From Somalis in Minnesota, to companies doling out fake service animal certificates, Democrats are enabling them. Trump's advisors urge him to start talking about affordability, an issue in which the Democrats deserve all the blame. And Tom Homan says 60,000 smuggled children have been rescued from human traffickers because of the immigration crackdown.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
You know how those magicians start all these tricks. Take
a card, take any car, all right, I'm starting that way,
sort of, Take a scam, any scam. Now. The thing
with magician card tricks is, I imagine every now and
then the magician's trick doesn't work. Something screws up, or
the magician screws up, or something happens. But usually if
(00:41):
you're any good at magic, these tricks work the same
thing with this. Pick a scam. Just pick any scam.
You can all pick one out in your own mind.
Just pick a scam. There's zillions of scams. I love scams.
They helped me prove my point. Paul doesn't know anything
about scams. He's very very naive. I think that if
you you know, if I was a scammer, I targeted
(01:01):
him right and left, and just again and again and
again and again and again and again. Nonetheless, Pick atty scam,
all right, you've done that. Whatever that scam is that
you've picked in your mind. Tell me that it isn't
enabled by Democrats. There's a reason that almost all scammers
(01:24):
are Democrats. For instance, are there any Somali Republicans? I mean,
I swear they talk about, Well, the Democrats pandered the
Somali vote. That's why yilan Omar and all of that.
That's why they couldn't go the whistle other thing in Minnesota?
Are there any Somalis that are Republicans? Look at all
of the people who scam welfare programs here in the
(01:45):
big American cities. They're all Democrats. They all know who
it is that provides cover for them. The Democrats are
the offensive line and the scammers of the running backs.
Now we're going to start here with a story that
we covered only a couple of podcasts ago, because there's
a big update on it. If you are behind in
(02:09):
your podcast, or if you're somebody who commits the terrible
sin of not listening to every one of them. We
did a segment on the people that are scamming here
in Wisconsin the Service Dog program in order to get
around the requirement, get around the restriction against pets in
a rental property. A lot of rental properties say no pets,
(02:32):
but the law requires that you accept service animals even
if you don't accept other pets. You can't say no pets.
In therefore, the service animal can't commit. So what happens?
There are people out there that are certifying every snail, duck, snake,
(02:52):
pit bull as a service animal. We talked about that recently.
There's an update on that, And again, where did I
start this? Procrasts provide cover for all scammers. First, you
Line moves fast, almost as fast as I'm talking here.
You line moves fast so your business doesn't miss a beat.
From shipping at industrial supplies to office furniture, you line
(03:12):
offers a wide range of products that are in stock
and ready to ship the same day if you order
by six pm, even the big stuff. You Line's expert
customer service team is available twenty four to seven to
answer your questions, help you quickly and easily place it, order,
or assist with any other business needs. Visit you line
dot com. Anyway, we were discussing this issue with regard
(03:37):
to the fake service animals and emotional support animals. The
Republicans well, the Wisconsin legislature passed because the legislature writer
is controlled by Republicans. It has got to be done.
With the Republican votes, they passed a bill that will
crack down on the abuse of this. It has become
a significant issue and problem for a lot of rental
(04:00):
property owners and their residents. Many people, for example, prefer
to move into a building with no pets allowed. Obviously,
if you have a pet, you don't want to move
into that building. Some property owners simply don't want the
damage caused by pets, etc. And a whole lot of businesses,
including a zillions of hotels, they say pets are welcome
(04:21):
because a lot of people have pets, et cetera. So
it's a situation that the marketplace can easily work on. Nonetheless,
it's become a major problem because there are a lot
of people who have animals and want to live in
places where no animals are allowed. So they just get
a certification that they're a service animal, even though they're not,
and even though the person doesn't need any kind of service.
(04:46):
There are guide dogs for the blind. I swear I
don't know really of any other kind of people who
need a service animal. There are some They started this
whole thing of emotional support and it's just I think
it was for people that had extreme neuroses where they
were just scared of life, and some having an animal
(05:07):
make them feel better. Now it's everybody with anxiety, which
apparently is everybody under the age of fifty. I start anxiety, anxiety.
I watched these YouTube videos of somebody being pulled over
for a cop I have anxiety. How come they all
have anxiety? It's the cop. Yeah, you want to find
somebody as anxiety a cop? See. I see. The thing
(05:28):
is everybody has anxiety. It's only people that are like
under the age of forty who decided that their anxiety
is something that the rest of the world should give
a crap about. Of course you have anxiety. You've been
pulled over by the cops and you have drugs in
your car. Of course you have anxiety about that. Anyway,
So we passed this bill in Wisconsin, passed the Assembly
(05:51):
on the Senate, pulling back on this and requiring much
more stringent regulations to provide certification for a service atible.
