Latest / World Ablaze with George Fontes / 25 - PLEASE WELCOME MY GUEST, RICK KNOWLTON

Transcript

25 - PLEASE WELCOME MY GUEST, RICK KNOWLTON · World Ablaze with George Fontes

• 0:00
  Hello, good afternoon, and you're very welcome to Live Line.
• 0:03
  Coming up on the show today, now, I'm going to go straight to you,
• 0:06
  Theresa Youssef, Michael, that's not your real name,
• 0:08
  who is a contractor, con-artist, conservationist,
• 0:11
  a constitutional scholar, also an influencer,
• 0:13
  Nicki Minaj fan, and you want to talk about menopause,
• 0:16
  men's fashion, prosthetic limbs,
• 0:18
  Live Line with Joe Duffy.
• 0:21
  Conversations that go places.
• 0:23
  RTE Radio 1, weekdays from 1.45.
• 0:26
  Do you think I came up the Liffey on a donut with no sugar?
• 0:30
  Download Whiskey Hell Podcast.
• 0:32
  We call attention to the mainstream media narratives weekly
• 0:35
  in hopes that you'll have fun with how ridiculous the news really is.
• 0:39
  We don't want to change your mind.
• 0:41
  We just want to give you perspective so that you can choose more wisely
• 0:44
  and be more aware.
• 0:45
  Couple that with great craft beer, hilarious stories,
• 0:48
  deep thoughts, and real conversations.
• 0:50
  We know you're going to enjoy it.
• 0:52
  Download Whiskey Hell Podcast anywhere you find outstanding shows.
• 1:00
  Welcome to World Ablaze with George Fonts. Today I have good friend and guest Rick Knowlton on the show. He is a military veteran, an all-around super researcher and political enthusiast.
• 1:14
  Today we discuss the need for truth and honesty in media, which also includes a truthful, reliable source of news for the American people.
• 1:24
  We also talk about the Biden crime family and their shenanigans and everything that's been going on with them,
• 1:32
  as well as revisit the Trump hush money case verdict and why the Democrats have had it out for Trump since the very beginning.
• 1:41
  I will apologize in advance we're recording this out here in the California Central Valley and
• 1:46
  we're already well into the 100 plus degree weather so we had the air conditioner on in
• 1:51
  the background of the studio so you'll hear a little bit of noise as we're speaking here and
• 1:56
  there I did my best to clean the audio up so please bear with that but overall it sounds pretty good
• 2:02
  and I hope you really enjoy this
• 2:04
  Hello and welcome World Blaze listeners and welcome to episode 25.
• 2:30
  And today I got a treat.
• 2:31
  I have a guest and we don't have many guests on the show,
• 2:34
  But I asked my good friend here, Rick Knowlton, to be on and get his perspective on things going on in this crazy world right now.
• 2:40
  And he's seen a few things, haven't you, Rick?
• 2:43
  You've seen a few things.
• 2:44
  Yeah.
• 2:45
  I think you've got a few things to say.
• 2:49
  Yeah, I've noted on being retired, it gives me a little bit of opportunity to spend more and more time getting into the various types of news services
• 2:59
  and the controversies between the conservative and liberal news media sources.
• 3:06
  So I am disgruntled about the liberals' news services such as CNN and MSNBC and what have you.
• 3:20
  But I understand that I heard this morning that Hunter Biden was found guilty on all three counts.
• 3:29
  possessions.
• 3:32
  Yeah, you brought that up earlier.
• 3:34
  I actually looked that up this morning earlier.
• 3:36
  I was up around 5 in the morning just kind of
• 3:38
  seeing what was going on with that, and I didn't even
• 3:40
  know. You just cued me into that.
• 3:43
  Article came out about two
• 3:44
  minutes ago all over the place. We got a CNN
• 3:46
  one here pulled up, though, but
• 3:47
  it does say he's guilty or
• 3:49
  found guilty, but we don't know
• 3:52
  what the sentence will be yet, right?
• 3:53
  Well, he was found guilty on all three charges.
• 3:56
  Now, it's going to be interesting to see.
• 3:58
  It took the jury only three hours to get together and formulate his guilty charges.
• 4:10
  So I think it's going to be interesting to see whether Biden holds true or not
• 4:16
  in his pardoning of him in these cases that are being held against him.
• 4:23
  Yeah, true.
• 4:24
  Well, he did say previous to this, actually a few days ago, or was it a week ago?
• 4:30
  Anyway, he did say that he was not going to pardon his son, supposedly.
• 4:35
  And again, I'm interested to see if that is still going to hold up, if he will not step in.
• 4:40
  Well, I think that that in itself would implement a whole open up a book of worms
• 4:45
  in that he doesn't pardon his son,
• 4:52
  and his son, being a drug addict,
• 4:55
  is angered by his dad's decision
• 4:58
  after he's already made comments from time to time
• 5:02
  about this Chinese money that they've made
• 5:07
  in retrospect to having to pay his father
• 5:11
  some of the proceeds that they got from China.
• 5:16
  So I'm kind of curious myself about what they were paid for
• 5:22
  and given that Biden had all these files at his house
• 5:29
  that were confidential and various levels of secret, top secret type of documents.
• 5:35
  and I heard on one occasion or more
• 5:40
  that people are concerned that maybe, just maybe,
• 5:46
  when Hunter Biden gets on his little airplane, Air Force One,
• 5:50
  and flies off to these foreign countries,
• 5:55
  what he takes with him is not inspected.
• 5:57
  He doesn't have to go through a custom.
• 6:00
  So the rumblings are that people are concerned with regards to him selling China and possibly Russia some of the information that was provided in these classified files that his dad had scattered around the country.
• 6:25
  oh wow that's that that is i agree with you on all that but i think the other the other reason
• 6:34
  biden joe biden his dad i've said this on a previous show that he did not well why he's
• 6:41
  claiming he will not pardon him is to hold up um or to get behind what happened with trump and his
• 6:49
  conviction so basically you know if he doesn't pardon trump you say well i didn't even pardon
• 6:54
  my own son, so why would I pardon Trump?
• 6:56
  So I think that's one of the reasons. The other reason
• 6:58
  I think is he's trying to distance himself as much as he
• 7:00
  can too because what else was on
• 7:02
  that laptop that was actually
• 7:04
  confirmed by an FBI
• 7:05
  witness that
• 7:09
  was actually a informant
• 7:12
  forensic specialist
• 7:14
  when it came to the data on the laptop.
• 7:16
  Everyone was trying to say that the laptop was
• 7:18
  tamper with, so you can't
• 7:20
  trust the data on the laptop.
• 7:22
  and they're only concentrating on the gun charge here, right?
• 7:26
  But in that data, they actually had a subpoena to Apple
• 7:30
  to get all the information from that laptop
• 7:33
  that was backed up to his iCloud account.
• 7:34
  So they have much more than what they're talking about.
• 7:38
  And what's funny is the FBI was denying this,
• 7:40
  what, about a year ago or so almost, right?
• 7:43
  That, no, there's nothing on there.
• 7:45
  You know, it was tampered with, it's real.
• 7:46
  And now they're flipping on the Biden saying,
• 7:48
  oh, well, actually the data is good.
• 7:50
  and we have a lot more here than we're letting everybody know.
• 7:53
  Well, the FBI had known that this laptop was real,
• 7:56
  and they didn't.
• 7:57
  Yes, but they denied it.
• 7:59
  They denied it.
• 8:00
  Previously, and now they're not, which is crazy.
• 8:01
  They're flipping, right?
• 8:03
  Yeah.
• 8:03
  Yeah, exactly.
• 8:05
  And, you know, eventually the truth comes out.
• 8:08
  Yeah.
• 8:08
  So when you lie, cheat, and steal,
• 8:12
  eventually the truth will come out and they'll catch up with you.
• 8:15
  Except for when it comes to the JFK assassination.
• 8:17
  Mm-hmm.
• 8:18
  Really.
• 8:19
  We still don't know.
• 8:20
  That's going to, yeah, his son was discussing that yesterday.
• 8:26
  I didn't get a chance to see it.
• 8:28
  I was going to go back and review what he had to say about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
• 8:35
  So it's going to be kind of curious as to what that discussion was about.
• 8:42
  Yeah, no doubt.
• 8:45
  Well, we're never going to know that one.
• 8:46
  They're never going to let us know because we all know the government was involved, but they weren't.
• 8:49
  Why would they be hiding it so much?
• 8:50
  But that's a whole other rabbit hole conspiracy we can dive down.
• 8:53
  But as far as Hunter Biden thing, I agree.
• 8:56
  It's like, now what?
• 8:59
  You know, this is the thing that's crazy, Rick, is in 2024 I noticed there's so much that's been blowing up in the Democrat Party's face
• 9:05
  and everything that's slowly becoming revealed that they were trying to suppress and hide.
• 9:11
  You know, more and more evidence against what Hillary Clinton done is starting to surface.
• 9:15
  Everything about the Bidens is starting to surface.
• 9:16
  It's like they can't hold it underwater.
• 9:19
  It's like trying to hold the beach ball underwater.
• 9:20
  They can't hold it down anymore.
• 9:22
  It's starting to come out.
• 9:23
  Yeah, with the advent of social media and what have you,
• 9:27
  it's more and more difficult for either the Republican Party
• 9:33
  or the Democratic Party to hide and lie to the American people
• 9:38
  and not have it exposed to some degree.
• 9:44
  That's true.
• 9:45
  and I think it's also gotten to the point where people are just fed up.
• 9:51
  Yes.
• 9:51
  You know, they're just not suppressing anymore.
• 9:53
  Just like we were discussing earlier about what happened in the EU,
• 9:57
  the European Parliament, where most everything there now, you know,
• 10:01
  Marcon is kind of scared because he knows that most all the other seats
• 10:06
  went conservative recently, just as of yesterday.
• 10:10
  Well, they're a majority now,
• 10:12
  The Conservative Parliament is switched over.
• 10:16
  The people throughout Europe have been fed up for a long time with the liberal ways.
• 10:20
  Your family's from England, right?
• 10:23
  Yes.
• 10:23
  You still get information from their news?
• 10:25
  Yeah, I talk to them periodically about it,
• 10:27
  and they have not been happy with the liberal running the country for so long.
• 10:34
  Did they have anything to say about what just happened with this election?
• 10:38
  I'm sorry?
• 10:38
  Did they have anything to say about what just happened with this election?
• 10:40
  No, I haven't had an opportunity to talk to him about it.
• 10:43
  I just found out about it yesterday myself.
• 10:46
  So I just don't think that Biden is going to hold true
• 10:53
  with not pardoning his son with these crimes.
• 10:57
  You don't think so?
• 10:58
  Because they're going to.
• 11:00
  It's going to be interesting to see what the sentence is.
• 11:04
  So I think that's going to have a big part of it.
• 11:07
  And with the sentencing of him,
• 11:09
  He's also got the other trial coming to the surface.
• 11:13
  I think that starts next week or the week after.
• 11:15
  Is that the tax one you're talking about?
• 11:17
  Yes.
• 11:18
  Yeah.
• 11:19
  And so it's going to be interesting to see because they're coming together back to back.
• 11:26
  So, and they're separate cases with certain penalties.
• 11:29
  So it's going to be, I think it's contingent upon what they charge him with
• 11:38
  and what they sentence him to with the two different cases combined, so to speak.
• 11:45
  Yeah, you're right.
• 11:46
  So if they give him a few years in prison, you know, eventually I am,
• 11:53
  the Democratic Party has been so corrupt over the years
• 11:58
  and gotten away with a tremendous amount of misleadership towards the American people
• 12:06
  that it has to surface and something needs to be done about it.
• 12:13
  There's another interesting thing here.
• 12:17
  I forgot what it is, but the Democrats are trying to also push a bill
• 12:21
  in which if you're a disgraced representative or whatever,
• 12:27
  I forgot the exact term.
• 12:29
  I'm just trying to go from memory.
• 12:31
  That, as it applies to Trump, he would be considered a disgraced president or a disgraced representative,
• 12:36
  and he would lose his ability to have Secret Service protection.
• 12:40
  Okay?
• 12:41
  So the reason I brought that up is if Biden doesn't pardon his son and he goes to jail,
• 12:46
  would he also, if this bill passes, will he fall under that?
• 12:50
  And will he lose his protection?
• 12:52
  Well, that would be an interesting one.
• 12:54
  I would assume that it would apply to both of them And I think that part of the democratic system is they don want Trump as president
• 13:08
  No.
• 13:08
  And they've been after him.
• 13:10
  He's been the most investigated person in American history throughout the world even.
• 13:16
  Yeah.
• 13:16
  And he is so clean that they couldn't find anything on him or they would have come after him for it.
• 13:26
  At one time, it was income tax evasion and this, that, and the other
• 13:29
  when he gave up his income that they made during his presidency
• 13:34
  and paid the state treasury the monies that were profited from the business.
• 13:42
  And his salary, like a few others, was donated to charity during his term in office.
• 13:50
  So I think that President Trump, if he's reelected, and I hope that he is, will be able to expose the Democratic Party and bring charges against a number of them that violated their position and constitutional rights and laws.
• 14:12
  Yeah, there's been arguments as to whether or not, if he's elected, or anyone in particular, but if he's elected, if he should do that, because they just think, well, it just looks like he's going out for blood.
• 14:24
  He's basically going after revenge.
• 14:27
  But I think I'm going to side with you on this, because I don't think it's revenge.
• 14:30
  I think it's really—
• 14:33
  They had to be held accountable for the laws that they violated and violations of the Constitution.
• 14:39
  Agreed.
• 14:39
  And that's the bigger thing is the violation of laws against the Constitution.
• 14:44
  I'll go even further to say that the Bidens have committed treason against the country,
• 14:49
  and they need to be held accountable for that.
• 14:51
  Selling secrets, selling influence.
• 14:54
  And all of that is included in the data that they pulled from Hunter's laptop,
• 14:58
  and there's been reports on it.
• 15:02
  That's the other big issue with this Hunter case
• 15:06
  and why maybe Biden was saying,
• 15:07
  and I will not pardon my son to kind of make him look like he's clean.
• 15:10
  But in the end, you know he's going to have to save his son
• 15:12
  because if he doesn't, he's going to talk anyway.
• 15:14
  That's right.
• 15:15
  So I think Joe is screwed here either way.
• 15:19
  I think so too.
• 15:20
  You know, his son was too heavily involved in drugs.
• 15:30
  So with that comes a degree of brain damage.
• 15:33
  and he's got, he's got.
• 15:37
  Yeah.
