12/15/25: 3 US Personnel Killed In Syria, Candace Owens Vs Erika Kirk, Israel Breaks Ceasefire, Saagar Loses It On Weed Rescheduling

Ryan and Saagar discuss 3 US personnel killed in Syria, Candace Owens Erika Kirk meeting, Israel breaks ceasefire, Saagar loses it on Trump weed rescheduling. 

 

GoFundMe: https://www.gofundme.com/f/zbcjn-support-the-hero-who-disarmed-a-bondi-attacker 

 

To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.com

Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 3 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Let's turn down to Syria shocking news over
the weekend. Three Americans killed in ice an ISIS attack
in Syria. Let's put this out here on the screen.
Two US soldiers and a civilian interpreter were killed while

(00:46):
quote supporting counter terror operations, the first US casualties in
Sirius since the fall of Bashar al Assad, so they said.
President Trump vowed Saturday to retaliate against ISIS after this
attack in central Syria killed to two US Army soldiers
and a civilian US interpreter. Again, I want everybody to
stick with me, because I think that we need to

(01:06):
put a magnifying glass on this. Something about this just
seems weird, doesn't seem to add all up. So the
soldiers were quote supporting counter terrorism operations against ISIS in Palmyra,
Central Syria, when they came under fire from a lone gunman.
Syrian security forces subsequently killed the gunmen three American military personnel.
Two members of the Syrian security force were also wounded

(01:28):
in the attack. So it's a total of five people
who we know or sorry of six US service members
and or personnel who were in the area, in addition
to two of these Syrian pro regime forces who are
wounded in the attack. They say, in the aftermath, American
helicopters are then deployed to evacuate the wounded to Altanaf
that's in southern Syria that's come under attack before. So

(01:52):
what this quote highlights, as they say, is challenges for
the Syrian government. What it highlights to me is what
are we doing here? You've got a thousand guys in
Syria for what exactly?

Speaker 1 (02:04):
And doing what you know?

Speaker 3 (02:06):
And listen, like I said, if you read the internal thing,
it says The attack unfolded outside of building where Syrian
Interior Ministry officials from the capital were meeting with their
counterparts in the city. American soldiers and interpreter were providing
security outside when a lone gunman opened fire from a

(02:27):
nearby building with what appeared to be a machine gun.
Syrian security forces open fire killed the gunmen. The American
soldiers killed were part of Iowa National Guard contingent assigned
to the Syrian mission now. A spokesmerson for the Syrians
said that the Syrian government had warned American counterparts about
the possibility of attacks by ISIS on their forces. Quote,

(02:48):
the international Coalition did not take Syrian warnings the possibility
of an ISIS breach into account. This is what I
mean about the circumstances of this is. First of all,
you've got this meeting that's going on here, right, You've
got the SDA apparently, who were still kind of involved.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
We've got these Syrian regime guys.

Speaker 3 (03:04):
Then you've got US service members providing security for a
meeting of what they said, some coalition style group. Why
are we there in the first place, Why are we
providing security?

Speaker 1 (03:13):
Right?

Speaker 3 (03:14):
This is after the president had eight almost seven eight
years ago, which I literally covered at the time at
the White House, I said we were withdrawing from Syria.
I mean, we've been in Syria for eleven years, We've
had troops on the ground there. It's again shocking. And
of course, thousand people there. Nobody bats an eye here
in Washington. If anything, they're celebrating. They should not be
there doing what they should not be in this circumstance.

(03:37):
Iowa National guardsmen providing security outside of a building, you know,
for what exactly without a requisite amount of support. And
then you've got the seriou at least the Syrians, who
knows they might be covering their as they're like, hey,
we told them, you know it was a possibility. Right,
So everything around this smells something's not right in my opinion,
just in terms of why they were there in the
first place, the lack of support, why we have a

(03:59):
thousand people in Syria at all, especially in the midst
of all this supposedly be Israelis love the Syrian president, right,
let them go, right and support.

Speaker 4 (04:08):
Them, except they've been bombing and constantly.

Speaker 1 (04:10):
Right, except that they're bombing them too, right.

Speaker 3 (04:11):
But that kind of gets to the whole, like what
are we doing? What exactly are we still doing in Siera?
Nobody can answer this question to fight isis.

Speaker 5 (04:19):
And I don't I don't understand the National Guard part,
Like there's the thirty thousand foot part that is utterly bizarre.
But we have a Delta force, we have infantry, we
have marines, like, we have a trillion dollar plus military.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
Why are we calling up people.

Speaker 5 (04:39):
From Iowa in the National Guard to go over to
Syria like that?

Speaker 4 (04:44):
That just seems that just seems off.

Speaker 5 (04:46):
And Iowa absolutely cannot catch a break like there their
economy is in depression. Like circumstances oh sofs so the
tariffs and like just in general, like they've got some
long term structural problems are being propped up by ethanol
basically like this the mandate that we that you put

(05:06):
it basically corn into your car and the like transition
towards electric vehicles is not helping helping.

Speaker 4 (05:15):
They're either.

Speaker 5 (05:18):
You know, lots lots of other issues going on with Iowa.
But so the political context in Syria, you've got the
Syrian Democratic Forces, which is basically the Kurds and the
coalition that works with the Kurdish forces in the north,
which is allied with the United States. They used to
be in conflict with al Shara and those other forces. Uh,

(05:40):
they're now years and they have they still have this
Rojava area, which is they consider to be this liberated
which is a liberated zone.

Speaker 4 (05:50):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (05:50):
The Syrian central government is saying, you've got to integrate,
You've got to integrate with the rest of the country.
We've got to got to have a country. And so
then they're negotiating the terms of that. How much autonomy
would they have, you know, what would the central government's
role be or control over the area. B Meanwhile, Turkey
is like absolutely not like Turkey air to one despises

(06:14):
the SDF and basically wants them to not to exist.
Turkey is going through its own negotiations with its own
Kurdish forces to PKK just north of Syria in eastern
eastern Turkey. And so as those you know, tenuous negotiations
falter and go haltingly forward, you had Turkey threatening to

(06:36):
invade just recently, and so into that you have ISIS,
which is a useful kind of mercenary tool for all
of these different forces. Like basically the understanding of the
remnants of isis is that you can find different factions
of it. You could basically just pay off to do

(06:57):
the things that you need done. You see that happening
in Pakistan, Afghanistan, maybe Australia, Like they become this like
kind of useful vehicle. And so who benefits from this attack, Well, well,
we know who could be hurt by it would be
the SDF Courds because the Kurds they want these thousand

(07:19):
or two thousand American troops to stay because that's some
protection for them against the Syrian government and the Turkish government,
and so driving them out would be to the benefit
of Turkey and to a slightly lesser degree to the
Syrian central government. So if you're just going by cold

(07:40):
calculus of who might have been who had the incentive
to do this, Turkey's probably number one.

Speaker 4 (07:48):
Syria Central government too.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
They're saying that he's a former member of the Syrian
government who then went ISIS So you know, right, and look,
I do think to me what it highlights is why
wou we have national guardsh been there in the first place?

Speaker 1 (08:01):
They should not be there.

Speaker 3 (08:03):
The National Guard should be you know, cleaning up hurricanes
wrote whatever, like they shouldn't be deployed in an undeclared war,
providing security for god knows what you know, and then
putting themselves in harm's way, and nobody can coherently explain
to the American people, here's why there's one thousand people. Well,
they were there to defeat ISIS. Like, well, I thought

(08:24):
we defeated ISIS. Now they were killed by ISIS, and
now that means we need to stay more so that
we can kill even more of them, so that we
can put more of our guys in harms way.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
We just never leave. I mean, it's an eleven year deployment.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
Now we can coherently explain, you know, why we.

