July 15, 2025 • 47 mins
SEGMENT 1: LEFTIST JUDGE SPITS ON CONSTITUTION TO SAVE PLANNED PARENTHOOD
SEGMENT 2: TOO MUCH MADE OF EPSTEIN STORY?
SEGMENT 3: NEW WORLD SCREWWORMS THREATEN U.S. BEEF SUPPLY
SEGMENT 4: WAGE GROWTH OUTPACES INFLATION
SEGMENT 5: THE DERANGED LEFTIST CARICATURE
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 (00:20):
Welcome to stagefield, everyone.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
We are getting more evidence that radical judges aren't going
away anytime soon. You know, when Congress passes a bill
directing where the federal government to spend money, that's actually
a constitutional.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Duty of Congress.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
We've now got an Obama appointed judge in Massachusetts who's
trying to upend the Big Beautiful Bill as it's known,
and the portion of that bill that basically works to
defund Planned Parenthood, the abortion factory that we know of
as Planned Parenthood. So in the bill, it says in
(00:59):
any state takes eight hundred thousand dollars or more in
federal funding from the federal government, that they cannot spend
any money on nonprofits that engage in abortions, specifically the
Medicare Medicaid provision, basically defunding the abortion process. That is
a good thing, but throw that aside and just look
(01:21):
at the Constitution. Congress is tasked with directing where we
spend money, not federal judges. This federal judge issue we
a temporary restraining order, meaning that the government must still
fund Planned Parenthood, is literally a takeover, a hijacking of
the federal government. This is judge Depolitano on Newsmax.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Now, the legislation the President signed on the fourth of
July does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, but it
does prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from
funding any organizations even if if they provide services to
the poor for sexual related matters, if they also pay
(02:08):
for abortions. That is for Congress to decide. That is
not for a federal judge to decide. Under the constitution.
Congress decides how to spend the money.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
See what this radical judge writes. Her name is Indira Talwanne.
She writes, quote can we put it up on the screen?
Please tear out three? She writes, and I quote plaintiffs
declarations established that widespread disruptions to patient care would occur
(02:41):
in the absence of temporary restraint of a temporary restraining order.
Disruption or delays in receiving healthcare is irreparable harm. Now,
it is not for a judge to decide how quickly
someone gets care or does it get care, or where
the money gets spent, or where the money does he
get spent. That is solely the job of Congress. And
(03:03):
really that's indisputable. This woman will get smacked down. It
may not be the next appeals court, but by the
time this gets to an appeals court that actually respects
the rule of law, this will most certainly be smacked down.
So again, this is an end run around Congress. And
in many respects, the left did what it does best.
It went and sought out a radical judge to rule
(03:25):
in their favor and then send us fighting against her.
This is Democrats, how they get it wrong every time.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Why do you believe this provision in the Big Beautiful
Bill is unconstitutional? Yes, so, we fundamentally believe that people
should be able to access care where they want to.
If they have Medicaid, they have a right to be
able to exercise that care, to go get that care
and have that covered by Medicaid. And this is frankly
a blatant attack on plin parenthood and most importantly on
(03:55):
our patients.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You know, when someone starts out with all respect, it's
usually a slam down coming, which to all due respect
to that congresswoman, she's a dumbass. She does not know
anything about the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it
say that the people of America must be provided with
health care?
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Don't say anything about healthcare.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
The government can decide to come up with these types
of programs, or they can take away these.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Types of programs.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
They're not constitutional, and the government can decide where it
wants to spend money. So I saw a piece in
Real Clear Politics where the author spelled this out in
a brilliant fashion. I want to get him on the program,
which is exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
What we did.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
He is the founder of the international consulting firm SMI Group.
He's an attorney who wrote that piece in Real Clear Politics.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Kennan Spivik is with us. Kenen, great to have you
on the program. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
All right, you wrote this piece of real clear politics.
Am I right that there's nothing in the constitution that
says people are guaranteed healthcare, by the way.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Let me make this clear too before.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I don't believe abortion is healthcare, by the way, so
let's get that out of the way as well.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Take it away, my friend.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
Okay, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that. There's
a Supreme Court case in nineteen ninety one that said,
even if something is constitutionally required, there is no obligation
on the part of the government, on the part of
Congress to fund it. There are multiple Supreme Court cases
saying the government has no obligation to fund abortion. The
(05:32):
Height Amendment, which has been around for forty years, has
systematically made the point that the government is not going
to fund abortion. There is not a single case in
the plaintiff's complaint or in their application for a temporary
restraining order, not a single case in which the Supreme
Court held that a judge could enter a temporary restraining
(05:56):
order against the Congress of the United States and the
executing branch of the United States to stop a duly
authorized congressional law that determined what to appropriate spending for
and what not to appropriate spending for.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
So a federal judge hijacked the purse strings of the
federal government. Was simply one temporary restraining order. How was
that even possible? And yet apparently, I guess this could
happen all the time with these radical judges. You go
to the right judge, they'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
And these lawyers, and I have to tell you, I
work with some of Planned Parenthood's lawyers, obviously not Unplanned Parenthood,
and they're very good, very smart lawyers, and they won
a stunning victory here because they won a victory they
never should have won, and it's because they went to Massachusetts.
They selected a judge who hates Donald Trump. This is
(06:53):
the same judge that held that a twelve year old
child couldn't wear a T shirt that's said.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
There are only two genders.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
This is the same judge that said that Donald Trump
couldn't deport illegal immigrants back to Cuba and Dominican Republic
and all sorts of other places that they had come from.
This is a judge who substituted her political opinion for
the law. And I want to make a point here,
(07:23):
it's really very important. My anger about what she did
really doesn't have a lot to do with abortion or
planned parenthood, and nothing to do with the super bright
attorneys who figured out how to win a victory that
will only last a very short while. My anger is
about a judge who thinks that she is in charge
(07:43):
of the United States of America. That Article one of
the Constitution, which requires that the Congress appropriates spending, doesn't
mean what it says. And one last point, there's a
separate Supreme Court decision, as if one would be necessary,
that said Article one means what it says, this judge
(08:07):
has run a muck. This judge should be impeached.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
She won't be.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
This judge will simply become an icon to the far
left movement for her audacity.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I can't help but think Republicans can't do this because
if you run to a conservative judge, they literally look
at how the law is written and then they refer
to the Constitution and make a decision. They're not going
to play this game, even with fellow conservatives. If you
thought you could somehow game the system for conservatives, it's
not going to work. So clearly liberals have the upper
(08:41):
hand in this. And lastly, I'll ask you. I read
in your piece she didn't even hear from the government
on this case. She had a hearing where none of
the parties testified.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
What she did was so outrageous. There are procedures that
are required to issue a temporary restraining order. Now those
procedures have nothing to do with who's right and wrong,
but they're just procedures.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
She didn't follow any of those procedures.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
Now, those procedures do allow it's called an ex partey order.
It's an order where you don't hear from the other side.
But the burden. The requirements for issuing an X party
order are very high.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
She ignored them all.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
When the government came in and pointed out to her
that she hadn't followed any of the rules, she issued
an amended tro which didn't make any legal or constitutional sense.
But she at least now filled in all the technical defects.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
So that's great.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
Six or seven days late, she filled in the technical defects.
She's still trying to control the government of the United
States based on arguments. Three arguments in particular, every single
one of which is wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Well, I'm confident, as.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
You are in your piece that this will be overturned
fairly quickly. But still it goes to show you these
radical judges really trying to make not only an end
run around the Constitution, but it's a hijacking of our
own government. Kennethmibick, I appreciate you coming on great piece,
and they can find it on everybody out there in
real clear politics.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Thank you, I appreciate you. Thanks for having me. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
I want to turn now briefly to what is turning
out to be one of the largest deportation initiatives in
the world.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Now I'm not talking about America.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
By the way, what you're looking at there is a
deportation effort that is underway in Iran. Iran is deporting
Afghani's at a rate that shames the United States on
our rate of deporting illegal aliens here. How do we
know this well, our man Oscar Ramirez, usually on the
border of Mexico and the United States. Now on the
(10:56):
border of what Iran and and Jerusalem and Syria and
Jerusalem and those places. I want to bring him in
five from Jerusalem, Real America's Voice correspondent, Oscar Ramirez is here.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Oscar, welcome to the program. Rand As. It was an
honor to be with you. Thank you for the invitation.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Well, I appreciate you being up very late with us.
It's early in the morning there where you are. Why
don't you tell me what you found, Explain this situation
with Iran and their deportation efforts, and what do you
think America can take away from this?
Speaker 6 (11:28):
Well, I was up in the Golden Heights border with Syria.
There's a lot of activity right now in the border
with Syria, and we received the news that the Iranian
government it is now executing the largest deportation in the world,
and nobody in the West, and I'm meaning nobody in
the West, the West media, the progressive, mercenary activist media.
(11:51):
Nobody's talking about it. Why because it goes against their narrative.
This is the Iranian government. Basically they're putting and executing,
and they already put a deadline and for more than
four million Afghans to tell them, if you don't get
out by this amount of time, we are going to
kick you out. They already have a number, you know,
during the week, two hundred and fifty six thousand. It
(12:13):
is the number that they just started. They are promptly
saying that they this ultimately this only week, they are
going to be going all the way to five hundred
thousand and.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Kick it up a notch.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Already, international organizations, the United Nations and oh I am
already begging for more money to attend this. They want
to call it a crisis. It's just the Iranian government.
Two things that they said grand it is unsustainable one
of the things that they cannot sustain it. And two
they're doing it for security reasons. So if you do
this in the United States of America, you already know
(12:46):
what's happening.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Right now currently.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Yeah, look, American democrats are screaming and yelling about.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
The deportation effort here.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
They some reason seem to want to protect Iran as
if RAN's a victim and all this. These are democrats
in America. This is probably why they're not talking about this.
But I got to ask you, Oscar, why would Afghanis
want to go to Iran and stay there? And why
is it that Iran wants the Afghanis out?