• 15:37
  And so you really can't rely on him as a dad, we'll say,
• 15:43
  to be able to support the misrepresentations
• 15:49
  that the father did as president of the United States.
• 15:52
  I mean, you can't get a more classic example
• 15:54
  of a spoiled, privileged kid with access, right?
• 15:58
  That's right.
• 15:59
  I mean, he's the epitome of it.
• 16:01
  Well, he's...
• 16:02
  Thinks he's untouchable.
• 16:03
  yeah exactly and uh and he's finding out different right he is i'm kind of i'm kind of surprised that
• 16:13
  they they um they pushed and found him guilty not not not because the evidence wasn't there
• 16:18
  but you would think that the democratic party would step in and make sure that
• 16:22
  they would twist this whole thing around the only reason i think he got the guilty charge is to try
• 16:27
  to like again hold up what happened to trump which was a complete sham of a case which i've gone
• 16:32
  into before, and I know you've researched yourself,
• 16:35
  everything that's involved in that.
• 16:37
  Yeah. Is that the phone?
• 16:39
  Yeah, it's not a problem. But
• 16:40
  we both researched that, and we've seen what's
• 16:42
  going on, or what went on with that
• 16:44
  case. Well, that's what I like
• 16:47
  about social media, because
• 16:49
  the fake news...
• 16:52
  See, the dogs don't like it either.
• 16:55
  No, they don't.
• 16:58
  So, the
• 16:59
  fake news media
• 17:01
  isn't bringing that to the surface.
• 17:04
  You've got to watch conservative news broadcasts,
• 17:08
  whether they be on the radio or TV.
• 17:11
  And there's one in particular that I like to watch,
• 17:15
  and that's Newsmax.
• 17:16
  And they're now fourth in fourth position
• 17:22
  on Wi-Fi-type broadcasting systems.
• 17:26
  Yeah, as far as digital media is concerned.
• 17:28
  The thing with Newsmax, though, is they are conservative.
• 17:31
  heavily conservative leading, but they have been criticized for not necessarily,
• 17:35
  basically for making stuff up or not looking truthful.
• 17:38
  But I got to say, how do you gauge that?
• 17:41
  Because, you know, so much has been coming out about what happened in leftist media.
• 17:45
  You know, look at MSNBC, CNN, to name the two biggest ones that have been caught in lies, you know,
• 17:52
  and kind of got away with it.
• 17:54
  With Newsmax, I disagree, and only because I haven't seen anything derogatory
• 18:03
  and or misrepresenting the people of this country.
• 18:08
  And their broadcasts are accurate.
• 18:10
  What I like about them is the fact that all of the guests on there are all retired
• 18:17
  and or representatives of professors of law from various universities
• 18:26
  able to discuss the constitutionalities of these cases against Trump.
• 18:32
  And there's been one of them that actually even sat in court
• 18:36
  and came up with about seven or eight variations in the time frame that he sat in court
• 18:44
  of constitutional violations that occurred in Trump's trial.
• 18:50
  And along with various other legal experts in the field that had retired,
• 18:57
  like I mentioned earlier, with the various Department of Justices and what have you,
• 19:05
  have also unanimously agreed that this trial, once it's been appealed, then it would be revoked.
• 19:19
  So I think what I like about Newsmax is just the facts that there are experts in the field
• 19:28
  that are invited guests that sit down and discuss the various aspects of what's going on in the country legally
• 19:39
  and negatives about, and it's divided.
• 19:43
  Their panels are set up with liberals as well as their conservative broadcast system.
• 19:50
  If you watch these various other news networks, you're seeing people that are anchors, news anchors, at a desk that have no ideology about constitutional law other than what they produce.
• 20:12
  they broadcast only what producers have to say and written down.
• 20:17
  Any deviation from that could cost them their job.
• 20:22
  So they're following a system, and if you switch from one channel to the other,
• 20:29
  there is a system in place that would allow the verbiage is almost identical.
• 20:37
  In some cases, when they do an opening statement about this Trump trial, for example, the verbiage is exactly the same.
• 20:49
  And that's because of the types of service that is provided to these various broadcasting networks.
• 20:57
  So that is true.
• 21:01
  Okay, so I'm going to say all leftists outlets, as you said.
• 21:06
  they do repeat the same exact lines, right?
• 21:12
  Right.
• 21:12
  Because they're all together driving the message home
• 21:15
  to support the Democratic Party, it seems like.
• 21:19
  But you can also argue that even on those shows
• 21:22
  and those outlets that they have conservatives on them.
• 21:26
  I'm doing air quotes for people
• 21:27
  because they'll have like one conservative
• 21:29
  ganged up by six other Democrats or liberal-leaning people,
• 21:34
  and all they do is just beat down the conservative for having an opinion.
• 21:39
  The hosts of these shows are absolutely left-leaning,
• 21:42
  but you can say the same thing about Newsmax,
• 21:44
  as in the hosts are conservative-leaning.
• 21:47
  But the difference, I would probably say, is you can see on CNN and MSNBC,
• 21:53
  and we see all of them.
• 21:54
  Well, part of that difference is that on Newsmax, for example,
• 22:00
  they've got a college professor on there that is a Democrat and a liberal.
• 22:07
  And some of these various judges that they bring in are professors of law,
• 22:12
  like Alan Dorswitz, for example.
• 22:15
  He's a Democrat.
• 22:16
  And he explains the constitutionalities of these trials,
• 22:23
  and he's not necessarily a friend of Trump's.
• 22:28
  He's actually represented Trump also.
• 22:30
  But he, as a liberal-type Democratic judge, he follows the Constitution and the laws of the land through the tooth.
• 22:44
  And he doesn't decipher the difference between a conservative and a liberal.
• 22:50
  So I think that's a fair point, but this is my opinion when it comes to people who tout their PhDs and whatnot.
• 22:58
  unless you have a PhD in rocket science and you're building rockets,
• 23:01
  I don't really care what your PhD is in your discipline.
• 23:05
  If you have a PhD or a master's in business or philosophy or whatever,
• 23:08
  who cares?
• 23:09
  Because any one of us as individuals can look that stuff up
• 23:11
  and educate ourselves on it, including the law.
• 23:14
  Law is open to everybody to read and interpret.
• 23:16
  It's not just for those with a PhD.
• 23:18
  So it doesn't mean that even with a PhD, they won't have...
• 23:20
  Well, it does because a lot of people don't even...
• 23:22
  It doesn't mean that they won't have their own opinions just as we would.
• 23:26
  The difference is, is if you're practicing law, you're in it all the time.
• 23:29
  So it's easier for you to reach back in your mind and go, oh, yeah, we ran across this.
• 23:32
  We have access to things.
• 23:33
  Maybe we don't, but we could all interpret it.
• 23:37
  Well, I would put my money on what they have to say.
• 23:41
  And when they describe the laws that were violated during this particular trial, as opposed to somebody sitting at a desk that is an anchor person with no knowledge at all about Constitution.
• 23:56
  And one of the regulars on one of the particular programs of Newsmax is a professor at one of the universities, and he's a Democrat.
• 24:07
  So every night he prevents his point of view, and he's very outspoken as to his opinion in retrospects that are contrary to what the others say on the system.
• 24:21
  I think what I've seen—
• 24:22
  Well, you won't find that on the other networks.
• 24:25
  No, but on the other networks, what I see is exactly what you said in terms of not even arguing the constitutionality of the law or what laws are being broken or how they're being upheld.
• 24:35
  They're just giving you an opinion because all they wanted was a guilty verdict.
• 24:38
  They're not discussing the Trump case in detail.
• 24:41
  They never were.
• 24:42
  They weren't saying anything about why this was a misdemeanor.
• 24:45
  Why was it moved up to being now a federal charge?
• 24:49
  They didn't explain that.
• 24:50
  they didn't explain how the charges came about and what,
• 24:54
  what they were using to back those charges up with.
• 24:56
  They were just like,
• 24:57
  Oh,
• 24:57
  he's guilty on 34 misdemeanors.
• 24:59
  Now their felony charges.
• 25:01
  And now he goes to jail.
• 25:02
  And that's all they said.
• 25:02
  They didn't really dive deep into it because they didn't care.
• 25:04
  CNN had a counter of how many felonies he was convicted of.
• 25:10
  Literally like every time there's one,
• 25:11
  it'll drop number one,
• 25:12
  number two,
• 25:13
  number three,
• 25:13
  like that right there tells you they're not a news outlet.
• 25:16
  So I'm not disagreeing with you.
• 25:17
  I guess my point being is like kind of,
• 25:20
  I've always said be careful.
• 25:22
  Well, the point is that you just said what they said.
• 25:25
  They're more entertainment than they are news channels these days.
• 25:27
  Well, that's exactly right.
• 25:29
  And yet, the average American works 8 to 10, 12 hours a day.
• 25:36
  And when they come home, then they've got to address their home issues.
• 25:41
  And they don't have time to switch channels.
• 25:44
  They switch on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and watch a news program there.
• 25:54
  And so as such they are misled by these particular liberal networks in what is really going on
• 26:08
  True.
• 26:08
  Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on that at all.
• 26:10
  What I'd like to see is I'd like to see eventually if Trump was to be reelected,
• 26:17
  and because it's not, and I say if Trump's reelected,
• 26:21
  irregardless of who is elected,
• 26:24
  bit, I don't really think that the Democrats would actually do this.
• 26:29
  And I would like to see them bring in to Congress or subpoena these various news network posts
• 26:41
  and have them explain why they said what they said, knowingly misleading the American people.
• 26:50
  I would really look forward to that.
• 26:53
  I agree, but the problem is they're going to tell you they already did that,
• 26:58
  which is why Tucker was fired and various other personalities were fired.
• 27:04
  Well, right off the top of my head, Tucker was fired because the,
• 27:09
  I don't recall the name of that billionaire that has investments
• 27:15
  in all of the news, fake news media sources.
• 27:20
  Was it Murdoch?
• 27:20
  I believe it may be.
• 27:22
  But the point is, is they go along with what he has to say because he has enough power,
• 27:30
  and he's one of the richest men in the world, and he's even upset the British euro dollars,
• 27:37
  and Europe had to come after him in retrospect to have him stop some of the things that he was doing before that occurred.
• 27:46
  So he has a lot of money.
• 27:49
  He's supporting the various Trumps, the district attorneys that have filed these charges against Trump and donated money to them.
• 27:58
  It was Rupert Murdoch.
• 27:59
  Okay.
• 28:00
  Yeah.
• 28:00
  He's a media executive, served as co-chairman, Fox corporate.
• 28:04
  So, yeah, it was him.
• 28:05
  So Murdoch has a lot of power.
• 28:08
  And Murdoch is the one that controls Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC.
• 28:13
  and either you go along with what he has to say or you lose your job.
• 28:21
  Served as co-chairman for Fox, executive chairman for News Corp
• 28:24
  before officially stepping down in 2023, November,
• 28:28
  and inherited a chain of newspapers at the age of 22.
• 28:31
  So yeah, he was basically, like you said,
• 28:34
  one of the main people driving all the news and media outlets there was.
• 28:39
  So in the end, it all came back to him somehow.
• 28:41
  Now the American people aren't going to hear that, and they're not going to know it because it's never going to be said on the fake news networks.
• 28:52
  And basically what it is is all these are working in cahoots through him and his supporting of the Democratic Party to control what's happening in this country with our politics and with our laws.
• 29:07
  You know what I've noticed?
• 29:08
  I've brought this up a few times.
• 29:10
  If you want news, you've got to watch the local networks.
• 29:14
  It seems like they're the only ones actually telling you any kind of news.
• 29:17
  The local networks.
• 29:19
  Like your local Sacramento, local whatever city you're in.
• 29:22
  And then when you get to the bigger parent company or the flagship shows,
• 29:28
  it seems like they're not even telling you.
• 29:31
  Like I think I said before, they're just more like entertainment.
• 29:35
  It's like a big echo chamber to where you can hear what makes you feel good.
• 29:39
  It's like you're part of this big team where you're cheering everything on
• 29:42
  and they're backing you up, and that's all it is.
• 29:44
  It's just entertainment.
• 29:45
  I find more news stories from local news stations
• 29:50
  than I do on the bigger flagship shows or the larger networks.
• 29:53
  Well, I watch.
• 29:55
  I don't see a lot going on.
• 29:59
  Basically, when I turn the TV on and I watch,
• 30:02
  they're either ABC, CBS, NBC.
• 30:04
  Right.
• 30:04
  And those are the flagships.
• 30:06
  And all of these others are satellites from those broadcasting networks.
• 30:10
  No, they are, but they're more local.
• 30:11
  They're more centralized towards whatever city you're in or whatever.
• 30:14
  Well, yeah, but they're not into politics as heavy.
• 30:18
  They bring in the local weather and the local events in town and that sort of thing.
• 30:23
  True, but I found some stories such as, you know,
• 30:26
  I just had a sex trafficking episode I put out,
• 30:28
  and there was a report done by a Sacramento television station
• 30:33
  that actually put that whole thing together.
• 30:34
  You can actually watch on YouTube.
• 30:36
  And they did a whole investigation on it.
• 30:37
  I didn't hear it anywhere on any of the bigger outlets.
• 30:40
  Anywhere.
• 30:41
  Like, nobody even talked about it.
• 30:42
  I caught a drift of that myself the other day.
• 30:45
  Yeah.
• 30:45
  And I think...
• 30:46
  And every time I hear something like that type of,
• 30:49
  like an investigative type of story about things going on,
• 30:52
  it's always on a local station.
• 30:53
  I think that's why I said, you know,
• 30:55
  that's why I see more news on the local stations
• 30:57
  because I find those things more there
• 30:59
  than I will like on a Rachel Maddow.
• 31:01
  There's nothing there.
• 31:02
  It's just political commentary and, you know, just trying to drive the talking points, basically, right?
• 31:08
  Well, there are low-key networks, and they're not usually controversial.
• 31:12
  And like you said, they do give you some input of what's going on that the major networks not necessarily are bringing together.
• 31:21
  I'm not saying just listen to those.
• 31:22
  There's a whole lot of other things going on in the world.
• 31:25
  I just find it interesting that you could find that there, but it wouldn't be a major news story.
• 31:29
  And we're talking about sex trafficking in California.
• 31:32
  Mm-hmm.
• 31:33
  And theoretically, they are, because with the sex trafficking in California,
• 31:39
  it is filtered in retrospect to being associated, I guess,
• 31:48
  with the illegals in the country that have come into the country.
• 31:54
  I mean, it's been there for years, sex trafficking has.