Speaker 5 (08:37):
Should leave, and yeah, that's right, that's easy. A much
younger Trump did exactly that. Let's roll President Trump almost
so this was December nineteenth, twenty eighteen, so seven years
almost exactly seven years ago. Here's the forty fifth president
of the United States.

Speaker 6 (08:53):
We've been fighting for a long time in Syria. I've
been president for almost two years, and we've really stepped
it up and we have won against ISIS. We've beaten them,
and we've beaten them badly. We've taken back the land
and now it's time for our troops to come back home.
I get very sad. And when I have to write
letters or call parents or wives or husbands of soldiers

(09:18):
who have been killed fighting for our country. It's a
great honor. We cherish them. But it's heartbreaking, there's no
question about it. It's heartbreaking. Now we've won, it's time
to come back. They're getting ready. You're gonna see him soon.
These are great American heroes. These are great heroes of
the world because they fought for us.

Speaker 4 (09:41):
So Donald Trump making a lot of sense. Back then,
you covered this.

Speaker 3 (09:44):
I was there, so it was literally to what happened nothing.
Mattis resigned over this, right over this policy.

Speaker 4 (09:51):
Mad Dog was furious.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
This, by the way, was I remember, this was a
huge bruja at the time because that people were like, oh,
he's abandoning the Kurds, right, No, it was that whole
Kurdish discourse. And there was all these John McCain types
who were like, this is why we need to stay
in Syria, Like you're emboldening the hem you were abandoning
our allies and you're strengthening the Osade regime. And there

(10:15):
was a big nationalist right, you know, brew ha about
it as well. They're like, it shouldn't have taken this long.
The fact is that the military was stonewalling at which
they were, and he would multiple times be like, we
need to get out of Syria, and Madison then would
be like, yeah, you know, in six months or something
like that. And this is ultimately what broke the camel's back,
the straw that broke the camel's back for their relationship.

Speaker 1 (10:34):
But ultimately, I mean, matdis won in the end. They
all did.

Speaker 3 (10:39):
Never left, just never leave, Like once you're in, you
have to have this base. I mean, let's remember the
alton I remember those multiple soldiers who were killed in
Jordan a couple of years back, you know, as a
result of this Segrowinian drone.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Remember that. I mean, there's all there for some reason.

Speaker 3 (10:56):
Once we established a place, we can never leave, no
matter how many one death, two death, three deaths. That
these people are in harms way, no one can explain it,
No one can ever explain it to anybody the time.

Speaker 5 (11:07):
The New York Times coverage at the time is indicative
of the way that this this city, and this country's
elite kind of view these these ongoing occupations. We could
put up C four. The lead of the story tells
you everything. And President Trump was ordered the withdrawal of
two thousand American troops from Syria, bringing a sudden end
to a military campaign that largely vanquished the Islamic state

(11:28):
but ceeding a strategically vital country to Russia and Iran.
And so it's like, so that's the Times telling you, like,
I told you, how can we We can't lose Syria
to rush what it was like in Iran and so,
and the military was like, actually, you're right, yet we're
not going anywhere.

Speaker 4 (11:47):
We're just gonna hang out.

Speaker 3 (11:49):
Yeah, and we did and we're still there. I mean,
what's really Look, I'm not saying the lives of guardsmen
are more important or anything like that, but this is
not what they were designed for.

Speaker 1 (11:56):
You know.

Speaker 3 (11:57):
You imagine, you know, you respond to the commercial, the
National Guard commercial. Yeah, that's a good way to pay
for college a month, a way for me to bolster
my income. I want to serve my country. And next thing,
you know, you find yourself on a deployment to freaking
Syria in an undeclared war and providing security for what,

(12:17):
you know, for what type of effer who knows who's
inside that meeting. You got al Qaeda, you know, allegedly
isis is here ra. I mean, you know, the Syrian
Democrat literally a geopolitical pawn for purposes that nobody can
you know, actually explain.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
I just think it's.

Speaker 3 (12:32):
Sickening by the way, you know, can't let hey, Pete
Hexath here off the hooks C two up here on
the screen. His tweet in response to this attack. The
savage who porpetrated this attack was killed by partner forces.
Let it be known, if you target Americans anywhere in
the world, you'll spend the rest of your brief, anxious
life knowing the United States will hunt you, find you,
and ruthlessly kill you.

Speaker 1 (12:50):
It's like, okay, I.

Speaker 4 (12:51):
Mean no, actually that's not what happened.

Speaker 3 (12:52):
Like, yeah, it's really what happened. Kill immediately fortunately, right
and uh. And in response to this, lawmakers on Sunday
and others, when asked for this, we're like, yes, this
is why we need to stay and continue the fight.
Agains isis. It's a self licking ice cream cone. I
believe that that's what they used to say in the past.
So it's just you know, we were bonding. Ryan and

(13:13):
I over this about how you can you know, when
you're in business long enough, you can start you could
see stuff that we thought was all resolved right almost
a decade ago, bubble back up with the same dumb arguments, the.

Speaker 1 (13:25):
Same people who are involved, and.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
The only people who pay the price are probably the
thousands of American service members who had to be deployed
to Syria for no reason.

Speaker 1 (13:36):
Who knows, maybe probably.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
A dozen or so now that have been killed in
this deployment, at least the ones we're fighting ices. You could,
you know, justify this this one for you know, again,
explain that to their parents about what exactly that they
were doing there. Syrian Democratic who international coalition? You're protecting
al Qaida? The Alkaida gunman killed the ISIS. I mean,
it makes no sense, boggles of mind.

Speaker 4 (13:56):
The Syrian story has to be the most psychedelic.

Speaker 5 (13:58):
Yeah, because you I have a former al Qaeda literally
guy who was just in the White House and is
now run in the country like what.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
I did.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
Okay, welcome to America. All right, let's get to Barry Weiss.

Speaker 5 (14:16):
The international summit that the world has been waiting for
will convene today Monday, December fifteenth, Cannis Owens will be
meeting with Erica Kirk. Put this first element up on
the screen. It was announced by Erica Kirk on ex
Candis Owens and I are meeting for a private, in
person discussion on Monday, December fifteenth, Real canvas. Oh and

(14:37):
I have agreed that public discussions, live streams and tweets
are on hold until after this meeting. I look forward
to a productive conversation. Thank you, and she it was
everything in her power not to say thank you for your.

Speaker 4 (14:52):
Right, thank you for sure's mentioned to this matter.

Speaker 3 (14:55):
Candace has responded this morning, I am very much looking
forward to this discussion.

Speaker 5 (15:00):
There you go, so sun it. So the context here
is that her organization was a TPUs aplos planning to
release its kind of counter argument to Candice Owen's as
many many arguments.

Speaker 4 (15:16):
She's putting that on hold.

Speaker 5 (15:18):
But it comes after a Saturday evening a PM quote
unquote town Hall. Yes, that CBS News under the new
direction of Barry Weiss ran. Now, Barry makes for an
unusual executive in a lot of different ways. She is
putting herself in front of the camera as well. And

(15:38):
so we could let's roll d two here a little
bit from this town hall.

Speaker 7 (15:46):
He was murdered three months ago. If you go on
the internet and frankly it is left beyond the Internet
now into real life, and you talk to many seemingly
sane people, they do not believe that the twenty two
years old named Tyler Robinson that has been arrested and
charged with his murder is the actual murderer. They think

(16:06):
they believe any number of theories. They believe that Erica
Kirk was his Mosad handler and that he was killed
by a foreign government. They believe that she was tracked
by Egyptian planes. They believe that the rings on her
hand are signs of Illuminati. The theories themselves are absurd.
What matters is that, because she speaks about this in
the interview, the brain rop that social media is allowing

(16:30):
to spread, the way that it is detaching us from humanity,
from our ability to talk to one another and our
ability to discern the truth from just out and out
lies is something that is incredibly important as a theme.
I think there's also a new theory that Egyptian aircraft
have been tracking you.