Tony Evers vetoed the bill. So far as I can tell,
this bill wasn't even controversial. You wouldn't think that abuse
(06:14):
of the service animal thing would be a Democrat versus
Republican issue. I'm sure some of the people who scam
the service animal thing are Republicans, and I'm sure that
some of the people that are bothered by the scam
and victimized by it are Democrats. But when it comes
to any type of scamming, the party that gives cover
for the scammers is the Democrats. So you know, when
(06:38):
evers is is a veto, he's got to give reasons
for it. Now, I'm gonna tell you what the reason
he vetoed it is. You know what the real reason
he vetoed He's an idiot. Well, I mean, that's a
part of it. The reason he vetoed it is because
the Republicans passed it. This is just this snit that
they have. You see, at the same you talk about
(07:01):
prompt arrangement syndrome, but it's really becoming Republican rangers and well,
Republicans passed the bill. We're just we're just against it.
But he's got to come up with raisins. And he said,
first of all, you should have included the disability community
and your discussions on this. First of all, I don't
even know who's the disability community. People with legitimate disabilities
(07:23):
and have an advocacy group, or everybody who just Clay,
I mean, who is supposed to include. Secondly, what does
that have anything to do with whether or not the
bill is properly crowded. He doesn't put anything in his
veto message as to what is flawed in the bill. Well,
it should have included these people, and it may not
(07:44):
take it a consideration. This and a letter of the
Wisconsin Assembly. Evers said he wants to prevent fraudulent representation.
But see that's the thing number goods. Well, yeah, I
want to do that, except, of course they never can
come up with a way to do it. For the Democrats,
(08:05):
every scammer is a Somali, and as we've seen in Minnesota,
they all knew that the Somalis were scamming the programs
that dealt with COVID and so on, but they didn't
want to do anything about it because they didn't want
to lose the Somali vote. Now, the only way that
makes any sense is if they assumed that all Somalis
are scammers. I don't know if all Samalis are scammers,
but we know the Democrats think that way because they
(08:26):
didn't want to stop the scammers for Somalis, for fear
that all Somalis would then turn against them. Bringing us
back to Ebers, but vit to the bill because he
felt it unfairly affects people with disabilities who have legitimate needs.
He doesn't specify how that legislation does that, he just
says it. He also said the bill should have been
developed with input from disability advocates and stakeholders. Okay, we're
(08:49):
gonna move on now, but hold that thought there. No
matter what the scam is serious level of serious like this,
trivial Democrats provides provide cover for the scammers. This doesn't
(09:15):
fall directly into the level of scam because it's something
beyond that. There's a very interesting development on the issue
of the m RNA vaccines Mountain. There is significant confusion
here with regard to COVID vaccines. Not all of them
(09:37):
were mRNA vaccines. One of those that is still available
is a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines were the
ones that developed were developed by Moderna and Pfizer. They
were thought to be the most effective against the COVID
nineteen virus, but they were very, very new and radical
in the way that they worked. They caused this development
(10:00):
of spike protein in your body, and this is supposed
to help out your immune system. So the focus here
is only on the mRNA vaccines. When they were developed,
they were given an emergency approval, and the emergency approval
means that meant that you didn't have to go through
a long term check of side effects, downsides and so on.
(10:24):
The vaccines have now been out that vaccines were developed
right at the end of twenty Most people didn't start
getting them until twenty twenty one, so about five years
into this if people having gotten them, we're beginning to
get And as I said, I think it would take
fifteen to twenty years to know long term whether or
not these things were a good thing or a bad thing.
And since that was the case, best to be very,
(10:47):
very cautious. The greater the risk you were for COVID,
the more it seemed to be that it was a
good idea. The less you were at a risk, the
less if you would be dying of COVID, then for example,
dying of a side effect from the vaccine, maybe you
would err on the side of getting the vaccine. On
(11:09):
the other hand, you're somebody highly unlikely to die of
the vaccine. You would seem to err on the side
of not getting it because the downside of the vaccine
may outweigh the downside of you getting COVID or getting
a serious case of COVID. Anyway, the head of the
CDC during the time that these vaccines were approved is
(11:33):
now calling for the mRNA COVID vaccines to be pulled
off the market. This is a story you will not
I shouldn't say not. You will likely not see in
the mainstream media, and if it is in the mainstream media,
downplayed Robert Redfield. He was the head of the CDC
from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty. And you said, well,
(11:54):
he was a Trumper. Remember that the vaccines were developed
under Trump, they were beginning, they were distributed under Biden.