• 31:58
  Oh, yeah, yeah.
• 31:59
  I didn't bring that up to just talk about that topic.
• 32:01
  I just kind of brought up as an example of something I heard in a local station that I never heard on the matron.
• 32:07
  No.
• 32:07
  That was surprising to me.
• 32:09
  Well, the major news networks are primarily into politics right now.
• 32:13
  It seems that's all they're talking about.
• 32:15
  And one of the other ones that I've been really griping me lately is Google and Yahoo.
• 32:20
  And Yahoo and Google, 98% of their front pages have to deal with Trump.
• 32:35
  And they're all negative.
• 32:38
  You rarely ever see anything negative about Biden.
• 32:43
  Basically, Yahoo and Google, in my opinion, they are negative towards the conservative Republican Party and are an outsource only for the Democratic Party.
• 32:59
  And as such, they're biased and they're misleading the American people and they're not supporting the negatives of the Democratic Party.
• 33:11
  It's Trump, Trump, Trump, get Trump.
• 33:14
  No, and so...
• 33:15
  One of the things that I find and feel that as being an American citizen,
• 33:23
  that we are fortunate to a degree to have, you know, Trump to begin with,
• 33:31
  he's, like they have said in the past, is you may not like him,
• 33:37
  but he has done a lot of good for this country.
• 33:42
  And what I kind of went wrong,
• 33:45
  forgot what I was going to have in a senior moment here,
• 33:47
  with his...
• 33:48
  It's okay.
• 33:49
  I have them all the time, and I'm not even senior yet.
• 33:55
  It'll come back.
• 33:57
  Well, you were just talking about how every outlet,
• 34:01
  basically all they have as far as news,
• 34:05
  and the only thing they ever talk about is Trump.
• 34:07
  It's like they're obsessed with them, right?
• 34:08
  Right.
• 34:09
  And I agree with you.
• 34:10
  It's as if...
• 34:13
  I'm wondering what these media outlets are going to do.
• 34:14
  What I was going to say was this.
• 34:15
  Okay, you first go ahead.
• 34:16
  Is that if it would have been any other Republican running for office,
• 34:24
  they would not have been able to afford what Trump has had to pay out for defense.
• 34:32
  No, you're right.
• 34:33
  And the Democrats would run away with the election.
• 34:38
  He's the one guy that they can't figure out how to make go away
• 34:42
  because he's got too much influence, too many connections.
• 34:46
  And he had too much money.
• 34:48
  So they go after him.
• 34:49
  They can't go after him legally and charge him for any real crimes
• 34:53
  because he hasn't committed any.
• 34:55
  The crimes that were committed were committed by the Democratic Party
• 34:59
  in trying to prosecute him on fake charges.
• 35:02
  Yeah, they were fake.
• 35:03
  And these charges that he just had, these 34 charges that he had,
• 35:08
  they never did come out and actually tell you what law was violated.
• 35:14
  I can tell you.
• 35:15
  I can tell you their take.
• 35:17
  So the 34 charges originally were misdemeanors under New York state law,
• 35:22
  and what it was was misclassification of records when it came to his business books
• 35:27
  in terms of the payments that were made with that story.
• 35:31
  That was a note in his personal record.
• 35:34
  I understand.
• 35:35
  I'm just going to tell you how they came about this.
• 35:38
  So what they did is, in New York law,
• 35:41
  you cannot misclassify business records when it comes to payments or money, right?
• 35:46
  So because the payments literally didn't say he was paying the contract
• 35:50
  to Stormy Daniels to shut her mouth,
• 35:52
  and it said that he was paying legal fees,
• 35:56
  that they're saying that was misclassification.
• 35:58
  Where they got the 34 counts was for the 34 documents in either checks, records, or contracts from his lawyer that stated all this.
• 36:07
  Now, technically, technically, if you're thinking like a lawyer, which I know you do, he didn't misclassify that at all.
• 36:17
  He was really literally paying his lawyer for services.
• 36:20
  His lawyer is the one who set up the Shell Company or other company to buy the rights to the story from the National Enquirer.
• 36:30
  And that was done way before he even said he was going to run for election.
• 36:33
  So what they tried to do was tie all of that in, say he was hiding it, misclassifying the payments,
• 36:41
  and that's how they got the misdemeanor charge and how they got the 34 counts.
• 36:44
  how it got pushed up to a federal charge is they're trying to say that what he was suppressing as information in terms of his books and his payments,
• 36:56
  that he was going out of his way and had another nefarious scheme to suppress information in the election in 2016.
• 37:05
  And they were trying to tie those payments and book records to that, and that's how they supposedly were able to publish to a federal charge.
• 37:10
  What they said was in retrospect to the violations, but that's where it comes in.
• 37:18
  That's where the professors of constitutional law comes into play, that sit in on these cases,
• 37:26
  stating that all of these particular charges back then were misdemeanors and the statute of limitations were out,
• 37:36
  And anything to do with the, what was the name of the?
• 37:42
  Stormy Daniels.
• 37:43
  Stormy Daniels was not in any violation of the law.
• 37:48
  I understand.
• 37:48
  So if you write a book or write a check to pay, you know, write a check from your checkbook
• 37:58
  instead of specifying exactly what it's to because it's your record for your company's record,
• 38:06
  It isn't for the state, and it isn't for the IRS.
• 38:12
  So what he writes for himself in his business record is his business.
• 38:19
  And this is one of the aspects of his violation.
• 38:24
  They could come into anybody's house, and if you wrote the verbiage on it and changed it, you knew what it was for.
• 38:32
  but it wasn't specific enough to be credited to show that what it was actually for,
• 38:42
  then you violated a law, which is not.
• 38:45
  Yeah, exactly. That's what I was explaining.
• 38:47
  Really.
• 38:48
  And he technically didn't violate any law.
• 38:50
  And if you really want to really talk, okay, so all you have to do is follow the money.
• 38:54
  Well, I understand what they did here with following the money.
• 38:57
  But the point is this during this trial they never ever came out pointed out the specific violation of law that occurred where there wasn one So this termination of what he did They never specifically
• 39:15
  tried to say how they determined it was to become a federal charge, but they did have enough to say
• 39:20
  it would be classified as a misdemeanor. How it was bumped up to a federal was what's under
• 39:25
  So we're not federal offenses.
• 39:28
  Agreed.
• 39:29
  And the statute of limitations ran out of.
• 39:31
  That's where the whole thing is like, well, how is this being tied?
• 39:33
  So they tried to tie it by saying, this is what's funny.
• 39:36
  They tried to tie this together by saying that he intentionally had another scheme to suppress information for his political campaign.
• 39:47
  Okay, so let's start there.
• 39:48
  And that's how they tried to bump this up to a federal charge.
• 39:51
  because if you do so, then now technically he was making payments to shut her up, which is not
• 39:57
  illegal anyway. And she signed a contract and agreed to it. She could have got more money,
• 40:02
  but she got 130. Well, at one point she said she never had an affair with him. Exactly. So they're
• 40:06
  trying to say, they tried to say that that 130,000, this is where he got into trouble,
• 40:12
  was a campaign contribution and it violated campaign fund laws and everything. And that's
• 40:20
  how they tried to tie this together with the misdemeanors involved to a federal, which they
• 40:24
  somehow got with a corrupt judge and corrupt jury. But once he signs a check for his attorney and
• 40:31
  what his attorney writes is two different things. I understand. So that's part of what I understand
• 40:37
  to be what occurred was this attorney that he hired not only stole some of this money himself,
• 40:45
  but rewrote these checks or wrote these payments representing Trump,
• 40:51
  and he admitted in court that he had stolen some money and misappropriated it and signed these checks.
• 41:00
  He stole money.
• 41:01
  But the issue with the payments—
• 41:03
  But the thing is, is we kind of deviated from my original point of view here with being able to—
• 41:10
  for Trump to being financially or rich enough to be able to fight off the
• 41:16
  democratic party.
• 41:17
  If it would have been anybody else,
• 41:19
  uh,
• 41:20
  uh,
• 41:21
  we would be in very serious trouble.
• 41:24
  Yeah.
• 41:24
  I was just trying to explain how they came about it.
• 41:26
  I'm not supporting it.
• 41:28
  I'm just kind of explaining.
• 41:29
  This is how they tried to make it a federal charge,
• 41:31
  which is all bullshit because I don't,
• 41:34
  I don't see how they even got that to pass and how they can claim that the
• 41:38
  hundred three thousand was a campaign contribution.
• 41:40
  Well, those are some of the reasons why his constitutional rights have been violated,
• 41:45
  and those are a portion.
• 41:49
  It's made up.
• 41:49
  One of the other interesting things that come to mind in this is when the judge kicked everybody out of court.
• 41:56
  True.
• 41:57
  Then the court is made up, and one of those persons that didn't leave the court was a professor of law.
• 42:04
  And what I like about these professors of law, they're the ones that teach the judges and teach the attorneys.
• 42:10
  They are.
• 42:10
  And they're more knowledgeable than these judges are because they've been professors of law for many, many, many years.
• 42:18
  So they know constitutional law inside and out.
• 42:22
  I would put my money on them before I ever would on a judge or an attorney in what they have to say to the American people.
• 42:31
  So we can go in another direction of one particular attorney, and we'll get back to that a little bit later.
• 42:39
  But sitting in this courtroom, when the judge dismissed everybody and went after Trump's key witness in retrospect to his money issues,
• 42:56
  and the judge would not allow him to speak.
• 43:01
  So that was a violation of the law.
• 43:04
  The whole gag order thing was ridiculous.
• 43:06
  And so when he kicked out the newspaper reporters, they have a constitutional right to be in that courthouse or in that courtroom.
• 43:16
  And so when he kicked them out, that was another violation of his constitutional rights.
• 43:24
  Okay.
• 43:25
  So anyway, that trial was a hoax, and I don't really—
• 43:30
  Yeah, we both agree.
• 43:31
  It was bullshit.
• 43:32
  It was all made up.
• 43:33
  And I will just say this about the trial.
• 43:35
  It's a perfect example of, in a court case, lawyers, see this whole thing called interpretation of law.
• 43:46
  Because you could, anybody could read something, a definition, and they have a, they could try to interpret it differently to where it might mean something slightly different to each person.
• 43:58
  That's how they argue and win cases.
• 43:59
  But this was a perfect example of not interpretation, but basically completely manipulating the law and bending it to get the outcome that they wanted, which they already knew what they wanted.
• 44:11
  And that's the problem I saw with this case.
• 44:13
  And again, that's where all bullshit.
• 44:16
  What's his name comes in?
• 44:18
  Who's that?
• 44:19
  The billionaire.
• 44:21
  The professor.
• 44:22
  The billionaire.
• 44:24
  Oh, which one?
• 44:25
  The one we were just discussing.
• 44:26
  Oh, Murdoch?
• 44:27
  Murdoch, yeah.
• 44:27
  So Murdoch is the one that headed this up financially for New York's district attorney's office.
• 44:36
  And how that money comes about and filters into them, I don't know.
• 44:41
  But I do know that he was financed.
• 44:44
  There was a lot of finance that came from Soros as well.
• 44:51
  Well, Murdoch and Trump don't get along well to begin with.
• 44:54
  No?
• 44:54
  So he hates Trump.
• 44:56
  And he's going to do whatever he can.
• 44:58
  You know what's crazy is everyone hates Trump,
• 45:01
  but they all built their media companies off Trump's back.
• 45:05
  Because when he started running for president is when all of a sudden
• 45:08
  all these media companies got huge, got eyeballs.
• 45:10
  What are they going to do when Trump is gone?
• 45:13
  Well, that's going to be an interesting thing because I don't,
• 45:18
  when Trump is gone in retrospect to what?
• 45:23
  no longer able to run as president?
• 45:25
  No, no, when he's no longer a personality
• 45:29
  that is interesting to anybody in the media.
• 45:31
  Like, let's say he wasn't around.
• 45:34
  What's going to happen?
• 45:35
  Because I remember CNN was barely hanging on
• 45:37
  before the whole Trump craze.
• 45:39
  And then all of a sudden,
• 45:39
  when Trump was running for the president,
• 45:41
  they had something they could latch onto,
• 45:42
  and they just started gaining momentum again.
• 45:45
  Same thing with MSNBC was pretty much dead before Trump.
• 45:47
  And it seems like all anybody has
• 45:49
  in these big media companies to talk about
• 45:51
  because people are interested in him is Trump.
• 45:54
  That's it.
• 45:54
  Once that story goes away, what's going to save these companies?
• 45:59
  Well, it's an interesting point.
• 46:02
  I think a lot of it's going to have to do with those that can afford to run for president.
• 46:11
  It's going to be an interesting five months or so.
• 46:18
  and I see where the, you know, when you get back down to it,
• 46:23
  Trump was the only billionaire.
• 46:26
  He didn't need the money.
• 46:28
  The both on the Republican side, the rhinos on the Republican side,
• 46:33
  and the Democratic Party, and it's not all of the Democrats either.
• 46:38
  There's good people on the Democrat side.
• 46:41
  But the Clintons, the Bidens, Biden, you know,
• 46:47
  These people have got so much to cover up.
• 46:53
  And like Adam Schaaf, for example, supporting Hillary Clinton with this Russia hoax scenario,
• 47:02
  knowingly that she was the one that created that story and paid for it.
• 47:09
  Well, that's another character that can't, that's a big example of, you know, if...
• 47:17
  If the left is not a tyrannical party at this point and not going out of the way to keep themselves in power, then how is Hillary Clinton not in jail?
• 47:27
  All the evidence came out.
• 47:28
  It was revealed.
• 47:29
  She faked everything.
• 47:30
  And when she was pushed to provide the evidence, she wiped her servers.
• 47:34
  So, oh, I'm sorry.
• 47:35
  We erased it.
• 47:36
  I don't have anything.
• 47:37
  That's because.
• 47:37
  Which in and of itself was illegal.
• 47:39
  And she shouldn't even have had those servers at her house.
• 47:41
  No.
• 47:43
  Well, exactly.
• 47:44
  And, you know, Trump at the time that he was president had an opportunity to go after her.
• 47:51
  I wonder why he did it.
• 47:53
  Trying to be the bigger person?
• 47:54
  No.
• 47:55
  Well, actually, the Clintons and him, before he ran for office, were friends.
• 48:00
  So a lot of these people were friends before that ever occurred.
• 48:04
  It's funny you say that because I brought up old, I found, it's hard to find now,
• 48:08
  but there were some old episodes of Trump on The View.
• 48:11
  And it's funny how back then they all loved Trump.
