November 21, 2025 • 52 mins
SEGMENT 1: THE HOUSE PASSES RESOLUTION CONDEMNING SOCIALISM
SEGMENT 2: DEMOCRATS ARE URGING U.S. TROOPS TO DISOBEY ''ILLEGAL ORDERS''
SEGMENT 3: FINANCIAL PRESSURE CONTINUES TO BUILD IN AMERICA
SEGMENT 4: PRESIDENT TRUMP MEETS WITH NEW YORK CITY MAYOR-ELECT ZOHRAN MAMDANI
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is America's Voice Live, and welcome to America's Voice Live.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I'm Steve Greberger, the pulse of the people. We need
somebody that's going ahead of people's.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Voice, the truth.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The mainstream won't touch. This guy is by definition of
globals and the stories that matter. Rabs On, Ben Burkwom.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Reddito, Miss Hill Cartel, I him, I see him, I
see him.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Live, breaking news right now here in Real America's fort filter.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
These people are domestic terrorists and unapologetic.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
We're here to take a stand for God and country.
Let's feel good. America's Voice Live starts now. I'll come
to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Gruber.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Today is Friday, the twenty first of November, and you
have our Lord twenty twenty five. Let's get in today's
top stories. As always, thank you for joining me here
on Real America's voicemailwers appreciate seeing you. Democrat Congresswoman of Michigan,
she's a senator actually, Alyssa Slotkin recently released a video
of her a law with other progressive liberals calling for
US troops to disobey illegal orders. I'll bring on a
(01:05):
legal expert to break down the legalities of that and
what's true and what's not. Also, the Senate has continued
to delay the approval of President Trump's nomination of former
Congressman Mark Walker as the Ambassador to the International Religious
Freedom And while the Senate delays his approval, prosecution has
raged on worldwide. More on that as well then later,
(01:26):
as home ownership just further out of reach, President Trump
says he's pushing a bold idea to bring monthly payments down,
but not everyone seems to like the idea. We'll have
an expert to discuss the pros and cons at the
fifty year mortgage, that and more. But first I start
off with what's happening right now at the White House.
That's because President Trump and New York City Mayor alex
Or and Mandani our meeting at the White House at
(01:49):
this very moment and is listed has been closed to
the press. But if it opens up then I will
bring you full coverage. Of course, Mamdannie, a thirty four
year old self proclaimed Democrats socialist, has built his brand
on criticizing the President, even calling himself Trump's worst nightmare.
But now the nation waits an anticipationcy whether the outspoken
mayor elect brings cooperation or confrontation to the table. And
(02:12):
then over on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives passed
a resolution condemning socialism. Big vote two eighty five to
ninety eight, with a good number of Democrats eighty six
and all crossing the aisle to joint Republicans and passed
the resolution damning socialism.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Pretty impressive.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Here to discuss this further, retired Air Force colonel and
the host of the Rob Maynis program, Colonel Manis is here, Rob,
Nice to see you.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Let's start with this vote. I think it's impressive.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Eighty six Democrats said thumbs down to socialism. I mean,
I'm kind of surprised by that number. It was a
huge number of Democrats coming across the aisle. The ones
that stayed over there to the left. I don't know
what their future is.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
What do you think of?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
What do you think about all this.
Speaker 6 (03:00):
Part of this vote.
Speaker 7 (03:01):
There's two things with it, Steve is that almost one
hundred Democrats approve of socialism. And any person that understands
history and understands socialism knows that it's just the on
ramp to totalitarianism, usually resulting in total communist type government,
and that's a disaster. It's killed more people in the
twentieth and twenty first century than any other form of government,
(03:24):
so that's very troubling. The other thing that I have
a problem with this vote with Steve, though, is that
Speaker Johnson needs to get the executive orders of this
President of the United States codified in laws so they
can't be overturned on the first day of the first
Democrat presidency if they ever win it again.
Speaker 6 (03:41):
And that's not happening.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So instead of.
Speaker 7 (03:42):
Spending time on a show vote like this, he really
needs to get that list of executive orders into a
one big bill, get them passed, get it to the
Senate so the president can get it on his desk.
That's just what needs to be done in order to
satisfy the voters.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Twenty twenty six has already started, my friend.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
It certainly has, Colonel twenty twenty six midterms are in
full swing right now. And that's why I think some
of these Democrats eighty six and all came across the
isle because they see the writing on the wall. If
they come out and say, hey, I'm a socialist, Hey,
I'm all for all this free stuff with your money.
I think that gets rejected at the ballot box. And
you already know it's going to be a tight election
(04:24):
no matter how you look at it. Right now, it's
going to be tight. There are gonna be some competitive races,
of course, all the redistricting going on trying to game
the system.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Of course as well.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
These Democrats, I would say, eighty six Democrats are maybe
they're voting on principle, but more likely to me, I
think they're running scared.
Speaker 7 (04:42):
What do you say, Oh, they've got to run for
office every two years, just like the Republicans in the
House of Representatives to do, and look for them to
run away from the six crazy seditionist Democrats. And I
say that with all sincerity as a person that was
a commander that wielded you uniform Code of Military Justice,
court martial authority. When they put that video out yesterday
(05:06):
saying that military personnel should follow illegal orders without specifying
an actual order that they say is unlawful, that is
just a call for mass and subordination. And it falls
right into the definition of the military laws, definition of sedition,
and that ultimate penalty for that is death. And a
lot of those folks are retired military officers that could
(05:28):
be called back for court martialls.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Well, let me ask you about that.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Senator Alissa Slatkin sadly one of mine. She was the
first person to appear on this video, and she was
a CIA analyst. She tries to sell herself as more.
She was an analyst. She wasn't a director, she wasn't
in charge of much. She was an analyst. Fair enough,
and she says she's getting death threats now because of
Donald Trump. She blames Donald Trump for the video they
(05:52):
sent out and got backlash from stunning.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Can you imagine Colonel.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
To come out and said, Joe Biden, you should not
follow his unlawful orders.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
The meltdown would have been complete, wouldn't it.
Speaker 7 (06:08):
Their policies and actions killed our friend Charlie Kirk. They
almost killed the President of the United States twice, and
more of that is probably.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
Going to come.
Speaker 7 (06:17):
How dare they try to blame their actions once again
and blame it on people like you, me and the
President of the United States because we believe in the
United States of America. This is despicable on their part.
As I said, the military personnel should be recalled so
that they can be court martialed under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. The civilians like slacking have to be
(06:40):
prosecuted and investigated and prosecuted to the max extent of
the civilian law, which is up to and including twenty
years in prison. And they all have to be held
accountable because this really is in the definition of sedition
to encourage and advocate for military personnel to be insubordinate.
Those are words that are in both laws, and it's
(07:00):
got to be taken care of.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, it's it's in the Constitution fourteenth Amendment if I
read this correctly. Let me ask you about this. Mark Kelly,
the Senator from Arizona, one of the two senators on there,
not just Alyssa slocking for other members of Congress. Mark
Kelly's a veteran. One of the members of Congress are veterans.
I keep hearing people say, well, recall them to the
military and court martial them.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Is that actually something that could happen.
Speaker 7 (07:26):
Well, Kelly himself is a retired United States Navy captain
in six, like I am, an O six colonel in
the Air Force. Retired and retirees are subject to the UCMJ,
so he could be recalled and prosecuted under the sedition article.
It's Article ninety four Treason and Sedition of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and should be because this is
(07:48):
the highest level of this type of negative activity that
could result in people in the military taking the wrong
action based on legal orders. Again, important partiers not that
they said and pointed out that military personnel don't have
to obey unlawful orders.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
We teach them to not obey unlawful orders.
Speaker 7 (08:09):
They have a duty to do that, but they also
have a duty to obey lawful orders. And this group,
they're big error is they did not identify any unlawful
order that they don't want people to follow. So that
tells you that they are just putting a smear out there,
and they're telling these young military personnel that they're going
to have their backs use watch if one of them
(08:31):
actually does something, they will run away from it as
quick as possible.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
Because not one of these people stood up.
Speaker 7 (08:37):
For the one hundred thousand, nearly one hundred thousand American
military service members that were damaged and harmed by the
COVID vaccine order that Joe Biden put out through his
Secretary of Defense than Lloyd Austin and that was the
actual unlawful order, and not one of them said anything.
They don't have anybody's back. They have committed a brave
crime and are doing grave damage to the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Colonel, how close are we to the precipice?
Speaker 1 (09:04):
When you when you see members of the United States Senate,
members of Congress coming out and telling the military, you know,
you don't have to follow orders, and there's a guy
on the front line, he's an infantryman, whatever, Well, I
think that's an unlawful order. I mean, the ability for
the military to be effective has to be the unification,
(09:25):
the unity of that group moving whatever hostile area they're in. Right,
You've got to have cohesiveness always this disruptset.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
But here's my bigger question.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I've never really given this much consideration until I started
seeing tapes like that, that the United States could find
itself in some sort of a you know, a breakdown,
a civil war, civil unrest.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Look where we are.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
We see things that you mentioned, Charlie Kirk, you mentioned
Donald Trump being shot, all of these things. We're in
a dangerous place, aren't we, Colonel.
Speaker 7 (09:57):
We are in a dangerous place, Steve. You know, and
this is just a continue of the divide dividing tactics
and its strategy that the Biden administration used with diversity,
equity and inclusion and wokeism in doctrination in the military.
It comes for out of Marxism, the critical theory, and
this is another way to do it a lot.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
It's another step.
Speaker 7 (10:18):
Along the way to divide the American people and divide
the United States military is one of the last steps
before what's called the color Revolution actually takes place where
the duly elected leader, legally elected leader ultimately abdicates from
their position and the left takes over.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's where we're at in this process.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yeah, let me ask you about let's go back to
ma'am Donnie being at the White House here, Democratic, socialist, socialist, communist.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
I think they're all interchangeable.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
To be honest with you, I think it was very
smart of Donald Trump to say, you know what, closed
press today. He did not give ma'e Donnie the platform
to play games and get the guy moment that he
would like to have had in the Oval office. I
think that was a brilliant move just to say, yeah,
we're not going to play that game today.
Speaker 7 (11:05):
What do you think oh, I think it is to it,
you know, And because Mondonie is not just there by himself.
He's got his cadre of one hundred percent almost of
the press besides you guys and maybe one or two
other independence ninety nine percent of the press team, and
there are communists just like him, and they fully support
his effort to turn New York City into some kind
(11:28):
of crazy place where you won't be able to be prosperous,
you won't be able to live with safely, and you
won't be able to continue to have children and raise
a family because it will not be a place that
you can do that once Mndomini's done with it. But
eventually sanity will rain and the voters will come back
(11:49):
to the table and vote for freedom again, I guarantee.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Well, I hope that's true. I think it hinges on
the economy.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
I think that the president, once he gets done cleaning
up the messes around the world, hopefully he can get
this twenty eight point dealing between Ukraine and Russia, but
he will need to pivot to domestic policy to secure
the midterm elections.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I'll give you the last word here.
Speaker 7 (12:11):
Yes, sir, he's got a pivot to domestic policy. He
already has. He's been working on it since before he
even got into office. We know that, Look, this is
the Biden economy, this is the Biden danger that he
placed on the American people. And Donald Trump and his
team have been working things like inflation and prices and energy,
(12:31):
those kinds of things very hard since before they got
back into office. And prices continue to come down. But
it's a slow process. But we have to keep reminding
people that this is a Biden economy. The Biden administration
created this economy, and Donald Trump is going to be
the one to get us out of it. And if
the people that are in the Congress that are Republicans
(12:52):
will step up to the plate and do their job,
we'll be able to keep the Congress in twenty twenty
six and continue this process. But if they don't, we'll
lose it and Donald Trump will be a truly lame
duck parrel.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Next time you come back, make sure you have an
opinion on something, would you please? I appreciate you always,
Thanks Rob always, good to see you all. Right after
the break, Democrat Congresswoman, it's Senator Alyssa Slotkin. I've gotten
that wrong twice now recently posted a video of her
and other Democrats clung for the US military to disobey
orders from the Trump administration. I'll bring on a legal
(13:27):
expert next to break the legalities on America's Voice Live. Well,
as you know, the Trump administration has been working hard
to try to stem the flow of narcotics into this country.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
And I don't care which side of the aisle you're on.