Operation warp speed was Trump and Trump was putting on
the gas fitalist. Let's get going with the vaccines. Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines.
So the CDC during the period of Trump was not
anti vax not in hisharst term. Robert Redfield. Let me
(12:20):
quote from an interview he gave to the Epic Times.
COVID vaccines from Pfizer and MODERNA should be pulled from circulation.
Centers for Disease Control of Prevention official said in a
new interview quote, I would really like to see the
mRNA vaccine use curtailed, and personally, I'd like to see
it eliminated. There are simply too many unknowns. Robert Redfield
(12:44):
said he's been treating patients who have so called long COVID.
For I heard about long COVID. No one knows for
certain if long COVID is directly because of COVID nineteen,
but it's suspected. Long COVID are the people who didn't
bounce out of COVID and just have developed a number
(13:05):
of long term kind of their lengthy malais in their
lives and so on. Anyway, Redfield, who's a physician no
longer than in the CDC, he said he's been treating
a number of people with long COVID. Now listen to
what he has to say here and again, this is
a guy who has a bias toward thinking that the
MRA vaccines were good because they were developed when he
was at the CDC. But he apparently has an open mind,
(13:26):
he said, as well as people suffering from vaccine injuries.
He said he still favors a protein based COVID nineteen
vaccine from Novavax. Now again, Novavax is the one that's
a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are Pfizer and
moreto He said he still supports the one from Novavax,
but no longer advises receiving the mRNA shots, even though
(13:49):
he thinks they prevented deaths among seniors early in the pandemics.
He said, Look, I do think these shots did provide
some protection against COVID, and of course, as we all know,
I think we knew it at the time, but we
certainly know in retrospect who died from COVID, old people
and people who had lots of other abidities. So Redfield
saying he did think that they did provide help for
(14:11):
that group that was at highest risk. Now, you recall
my commentary on all of this is the one size
fits all, one size fits all, I just as I
can teach it just it was insane to me that
people would give these things to kids. Find the long
list of kids who died of COVID. It doesn't exist.
(14:32):
So what are you in the world are you doing?
Putting a jab of something that you have. We've never
have any idea what it's going to mean long term,
because a brand new kind of thing and giving it
to a kid who isn't going to get not only die,
or get even very sick from COVID. So again Redfield
saying he does think that when COVID was really roaring
through in twenty one and twenty two, it did work
(14:54):
to aid some people extremely high risk by knocking down
the seriousness of the virus they got. Anyway, quote, I
don't advocate the mRNA vaccines anymore because as you get
to the idea of vaccine injury, which I give you
an mRNA vaccine, what I do is turn your body
(15:15):
into a spike protein production factory, and spike protein is
a very immune, a toxic protein. In other words, he's
you know, when the mRNA vaccines redeveloped. Okay, it gives
you spike protein, but it's going to fade right out
of your body real quickly. There's a strong body of
evidence that it's not that the spike protein sticks around
long term, and that can strew up your immune system.
(15:38):
We want to have an immune system that works, but
you don't want an immune system that's too strong, because
the MS is too strong creates all these autoimmune diseases
that are out there. So Redfield saying now that we're
deeply into COVID and the forms of COVID that are
out there are not as deadly as people who develop
their outamidity, he does not believe that we should be
giving out the mRNA vaccines anymore. Scam probably isn't the
(16:04):
right word for this, although some people would use it.
There's a theme that we're gonna available for the next
couple of podcasts though, and it's this most government regulators.
It's changing now with Kennedy and the Trump administration. Most
government regulators with regard to health and drugs and so on,
(16:28):
I believe are no more than lobbyists and shills for
the drug companies. There are numerous ways of combating illness
and creating wellness and so on. Drugs are merely one
of them. I mentioned on one of the podcasts last week,
the old debate about it. You have a heart problem,
you go to a cardiologist, he says, take medication. You
(16:51):
go to a heart surgeon. He says, you need surgery. Well,
of course, don't both say that that's the thing they do.
Plus it's the way they make money. It's the part
they do. Likewise, the drugs. Is there a role for vitamins?