• 48:14
  But as soon as he announced he was going to run for presidency,
• 48:17
  everybody flipped on him.
• 48:18
  All of a sudden, he was the enemy.
• 48:20
  Well, that's because they got scared.
• 48:22
  Because the brunt of these people,
• 48:26
  how do they come in making $100,000, $150,000 a year
• 48:31
  and come out of it worth $300 million five, six years later?
• 48:36
  Insider trading.
• 48:38
  Speeches.
• 48:40
  You know, is one aspect of it.
• 48:43
  Speakers engagements.
• 48:43
  I'm going to put together a bill in a couple of months, and we're all going to force people to buy electrical vehicles.
• 48:51
  Newsom wants garbage trucks and buses all to be electrical.
• 48:58
  So where do we go from there?
• 48:59
  Oh, good idea.
• 49:01
  Well, what companies are going to build it?
• 49:03
  Well, I'm going to invest in these companies.
• 49:06
  So they go ahead and they buy stock in these companies
• 49:10
  knowing that these bills are going to be appropriated
• 49:14
  and grants are going to be given these companies in some cases
• 49:19
  to manufacture these products.
• 49:21
  And these people have gotten 300% returns on their stock.
• 49:26
  And that's another person that gets away with it.
• 49:28
  And everybody knows she does is Pelosi.
• 49:30
  I mean, perfect example of insider trading.
• 49:32
  She doesn't care that you know.
• 49:34
  Everybody knows.
• 49:35
  You know, that whole family, you know, even looking at Newsom, how corrupt he is.
• 49:42
  I mean, somehow during COVID, his restaurants and wineries were able to thrive and stay open and make money.
• 49:46
  And he can go dine at French Laundry and everything while everybody else is suffering.
• 49:50
  Well, this is a type of corruption that we've been discussing in retrospect to the Democratic Party.
• 49:57
  And they don't want Trump in to bring this to court.
• 50:02
  And if he has an opportunity, and I think that they should be, and if they violated any laws and the news media is violating, misleading the American people, they're no longer becoming a news service.
• 50:18
  They're becoming a front for the Democratic Party, and I would love to see their broadcasting licenses because they're a federal broadcasting license, and if they violated federal law, they're no longer a reliable news source.
• 50:36
  They're an outlet for the Democratic Party, and as such, that's why I said earlier that I'd like to see these people brought into Congress or subpoenaed into Congress and then bring all this to the surface and have their broadcasting licenses revoked.
• 50:58
  And if Trump has the authority to do that and or Congress does this, you're going to see a whole different change in the way the news media sources start discussing the news.
• 51:14
  Right. That's true.
• 51:16
  I was trying to find, I heard something, or I remember, but there was a, I thought Obama was involved, and I might be wrong on this, there was a repeal of the propaganda ban, which basically, a while back when Obama was in office, he was involved in signing, I think he was signing a bill that would repeal the ability to spread propaganda to the American people by the U.S. government.
• 51:43
  I might be wrong on that.
• 51:46
  I'm trying to look it up right now because I don't remember all the specifics, but I do recall that and everyone being pretty pissed off about it.
• 51:55
  And I think maybe that's what's going on here.
• 51:59
  The government stepped in to allow this to happen, and they're willingly spreading lies and propaganda to control.
• 52:04
  I mean, we're just turning into Venezuela.
• 52:07
  Exactly.
• 52:08
  We really are.
• 52:09
  Well, we're lost.
• 52:10
  We're a joke at this point to the rest of the world.
• 52:13
  Absolutely.
• 52:13
  And now, I don't know.
• 52:15
  I just caught the drift of it yesterday.
• 52:18
  But evidently, Saudi Arabia is looking to—
• 52:22
  the U.S. had an agreement with Saudi Arabia
• 52:27
  in regards to the American dollar.
• 52:30
  The American dollar is the world's...
• 52:35
  It's the currency.
• 52:35
  It's what everything's backed up on.
• 52:37
  Right.
• 52:38
  And so Saudi Arabia is looking to not renew that letter or agreement.
• 52:46
  There's a few countries getting off of our standard.
• 52:49
  Of course, like Russia, obviously, because everything that happened with all the tariffs and whatnot and the sanctions,
• 52:54
  they're getting away from it.
• 52:55
  China was already doing that years ago.
• 52:58
  and I believe Brazil was part of that.
• 53:01
  I think Venezuela was part of that
• 53:03
  where they were trying to start their own banks
• 53:06
  with their own currency that can be used.
• 53:09
  Well, evidently this thing with Saudi Arabia
• 53:13
  and the oil and the amounts of money that they make,
• 53:17
  like a billion dollars a day or a trillion dollars a day,
• 53:20
  some outrageous amount of money that they are worth,
• 53:24
  they get off this standard,
• 53:25
  that's going to have a very serious impact on the United States.
• 53:32
  I just thought a little bit of it.
• 53:34
  I don't know enough to discuss that to any degree.
• 53:39
  But today I was going to look it up and find out exactly what it's all about.
• 53:45
  But I understand that this could drive, evidently, possibly the country bankrupt.
• 53:51
  Yeah, we can talk about it another day, too, once we get more of that information.
• 53:55
  And I agree.
• 53:56
  I mean, now, if they do that, then, I mean, they're already controlling the price of oil as it is.
• 54:02
  But if they get off the standard of the dollar, then we're all screwed because it can go anywhere it wants.
• 54:09
  Well, what they're saying is they have made a reference to the interest rates and the prime rates and the value of the American dollar.
• 54:17
  And it's going to take it.
• 54:19
  The value of the American dollar is going to go down the toilet.
• 54:22
  and in the United States, the interest rates on loans
• 54:28
  and various types of purchases are going to be through the roof.
• 54:35
  Yeah, I'll have to look into that because I don't know enough about that right now.
• 54:39
  But that's definitely something I'm going to look into too
• 54:41
  because that sounds crazy.
• 54:44
  But we saw this coming by our government mismanaging our money
• 54:48
  and mismanaging the value of our dollar.
• 54:49
  I mean, you can't just flood the market with new printed dollars
• 54:55
  and expect the value to remain the same or even go higher.
• 54:59
  It's not going to happen.
• 54:59
  Well, when they got off the gold standard many years ago,
• 55:02
  the dollar was fake money.
• 55:10
  True.
• 55:10
  It's all counterfeit money.
• 55:12
  True, because you had nothing to judge it against.
• 55:14
  That's right.
• 55:14
  Yeah.
• 55:15
  Yep.
• 55:15
  All right.
• 55:16
  So all that being said about the value of the dollar and what's going on,
• 55:20
  other countries getting away from it,
• 55:21
  but that's not the only thing they're getting away from.
• 55:23
  Cause what I wanted to bring up earlier,
• 55:24
  we went on this discussion into what's going on with the leftist media and
• 55:29
  suppression of information,
• 55:30
  how they're making stuff up and being led by the Democrat party to get the
• 55:34
  results they want and influence court cases.
• 55:38
  Right.
• 55:40
  Basically seems like,
• 55:43
  okay.
• 55:43
  So as you said earlier,
• 55:44
  the U S used to be very respected.
• 55:46
  They're not anymore. We're not. We used to be the leaders, the first at everything.
• 55:50
  And we brought up earlier how the European Parliament, how now the majority has gone conservative.
• 55:57
  Seems like Europe is now at this point leading the charge and saying, hey, we're fed up with this bullshit, right?
• 56:06
  Right.
• 56:06
  We tried it. We let it run its course. And the leftist ideals were done with it.
• 56:12
  and I say leftist because I don't have anything against Democrats.
• 56:16
  A real Democrat and a real Republican are actually pretty close.
• 56:20
  There's just a few things that they have differences on, right?
• 56:24
  And it's that weird, hard-left ideological viewpoints
• 56:31
  that they keep trying to shove down the public's throat,
• 56:34
  and it started here and then caught fire worldwide,
• 56:36
  but now the rest of the world is going, oh, fuck that.
• 56:39
  We're done.
• 56:39
  We're coming back around.
• 56:40
  Do you think that's going to start here?
• 56:43
  It seems like we're at the point where people are starting to just...
• 56:46
  Well, I think they're making the transition now to people are just fed up with the liberal,
• 56:54
  communistic drive of the Democratic Party.
• 56:58
  And I think, as such, it's going to be very, very interesting to see the outcome of this
• 57:08
  next election.
• 57:09
  And I think the American people are just tired of the having to pay the open border, for example, and how we're having to pay for people that their countries didn't want.
• 57:33
  It's interesting you brought that up.
• 57:35
  Because we're in an election year, and now Biden is suddenly getting credit for shutting down the border.
• 57:42
  Well, it's not really shut down.
• 57:44
  No, it isn't.
• 57:45
  But he's supposedly trying to close the border down.
• 57:48
  All of a sudden, when that was already done, when Trump was president,
• 57:52
  and then as soon as Biden became president, they undid everything that he did
• 57:56
  and left it open until now, when he's five months away from being elected again.
• 58:02
  Biden, which I don't think is going to happen.
• 58:03
  Well, I don't think Biden's going to be elected.
• 58:05
  In fact, it's going to be interesting to see what happens to him in the next four months.
• 58:10
  I mean, he was really an embarrassment in Normandy for the D-Day celebration,
• 58:18
  attempting to sit down when there wasn't a chair there.
• 58:23
  And then we have all of these heroes that were standing there, invited American heroes that were standing there.
• 58:36
  And he just totally blew it.
• 58:40
  His wife walks him away from the meeting for being there and what they did for the countries.
• 58:50
  There's two things I saw in that.
• 58:53
  and a lot of people are getting mad.
• 58:57
  Okay, to your point, because you served as well.
• 58:59
  I'm sure that pissed you off as well, personally,
• 59:03
  as a slap in the face, as a level of disrespect.
• 59:06
  But you can look at it the way you did,
• 59:09
  or you can see it for what it really was, I think,
• 59:14
  and it just reveals his state of mind and his health
• 59:17
  and where he's really at.
• 59:18
  Well, I do too.
• 59:20
  Yeah, that's exactly right.
• 59:21
  and he has no business being president of this country.
• 59:25
  I'm not going to defend Biden,
• 59:26
  but I don't think he was intentionally sitting down disrespect.
• 59:28
  I think he literally was like, okay, is it time to sit?
• 59:32
  You can see him kind of like, do I sit down?
• 59:34
  He didn't know what was going on.
• 59:36
  Exactly.
• 59:37
  Yeah, I don't think it was an intentional type of disrespect.
• 59:41
  But it still was.
• 59:42
  But you can flag it as a disrespect.
• 59:44
  Yeah, you can.
• 59:45
  When you watch him enough times to see him
• 59:49
  when they brought in the 10, 12 soldiers that were killed in Afghanistan.
• 59:53
  Yeah.
• 59:53
  And he's standing there looking at his watch.
• 59:55
  Yes.
• 59:56
  And then he's got this speech in Normandy, and he gets off and walks away.
• 1:00:01
  True.
• 1:00:02
  And there's no explanation as to why he had to leave.
• 1:00:06
  True.
• 1:00:06
  Now, his wife, Jill, has a tendency to voice her opinion about different types of situations
• 1:00:14
  or subjects pertaining to Joe Biden.
• 1:00:19
  Why couldn't she have come forward and say, you know, why they had to leave?
• 1:00:26
  That in itself would be defined as a cover-up.
• 1:00:30
  Right.
• 1:00:31
  And so...
• 1:00:32
  Well, the ruling party doesn't want to let everyone know their king has issues, right?
• 1:00:37
  Well, you know, it's already out there.
• 1:00:39
  I've watched numerous psychologists on TV.
• 1:00:44
  One of the things they all were unison on was that they haven't talked to Joe,
• 1:00:51
  so they can't formulate an official opinion.
• 1:00:55
  But the commonality between them all and his body language,
• 1:00:59
  the way he addresses the subjects, is that he has about a six-stage depression.
• 1:01:06
  Depression?
• 1:01:07
  Uh-huh.
• 1:01:08
  Or dementia, too?
• 1:01:09
  Dementia, I mean to say.
• 1:01:11
  He also does look depressed.
• 1:01:12
  So he does.
• 1:01:17
  So he's, you know, there's some uniformity in what they have to say,
• 1:01:23
  not being able to discuss his condition with them.
• 1:01:28
  His state of mind, so you can see he's done.
• 1:01:33
  Everyone can see he's done.
• 1:01:35
  They really can.
• 1:01:36
  It's just a question of whether or not he's going to be able to make it
• 1:01:39
  through the next few months in order to be able to be out there to run for president.
• 1:01:44
  One of my things says, if he's not able to communicate,
• 1:01:49
  who is making these decisions for him?
• 1:01:54
  That is the question, you know.
• 1:01:56
  And I want to know who those people are that are actually running the country.
• 1:02:02
  True.
• 1:02:02
  Is it his wife?
• 1:02:04
  Obama, they say.
• 1:02:05
  Or is it Obama?
• 1:02:05
  A lot of people say it's still Obama and his people.
• 1:02:08
  Mm-hmm.
• 1:02:08
  And notice, all these concerns that we have are legitimate.
• 1:02:15
  And these are the things that I think the Democratic Party is trying to hide from the American people,
• 1:02:22
  and they don't want Trump in because of that being able to expose all these cover-ups.
• 1:02:30
  Yeah, my thing with Biden, too, the bigger issue with Biden is that regardless of his age, his mental faculty, whatever, you know, he fucking falls upstairs.
• 1:02:42
  Like, seriously, he falls upstairs.
• 1:02:43
  Like, who does that?
• 1:02:44
  I don't know.
• 1:02:45
  But the reality is he's been in politics for over 50-something years and hasn't achieved one damn thing except collecting a paycheck.
• 1:02:54
  And that's it.
• 1:02:54
  And that's it.
• 1:02:55
  He hasn't done anything.
• 1:02:55
  and everything that he's been involved in
• 1:02:58
  from what I'm gathering from all the professionals
• 1:03:01
  that work with him and around him
• 1:03:02
  from both sides of the party,
• 1:03:04
  he has managed to screw it up.
• 1:03:07
  Yeah, and he has.
• 1:03:09
  Didn't Obama say that?
• 1:03:10
  Literally say that?
• 1:03:12
  Don't underestimate his power to fuck things up,
• 1:03:15
  basically, is what he said.
• 1:03:17
  He said that.
• 1:03:19
  I know.
• 1:03:19
  And that was Obama's vice president.
• 1:03:22
  Uh-huh.
• 1:03:23
  And that was on nationwide TV.