Speaker 1 (16:52):
What is going on?

Speaker 7 (16:53):
Why are there so many conspiracies spreading about what seems
to be a pretty open and shutcase.

Speaker 8 (17:02):
This is the first time that we have seen evil
on display, where we have social media at our fingertips.
Something so evil that happened. People are wanting answers immediately.
They are wanting to figure out how to wrap their
mind around this Egyptian planes.

Speaker 1 (17:24):
Let's just yeah, the Egyptian.

Speaker 7 (17:26):
You believe that Tyler Robinson murdered your husband?

Speaker 1 (17:29):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 7 (17:30):
Why do you think it is so hard for so
many people to believe that reality.

Speaker 1 (17:39):
Because it's too simple.

Speaker 8 (17:43):
Again, everyone always has to think there's more to the story. Well,
sometimes there's not. I've seen the autopsy report. I've seen
our case pull together. I've been in constant contact with
our lawyers, are the prosecuting team.

Speaker 1 (17:56):
I've seen it all.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
So I mean, look, you put those two things together
between the Candace Owans. Look, I don't know what's going
to come of this summit between Erica and between Candace.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
I have no idea.

Speaker 3 (18:09):
Barry calling for censorship is a little bit too perfect, Ryan,
whenever you consider that TikTok literally sponsored that event, right,
and that it just so happens that her benefactor, the Ellisons,
are trying to roll up the entire US media industry,
and that she explicitly at least, you know, according to
Dylan Buyer's over at Puck, one of the reasons that

(18:31):
The Free Press was bought and Barry installed as editor
in chief was due because of the Ellison families concern
over quote anti Semitism and because they are strong supporters
of the Zionist caused. I mean, all of this is
out in the open, like, I don't think they would
even object to be called pro Israel billionaires right like
almost self described at this point, Ellison is known with

(18:53):
the hundreds of billions, you know, donating significant sums to
Zionists like causes.

Speaker 1 (18:59):
Now the Tyler Robinson.

Speaker 3 (19:01):
Part of this, and the Egyptian I mean, I have
been loath to delve into the whole Egyptian plane discourse, etc.
I don't think that the evidence is all that compelling.
I did see what Tucker Carlson said that the Egyptian
planes was actually true. Again, I mean, based on the

(19:21):
open source info that was released that I at least
at the very least like took a look at. There's
some extrapolation, I believe. Again, whenever it comes to claiming ownership.
I will say, though she did not deny it out explicitly,
she did seem to make a mockery of it. I
am not in any way trying to gain credence, you know,
to this argument. I'm just at this point now, you

(19:42):
and I know how this is. Every word of this
is going to be dissected. And I did think that
the answer, I mean, she did say, I believe Tyler Robinson,
you know, et cetera, killed my husband.

Speaker 1 (19:52):
I believe that too.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
Now for the record, you know, I've looked at the evidence,
et cetera. I know there's concern, but the bullet I mean,
I asked some ballistic experts that you can believe who
you want. The people I spoke to generally are very
conspiratorial in their own right. The FBI and all of
them have pointed to DNA evidence. It wouldn't necessarily make
sense to plant a different gun. Right, just again, based

(20:13):
on my apprusal. Again, I'm not saying the FBI didn't
screw up the case massively. I'm not going to say that,
but yeah, just in general, I don't know, I don't
think your answers did much, at least in my opinion,
to quell any you know, continued kind of fervor about
around this case.

Speaker 5 (20:29):
If you're if you're already in that right, if you're
already in that skepticamp, you're gonna probably stay there. But yeah,
I actually kind of I get where Barry White is
coming from on this point. And from from her perspective,
she's like, man, this is so obvious, like who did this?
And from her perspective too, not only do we have
the shooter, like we could try to pin this on

(20:52):
the left, like there's this like trans roommate, and like
this fits into like the thing that she was on
for years over at the Free Press and before that
at the New York Times. She's like, this is a
golden opportunity to like exploit these issues that that I've
been into and yet instead, all of a sudden, now

(21:12):
like people are accusing that yahoo of doing it. And
from her perspective, and so I actually sympathized. From her perspective,
she's like this, She's like this was perfect for us,
and now it's been robbed. Interestingly, and the reason we're
covering this at all, and you can like it's I haven't.

(21:33):
It's been hard for me to understand like how it's
huge of a cleavage this is created on the right.
But Emily was explaining like that that this is like
this and the whole flentest, flintiest thing that kind of
flows into it is just driving the conversation on the
right now in a way that is remarkable, and I

(21:56):
think people when people look back on it years later,
it's like, what did you know what did MAGA two
do with its like unified control of government? Like oh,
they argued about Canis Owens and Nick Fuentas and Tyler
Robinson and Charlie Kirk while well, like everything burned. What's
your sense on of like how kind of major this

(22:20):
is a fracture?

Speaker 1 (22:20):
Oh, it's huge, right, And I think that Listen, it's funny.

Speaker 3 (22:24):
I see people out there Christopher Rufo for example, and
was like, conspiratorial thinking is dominated. But he's like, guys,
come yeah, He's like, we need to stop. We need institutions.
And part of the reason my true fracture with Magnat
people want to know where it come from and where
you know, I was described as a cock. It was
stopped to steal, and it was because at that time,
I go, guys, you're line to people. I said, at

(22:45):
the end of the day, line two people is bad.
Like playing footsie empirically with a completely bullshit, made up
claim is going to lead to things that you have
no ideas. So what people tried to do was rationalize it.
And I've had this fight. A lot of these people
are my friends, Darryl for example, my martyr Maide. I
had that whole post about you know, imagine all these

(23:07):
things have happened to you and that's why you feel
the election was stolen. I mean, I'm pretty sure I
said this to them in person. I was like, dude,
like I just don't agree with that at all. Or
there was all these books written about hi I call
it high IQ stop this year right and be like, oh, well,
actually zucker Bucks and.

Speaker 1 (23:20):
I'm sorry, it's not the same thing.

Speaker 3 (23:21):
Like you're a content that when you say that you're
talking about influence the Time magazine piece, remember fortify the election.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
That is not the same thing.

Speaker 3 (23:29):
That's not the same thing as Venezuela and dominions who
stole the election. Like that's what Trump means. And by
the way, that's what the people who listen to him mean.

Speaker 4 (23:35):
I know, I met what Trumps to overthrow Venezuela.

Speaker 1 (23:37):
No, I would tell you, man, oh my god.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
In twenty twenty one, I couldn't even get into Uber
without people and be like, hey man, let me the election,
like you really believe, right, is somebody calling you and
telling you I'm serious.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
This happened like dozens of times. I know it.

Speaker 3 (23:49):
I could see it for real, Like the people who
believe this stuff, they believe it for real, like actually,
And so that was one of the original sins well,
because the demand is always you have to listen to
what Donald Trump is saying.

Speaker 1 (24:02):
That's the only empirical, you know, truth that exists.

Speaker 3 (24:05):
And once you kind of create that, well, Trump himself,
in a vacuum, has created a place where reality is
not reality, where any discussion of facts or of empirical
any discussion of facts of reasonable thinking and in general,
of a systemic belief that somebody has quote out to
get you, which is and by the way, what's difficult

(24:26):
about this Sometimes it's.

Speaker 1 (24:27):
True a lot of the times.

Speaker 3 (24:28):
Actually it is true a lot of the times about
the deep state or conspiracy. And this is what makes
yearn my job so difficult. For example, about reporting around
Epstein Israel is the amount of effort that you and
I put into fact checking, to making sure that everything
that we say is backed up to validate people's real
feelings around the world while giving them the facts to

(24:50):
be able to color that in. It's it's made so
much harder by a world where everyone can just color
in the lines with whatever they want. They pretend like
defamation law and facts just don't exist. And that's you know,
a road to getting really really hot on the internet.

