to the side,
53:34
Speaker 2: and that forced Williams to have to throw into the
53:38
Speaker 2: end zone and the defender, Nixon, was in pretty good
53:40
Speaker 2: position to either knock down the passer simply defend it.
53:44
Speaker 2: But I think that probably what the Bears are thinking
53:46
Speaker 2: of doing in that case was having Williams rollout and
53:49
Speaker 2: the first option was for him to simply run for
53:51
Speaker 2: the first Now, with everybody thinking the Packers in the
53:53
Speaker 2: middle of the Packers had I thought pretty good containment
53:56
Speaker 2: on that play. Now following is almost a no brainer topic.
54:04
Speaker 2: I've been against a college football playoff when they had
54:07
Speaker 2: just the two teams. I said, it was perfectly fine.
54:09
Speaker 2: You can always figure out who the two best teams are.
54:11
Speaker 2: You don't need no, no, no. Then we had a four.
54:13
Speaker 2: Then it's gonna be eighth, Then it's gonna be twelve,
54:14
Speaker 2: and the next thing you know, it's gonna the season's
54:16
Speaker 2: gonna be going on until the middle of June. That
54:18
Speaker 2: everybody's gonna be into the playoffs. It doesn't matter how
54:21
Speaker 2: many teams it was. Whenever there's fourth, then what about
54:25
Speaker 2: these teams there's a controversy. If you put in more teams,
54:27
Speaker 2: there won't be a controversy. There's always gonna be a controversy.
54:30
Speaker 2: So now they go to twelve and there's a total controversy.
54:34
Speaker 2: People are wondering how in the world you could have
54:36
Speaker 2: twelve teams in this and Notre Dame is not one
54:37
Speaker 2: of them. And I agree Notre Dame got shafted, but
54:40
Speaker 2: it isn't just that simple. Notre Dame is I think
54:43
Speaker 2: one of the best twelve teams in college football. There
54:46
Speaker 2: are two teams in that college football playoff that I
54:48
Speaker 2: think Notre Dame would be favored by fourteen points over.
54:51
Speaker 2: I think they'd be favored by at least fourteen over
54:53
Speaker 2: two Lane, and probably fourteen or so over James Madison.
54:57
Speaker 2: Yet they're both in. Part of it is how they
54:59
Speaker 2: structure this. They say that at least five of the
55:01
Speaker 2: twelve have to win their conference. Well, so many conference
55:06
Speaker 2: winners stunk. The ACC winner was Duke, You couldn't put
55:11
Speaker 2: them in. They have five losses, So you couldn't put
55:14
Speaker 2: in the conference winner from the ACC. That means you
55:17
Speaker 2: grab off to two other conferences. So the winner of
55:19
Speaker 2: the American Conference got in and the winner of the
55:21
Speaker 2: Sun Belt Conference got in. Then they have this rule
55:24
Speaker 2: that at least one of the members of the group
55:27
Speaker 2: of five gets in. Those are the lesser conferences. Will
55:29
Speaker 2: two of them got in, but one of them had
55:31
Speaker 2: to get in because they couldn't put in the winner
55:33
Speaker 2: of the ACC because the ACC, which is a bad league,
55:36
Speaker 2: had a five way playoff for first place, and the
55:38
Speaker 2: two worst teams of the five qualified for the championship
55:40
Speaker 2: and the worst of those two teams do won the
55:43
Speaker 2: title game, So you had to squeeze all of these
55:45
Speaker 2: teams in. So then you have you're down to which
55:47
Speaker 2: team you're gonna include in which one. Here's the bitch
55:49
Speaker 2: that Notre Dame has the playoffs put out these rankings
55:54
Speaker 2: every week starting in the mid season, and all season
55:57
Speaker 2: Notre Dame was ranked eight or nine. Notre Dame didn't
56:01
Speaker 2: pay this past week. How do they go from being
56:03
Speaker 2: ranked eight or nine to being ranked thirteenth? And the
56:06
Speaker 2: answer is they shouldn't be putting out these prelaboratory rankings
56:09
Speaker 2: unless they're going to stick to them. It came down
56:13
Speaker 2: to in the end, Miami, Notre Dame in Alabama, and well,
56:17
Speaker 2: Notre Dame's better than Miami. The reality is Miami played
56:19
Speaker 2: Notre Dame early in the season and beat them. Now,
56:21
Speaker 2: there are other games later on that Miami had bad
56:24
Speaker 2: losses as well. Notre Dame of dominant wins, but they
56:27
Speaker 2: had that. Alabama got in even though they badly lost
56:32
Speaker 2: the SEC title game because they're in the SEC. Do
56:35
Speaker 2: I think Alabama's the second best team in the SEC
56:37
Speaker 2: or the third best team in the SEC? No, I
56:39
Speaker 2: think about the fifth best team in the SEC. But
56:41
Speaker 2: they were in there in their Alabama in any event,
56:43
Speaker 2: without regard to whether or not Notre Dame got screwed
56:45
Speaker 2: or not. The whole problem is once you scrape down
56:48
Speaker 2: to twelve, you're going to have more controversies than if
56:51
Speaker 2: there were three or four. Now, if they did it
56:53
Speaker 2: the old way and they had a two, you probably
56:56
Speaker 2: just have a rematch of the Ohio State Indiana game,
56:58
Speaker 2: because everybody thinks that the best two teams in the country.