That's something most Americans.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Should support, unless, of course, you're a senator like Alissa
Slotkin of Michigan, who recently posted a video along with
Mark Kelly of Arizona, Senator there and for other Democrats
in Congress telling US troops they should disobey unlawful orders
without giving.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
A definition of that. So if President Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Issues the illegal orders, well you shouldn't follow them.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
See for yourself.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
We want to speak directly to members of the military
and the intelligence community who take risks each day to
keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress
and pressure right now.
Speaker 8 (14:24):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
This administration is pitting our uniform military.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
And intelligence community professionals.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath.
Speaker 9 (14:36):
To protect and defend this constitution.
Speaker 7 (14:39):
Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from a broad but from right here at home.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You
can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
You must refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 10 (14:52):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law or our constitution.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant. Whether you're serving in
the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your
vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back
because now more than ever, the American people need you.
Speaker 7 (15:11):
We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution,
and who we are as Americans.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Don't give up.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
Don't give up.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Don't give up.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Joining me now to discuss this attorney and US Army
veteran himself, Steve Doolan. Mister Doolan, nice to see you
here today. Let's talk about this from a legal perspective. Well,
you know, let's talk about from a veteran's perspective. What
do you think when you see that.
Speaker 11 (15:42):
Well, the first thing that occurs or occurred to me,
the first time I saw it was we have a
Supreme Court who is tasked with telling us what the
constitution means, or having an opinion and rulings.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
And what the constitution means.
Speaker 11 (16:00):
They've been at it for more than two centuries and
we still don't have every nuance figured out. We can
still debate the constitutionality of a number of things, and
it's just patently unfair to try to put it upon
frontline service members to decide in every instance what might
be constitutional. That's the first thing that occurs to me
(16:22):
as a lawyer and a law professor. The second thing
that occurred to me as a veteran is I remember
when we had training back in the eighties when I
was in on something called Sayida subversion and espionage directed
against the Army, which is the branch I served in,
and this sounds like subversion speaking. They said, we're speaking
(16:47):
directly to the military members and you can refuse to
obey unlawful orders, which is true, but it's also misleading
in the sense that it's a huge risk for a
service member to do so. They are tap dancing on
the edge, in my opinion. I know some have said
(17:07):
that they went over the edge. But I feel like
they're tap dancing on the edge of encouraging mutiny, which
is to refuse to obey lawful orders because the heat
of battle, knowing whether a specific operation is constitutional or
not is really beyond the scope of what you can
expect from those service members. So this sounds like subversion
(17:30):
to me. This sounds like maybe something that Yuri Besmanov
tried to warn us about many years ago, the defected
Soviet KGB member who talked about the stages of preparing
a society for revolution. In the first two stage first
three stages were demoralization, destabilization, and crisis, and the differences
(17:55):
they take progressively less time. And so it sounds like
maybe somebody's trying to get this crisis stage started, where
you've got the military in part that kind of thing, right,
Stir it up.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Yeah, stir it up. Mutiny, the Constitution and two words here.
I want to be clear about insurrection. This is not
because insurrection by definition is an armed activity, right, But besides,
in the Constitution shall have engaged an insurrection or rebellion.
Rebellion sounds a lot like mutiny the word you just.
Speaker 11 (18:30):
Used right, Well, possibly mutiny is pretty specific to the
military though, right so rebellion. For example, the Confederate States
of America engaged in rebellion during the Civil War. They
flat out said, we're no longer part of the United
States of America. That that's over rebellion. When you're talking
(18:51):
about mutiny, that's got a military connotation. And of course,
you know, we all know about mutiny on the bounty
and a lot of people associated as a purely term,
but there have been mutinies in the other branches as well,
and it implies mutiny implies that there's some kind of
a concerted action. It takes more than one soldier to
(19:12):
commit a mutiny generally, but one soldier disobeying an order
certainly creates.
Speaker 6 (19:18):
Legal problems for himself.
Speaker 11 (19:20):
And so, you know, we had this training when I
was in The training has been in existence since shortly
after the Melai massacre back in nineteen sixty eight, which
was certainly a war crime, certainly horrifying. An entire village
was wiped out, a village of non combatants was wiped
out by unit of the US Army. And what's made
(19:42):
clear to everyone since then is using the Nuremberg defense,
which is what the high ranking Nazis used during their
war crimes trial after World War Two, which is following orders.
That's not a defense, right, So we have to have
a moral compass when we're serving in the US military,
and we have to not commit crimes that are clear atrocities,
(20:06):
violations of the law of war. But what is going
on here is there's this conflation, this blurring of the
line to oh, well, if you like the policy and
you want to say that in your opinion it's unconstitutional,
you don't have to obey. Well, the individual soldier or
sailor who does that does that a great peril to
himself because it's really a defense used at a court martial.
(20:30):
So you're already in the process of a court martial.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
When you raise this as a defense, you're on your
way to a military tribunal a court martial. It says
here in the Constitution, no person shall be a senator
or representative of Congress if you engage in rebellion.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
To me, that's pretty close to rebellion there.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
They're calling for people not to follow the orders of
the civilian government of the United States when it comes
to military activities.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
I mean, you're right they're right on the line. If
they're not across it, I'll give you the last word.
Speaker 11 (21:00):
Well, at least, at the very least. It's an attempt
to politicize the military. And what we're supposed to have
here in our country under our republic is civilian control
of the military. And as has been famously quoted for
decades now, elections have consequences. So the people of the
US elected and commander in chief of the military, and
(21:24):
that's also in your pocket, Constitution there in your hand,
and that means that we've got a duly elected commander
in chief who's giving orders. And we don't have room
in military situations for policy debate, particularly in the heat
of battle.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Yeah, now, when bullets are flying and bombs are dropping,
we don't have time for that nonsense. And if you
pull a stunt like that, you're going to get people
killed and you're going to end up in a court martial.
Steve Dilon, thank you, thank you, fatly appreciate it. Before
we go to break, I want to tell you about it.
New show premiering right here in Real America's voice this weekend,
(22:04):
The Right News Show and Espanol, hosted by Hobbier Negray.
It'll premire Sunday at eight o'clock Eastern. Be sure to
tune in again. That's this Sunday, eight o'clock Eastern. Don't
go anywhere. We'll be right back on America's Voice Live.
(22:25):
And welcome back to America's Voice Live. Employment data has
grown increasingly muddled in recent months, and depending on who
you talk to, the job markets either shake here appears
to be improving.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
On the flip side, many people who do have jobs
say they're.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Being pushed to their limits, barely scraping by between paychecks,
and with the federal reserves slow walking and taking any
meaningful action on interest rates, that financial pressure continues to build,
it seems. My good friend Eric Bollock spoke to precious
metals expert Philip Patrick on this topic.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 12 (22:55):
Even though it's things are fluctuating over with the stock
market just crashed of last few gold is holding its
own about four thousand dollars an ouns four thousand and
seventy as we speak. Why what a resilient What a
resilient asset class? Gold has become?
Speaker 9 (23:10):
It certainly has, and the growth is unprecedented. Gold's up
over sixty percent for the year, silver up over eighty
five percent. Like I said, I think in the past,
as you know better than most, gold doesn't typically do that, right,
It's not a sixty percent growth annually asset. I think
it's a reflection of changing fundamentals. We're seeing a shift
(23:33):
around the globe and move away from government debt towards
sound money, and gold's picking up on the back of that.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
So I think this is the.
Speaker 9 (23:42):
Beginning of what will be a long bull run. And
I think ultimately gold has just been underpriced for a
long time and we're starting to see its value as
a monetary asset again and we expect it to continue.
It's why JP Morgan are saying gold could easily hit
eight thousand dollars an ounce. Goldman sach set it's going
to hit six now next year. So you know, investment
(24:04):
banks are rapidly upping their prediction, and it's a reflection
of a very very strong mind.
Speaker 12 (24:10):
I'll tell you what another good reflection on gold is,
and I'm involved in both. I own a lot of gold,
but they also own a lot of cryptocurrencies, primarily Bitcoin
and ethereum. However, others and these have seen a monster
meltdown and moving of funds out of these asset classes,
but gold hasn't seen that. Why do you think gold
has been resilient where crypto has not.
Speaker 9 (24:31):
Yeah, I think crypto is the canarian the goal mine. Ultimately,
when we look at sort of risk profiles, crypto is
considered on the higher end, so we're seeing a flight
to typically what would be safety. The problem is there's
not that much safety, right. Anyone holding bonds or cash
has been losing in real terms to inflation, so the
(24:51):
traditional safety even assets aren't working, and gold's getting that
pick up as well.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
It's the same premise or.
Speaker 9 (24:58):
Same rationale for central banks. They're holding dollars, which in
losing to inflation, they're dumping dollars in buying gold. It's
the same thing happening here. But like I said, crypto
for me is the canary in the coal mine. Typically
the risties sectors start to see liquidations and then it
follows on from there. So yeah, gold's getting a pickup,
(25:19):
and I think it will continue to do.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
So.
Speaker 12 (25:21):
I've on gold my whole life. I own physical gold, Right,
do the actual coins and bars of gold?
Speaker 3 (25:26):
The question is no.
Speaker 12 (25:27):
Now you can you can move an IRA, a traditional
IRA with other assets in it, stocks, bonds, et cetera,
into gold. Yeah, and how is that process and how
does Birch do it?
Speaker 9 (25:36):
It's really simple. It's clearly defined on the IRS tax code.
We can set up a new IRA. Clients can roll
over any portion of an existing IRA or eligible four
oh one K. No tax implications or pas important to
say that.
Speaker 12 (25:49):
Say there again, say they're very important. So we've been
IRA that you don't pay taxes out for dozens of
years or whatever. When you roll it over into gold,
you don't have to pay the tax and then reopen
it an IRA. You're you're literally continuing the tax free
status of all that asset that has grown typically up.
Speaker 9 (26:05):
It's exactly that, no tax implications or penalties. It is
a lateral move in the eyes of the IRS. We
move one IRA to another, they can purchase physical precures,
metals tax deferred within the retirement account. We can do
traditional iras, roth iras. Whatever the structure is, we will
mirror it. And like I said, we can place physical
(26:26):
tangible metals in those accounts. With gold's performance, with silver's performance,
it's hard to be in this climate and.
Speaker 12 (26:33):
So you're actually investing in physical gold on behalf of
the IRA account. So it's not a paper transaction, it's
actual physical Very quickly.
Speaker 13 (26:42):
There's absolutely physical held in brings in the client's name
off balance sheet. We could go out of business, the
holders could the client owns tax deferred.
Speaker 6 (26:51):
In the very very important point.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Now, if you want to learn more about diversifying your
savings with gold and text the word America the number
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight today, claim your free
information kid on gold again.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
That's the word America to the number ninety eight ninety
eight ninety eight. Do that today.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Coming up after the break, the Senate has continued to
delay the approval of President Trump's nomination of former Congressman
Mark Walker as the Ambassador to the International Religious Freedom.