That's there a role for exercise? Is there a role
for this? Is there a role for that? There's probably
a role in certain cases for certain things. But what's
happened is is that the companies that make drugs want
(17:12):
drugs to be the answer for everything. Not surprisingly, they
sell drugs. You go to one of the local gas
stations in town. Ask him, if you want to ask
the guy who owns the gas station, do you want
everybody to buy a Tesla? I wouldn't think so. He's
selling gas. Did you follow that analogy or not? Let
(17:37):
me turn my attention to this. If there's anything I understand,
it's human nature. Trump's advisors, according to recent reports, almost
(17:59):
to the point of being unanimous, are encouraging him to
more focus on the issue of affordability. It's clearly, right
now a powerful political issue. I know why Trump is
(18:20):
resistant to this. Trump's resistant to this because he's aware
that inflation stopped growing almost the moment he started changing policy.
The problem is the massive spikes in prices are still here.
(18:46):
The fact that they happen because of Biden and the Democrats.
It's frost and Trump that somehow he's being blamed for
a problem that he has helped to solve that was
created by the Democrats. And I think what his advisors
are telling him is, I know you're frosted by this,
and I know that we're asking you to buy into
(19:06):
something that isn't your fault. But the reality is that
this is a powerful political issue and you have to
be out there on it if nothing else. Start pointing
out that all the inflation, all the problems that have
been created here happened under Biden and the Democrats, and
happened because of what they consciously did. From the Wall
Street shurtle. During closed door meetings of recent weeks, the
(19:29):
president's aids have pressed him to calibrate his message on affordability.
Aids presented Trump with surveys from one of the president's
own posters detailing voters concerns about the cost of living.
His team has begun showing him social media posts that
illustrate how Americans view the economy. Top advisors have taken
(19:50):
turns talking to their boss about his economic messaging and
the need to emphasize what voters are feeling. Almost every
senior White House official is involved in the effort. So
again I understand why Trump is resisted to this. On
the other hand, like it or not, this is becoming
an issue that it's just insane that it is because
(20:11):
it's becoming a democratic issue, as they say, the folly
of the party. Everywhere Democrats run things, the cost I
shouldn't say everywhere. Virtually everywhere Democrats run things, the cost
of living us higher than it is. Republicans run things
in part because of the macs of taxation that they
have that not only is the taxes that we pay,
but are built into all of the products that we buy.
(20:33):
Look at the inflation that we had during the period
of time that Biden was the president, a conscious decision.
They wanted to lift us out of COVID by inflating
the economy, figuring that we remember the court it be transitory.
So here's Trump. So one of I note today a
big statement was released by the Trump administration talking about
(20:56):
the fact that gas prices continue to go down and
that the trend it appears to be long term. No,
there's always regional fluctuations, and gasoline prices the only standard
I go buy are the gas stations that I buy
my gas from normally, which is usually the ones out
here with the radio station, because it's cheaper than in
(21:18):
the city of Milwaukee. And it still seems to be
pretty dog onload of me, and the trend seems to
be downward, and then overall national average has been downprending
for a lengthy period of time. Whether or not that's
because of Trump or not, he's obviously pointing this out,
which means he's getting at least some of the message
from his advisors that you need to be talking about
these things. I would argue the best way to talk
(21:42):
about it is to draw attention to people as to
why this is happening. Everything democrats do drives up the
cost of everything else. Simple example, there are millions and
again part of the problem is is that you you
have to expain millions of examples by not punishing shoplifters.
(22:04):
And in most big cities, even if they arrest you
for shoplifting, the cops and the das don't do anything
to you. We drastically drive up the costs of the
prices because the businesses have to include all of the
lost What do they call it. There's a term for it,
something edge slipage, whatever it is. But whatever, you know,
(22:24):
all the stuff that stole it from them, they have
to inflate the prices of everything else to cover those
amounts of losses. Now, going back to the original premise
of all of this, if there's scammers out there, it's
Democrats providing them cover. I want to quote from a
column on the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel. Republicans
in recent years were handed the gift of California, that
(22:45):
collapsing paragon of climate virtue, an excellent argument for the
GOP's own better at energy agenda. Their Christmas present this
year is Minnesota. If the party has the wits to
seize on the moral of that state's epic frauds story,
America's welfare system is irredeemably broken. Now. The point that
she's making here is that the Somali thing in Minnesota
(23:10):
was not a one off. The Somali's was simply an
example of a huge group of people who share the
same ethnicity getting involved in doing something that's going on everywhere,
which is scamming the welfare programs we have. Back on
my old TV show, my old pair of the late
(23:31):
JJ Planyan made the famous comment running an aunt of
profit agency in Milwaukee has a license to steal. I
quote it because he's exactly right. It doesn't mean that
all the anti property agencies in Milwaukee's were stealing, but
every one of them that did was able to get
away with it. It's really really easy because you're stealing
money from the government, and the government it isn't coming
(23:52):
out of any government officials pockets. And often the same
with the Somali situation. If a Milwaukee anti property agentgency
and they've been a zilly good take away, say take
any of them is swiping something. Those agencies are run
by influential people in politics. In that case, it's in
the central city, so the politicians give them cover, not
(24:15):
wanting to hack them off by cutting off their scam.