Speaker 6 (13:16):
Well, it was the only place for them to protection
because of the Taliban, So a lot of them that
were going inevitably and they were being accepted in Iran,
but it was unsustainable, like Iran and saying we cannot
sustain this. It's like every country that access accepts mass, mass,
mass migration, like what happened in the body and disaster
in the four years exactly like that. But Iran is
(13:37):
saying we cannot sustain it anymore. And there's a lot
of internal events which happened happening. Violence has been skyrocking also,
you know, possible terrorism inside of the same place that
is a regime of terror.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
You know, these kind of situations.
Speaker 6 (13:53):
Are right now focusing on expelling and executing the largest
deportation in the world, and it is carried out by Iran.
And it is crazy that in the West you don't
hear anything about it because it is totally against their narratives.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Last question for you. You've got some video for us.
I want to roll it and let you explain to
me what this is. Apparently Israel Syria border Golan Heights
and a UN camp that we spend a lot of
money on American taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Explain to me what we're looking at. Yeah, this is
zooned off. It is the United Nations.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
That right there, that little boater wall that you see,
that is Israel and going you know, a crossing that boat,
little boat wall that is Syria. That migrant that camp
that you see right there, it is the United Nations
and it is put there under the American tax may or.
At the American tax mayor funds this camp of the
United Nations twenty million dollars per year for more than
(14:48):
twelve hundred Blue helmet soldiers, and their obligation there is
to keep the ceasefire between Syria and Israel.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Its just totally ridiculous.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
The United States of America needs US up funding the
United Nations. They need to fund the United Nations. These
people just take advantage of humanitary crisis and they create chaos.
And this particular it right there. It is just a
huge camp that is being paid off by the SD
American taxpayer.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Fascinating stuff. Oscar Ramrez. Doesn't matter where you are in
the world, you're always bringing us fabulous news to unpack.
The news isn't always good, but it's always solid work
that you can bring in to us. We appreciate you,
Oscar Amerz. Thank you, my friend, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Granted it's aways around it to be with you.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Uh, the honest mind please has always stay safe in
these dangerous places that you find yourself in so often.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
For real America's voice here in all our viewers. All right,
I want to turn now to you. Know this podcaster
Sean Ryan.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I wondered how he burst onto the scene so quickly
and became very popular. He was a Navy seal, a
CIA operative.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
And I have questions about this guy.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I don't know if he's still working for the intelligence community,
for the deep state. Well, he brings in Governor Gavin
Newsom onto the program and he basically gives Gavin Newsom
a four hour platform to spew nonsense, and Sean Ryan
gives Gavin Newsom a gift. This I actually find offensive
(16:15):
quite frankly, as a guy who used to work for
the National Rifle Association is a big Second Amendment guy rolling.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
So everybody gets a gift. Oh jeez, what do you got? Man?
Here we go. You ready for this? Look Jesus ready
for this. This is an accent. I got to report
this gift man. That is so that is a California compliant.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Oh big sour, this is eight three sixty five macro.
Speaker 7 (16:40):
Come on, man, I don't know exactly what makes by
the way this is this is too cool. The fact
that you would give me this, You like that?
Speaker 1 (16:46):
This up?
Speaker 7 (16:47):
So you just want me to tsa to take this
from me in my after Fort's here for it. I'm
on to you man, all right.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
So he gives them a California compliance sig so hour,
which is quite Galvenus has probably never held a firearm
in his life. The fact that it's California compliant, to me,
is offensive with what California has done to minimize the
not only capacity of these firearms, but their ability to
work properly and then Gavin USO wants to claim he's
(17:19):
a big Second Amendment guy.
Speaker 7 (17:21):
You know what last thing people would expect is that
I respect this gift.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
Really, I appreciate that man. I'm not an anti gun
at all. I'm for just some gun safe common sense
that I.
Speaker 7 (17:32):
Think vast majority of folks in the right and the
left degree, and I think we've lost a little touch
with some common sense around background checks. I think there's
an age appropriateness. I do have some you know, I'm
challenged by large capacity magazine clips and urban centers, and
you know, weapons of war that are out.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
There again avenuesome. You don't care about what we think,
because I've told you a million times they're not clips,
the magazine and our military would be embarrassed to use
an AR fifteen that's a semi automatic fire. I'm not automatic.
They're not weapons of war. This is a clear fact.
But again he lies because that man has signed over
(18:14):
seventy pieces of legislation to take away your Second Amendment right.
I want to bring in now a guy who knows
about all this full well gun. Breitbart columnist AWR Hawkins
is with us.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
AWR, welcome back. Good to be with you.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
What did you make of this interview, Awr?
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Same thing you did.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
I mean, he says he's a pro Second Amendment, and
then he goes on to push background checks, a age
requirement limit to purchase firearms. He pushes his legislation against
AR fifteens, and as you say, he pushes a ban
on magazine clips.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I still don't know what those are, but he wants
to ban it magazine clips.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Two is these throwing both terms in there, which is
really something else?
Speaker 1 (19:04):
All right, let me play another clip from.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Gavin Newsom, because the hitch just keep on coming and
I want to get your response to this one.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Play the next one.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Guys outgunning the police, and I've experienced that directly with
the loss of a police officer who was gunned down
by an AK forty seven and the police were outgunning
baby Owner's point in San Francisco. But otherwise, man, people
are the right to bare arms, and I got no
ideological opposition to that at all.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
So again, an AK forty seven outgunning the police.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
One.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Many police cruisers carry at AK or at equivalent AR fifteen.
But you notice what he said there, Awr. He was
gunned down by an AK forty seven. Last I checked,
it's the person behind the gun that is gunning anybody
down who uses it.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
AWR, No, it's it.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
That's typical lift to speak though, You've got to demonize
the whip and that's what they've spent. Now what did
they spent Grant thirty years demonizing the AR fifteen and
of course the AK forty seven. So he has to
speak that way, and he speaks that way because completely
opposite of what he's saying. He is ideologically opposed to
the Second Amendment. You can't be pro Second Amendment and
(20:15):
then say but it has to be this way, you
can't have this type of gun, you have to be
this age, you have to go through this background check,
blah blah blah. I've said a million times and I've
written on it. You know, California has more gun control
than any other state, Grant more than any and in
twenty twenty one, in twenty twenty three, they led the
nation in active shooter incidents. So it's not only insulting
(20:36):
that he is pro gun controlled and says he's not,
but it's double insulting because his gun control is a failure.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
You know, you and I have talked about this.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
The Second Amendment is the only constitutional right that you
have to often pay to exercise.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
You got to get your gun license.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Could you imagine reporters had to get a First Amendment license?
Or if you were a homeowner and you didn't pay
your right to illegal search and seizure, you didn't pay
that fee, so the police could.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Just come on into your house. Nowhere else do we
see this?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And then Gavin Newsom as the audassy to talk about it,
he uses the phrase anymore. I think you were the
first guy to tip me off on this. They don't
say gun control anymore. They say gun safety. Everybody wants
gun safety, but they mean gun control, don't they.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
That's it, Yeah, that's just They went through that change
when they were trying to get background checks in Washington
State and when was that twenty fourteen? And that's when
I started noticing they've moved from gun control. Shannon Watts,
who is not the brightest bulb in the house, Shannon
Watts was the one doing it predominantly, and she was
shifting from gun control to gun safety. I'm a gun
(21:47):
safety advocate and what that means is they want to
take your guns away and that's when he gets down
to it. That's what it is, and Gavin Newsom, you
know it, Grant, I'm not telling you anything. He's just
positioning himself for a White House run. And no matter
what the liberals say, they know ultimately gun control is
a loser. It's not a winner, and that's why he
(22:09):
has to distance himself from it.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Right now, let me ask you one last question.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
I don't even know if you know Sean Ryan that
well or why listen to his podcast. He does something
are really interesting when he brings the veterans in and
talks to what they went through.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
I'm always fasceted. But lately he's been going down this
very weird road.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
And I don't know why a guy like this would
give a platform to Gavin Newsom for four hours and
everything I saw, he didn't really confront him on many
of the issues. What do you think's going on there?
Speaker 1 (22:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (22:40):
I have the same feelings you do. I was uncomfortable
that he gave him the gun, even let him spew
that bs about being pro Second Amendment.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
He's not pro Second Amendment.
Speaker 8 (22:50):
And you've got to call him on the You got
to call him on the carpet when he says he is,
and so I have the same concerns you do. I
don't know Sean Ryan well enough to be critical of him.
I haven't had that much exposure to him. I know
who he is, but this particular podcast bothered me. My friend.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
I'm just like you.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
I have about the same opinions.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Well, everybody out there that knows AWR and I we
think a lot alike on just about most issues.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
So it's one of the reasons why I have you
on all the time.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
I respect your opinion, AWR Hawkins, and great work over
there at Breitbart. Keep up the good work, and we
appreciate you coming on, my friend. All right, as we
move on, folks, lessen to me. Trump administration is bringing
positive changes to our healthcare system. But to truly make
America healthy again, it starts at home with you. The
(23:42):
Wellness Company offers top quality products to keep you and
your family safe and healthy. This is one of them,
prescription medical kits that include life saving medications and guide books.
Plus they offer a parasite cleanse, weight loss solutions, and
so much more to live a longer, healthier life. And
this field kit is pretty awesome too. Here's what I
want you to do. Go to TWC Dot Health Forward
(24:03):
slash Voice, use the promo code voice and save ten percent.
That's TWC Dot Health Forward slash Voice promo.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Code voice to save ten percent. All right, we're gonna
talk about Jeffrey Epstein next.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
My co host out on AMA seventy in Los Angeles
had the most simple explanation for what's going on. It
was so simple. It may be plausible, but it might
not make you happy. We'll talk about that next. All right, folks,
(24:41):
here's the latest update on Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump now
says the Democrats had doctored the Jeffrey Epstein files. Well,
I wouldn't put that past them for sure. So with that,
he recommended this for Pam Bondi today in terms.