And while the sudden delays his approval, persecution has raged
on worldwide.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Details coming up.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Back in April of this year, President Trump nominated former
Congressman Mark Walker to fulfill the role of Ambassador at
Large for International Religious Freedom. Our good friends over at
the Daily Caller have been reporting on this important story,
and it's way that Walker is still awaiting that he'd
be formally confirmed by the Senate, all while Christians are
(27:54):
facing persecution all over the world. Nigeria comes to mind,
as well as facing blasphemy laws in the Middle East
and Asia. In fact, the Daily Caller spoke to the
White House Press Office who told them that the presently
is this appointment will be critical and important protecting Americans
of faith. I encourage you to go read some more
over the Daily Caller because they've been doing some great
work and reporting on this topic of religious freedom here
(28:17):
and around the world as well. So why does the
sound taking you so long to get this done? Calling
in to talk about this is the nominee to be
Ambassador at Large for International News Freedom, Mark Walker.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Mark, thank you for being here.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Oh listen, it's a privilege to be Thank you for
the Thank you for the opportunity, and appreciate that this
topic is important to you.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
You're been stonewall. It seems Mark, they're not letting you through.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
Why.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Well, you know, I don't know that we have concrete
to specific reasons.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
I know that they have.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
I guess I was reading three hundred appointments, and I'm
sure there's a few other ambassadors that are still waiting.
But I guess the point that we're trying to make
from an expedition standpoint is, you know, you have people
around the world. This particular position was created in nineteen
ninety eight and I Sam brown Back had it in
the first Trump administration, and we're ready to get started
(29:13):
to be able to get out there and advocate for
people around the world. And look, I'm grateful that we
have a president who cares about these families, these boys
and girls who are being persecuted, kidnapped, and worse in
some of the regions. And so we are anxious to
take our team of about thirty individuals there in the
State Department and start being as the law says the
(29:36):
principal advisor to the Secretary of State and the President Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Let me ask you about Nigeria and other regions around
the world.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
In Nigeria's pretty well documented, tens of thousands of Christians
have been murdered, burned out of their homes, churches, burned
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
But it's not just Nigeria, is it, sir. This is
happening around the world.
Speaker 14 (29:54):
It is.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
In fact, I'm studying there's about nineteen countries where we
have seen an upswing in the religious persecution. Of course,
you have your outlanders, which are just its complete death
in places like North Korea and even some places in
other Third one areas, but a lot of the African region,
I'll try to say the weeds, but it's two basic
(30:15):
approaches here. One, you have all these Islamis groups that
are Boca ram al shabab Is wapping others. They come
in and lay waste, They village and rape and kidnap
and ultimately torture people to death. In the other places
where you have an Asian the Middle East, it's more
blasphemy laws that if you were to share your faith
or talk about your faith, it could be a five
(30:35):
seven up to fifteen or twenty year prisons in US.
So those are two approaches, and one of the reasons
that we want to get out there and start meeting
with these presidents or prime ministers or parliaments is to
be able to push back and advocate for these people
of faith, much like President Trump has as well as
Secretary Rubio has done for his entire career.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
You know, we talk about Nigeria, like I said, but
it's also places like Syria, It's also China. What coming
down in places like China, where Christians are prosecuted routinely.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
Two weeks ago, for the first day of China made
a move that we haven't seen.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
And I wanted to congratulate the mayor.
Speaker 8 (31:19):
Really am in an incredible race against a lot of
smart people, starting with the early primaries, against some very
tough people, very smart people, and he beat him, and
he beat him easily, and I congratulated him, and we
talked about some things in very strong common like housing
and getting housing built, and food and prices and the
(31:42):
price of oil is coming way down that anything I
do is going to be good for New York. If
I can get prices down, it's good for New York.
And we've got him down, way down from last year.
We have, as you know, I've been saying to a
lot of people. Walmart said that Thanksgiving this year is
exactly twenty five percent less than last year. So that's
good for New York, good for everybody. But I just
(32:05):
want to congratulate. I think you're going to have, hopefully
a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier
I am. I will say there's no difference in party,
there's no difference in anything. And we're going to be
helping him to make everybody's dream come true having a
strong and very safe New York.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
And congratulations mister Merrick, Thank you, His President, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
Please.
Speaker 15 (32:27):
I appreciated the meeting with the President, and as he said,
it was a productive meeting focused on a place of
shared admiration and love, which is New York City, and
the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers, the eight
and a half million people who call our city their home,
who are struggling to afford life in the most expensive
city in the United States of America. We spoke about
(32:47):
brant we spoke about groceries, we spoke about utilities, we
spoke about the different ways in which people are being
pushed out. And I appreciated the time with the President.
I appreciated the conversation. I look forward to working together
to deliver that affordability for new Orders.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Thank you very much. Any questions please.
Speaker 9 (33:04):
Else The New York Post at a question for you,
and then also.
Speaker 11 (33:07):
When group of Mary chip uh for you, you've preferred
to Easter.
Speaker 16 (33:10):
Antonius communists, you describe why you feel that way and
also will you do anything to stop him from arresting
my ministry and because it's from work.
Speaker 8 (33:20):
Well, we didn't discuss to your second part of the question,
and on your first part, I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
He's got views and live out there, but who knows.
I mean, we're gonna see what works or he's gonna change. Also,
we all change.
Speaker 8 (33:32):
I change a lot, change a lot from when I
first came to office. It's now quite a while ago.
It's quite a while. My first term was great. We
had the the greatest economy in the history of our country.
We're doing even better now. We're doing much better now
than we did even the first term. And I can
tell you some of my views have changed, and we
we had discussions on something. I'm gonna discuss what they were,
(33:55):
but uh that I feel very confident that he can
do a very good job. I think I think he's
going to be I think he is going to surprise
some conservative people actually, and some very liberal people.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
He won't surprise him because they already like him.
Speaker 9 (34:09):
And it sounds like you had a productive discussion.
Speaker 16 (34:13):
But just stays ago to President Trump as a despot,
we've trained the country. He said, I would be his
first idea in Houston, having a basclist agenda.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Are you plating to retract it in these remarks.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
In order to prove the relationship.
Speaker 15 (34:28):
I think both President Trump and I we are very
clear about our positions and our views.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
And what I really appreciate.
Speaker 15 (34:35):
About the President is the meeting that we had focused
not on places of disagreement, which there are many, and
also focused on the shared purpose that we have in
serving New Yorkers, and frankly, that is something that could
transform the lives of the eight and a half million
people who are currently struggling under a cost of living,
cost of living crisis, with one in four living in poverty.
And the meeting came back again and again to what
(34:55):
it could look like to lift those New Yorkers out
of struggle and start to deliver them a city that
they could do more and just struggled to just struggle
to afford it, but actually start to live in it.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
And I've been called much worse than a desk bud,
So it's uh, it's not that insulting.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Maybe he I think he'll change his mind after we
get to work it together. Yes, play, yes, please God
ask good question about that.
Speaker 17 (35:18):
He regarded you the seven that's not a good position
and Lebanon now is the fine that's unresolved after and
given your assessment, what do you say for the race
today state and what does your next move to push
or disarmor the desire?
Speaker 8 (35:39):
Sure, well, we are pushing for a total disarmament of
Homouse and frankly everybody else. And we actually have peace
in the Middle he says. You know, the King of
Saudia Arabi just left yesterday. We had some great meetings
and he's uh made a contribution towards the United States.
And more than a trillion dollars we have now over
twenty trillion dollars coming into No country has ever had
(35:59):
anything like that, not even close. If you go to
two trillion or one trillion, it's a lot. We have
twenty or twenty one trillion dollars. I think that Hesbella
has been a problem and Lebanon big problem. We're working
with Lebanon, We're working with everybody.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
In the Middle East. That's another thing I think we
have in common. We want to see peace in the
Middle East.
Speaker 8 (36:19):
And we actually have now for the first time peace
in the Middle East after three thousand years, and now
we're going to refine it.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
And I think you're going to see some very positive
things happen.
Speaker 8 (36:32):
Oh sure, Oh, I would do that absolutely, and if
the mayor would like to be here for that meaning
because I know he feels very strongly.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
I think you feel very very strongly about peace in
the Middle East because.
Speaker 15 (36:44):
We desperately want it. And that's something that I shared
with the President that when I spoke to New Yorkers
who had voted for the President last November on Hillside
Avenue in Fordham Road, I asked them why. I heard
again and again two major reasons. One was that they
wanted an end to forever wars. They wanted an and
to the taxpayer dollars we had funding violations of human rights,
and they wanted to address the cost of living crisis.
(37:06):
And I appreciated the chance to discuss both of those things.
Speaker 3 (37:08):
You said, a lot of my voters actually voted for him,
and I'm okay with it. I'll do that, I'll sign it,
give it to me, I'll sign it in a minute.
That's that's pretty good.
Speaker 18 (37:21):
Yeal troops to New York City. I can both have
differences when it comes to ice ages.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Right in New York City.
Speaker 18 (37:29):
I'm just a mode called ice Road entity. I wonder
how you reconcile your differences on both of those issues.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Well, I think we're going to work them out.
Speaker 8 (37:38):
And I think that if we have known murderers and
known drug dealers and some very bad people, you know,
we want to get them out. And the mayor ones
have we discussed as a great length. Actually maybe more
than anything else. He wants to have a safe New York. Ultimately,
a safe New York is going to be a great
New York. If it's not safe, no matter how well
(37:59):
we do with pricing and with anything else, we can
talk about anything you want. If you don't have safe streets,
it's not going to be a success. So we're going
to work together. We're going to make sure that if
they're horrible people there, we want to get him out.
I think he wants to get him out, maybe more
than I do, so we'll work together.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
We discussed it at great length. Yes, we have a
two questions. If I mean it won't be as spread
that from really see in a second.
Speaker 19 (38:23):
But our first question of the there of that, I
think you'll vote from different costs of the place perspective.
He voted the podcast just one of the twoys that
with the President's campaign style, his techniques, his social media's
inspired any part.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
Of building well.
Speaker 15 (38:38):
I actually told the President that, you know, so much
of the focus of our campaign has been on the
cost of living crisis. And when we asked those New
Yorkers who had voted for the President, when we saw
an increase in his numbers in New York City, that
came back to the same issue, cost of living, cost
of living, cost of living, and they spoke about the
cost of groceries, the cost of rent, the cost of kanad,
the cost of childcare. And too often politicians are looking
(39:00):
to lecture to New Yorkers what they should care about,
as opposed to listen. And when we spoke to those
voters who voted for President Trump, we heard them speak
about cost of living. We focus on that same cost
of living. And that's where I am really looking forward
to delivering for New Yorkers in partnership with the President
on the affordability agenda, and I think we.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
Have to work a little bit. We talked about con edisone.
Speaker 8 (39:21):
We have to work a little bit, and getting of
the prices, because you know, we've gotten fuel prices way down,
but it has been shown up in Coneedison, and we're
going to have to talk to them, you know. If
if we're saying sending them fuel at a much lower
price than it was a year ago, which is true,
we have to get con Edison to set lowering their rates.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
Absolutely love.
Speaker 8 (39:42):
They were pretty happy parents to see BBC five billion
dollars new interstates and prime ministers as well.
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Its progress. Well, we get along very well with the
Prime minister. We made a deal with UK. I like him.
Speaker 8 (39:58):
He's a fine person. And you know, I think they
have some big energy problems. You know, they've got windmills
all over the place. They're gonna have to start using
other methods because their energy is out of control.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
Talking about the UK, it's out of control. And he's
got that problem.
Speaker 8 (40:15):
He's got a big immigration problem, as you know, and
he's got a big energy problem.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
And we talk about he's a good man. Yeah, Prime
Minister is a good man. I haven't spoken this way
less intended, because it's the less you plan to Uh.
Speaker 8 (40:32):
I've spoken with the people, we have a plan. It's
uh horrible what's happening. It's a war that should have
never happened. It would have never happened if I was president,
and it's a shame, and I thought they should have
acted quicker.
Speaker 20 (40:44):
But it's a cold winter and a lot of the
h a lot of the you talk about utilities, but
a lot of the big uh energy producing plants have
been under attack. To put it mildly, to put it nicely, Uh, yeah,
we have a way of getting or we think we
have a way of getting piece.
Speaker 8 (41:02):
He's going to have to approve it. So said so
many people. You know, the last month they lost twenty
five thousand soldiers. This is something we haven't seen anything
like this as the Second World War.