By creating all of these programs, we make it very
very easy for all of them to be ripped off.
And in the case of the situation in Minnesota, you
had the governor and state officials there fully aware the
scamming was going on, but they didn't want to stop
it because they wanted to let the Somalis get away
(24:36):
with it. Back to Strassol. The Minnesota story in which
Somali frauds there's built taxpayers out of more than one
billion dollars has many ugly storylines to choose from. It
is a parable of failed assimilation and the need for
policies that heat the melting pot. It's another warning of
identity politics, of fraudsters using quote minority owned status to
(25:00):
cash in and crying racism to evade scrutiny. It's a
scandal of politicians who look the other way, more eager
to win votes than to enforce the law. There's an
editorial also in the Wall Street Jennal the Great Entitlement
State gift Grift. It's the same thing when you create
(25:23):
all of these Let's suppose we have I'll just use
round numbers here, one hundred government programs. Now, let's imagine
instead of one hundred, you have one hundred thousand government programs.
There's going to be more scamming with one hundred thousand,
because there's more programs to scam. If there's only one
hundred of them, maybe you can keep an eye at
all of them, but the more that are out there,
there are gonna be scammers that look at every single
(25:43):
one of them. In terms of the ethnic component of this,
there are certain ethnic groups that seem to specialize in
certain frauds. The Nigerians are all over the Internet. The
Somalis apparently are all over COVID eight program. There are
(26:03):
other ethnic groups that specialize in Often this is done
from overseas, contacting elderly people who may have lost some
of their skepticism and try to scam a mount of money.
The thing about, well, your credit cards are all going
to be frozen unless you send us one hundred and
(26:24):
ninety five dollars right now, etc. Some of these are
government programs, some of them are out and out scams.
Generally speaking, though, if you have one of these programs
that it is being scammed, the political party and the
political movement that will try to allow the scam to
(26:46):
continue and oppose any effort to crack down in the
scam will be the Democrats. There's a whole other issue
about this that we're going to be addressing in the future,
dealing with why so many children are being diagnosed with autism.
(27:08):
I'll give you a little bit of a hint on this.
In order for somebody to build the government or build
an insurance company for autism treatment. You need an autism patient.
It's the same thing as what's going on over a
children's hospital. In order for all these gender therapy quacks
to be out there chopping off body parts, you need
(27:30):
to have kids who think that they're of the other
gender so that you can start mutilating them and counseling
them and filling their heads with crap. You have a
vested interest in claiming a problem exists if you make
money by addressing the problem. There should be a rule
of law with regard to that, or a billing's rule
(27:50):
on that. But I'm not pithy enough to come up
with one off the top of my head. This is
the Marked Belling podcast. This is the Mark Belling brief rule.
Here as a way of delving into the next topic.
Government officials never get credit for the problems they solve
(28:15):
because the public tends to look forward. I'm going to
give you a perfect example of this and how people
misjudge the politics of something. After the First Gulf War,
the first one, remember Schwartzkoff and Desert Storm get a
(28:36):
rack out of Kuwait. We sent in the American military
and it not only got a rack out of Kuwait
to chased all of the Iraqi troops right back to Baghdad.