Speaker 9 (24:57):
Of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.
And I would say that, you know, these files were
made up by Komi, they were made up by Obama,
they were made up by but the biting from you know,
uh we and we went through years of that with
the Russia Russia Russia hoax, with all of the different things.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
That we had to go through. We've gone through years
of it.
Speaker 9 (25:18):
But she's handled it very well, and it's going to
be up to her. Whatever she thinks is credible, she
should release you, all right.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
So that's somewhat new to President Trump from the last
comment we're still talking about Emstein.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
He says, hey, let's release what's credible. I'm okay with that.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
And in many respects that's thanks to all of you
programs like this that are putting the pressure on. Don't
let us down, mister President. I don't think he's going
to now. I told you I believe this is a
Middle East deal that there may be Saudi's on this list,
very important Saudis people in Israel that could throw the
peace process up up into a fray where doesn't want
(25:57):
to go. This was Mike Ben's on Stinchfield last week,
talk about where Jeffrey Epstein may have made some of
his money.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
You know, we were always told he made.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
All his money through blackmail, but maybe that wasn't necessarily true.
Speaker 10 (26:11):
Listen, money fixer and money launder for odd Non Koshogi,
the CIA's main illicit arms trafficker during the Iran Contra
affair and dating back thirty years, odd Nan Koshogi was
the largest arms dealer in the world. He was the
CIA and DoD's main guy for transporting and brokering weapons deals,
(26:37):
especially ones where the money trail couldn't be tracked. And
Jeffrey Epstein was the guy who made the money untrackable.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
So we were.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Always told there was no other way Jeffrey Epstein made
money but his blackmail and sex trafficking operations. But Mike
Ben says, Jeffrey Epstein was integral and ad non Koshogi,
who was a Saudi running guns during Iran conference scandal
and beyond at one point worth four billion dollars. Maybe
Epstein got his money there. So what if there's there's
(27:10):
Well I was going to say more to the Epstein story,
but what if there's actually less to the Epstein story.
This was an idea my co host out on the
Morning Answer in Los Angeles on AM eight seventy rays
this morning, and I thought, you know what, come on
and lay this out for us, And that's what we
did today.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Has brought Jennifer Horn back.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Jen why don't you just lay it out for me?
What are you thinking there could be a possibility here.
Speaker 11 (27:34):
I preface this by saying nobody knows anything because anybody
who has said that they've known something has not been
able to show us anything. So thanks for having me tonight, Grant.
And it just sort of hit me. As we've been
talking about this, we've all been so disappointed members of
the MAGA community, been disappointed that there hasn't been the
transparency that we thought, and it just made me think,
what if there's less than we've thought. Think about Jeffrey Epstein. First,
(27:58):
I want to be very clear. I think guy is
really a scum guy. He's a bad guy. He's somebody
who wanted to pray on young women. I think that's
very clear. But what if it didn't go so deep.
What if people have been making themselves famous and making
themselves rich really spinning up this story. I mean, you know,
(28:19):
I love true crime documentaries. I have watched a ton
of documentaries on Jeffrey Epstein. And literally there are only
seven women that we have ever seen named with the
Jeffrey Epstein story. Now there are others who are mentioned
in court documents whose names are redacted. We also know
zero people who have been confirmed as being on a
(28:40):
blackmail list of Jeffrey Epstein. The most prominent, of course,
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump. Of course, people like to throw
that one around politically, which I don't believe at all,
and others that were mentioned, but we don't really have
any real proof. Even people in the documentary who are
eyewitnesses to this stuff said, yes, were young women around,
(29:01):
but they really couldn't give us any proof.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
So it just it came to me that there are.
Speaker 11 (29:05):
A lot of people who have made careers, influencers, who
have made themselves famous by covering this, by promising us
that there's something more. Maybe there just isn't grant. I mean,
it's a possibility. Nobody knows.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Well, look, you raise a good point, because what I
have heard over the years is that there were thousands
of victims. At one point, we were told thousands that
he was sex trafficking girls left and right. Then you
said it, why don't we have more than just seven
that have come forward. You know, there's Prince Andrew as well,
(29:41):
and there's something going on there, but him and Bill
Clinton are really the only two that have been named,
And why don't we have more of the people?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's it?
Speaker 11 (29:51):
And by the way, if Jeffrey Epstein is dead and
we have President Trump saying let's move on and we
have Glaine Maxwell and Jail. Then I know we hear
from the people who either thought they might have been
on the list or it was a rumor that they
were in the circle of Jeffrey Epstein, or even more
from the women who could have been caught up in
all of this. It just seems strange to me. And
(30:12):
one thing I know by being in this business, Grant
and you two and I have to give you props.
You and I both look for the truth, sometimes at
the detriment to our own followings.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
But there are a lot of people who love to.
Speaker 11 (30:22):
Spend salacious stories to get famous and to make a
name for themselves. And then when the rubber meets the road,
maybe there's not as much there as we thought. So
one of I mean, anything is up in the air,
anything is up for grabs. But maybe it is as
President Trump said, maybe there isn't as much.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
As we think.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
One of the things that lends credibility to this theory
is that Dan Bongino and Cash Betel are two men
that I trust, and I don't think they would lie
to us. And if you are under the assumption that
Dan and Cash are not going to lie to us,
that they get in there and then they're not seeing.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
What they're supposed to see.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Maybe they're not seeing it because the evidence has been destroyed,
as my buddy Roger Stone, and I also think is
a real possibility in all of this. As you know,
I believe in the Middle East connections all this, but
your theory holds holds water here that you know, maybe
he made it someplace else. Everybody from prosecutors to influencers, including.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Dan Bonji, he talked about this.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
All the time and it reminds me a lot jen
of Adam Schiff and Russian collusion. Adam Schiff knows he
was lying about what was in the Russian collusion file
because he never saw anything that he talked about, but
he was probably told and heard and the stories were flying,
and everybody just thinks it's safe to say it's there,
(31:44):
trusting the other guy, when in the end, nobody's seen
a damn thing, And oh he ended up doing was
lying to the American public.
Speaker 11 (31:52):
And I think that's possible with Pam Bondi too, saying
I've got everything on my desk, Well, maybe everything wasn't
what we think everything has been. And I also think
that's a source of frustration. Look, I love Dan Bongino,
you know that. I have such great respect for him
and Cash Ftel particularly, and I don't want to believe
that there would be any kind of lies that they
would tell out of the FBI.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
That's the reason we support them.
Speaker 11 (32:13):
They're great communicators and they also are looking for truth
and transparency. But maybe that's why Dan Bongino is frustrated.
I mean, for years he's been part of this. People
have probably told him things that they had seen firsthand,
and maybe that stuff just wasn't there. I mean, there's
obviously the reports of frustration on his part. Maybe that's
a piece of it.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Well, look again, you summed it up in the beginning.
All of this is really speculation. We're not getting any
answers from our government right now, so we're speculating. It's
one possible theory of many possible theories.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
But we'll throw them out there and let the people decide.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Jennifer Horne, I will see you bright in early out
there in Los Angeles on AMA seventy six to nine
am Pacific time, nine to twelve Eastern time. You can
find us on Rumble just search the morning and jen Horn,
thank you, Thank you grit.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Absolutely. I'm gonna tell you some folks, it's a fun show.
It really is.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
It's morning, right, so we laugh a little more than
we do here on this program at night, but you
would enjoy. Go to Rumble, search the Morning Answer and
check us out Tomorrow ninth to twelve Eastern time. All right,
if you're stressed about back taxes, miss the April deadlineer
have messy books, don't wait. The IRS is cracking down
hard and penalties add up best. But Tax Network USA
(33:29):
can help with direct access to powerful IRS programs and
expert negotiators. Tax Network USA knows how to win. Get
your free consultation and see if you qualify to reduce
or eliminate what you owe. They can also help you
protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies. So don't
wait for the next IRS letter. Call eight hundred nine
oh five eight thousand, or visit TNUSA dot com forward
(33:51):
slash rev to talk to a real expert at Tax
Network USA. All right, parasitic screwworms are impacting our livestock.
What if I told you the government's going to build
fly factories in Texas? Just fly factories to release flies
at the dead of night over the Texas skies.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I don't like this.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
I'll tell you about it next. Welcome back everyone. What
have I told you? In the United States government is
spending twenty six million dollars to build a giant fly
factory on the Mexican Texas border.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
They plan on releasing billions of flies into the night
sky in Texas to combat.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
The New World screw worm.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
You might say, what the heck is that, Well, it
is a worm that is bred by flies.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
It gets into open wounds of.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Cattle and then the worms you see on your screen
there grow pretty darn big and they virtually eat the
cattle alive. Because of this, US Department of Agriculture has
now shut down trade of livestock from Mexico into the
United States. This screwworm was eradicated, but then we saw
it pop back up in Honduras and Guatemala, and now
(35:15):
it has moved into Mexico.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
So now we're going to release these flies.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I don't like that idea because I don't really trust
our government. I don't mind shutting down livestock, but I
wonder what more is at play here. I want to
bring in now to discuss all of this. The president
of the United States Cattleman's Association, Justin Tupper, is with us.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
Justin as a pleasure to have you on the program.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Appreciate it all right, what do you make of one
shutting down trade with Mexico. That's got to probably help
US cattle ranchers, especially independents not having competition from the South.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
But what do you make of this and the screwworm?
Speaker 12 (35:56):
Well, I think first and foremost, you know, well, a
lot of my peers back in the sixties when the
screw worm was a problem and I was not around then,
I believe it was a huge, huge thing and impacted
their lives deeply and the cattle industry. So I think
anything we can do to try to keep that new
world screw worm from getting here to the United States
(36:18):
and infecting a cattle herd that is already at its
lowest levels since the nineteen seventies is a good thing.
But we were getting some mixed signals from the government.