Speaker 14 (41:14):
They're averaging six or seven thousand a week between the
two of them dead soldiers, and it goes on and on,
and I think they're getting reasonably close, but I don't
want to predict.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
I would have said that would have been one of
my early ones.
Speaker 8 (41:29):
I did eight piece steals of countries, including in India, Pakistan.
You could even go in fact, they're coming here in
a week or two, go to the Congo and Rwanda.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
That was one ten million people dead and we worked
something out on that.
Speaker 8 (41:46):
But so many and the one I thought would have
been for me, because I have a very good relationship
with President Putin.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
I thought that would have been maybe quicker, but it
does take two to tango. And now you just see
all the death, and.
Speaker 8 (42:01):
You know, it doesn't affect us other than the fact
that we don't want to see all those people that
really so on the other side of the ocean. It's
a war that should have never happened. It did happened.
I blame the person also sitting right behind this desk.
This is a war that should have never happened, and
it wouldn't have happened if I were president. But we
tried to save a lot of lives. They're losing twenty
(42:22):
five think of that, twenty five thousand lives over the
last short period of time.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
That's Ukrainian and Russian, and it's a shame.
Speaker 21 (42:34):
I asked the mayor elect about House resolution just passed
overwhelmingly to condemn socialism, including with eighty six Democrats, all
of House dem leadership and the minority leader from Jeffaries
despite his endorsement of you.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
What's your reaction to that.
Speaker 15 (42:50):
I have to be honest with you, I focused very
little on resolutions. Frankly, I've been focusing on socialism.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
I understand.
Speaker 15 (42:55):
I think the focus is on the work at hand.
I can tell you I am someone who is a
democratic socials. I've been very open about that, and I
know there might be differences about ideology, but the place
of agreement is the work that needs to be done
to make New York City affordable.
Speaker 3 (43:07):
That's what I look forward to you.
Speaker 15 (43:08):
I want to clarify your answer to Stephan Neilson.
Speaker 21 (43:11):
He asked about your comment called the president a fascist,
and your answer was, but President Trump and I have
been clear about our positions and our views.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Are you affirming that you think President Trump.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Is a fascist?
Speaker 15 (43:24):
I've spoken about that.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
Okay, you can just say okay, it's easier. It's easier
than explaining it. That don't.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
Want to ask you.
Speaker 21 (43:34):
Also about this Ukraine plan, President Zaluski said today that
his country would risk either giving up a partner or
giving up his dignity.
Speaker 17 (43:43):
There's been criticism that this deal.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
You mean he doesn't like it, It's unclear. He was
sort of he'll have to like it, and if he
doesn't like it, then you know, they should just keep fighting.
I guess yes.
Speaker 21 (43:54):
Suggestion that you made, though, was that if he doesn't
accept it, that the US would pull back its support
for you.
Speaker 8 (44:00):
Well, at some point he's going to have to accept something.
You know he hasn't accepted. You remember, right in the
Oval Office not so long ago, I said, you don't
have the cards. Don't forget. I inherited this war. I
would have never this war, never would have happened. I
inherited this war. And I thought he should have made
a deal a year ago. Two years ago. The ultimate
(44:23):
deal would have been never started. That would have been
the good deal that could have been done too, if
you had the right president, but you didn't have the
right president.
Speaker 18 (44:33):
Is something that you and mister Mondani agreed on. Democrats
around New York City for a long time. Do you
see Democrat policy specifically as being a problem, And I'd.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Like to be muned that.
Speaker 1 (44:48):
UNI.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
Look, I think that there are many things.
Speaker 15 (44:52):
In our city where we have to own the responsibility
of it, things that existed long before the president was
the president, and those are also part of the message
of our campaign was to take on a broken politics
of the past, and I ran against a number of
candidates who represented different versions.
Speaker 3 (45:06):
Of that past.
Speaker 15 (45:07):
And what we found time and again is that working
people were left behind in the politics of our city,
and what we're looking to do is put those people
right back at the heart of our politics so that
we don't have a situation where we're in the wealthiest
city in the history of the world and yet one
in five can't even a four two dollars and ninety
cents for a metro card.
Speaker 8 (45:25):
You know, we had some interesting conversation and some of
his ideas really have the same ideas that I have.
But a big thing on cost. You know, the new
word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. You know,
it's sort of an old fashioned word, but it's very accurate.
And they're coming down. They're coming down.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
They were you know, we had both of us.
Speaker 8 (45:46):
We had the highest inflation in the history of our
country the last four years under the Biden administration, and
we've got inflation.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
Down now to a normal number. It's going to go
leaven a little bit lower than that. Katie, you have
something in it.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Talks about un city being covered by international follow international.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Law, talk about the Reconstitution.
Speaker 8 (46:10):
What is your response to, Well, I don't know what
you're referring to in terms of it could be covered
by international law, local law, it's covered by a lot
of laws, but it's covered by US law. Are you
referring to anything in particulars and enforces international law?
Speaker 5 (46:32):
No?
Speaker 3 (46:33):
I don't know. Would you wanna Do you wanna res lunch?
Speaker 5 (46:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 15 (46:36):
I think what what I've shared with the President is
our desire to not only follow the laws of our
own city, laws that protect New Yorkers, but also a
desire for consistency in our politics across the board. And
that's something that we've talked about and something that I
know many New Yorkers want. We we discussed ice and
New York City, and I spoke about how the laws
(46:57):
that we have in New York City allow for New
City government to speak to the federal administration for about
one hundred and seventy serious crimes, the concerns that many
New Yorkers have around the enforcement of imtegration laws on
New Yorkers across the five boroughs, and most recently we're
talking about a mother and her two children. How this
has very little to do with what that is.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
What we get is we discussed crime more than ice
per se.
Speaker 8 (47:22):
We discuss crime, and he doesn't want to see crime,
and I don't want to see crime, and I have
very little doubt that we're not going to get along
on that issue. He wants to and he said some
things that were very interesting, very interesting as to housing construction,
and he wants to see houses go up. He wants
to see a lot of houses created, a lot of
apartments built, et cetera. And you know, we actually people
(47:46):
would be shocked. But I want to see the same thing, Jack,
I want to know.
Speaker 22 (47:53):
One of the policies as well that Marilyn Mondonnerie talked
about a number of times about it on the campaign
was shifting the tax bursion for property taxes from what
he called minority communities to white.
Speaker 10 (48:06):
Based communities and putting more taxes on white people. I
also noticed that in your acceptance speech you didn't mention
didn't mention anything about America or Christians or white people
in general, and so I didn't know if that was
one of the policies that you guys had spoken about.
Speaker 15 (48:22):
We focused on affordability, We focused on the cost of
living crisis. What I will say is that I am
very much interested in property tax reform because what we
see right now in New York City is a system
that is so inequitable that it can't even stand up
in court. And the President and I spoke about the
importance of not only building more housing, but also making
sure that regulation of housing is something that is manageable
(48:43):
to actually get through and not the cause of yet
another weight that.
Speaker 10 (48:46):
We see are so clearly you're continuing this idea of
race based property taxes.
Speaker 15 (48:50):
No, to be very clear, the use of the term
was a description of neighborhoods, not a description of intent.
Speaker 6 (48:57):
So you intend to tax the white your neighborhoods want.
Speaker 15 (48:59):
No, we intend to create a fair property tax system
because we want a New York City that is not
only fair and equitable, but also one that every New
York can afford.
Speaker 16 (49:12):
Israels just targeted a synagogue in New York. Are you
concerned about Jewish rovers you involved in the city, the
city and President Trump, if you've friends it call devil
bundings in New York City?
Speaker 3 (49:23):
What policy is prompt you to do that at the city?
Speaker 2 (49:26):
Run first resource with somebody else.
Speaker 8 (49:28):
Well, I think if we didn't get along, whether it's
cut off or just make it a little bit difficult,
or not give as much we want to see. I
use the term we don't want good money going after
bed and we just we don't want that to happen.
I don't think that's going to happen. I did say that,
you know, subject to what policies are being said. We
(49:48):
had a meeting today that actually surprised me. He wants
to see no crime, he wants to see housing being built.
He wants to see rents coming down. All things that
I agree with.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Now we may agree how we get there.
Speaker 8 (50:01):
The rent coming down, I think one of one of
the things I really gleaned very very much today. He'd
like to see him come down, ideally by building a
lot of additional housing.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
That's the ultimate way. He agrees with that, and so
do I. But if I read the newspapers in the suriges, I.
Speaker 8 (50:18):
Don't hear I don't hear that. But I heard him
say it today, and I think that's a very positive step. No,
I don't expect. I expect to be helping him, not
hurting him. A big help because I want New York
City to be great. Look, I love New York City.
It's where I come from. I spent a lot of
years there. Now I'm right here. We took a big
(50:38):
setback with the mayor that we had named Deblasio. I
thought it was a tremendous setback for the city.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
I think this mayor could do some things that are
going to be really great. How about you, you go ahead, a.
Speaker 18 (50:53):
Billionaire a different address nowadays, like used to call New
York City home. Would you comfortable living in New York
City under a mon Donnis?
Speaker 5 (51:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (51:03):
I would, especially after the meeting. Absolutely, what makes you comfortable?
Speaker 8 (51:09):
We agree and a lot more than I would have thought.
I think he's I want him to do a great job,
and we'll help him do a great job. You know,
he may have different views, but in many ways. You know,
we were discussing when Bernie Sanders was out of the race.
I picked up a lot of his votes, and people
had no idea because he was strong on not getting
ripped off in trade and lots of the things that
(51:30):
I've practiced and have been very successful on tariffs, a
lot of things Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much
more than people thought, and when he was put out
of the race, I think quite unfairly, if you want
to know the truth, many of the Bernie Sanders voters
voted for me, and I felt very comfortable frankly, and
(51:52):
seeing that and saying that, and you know it just
turned out to be a statistical truth.
Speaker 3 (51:57):
But no, I feel very comfortable. I would be.
Speaker 8 (52:01):
I would feel very very comfortable being in New York,
and I think much more so after the meeting.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
Yes, please have a question, a very good un there.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
Why did you fly here?
Speaker 3 (52:11):
Our trains greener.
Speaker 15 (52:14):
At least every form of transit, and I want to
make sure that they're all affordable in New York City.
And that's why making buses fast and free as a
centerpiece of.
Speaker 3 (52:20):
Art did well. But I know, but to be fluid,
that's a lot quicker I too, though,
This is America's Voice Live, and welcome to America's Voice Live.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
I'm Steve Greberger, the pulse of the people. We need
somebody that's going ahead of people's.
Speaker 3 (00:08):
Voice, the truth.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
The mainstream won't touch. This guy is by definition of
globals and the stories that matter. Rabs On, Ben Burkwom.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
Reddito, Miss Hill Cartel, I him, I see him, I
see him.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Live, breaking news right now here in Real America's fort filter.
Speaker 4 (00:27):
These people are domestic terrorists and unapologetic.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
We're here to take a stand for God and country.
Let's feel good. America's Voice Live starts now. I'll come
to America's Voice Live. I'm Steve Gruber.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Today is Friday, the twenty first of November, and you
have our Lord twenty twenty five. Let's get in today's
top stories. As always, thank you for joining me here
on Real America's voicemailwers appreciate seeing you. Democrat Congresswoman of Michigan,
she's a senator actually, Alyssa Slotkin recently released a video
of her a law with other progressive liberals calling for
US troops to disobey illegal orders. I'll bring on a
(01:05):
legal expert to break down the legalities of that and
what's true and what's not. Also, the Senate has continued
to delay the approval of President Trump's nomination of former
Congressman Mark Walker as the Ambassador to the International Religious
Freedom And while the Senate delays his approval, prosecution has
raged on worldwide. More on that as well then later,
(01:26):
as home ownership just further out of reach, President Trump
says he's pushing a bold idea to bring monthly payments down,
but not everyone seems to like the idea. We'll have
an expert to discuss the pros and cons at the
fifty year mortgage, that and more. But first I start
off with what's happening right now at the White House.