Speaker 1 (25:05):
This is not just about Candice Owns. This is like
an entire ecosysm.

Speaker 3 (25:08):
That's why there's crocodile teels tears around this for people
saying indulging conspiracy, thinking Stop the Steal was the ultimate conspiracy,
and everybody tried to justify it by.

Speaker 1 (25:19):
Saying, oh, these people feel disin front.

Speaker 3 (25:22):
It's not this like no, and look I maybe even
guilty of that, not on Stop the Steel, but in
some other instances.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
And you're like, what, for example, I'll give you one
the Haitian cats thing. Right, this is a bullshit story.
It's bullshit, right, And you know, at.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
The time, I was like, well, you know what this
is is about people in Springfield who were pissed off
at the Haitians. And you know, while yes, what Trump
said was a lie, et cetera, that doesn't mean that
people there, and you know, to be fair also, you know,
all the whole Left to Pearl clutched around this was like, actually,
the people of Springfield love Haitians. And it's like, well,
Springfield dramatically.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Voted for Trump.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
Okay, so like, let's be honest too around all of
those dynamics. But the truth is is that if you
normalize and create an environment where stuff like that is
just done and dusted and is accepted as truth, there
will be shocking consequences to all of that in the future.
Where TPUSA was a right wing institution, right that was
led by Charlie Kirk, but Charlie himself was not immune

(26:17):
to this. He had to indulge a lot of stop
the steel bullshit he called constantly.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
He was constantly his entire role was like trying to
paper over fractures in the MAGA coalition, both from Israel.
But I mean, that was just one of many other things.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
And you know, to give a shout out to Richard
Hannania where he's just empirically correct, is if you're going
to have a shift in the dynamics of like who
identifies with different political parties if one of them is
going to lose people who are college educated and to
indulge like a vast array of people who have come
to politics online and who are not familiar in general

(26:55):
with like I don't know, like reading the news at
a most basic level. You are going this is a
logical consequence of like a low human capital led environment.
So like institutions themselves cannot be genuinely representative.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Or if they are, they're going to look like this.

Speaker 3 (27:12):
They will look like a world where you know, the
Egyptian planes and all that is basically canon for a
significant number of people.

Speaker 1 (27:19):
Again, look, I looked into a guy.

Speaker 3 (27:20):
So we're talking about foreign registration planes not proven based
on flight radar data. I'm not saying the planes themselves
didn't exist, and there certainly have been claims made, and
I don't think her answer was good, But that is
not one hundred percent convincing in the light of DNA evidence,
which has not yet been contested in court. If Tyler
Robinson and his lawyers can prove in court that that

(27:41):
was fabricated, I will happily.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Hold my hands up right, and they.

Speaker 3 (27:44):
Would have every incentive in the world to do so,
but they have not made that claim as so, yeah, perhaps.

Speaker 1 (27:48):
They'll be an O. J. Simpson case here.

Speaker 5 (27:50):
The other the other wild part about it is that
you would have to believe that so Charlie Kirk had
that summit on Long Island, Yeah, where it's like a
come to Jesus bad pond, but you.

Speaker 3 (28:03):
Know, allegedly, yeah, so they have that Not even sure
I buy that, by the way, but there was.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
A come to Jesus thing. I mean, all the evidence
points to he was.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
Very pro Israel and he was doing his best and
doing his best to hold back but like the forces.

Speaker 5 (28:15):
But let's say and then he comes out of that,
and then let's and now he's very angry and he's
turning on Israel. You would have to believe that they
went from inviting him over having these meetings, like having
people call him, to being like, you know what, we
give up kill him. And then and then within like
just a matter of short weeks, you've pulled off the

(28:38):
assassination and you found some other patsy like in Utah
to like take the like.

Speaker 4 (28:48):
Does not make sense.

Speaker 1 (28:50):
Several things can be true. Did the FBI bungle the investigation? Yeah?
What did we lead our entire show with here?

Speaker 4 (28:56):
Did the run by the bube?

Speaker 1 (28:59):
Right, it's right by a literal moron all right? Allegedly sorry,
you know the moron? Yeah, moron.

Speaker 3 (29:06):
I mean that in the literal sense, not in any
character way whatsoever there, but that's run by Cash Hotel,
all right, So yeah, they messed it up. There was
the whole thing about the old man who was initially
I understand, but I also you and I have been
in this business for all How many chaotic events have
we covered?

Speaker 4 (29:24):
Of course?

Speaker 3 (29:25):
Right, there's always reports one shoot or two right, three
initial reports. Half the time initial reports are totally long,
complete bullshit. You know, eyewitnesses is notoriously bad. You had
multiple people of interests who were taken into custody. I
get it too. In terms of Robinson, He's taken into
custody and then we hear nothing. The text messages which

(29:46):
we covered here weird. I'm going to fully hit it weird, Okay,
definitely needs to be explained in court.

Speaker 1 (29:52):
What else was weird? Oh?

Speaker 3 (29:54):
The fact that the FBI freaked out at Joe Kent
over foreign assassination tires. That's crazy too. I agree with
I agree with all of you. It's not evidence. Now
you know, absence of evidence is not evidence, in the
words of the famous Donald Rubbs felt okay, But all
of that again just to me, just me, points much
more to incompetence, bureaucratic infighting. Now that said, I think

(30:15):
all of those inquiries absolutely should be explored, especially if
you do want to find justice ultimately. But the cold
hard like rifle DNA, just the countercase of like why
it to me, does not make any sense personally, It
doesn't make any sense. And so I don't think that
that's difficult to say. And I don't trust the FBI.
I do not trust the FBI at all.

Speaker 5 (30:34):
And so what Barry whis is trying to do is
create an institution, and she's trying to kind of put
this genie back in the bottle. Let's roll a little
bit more of Yeah, we have more of the town
Hall clip play the next one.

Speaker 9 (30:45):
But any good faith effort to stop political violence must
hold both parties to the same standard and expectation. So
in that spirit, will you condemn the violent rhetoric of
Donald Trump, the most powerful and influential person on Earth.

Speaker 8 (31:00):
I appreciate your question. You know my heart, why would
I ever say yes, go murder people? This is so
much deeper than just one I understand your sentiment. I do,

(31:21):
But this is also so much deeper than just one person.
This starts at the home. Okay, this starts with family.
This starts with a seed that grows and grows. You
can choose to have evil in your heart, or you
can choose to have light. What you consume and what

(31:44):
you absorb from the outside world will manifest itself. No,
I will never agree with political violence. My husband is
a victim of it. I'm a victim of it. But
what I'm trying to stay here is that we can

(32:04):
blame everyone else. We have to look in the mirror.
When you become a father, when you become a mother,
how are you raising your kids? Are you taking responsibility
or are you giving them a device and saying, go
down that rabbit hole. I'm trying to go to pilates class.

(32:27):
You can just sit in the corner and look at
your iPad or look at your phone and go down
that rabbit hole and see what you can learn from that.
Instead of being a parent. So My call to action
from that is parents step up.

Speaker 4 (32:39):
Well, I don't understand why Pilates is catching strays here.

Speaker 1 (32:42):
First, that was a very odd response.

Speaker 5 (32:43):
I mean, look, and she did not condemn, by the way.
Part of the difference she walked around and decided not to.

Speaker 3 (32:49):
I was talking about this with Crystal, and because Crystal
unfortunately there was some power problems so she couldn't be here.
But like, this is where I am sympathetic, you know,
to the difficulty of the left, where Eric occur is
both the grieving widow of Charlie and like she's the
first person I thought about, you know, after Charlie's death
and his children, right, So I think that's a normal
human reaction. She since has taken over turning point USA.