57:01
Speaker 2: If you add it to four, I don't think it'd
57:03
Speaker 2: be too hard to come up with the four. You
57:05
Speaker 2: have more controversy rather than left less. The more teams
57:08
Speaker 2: that you included. This also the more teams you include
57:12
Speaker 2: the greater the chance that somebody that didn't have that
57:14
Speaker 2: great of a regular season gets hot at the end
57:16
Speaker 2: and knocks off a team that was better and finally
57:19
Speaker 2: this for ever since they've done it, I've made fun
57:25
Speaker 2: of NASCAR and the way they have a championship. Automobile
57:29
Speaker 2: racing is different than team sports, but NASCAR's people and
57:33
Speaker 2: the idiots in the media want automobile racing to be
57:36
Speaker 2: like a team sport, meaning that you have a season,
57:37
Speaker 2: and you have a champion, and you have playoffs to
57:40
Speaker 2: get to the championship. The way NASCAR used to do
57:42
Speaker 2: it is they gave everybody points in at the end
57:44
Speaker 2: of the year, whoever had the most points won the championship.
57:47
Speaker 2: NASCAR decided that it wanted to be like football, so
57:50
Speaker 2: they had had drivers qualify for the playoffs, and then
57:54
Speaker 2: the last race the top four drivers who ever finished
57:56
Speaker 2: the highest one the overall championship, without regard to whether
58:00
Speaker 2: or not they had the most points during the course
58:01
Speaker 2: of the season. I think that is unbelievably stupid and
58:04
Speaker 2: has watered down the entire season. All right, there is
58:08
Speaker 2: the alternative. Formula one does it the way NASCAR used
58:12
Speaker 2: to They ad a point says, the season goes along
58:16
Speaker 2: and whoever has the most points at the end of
58:17
Speaker 2: the season wins a championship. Formula one is I just
58:22
Speaker 2: it's just to me the oddest thing in America. It
58:24
Speaker 2: is unbelievably popular on social media and has people that
58:29
Speaker 2: yap about it all the time, but nobody watches the race.
58:31
Speaker 2: What they do is they like watch the Netflix shows
58:34
Speaker 2: about it, but the actual races. The final race of
58:36
Speaker 2: the season, deciding the championship, was yesterday morning. It started
58:39
Speaker 2: an hour earlier our time because it was in It's
58:42
Speaker 2: an Abu Dhabi. First of all, isn't Abu Dhabi kind
58:48
Speaker 2: of a funny sounding game for a country. I mean
58:50
Speaker 2: it sounds like Fred Flintstone. Yeabab Aba Dabi. It's an
58:55
Speaker 2: oil rich country the Emirates. Going into the race, the
59:04
Speaker 2: points leader was Lando Norris. He drives from McLaren. See
59:07
Speaker 2: in Formula one, the team that you're on is more
59:10
Speaker 2: important than any of your driving skills, and McLaren all
59:12
Speaker 2: year has been the best team over the last few
59:16
Speaker 2: races of the season. The most dominant driver, however, has
59:18
Speaker 2: been Max for Stappen, multiple past champion and a driver
59:22
Speaker 2: for Red Bull so the way the points were set
59:25
Speaker 2: up in this race, for Stappen had to win and
59:30
Speaker 2: Norris had to finish fourth or less for Verstappen to
59:33
Speaker 2: win the championship. So all Norris needed to do is
59:36
Speaker 2: finish in the top three and less than that if
59:39
Speaker 2: Max Verstappen doesn't win. So the race went exactly as
59:42
Speaker 2: you expected it would go. Max for Stappen won the
59:45
Speaker 2: race by about an hour and a half. I mean,
59:47
Speaker 2: he's over here and everybody else was like they were
59:50
Speaker 2: like still in a rack. But Lando Norris finished third,
59:55
Speaker 2: and all Lando Norris was trying to do is avoid
59:58
Speaker 2: crashing because you coul yeah you finished twenty six and
1:00:01
Speaker 2: get knocked to the back of the pack and so on.