That's because President Trump and New York City Mayor alex
Or and Mandani our meeting at the White House at
(01:49):
this very moment and is listed has been closed to
the press. But if it opens up then I will
bring you full coverage. Of course, Mamdannie, a thirty four
year old self proclaimed Democrats socialist, has built his brand
on criticizing the President, even calling himself Trump's worst nightmare.
But now the nation waits an anticipationcy whether the outspoken
mayor elect brings cooperation or confrontation to the table. And
(02:12):
then over on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives passed
a resolution condemning socialism. Big vote two eighty five to
ninety eight, with a good number of Democrats eighty six
and all crossing the aisle to joint Republicans and passed
the resolution damning socialism.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Pretty impressive.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Here to discuss this further, retired Air Force colonel and
the host of the Rob Maynis program, Colonel Manis is here, Rob,
Nice to see you.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
Let's start with this vote. I think it's impressive.
Speaker 1 (02:41):
Eighty six Democrats said thumbs down to socialism. I mean,
I'm kind of surprised by that number. It was a
huge number of Democrats coming across the aisle. The ones
that stayed over there to the left. I don't know
what their future is.
Speaker 5 (02:56):
What do you think of?
Speaker 2 (02:57):
What do you think about all this.
Speaker 6 (03:00):
Part of this vote.
Speaker 7 (03:01):
There's two things with it, Steve is that almost one
hundred Democrats approve of socialism. And any person that understands
history and understands socialism knows that it's just the on
ramp to totalitarianism, usually resulting in total communist type government,
and that's a disaster. It's killed more people in the
twentieth and twenty first century than any other form of government,
(03:24):
so that's very troubling. The other thing that I have
a problem with this vote with Steve, though, is that
Speaker Johnson needs to get the executive orders of this
President of the United States codified in laws so they
can't be overturned on the first day of the first
Democrat presidency if they ever win it again.
Speaker 6 (03:41):
And that's not happening.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
So instead of.
Speaker 7 (03:42):
Spending time on a show vote like this, he really
needs to get that list of executive orders into a
one big bill, get them passed, get it to the
Senate so the president can get it on his desk.
That's just what needs to be done in order to
satisfy the voters.
Speaker 6 (04:00):
Twenty twenty six has already started, my friend.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
It certainly has, Colonel twenty twenty six midterms are in
full swing right now. And that's why I think some
of these Democrats eighty six and all came across the
isle because they see the writing on the wall. If
they come out and say, hey, I'm a socialist, Hey,
I'm all for all this free stuff with your money.
I think that gets rejected at the ballot box. And
you already know it's going to be a tight election
(04:24):
no matter how you look at it. Right now, it's
going to be tight. There are gonna be some competitive races,
of course, all the redistricting going on trying to game
the system.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Of course as well.
Speaker 1 (04:34):
These Democrats, I would say, eighty six Democrats are maybe
they're voting on principle, but more likely to me, I
think they're running scared.
Speaker 7 (04:42):
What do you say, Oh, they've got to run for
office every two years, just like the Republicans in the
House of Representatives to do, and look for them to
run away from the six crazy seditionist Democrats. And I
say that with all sincerity as a person that was
a commander that wielded you uniform Code of Military Justice,
court martial authority. When they put that video out yesterday
(05:06):
saying that military personnel should follow illegal orders without specifying
an actual order that they say is unlawful, that is
just a call for mass and subordination. And it falls
right into the definition of the military laws, definition of sedition,
and that ultimate penalty for that is death. And a
lot of those folks are retired military officers that could
(05:28):
be called back for court martialls.
Speaker 2 (05:30):
Well, let me ask you about that.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Senator Alissa Slatkin sadly one of mine. She was the
first person to appear on this video, and she was
a CIA analyst. She tries to sell herself as more.
She was an analyst. She wasn't a director, she wasn't
in charge of much. She was an analyst. Fair enough,
and she says she's getting death threats now because of
Donald Trump. She blames Donald Trump for the video they
(05:52):
sent out and got backlash from stunning.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
Can you imagine Colonel.
Speaker 1 (06:00):
To come out and said, Joe Biden, you should not
follow his unlawful orders.
Speaker 2 (06:05):
The meltdown would have been complete, wouldn't it.
Speaker 7 (06:08):
Their policies and actions killed our friend Charlie Kirk. They
almost killed the President of the United States twice, and
more of that is probably.
Speaker 6 (06:16):
Going to come.
Speaker 7 (06:17):
How dare they try to blame their actions once again
and blame it on people like you, me and the
President of the United States because we believe in the
United States of America. This is despicable on their part.
As I said, the military personnel should be recalled so
that they can be court martialed under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. The civilians like slacking have to be
(06:40):
prosecuted and investigated and prosecuted to the max extent of
the civilian law, which is up to and including twenty
years in prison. And they all have to be held
accountable because this really is in the definition of sedition
to encourage and advocate for military personnel to be insubordinate.
Those are words that are in both laws, and it's
(07:00):
got to be taken care of.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, it's it's in the Constitution fourteenth Amendment if I
read this correctly. Let me ask you about this. Mark Kelly,
the Senator from Arizona, one of the two senators on there,
not just Alyssa slocking for other members of Congress. Mark
Kelly's a veteran. One of the members of Congress are veterans.
I keep hearing people say, well, recall them to the
military and court martial them.
Speaker 2 (07:24):
Is that actually something that could happen.
Speaker 7 (07:26):
Well, Kelly himself is a retired United States Navy captain
in six, like I am, an O six colonel in
the Air Force. Retired and retirees are subject to the UCMJ,
so he could be recalled and prosecuted under the sedition article.
It's Article ninety four Treason and Sedition of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice and should be because this is
(07:48):
the highest level of this type of negative activity that
could result in people in the military taking the wrong
action based on legal orders. Again, important partiers not that
they said and pointed out that military personnel don't have
to obey unlawful orders.
Speaker 6 (08:06):
We teach them to not obey unlawful orders.
Speaker 7 (08:09):
They have a duty to do that, but they also
have a duty to obey lawful orders. And this group,
they're big error is they did not identify any unlawful
order that they don't want people to follow. So that
tells you that they are just putting a smear out there,
and they're telling these young military personnel that they're going
to have their backs use watch if one of them
(08:31):
actually does something, they will run away from it as
quick as possible.
Speaker 6 (08:35):
Because not one of these people stood up.
Speaker 7 (08:37):
For the one hundred thousand, nearly one hundred thousand American
military service members that were damaged and harmed by the
COVID vaccine order that Joe Biden put out through his
Secretary of Defense than Lloyd Austin and that was the
actual unlawful order, and not one of them said anything.
They don't have anybody's back. They have committed a brave
crime and are doing grave damage to the United States.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
Colonel, how close are we to the precipice?
Speaker 1 (09:04):
When you when you see members of the United States Senate,
members of Congress coming out and telling the military, you know,
you don't have to follow orders, and there's a guy
on the front line, he's an infantryman, whatever, Well, I
think that's an unlawful order. I mean, the ability for
the military to be effective has to be the unification,
(09:25):
the unity of that group moving whatever hostile area they're in. Right,
You've got to have cohesiveness always this disruptset.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
But here's my bigger question.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
I've never really given this much consideration until I started
seeing tapes like that, that the United States could find
itself in some sort of a you know, a breakdown,
a civil war, civil unrest.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
Look where we are.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
We see things that you mentioned, Charlie Kirk, you mentioned
Donald Trump being shot, all of these things. We're in
a dangerous place, aren't we, Colonel.
Speaker 7 (09:57):
We are in a dangerous place, Steve. You know, and
this is just a continue of the divide dividing tactics
and its strategy that the Biden administration used with diversity,
equity and inclusion and wokeism in doctrination in the military.
It comes for out of Marxism, the critical theory, and
this is another way to do it a lot.
Speaker 6 (10:16):
It's another step.
Speaker 7 (10:18):
Along the way to divide the American people and divide
the United States military is one of the last steps
before what's called the color Revolution actually takes place where
the duly elected leader, legally elected leader ultimately abdicates from
their position and the left takes over.
Speaker 6 (10:36):
That's where we're at in this process.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
Yeah, let me ask you about let's go back to
ma'am Donnie being at the White House here, Democratic, socialist, socialist, communist.
Speaker 2 (10:46):
I think they're all interchangeable.
Speaker 1 (10:48):
To be honest with you, I think it was very
smart of Donald Trump to say, you know what, closed
press today. He did not give ma'e Donnie the platform
to play games and get the guy moment that he
would like to have had in the Oval office. I
think that was a brilliant move just to say, yeah,
we're not going to play that game today.
Speaker 7 (11:05):
What do you think oh, I think it is to it,
you know, And because Mondonie is not just there by himself.
He's got his cadre of one hundred percent almost of
the press besides you guys and maybe one or two
other independence ninety nine percent of the press team, and
there are communists just like him, and they fully support
his effort to turn New York City into some kind
(11:28):
of crazy place where you won't be able to be prosperous,
you won't be able to live with safely, and you
won't be able to continue to have children and raise
a family because it will not be a place that
you can do that once Mndomini's done with it. But
eventually sanity will rain and the voters will come back
(11:49):
to the table and vote for freedom again, I guarantee.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
Well, I hope that's true. I think it hinges on
the economy.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
I think that the president, once he gets done cleaning
up the messes around the world, hopefully he can get
this twenty eight point dealing between Ukraine and Russia, but
he will need to pivot to domestic policy to secure
the midterm elections.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
I'll give you the last word here.
Speaker 7 (12:11):
Yes, sir, he's got a pivot to domestic policy. He
already has. He's been working on it since before he
even got into office. We know that, Look, this is
the Biden economy, this is the Biden danger that he
placed on the American people. And Donald Trump and his
team have been working things like inflation and prices and energy,
(12:31):
those kinds of things very hard since before they got
back into office. And prices continue to come down. But
it's a slow process. But we have to keep reminding
people that this is a Biden economy. The Biden administration
created this economy, and Donald Trump is going to be
the one to get us out of it. And if
the people that are in the Congress that are Republicans
(12:52):
will step up to the plate and do their job,
we'll be able to keep the Congress in twenty twenty
six and continue this process. But if they don't, we'll
lose it and Donald Trump will be a truly lame
duck parrel.
Speaker 1 (13:05):
Next time you come back, make sure you have an
opinion on something, would you please? I appreciate you always,
Thanks Rob always, good to see you all. Right after
the break, Democrat Congresswoman, it's Senator Alyssa Slotkin. I've gotten
that wrong twice now recently posted a video of her
and other Democrats clung for the US military to disobey
orders from the Trump administration. I'll bring on a legal
(13:27):
expert next to break the legalities on America's Voice Live. Well,
as you know, the Trump administration has been working hard
to try to stem the flow of narcotics into this country.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
And I don't care which side of the aisle you're on.
That's something most Americans.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Should support, unless, of course, you're a senator like Alissa
Slotkin of Michigan, who recently posted a video along with
Mark Kelly of Arizona, Senator there and for other Democrats
in Congress telling US troops they should disobey unlawful orders
without giving.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
A definition of that. So if President Trump.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Issues the illegal orders, well you shouldn't follow them.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
See for yourself.
Speaker 4 (14:15):
We want to speak directly to members of the military
and the intelligence community who take risks each day to
keep Americans safe. We know you are under enormous stress
and pressure right now.
Speaker 8 (14:24):
Americans trust their military, but that trust is at risk.
Speaker 4 (14:28):
This administration is pitting our uniform military.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
And intelligence community professionals.
Speaker 4 (14:33):
Against American citizens like us. You all swore an oath.
Speaker 9 (14:36):
To protect and defend this constitution.