(33:13):
Now she's on you know, she's selling Charlie. I think
that's fine, you know, to sell Charlie's book in the memory.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Of your husband and allmen.

Speaker 3 (33:20):
But it is I mean, you're going to get into difficult,
into dicey territory when you do want to be an
overtly political actor, right, and you can't really have it
both ways, at least in my opinion. And this is
somebody who understands like and is deeply sympathetic to a
grieving widow, but who also wants to take up the
mantle of her husband's political you know force, and then
also kind of explicitly be involved in shaping politics and

(33:44):
in everything like there will be something that wears off
and like, look, I don't know, I mean with the
whole town hall, like that was kind of the duality
of what it was. And I would say for her
in particular, the more you are in the latter overtly political,
working as an ally and the Trump administration, et cetera,
you will remove a lot of at least what I think,

(34:06):
you know, the sympathy of the entire country, which I
think rightfully exists over the death of your deceased husband.
And I mean this kind of that kind of like
squares the entire thing where Charlie's assassination was a personal,
it was a political and it became an intracoalitional fight
where and I mean that's where I find it like gross, Right,

(34:28):
we're arguing about the details of the death explicitly in
the grounds of trying to make political points, but also
how can you escape that if it is something which
was explicitly used I mean, many people lost their jobs
as a result of it. As I've said here before,
I don't have a problem at least in some cases
with that, because the truth is is all of us
kind of believe in a little bit of cancel culture.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
You know, it's true.

Speaker 3 (34:49):
I mean, it is true some of all of us
believe that there are bounds in polite society. We don't
necessarily believe the government should be enforcing it, which I
don't think either of you and I do, and the
government at one point he wanted to in the midst
of the Charlie Kirk assassination, which I condemned. I think
it was bad and obviously backfire dramatically given their coalitional fights.
So yeah, the whole That's why I questioned the decision

(35:11):
for this town hall in the first place. I don't
get it. I'll be honest, I don't get it. Maybe
it was done to help sell the book, which is fine.

Speaker 4 (35:21):
But I get it for Erica Kirk.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
I get it for Erica Kirk, of course, right.

Speaker 3 (35:24):
But from CBS News' perspective, yeah, I mean to me,
it just seems like Barry wants to use that This
is me outsider kind of looking in is use the assassination,
the aftermath like discussion and cleavages in the right to
assert herself as a controller of wing discourse, and right

(35:48):
is to referee and to be the one who's pushing
social media and which just so happens to embrace a
lot of pro Israel politics, right. And I think that's
increasingly what it looks like.

Speaker 5 (35:58):
And the problem she's going to run in to with
her own business model is that the one reason that
the American news media has been so homogeneous for many
decades is that advertisers don't really want the controversy.

Speaker 4 (36:12):
And so we can put up this fourth element here.

Speaker 5 (36:15):
Major advertisers stayed away from this town hall.

Speaker 4 (36:18):
She said she's going to do a lot more of them.

Speaker 5 (36:21):
They basically what all of the ads on here were
just direct sales type stuff, which is the kind of lowest,
cheapest kind of ad you can get on TV. According
to Variety. Here among the town hall's sponsors, so she
did get some do sponsors, where the Conservative Heritage Foundation

(36:42):
hallo a mobile app for Christian prayer. I think that's
on Tucker and other shows too. David a new animated
film from Angel Studios, which specializes in faith based content,
a small handful of more mainstream advertisers, including Spotify and TikTok.

Speaker 4 (36:58):
We're also pro so she got TikTok to.

Speaker 5 (37:01):
So the Allison's own one half, the Ellison's own TikTok
the other half of the Ellison's CBS, and so they
are basically just paying each other.

Speaker 4 (37:12):
So how long. This is not a commercial play.

Speaker 5 (37:17):
This is obviously a political and ideological play.

Speaker 1 (37:20):
Which is the purpose.

Speaker 4 (37:21):
Right, So it's okay if it loses a ton of money.

Speaker 1 (37:23):
Let's all just remember this is not about money. The
Ellison's are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. They are
not buying anything for commercial purpose.

Speaker 5 (37:33):
They win and lose hundreds of millions of dollars every day. Yes,
as the market.

Speaker 1 (37:37):
Exactly hundreds of billions of dollars.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
Yes, Go and read the story at some point about
Larry Ellison and how he owns like an entire island
in Hawaii.

Speaker 4 (37:45):
It's nuts, one of the biggest islands of Yeah.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
It owns the entire I think, like ninety nine percent,
like their whole landlord of everybody. It's it's psychotic, it's great.
It's literally a US state. A significant portion of a
US state controlled by a single individual, and.

Speaker 5 (37:58):
CIA helped birth his company. Like, I hate the actually
looked deeply into oracle. I didn't know that. I hate
when the government makes these companies and then the.

Speaker 4 (38:07):
Billionaires get to get the money.

Speaker 5 (38:09):
Why can't we be the billionaires we made the company,
Like it's terrible and we don't like it, but like,
at least we can get breaks from it.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
Well, I won't say anything, all right, let's get on
to Israel Jowe.

Speaker 5 (38:22):
Over the weekend in Gaza, Israel launched an attack that
killed a Rad Sad, who was a top Casaan commander,
with a drone strike on a vehicle, which also killed
a handful of other Hamas officials that were riding along
with him, creating more gymnastics in the headlines around the world.

Speaker 4 (38:41):
This The Times went with.

Speaker 5 (38:42):
Israel says it killed senior Hamas commander despite cease fire.
Had you had a lot of defenders of Israel saying
that this wait, wait until you see the identity of
the person who was killed. You will see that this
was a justified attack. Like wait a mint, what are
you talking about. There is no identity of a person

(39:04):
that justifies firing during during what is called a ceasefire.

Speaker 1 (39:11):
A lovely headline here despite.

Speaker 5 (39:12):
The despite it, despite these fire uh, utterly, utterly incredible.

Speaker 4 (39:17):
There was some speculation that.

Speaker 5 (39:21):
Abu Watha's top top commander, that they said he was
instrumental in the October seventh attacks and that he's one
of the kind of leading logistics experts when it particularly
when it comes to explosives. There's argument that he was
taking stock of you know, armament supplies and and also

(39:41):
trying to figure out, you know, the best way to
take unexploded Israeli ordinance and you know, transform it into ammunition.

Speaker 4 (39:52):
For for Hamas in the future.

Speaker 5 (39:54):
Uh, let's let's pretend that all of that is actually true,
like there's a ceasefire in place.

Speaker 10 (40:00):
Like.

Speaker 3 (40:02):
Under this logic, this would mean that Hamas try Yeah,
the idea, Oh well, there's an IDF general who was instrumental.

Speaker 4 (40:12):
I'm not testifying.

Speaker 3 (40:13):
I don't should do that, but right, they could do
that if they wanted to, and.

Speaker 1 (40:17):
They could say the same thing.

Speaker 4 (40:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (40:19):
So there have been hundreds of people, hundreds of Palestinians
killed since the quote unquote ceasefire has has been has
been implemented. Uh, there there really hasn't been a day.
I don't think that it's gone by that hasn't seen
some some Palestinians killed. An average of roughly two children

(40:41):
a day have been killed during the ceasefire, and oftentimes
we'll get questions about, you know why is why do
you why do you even care so much? And if
you think about how much you cared when you heard
about what happened at Bondai Beach where at least fifteen
people were killed, and then imagine that you see all

(41:03):
human life as valuable. Most days, you're getting ten to
fifteen Palestinians killed in the middle of this ceasefire, and
that does not count the ravages of the lack of
life essentials getting into Gaza. We jump to E four
real quick, and then we can go back to some

(41:25):
of these other things. The inclement weather that has hit
Gaza is an absolute nightmare. So the headline here thirteen Gozins,
including three children killed by hypothermia or building collapses, a
mid storm byer and one man dies in Israel. The
number of hypothermia deaths has climbed significantly above that. Since then,

(41:47):
you've had flooding and cold weather for people who are
entering their third winter living in tarps and tents. The
tents are crap to begin with. By the third winter,
you know, they're they're offering you know, very little like
the they're offering very little protection against the elements. And

(42:09):
so when when you had when you have this storm
surge through, people are just left completely defenseless.