They shut the border down, then they decided to open it,
and they were going to do it in a staggered fashion,
And then again just the other day they decided to
close it because I think the transparency from Mexico may
(36:39):
not be everything we need.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Yeah, what do you make of the idea of breeding
flies to combat all of this?
Speaker 12 (36:48):
I've been doing quite a little talking and research on this.
That is one of the ways they eradicated it in
the sixties is with sterile flies and making sure that
they can't reproduce. I'm not an epidemiologist, I'm not sure
on exactly how all that works, but it was some
technology that was still used to clear back in the sixties.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Yeah, the thought is for everybody at home, is that
the sterile flies well, then attempt to breed with the
flies that are infected. Obviously they're sterile, so that doesn't happen,
and in the end.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
You reduce the population.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
You know, as my friend doctor Peter McCullough, who's a
great freethinking doctor, said, is it better to increase more
flies into the environment or would you rather try.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
To reduce the flies some way? Would you know?
Speaker 2 (37:40):
I mean obviously going out and insecticides of those kinds
of things. Nobody likes to talk about that, but would
reducing the fly population be a better way of going
about this?
Speaker 1 (37:51):
And that's a great question.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
You know.
Speaker 12 (37:53):
I would hope that we have some new sciences since
the sixties, the last time that we had to fight
this new World's crew worm, and are able to combat
it that way. But right now, from the people that
we talk to, these sterile flies seem to be their
best notion from the federal government how to combat this
from getting to the United States or at least containing
(38:16):
it to the best they can once agains here.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
All right now, I hate bringing up the idea of
conspiracy theories, but my government over the last few years
has really taught me that most of my conspiracy theories
come true. So I'm left wondering, how in the world
are these screw worms that were once eradicate it start
popping up down south and moving towards the United States.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
And then I think of China.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
We don't import a lot of meat from China, but
would China have an incentive to introduce something like this.
We know they own farmland in the United States to
ultimately say, hey, you know what, now that we can't
take beef in and cattle from South America, in Central
(39:00):
America and Mexico, maybe we got to turn to China.
Or maybe they're trying to make us so we don't
have a lot of beef. How concerned are you about
China and the ranching industry and agriculture in general.
Speaker 12 (39:12):
Well, I think very You know, at US Cattleman's we
believe food security is national security, and I think if
they can infiltrate to our systems and our food within
this country that if we can't understand that that's national security,
then we got a big problem. And I do think
that we have to look at these things and measure
(39:33):
them the best we can. I'm with you, I don't
know that because it's in Mexico and trying to eradicate
it before it gets here. We know that the federal
government is not to be trusted for sure in Mexico,
so I think there's a lot of problems with that.
We do know we have the lowest numbers of cows
in our country since the seventies, so we have a
(39:55):
cow herd that's already limited, and if we get hit
with this strue worm, that could be big, big time
for the industry. That we will see epidemic levels again
like we did during COVID when some of the shelves
aren't full.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Justin real quick, why are the cattle numbers down?
Speaker 12 (40:13):
You know, there's a lot of mitigating factors. One, the
economy of it was not good for a lot of years.
It was not very affordable, didn't make a lot of money.
We had a lot of droughts across the country. It
was kind of a perfect storm. Is why we're down
on cattle numbers. But we're going to have to try
to rebuild. We do see prices increasing, so I think
we'll see the herd start to rebuild in the near future.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Yeah. Well, it's fascinating stuff.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Keep us posting on this because this could be end
up being a real problem. And I will tell everybody
out there first and foremost, I'm a beef eater, so
I'll love what you guys do with us cattle means.
And I'm told there's a few organizations out there, but
you are part of the good guys. I literally had
people I trust that says you want to talk about cattle,
go to US cattle and justin Tupper, no surprise, you
(41:02):
did great tonight. Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 12 (41:05):
Hey, thanks for having us in the safest, best protein
on the planet, beef.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Amen to that.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
And look, I love I love my red meat and
I love my beef, and so that ain't stopping.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
So keep the screwworm away, Okay. I just don't know
about doing it with these flies. I'm telling you something
doesn't had up with this. I don't like it, all right.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
President Trump's bold moves in Washington are delivering results. But
your financial future that's on you. With rising inflation, soaring debt,
and global uncertainty, it's time to diversify with Birch Gold Group.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
Gold is up forty percent.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
In the last year, and central banks are buying it
in record levels. Why gold holds value when paper money falters.
Birch Gold makes it simple to convert your IRA or
four oh one k into way gold IRA or buy
physical gold for home storage. Text America to the number
nine eight nine eight nine eight for your free info
kid on Gold, no cost, no obligation, just smart information.
(42:03):
Text America to the number nine eight nine eight nine eight.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
Take control today, all right.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
A maorial candidate in Minneapolis is here to give you,
is here to give New York Cities Bam Dani a
run for his money.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
That is next. We'll be back everyone. I want to
talk a little bit.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
About the inflation numbers that the left and even some
Rhino Republicans are streaming the sky is falling. So we
went from two point four percent to two point seven
percent rate of inflation to two point seven percent being
year over year inflation. Now, this says far lower than
what it was under Joe Biden. But here's what the
(42:56):
mainstream media misses. You see that year over year wage growth,
wage growth is at three point seven percent, inflation at
two point seven percent, which means the country as a whole,
people in it are making one percent more than the
cost of things arising.
Speaker 1 (43:16):
That's good news, Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
For all of this, and two point four percent to
two point seven percent month to month, they want to
cry and scream about tariffs. I just don't see it.
This is Treasury Secretary Scott Besson.
Speaker 13 (43:31):
But I wouldn't put too much emphasis on one number.
I think it's the trend. And I think one thing
that Wall Street, a lot of economist market in general
got wrong early on was that tariffs were going to
cause a substantial price level rise, which just hasn't happened.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
And you know it hasn't happened yet.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
I thought we would see it quicker if it was
going to happen, and it.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
Turns out it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
Something we told you the most likely scenario was you
wouldn't see a sharp rise.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Now, it may continue to go up a little bit.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
But if wa just continue to go up the way
they are under President Trump.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Then we have no problems.
Speaker 2 (44:14):
And we are far lower at a rate of inflation
than we ever were under Joe Biden. President Trump getting
this back down thanks in large part to oil prices
coming down. This is President Trump talking about the inflation numbers.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
I know there was very little inflation.
Speaker 9 (44:30):
As you know, the numbers were very good, very much
inside the margin. So we've had no inflation. All we
have is we're making a fortune. We are taking in
hundreds of billions of dollars. You So we had a
surplus of twenty five billion dollars last month, which we
haven't had in many, many years.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Excuse me, we had a surplus.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
We haven't had that as long as I've been an adult,
I don't think. So this is is what we get
with President Trump. We've got money coming in now. He
just announced a new deal with Indonesia today, and so
again we're getting our economy back on track, but that
doesn't stop the leftists from spewing their laws.
Speaker 1 (45:14):
Do not believe them.
Speaker 2 (45:15):
Here's on CNN Yahoo finance columnist.
Speaker 14 (45:20):
What's most worrying about this is this is exactly the
sort of effect economists have been watching for from the
terroriffts that Trump has put on on nearly three trillion
dollars worth of imports, and more than that, we saw
unusual increases in a few product categories such as sporting
goods and toys and appliances that are dominated by imports.
(45:41):
So that tells you that the tax on imports that
Trump has put on all these products is starting to
filter through to the economy.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
No, what it tells me is that even if the
tariffs do filter down to some items, it's not items
that are life or death for the American people. Toys,
sporting goods, Okay, come on, we're nazi. Are the things
are critical for people's lives? And so to me, this
(46:11):
again is good news. I'm with the President that this
is all well within the margin, and do not freak
out over inflation numbers ticking up when they were at
eight nine ten percent under Joe Biden and we're now
back to as I said two point seven percent. All right, folks,
coming up next, let's have some fun with well that
(46:35):
little bundle of joy next. All right, we call this
segment left wing ding Dongs Exposed Roland and so my
maga darlings.
Speaker 15 (46:54):
Well, you guys are busy bragging about drinking liberal tiers
and laughing at my booger ring, I will be busy
calling you guys the American Fascist Party, along with all
the other countries that are on the right page.
Speaker 1 (47:06):
Good day.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
Ooh, the Fascist Party. I'm so offended by that, you know,
I got to think of it. They always use this
term fascist. I don't even think they know what it
means to me. Fascism is a centralized government with a
strong dictorial style leader. Okay, that's Obama, all right? That
was the fascist of that we saw in this country.
(47:30):
We want limited government. President Trump wants limited government. He
hasn't want government in the way dictating your every move.
Didn't that happen under Joe Biden as well? Joe Biden
wasn't a very big personality, though he was a personality,
just not a big personality. I think they're the fascist
not us. It's gonna do it for us Stinchfield's army rolls.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
Thanks to all of you, We'll see tomorrow
Welcome to stagefield, everyone.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
We are getting more evidence that radical judges aren't going
away anytime soon. You know, when Congress passes a bill
directing where the federal government to spend money, that's actually
a constitutional.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Duty of Congress.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
We've now got an Obama appointed judge in Massachusetts who's
trying to upend the Big Beautiful Bill as it's known,
and the portion of that bill that basically works to
defund Planned Parenthood, the abortion factory that we know of
as Planned Parenthood. So in the bill, it says in
(00:59):
any state takes eight hundred thousand dollars or more in
federal funding from the federal government, that they cannot spend
any money on nonprofits that engage in abortions, specifically the
Medicare Medicaid provision, basically defunding the abortion process. That is
a good thing, but throw that aside and just look
(01:21):
at the Constitution. Congress is tasked with directing where we
spend money, not federal judges. This federal judge issue we
a temporary restraining order, meaning that the government must still
fund Planned Parenthood, is literally a takeover, a hijacking of
the federal government. This is judge Depolitano on Newsmax.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Now, the legislation the President signed on the fourth of
July does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, but it
does prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from
funding any organizations even if if they provide services to
the poor for sexual related matters, if they also pay
(02:08):
for abortions. That is for Congress to decide. That is
not for a federal judge to decide. Under the constitution.