1:00:03
Speaker 2: And because he's driving for McLaren and their team, their
1:00:06
Speaker 2: cars are so strong, all he had to do was
1:00:08
Speaker 2: say I had a fourth place. His teammate was running second.
1:00:11
Speaker 2: He's not going to pass him up because he only
1:00:13
Speaker 2: needed to be third in So you could say that
1:00:16
Speaker 2: it was an undramatic end, and that's why NASCAR goes
1:00:19
Speaker 2: the other way. Well, the way Formula One had it
1:00:21
Speaker 2: was not a dramatic Lando Norris drove safely and was
1:00:24
Speaker 2: good enough that he could get into third place. I
1:00:26
Speaker 2: still think the model that Formula one has is greater.
1:00:31
Speaker 2: What I would do is give a lot of points
1:00:34
Speaker 2: for winning a race, and then one point for each
1:00:36
Speaker 2: successive thing to steal encourage winning. I am guessing, however,
1:00:42
Speaker 2: that even though zillions of people listen to my podcast,
1:00:46
Speaker 2: only a tiny fraction of those zillions watch the Formula
1:00:49
Speaker 2: one race. To me, it's a simple thing to decide
1:00:51
Speaker 2: what to do. There is no sports on on Sunday.
1:00:54
Speaker 2: I'm not going to start at seven o'clock in the
1:00:56
Speaker 2: morning watching football pregame shows. I can't stand pregame shows
1:00:59
Speaker 2: for anything. So the race is on and I had it.
1:01:02
Speaker 2: I'll admit it was clearly boring. I mean the first
1:01:05
Speaker 2: lap for Stappan took the lead, Okay, Max is gonna win?
1:01:08
Speaker 2: Is Norris gonna finish in the top three? Landa Norris
1:01:11
Speaker 2: is running around there and second and third the whole race,
1:01:12
Speaker 2: and he was just McClaren cars were so strong. That's
1:01:15
Speaker 2: all he needed to do. I think there's a chance
1:01:17
Speaker 2: that if he pedaled it, he could have won the race.
1:01:18
Speaker 2: But why why take the risk? Go hard into the turns,
1:01:22
Speaker 2: run the risk of spinning out and so on if
1:01:24
Speaker 2: you only need to finish in third place. The big
1:01:29
Speaker 2: problem with Formula One, see NASCAR has bent over backwards
1:01:33
Speaker 2: to have every race nineteen cars in the lead lap
1:01:36
Speaker 2: at the end of the race, seven cars right in
1:01:39
Speaker 2: the in the hunt going to the thing, and Formula
1:01:41
Speaker 2: One has done just the opposite. Some teams are so
1:01:44
Speaker 2: superior in a particular season than anybody else that the
1:01:47
Speaker 2: races are all parades. And McLaren just had the best
1:01:51
Speaker 2: team this year in the best cars, and then winning
1:01:53
Speaker 2: all the races, and then Red Bull with for Stapping
1:01:55
Speaker 2: came on at the end and everybody else's racing for fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, ten,
1:02:00
Speaker 2: eleventh and twelve places. I mean, the way they do
1:02:03
Speaker 2: it it places like Slinger still seems to me to
1:02:06
Speaker 2: make more sense. Actually, IndyCar here in the United States
1:02:10
Speaker 2: probably has it the best. They tend to have competitive
1:02:13
Speaker 2: races with maybe eight to ten drivers having a chance
1:02:15
Speaker 2: of winning the race. There's that everyone thinks the packers
1:02:20
Speaker 2: are going to lose next week in Denver. I mean
1:02:22
Speaker 2: I swear everyone thinks that, don't you well, I mean
1:02:25
Speaker 2: everyone thinks that because and the fact of the matter
1:02:28
Speaker 2: is you look at the Packers' schedule before this past Sunday,
1:02:32
Speaker 2: they needed to beat the Bears twice, and who cares
1:02:34
Speaker 2: what happens in the game in Denver, And the presumption
1:02:37
Speaker 2: is that the team is going to focus on it that
1:02:39
Speaker 2: way as well. What people tend to think is going
1:02:42
Speaker 2: to happen, however, often is not what happens. Is it
1:02:46
Speaker 2: possible the Packers could beat Denver and lose to the Bears.
1:02:48
Speaker 2: It's very possible that that's what could happen. That's today's podcast.
1:02:52
Speaker 2: Next one will be released on Wednesday. Talk to you then.
1:02:57
Speaker 1: The Mark Dulling podcast is a production of Heart Radio podcasts,
1:03:01
Speaker 1: production and engineering by Paul Crownforest. The Mark Billing podcast
1:03:05
Speaker 1: is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
1:03:09
Speaker 1: You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
1:03:13
Speaker 1: Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
1:03:16
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
1:03:20
Speaker 1: favorite podcasts.