Speaker 4 (42:16):
Tens of thousands of tens have been completely destroyed.

Speaker 5 (42:18):
And Israel considers tent poles to be a quote dual
use item, so they will not allow tent poles into
Gaza because they say it could its dual use could
be military. Pencils and paper are are restricted, like the
amount of things that are blocked from going in are

(42:39):
it's it's utterly just absurd, and it would be comical
if it wasn't. There was an article about, I think
it was in the New York Times about the Trump
administration sent some logistics it's its top logistics efforts to
this kind of center where they are working, you know,
with the Israeli military to like you know, get aid

(42:59):
into Kaza. Because the thinking from the Trump administration was this,
this seems like a massive logistical challenge, so let's get
our top folks over there and send them in and
they'll they'll they'll figure this out. They all left pretty
quickly back to the United States and gave up. They said,
there is no logistical challenge. It's just Israel won't let
things in. Like here's the list of things they won't

(43:21):
let in. If you change that list, you can send
things in. It's like there are checkpoints, there are crossings.
You there are trucks filled with life essentials. Drive them
in and distribute them. You don't need, you know, my
big brain logistical take here.

Speaker 4 (43:37):
And so they just so they just had it.

Speaker 3 (43:39):
Do you have some news for you, Ryan, They just
broke here. We can put it up here on the screen.
We have the obligatory Barack revied. Axios report. The White
House has scolded Neta Yahoo for violating the Gaza Sea
spire with the strike. President Trump the White House sent
a certain message to Prime Minister Netanyahu. The killing over
the weekend constitute of violation to US official cells Axios.

(43:59):
The angry mess from the White House comes a maid
growing tensions between the Trump administration. It's the government around
the next phase of the agreement and the war in
Gaza and over Israel's broader Regional Policy Secretary of State
Steve Wickoff and Trump advisor Jared Kushner quote have become
very frustrated with yaho Is expected to meet Trump in

(44:19):
mar A Lago on December twenty ninth. Oh, I didn't
know that we were going to kick off the new
year or sorry, bring in the new year with what
will that?

Speaker 4 (44:26):
Where else would you want to be the will that be?

Speaker 10 (44:28):
Sixth?

Speaker 1 (44:29):
Maybe seven seventh, six seven?

Speaker 4 (44:30):
It's got to be a record, no, when the bombing
continues there.

Speaker 5 (44:36):
They also, and we have this in drop site daily,
our morning newsletter, the Israeli navy abducted for Palisadian fishermen.

Speaker 4 (44:47):
Like what are you doing?

Speaker 5 (44:51):
If there's no food, you're not letting anything in? So
you've got people out there fishing and you just abducted
them off off their boats.

Speaker 4 (45:00):
Like what like what what? What is this? What kind of
ceasefire is it?

Speaker 5 (45:05):
The fact that they're doing this in Lebanon is kind
of the precedent for it. Like they they agreed to
a ceasefire with Hesbola and just have not withdrawn and
have just consistently attacked Lebanon on a near daily basis.

Speaker 4 (45:21):
It's like, what, like what are.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
We doing here?

Speaker 3 (45:25):
Absolutely crazy stuff? But yes, that is the full summary.
I guess we have so far.

Speaker 1 (45:31):
We got to Oh sorry, yeah, I forgot that this.

Speaker 5 (45:34):
Huckaby did an AMA, which is like, what is going on? Like,
I don't know the online what are we doing?

Speaker 3 (45:39):
US US ambassador should not be doing AMA. The shouldn't
even know what AMA is.

Speaker 4 (45:44):
Right, it might be, it might be so utterly ridiculous.

Speaker 5 (45:47):
A m A from Israeli US ambassador to Israel, my Kuckabee,
let's roll one of these.

Speaker 10 (45:53):
There's been some talk that Israel attacked the country of Cutter.

Speaker 4 (45:56):
It did not.

Speaker 10 (45:58):
It did, in fact send a missile to attack a
terrorist who had been partly responsible for the murder of
Israeli citizens, but it did not attack the country. There
was one missile. It was aimed at one person. Now, unfortunately,
there were some people who were near that missile strike

(46:19):
that were injured or killed from it. But that was
not an attack on the nation of Cutter.

Speaker 4 (46:26):
I mean, first of all, it's about as absurd a
thing as you can say. Also not true. It was
not one missile.

Speaker 5 (46:33):
I think Jeremy reported it was like nine or twelve missiles.
It's far more than one, it was not aimed at
one person.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
Also, it doesn't even matter because it killed a Katari
police officer intended target, and it.

Speaker 5 (46:43):
Was aimed at the entire peace negotiation delegation, like, not
just one person. So aside from the structural absurdity of
the whole claim that you did not attack a country,
you just shot a missile at that them.

Speaker 4 (47:01):
That exploded and killed people happened.

Speaker 5 (47:04):
Unfortunately, there were people near the missile, so no, that happens.

Speaker 4 (47:09):
But also none of that was true.

Speaker 5 (47:11):
On top of the absurdity of the claim, he also
elsewhere in the AMA says there's just no evidence that
there's any relationship between Epstein and Israel.

Speaker 3 (47:19):
Yeah, okay, oh okay, God, never mind for clarifying that,
mister ambassador.

Speaker 5 (47:24):
Next time he does an AMA, I wonder if that's
for premium donors.

Speaker 1 (47:29):
Yeah, that's true. Question who is this organization?

Speaker 4 (47:33):
Can we throw in questions? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (47:34):
Yeah, honestly, I would just love to do an interview
with the guy. But yeah, I heard nothing on them.

Speaker 5 (47:38):
We'll have to like work our way into the AMA
next AMA.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
Or we'll get our listeners to do so for us.
All right, let's get to week all right, last, but
not least, weed had to get it in here, especially
with my man Ryan Hereto to throw down with over
the subject of marijuana. President Donald Trump will allegedly or
reportedly be rescheduling marijuana from Schedule one to a Schedule

(48:05):
three substance. This has no bearing on your life whatsoever.
But it does have the bearing on a few corrupt
Wall streeters and venture capitalists who have been lobbying for
this in the White House so that their stocks can
go boom, so they can get big tax breaks and
access to the banking system.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
Let's take a list at CNBC.

Speaker 11 (48:23):
This is an administrative order. Trump's been very clear all along.
The question was could we get this in front of
Trump and could it be something that has enough of
a priority. It's very clear that the industry has engaged
Washington in a way that I think is much more
sensible but much more focused. I think there's no question
that top CEOs have been in mar Lago, have been

(48:45):
in DC, have been working with the President's team. The
implications for this are incredible for the industry, and I
do think that this is the kind of a domino
to fall that would get other things going that don't
necessarily have to be legislative fall through either, including exchange listings,
which I think is the holy grail here because that

(49:05):
really would bring in institutional capital. If you're investing in
campus here, there's not institutional capital.

Speaker 3 (49:10):
So he said it all right, the corrupt Wall streeters
are in on the deal. Ryan, and Ryan, even though
I know that you support this, you have to agree
with me that the way that this shit down is insane. Okay,
put this Washington Post piece up on the screen. They've
beat you to it.

Speaker 1 (49:23):
To their credit, I was hearing some rumblings. I called Ryan.

Speaker 3 (49:26):
Actually I was trying to report it out for drop site,
but they got in front of.