Congress decides how to spend the money.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
See what this radical judge writes. Her name is Indira Talwanne.
She writes, quote can we put it up on the screen?
Please tear out three? She writes, and I quote plaintiffs
declarations established that widespread disruptions to patient care would occur
(02:41):
in the absence of temporary restraint of a temporary restraining order.
Disruption or delays in receiving healthcare is irreparable harm. Now,
it is not for a judge to decide how quickly
someone gets care or does it get care, or where
the money gets spent, or where the money does he
get spent. That is solely the job of Congress. And
(03:03):
really that's indisputable. This woman will get smacked down. It
may not be the next appeals court, but by the
time this gets to an appeals court that actually respects
the rule of law, this will most certainly be smacked down.
So again, this is an end run around Congress. And
in many respects, the left did what it does best.
It went and sought out a radical judge to rule
(03:25):
in their favor and then send us fighting against her.
This is Democrats, how they get it wrong every time.
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Why do you believe this provision in the Big Beautiful
Bill is unconstitutional? Yes, so, we fundamentally believe that people
should be able to access care where they want to.
If they have Medicaid, they have a right to be
able to exercise that care, to go get that care
and have that covered by Medicaid. And this is frankly
a blatant attack on plin parenthood and most importantly on
(03:55):
our patients.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
You know, when someone starts out with all respect, it's
usually a slam down coming, which to all due respect
to that congresswoman, she's a dumbass. She does not know
anything about the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it
say that the people of America must be provided with
health care?
Speaker 1 (04:17):
Don't say anything about healthcare.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
The government can decide to come up with these types
of programs, or they can take away these.
Speaker 1 (04:24):
Types of programs.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
They're not constitutional, and the government can decide where it
wants to spend money. So I saw a piece in
Real Clear Politics where the author spelled this out in
a brilliant fashion. I want to get him on the program,
which is exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:36):
What we did.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
He is the founder of the international consulting firm SMI Group.
He's an attorney who wrote that piece in Real Clear Politics.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
Kennan Spivik is with us. Kenen, great to have you
on the program. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
All right, you wrote this piece of real clear politics.
Am I right that there's nothing in the constitution that
says people are guaranteed healthcare, by the way.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
Let me make this clear too before.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I don't believe abortion is healthcare, by the way, so
let's get that out of the way as well.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
Take it away, my friend.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
Okay, there's nothing in the Constitution that says that. There's
a Supreme Court case in nineteen ninety one that said,
even if something is constitutionally required, there is no obligation
on the part of the government, on the part of
Congress to fund it. There are multiple Supreme Court cases
saying the government has no obligation to fund abortion. The
(05:32):
Height Amendment, which has been around for forty years, has
systematically made the point that the government is not going
to fund abortion. There is not a single case in
the plaintiff's complaint or in their application for a temporary
restraining order, not a single case in which the Supreme
Court held that a judge could enter a temporary restraining
(05:56):
order against the Congress of the United States and the
executing branch of the United States to stop a duly
authorized congressional law that determined what to appropriate spending for
and what not to appropriate spending for.
Speaker 2 (06:11):
So a federal judge hijacked the purse strings of the
federal government. Was simply one temporary restraining order. How was
that even possible? And yet apparently, I guess this could
happen all the time with these radical judges. You go
to the right judge, they'll do whatever you want.
Speaker 5 (06:31):
And these lawyers, and I have to tell you, I
work with some of Planned Parenthood's lawyers, obviously not Unplanned Parenthood,
and they're very good, very smart lawyers, and they won
a stunning victory here because they won a victory they
never should have won, and it's because they went to Massachusetts.
They selected a judge who hates Donald Trump. This is
(06:53):
the same judge that held that a twelve year old
child couldn't wear a T shirt that's said.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
There are only two genders.
Speaker 5 (07:02):
This is the same judge that said that Donald Trump
couldn't deport illegal immigrants back to Cuba and Dominican Republic
and all sorts of other places that they had come from.
This is a judge who substituted her political opinion for
the law. And I want to make a point here,
(07:23):
it's really very important. My anger about what she did
really doesn't have a lot to do with abortion or
planned parenthood, and nothing to do with the super bright
attorneys who figured out how to win a victory that
will only last a very short while. My anger is
about a judge who thinks that she is in charge
(07:43):
of the United States of America. That Article one of
the Constitution, which requires that the Congress appropriates spending, doesn't
mean what it says. And one last point, there's a
separate Supreme Court decision, as if one would be necessary,
that said Article one means what it says, this judge
(08:07):
has run a muck. This judge should be impeached.
Speaker 1 (08:10):
She won't be.
Speaker 5 (08:12):
This judge will simply become an icon to the far
left movement for her audacity.
Speaker 2 (08:20):
I can't help but think Republicans can't do this because
if you run to a conservative judge, they literally look
at how the law is written and then they refer
to the Constitution and make a decision. They're not going
to play this game, even with fellow conservatives. If you
thought you could somehow game the system for conservatives, it's
not going to work. So clearly liberals have the upper
(08:41):
hand in this. And lastly, I'll ask you. I read
in your piece she didn't even hear from the government
on this case. She had a hearing where none of
the parties testified.
Speaker 5 (08:53):
What she did was so outrageous. There are procedures that
are required to issue a temporary restraining order. Now those
procedures have nothing to do with who's right and wrong,
but they're just procedures.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
She didn't follow any of those procedures.
Speaker 5 (09:09):
Now, those procedures do allow it's called an ex partey order.
It's an order where you don't hear from the other side.
But the burden. The requirements for issuing an X party
order are very high.
Speaker 1 (09:22):
She ignored them all.
Speaker 5 (09:24):
When the government came in and pointed out to her
that she hadn't followed any of the rules, she issued
an amended tro which didn't make any legal or constitutional sense.
But she at least now filled in all the technical defects.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
So that's great.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
Six or seven days late, she filled in the technical defects.
She's still trying to control the government of the United
States based on arguments. Three arguments in particular, every single
one of which is wrong.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Well, I'm confident, as.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
You are in your piece that this will be overturned
fairly quickly. But still it goes to show you these
radical judges really trying to make not only an end
run around the Constitution, but it's a hijacking of our
own government. Kennethmibick, I appreciate you coming on great piece,
and they can find it on everybody out there in
real clear politics.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Thank you, I appreciate you. Thanks for having me. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (10:20):
I want to turn now briefly to what is turning
out to be one of the largest deportation initiatives in
the world.
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Now I'm not talking about America.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
By the way, what you're looking at there is a
deportation effort that is underway in Iran. Iran is deporting
Afghani's at a rate that shames the United States on
our rate of deporting illegal aliens here. How do we
know this well, our man Oscar Ramirez, usually on the
border of Mexico and the United States. Now on the
(10:56):
border of what Iran and and Jerusalem and Syria and
Jerusalem and those places. I want to bring him in
five from Jerusalem, Real America's Voice correspondent, Oscar Ramirez is here.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Oscar, welcome to the program. Rand As. It was an
honor to be with you. Thank you for the invitation.
Speaker 2 (11:15):
Well, I appreciate you being up very late with us.
It's early in the morning there where you are. Why
don't you tell me what you found, Explain this situation
with Iran and their deportation efforts, and what do you
think America can take away from this?
Speaker 6 (11:28):
Well, I was up in the Golden Heights border with Syria.
There's a lot of activity right now in the border
with Syria, and we received the news that the Iranian
government it is now executing the largest deportation in the world,
and nobody in the West, and I'm meaning nobody in
the West, the West media, the progressive, mercenary activist media.
(11:51):
Nobody's talking about it. Why because it goes against their narrative.
This is the Iranian government. Basically they're putting and executing,
and they already put a deadline and for more than
four million Afghans to tell them, if you don't get
out by this amount of time, we are going to
kick you out. They already have a number, you know,
during the week, two hundred and fifty six thousand. It
(12:13):
is the number that they just started. They are promptly
saying that they this ultimately this only week, they are
going to be going all the way to five hundred
thousand and.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Kick it up a notch.
Speaker 6 (12:24):
Already, international organizations, the United Nations and oh I am
already begging for more money to attend this. They want
to call it a crisis. It's just the Iranian government.
Two things that they said grand it is unsustainable one
of the things that they cannot sustain it. And two
they're doing it for security reasons. So if you do
this in the United States of America, you already know
(12:46):
what's happening.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Right now currently.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Yeah, look, American democrats are screaming and yelling about.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
The deportation effort here.
Speaker 2 (12:56):
They some reason seem to want to protect Iran as
if RAN's a victim and all this. These are democrats
in America. This is probably why they're not talking about this.
But I got to ask you, Oscar, why would Afghanis
want to go to Iran and stay there? And why
is it that Iran wants the Afghanis out?
Speaker 6 (13:16):
Well, it was the only place for them to protection
because of the Taliban, So a lot of them that
were going inevitably and they were being accepted in Iran,
but it was unsustainable, like Iran and saying we cannot
sustain this. It's like every country that access accepts mass, mass,
mass migration, like what happened in the body and disaster
in the four years exactly like that. But Iran is
(13:37):
saying we cannot sustain it anymore. And there's a lot
of internal events which happened happening. Violence has been skyrocking also,
you know, possible terrorism inside of the same place that
is a regime of terror.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
You know, these kind of situations.
Speaker 6 (13:53):
Are right now focusing on expelling and executing the largest
deportation in the world, and it is carried out by Iran.
And it is crazy that in the West you don't
hear anything about it because it is totally against their narratives.
Speaker 2 (14:09):
Last question for you. You've got some video for us.
I want to roll it and let you explain to
me what this is. Apparently Israel Syria border Golan Heights
and a UN camp that we spend a lot of
money on American taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Explain to me what we're looking at. Yeah, this is
zooned off. It is the United Nations.