• 1:03:25
  Yes.
• 1:03:25
  So, I don't know.
• 1:03:27
  This country is more divided now than it ever has been in history.
• 1:03:37
  Unfortunately, true, yes.
• 1:03:38
  And something has to be done because of the situation with the CIA, the FBI,
• 1:03:48
  and working with the Democratic Party in regards to all of these legal issues directed at Trump.
• 1:04:01
  Something needs to be done about the structure of our Congress at this point.
• 1:04:07
  We can't have a Congress that is divided to the degree that they are.
• 1:04:17
  They need to work together and work in order to strengthen this country and get these bills passed without add-ons to them and keep these bills separate in retrospect to the structures of the bills.
• 1:04:41
  They need to restructure.
• 1:04:44
  I think the big thing that would need to happen is term limits, obviously, to me.
• 1:04:49
  Yes.
• 1:04:50
  You know, we can't have career politicians like Pelosi, for example,
• 1:04:53
  who takes advantage of her position and influence and power
• 1:04:56
  to keep getting more and more money.
• 1:04:59
  Right now they serve was it supposed to be a two term Am I correct on that Which for what For House house that a four term okay one of them was two two or four but regardless they um they shouldn be able to
• 1:05:15
  perpetually keep being elected okay two terms done just like a president right get them in get
• 1:05:21
  them out yep to me that's where we should be but they don't have a limit on how many times they can
• 1:05:26
  keep being elected. And the other problem I have with it is how is it you could serve maybe a year
• 1:05:32
  and all of a sudden you get lifetime medical benefits in retirement? Well, that's the goal.
• 1:05:37
  And what's interesting that I found out years and years ago was you come in and work four years as
• 1:05:45
  a mayor, you correct that retirement. Then you move on to governor, you collect that retirement.
• 1:05:52
  So all these pensions add up.
• 1:05:54
  They do.
• 1:05:55
  And then you run for Congress.
• 1:05:56
  You can have two, three, four pensions under your belt.
• 1:05:59
  Yeah, so members of the House, I was right, they serve two-year terms.
• 1:06:03
  Senators serve six.
• 1:06:04
  Yeah.
• 1:06:06
  And I can see where you get four, though, because it seems like they never leave, right?
• 1:06:09
  Yeah.
• 1:06:10
  So it seems like they're there for 4, 10, 20, whatever.
• 1:06:12
  They never get out of the way.
• 1:06:15
  But we need term limits.
• 1:06:16
  And then I want to circle back to what we kind of were hinting on about old school Democrats versus new school.
• 1:06:22
  And what I said is I don't think there's a big difference between us as Americans other than, I mean, some of them that we can call major differences.
• 1:06:30
  And this is where I'm going to go with the video you showed me earlier about Justice Alito with his secret recording.
• 1:06:38
  So let's play that and kind of get, I want to get your thoughts on it because you already had some thoughts on it.
• 1:06:43
  But let's play that.
• 1:06:44
  We know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end.
• 1:06:51
  I think that it's a matter of, like, winning.
• 1:06:57
  I think you're probably right.
• 1:07:00
  One side or the other is going to win.
• 1:07:04
  I don't know.
• 1:07:06
  I mean, there can be a way of living together peacefully,
• 1:07:15
  but it's difficult, you know,
• 1:07:18
  because there are differences on fundamental things that really can't be compromised.
• 1:07:26
  It's not like you're going to split the difference.
• 1:07:29
  All right, so this recording, when I first heard it when you brought it up,
• 1:07:34
  I was trying to understand why everybody's up in arms about what he said.
• 1:07:37
  I know you have an opinion on it because I believe you have more information than I do.
• 1:07:42
  But just hearing it, they're mad about him saying that there can't be a compromise.
• 1:07:48
  And they're taking that out of context and trying to say that, you know, no matter what, we're always going to oppose and we're always going to be separate because we, you know, my team, your team is kind of what I'm getting out of it.
• 1:07:59
  What did you take out of that?
• 1:08:00
  I think when I heard about this earlier this morning, this particular lady that was recording this conversation,
• 1:08:15
  there was a little bit of misinformation in that evidently they didn't have her name at the time.
• 1:08:23
  Well, she wasn't on the list to get in as part of the press?
• 1:08:26
  What they do is when they don't have the name of the individual,
• 1:08:30
  then the newspaper reporters use them as a...
• 1:08:33
  Oh, basically as a source.
• 1:08:36
  Right.
• 1:08:37
  Yeah.
• 1:08:37
  So they don't have the...
• 1:08:39
  They don't want to reveal...
• 1:08:40
  They don't want to reveal the source.
• 1:08:42
  Confidential source.
• 1:08:43
  Yeah.
• 1:08:44
  Right.
• 1:08:44
  So this is just another person that recorded a conversation,
• 1:08:51
  And then earlier, they couldn't even produce a tape to this conversation.
• 1:08:57
  So we had a person that we don't know who it is,
• 1:09:01
  and supposedly recording some information in regards to this conversation,
• 1:09:08
  and they weren't able to produce a tape at that time.
• 1:09:11
  So I'm very, you know, when you're sitting down and you're having dinner
• 1:09:17
  and you've got people around you,
• 1:09:23
  you've got to, you're in these particular positions,
• 1:09:26
  you've got to be very careful of what you say
• 1:09:29
  and how you say it because it's going to be misinterpreted.
• 1:09:33
  I think everybody's entitled to your opinions,
• 1:09:37
  whether it's the President of the United States,
• 1:09:39
  whether it's a Chief Justice,
• 1:09:42
  or just like you and I, we're entitled to our opinions.
• 1:09:45
  We don't have to be experts in the field in order to have a conversation.
• 1:09:51
  No, but if you're an intelligent person.
• 1:09:53
  This here particular conversation about what he had to say is,
• 1:09:58
  I find it kind of neutral myself.
• 1:10:02
  I don't have any qualms with what he had to say.
• 1:10:06
  No, no, and that's what I was wondering what your take was,
• 1:10:09
  because when we looked up earlier on the news, everybody's like,
• 1:10:11
  oh, my gosh, he said, you know, we'll never be able to get along.
• 1:10:15
  There's no compromise.
• 1:10:16
  They're trying to make it bigger than what it is,
• 1:10:18
  but what he says exactly goes to my point that I was making earlier
• 1:10:22
  about Democrats and Republicans, at least old school Democrats
• 1:10:25
  and old conservatives, was we're very similar.
• 1:10:27
  But he's right.
• 1:10:28
  There are some fundamental things that some people can't get over.
• 1:10:32
  Number one, abortion, period.
• 1:10:34
  You're either for it or not.
• 1:10:36
  Most people don't have a gray area with it,
• 1:10:37
  and that's usually what divides most Democrats and Republicans, correct?
• 1:10:41
  So is he wrong in what he said?
• 1:10:44
  He didn't say he's opposed to work.
• 1:10:45
  with anybody. He didn't say, screw Democrats
• 1:10:48
  and I'm for the Republicans only.
• 1:10:49
  No, but you've got to take a look at the source
• 1:10:52
  in presenting this to everybody
• 1:10:54
  and they're trying to make it more than what
• 1:10:56
  it is. Of course, you're taking it out of context.
• 1:10:57
  I said earlier in regards to
• 1:11:00
  a
• 1:11:00
  Democratic news source
• 1:11:03
  is making a mountain out of a mohill.
• 1:11:05
  And they are because of what?
• 1:11:07
  The Trump appeal that may be coming.
• 1:11:09
  I would think so. And that's why.
• 1:11:11
  So there's, I don't know,
• 1:11:13
  they've... They have nothing here.
• 1:11:15
  I don't think he said anything wrong.
• 1:11:17
  I don't think so either.
• 1:11:19
  And I think they're going to make a bigger to-do out of it.
• 1:11:24
  They would love to get all of these Republican-appointed chief justices out of office.
• 1:11:29
  That's kind of a given.
• 1:11:31
  You can see that on how it's a part of the Democratic scheme of things.
• 1:11:39
  They don't want anybody that is contradictive to the Democratic style in office.
• 1:11:47
  A lot of this goes back to what you said earlier about the media, too,
• 1:11:49
  because when you said people work eight hours a day, they get home, have dinner,
• 1:11:53
  they turn the news on.
• 1:11:55
  The problem with the average person, they just read headlines.
• 1:11:58
  And it's an old saying in this media business is, you know,
• 1:12:04
  everything is sound bites, right, and clips, period.
• 1:12:08
  And like you said, they took this out of context because they'll find one little segment of what they're saying or one word and all of a sudden blow that up to make it something that it really isn't to make the person look bad.
• 1:12:21
  That's exactly right.
• 1:12:22
  And also, one of the things that I found interesting was a while back,
• 1:12:33
  one of the professors at Harvard, I believe, he was a professor.
• 1:12:38
  Alan Dorsowitz is who the professor was.
• 1:12:41
  So he's a retired professor of law at Harvard.
• 1:12:45
  And I believe it's Harvard.
• 1:12:47
  So the news media source took things that he had said and edited and spliced it together to make it look totally different than what he actually said.
• 1:13:03
  And it actually went after his demeanor and credibility.
• 1:13:08
  So that was the purpose of the editing and splicing these various meetings and things that he had said to, you know, make him look.
• 1:13:27
  Because even though he's a Democrat, he doesn't follow the Democrat.
• 1:13:32
  He follows the Constitution, not what the Democratic Party has to say.
• 1:13:38
  Well, he's what I would call an old-school Democrat.
• 1:13:41
  So he turned around and he sued him.
• 1:13:42
  I haven't heard anything lately, so it must have been settled out of court.
• 1:13:47
  But from what I understand, it was sizable, like $300 and some million.
• 1:13:52
  You know what, I was going to ask you.
• 1:13:53
  And collateral damage.
• 1:13:54
  Yeah, I was going to bring that up and ask you about that
• 1:13:56
  because you see this happen all the time in the media
• 1:14:00
  with things taken out of context, intentionally done.
• 1:14:04
  Why are these outlets not sued for defamation and slander?
• 1:14:07
  Well, that's exactly what he did and why he did it.
• 1:14:10
  Because it's literally what they're doing.
• 1:14:12
  And I'll tell you, they kind of hesitated.
• 1:14:14
  So during that transition when he was discussing that,
• 1:14:19
  they did exactly the same thing to Trump in the beginning stages.
• 1:14:24
  Now, Trump could have come after them too, I would think,
• 1:14:29
  for defamation of character.
• 1:14:33
  But, you know, that's kind of a hard one to deal with
• 1:14:36
  and that they're always after his character to begin with.
• 1:14:40
  Right.
• 1:14:40
  So, you know, where do you draw the line?
• 1:14:43
  But in Dorsowitz's case, it was different in retrospect to what he had
• 1:14:49
  because even with Trump on the socialized media services,
• 1:14:55
  they went ahead and they put the text and the actual discussions
• 1:15:01
  that they pieced together to change the whole subject around.
• 1:15:06
  I haven't heard much of that happening as of late.
• 1:15:11
  Well, I think a few of them got in trouble,
• 1:15:15
  and so it's not happening as often, but it still does.
• 1:15:18
  Well, the reason why I brought that up
• 1:15:20
  is because we have this conversation and this tape right now.
• 1:15:25
  I don't know what Alito has got what he sounds like.
• 1:15:31
  And I don't know why everybody's up in arms about what he said.
• 1:15:34
  I just don't understand it.
• 1:15:36
  I think...
• 1:15:39
  So the thing is with...
• 1:15:43
  I hate to say this, but most Americans are stupid.
• 1:15:46
  We are right now.
• 1:15:47
  Well, let's just use a different terminology
• 1:15:49
  and say misinformed.
• 1:15:51
  I'm not going to. I'll call them stupid.
• 1:15:53
  Because the reality is
• 1:15:54
  they're...
• 1:15:57
  or intentionally ignorant
• 1:15:58
  because they're going out of their way
• 1:16:00
  to not dig into the information.
• 1:16:02
  And I get it. You're tired.
• 1:16:04
  Maybe you don't have the time.
• 1:16:06
  They don't want to go beyond the headline, but someone like you,
• 1:16:10
  whether you're retired or not, you've,
• 1:16:11
  I take you for always being a person who would dig deeper. You know,
• 1:16:15
  you don't take things for what they are on the surface. Right.
• 1:16:18
  And I don't either, especially on this. I can't, I don't just take one clip and,
• 1:16:22
  you know, take it for face value.
• 1:16:24
  I am always digging deeper to find out what's going on. You have to,
• 1:16:27
  you can't just take one source,
• 1:16:28
  especially when you said when there's stuff out of context, you know,
• 1:16:32
  it's like, well, great. I heard that snippet,
• 1:16:34
  but what's the rest of the conversation?
• 1:16:35
  Nobody ever asks those questions.
• 1:16:37
  They just take it for face value.
• 1:16:39
  How, in your opinion, because I'm only asking this because you've served,
• 1:16:42
  you've seen a lot in politics throughout the years.
• 1:16:45
  Do you think we'll ever be able to get America back to the point
• 1:16:48
  where they're being more inquisitive and questioning
• 1:16:51
  and really trying to dig deeper into what's going on as far as who's concerned?
• 1:16:54
  Well, I think it's important to do what I suggested
• 1:16:57
  and what I'd like to see done as these media sources being subpoenaed into Congress
• 1:17:03
  and both, which is going to be very difficult with the Democratic side of it,
• 1:17:11
  wanting to cross-examination the news media.
• 1:17:18
  So the fake news has to stop.
• 1:17:22
  The propaganda has to stop.
• 1:17:24
  Absolutely.
• 1:17:24
  They've got to be fair.
• 1:17:26
  And when you go to, like, turn on Yahoo or Google, they are a Democratic outlet.
• 1:17:33
  Yes, they are.
• 1:17:34
  And they're not looking after our best interest.
• 1:17:39
  And as such, if they continue this crap, I'd like to see them broken up.
• 1:17:44
  It used to be the news was the news.
• 1:17:47
  And subpoenaed into Congress and then discussed these issues as to why, how come, and what for.
• 1:17:54
  Now Twitter X when that was bought out taken over by Elon Musk exactly That whole foundation and format changed Everybody can openly discuss their points of view without having it censored or altered
• 1:18:16
  And you can't do that on Yahoo.
• 1:18:18
  I've been dropped on it several times in regards to what I say.
• 1:18:23
  Into the forums and discussions.
• 1:18:25
  And all I've expressed was an actual point of view from the direct sources that I got it from with side notes that I made in regards to the topic and the conversations and the wording that was said.