Speaker 7 (14:39):
Right now, the threats to our constitution aren't just coming
from a broad but from right here at home.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You
can refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 6 (14:49):
You must refuse illegal orders.
Speaker 10 (14:52):
No one has to carry out orders that violate the
law or our constitution.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We know this is hard and that it's a difficult
time to be a public servant. Whether you're serving in
the CIA, the Army, or Navy, the Air Force, your
vigilance is critical. And know that we have your back
because now more than ever, the American people need you.
Speaker 7 (15:11):
We need you to stand up for our laws, our constitution,
and who we are as Americans.
Speaker 4 (15:16):
Don't give up.
Speaker 6 (15:17):
Don't give up.
Speaker 3 (15:18):
Don't give up.
Speaker 4 (15:18):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
Don't give up the ship.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Joining me now to discuss this attorney and US Army
veteran himself, Steve Doolan. Mister Doolan, nice to see you
here today. Let's talk about this from a legal perspective. Well,
you know, let's talk about from a veteran's perspective. What
do you think when you see that.
Speaker 11 (15:42):
Well, the first thing that occurs or occurred to me,
the first time I saw it was we have a
Supreme Court who is tasked with telling us what the
constitution means, or having an opinion and rulings.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
And what the constitution means.
Speaker 11 (16:00):
They've been at it for more than two centuries and
we still don't have every nuance figured out. We can
still debate the constitutionality of a number of things, and
it's just patently unfair to try to put it upon
frontline service members to decide in every instance what might
be constitutional. That's the first thing that occurs to me
(16:22):
as a lawyer and a law professor. The second thing
that occurred to me as a veteran is I remember
when we had training back in the eighties when I
was in on something called Sayida subversion and espionage directed
against the Army, which is the branch I served in,
and this sounds like subversion speaking. They said, we're speaking
(16:47):
directly to the military members and you can refuse to
obey unlawful orders, which is true, but it's also misleading
in the sense that it's a huge risk for a
service member to do so. They are tap dancing on
the edge, in my opinion. I know some have said
(17:07):
that they went over the edge. But I feel like
they're tap dancing on the edge of encouraging mutiny, which
is to refuse to obey lawful orders because the heat
of battle, knowing whether a specific operation is constitutional or
not is really beyond the scope of what you can
expect from those service members. So this sounds like subversion
(17:30):
to me. This sounds like maybe something that Yuri Besmanov
tried to warn us about many years ago, the defected
Soviet KGB member who talked about the stages of preparing
a society for revolution. In the first two stage first
three stages were demoralization, destabilization, and crisis, and the differences
(17:55):
they take progressively less time. And so it sounds like
maybe somebody's trying to get this crisis stage started, where
you've got the military in part that kind of thing, right,
Stir it up.
Speaker 1 (18:09):
Yeah, stir it up. Mutiny, the Constitution and two words here.
I want to be clear about insurrection. This is not
because insurrection by definition is an armed activity, right, But besides,
in the Constitution shall have engaged an insurrection or rebellion.
Rebellion sounds a lot like mutiny the word you just.
Speaker 11 (18:30):
Used right, Well, possibly mutiny is pretty specific to the
military though, right so rebellion. For example, the Confederate States
of America engaged in rebellion during the Civil War. They
flat out said, we're no longer part of the United
States of America. That that's over rebellion. When you're talking
(18:51):
about mutiny, that's got a military connotation. And of course,
you know, we all know about mutiny on the bounty
and a lot of people associated as a purely term,
but there have been mutinies in the other branches as well,
and it implies mutiny implies that there's some kind of
a concerted action. It takes more than one soldier to
(19:12):
commit a mutiny generally, but one soldier disobeying an order
certainly creates.
Speaker 6 (19:18):
Legal problems for himself.
Speaker 11 (19:20):
And so, you know, we had this training when I
was in The training has been in existence since shortly
after the Melai massacre back in nineteen sixty eight, which
was certainly a war crime, certainly horrifying. An entire village
was wiped out, a village of non combatants was wiped
out by unit of the US Army. And what's made
(19:42):
clear to everyone since then is using the Nuremberg defense,
which is what the high ranking Nazis used during their
war crimes trial after World War Two, which is following orders.
That's not a defense, right, So we have to have
a moral compass when we're serving in the US military,
and we have to not commit crimes that are clear atrocities,
(20:06):
violations of the law of war. But what is going
on here is there's this conflation, this blurring of the
line to oh, well, if you like the policy and
you want to say that in your opinion it's unconstitutional,
you don't have to obey. Well, the individual soldier or
sailor who does that does that a great peril to
himself because it's really a defense used at a court martial.
(20:30):
So you're already in the process of a court martial.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
When you raise this as a defense, you're on your
way to a military tribunal a court martial. It says
here in the Constitution, no person shall be a senator
or representative of Congress if you engage in rebellion.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
To me, that's pretty close to rebellion there.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
They're calling for people not to follow the orders of
the civilian government of the United States when it comes
to military activities.
Speaker 2 (20:56):
I mean, you're right they're right on the line. If
they're not across it, I'll give you the last word.
Speaker 11 (21:00):
Well, at least, at the very least. It's an attempt
to politicize the military. And what we're supposed to have
here in our country under our republic is civilian control
of the military. And as has been famously quoted for
decades now, elections have consequences. So the people of the
US elected and commander in chief of the military, and
(21:24):
that's also in your pocket, Constitution there in your hand,
and that means that we've got a duly elected commander
in chief who's giving orders. And we don't have room
in military situations for policy debate, particularly in the heat
of battle.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
Yeah, now, when bullets are flying and bombs are dropping,
we don't have time for that nonsense. And if you
pull a stunt like that, you're going to get people
killed and you're going to end up in a court martial.
Steve Dilon, thank you, thank you, fatly appreciate it. Before
we go to break, I want to tell you about it.
New show premiering right here in Real America's voice this weekend,
(22:04):
The Right News Show and Espanol, hosted by Hobbier Negray.
It'll premire Sunday at eight o'clock Eastern. Be sure to
tune in again. That's this Sunday, eight o'clock Eastern. Don't
go anywhere. We'll be right back on America's Voice Live.
(22:25):
And welcome back to America's Voice Live. Employment data has
grown increasingly muddled in recent months, and depending on who
you talk to, the job markets either shake here appears
to be improving.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
On the flip side, many people who do have jobs
say they're.
Speaker 1 (22:39):
Being pushed to their limits, barely scraping by between paychecks,
and with the federal reserves slow walking and taking any
meaningful action on interest rates, that financial pressure continues to build,
it seems. My good friend Eric Bollock spoke to precious
metals expert Philip Patrick on this topic.
Speaker 2 (22:54):
Here's what they had to say.
Speaker 12 (22:55):
Even though it's things are fluctuating over with the stock
market just crashed of last few gold is holding its
own about four thousand dollars an ouns four thousand and
seventy as we speak. Why what a resilient What a
resilient asset class? Gold has become?
Speaker 9 (23:10):
It certainly has, and the growth is unprecedented. Gold's up
over sixty percent for the year, silver up over eighty
five percent. Like I said, I think in the past,
as you know better than most, gold doesn't typically do that, right,
It's not a sixty percent growth annually asset. I think
it's a reflection of changing fundamentals. We're seeing a shift
(23:33):
around the globe and move away from government debt towards
sound money, and gold's picking up on the back of that.
Speaker 5 (23:40):
So I think this is the.
Speaker 9 (23:42):
Beginning of what will be a long bull run. And
I think ultimately gold has just been underpriced for a
long time and we're starting to see its value as
a monetary asset again and we expect it to continue.
It's why JP Morgan are saying gold could easily hit
eight thousand dollars an ounce. Goldman sach set it's going
to hit six now next year. So you know, investment
(24:04):
banks are rapidly upping their prediction, and it's a reflection
of a very very strong mind.
Speaker 12 (24:10):
I'll tell you what another good reflection on gold is,
and I'm involved in both. I own a lot of gold,
but they also own a lot of cryptocurrencies, primarily Bitcoin
and ethereum. However, others and these have seen a monster
meltdown and moving of funds out of these asset classes,
but gold hasn't seen that. Why do you think gold
has been resilient where crypto has not.
Speaker 9 (24:31):
Yeah, I think crypto is the canarian the goal mine. Ultimately,
when we look at sort of risk profiles, crypto is
considered on the higher end, so we're seeing a flight
to typically what would be safety. The problem is there's
not that much safety, right. Anyone holding bonds or cash
has been losing in real terms to inflation, so the
(24:51):
traditional safety even assets aren't working, and gold's getting that
pick up as well.
Speaker 3 (24:56):
It's the same premise or.
Speaker 9 (24:58):
Same rationale for central banks. They're holding dollars, which in
losing to inflation, they're dumping dollars in buying gold. It's
the same thing happening here. But like I said, crypto
for me is the canary in the coal mine. Typically
the risties sectors start to see liquidations and then it
follows on from there. So yeah, gold's getting a pickup,
(25:19):
and I think it will continue to do.
Speaker 8 (25:20):
So.
Speaker 12 (25:21):
I've on gold my whole life. I own physical gold, Right,
do the actual coins and bars of gold?
Speaker 3 (25:26):
The question is no.
Speaker 12 (25:27):
Now you can you can move an IRA, a traditional
IRA with other assets in it, stocks, bonds, et cetera,
into gold. Yeah, and how is that process and how
does Birch do it?
Speaker 9 (25:36):
It's really simple. It's clearly defined on the IRS tax code.
We can set up a new IRA. Clients can roll
over any portion of an existing IRA or eligible four
oh one K. No tax implications or pas important to
say that.
Speaker 12 (25:49):
Say there again, say they're very important. So we've been
IRA that you don't pay taxes out for dozens of
years or whatever. When you roll it over into gold,
you don't have to pay the tax and then reopen
it an IRA. You're you're literally continuing the tax free
status of all that asset that has grown typically up.
Speaker 9 (26:05):
It's exactly that, no tax implications or penalties. It is
a lateral move in the eyes of the IRS. We
move one IRA to another, they can purchase physical precures,
metals tax deferred within the retirement account. We can do
traditional iras, roth iras. Whatever the structure is, we will
mirror it. And like I said, we can place physical
(26:26):
tangible metals in those accounts. With gold's performance, with silver's performance,
it's hard to be in this climate and.
Speaker 12 (26:33):
So you're actually investing in physical gold on behalf of
the IRA account. So it's not a paper transaction, it's
actual physical Very quickly.
Speaker 13 (26:42):
There's absolutely physical held in brings in the client's name
off balance sheet. We could go out of business, the
holders could the client owns tax deferred.
Speaker 6 (26:51):
In the very very important point.
Speaker 1 (26:54):
Now, if you want to learn more about diversifying your
savings with gold and text the word America the number
ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight today, claim your free
information kid on gold again.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
That's the word America to the number ninety eight ninety
eight ninety eight. Do that today.
Speaker 1 (27:10):
Coming up after the break, the Senate has continued to
delay the approval of President Trump's nomination of former Congressman
Mark Walker as the Ambassador to the International Religious Freedom.
And while the sudden delays his approval, persecution has raged
on worldwide.
Speaker 2 (27:25):
Details coming up.
Speaker 1 (27:34):
Back in April of this year, President Trump nominated former
Congressman Mark Walker to fulfill the role of Ambassador at
Large for International Religious Freedom. Our good friends over at
the Daily Caller have been reporting on this important story,
and it's way that Walker is still awaiting that he'd
be formally confirmed by the Senate, all while Christians are
(27:54):
facing persecution all over the world. Nigeria comes to mind,
as well as facing blasphemy laws in the Middle East
and Asia. In fact, the Daily Caller spoke to the
White House Press Office who told them that the presently
is this appointment will be critical and important protecting Americans
of faith. I encourage you to go read some more
over the Daily Caller because they've been doing some great
work and reporting on this topic of religious freedom here
(28:17):
and around the world as well. So why does the
sound taking you so long to get this done? Calling
in to talk about this is the nominee to be
Ambassador at Large for International News Freedom, Mark Walker.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Mark, thank you for being here.