Speaker 6 (14:27):
That right there, that little boater wall that you see,
that is Israel and going you know, a crossing that boat,
little boat wall that is Syria. That migrant that camp
that you see right there, it is the United Nations
and it is put there under the American tax may or.
At the American tax mayor funds this camp of the
United Nations twenty million dollars per year for more than
(14:48):
twelve hundred Blue helmet soldiers, and their obligation there is
to keep the ceasefire between Syria and Israel.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
Its just totally ridiculous.
Speaker 6 (14:58):
The United States of America needs US up funding the
United Nations. They need to fund the United Nations. These
people just take advantage of humanitary crisis and they create chaos.
And this particular it right there. It is just a
huge camp that is being paid off by the SD
American taxpayer.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Fascinating stuff. Oscar Ramrez. Doesn't matter where you are in
the world, you're always bringing us fabulous news to unpack.
The news isn't always good, but it's always solid work
that you can bring in to us. We appreciate you,
Oscar Amerz. Thank you, my friend, Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
Granted it's aways around it to be with you.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Uh, the honest mind please has always stay safe in
these dangerous places that you find yourself in so often.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
For real America's voice here in all our viewers. All right,
I want to turn now to you. Know this podcaster
Sean Ryan.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I wondered how he burst onto the scene so quickly
and became very popular. He was a Navy seal, a
CIA operative.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
And I have questions about this guy.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
I don't know if he's still working for the intelligence community,
for the deep state. Well, he brings in Governor Gavin
Newsom onto the program and he basically gives Gavin Newsom
a four hour platform to spew nonsense, and Sean Ryan
gives Gavin Newsom a gift. This I actually find offensive
(16:15):
quite frankly, as a guy who used to work for
the National Rifle Association is a big Second Amendment guy rolling.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
So everybody gets a gift. Oh jeez, what do you got? Man?
Here we go. You ready for this? Look Jesus ready
for this. This is an accent. I got to report
this gift man. That is so that is a California compliant.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Oh big sour, this is eight three sixty five macro.
Speaker 7 (16:40):
Come on, man, I don't know exactly what makes by
the way this is this is too cool. The fact
that you would give me this, You like that?
Speaker 1 (16:46):
This up?
Speaker 7 (16:47):
So you just want me to tsa to take this
from me in my after Fort's here for it. I'm
on to you man, all right.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
So he gives them a California compliance sig so hour,
which is quite Galvenus has probably never held a firearm
in his life. The fact that it's California compliant, to me,
is offensive with what California has done to minimize the
not only capacity of these firearms, but their ability to
work properly and then Gavin USO wants to claim he's
(17:19):
a big Second Amendment guy.
Speaker 7 (17:21):
You know what last thing people would expect is that
I respect this gift.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
Really, I appreciate that man. I'm not an anti gun
at all. I'm for just some gun safe common sense
that I.
Speaker 7 (17:32):
Think vast majority of folks in the right and the
left degree, and I think we've lost a little touch
with some common sense around background checks. I think there's
an age appropriateness. I do have some you know, I'm
challenged by large capacity magazine clips and urban centers, and
you know, weapons of war that are out.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
There again avenuesome. You don't care about what we think,
because I've told you a million times they're not clips,
the magazine and our military would be embarrassed to use
an AR fifteen that's a semi automatic fire. I'm not automatic.
They're not weapons of war. This is a clear fact.
But again he lies because that man has signed over
(18:14):
seventy pieces of legislation to take away your Second Amendment right.
I want to bring in now a guy who knows
about all this full well gun. Breitbart columnist AWR Hawkins
is with us.
Speaker 1 (18:26):
AWR, welcome back. Good to be with you.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
What did you make of this interview, Awr?
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Same thing you did.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
I mean, he says he's a pro Second Amendment, and
then he goes on to push background checks, a age
requirement limit to purchase firearms. He pushes his legislation against
AR fifteens, and as you say, he pushes a ban
on magazine clips.
Speaker 1 (18:55):
I still don't know what those are, but he wants
to ban it magazine clips.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Two is these throwing both terms in there, which is
really something else?
Speaker 1 (19:04):
All right, let me play another clip from.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Gavin Newsom, because the hitch just keep on coming and
I want to get your response to this one.
Speaker 1 (19:12):
Play the next one.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
Guys outgunning the police, and I've experienced that directly with
the loss of a police officer who was gunned down
by an AK forty seven and the police were outgunning
baby Owner's point in San Francisco. But otherwise, man, people
are the right to bare arms, and I got no
ideological opposition to that at all.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
So again, an AK forty seven outgunning the police.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
One.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Many police cruisers carry at AK or at equivalent AR fifteen.
But you notice what he said there, Awr. He was
gunned down by an AK forty seven. Last I checked,
it's the person behind the gun that is gunning anybody
down who uses it.
Speaker 1 (19:50):
AWR, No, it's it.
Speaker 8 (19:53):
That's typical lift to speak though, You've got to demonize
the whip and that's what they've spent. Now what did
they spent Grant thirty years demonizing the AR fifteen and
of course the AK forty seven. So he has to
speak that way, and he speaks that way because completely
opposite of what he's saying. He is ideologically opposed to
the Second Amendment. You can't be pro Second Amendment and
(20:15):
then say but it has to be this way, you
can't have this type of gun, you have to be
this age, you have to go through this background check,
blah blah blah. I've said a million times and I've
written on it. You know, California has more gun control
than any other state, Grant more than any and in
twenty twenty one, in twenty twenty three, they led the
nation in active shooter incidents. So it's not only insulting
(20:36):
that he is pro gun controlled and says he's not,
but it's double insulting because his gun control is a failure.
Speaker 1 (20:43):
You know, you and I have talked about this.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
The Second Amendment is the only constitutional right that you
have to often pay to exercise.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
You got to get your gun license.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Could you imagine reporters had to get a First Amendment license?
Or if you were a homeowner and you didn't pay
your right to illegal search and seizure, you didn't pay
that fee, so the police could.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Just come on into your house. Nowhere else do we
see this?
Speaker 2 (21:10):
And then Gavin Newsom as the audassy to talk about it,
he uses the phrase anymore. I think you were the
first guy to tip me off on this. They don't
say gun control anymore. They say gun safety. Everybody wants
gun safety, but they mean gun control, don't they.
Speaker 8 (21:25):
That's it, Yeah, that's just They went through that change
when they were trying to get background checks in Washington
State and when was that twenty fourteen? And that's when
I started noticing they've moved from gun control. Shannon Watts,
who is not the brightest bulb in the house, Shannon
Watts was the one doing it predominantly, and she was
shifting from gun control to gun safety. I'm a gun
(21:47):
safety advocate and what that means is they want to
take your guns away and that's when he gets down
to it. That's what it is, and Gavin Newsom, you
know it, Grant, I'm not telling you anything. He's just
positioning himself for a White House run. And no matter
what the liberals say, they know ultimately gun control is
a loser. It's not a winner, and that's why he
(22:09):
has to distance himself from it.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Right now, let me ask you one last question.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
I don't even know if you know Sean Ryan that
well or why listen to his podcast. He does something
are really interesting when he brings the veterans in and
talks to what they went through.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
I'm always fasceted. But lately he's been going down this
very weird road.
Speaker 2 (22:26):
And I don't know why a guy like this would
give a platform to Gavin Newsom for four hours and
everything I saw, he didn't really confront him on many
of the issues. What do you think's going on there?
Speaker 1 (22:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 8 (22:40):
I have the same feelings you do. I was uncomfortable
that he gave him the gun, even let him spew
that bs about being pro Second Amendment.
Speaker 1 (22:48):
He's not pro Second Amendment.
Speaker 8 (22:50):
And you've got to call him on the You got
to call him on the carpet when he says he is,
and so I have the same concerns you do. I
don't know Sean Ryan well enough to be critical of him.
I haven't had that much exposure to him. I know
who he is, but this particular podcast bothered me. My friend.
Speaker 1 (23:07):
I'm just like you.
Speaker 8 (23:08):
I have about the same opinions.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
Well, everybody out there that knows AWR and I we
think a lot alike on just about most issues.
Speaker 1 (23:18):
So it's one of the reasons why I have you
on all the time.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
I respect your opinion, AWR Hawkins, and great work over
there at Breitbart. Keep up the good work, and we
appreciate you coming on, my friend. All right, as we
move on, folks, lessen to me. Trump administration is bringing
positive changes to our healthcare system. But to truly make
America healthy again, it starts at home with you. The
(23:42):
Wellness Company offers top quality products to keep you and
your family safe and healthy. This is one of them,
prescription medical kits that include life saving medications and guide books.
Plus they offer a parasite cleanse, weight loss solutions, and
so much more to live a longer, healthier life. And
this field kit is pretty awesome too. Here's what I
want you to do. Go to TWC Dot Health Forward
(24:03):
slash Voice, use the promo code voice and save ten percent.
That's TWC Dot Health Forward slash Voice promo.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
Code voice to save ten percent. All right, we're gonna
talk about Jeffrey Epstein next.
Speaker 2 (24:16):
My co host out on AMA seventy in Los Angeles
had the most simple explanation for what's going on. It
was so simple. It may be plausible, but it might
not make you happy. We'll talk about that next. All right, folks,
(24:41):
here's the latest update on Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump now
says the Democrats had doctored the Jeffrey Epstein files. Well,
I wouldn't put that past them for sure. So with that,
he recommended this for Pam Bondi today in terms.
Speaker 9 (24:57):
Of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.
And I would say that, you know, these files were
made up by Komi, they were made up by Obama,
they were made up by but the biting from you know,
uh we and we went through years of that with
the Russia Russia Russia hoax, with all of the different things.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
That we had to go through. We've gone through years
of it.
Speaker 9 (25:18):
But she's handled it very well, and it's going to
be up to her. Whatever she thinks is credible, she
should release you, all right.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
So that's somewhat new to President Trump from the last
comment we're still talking about Emstein.
Speaker 1 (25:31):
He says, hey, let's release what's credible. I'm okay with that.