• 1:18:39
  So if you're contradicted to something that they have to say, and one of the ways to get your response produced is to look at the top of the heading of it and find out who wrote it.
• 1:18:56
  And then do a background check on them, and you find out they're Democrats.
• 1:19:00
  And then at that point, it's a Democratic point of view, and you have to be concerned about the consistencies and the accuracies of what they're saying,
• 1:19:12
  or they're just slam-dunking the Republican Party and promoting the Democratic Party.
• 1:19:19
  They never, ever have anything positive to say about the Republicans.
• 1:19:25
  And I find that very misleading.
• 1:19:30
  And if you bring their names up in the structure of a response to what they're trying to promote for the Democratic Party,
• 1:19:40
  they don't allow you to download that information.
• 1:19:45
  Who was that lady trying to find it?
• 1:19:49
  I don't even know if she's still in the position.
• 1:19:51
  Remember when they elected that or made that position for that lady to be the propaganda czar for the U.S.?
• 1:20:02
  Do you remember that?
• 1:20:04
  To be what?
• 1:20:05
  The propaganda czar.
• 1:20:06
  Oh, no.
• 1:20:07
  Or misinformation czar.
• 1:20:09
  That's what it was.
• 1:20:10
  Do you remember that?
• 1:20:11
  No, I don't.
• 1:20:13
  Let me look this up.
• 1:20:14
  So this all happened under democratic rule.
• 1:20:19
  Misinformation czar.
• 1:20:20
  I don't know if she's still there.
• 1:20:22
  Disinfo pusher, Nina Jankowicz is back to tell Americans.
• 1:20:27
  Do you remember her?
• 1:20:28
  Yeah.
• 1:20:29
  The name now is familiar.
• 1:20:30
  The disinformations are?
• 1:20:32
  I can't recall.
• 1:20:35
  The name's just familiar.
• 1:20:36
  She resurfaced again back in April.
• 1:20:38
  Let me see if I can.
• 1:20:39
  Here, let me throw this over here so we can try to read this.
• 1:20:42
  But there she is.
• 1:20:45
  Oh, yeah.
• 1:20:46
  And so when.
• 1:20:48
  Now I know who you're talking about.
• 1:20:49
  Now, this was under the Biden administration that they put her in charge of disinformation and monitoring disinformation for the entire U.S.
• 1:20:59
  What she really is is a propaganda czar.
• 1:21:01
  Okay?
• 1:21:02
  Yes.
• 1:21:02
  Why would we need someone like that?
• 1:21:05
  So she's the one that's in charge of driving media and filtering and suppressing what they consider misinformation.
• 1:21:15
  Well, that might have been where I was coming in and being referenced to news media sources in the departments that gather their information.
• 1:21:26
  And the wording said verbatim, but I'm not sure.
• 1:21:30
  I'm going to read a little.
• 1:21:31
  I remember her now.
• 1:21:32
  Yeah.
• 1:21:32
  So this came back up this year in April.
• 1:21:35
  She resurfaced.
• 1:21:35
  So says Biden administration disinformations are Nina Jankiewicz is back and still out to protect the public from facts.
• 1:21:43
  The left doesn't like.
• 1:21:45
  This time from outside the government.
• 1:21:48
  Jankiewicz, you may recall, got tapped to run Disinformation Governance Board in 2022
• 1:21:53
  until the Orwellian Agency within the Department of Homeland Security rightly shut down in the face of pushback.
• 1:22:00
  Okay, so I do remember all that, but now she's back.
• 1:22:03
  It didn't help that her blatant ideological bias spelled out what the DGB would have done.
• 1:22:10
  Her public record as a disinformation expert includes gleefully pushing the since-debunked conspiracy theory that Russia got former President Donald Trump elected and smearing the Hunter Biden laptop story.
• 1:22:21
  So she was behind pushing that agenda.
• 1:22:23
  She's supposed to be a disinformation czar, but yet what she really was was a propaganda czar for the U.S. under the Biden administration.
• 1:22:30
  But I guess she's back from the outside of the government still trying to do the same thing.
• 1:22:33
  Well, you know what? That's because she's not in a position.
• 1:22:39
  it doesn't look good if she's getting paid and working for the Democratic Party in a particular office.
• 1:22:44
  Directly, right?
• 1:22:45
  So now they've been able to get out, work around her, and get into the fake news networks
• 1:22:50
  and submit their propaganda.
• 1:22:55
  Well, I guess you start a nonprofit now.
• 1:22:57
  For many, many years, I used to be bipartisan.
• 1:23:00
  And in the last 10 years or so, I had altered that or changed it.
• 1:23:12
  And there was 25 years ago or so, I tended to lean towards the Democratic Party.
• 1:23:21
  So did you consider yourself more centered before or left of center?
• 1:23:24
  I think with the advent of social media and being able to listen to other people and their points of view has been one of the decisive factors in me switching parties,
• 1:23:43
  especially in the last 10 years with my curiosity in 2016 before Trump ran for election,
• 1:23:55
  why they didn't want him in office.
• 1:23:59
  And then my research in what I have seen from all of the news media sources is really
• 1:24:06
  they don't want anybody in office.
• 1:24:10
  the Republican Party rhinos, along with the Democratic Party,
• 1:24:15
  that's going to stir up the prop and cause them to lose money
• 1:24:21
  while they're serving the American people in Congress.
• 1:24:26
  Do you think getting back to the America, I mean, we don't,
• 1:24:32
  a lot of people say we want to get back to what America used to be.
• 1:24:34
  I agree in progressing.
• 1:24:36
  I'm not anti-liberal ideas on everything.
• 1:24:40
  I'm kind of more centered, but I lean a little more right.
• 1:24:44
  There are some good ideas here, and there's some good ideas on this side, left and right.
• 1:24:48
  I try to take the best of both or what makes sense,
• 1:24:50
  but there's some stuff that's just outright nuts.
• 1:24:54
  So I think the only way we're going to get back, personally,
• 1:24:58
  is if people get more involved at the local level
• 1:25:00
  and pay attention to what's going on at the local level, what's going on in their cities.
• 1:25:04
  And you brought this up earlier about the schools.
• 1:25:07
  You're bringing up how they're trying to change the local school and school boards to flip more conservative or start their own conservative school.
• 1:25:16
  Is that correct?
• 1:25:16
  They're trying to get more conservatives in the school bowls.
• 1:25:20
  And I think all the parents are supporting that idea.
• 1:25:26
  And evidently, there's too many Democrats on these school boards.
• 1:25:31
  Yeah.
• 1:25:32
  And I won't say that they're looking for Democrats or Republicans.
• 1:25:37
  They're looking for conservatives.
• 1:25:38
  Yes, exactly.
• 1:25:39
  That leans towards Republicans, then so be it.
• 1:25:44
  But we don't need a – we're already rated at, what, the seventh, eighth?
• 1:25:53
  If that.
• 1:25:53
  Yeah, in the world with education.
• 1:25:57
  I think we're lower now.
• 1:25:58
  One time for years, we used to be seventh.
• 1:26:00
  You know, I'll look that up while you're talking.
• 1:26:02
  Let me see.
• 1:26:03
  USA rank in education.
• 1:26:08
  Let's see what we are.
• 1:26:09
  I don't know.
• 1:26:09
  I thought we were lower than that.
• 1:26:11
  No.
• 1:26:12
  We're seventh or eighth now.
• 1:26:14
  It's out there.
• 1:26:15
  What rank is U.S. in education?
• 1:26:17
  Let's see.
• 1:26:18
  We are now.
• 1:26:20
  Oh, that's our states.
• 1:26:21
  Let me see.
• 1:26:22
  Let me see in the world.
• 1:26:25
  Education in the world.
• 1:26:28
  Let me try to find that.
• 1:26:30
  Because that's an interesting point.
• 1:26:32
  And everything does start in education.
• 1:26:35
  So here's my country right here.
• 1:26:38
  World Population Review.
• 1:26:39
  I don't know when this study was, but let's see what they say here.
• 1:26:43
  Okay.
• 1:26:43
  2024.
• 1:26:44
  2024.
• 1:26:44
  So that's pretty recent.
• 1:26:46
  Number one education rank.
• 1:26:49
  United States.
• 1:26:50
  Really?
• 1:26:50
  I thought we were lower than that.
• 1:26:52
  Oh, 2021.
• 1:26:54
  Never mind.
• 1:26:55
  That says 2021 on here.
• 1:26:57
  Yeah.
• 1:26:58
  Okay.
• 1:26:58
  So where's the 24?
• 1:27:00
  Huh.
• 1:27:00
  Huh.
• 1:27:02
  Well, I thought in 2021 we were like seventh.
• 1:27:05
  We were.
• 1:27:05
  I've seen those.
• 1:27:06
  Maybe I'm just not, I don't have the right data here.
• 1:27:09
  But I did see we were ranked, we were still in the top 10 at one point,
• 1:27:14
  but I recently thought that I saw like in mathematics, we were even lower than that.
• 1:27:20
  Well, you know, education is a whole new subject in itself.
• 1:27:24
  And I think my take on it is they need to start teaching the basics and focusing on reading, writing, and arithmetic.
• 1:27:39
  Less ideology?
• 1:27:40
  And American history.
• 1:27:42
  And leave ideologies out of it.
• 1:27:44
  And this LBGQ stuff out of it.
• 1:27:48
  Let me see what this one says here.
• 1:27:50
  okay the u.s scored 478 in math below the oecd average of 489 that's well below the score to the top
• 1:27:59
  five all of which were in asia so it was singapore macau hong kong taiwan and japan were the top five
• 1:28:07
  china was not included in this ranking because only four oh four provinces i mean sorry participated
• 1:28:14
  the united states scored 502 in science above the oecd average of 49 so we're still good
• 1:28:20
  there top five highest scores in science though were singapore macau estonia japan and finland
• 1:28:27
  uh clear we analyze u.s results that the scores have been stable over time they're not declining
• 1:28:32
  but they aren't any signs of improvement either there's been no detectable change in u.s students
• 1:28:37
  math score since 2003 wow or science since 2006 so we're not improving that's a long time to not
• 1:28:45
  have any edge, really.
• 1:28:47
  No improvement. We're just kind of maintaining.
• 1:28:49
  That's true.
• 1:28:51
  That's interesting. So yeah, we have
• 1:28:53
  dropped. We're not number
• 1:28:55
  one like we were years back.
• 1:28:58
  Well, I think
• 1:28:59
  the...
• 1:29:01
  Oh, right here.
• 1:29:03
  So this is what I was looking for.
• 1:29:05
  So yeah, we're lower. It says the U.S. placed
• 1:29:07
  11th out of 79 countries
• 1:29:09
  in science when testing was last administered
• 1:29:11
  in 2018. Top five
• 1:29:13
  mass scoring countries in 2018 were all
• 1:29:15
  in Asia and U.S. students' mass scores have remained steady since 2003,
• 1:29:20
  which doesn't mean it's good.
• 1:29:21
  It just means it's been steady.
• 1:29:23
  So, yeah, it says the IMD World Competitiveness Center reports
• 1:29:27
  that the U.S. ranked 10th in its 2020 competitiveness report
• 1:29:32
  after ranking first in 2018.
• 1:29:34
  So this is older data, but since then, even what I saw earlier,
• 1:29:38
  I just can't find it.
• 1:29:39
  Nothing's improved, really.
• 1:29:40
  Yeah.
• 1:29:40
  Yeah.
• 1:29:41
  I don't.
• 1:29:41
  And they've broken that down into categories.
• 1:29:48
  Yes, absolutely.
• 1:29:48
  And I think just in general, a generalized position.
• 1:29:52
  Like overall.
• 1:29:53
  Overall, exactly, a position would be what we're actually looking at.
• 1:30:00
  Well, still, there you go.
• 1:30:04
  So we need to change the education, put it back, like you said, to the basics.
• 1:30:09
  Well, part of it is.
• 1:30:10
  Science, right?
• 1:30:10
  Math, reading, science, the basics.
• 1:30:14
  Actual education.
• 1:30:15
  Yeah, just get away from, you know, the political aspects of it
• 1:30:23
  and then the sexual aspects of it being introduced to young kids
• 1:30:29
  that haven't even gotten sexologies in their mindset, you know?
• 1:30:35
  Yeah, introducing the concept of gender at an age
• 1:30:38
  when they can't even figure out how to play freaking baseball yet.
• 1:30:43
  It doesn't make any sense.
• 1:30:45
  I just find that, well, the school systems,
• 1:30:52
  the parents are trying to get these people on the boards removed.
• 1:30:58
  And I find that and they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it and it seems to be a nationwide effort in order to restructure the school systems and the boards
• 1:31:14
  That's a good sign because it's going to start there.
• 1:31:17
  And also local government, like city government also, county.
• 1:31:23
  People are always looking at the major headline
• 1:31:25
  because it's very important what's going on with our president
• 1:31:28
  and how we're represented as a country.
• 1:31:30
  But everything, I think, trickles up.
• 1:31:32
  It starts down here at the base, like a big pyramid, right?
• 1:31:35
  If we don't have the local level figured out,
• 1:31:37
  we're not going to have the top level figured out.
• 1:31:40
  And everybody's kind of ignoring what's going on,
• 1:31:42
  because like you said earlier, and it's true,
• 1:31:43
  I'm not trying to necessarily call people stupid.
• 1:31:47
  I was really more trying to say they're ignorant or selectively ignorant
• 1:31:50
  because they don't want to see what's happening.
• 1:31:53
  A lot of times they keep their head in the sand.
• 1:31:55
  They want to avoid the issue, I guess, is what I was trying to get at.
• 1:31:57
  Well, if you get, you know, I used to use stupid quite a bit.
• 1:32:03
  When I discussed things and I said, oh, you're stupid or they're stupid,
• 1:32:07
  they're just really, I just get away from the word stupid anymore.
• 1:32:14
  And I used uneducated and uneducated was even insulting to some.
• 1:32:20
  And I'd say, well, why would uneducated be insulting to you?
• 1:32:24
  And they said, well, it's like I haven't been to school.
• 1:32:27
  And I said, well, that's not true.
• 1:32:29
  I said, look up the definition of uneducated.
• 1:32:32
  It just means that you have no knowledge in certain areas.
• 1:32:36
  And I said, all of us are, you know, fall under that syndrome if you're going to.
• 1:32:43
  But I will argue some people are stupid because definition,
• 1:32:46
  having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense,
• 1:32:50
  and that's the big one for me.
• 1:32:51
  But let's stop right there for a second on that line.