Speaker 5 (28:30):
Oh listen, it's a privilege to be Thank you for
the Thank you for the opportunity, and appreciate that this
topic is important to you.
Speaker 2 (28:38):
You're been stonewall. It seems Mark, they're not letting you through.
Speaker 8 (28:42):
Why.
Speaker 5 (28:43):
Well, you know, I don't know that we have concrete
to specific reasons.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
I know that they have.
Speaker 5 (28:50):
I guess I was reading three hundred appointments, and I'm
sure there's a few other ambassadors that are still waiting.
But I guess the point that we're trying to make
from an expedition standpoint is, you know, you have people
around the world. This particular position was created in nineteen
ninety eight and I Sam brown Back had it in
the first Trump administration, and we're ready to get started
(29:13):
to be able to get out there and advocate for
people around the world. And look, I'm grateful that we
have a president who cares about these families, these boys
and girls who are being persecuted, kidnapped, and worse in
some of the regions. And so we are anxious to
take our team of about thirty individuals there in the
State Department and start being as the law says the
(29:36):
principal advisor to the Secretary of State and the President Trump.
Speaker 2 (29:41):
Let me ask you about Nigeria and other regions around
the world.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
In Nigeria's pretty well documented, tens of thousands of Christians
have been murdered, burned out of their homes, churches, burned
on the ground.
Speaker 2 (29:49):
But it's not just Nigeria, is it, sir. This is
happening around the world.
Speaker 14 (29:54):
It is.
Speaker 5 (29:54):
In fact, I'm studying there's about nineteen countries where we
have seen an upswing in the religious persecution. Of course,
you have your outlanders, which are just its complete death
in places like North Korea and even some places in
other Third one areas, but a lot of the African region,
I'll try to say the weeds, but it's two basic
(30:15):
approaches here. One, you have all these Islamis groups that
are Boca ram al shabab Is wapping others. They come
in and lay waste, They village and rape and kidnap
and ultimately torture people to death. In the other places
where you have an Asian the Middle East, it's more
blasphemy laws that if you were to share your faith
or talk about your faith, it could be a five
(30:35):
seven up to fifteen or twenty year prisons in US.
So those are two approaches, and one of the reasons
that we want to get out there and start meeting
with these presidents or prime ministers or parliaments is to
be able to push back and advocate for these people
of faith, much like President Trump has as well as
Secretary Rubio has done for his entire career.
Speaker 1 (30:55):
You know, we talk about Nigeria, like I said, but
it's also places like Syria, It's also China. What coming
down in places like China, where Christians are prosecuted routinely.
Speaker 5 (31:07):
Two weeks ago, for the first day of China made
a move that we haven't seen.
Speaker 3 (31:16):
And I wanted to congratulate the mayor.
Speaker 8 (31:19):
Really am in an incredible race against a lot of
smart people, starting with the early primaries, against some very
tough people, very smart people, and he beat him, and
he beat him easily, and I congratulated him, and we
talked about some things in very strong common like housing
and getting housing built, and food and prices and the
(31:42):
price of oil is coming way down that anything I
do is going to be good for New York. If
I can get prices down, it's good for New York.
And we've got him down, way down from last year.
We have, as you know, I've been saying to a
lot of people. Walmart said that Thanksgiving this year is
exactly twenty five percent less than last year. So that's
good for New York, good for everybody. But I just
(32:05):
want to congratulate. I think you're going to have, hopefully
a really great mayor. The better he does, the happier
I am. I will say there's no difference in party,
there's no difference in anything. And we're going to be
helping him to make everybody's dream come true having a
strong and very safe New York.
Speaker 3 (32:22):
And congratulations mister Merrick, Thank you, His President, Thank you.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
I appreciate it.
Speaker 3 (32:26):
Please.
Speaker 15 (32:27):
I appreciated the meeting with the President, and as he said,
it was a productive meeting focused on a place of
shared admiration and love, which is New York City, and
the need to deliver affordability to New Yorkers, the eight
and a half million people who call our city their home,
who are struggling to afford life in the most expensive
city in the United States of America. We spoke about
(32:47):
brant we spoke about groceries, we spoke about utilities, we
spoke about the different ways in which people are being
pushed out. And I appreciated the time with the President.
I appreciated the conversation. I look forward to working together
to deliver that affordability for new Orders.
Speaker 3 (33:00):
Thank you very much. Any questions please.
Speaker 9 (33:04):
Else The New York Post at a question for you,
and then also.
Speaker 11 (33:07):
When group of Mary chip uh for you, you've preferred
to Easter.
Speaker 16 (33:10):
Antonius communists, you describe why you feel that way and
also will you do anything to stop him from arresting
my ministry and because it's from work.
Speaker 8 (33:20):
Well, we didn't discuss to your second part of the question,
and on your first part, I mean.
Speaker 3 (33:25):
He's got views and live out there, but who knows.
I mean, we're gonna see what works or he's gonna change. Also,
we all change.
Speaker 8 (33:32):
I change a lot, change a lot from when I
first came to office. It's now quite a while ago.
It's quite a while. My first term was great. We
had the the greatest economy in the history of our country.
We're doing even better now. We're doing much better now
than we did even the first term. And I can
tell you some of my views have changed, and we
we had discussions on something. I'm gonna discuss what they were,
(33:55):
but uh that I feel very confident that he can
do a very good job. I think I think he's
going to be I think he is going to surprise
some conservative people actually, and some very liberal people.
Speaker 3 (34:06):
He won't surprise him because they already like him.
Speaker 9 (34:09):
And it sounds like you had a productive discussion.
Speaker 16 (34:13):
But just stays ago to President Trump as a despot,
we've trained the country. He said, I would be his
first idea in Houston, having a basclist agenda.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
Are you plating to retract it in these remarks.
Speaker 3 (34:26):
In order to prove the relationship.
Speaker 15 (34:28):
I think both President Trump and I we are very
clear about our positions and our views.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
And what I really appreciate.
Speaker 15 (34:35):
About the President is the meeting that we had focused
not on places of disagreement, which there are many, and
also focused on the shared purpose that we have in
serving New Yorkers, and frankly, that is something that could
transform the lives of the eight and a half million
people who are currently struggling under a cost of living,
cost of living crisis, with one in four living in poverty.
And the meeting came back again and again to what
(34:55):
it could look like to lift those New Yorkers out
of struggle and start to deliver them a city that
they could do more and just struggled to just struggle
to afford it, but actually start to live in it.
Speaker 8 (35:03):
And I've been called much worse than a desk bud,
So it's uh, it's not that insulting.
Speaker 3 (35:08):
Maybe he I think he'll change his mind after we
get to work it together. Yes, play, yes, please God
ask good question about that.
Speaker 17 (35:18):
He regarded you the seven that's not a good position
and Lebanon now is the fine that's unresolved after and
given your assessment, what do you say for the race
today state and what does your next move to push
or disarmor the desire?
Speaker 8 (35:39):
Sure, well, we are pushing for a total disarmament of
Homouse and frankly everybody else. And we actually have peace
in the Middle he says. You know, the King of
Saudia Arabi just left yesterday. We had some great meetings
and he's uh made a contribution towards the United States.
And more than a trillion dollars we have now over
twenty trillion dollars coming into No country has ever had
(35:59):
anything like that, not even close. If you go to
two trillion or one trillion, it's a lot. We have
twenty or twenty one trillion dollars. I think that Hesbella
has been a problem and Lebanon big problem. We're working
with Lebanon, We're working with everybody.
Speaker 3 (36:16):
In the Middle East. That's another thing I think we
have in common. We want to see peace in the
Middle East.
Speaker 8 (36:19):
And we actually have now for the first time peace
in the Middle East after three thousand years, and now
we're going to refine it.
Speaker 3 (36:27):
And I think you're going to see some very positive
things happen.
Speaker 8 (36:32):
Oh sure, Oh, I would do that absolutely, and if
the mayor would like to be here for that meaning
because I know he feels very strongly.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
I think you feel very very strongly about peace in
the Middle East because.
Speaker 15 (36:44):
We desperately want it. And that's something that I shared
with the President that when I spoke to New Yorkers
who had voted for the President last November on Hillside
Avenue in Fordham Road, I asked them why. I heard
again and again two major reasons. One was that they
wanted an end to forever wars. They wanted an and
to the taxpayer dollars we had funding violations of human rights,
and they wanted to address the cost of living crisis.
(37:06):
And I appreciated the chance to discuss both of those things.
Speaker 3 (37:08):
You said, a lot of my voters actually voted for him,
and I'm okay with it. I'll do that, I'll sign it,
give it to me, I'll sign it in a minute.
That's that's pretty good.
Speaker 18 (37:21):
Yeal troops to New York City. I can both have
differences when it comes to ice ages.
Speaker 3 (37:28):
Right in New York City.
Speaker 18 (37:29):
I'm just a mode called ice Road entity. I wonder
how you reconcile your differences on both of those issues.
Speaker 3 (37:36):
Well, I think we're going to work them out.
Speaker 8 (37:38):
And I think that if we have known murderers and
known drug dealers and some very bad people, you know,
we want to get them out. And the mayor ones
have we discussed as a great length. Actually maybe more
than anything else. He wants to have a safe New York. Ultimately,
a safe New York is going to be a great
New York. If it's not safe, no matter how well
(37:59):
we do with pricing and with anything else, we can
talk about anything you want. If you don't have safe streets,
it's not going to be a success. So we're going
to work together. We're going to make sure that if
they're horrible people there, we want to get him out.
I think he wants to get him out, maybe more
than I do, so we'll work together.
Speaker 3 (38:16):
We discussed it at great length. Yes, we have a
two questions. If I mean it won't be as spread
that from really see in a second.
Speaker 19 (38:23):
But our first question of the there of that, I
think you'll vote from different costs of the place perspective.
He voted the podcast just one of the twoys that
with the President's campaign style, his techniques, his social media's
inspired any part.
Speaker 6 (38:37):
Of building well.
Speaker 15 (38:38):
I actually told the President that, you know, so much
of the focus of our campaign has been on the
cost of living crisis. And when we asked those New
Yorkers who had voted for the President, when we saw
an increase in his numbers in New York City, that
came back to the same issue, cost of living, cost
of living, cost of living, and they spoke about the
cost of groceries, the cost of rent, the cost of kanad,
the cost of childcare. And too often politicians are looking
(39:00):
to lecture to New Yorkers what they should care about,
as opposed to listen. And when we spoke to those
voters who voted for President Trump, we heard them speak
about cost of living. We focus on that same cost
of living. And that's where I am really looking forward
to delivering for New Yorkers in partnership with the President
on the affordability agenda, and I think we.
Speaker 3 (39:19):
Have to work a little bit. We talked about con edisone.
Speaker 8 (39:21):
We have to work a little bit, and getting of
the prices, because you know, we've gotten fuel prices way down,
but it has been shown up in Coneedison, and we're
going to have to talk to them, you know. If
if we're saying sending them fuel at a much lower
price than it was a year ago, which is true,
we have to get con Edison to set lowering their rates.
Speaker 2 (39:39):
Absolutely love.
Speaker 8 (39:42):
They were pretty happy parents to see BBC five billion
dollars new interstates and prime ministers as well.
Speaker 3 (39:49):
Its progress. Well, we get along very well with the
Prime minister. We made a deal with UK. I like him.
Speaker 8 (39:58):
He's a fine person. And you know, I think they
have some big energy problems. You know, they've got windmills
all over the place. They're gonna have to start using
other methods because their energy is out of control.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
Talking about the UK, it's out of control. And he's
got that problem.
Speaker 8 (40:15):
He's got a big immigration problem, as you know, and
he's got a big energy problem.