Speaker 2 (25:35):
And in many respects that's thanks to all of you
programs like this that are putting the pressure on. Don't
let us down, mister President. I don't think he's going
to now. I told you I believe this is a
Middle East deal that there may be Saudi's on this list,
very important Saudis people in Israel that could throw the
peace process up up into a fray where doesn't want
(25:57):
to go. This was Mike Ben's on Stinchfield last week,
talk about where Jeffrey Epstein may have made some of
his money.
Speaker 1 (26:05):
You know, we were always told he made.
Speaker 2 (26:06):
All his money through blackmail, but maybe that wasn't necessarily true.
Speaker 10 (26:11):
Listen, money fixer and money launder for odd Non Koshogi,
the CIA's main illicit arms trafficker during the Iran Contra
affair and dating back thirty years, odd Nan Koshogi was
the largest arms dealer in the world. He was the
CIA and DoD's main guy for transporting and brokering weapons deals,
(26:37):
especially ones where the money trail couldn't be tracked. And
Jeffrey Epstein was the guy who made the money untrackable.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
So we were.
Speaker 2 (26:46):
Always told there was no other way Jeffrey Epstein made
money but his blackmail and sex trafficking operations. But Mike
Ben says, Jeffrey Epstein was integral and ad non Koshogi,
who was a Saudi running guns during Iran conference scandal
and beyond at one point worth four billion dollars. Maybe
Epstein got his money there. So what if there's there's
(27:10):
Well I was going to say more to the Epstein story,
but what if there's actually less to the Epstein story.
This was an idea my co host out on the
Morning Answer in Los Angeles on AM eight seventy rays
this morning, and I thought, you know what, come on
and lay this out for us, And that's what we
did today.
Speaker 1 (27:26):
Has brought Jennifer Horn back.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
Jen why don't you just lay it out for me?
What are you thinking there could be a possibility here.
Speaker 11 (27:34):
I preface this by saying nobody knows anything because anybody
who has said that they've known something has not been
able to show us anything. So thanks for having me tonight, Grant.
And it just sort of hit me. As we've been
talking about this, we've all been so disappointed members of
the MAGA community, been disappointed that there hasn't been the
transparency that we thought, and it just made me think,
what if there's less than we've thought. Think about Jeffrey Epstein. First,
(27:58):
I want to be very clear. I think guy is
really a scum guy. He's a bad guy. He's somebody
who wanted to pray on young women. I think that's
very clear. But what if it didn't go so deep.
What if people have been making themselves famous and making
themselves rich really spinning up this story. I mean, you know,
(28:19):
I love true crime documentaries. I have watched a ton
of documentaries on Jeffrey Epstein. And literally there are only
seven women that we have ever seen named with the
Jeffrey Epstein story. Now there are others who are mentioned
in court documents whose names are redacted. We also know
zero people who have been confirmed as being on a
(28:40):
blackmail list of Jeffrey Epstein. The most prominent, of course,
Bill Clinton, Donald Trump. Of course, people like to throw
that one around politically, which I don't believe at all,
and others that were mentioned, but we don't really have
any real proof. Even people in the documentary who are
eyewitnesses to this stuff said, yes, were young women around,
(29:01):
but they really couldn't give us any proof.
Speaker 1 (29:03):
So it just it came to me that there are.
Speaker 11 (29:05):
A lot of people who have made careers, influencers, who
have made themselves famous by covering this, by promising us
that there's something more. Maybe there just isn't grant. I mean,
it's a possibility. Nobody knows.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Well, look, you raise a good point, because what I
have heard over the years is that there were thousands
of victims. At one point, we were told thousands that
he was sex trafficking girls left and right. Then you
said it, why don't we have more than just seven
that have come forward. You know, there's Prince Andrew as well,
(29:41):
and there's something going on there, but him and Bill
Clinton are really the only two that have been named,
And why don't we have more of the people?
Speaker 1 (29:50):
That's it?
Speaker 11 (29:51):
And by the way, if Jeffrey Epstein is dead and
we have President Trump saying let's move on and we
have Glaine Maxwell and Jail. Then I know we hear
from the people who either thought they might have been
on the list or it was a rumor that they
were in the circle of Jeffrey Epstein, or even more
from the women who could have been caught up in
all of this. It just seems strange to me. And
(30:12):
one thing I know by being in this business, Grant
and you two and I have to give you props.
You and I both look for the truth, sometimes at
the detriment to our own followings.
Speaker 1 (30:20):
But there are a lot of people who love to.
Speaker 11 (30:22):
Spend salacious stories to get famous and to make a
name for themselves. And then when the rubber meets the road,
maybe there's not as much there as we thought. So
one of I mean, anything is up in the air,
anything is up for grabs. But maybe it is as
President Trump said, maybe there isn't as much.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
As we think.
Speaker 2 (30:42):
One of the things that lends credibility to this theory
is that Dan Bongino and Cash Betel are two men
that I trust, and I don't think they would lie
to us. And if you are under the assumption that
Dan and Cash are not going to lie to us,
that they get in there and then they're not seeing.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
What they're supposed to see.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Maybe they're not seeing it because the evidence has been destroyed,
as my buddy Roger Stone, and I also think is
a real possibility in all of this. As you know,
I believe in the Middle East connections all this, but
your theory holds holds water here that you know, maybe
he made it someplace else. Everybody from prosecutors to influencers, including.
Speaker 1 (31:21):
Dan Bonji, he talked about this.
Speaker 2 (31:23):
All the time and it reminds me a lot jen
of Adam Schiff and Russian collusion. Adam Schiff knows he
was lying about what was in the Russian collusion file
because he never saw anything that he talked about, but
he was probably told and heard and the stories were flying,
and everybody just thinks it's safe to say it's there,
(31:44):
trusting the other guy, when in the end, nobody's seen
a damn thing, And oh he ended up doing was
lying to the American public.
Speaker 11 (31:52):
And I think that's possible with Pam Bondi too, saying
I've got everything on my desk, Well, maybe everything wasn't
what we think everything has been. And I also think
that's a source of frustration. Look, I love Dan Bongino,
you know that. I have such great respect for him
and Cash Ftel particularly, and I don't want to believe
that there would be any kind of lies that they
would tell out of the FBI.
Speaker 1 (32:12):
That's the reason we support them.
Speaker 11 (32:13):
They're great communicators and they also are looking for truth
and transparency. But maybe that's why Dan Bongino is frustrated.
I mean, for years he's been part of this. People
have probably told him things that they had seen firsthand,
and maybe that stuff just wasn't there. I mean, there's
obviously the reports of frustration on his part. Maybe that's
a piece of it.
Speaker 2 (32:33):
Well, look again, you summed it up in the beginning.
All of this is really speculation. We're not getting any
answers from our government right now, so we're speculating. It's
one possible theory of many possible theories.
Speaker 1 (32:46):
But we'll throw them out there and let the people decide.
Speaker 2 (32:49):
Jennifer Horne, I will see you bright in early out
there in Los Angeles on AMA seventy six to nine
am Pacific time, nine to twelve Eastern time. You can
find us on Rumble just search the morning and jen Horn,
thank you, Thank you grit.
Speaker 1 (33:04):
Absolutely. I'm gonna tell you some folks, it's a fun show.
It really is.
Speaker 2 (33:07):
It's morning, right, so we laugh a little more than
we do here on this program at night, but you
would enjoy. Go to Rumble, search the Morning Answer and
check us out Tomorrow ninth to twelve Eastern time. All right,
if you're stressed about back taxes, miss the April deadlineer
have messy books, don't wait. The IRS is cracking down
hard and penalties add up best. But Tax Network USA
(33:29):
can help with direct access to powerful IRS programs and
expert negotiators. Tax Network USA knows how to win. Get
your free consultation and see if you qualify to reduce
or eliminate what you owe. They can also help you
protect you from wage garnishments or bank levies. So don't
wait for the next IRS letter. Call eight hundred nine
oh five eight thousand, or visit TNUSA dot com forward
(33:51):
slash rev to talk to a real expert at Tax
Network USA. All right, parasitic screwworms are impacting our livestock.
What if I told you the government's going to build
fly factories in Texas? Just fly factories to release flies
at the dead of night over the Texas skies.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
I don't like this.
Speaker 2 (34:15):
I'll tell you about it next. Welcome back everyone. What
have I told you? In the United States government is
spending twenty six million dollars to build a giant fly
factory on the Mexican Texas border.
Speaker 1 (34:36):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
They plan on releasing billions of flies into the night
sky in Texas to combat.
Speaker 1 (34:43):
The New World screw worm.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
You might say, what the heck is that, Well, it
is a worm that is bred by flies.
Speaker 1 (34:50):
It gets into open wounds of.
Speaker 2 (34:52):
Cattle and then the worms you see on your screen
there grow pretty darn big and they virtually eat the
cattle alive. Because of this, US Department of Agriculture has
now shut down trade of livestock from Mexico into the
United States. This screwworm was eradicated, but then we saw
it pop back up in Honduras and Guatemala, and now
(35:15):
it has moved into Mexico.
Speaker 1 (35:17):
So now we're going to release these flies.
Speaker 2 (35:19):
I don't like that idea because I don't really trust
our government. I don't mind shutting down livestock, but I
wonder what more is at play here. I want to
bring in now to discuss all of this. The president
of the United States Cattleman's Association, Justin Tupper, is with us.
Speaker 1 (35:34):
Justin as a pleasure to have you on the program.
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Appreciate it all right, what do you make of one
shutting down trade with Mexico. That's got to probably help
US cattle ranchers, especially independents not having competition from the South.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
But what do you make of this and the screwworm?
Speaker 12 (35:56):
Well, I think first and foremost, you know, well, a
lot of my peers back in the sixties when the
screw worm was a problem and I was not around then,
I believe it was a huge, huge thing and impacted
their lives deeply and the cattle industry. So I think
anything we can do to try to keep that new
world screw worm from getting here to the United States
(36:18):
and infecting a cattle herd that is already at its
lowest levels since the nineteen seventies is a good thing.