• 1:32:54
  You can add to that.
• 1:32:55
  Of course you can.
• 1:32:56
  Showing great lack of intelligence or common sense in retrospect to the subject matter you're discussing.
• 1:33:04
  Of course.
• 1:33:06
  Well, that's just like me, for example.
• 1:33:09
  I'm not an expert in any of this, but I watch the news.
• 1:33:14
  I'm interested in politics, and I'm interested in what the various types of news services have to say.
• 1:33:21
  Do you have any idea how many politicians aren't experts in anything they do either?
• 1:33:24
  Oh, absolutely.
• 1:33:25
  I agree.
• 1:33:26
  I mean, take a look at back east.
• 1:33:27
  I don't know the gentleman's name, but he was a truck driver and truck drivers.
• 1:33:32
  So ignorance is, to me, a more appropriate term probably, right?
• 1:33:36
  Lack of knowledge or information.
• 1:33:40
  So when I call someone ignorant, they get offended,
• 1:33:45
  but if you are ignorant in what we're talking about,
• 1:33:48
  I think most people are ignorant or selectively ignorant because they don't want to know.
• 1:33:51
  They don't want to be educated or go down.
• 1:33:53
  Well, they don't have the time to.
• 1:33:56
  I'm not disagreeing with you there.
• 1:33:57
  I think you're correct in that because we're burned out.
• 1:34:00
  We're all working like a bunch of ants in a freaking ant farm, right?
• 1:34:03
  And then you don't have time for anything else.
• 1:34:05
  You don't want to deal with it, but that's the problem.
• 1:34:07
  Well, that's why it's important for the news media service systems to be not Democrat nor Republican.
• 1:34:18
  Let's just tell the news.
• 1:34:18
  But support the American people and educate them in providing a service that's going to be in the best interest of this country.
• 1:34:30
  Right, agreed.
• 1:34:31
  If the Democrats violate the law, go after them.
• 1:34:34
  That's what it is. Report it.
• 1:34:35
  And if the Republicans violate the law, go after them.
• 1:34:39
  I want to know why in the hell the Bidens got 300 million bucks or whatever
• 1:34:46
  or millions of dollars from China and Ukraine and the other governments.
• 1:34:50
  What we need is news without bias.
• 1:34:53
  Exactly.
• 1:34:54
  Period.
• 1:34:55
  Yes.
• 1:34:55
  And people don't have the time.
• 1:34:58
  And you're right, they don't have the time.
• 1:35:00
  Do you think our society is built that way purposely to keep us so busy
• 1:35:04
  that we're not able to pay attention?
• 1:35:05
  No, I don't think so.
• 1:35:05
  It's just that you're after the American dream and you're young.
• 1:35:09
  You have kids.
• 1:35:10
  You're raising a family.
• 1:35:11
  You want to buy a home, which very few can afford to do anymore because of the government
• 1:35:17
  misspending the money that they take in.
• 1:35:22
  And the national debt gets higher.
• 1:35:24
  And every time you turn around, somebody's raising the tax because they've misappropriated
• 1:35:29
  the money to begin with.
• 1:35:31
  So I think that has put the hurt on the American people trying to feed and support their family and to get ahead in life.
• 1:35:45
  It's very difficult to do when you have leaders of this country who are ripping this country off and only looking after their own welfare and wealth and misleading the American people.
• 1:35:57
  And until that stops, the working class is not going to be able to succeed in this country.
• 1:36:03
  So that's a great argument and a good point.
• 1:36:06
  It is.
• 1:36:06
  We do need news without bias.
• 1:36:08
  We need people to just tell the news, period, straight, you know, without any inflections or emotion, like Walter Cronkite used to do.
• 1:36:16
  I mean, quite literally, right?
• 1:36:17
  Right.
• 1:36:18
  Well, that's, you know, that's a start.
• 1:36:21
  And I think, I think, irregardless of what party you represent, if you violate the law, the people need to know it.
• 1:36:31
  And we have a court system that is supposed to be the blind justice.
• 1:36:37
  So we need our, and what, so we need a system in place to, where the law is not Democrat and is not Republican.
• 1:36:50
  it is back to traditional law and formulate and support our Constitution and the laws of the land.
• 1:36:59
  Yeah, I think the problem is the government's too big to let any of that happen,
• 1:37:03
  because any real journalist that actually cared and wanted to get news out ended up somehow committed suicide.
• 1:37:12
  Well, you know, sometimes it makes you wonder whether or not they were actually committed suicide,
• 1:37:19
  because if you're dealing with lies and lying to the American people,
• 1:37:24
  was the person murdered or was it actually suicide?
• 1:37:30
  So that's just like Boeing, for example.
• 1:37:33
  Some of the turncoats there or the informants with Boeing, two of them died.
• 1:37:38
  What's the odds of having that happen where two of them commit suicide?
• 1:37:41
  Well, I got another one for you.
• 1:37:42
  So my brother and I actually discussed this on a previous show.
• 1:37:44
  So how is it when you had Anthony Bourdain, you had Chester Benfield, who was a singer for Lincoln Park.
• 1:37:53
  I forgot the other DJ, but there was a handful of people, all well-known media people, entertainers, whatever.
• 1:38:01
  They were all coming together, and there was rumors about them coming out to expose what was going on with political people
• 1:38:09
  and Hollywood personalities who were not involved in an underground pedophilia ring.
• 1:38:14
  That was the rumblings.
• 1:38:16
  That was the rumors.
• 1:38:16
  All of a sudden, every single one of them committed suicide.
• 1:38:21
  Now, this is what's funny.
• 1:38:23
  Not funny, but strange.
• 1:38:25
  It wasn't just that it was suicide.
• 1:38:26
  They all killed themselves the exact same way.
• 1:38:31
  All of them.
• 1:38:32
  Never even heard about it.
• 1:38:34
  All the exact same way.
• 1:38:37
  Is that a coincidence?
• 1:38:39
  Well, that's not a coincidence.
• 1:38:40
  No.
• 1:38:41
  Not hardly.
• 1:38:42
  No.
• 1:38:42
  And I think that's probably why you're not seeing real journalism anymore,
• 1:38:47
  because they're afraid.
• 1:38:50
  They have the info, but...
• 1:38:53
  They're balancing it.
• 1:38:55
  You know, this country's in trouble.
• 1:38:58
  Our government's gotten too big.
• 1:38:59
  Well, government's always been big,
• 1:39:02
  but the seats in Congress have always maintained the same.
• 1:39:08
  So it's these people in Congress.
• 1:39:11
  That's one of the reasons why I said Congress needs to be restructured.
• 1:39:15
  Oh, they do. Absolutely.
• 1:39:16
  And I granted their fathers to this country when they formulated a U.S. Constitution in Congress
• 1:39:24
  and structured it to be in the best interest of the American people,
• 1:39:32
  had the best at heart for this country.
• 1:39:36
  Well, serving in Congress was supposed to be—
• 1:39:41
  so bad that a lot of the foundations that our forefathers had put down have been misinterpreted
• 1:39:51
  and moved around in such a manner to where unless you've got a degree in law, you can't
• 1:39:59
  survive and, you know, face any situations that develop with the government in directing
• 1:40:10
  the government to go in the right direction, if that makes sense.
• 1:40:15
  No, it makes sense.
• 1:40:15
  I was going to say our founding fathers originally, Congress was originally and still is part
• 1:40:24
  of the checks and balances of our system, you know, and executive, legislative, judicial,
• 1:40:30
  right?
• 1:40:32
  They're the legislative side.
• 1:40:34
  But the problem is it was originally intended that if you served in Congress, it was considered
• 1:40:40
  a public service.
• 1:40:41
  It wasn't meant to be a career.
• 1:40:44
  That's right.
• 1:40:45
  It wasn't meant to be a career.
• 1:40:47
  You know, they may have gotten paid,
• 1:40:50
  let's say $10 years ago,
• 1:40:52
  and then all of a sudden the salaries kept going up.
• 1:40:54
  And I actually looked this up a while back.
• 1:40:56
  I wish I had that link.
• 1:40:59
  But how is it that you can now be paid,
• 1:41:03
  I think it was, what is the Congress?
• 1:41:05
  Is it still $175,000?
• 1:41:07
  Where is it at?
• 1:41:08
  Let me see.
• 1:41:09
  Congress salaries through the years.
• 1:41:13
  Let me look this up.
• 1:41:15
  I brought this up before.
• 1:41:16
  I thought it was somewhere right around $150,000.
• 1:41:20
  No, okay.
• 1:41:21
  Right there.
• 1:41:21
  So here's the salary ranges.
• 1:41:24
  Well, that was $19,000.
• 1:41:24
  This is what I was looking up.
• 1:41:26
  Okay, here we're at now.
• 1:41:26
  This shows in 1789, you got $6 salary per diem.
• 1:41:32
  In 2023, that would have been $147.
• 1:41:36
  Okay, nothing, right?
• 1:41:38
  It was considered a public service.
• 1:41:39
  So keep fast-forwarding.
• 1:41:41
  What happened is it got to a point where all of a sudden it was like,
• 1:41:46
  wait a minute, they rewrote everything to where in the late 80s and 70s.
• 1:41:51
  Yeah, yeah.
• 1:41:51
  All of a sudden, $79,000, $60,000 a year, which now equates to $244,000, right?
• 1:41:58
  $82,000, $69,000, $80,000, $83,000, $69,000, $800,000.
• 1:42:01
  Every year it kept progressively going up.
• 1:42:05
  And why is that?
• 1:42:06
  Why was this allowed?
• 1:42:07
  and right now it's $174,000.
• 1:42:11
  And it's been that way, as you see here, since 2009,
• 1:42:15
  but they still come out the other side as millionaires and almost billionaires,
• 1:42:19
  somehow off of $174,000 a year.
• 1:42:21
  Any family right now, if you live in the Bay Area, for example,
• 1:42:25
  which you know very well, if you're making $174,000,
• 1:42:27
  you're barely surviving right now.
• 1:42:29
  Well, that's right.
• 1:42:30
  They're claiming that in order to survive,
• 1:42:32
  and the average family has to make $500,000 a year.
• 1:42:36
  For family.
• 1:42:36
  for family in Silicon Valley.
• 1:42:40
  Now, but your absolute, you know, these salary ranges,
• 1:42:44
  just the point that you made earlier about these politicians getting voted into office,
• 1:42:53
  that is a goal and a first step in their goals and objective,
• 1:42:58
  is they've come in and they've got that kind of money every year for the rest of their lives.
• 1:43:04
  and at that point, they're also a part of the, we'll call the group,
• 1:43:12
  that gets involved in stock.
• 1:43:18
  Yeah.
• 1:43:20
  Stock situations.
• 1:43:20
  Yeah, because they have the inside info.
• 1:43:22
  Yeah.
• 1:43:23
  And that's what makes them rich.
• 1:43:26
  That's part of it.
• 1:43:27
  They don't take $174,000 and or you can back up to Pelosi to whenever she went into office there.
• 1:43:36
  It's $158,000, $150,000 in 2002, for example.
• 1:43:40
  But also they get paid for these speaking engagements also, right?
• 1:43:43
  One of the things I found amazing was Obama.
• 1:43:46
  He had only been to Congress and voted on bills, from what I understand, two times.
• 1:43:52
  and he winds up president
• 1:43:55
  and worth $300 and some million bucks.
• 1:43:58
  My brother and I talked about that.
• 1:43:59
  He was one of those cases where he came out of nowhere,
• 1:44:01
  did not have a long career whatsoever,
• 1:44:03
  suddenly got an endorsement from Oprah,
• 1:44:07
  and he was the golden child of politics.
• 1:44:09
  Mm-hmm.
• 1:44:10
  Yep.
• 1:44:11
  But where did he come from?
• 1:44:12
  That's a whole story in itself.
• 1:44:14
  Oh, yeah.
• 1:44:15
  Absolutely.
• 1:44:16
  That would be an interesting one to do and put together the information.
• 1:44:20
  I would love to, but I want to stay alive.
• 1:44:23
  I don't know if I want to go down that rabbit hole.
• 1:44:25
  Well, you know, we can switch that one over to Biden
• 1:44:28
  because there's enough corruption in the Biden family that you can talk about it.
• 1:44:32
  And they can't really suppress much of it anymore, right?
• 1:44:34
  I think we're going to, with the Biden, be able to, more and more and more information is going to come out.
• 1:44:42
  And I think what you said earlier about him being a traitor is going to be proven.
• 1:44:48
  I really believe he is a traitor.
• 1:44:51
  There's too much evidence.
• 1:44:55
  The reports written by Robert Herr, for example.
• 1:44:58
  Everything that came out about them was based off actual eyewitnesses.
• 1:45:03
  It was based off of business partners.
• 1:45:06
  It was based off the guy from Burisma, foreign nations.
• 1:45:10
  People were actually saying, yeah, no, this really happened.
• 1:45:13
  We have recordings.
• 1:45:14
  They have tapes.
• 1:45:15
  They have documents.
• 1:45:16
  And somehow, this guy is still able to walk around untouched.
• 1:45:21
  It does not make any sense.
• 1:45:24
  No, it don't.
• 1:45:25
  Other than the fact that we have a corrupt government.
• 1:45:27
  And nobody wants to believe that, but it's true.
• 1:45:29
  Mm-hmm.
• 1:45:30
  That's, you know, I think one of the reasons,
• 1:45:38
  and my suspicion is the reason for that being is if you prove how corrupt he is,
• 1:45:46
  he's going to flip on everybody else that's come across their money.
• 1:45:52
  If you nail the Clintons, just like Hillary Clinton had said,
• 1:45:58
  if anything's brought against her,
• 1:46:00
  she's going to rat on everybody else in Congress.
• 1:46:04
  And once she said that,
• 1:46:06
  and I won't say that was, for words, verbatim,
• 1:46:10
  but she did say that she would,
• 1:46:13
  you know, expose all these other people in Congress.
• 1:46:19
  It's probably a closer choice of words as to what she said.
• 1:46:23
  Well, that's why circling back to this Hunter Biden case
• 1:46:26
  is so interesting because of all the information he has.
• 1:46:29
  Exactly.
• 1:46:31
  And so they are very close in cahoots together, I think.
• 1:46:36
  Right.
• 1:46:36
  And I think the Clintons, if they were shown exactly what happened,
• 1:46:47
  how they received all their corrupt money,
• 1:46:50
  and what they did that may have been illegal,
• 1:46:52
  that she's trying to cover up or hide
• 1:46:54
  because she would have never said that.