Speaker 1 (49:29):
It for me.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
Trump quote seeks to cut restrictions on marijuana through planned order. Again,
to be very clear, if you live in a state
where weed is legal, this doesn't affect you at all.
All this does is grant massive tax breaks and banking
access to a bunch of weed companies who are being
invested in by Wall Street and by venture capitalists, as
well as the pharmaceutical industry. And in fact, the behind

(49:53):
the scenes story this is pure corruption, pure unadelterated corruption.
Here's how this all went down. Donald Trump was visited
by a woman named Kim Rivers. Okay, Now for Kim Rivers,
who is a CEO, is the CEO of a company
called True Leave. True Leave is the Florida based weed

(50:13):
company is the one that sponsored that amendment on the
ballot in Florida, the thank god, was rejected by the
people of Florida. That multi billion dollar pot company also
hired a woman named Susie Wiles, while she.

Speaker 1 (50:28):
Was not the White House she of Staff.

Speaker 3 (50:30):
Okay, So what ended up happening is that the White
House she of Staff brought in her former paying client, Rivers,
to the Oval office, who convinced his Trump miraculously to
grant her a gigantic tax break through Schedule three, which
would then mean it since stock's flying, truly a stock itself. Yeah,

(50:50):
by the way, you saw that there in seat House?

Speaker 5 (50:53):
How nice, say is it? By the way, let's linger
on the fact that they're green for the arrow up?

Speaker 1 (50:57):
Oh right, got better? Great?

Speaker 3 (50:59):
Yeah, at least something's going up, certainly not aggregate IQ
of the United States. So what ends up happening is
Trump calls Mike Johnson, the Speaker, and informs him of
his decision.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
Johnson's like I think this is a bad idea.

Speaker 3 (51:14):
Trump turns the phone over to her in the oval
and it's like, why don't you explain why this is
a good idea. You can go do all the research
for yourself. If you guys want to schedule one to
schedule three. Has no bearing on criminality, on legal enforcement,
nothing has. One reason is to make these companies wildly profitable.

(51:36):
And in fact, as they showed on CNBC Institutional Capital,
Big Pharma and venture Capital, one of the stupidest conspiracies
out there is that Big Pharma is trying to suppress weed.
You think they don't want to. They'll sell you anything
to addict to you. Most of you losers are out
there smoking every single day.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
You think they don't want to sell that to you.
They only don't because it's illegal. The moment it's illegal,
they'll happily do it.

Speaker 5 (51:57):
On that point, I have looked, you know, I've a
book about this many years ago. I have looked for
evidence around Big Pharma's kind of relationship with weed and
illegal drugs along those lines that there's some self interest
here and blah blah, going back to the thirties, and
the evidence is just not there, Like pharma is more

(52:19):
of a wait and see and if and then we'll
move into it and figure out a way to profit.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
Of course they can.

Speaker 5 (52:25):
It's like this idea that it's a miracle drug that
is going to make other pharmaceuticals, you know, less profitable,
is there's just actually no evidence to it.

Speaker 4 (52:38):
Now.

Speaker 5 (52:40):
The current system, to me, is completely indefensible. Where you
have a multi billion dollar above board market where you're
going you can go into shops buy things, and then
that The companies have two problem, well they have multiple problems,
but they stem from two different things. One is lack
of lack of consistent access to banking because it's a

(53:01):
Schedule one drug and so a bank is not supposed
to actually work with you if you're dealing with Schedule
one drugs. And the second, as you said, is on
the tax side, you're not really supposed to be able
to write off expenses associated with an illegal, a federally
illegal enterprise. Yes, there's although there's some debate about this,

(53:24):
and most companies do because imagine if imagine if you can,
if you're a business, you know these are small margin businesses,
even these, even these weed shops. So let's say you
do ten million dollars in revenue in a month, but
it cost you nine point nine million dollars to buy
your product, to pay wages, to do your.

Speaker 4 (53:45):
Rent, all all of that.

Speaker 5 (53:47):
So you made one hundred thousand dollars of profit in
that month. You would then owe the federal government and
the state and the state government tax is on that
one hundred thousand dollars. But if you can can't deduct
the costs of your illegal business, you actually technically should
oh on all ten million dollars. So now you have

(54:10):
a you know, let's say, three million dollar tax bill
on one hundred thousand dollars worth of operating profit. Obviously
you're bankrupt immediately. So this this tries to rationalize that
I was saying on the Friday Show that twenty years
ago you could see a mentality among the early marijuana

(54:33):
business people who are getting into the medical world that
they thought the whole system was corrupt, it's all paid
to play. That you need the right lobbyists, you need
to hire the right people, And they went about doing
that as soon as they could have had Soon they
had a little bit of money, they'd hire some former
member of Congress, and their vision, yeah, right, and then.

Speaker 4 (54:54):
They got more money and they do yeah, Vayer.

Speaker 5 (54:57):
Their vision was we need to be as corrupt as
the rest of American industries are.

Speaker 1 (55:03):
They've succeeded, and they're they're there, I think succeeded.

Speaker 5 (55:06):
You look, you look at them from twenty years ago
and you looked at this today, they'd be like, Yes,
that's exactly how we.

Speaker 4 (55:11):
Saw this was going to get over the time.

Speaker 5 (55:12):
We didn't know it was going to be Donald freaking Trump,
but we we knew we were gonna where we were
going to try to hire somebody who would then become
a powerful government official. The fact that she became chief
of staff, it's like even better, Like that's like hitting
the industry. That's the lottery, lottery boom we're in. So
go along on your weed stocks.

Speaker 1 (55:34):
Well, by the way, that's another insider trading thing.

Speaker 3 (55:36):
So if a weed CEO is literally in an oval
office meeting where you know something's going to happen. I
checked the weed ETF M sauce or whatever was up
by fifty after this Washington Post pros broke. So, oh,
maybe you just put a little taste for your friends.
When I'm not alleging that I'm just saying it's potential
for corruption.

Speaker 1 (55:52):
I'm not in this specific instance.

Speaker 4 (55:53):
But then did it go up right before the high
order to go up? After it up?

Speaker 3 (55:56):
It went up after so beforehand there was like, well,
I mean there was some movement throughout the day, as
you know, I had I had the rumor. I was
waiting trying to get it confronted a lot of people,
a lot of people in Washington New like like hours
before the Washington Post story broke.

Speaker 4 (56:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (56:11):
I mean, I guess I'm an idiot because I didn't. Right,
It's like I had it when the market was open.
I'm just not corrupt enough. We don't like, we don't
do that exactly. That's not that's not my mentality, but
apparently that's the mentality of some people because you could
immediately see movement there in the hours beforehand. I just
want to again, whether you agree disagree, this is not

(56:32):
how stuff should be happening, right, And I get it.
This is a small ball and most of the people
who watch the show probably support it anyways, And that's fine,
that's your right as an American that said, this is
an absurd way to be making to be doing business.
As a country, as you explained perfectly around the tax
implications and all of that.

Speaker 1 (56:51):
They're like, well, it's unfair.

Speaker 3 (56:52):
I'm like, no, it's not, because we're living in an
absurd system where it's technically state legal or not. Like, no,
you have to change the law. If you want access
to the United States tack Code, you have to change
the law.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
Period. I didn't just get.