Speaker 3 (40:18):
And we talk about he's a good man. Yeah, Prime
Minister is a good man. I haven't spoken this way
less intended, because it's the less you plan to Uh.
Speaker 8 (40:32):
I've spoken with the people, we have a plan. It's
uh horrible what's happening. It's a war that should have
never happened. It would have never happened if I was president,
and it's a shame, and I thought they should have
acted quicker.
Speaker 20 (40:44):
But it's a cold winter and a lot of the
h a lot of the you talk about utilities, but
a lot of the big uh energy producing plants have
been under attack. To put it mildly, to put it nicely, Uh, yeah,
we have a way of getting or we think we
have a way of getting piece.
Speaker 8 (41:02):
He's going to have to approve it. So said so
many people. You know, the last month they lost twenty
five thousand soldiers. This is something we haven't seen anything
like this as the Second World War.
Speaker 14 (41:14):
They're averaging six or seven thousand a week between the
two of them dead soldiers, and it goes on and on,
and I think they're getting reasonably close, but I don't
want to predict.
Speaker 3 (41:27):
I would have said that would have been one of
my early ones.
Speaker 8 (41:29):
I did eight piece steals of countries, including in India, Pakistan.
You could even go in fact, they're coming here in
a week or two, go to the Congo and Rwanda.
Speaker 3 (41:41):
That was one ten million people dead and we worked
something out on that.
Speaker 8 (41:46):
But so many and the one I thought would have
been for me, because I have a very good relationship
with President Putin.
Speaker 3 (41:52):
I thought that would have been maybe quicker, but it
does take two to tango. And now you just see
all the death, and.
Speaker 8 (42:01):
You know, it doesn't affect us other than the fact
that we don't want to see all those people that
really so on the other side of the ocean. It's
a war that should have never happened. It did happened.
I blame the person also sitting right behind this desk.
This is a war that should have never happened, and
it wouldn't have happened if I were president. But we
tried to save a lot of lives. They're losing twenty
(42:22):
five think of that, twenty five thousand lives over the
last short period of time.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
That's Ukrainian and Russian, and it's a shame.
Speaker 21 (42:34):
I asked the mayor elect about House resolution just passed
overwhelmingly to condemn socialism, including with eighty six Democrats, all
of House dem leadership and the minority leader from Jeffaries
despite his endorsement of you.
Speaker 3 (42:48):
What's your reaction to that.
Speaker 15 (42:50):
I have to be honest with you, I focused very
little on resolutions. Frankly, I've been focusing on socialism.
Speaker 3 (42:55):
I understand.
Speaker 15 (42:55):
I think the focus is on the work at hand.
I can tell you I am someone who is a
democratic socials. I've been very open about that, and I
know there might be differences about ideology, but the place
of agreement is the work that needs to be done
to make New York City affordable.
Speaker 3 (43:07):
That's what I look forward to you.
Speaker 15 (43:08):
I want to clarify your answer to Stephan Neilson.
Speaker 21 (43:11):
He asked about your comment called the president a fascist,
and your answer was, but President Trump and I have
been clear about our positions and our views.
Speaker 2 (43:21):
Are you affirming that you think President Trump.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
Is a fascist?
Speaker 15 (43:24):
I've spoken about that.
Speaker 3 (43:25):
Okay, you can just say okay, it's easier. It's easier
than explaining it. That don't.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
Want to ask you.
Speaker 21 (43:34):
Also about this Ukraine plan, President Zaluski said today that
his country would risk either giving up a partner or
giving up his dignity.
Speaker 17 (43:43):
There's been criticism that this deal.
Speaker 3 (43:45):
You mean he doesn't like it, It's unclear. He was
sort of he'll have to like it, and if he
doesn't like it, then you know, they should just keep fighting.
I guess yes.
Speaker 21 (43:54):
Suggestion that you made, though, was that if he doesn't
accept it, that the US would pull back its support
for you.
Speaker 8 (44:00):
Well, at some point he's going to have to accept something.
You know he hasn't accepted. You remember, right in the
Oval Office not so long ago, I said, you don't
have the cards. Don't forget. I inherited this war. I
would have never this war, never would have happened. I
inherited this war. And I thought he should have made
a deal a year ago. Two years ago. The ultimate
(44:23):
deal would have been never started. That would have been
the good deal that could have been done too, if
you had the right president, but you didn't have the
right president.
Speaker 18 (44:33):
Is something that you and mister Mondani agreed on. Democrats
around New York City for a long time. Do you
see Democrat policy specifically as being a problem, And I'd.
Speaker 3 (44:46):
Like to be muned that.
Speaker 1 (44:48):
UNI.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
Look, I think that there are many things.
Speaker 15 (44:52):
In our city where we have to own the responsibility
of it, things that existed long before the president was
the president, and those are also part of the message
of our campaign was to take on a broken politics
of the past, and I ran against a number of
candidates who represented different versions.
Speaker 3 (45:06):
Of that past.
Speaker 15 (45:07):
And what we found time and again is that working
people were left behind in the politics of our city,
and what we're looking to do is put those people
right back at the heart of our politics so that
we don't have a situation where we're in the wealthiest
city in the history of the world and yet one
in five can't even a four two dollars and ninety
cents for a metro card.
Speaker 8 (45:25):
You know, we had some interesting conversation and some of
his ideas really have the same ideas that I have.
But a big thing on cost. You know, the new
word is affordability. Another word is just groceries. You know,
it's sort of an old fashioned word, but it's very accurate.
And they're coming down. They're coming down.
Speaker 3 (45:44):
They were you know, we had both of us.
Speaker 8 (45:46):
We had the highest inflation in the history of our
country the last four years under the Biden administration, and
we've got inflation.
Speaker 3 (45:54):
Down now to a normal number. It's going to go
leaven a little bit lower than that. Katie, you have
something in it.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
Talks about un city being covered by international follow international.
Speaker 3 (46:07):
Law, talk about the Reconstitution.
Speaker 8 (46:10):
What is your response to, Well, I don't know what
you're referring to in terms of it could be covered
by international law, local law, it's covered by a lot
of laws, but it's covered by US law. Are you
referring to anything in particulars and enforces international law?
Speaker 5 (46:32):
No?
Speaker 3 (46:33):
I don't know. Would you wanna Do you wanna res lunch?
Speaker 5 (46:36):
Yeah?
Speaker 15 (46:36):
I think what what I've shared with the President is
our desire to not only follow the laws of our
own city, laws that protect New Yorkers, but also a
desire for consistency in our politics across the board. And
that's something that we've talked about and something that I
know many New Yorkers want. We we discussed ice and
New York City, and I spoke about how the laws
(46:57):
that we have in New York City allow for New
City government to speak to the federal administration for about
one hundred and seventy serious crimes, the concerns that many
New Yorkers have around the enforcement of imtegration laws on
New Yorkers across the five boroughs, and most recently we're
talking about a mother and her two children. How this
has very little to do with what that is.
Speaker 3 (47:18):
What we get is we discussed crime more than ice
per se.
Speaker 8 (47:22):
We discuss crime, and he doesn't want to see crime,
and I don't want to see crime, and I have
very little doubt that we're not going to get along
on that issue. He wants to and he said some
things that were very interesting, very interesting as to housing construction,
and he wants to see houses go up. He wants
to see a lot of houses created, a lot of
apartments built, et cetera. And you know, we actually people
(47:46):
would be shocked. But I want to see the same thing, Jack,
I want to know.
Speaker 22 (47:53):
One of the policies as well that Marilyn Mondonnerie talked
about a number of times about it on the campaign
was shifting the tax bursion for property taxes from what
he called minority communities to white.
Speaker 10 (48:06):
Based communities and putting more taxes on white people. I
also noticed that in your acceptance speech you didn't mention
didn't mention anything about America or Christians or white people
in general, and so I didn't know if that was
one of the policies that you guys had spoken about.
Speaker 15 (48:22):
We focused on affordability, We focused on the cost of
living crisis. What I will say is that I am
very much interested in property tax reform because what we
see right now in New York City is a system
that is so inequitable that it can't even stand up
in court. And the President and I spoke about the
importance of not only building more housing, but also making
sure that regulation of housing is something that is manageable
(48:43):
to actually get through and not the cause of yet
another weight that.
Speaker 10 (48:46):
We see are so clearly you're continuing this idea of
race based property taxes.
Speaker 15 (48:50):
No, to be very clear, the use of the term
was a description of neighborhoods, not a description of intent.
Speaker 6 (48:57):
So you intend to tax the white your neighborhoods want.
Speaker 15 (48:59):
No, we intend to create a fair property tax system
because we want a New York City that is not
only fair and equitable, but also one that every New
York can afford.
Speaker 16 (49:12):
Israels just targeted a synagogue in New York. Are you
concerned about Jewish rovers you involved in the city, the
city and President Trump, if you've friends it call devil
bundings in New York City?
Speaker 3 (49:23):
What policy is prompt you to do that at the city?
Speaker 2 (49:26):
Run first resource with somebody else.
Speaker 8 (49:28):
Well, I think if we didn't get along, whether it's
cut off or just make it a little bit difficult,
or not give as much we want to see. I
use the term we don't want good money going after
bed and we just we don't want that to happen.
I don't think that's going to happen. I did say that,
you know, subject to what policies are being said. We
(49:48):
had a meeting today that actually surprised me. He wants
to see no crime, he wants to see housing being built.
He wants to see rents coming down. All things that
I agree with.
Speaker 3 (49:59):
Now we may agree how we get there.
Speaker 8 (50:01):
The rent coming down, I think one of one of
the things I really gleaned very very much today. He'd
like to see him come down, ideally by building a
lot of additional housing.
Speaker 3 (50:12):
That's the ultimate way. He agrees with that, and so
do I. But if I read the newspapers in the suriges, I.
Speaker 8 (50:18):
Don't hear I don't hear that. But I heard him
say it today, and I think that's a very positive step. No,
I don't expect. I expect to be helping him, not
hurting him. A big help because I want New York
City to be great. Look, I love New York City.
It's where I come from. I spent a lot of
years there. Now I'm right here. We took a big
(50:38):
setback with the mayor that we had named Deblasio. I
thought it was a tremendous setback for the city.
Speaker 3 (50:44):
I think this mayor could do some things that are
going to be really great. How about you, you go ahead, a.
Speaker 18 (50:53):
Billionaire a different address nowadays, like used to call New
York City home. Would you comfortable living in New York
City under a mon Donnis?
Speaker 5 (51:03):
Yeah?
Speaker 3 (51:03):
I would, especially after the meeting. Absolutely, what makes you comfortable?
Speaker 8 (51:09):
We agree and a lot more than I would have thought.
I think he's I want him to do a great job,
and we'll help him do a great job. You know,
he may have different views, but in many ways. You know,
we were discussing when Bernie Sanders was out of the race.
I picked up a lot of his votes, and people
had no idea because he was strong on not getting
ripped off in trade and lots of the things that
(51:30):
I've practiced and have been very successful on tariffs, a
lot of things Bernie Sanders and I agreed on much
more than people thought, and when he was put out
of the race, I think quite unfairly, if you want
to know the truth, many of the Bernie Sanders voters
voted for me, and I felt very comfortable frankly, and
(51:52):
seeing that and saying that, and you know it just
turned out to be a statistical truth.
Speaker 3 (51:57):
But no, I feel very comfortable. I would be.
Speaker 8 (52:01):
I would feel very very comfortable being in New York,
and I think much more so after the meeting.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
Yes, please have a question, a very good un there.
Speaker 1 (52:10):
Why did you fly here?
Speaker 3 (52:11):
Our trains greener.
Speaker 15 (52:14):
At least every form of transit, and I want to
make sure that they're all affordable in New York City.
And that's why making buses fast and free as a
centerpiece of.
Speaker 3 (52:20):
Art did well. But I know, but to be fluid,
that's a lot quicker I too, though,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.