• 1:46:57
  And the way that she said it,
• 1:46:59
  that she would go after the other individuals in Congress
• 1:47:04
  or expose Congress.
• 1:47:06
  So that just tells me that all of Congress is corrupt.
• 1:47:09
  I mean, the Clintons are literally another,
• 1:47:11
  probably a month's worth of discussion.
• 1:47:13
  Yeah.
• 1:47:14
  You know, they're just...
• 1:47:15
  Absolutely, I agree.
• 1:47:16
  They're...
• 1:47:17
  Between them and Obama,
• 1:47:20
  they're probably the two families that are really driving everything behind the scenes
• 1:47:26
  well i think yeah i think you're i think that's correct i think obama's covered up for clintons
• 1:47:31
  and i think the clintons have made obama rich uh yeah absolutely and i think uh then a spinoff is
• 1:47:38
  biden because biden a lot of what he's been uh exposed to getting these this money that's came
• 1:47:47
  to the family came as when he was vice president.
• 1:47:51
  He reports to the president, which is Obama.
• 1:47:55
  You want to tell me that Obama didn't know what was going on?
• 1:47:59
  If this was.
• 1:48:00
  Yeah, of course he did.
• 1:48:01
  But I don't, I don't, Rick, what I don't see is.
• 1:48:05
  I don't see why Biden, why are they pushing this guy?
• 1:48:08
  Because as corrupt as they may have been, if you look at Bill Clinton and you look at
• 1:48:13
  Obama, they were slick.
• 1:48:15
  They were polished.
• 1:48:16
  They're personable.
• 1:48:16
  they're a professional in their presentations. You can see how you can back someone like that
• 1:48:22
  and push that person as the leader of the party or the face of the party, right?
• 1:48:27
  Biden makes no sense Why Biden What does Biden have Is it really because everything you saying earlier with the 300 million and the influence peddling and everything Right I think he would expose it And I think his son is the weak link in this whole scenario
• 1:48:42
  Yeah. That's why I think if daddy, if I'm covering daddy and I'm giving daddy money from China, Ukraine, and we formulated this corrupt business together and we're selling out information, you know, classified or secret information to these countries.
• 1:49:03
  and you put me in jail and you don't get me out of jail
• 1:49:07
  because he's mentally deranged from the drugs that he was taking.
• 1:49:12
  Yeah.
• 1:49:12
  And he wants revenge.
• 1:49:15
  So he doesn't want to sit in a jail cell.
• 1:49:17
  And he gets ticked at daddy for not coming after him and getting him out.
• 1:49:22
  So he says, I'll fix you if I got to stay here a year or two or three.
• 1:49:26
  And I think that, I think the reason, I think one of the reasons may be,
• 1:49:31
  this may connect everything together here,
• 1:49:33
  that Biden is being so supported by the party
• 1:49:36
  is maybe somewhere down the line
• 1:49:39
  and all of this stuff that's been going on
• 1:49:40
  with influence, pending whatever,
• 1:49:42
  I guarantee you're going to find
• 1:49:43
  the Clinton's name somewhere
• 1:49:45
  or even Obama's name somewhere in those books.
• 1:49:47
  Oh, absolutely.
• 1:49:48
  They're all tied in cahoots together.
• 1:49:51
  And Biden earned his money in his direction,
• 1:49:54
  Clinton in hers,
• 1:49:56
  and Obama capitalized from both sides of the fence.
• 1:49:59
  Yeah, it's got to be the only reason
• 1:50:00
  they got behind this guy.
• 1:50:01
  Tell me Biden didn't know nothing as president of the United States when his subordinate, the guy underneath him, is getting millions from China.
• 1:50:11
  If I was president, I'd want to know what the hell the vice president, where did he get the money?
• 1:50:16
  Yeah, yeah, yeah.
• 1:50:16
  You call him in my office and I say, what the hell is going on here?
• 1:50:20
  Yeah, where's mine?
• 1:50:21
  How did you get three, four, five, six, seven, eight million dollars from China?
• 1:50:24
  Right.
• 1:50:25
  What did they give it to you for?
• 1:50:26
  It's not because they like you.
• 1:50:28
  Right.
• 1:50:29
  They gave it to you for a service.
• 1:50:32
  What was the service?
• 1:50:33
  Exchange of information, access, influence.
• 1:50:36
  And I still believe that these documents that were in Biden's garage and next to Chinese headquarters in whatever state that was at, they had access to that information.
• 1:50:52
  And it wouldn't surprise me one iota.
• 1:50:55
  How crazy would it be in our time that a sitting president becomes,
• 1:51:03
  well, would become guilty of actually committing treason against the U.S.?
• 1:51:08
  Well, that is very, very true.
• 1:51:12
  And you know what's amazing about it is everybody knows that Biden has got some mental issues now.
• 1:51:19
  and how he's allowed to stay and represent this country right now
• 1:51:28
  and stay in the presidential position is beyond me.
• 1:51:33
  That's one thing that needs to be fixed.
• 1:51:36
  If you maybe take a psychological profile by a group of doctors that are aboard
• 1:51:45
  and nobody knows who they are,
• 1:51:48
  and they give a report on that person's mental condition
• 1:51:52
  or the president's mental condition
• 1:51:54
  or even a vice president's mental condition.
• 1:51:58
  And then maybe as to whether or not their condition
• 1:52:04
  wants them being removed from office.
• 1:52:08
  It needs to be a totally secret type of, you know,
• 1:52:15
  type of or confidential type of examination.
• 1:52:21
  And what's insulting is that particular person is trying to run for another four years of office
• 1:52:31
  and everybody knows he is not going to make it.
• 1:52:34
  It would be interesting to see, and some are predicting it's not going to make it through the remaining months before the election.
• 1:52:43
  So I don't know.
• 1:52:44
  Agreed.
• 1:52:44
  Well, I have to believe there's a way back somehow.
• 1:52:49
  I have to believe this country has a way of finding, finding itself again.
• 1:52:54
  There has to be a way back.
• 1:52:55
  I think people are waking up.
• 1:52:57
  The rest of the world seems to I think that the start of finding their way back And I think we got two parties
• 1:53:08
  and I think the Republican Party can put them in this new direction.
• 1:53:14
  And I think being, you know, it's all about money, money and power.
• 1:53:21
  In the end, yeah.
• 1:53:21
  So if it's not after the money, you're after the power.
• 1:53:24
  Absolutely.
• 1:53:25
  And money and power comes together.
• 1:53:27
  Absolutely.
• 1:53:27
  Especially power. If you have the power, the money will come.
• 1:53:31
  And so with Trump, he's already got the money.
• 1:53:36
  And to a degree, given his statute before, you know, I've had a lot of positive things to say about Trump.
• 1:53:44
  But by the same token, Trump was given money, a million dollars evidently from his dad for an education to get his business started.
• 1:53:53
  and just in general terms I'm speaking.
• 1:53:59
  And as such, he has the money.
• 1:54:02
  So in his field and trade, he has power.
• 1:54:06
  And he's never had to answer to anybody.
• 1:54:10
  And he was a prima donna when he was raised.
• 1:54:13
  He had good things.
• 1:54:14
  And once he became who he was and made the money and become a billionaire,
• 1:54:21
  he didn't have to answer to anybody.
• 1:54:24
  And so with that comes a form of arrogance and attitude.
• 1:54:28
  And so I'm not saying all is good with Trump.
• 1:54:35
  No, no, no.
• 1:54:38
  The problem with Trump has always been how he represents himself.
• 1:54:42
  He says what's on his mind,
• 1:54:44
  and he doesn't think about how it sounds coming out of his mouth.
• 1:54:47
  And people got offended by that.
• 1:54:49
  but did he ever really speak, I mean, did he ever speak lies,
• 1:54:53
  or did he say the truth?
• 1:54:55
  Well, that's, I've not seen anything where if he would have lied
• 1:55:02
  and said things that were not factual,
• 1:55:06
  the media would be on that, like, stink on shit.
• 1:55:10
  Well, and if it was all lies, Rick, why are they going after him so hard?
• 1:55:13
  Well, the reason why, I think, like I said earlier,
• 1:55:17
  the two things that these people in Congress are after.
• 1:55:22
  Power, money, one or the other.
• 1:55:27
  And they usually come together, right?
• 1:55:29
  Trump has both.
• 1:55:30
  He has power, and he was raised with power
• 1:55:33
  in overseeing these projects that he's seeing.
• 1:55:37
  So we can, and moving into the White House,
• 1:55:41
  he has money.
• 1:55:43
  He doesn't have to sell out this country.
• 1:55:45
  He gave more money away than he would have earned as president, one, and he hasn't been involved in insider trading.
• 1:55:57
  If Trump would have done anything, Trump's record as president speaks for himself, and it's been positive.
• 1:56:05
  And people have woken up to that, and they see it with gas prices and all that's employed there.
• 1:56:13
  I think the corruption that's been going on for so many years in Congress is now not going to be able to happen during Trump's tenure as president.
• 1:56:28
  And so when they can't make the money, they're going to squawk, you know, and they're going to go after him.
• 1:56:39
  for...
• 1:56:41
  Well, it's obvious they're afraid
• 1:56:43
  of what he's going to do.
• 1:56:45
  Yes. And what he represents.
• 1:56:48
  And I don't...
• 1:56:49
  Look, in the beginning...
• 1:56:51
  From the beginning, he's not the right guy.
• 1:56:53
  He's not a president. He was an entertainer
• 1:56:55
  and a TV personality. Yes, he was a businessman,
• 1:56:57
  but I think
• 1:56:59
  he surprised everybody because
• 1:57:01
  he did show that he actually did care
• 1:57:03
  about the country.
• 1:57:05
  Well, I think he cares about the country.
• 1:57:08
  Yeah. And I do think
• 1:57:09
  He knows about politics and business and apply a business ideology and strategy towards the position.
• 1:57:20
  Because in actuality most of these people in Congress are attorneys And so when he comes in and he brings in the concept of business and business is to earn money
• 1:57:36
  So he formulated, he runs this country like a business
• 1:57:42
  with this country's best interest in place.
• 1:57:46
  And some people don't like that.
• 1:57:46
  So he's trying to get more money into the American people's pockets
• 1:57:51
  one way or another.
• 1:57:53
  No, he is.
• 1:57:54
  money back into this country.
• 1:57:56
  And some people didn't like that he ran it like a business
• 1:57:58
  because they think it's too cold, right?
• 1:58:00
  Well.
• 1:58:02
  Because if you're a business person, you're mostly
• 1:58:04
  just seeing black and white.
• 1:58:06
  And he didn't have enough gray area,
• 1:58:08
  I guess, and people got mad about that.
• 1:58:10
  Well, you know, when you talk and you deal with
• 1:58:12
  people, you can't ever get,
• 1:58:14
  it's just like that old saying,
• 1:58:16
  you can please some of the people some of the time,
• 1:58:18
  but never all the people all the time.
• 1:58:21
  So no matter what you did,
• 1:58:22
  that's good.
• 1:58:24
  somebody's going to have something negative to say about it.
• 1:58:27
  Well, I think it's going to be interesting to see what happens this election
• 1:58:30
  and how everything's handled and see if any further corruption from the left does come out.
• 1:58:35
  But, you know, I'm also going to blame Republicans.
• 1:58:38
  I mean, we got a lot of people, Republicans that are in the Senate and in Congress
• 1:58:42
  that don't get anything done.
• 1:58:43
  You know, they have these social media accounts.
• 1:58:45
  They talk a big game and they...
• 1:58:47
  Well, we've got that with our local politicians.
• 1:58:49
  Absolutely.
• 1:58:49
  The Clint talk, for example, I'd love to see him removed from office.
• 1:58:54
  And I'm waiting for a Republican luncheon to come together.
• 1:58:59
  Hopefully someday he'll come to it instead of bringing some naive 20-year-old little girl in there
• 1:59:05
  that doesn't know what's going on.
• 1:59:07
  And she took the brunt of a lot of questions and wasn't able to answer them at one of these meetings.
• 1:59:13
  I'd like to be at that meeting.
• 1:59:14
  And he's one person, honestly, because he's on my list of guests I'd like to have.
• 1:59:19
  And I'll reach out and see what I can do.
• 1:59:21
  but and the reason I want to reach out to him too is also because he's local to us like he's
• 1:59:26
  representing you know he's a representative of California so there's that I think well
• 1:59:32
  Marcos for example yeah Marcos I mean Marcos yeah yeah he's uh he went against the Republican
• 1:59:41
  Party and uh removing him from office and uh I want to know why does he spend time personally
• 1:59:49
  with him floating around on his yacht?
• 1:59:52
  Don't know.
• 1:59:52
  They go to dinner together?
• 1:59:54
  Don't know.
• 1:59:54
  Because obviously,
• 1:59:55
  Marorcos has not got
• 1:59:57
  the country's interest at heart.
• 1:59:59
  No.
• 2:00:00
  And he is one of the
• 2:00:01
  Biden's right-hands men
• 2:00:04
  that's controlling this open border.
• 2:00:06
  And yet, our representative
• 2:00:08
  isn't representing us.
• 2:00:11
  He, for whatever reason,
• 2:00:13
  which he didn't define,
• 2:00:15
  but he did define that
• 2:00:16
  he was just doing what he was told to do from Biden.
• 2:00:21
  I don't care what Biden tells him to do.
• 2:00:25
  He took that job and it's his responsibility
• 2:00:27
  to do what he has to do.
• 2:00:30
  Well, what we're seeing is a culmination
• 2:00:32
  of all the corruption and the fact
• 2:00:36
  that people got a taste of power
• 2:00:38
  without ever being challenged.
• 2:00:39
  And now we're here, but it looks like the people
• 2:00:41
  are starting to wake up, like you said.
• 2:00:44
  and I'd like to see people pay attention more to what's going on
• 2:00:48
  and influence the government through local politics, local policies,
• 2:00:52
  local education, as you said.
• 2:00:54
  We've been talking for over two hours, so I'm going to wrap it up.
• 2:00:58
  Might as well.
• 2:00:58
  Get on with our days.
• 2:01:00
  Think you got enough information now?
• 2:01:02
  I think we're going to have another conversation another time,
• 2:01:05
  if you're open to it.
• 2:01:07
  Sounds like it's been fun.
• 2:01:09
  I'm going to take us out, and I want to thank Rick for being here.
• 2:01:12
  it's my pleasure glad to be here and i thank everybody else
• 2:01:16
  thank everyone else for tuning in and remember to share the podcast like us subscribe
• 2:01:20
  and we'll see you again
• 2:01:42
  Shh.