Speaker 3 (57:03):
To decide because of vibes, you know, based on schedule status,
which is an executive order that's gone through. Also on
the polling. What that guy said in CNBC was total bullshit.
There's a thirteen percent drop just this year for legalization
of weed amongst Republicans. I hope I can take some
credit for that, and actually there's a drop amongst some
independence and even amongst Democrats because of the system that's

(57:25):
completely run amok. You have like big Tobacco era style
corruption and capitalism preying on young minds. The entire system
is built around addiction. That's what I was saying earlier.
The twenty something percent of people who smoke weed use
it every single day addicted. Okay, you're addicted, period, There's
no getting around that. And all the medical benefits are bullshit. Sorry,

(57:49):
it just came out jama new study. Almost every single
widespread claim when it was analyzed, showed no statistical benefit
for so called medical marijuana about the appetite enhancement. Okay, Ryan, Again,
whenever it comes to solely just on marijuana itself in
comparison to the other miracle drug which you just said

(58:10):
it doesn't exist, you can go read the study for yourself. Now,
I'm not saying that people don't use it for a
said benefit. Fine, and I'm not even saying people should
be locked up for using it. I've never believed that.
I still don't believe it, even though it is bullshit.
There's nobody in prison right now for smoking weed. There's
not a single person who's in prison for smoking weed.
Nobody goes to jail for smoking weed. Some people know,
they don't, Ryan, It's been proven. It's I can show

(58:32):
you the statistics. It's completely false.

Speaker 5 (58:35):
I had a friend from the Eastern Shore who went
to jail for weed in the nineties, nineties, early right.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
So I'm talking about today. It doesn't exist. People don't
go to jail for smoking weed.

Speaker 4 (58:46):
Did they even then?

Speaker 1 (58:49):
It would be difficult. The federal statistics on this ironclad.

Speaker 5 (58:52):
Arianna Huffington enjoys and introduced me to Bill O'Malley was
his name, O'Malley the Maryland governor.

Speaker 4 (58:58):
Oh Martin Matt, Martin mats.

Speaker 5 (59:00):
And we were talking about Maryland and I was telling
him like he was governor at the time. I was like,
you know, I've got a friend doing weekends now. Oh
really Weed. He's like, that's that's impossible. Like nobody's in
jail for weed. Where does he live? And I was like,
Eastern Shore. He's like, oh, okay, actually.

Speaker 1 (59:17):
Coming up with the cops there.

Speaker 4 (59:18):
It's just a heart. It's just much harsher.

Speaker 1 (59:20):
Okay, I don't I don't know Maryland.

Speaker 5 (59:22):
It's it's these rural areas in general, they are they're
just much harsher towards defendants. But then then like Baltimore
for instance, Okay, like you go to Baltimore, judge over weed,
he's gonna yell at the cop like, what are you
doing wasting my time?

Speaker 4 (59:40):
Weed? In a more rural area.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
But even today, I don't think that that's the case.

Speaker 4 (59:44):
Probably not.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
I mean I've looked at the I've looked at the
federal and the state stats, which are are all like like,
there is nobody in jail, especially federal prison.

Speaker 1 (59:52):
Nobody is in jail for smoking weed bullshit claim. Just
so everybody understands that said, I don't think you should
have existed in the past. I don't think you existed today.

Speaker 5 (59:59):
Now, one thing you might like about this is that
moving it to schedule.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
Three open time they justify it.

Speaker 5 (01:00:04):
It also moves it to it opens up more research possibilities.

Speaker 1 (01:00:08):
We don't need any research. We know everything we need
to know.

Speaker 4 (01:00:11):
You can always have more research.

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
There are tens of millions of people use this drug
every single day. We know everything we need to know.
That's like me saying we need to study alcohol. Well,
I need to tell you that it gets drunk and
it ruins your sleep. I don't need to prove that
to you.

Speaker 4 (01:00:21):
It makes you dizzy.

Speaker 1 (01:00:22):
Uh yeah, oh sh oh yeah, come on right.

Speaker 4 (01:00:25):
It's just like more research is good though, no for
what for what?

Speaker 1 (01:00:29):
Well, we just went through the medical claims or bs.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
It could be so.

Speaker 5 (01:00:34):
The other thing I learned from studying the history of
all different drugs is that when you get a wild
West situation, you as a supporter of that situation might
like it for a year or two, it's it never
stays that way. Like the fact that there's now a
little bit of a backlash that you're pointing to is

(01:00:54):
completely historically in line with.

Speaker 4 (01:00:56):
All all of the trends. Remember cocaine was like popular in.

Speaker 5 (01:00:59):
The eighteen nine and then it's everywhere, and then people
are like, we don't like this everywhere.

Speaker 3 (01:01:03):
Actually we had literal coke guns who were robbing pharmacy,
so it was wild.

Speaker 5 (01:01:07):
Yeah, So then they cracked down on it. So you
get this pendulum swinging back and forth. So if you
actually are a supporter of weed, you want to see
it more out in the open, and you want to
see the harms discussed publicly in a way that allows
the society to get it under control a little bit.
Otherwise you get the hammer instead. So the hammer, Yeah,

(01:01:31):
it's socialism or barbarism.

Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
You're going to get the barbarism here.

Speaker 3 (01:01:37):
Yeah, I mean it would be better than you know,
widespread weed use literally everywhere you go.

Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
But look, I'm being wildly hyperbolic. I always enjoyed talking
about it with you.

Speaker 3 (01:01:46):
And just as a tease, Griffin and I have filmed
our review of Reefer Madness. It clocked in at ninety minutes.
We enjoyed the hell out just we enjoyed the hell
out of just watching the film, reviewing the film. It's
one of the most important films.

Speaker 4 (01:02:00):
Is this gonna be one of the holiday episodes. It's
gonna be one of I can't wait for that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:03):
We have all the clips with clips. It's a real
movie review.

Speaker 3 (01:02:05):
Griffin was actually because Griffin went to film school, so
he actually really knows like how to dissect and do
a film review. And then I insert my I give
some color commentary on the film, but we also delve
into some of the claims of everything.

Speaker 4 (01:02:18):
But yeah, I'm watching this one.

Speaker 1 (01:02:19):
It's a good it's a look.

Speaker 3 (01:02:21):
Very few people probably will watch it, but I enjoyed
the hell out of doing it, so I hope that
you do. So, all right, that's one of our many benefits,
in addition to much more compelling content by Crystal, Ryan
and Emily, which I'm sure will be much more highly rated.

Speaker 5 (01:02:34):
Also shout out to the Breaking Points viewer who came
to the Reason debate.

Speaker 4 (01:02:38):
I may sign his weed pens disgusting.

Speaker 1 (01:02:40):
It's disgusting.

Speaker 5 (01:02:42):
As I told Soccer, multiple people told me bong rips
for soccer you're lying.

Speaker 1 (01:02:46):
That's a lie.

Speaker 3 (01:02:47):
Okay, No, but anyone, if you were ripping a bong
in the morning, in the morning, something wrong with you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
I'm just saying it's it's empirically true. Who is doing it?

Speaker 3 (01:02:57):
What do you what do you call somebody who drinks
in the morning an alcoholic? Yeah, all right, let's be honest, call.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Space of babe.

Speaker 4 (01:03:05):
Yeah, waken baby, if you have a drink, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
It should.

Speaker 3 (01:03:10):
This is this is my whole thing is just like, oh,
if you're pouring vodka into a diet coke can or
like that, it's always sunny episode and you're drinking.

Speaker 1 (01:03:17):
Okay, you are a disgusting alcoholic. You have a problem, bro,
you have a problem. You waken. But I was like, oh,
it's so chill, so cool and chill.

Speaker 5 (01:03:27):
It's not like, no, there are people exhaling watching this
right now.

Speaker 1 (01:03:30):
No, they're not, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:03:31):
And if you are, put it down, all right, throw
the bomb, break it, break it. What I forget what
I said? Somebody I said bong teers or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:03:39):
Apparently bong teers are real.

Speaker 3 (01:03:41):
That's what a weed smoker informed me, is that sometimes
you hit it so hard.

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
Oh absolutely, I wouldn't know, all right. I don't want
to know. You shouldn't know either, all right. Okay, we'll
see you later.