But we were getting some mixed signals from the government.
They shut the border down, then they decided to open it,
and they were going to do it in a staggered fashion,
And then again just the other day they decided to
close it because I think the transparency from Mexico may
(36:39):
not be everything we need.
Speaker 2 (36:42):
Yeah, what do you make of the idea of breeding
flies to combat all of this?
Speaker 12 (36:48):
I've been doing quite a little talking and research on this.
That is one of the ways they eradicated it in
the sixties is with sterile flies and making sure that
they can't reproduce. I'm not an epidemiologist, I'm not sure
on exactly how all that works, but it was some
technology that was still used to clear back in the sixties.
Speaker 2 (37:10):
Yeah, the thought is for everybody at home, is that
the sterile flies well, then attempt to breed with the
flies that are infected. Obviously they're sterile, so that doesn't happen,
and in the end.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
You reduce the population.
Speaker 2 (37:24):
You know, as my friend doctor Peter McCullough, who's a
great freethinking doctor, said, is it better to increase more
flies into the environment or would you rather try.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
To reduce the flies some way? Would you know?
Speaker 2 (37:40):
I mean obviously going out and insecticides of those kinds
of things. Nobody likes to talk about that, but would
reducing the fly population be a better way of going
about this?
Speaker 1 (37:51):
And that's a great question.
Speaker 2 (37:53):
You know.
Speaker 12 (37:53):
I would hope that we have some new sciences since
the sixties, the last time that we had to fight
this new World's crew worm, and are able to combat
it that way. But right now, from the people that
we talk to, these sterile flies seem to be their
best notion from the federal government how to combat this
from getting to the United States or at least containing
(38:16):
it to the best they can once agains here.
Speaker 2 (38:19):
All right now, I hate bringing up the idea of
conspiracy theories, but my government over the last few years
has really taught me that most of my conspiracy theories
come true. So I'm left wondering, how in the world
are these screw worms that were once eradicate it start
popping up down south and moving towards the United States.
Speaker 1 (38:38):
And then I think of China.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
We don't import a lot of meat from China, but
would China have an incentive to introduce something like this.
We know they own farmland in the United States to
ultimately say, hey, you know what, now that we can't
take beef in and cattle from South America, in Central
(39:00):
America and Mexico, maybe we got to turn to China.
Or maybe they're trying to make us so we don't
have a lot of beef. How concerned are you about
China and the ranching industry and agriculture in general.
Speaker 12 (39:12):
Well, I think very You know, at US Cattleman's we
believe food security is national security, and I think if
they can infiltrate to our systems and our food within
this country that if we can't understand that that's national security,
then we got a big problem. And I do think
that we have to look at these things and measure
(39:33):
them the best we can. I'm with you, I don't
know that because it's in Mexico and trying to eradicate
it before it gets here. We know that the federal
government is not to be trusted for sure in Mexico,
so I think there's a lot of problems with that.
We do know we have the lowest numbers of cows
in our country since the seventies, so we have a
(39:55):
cow herd that's already limited, and if we get hit
with this strue worm, that could be big, big time
for the industry. That we will see epidemic levels again
like we did during COVID when some of the shelves
aren't full.
Speaker 1 (40:10):
Justin real quick, why are the cattle numbers down?
Speaker 12 (40:13):
You know, there's a lot of mitigating factors. One, the
economy of it was not good for a lot of years.
It was not very affordable, didn't make a lot of money.
We had a lot of droughts across the country. It
was kind of a perfect storm. Is why we're down
on cattle numbers. But we're going to have to try
to rebuild. We do see prices increasing, so I think
we'll see the herd start to rebuild in the near future.
Speaker 1 (40:37):
Yeah. Well, it's fascinating stuff.
Speaker 2 (40:40):
Keep us posting on this because this could be end
up being a real problem. And I will tell everybody
out there first and foremost, I'm a beef eater, so
I'll love what you guys do with us cattle means.
And I'm told there's a few organizations out there, but
you are part of the good guys. I literally had
people I trust that says you want to talk about cattle,
go to US cattle and justin Tupper, no surprise, you
(41:02):
did great tonight. Thank you for coming on.
Speaker 12 (41:05):
Hey, thanks for having us in the safest, best protein
on the planet, beef.
Speaker 1 (41:10):
Amen to that.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
And look, I love I love my red meat and
I love my beef, and so that ain't stopping.
Speaker 1 (41:17):
So keep the screwworm away, Okay. I just don't know
about doing it with these flies. I'm telling you something
doesn't had up with this. I don't like it, all right.
Speaker 2 (41:27):
President Trump's bold moves in Washington are delivering results. But
your financial future that's on you. With rising inflation, soaring debt,
and global uncertainty, it's time to diversify with Birch Gold Group.
Speaker 1 (41:41):
Gold is up forty percent.
Speaker 2 (41:42):
In the last year, and central banks are buying it
in record levels. Why gold holds value when paper money falters.
Birch Gold makes it simple to convert your IRA or
four oh one k into way gold IRA or buy
physical gold for home storage. Text America to the number
nine eight nine eight nine eight for your free info
kid on Gold, no cost, no obligation, just smart information.
(42:03):
Text America to the number nine eight nine eight nine eight.
Speaker 1 (42:06):
Take control today, all right.
Speaker 2 (42:08):
A maorial candidate in Minneapolis is here to give you,
is here to give New York Cities Bam Dani a
run for his money.
Speaker 1 (42:20):
That is next. We'll be back everyone. I want to
talk a little bit.
Speaker 2 (42:34):
About the inflation numbers that the left and even some
Rhino Republicans are streaming the sky is falling. So we
went from two point four percent to two point seven
percent rate of inflation to two point seven percent being
year over year inflation. Now, this says far lower than
what it was under Joe Biden. But here's what the
(42:56):
mainstream media misses. You see that year over year wage growth,
wage growth is at three point seven percent, inflation at
two point seven percent, which means the country as a whole,
people in it are making one percent more than the
cost of things arising.
Speaker 1 (43:16):
That's good news, Okay.
Speaker 2 (43:18):
For all of this, and two point four percent to
two point seven percent month to month, they want to
cry and scream about tariffs. I just don't see it.
This is Treasury Secretary Scott Besson.
Speaker 13 (43:31):
But I wouldn't put too much emphasis on one number.
I think it's the trend. And I think one thing
that Wall Street, a lot of economist market in general
got wrong early on was that tariffs were going to
cause a substantial price level rise, which just hasn't happened.
Speaker 1 (43:54):
And you know it hasn't happened yet.
Speaker 2 (43:56):
I thought we would see it quicker if it was
going to happen, and it.
Speaker 1 (44:00):
Turns out it didn't happen.
Speaker 2 (44:02):
Something we told you the most likely scenario was you
wouldn't see a sharp rise.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Now, it may continue to go up a little bit.
Speaker 2 (44:08):
But if wa just continue to go up the way
they are under President Trump.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Then we have no problems.
Speaker 2 (44:14):
And we are far lower at a rate of inflation
than we ever were under Joe Biden. President Trump getting
this back down thanks in large part to oil prices
coming down. This is President Trump talking about the inflation numbers.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
I know there was very little inflation.
Speaker 9 (44:30):
As you know, the numbers were very good, very much
inside the margin. So we've had no inflation. All we
have is we're making a fortune. We are taking in
hundreds of billions of dollars. You So we had a
surplus of twenty five billion dollars last month, which we
haven't had in many, many years.
Speaker 1 (44:50):
Excuse me, we had a surplus.
Speaker 2 (44:53):
We haven't had that as long as I've been an adult,
I don't think. So this is is what we get
with President Trump. We've got money coming in now. He
just announced a new deal with Indonesia today, and so
again we're getting our economy back on track, but that
doesn't stop the leftists from spewing their laws.
Speaker 1 (45:14):
Do not believe them.
Speaker 2 (45:15):
Here's on CNN Yahoo finance columnist.
Speaker 14 (45:20):
What's most worrying about this is this is exactly the
sort of effect economists have been watching for from the
terroriffts that Trump has put on on nearly three trillion
dollars worth of imports, and more than that, we saw
unusual increases in a few product categories such as sporting
goods and toys and appliances that are dominated by imports.
(45:41):
So that tells you that the tax on imports that
Trump has put on all these products is starting to
filter through to the economy.
Speaker 2 (45:50):
No, what it tells me is that even if the
tariffs do filter down to some items, it's not items
that are life or death for the American people. Toys,
sporting goods, Okay, come on, we're nazi. Are the things
are critical for people's lives? And so to me, this
(46:11):
again is good news. I'm with the President that this
is all well within the margin, and do not freak
out over inflation numbers ticking up when they were at
eight nine ten percent under Joe Biden and we're now
back to as I said two point seven percent. All right, folks,
coming up next, let's have some fun with well that
(46:35):
little bundle of joy next. All right, we call this
segment left wing ding Dongs Exposed Roland and so my
maga darlings.
Speaker 15 (46:54):
Well, you guys are busy bragging about drinking liberal tiers
and laughing at my booger ring, I will be busy
calling you guys the American Fascist Party, along with all
the other countries that are on the right page.
Speaker 1 (47:06):
Good day.
Speaker 2 (47:09):
Ooh, the Fascist Party. I'm so offended by that, you know,
I got to think of it. They always use this
term fascist. I don't even think they know what it
means to me. Fascism is a centralized government with a
strong dictorial style leader. Okay, that's Obama, all right? That
was the fascist of that we saw in this country.
(47:30):
We want limited government. President Trump wants limited government. He
hasn't want government in the way dictating your every move.
Didn't that happen under Joe Biden as well? Joe Biden
wasn't a very big personality, though he was a personality,
just not a big personality. I think they're the fascist
not us. It's gonna do it for us Stinchfield's army rolls.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
Thanks to all of you, We'll see tomorrow
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.