There were virtually no American casualties. It was as simply over,
we's not only solved the problem we knew Toed Saddam
Black knocked out a lot of his stuff, drove them
(28:57):
right back to Baghdad, and he knew that knew enough
not to try to invade anybody ever again. Following that war,
Bush's approval rating was over eighty percent. So everybody just
assumed that he would sail the reelection in nineteen ninety two,
and the big shots at the Democratic Party Cuomo at
the time was one of them. They all said, well,
(29:17):
we're not going to run in ninety two because there's
no way Bush is going to lose a weight until
ninety six. That's where you got the second string. That's
where this no account governor from Arkansas Clinton got into
the race. But then what happened was Bush's popularity decided
to skid because of the economy and other factors. Nobody
voted for him for reelection on the basis of what
(29:37):
he had done solved that problem in Iraq because they
were looking onto an oh thing. One of the issues
that I think is frustrating Trump is he thinks that
he's accomplished a lot of people aren't getting credit for
and that's because you never get any credit for what
you'd Okay, fine, that's not a problem anywhere I'm looking
at this. Why haven't you fix this hair which brings
(29:57):
us to the border. You will not see much coverage
of not only the fact that the border crossings have
been reduced, but how many lives we have saved by
identifying the children that were smuggled into this country. Tom
Holman gave an interview over the weekend. Let me remind
(30:19):
you of the number of children that came across the
border illegally under Biden. The best estimate is three hundred
thousand unaccompanied. That number is stagger when you think about
how many of the people that is, and you'll recall
what the scam of the smugglers were get the kids
across the country. And once the kids got across the country,
the parents figured it would be easier for them to
(30:40):
get across as well. The problem is they were simply released.
They weren't with their parents, they weren't with anybody, and
Lord only knows what happened to them, as I said.
ICE has estimated that the number was three hundred thousand
over the weekend. In an interview, Tom Homan has said
that they've managed to identify and find sixty two thousand
(31:01):
of them, and many of them were in the sex trade.
Of course they were in the sex trade. You're thirteen
years old. You need some way to support yourself. The
smugglers that are bringing you what are going to monetize you?
Elsey to monetize a thirteen year old. Not only by
finally ceiling off the border, are we stopping all of
(31:24):
the new ones from coming in? ICE and the related
agencies are rescuing children from this human trafficking that's been
going on on. That term human trafficking. How long has
that term been around you? Fifteen twenty years. When it
(31:45):
first came up, it was an issue of the left.
I don't recall anybody on the right really talking about
human trafficking. It was the media started to discover and
focus on all of the children that were being exploited,
and for that matter, women that were being traffic simply
means being moved around, moved around for the purposes of
prostituting them. Out almost having them in slavery. There were
a number of people who would come from eight countries
(32:06):
in Southeast Asian which they were living in somebody's basement,
almost enslaved. Numerous other instances of people, you know, fifteen
year olds being brought across the border and put into prosity.
It was an issue that was brought up on the
left anymore, though the Left doesn't talk about human trafficking
at all, and I contend the reason they don't talk
about it is it's become apparent the overwhelmingly the largest
(32:29):
sources of human trafficking was the bringing of people across
the border that Biden stopped and forcing. Once they realized
that human trafficking was something that their side was causing
by their non enforcement of the border, they shut up
about it. Now, if IUCE does any attempt to identify
illegal immigrants here in the United States, that's considered to
(32:50):
be a bad thing, when in many instance is what
they are trying to recover. Here are illegal immigrants who
are in children who are in desperately terrible shape, that
are not here with their parents, that are being exploited
in every ugly manner imaginable. Now, as I stated, Trump
(33:12):
is clearly frustrated that he's not getting any credit for
solving any of these things, not only from the media,
but from anybody else. You can say the same thing
for almost every Republican who's ever been elected to anything.
(33:32):
The media isn't going to give you credit for anything.
But as for the public and sometimes your own base,
it's the same as we approach everything else in life.
I'll use an analogy. I like to use analogies. When
do people pray by and large, I don't mean, I
(33:53):
don't mean very religious people. Well, when by and large
do most people pray? In other words, of people who
only pray occasionally, when do they pray something bad is happening,
you're asking God for help. How many people pray after
some great thing occurred and they go and pray for
forty five minutes, thanking God that this great thing occurred.
Not many We've seen, for example, when people, you know,
(34:14):
after nine to eleven, people were wondering whether or not
there was going to be a Muslim jihad and whether
or not there was going to be tear all over
the United States permanently, and buildings are going to be
blown up all over. People were filling churches and praying.
When COVID broke out, people were praying to God, oh
don't let this wipe us out. The point that I'm
(34:35):
making is people tend to focus on the problem in
front of them rather than the success behind them. So
the people that are trying to disempower Trump and put
themselves back into power want all of you to forget
all of the problems they created when they had power.
(35:01):
This is why when the left focuses on ice, they
always try to find some sympathetic figure whose life is
being rowned, who is doing just all of these wonder things,
and never focus on all of the out and now
crooks that have been caught, or the many children said,
these children are being deported in many cases, the children
that are being grabbed up, our children that were put
in the sex trade, that we're living in abject squalid
(35:24):
that were being terribly abused, or that it's still running
around with these bracelets because they still owe money to
their smugglers. And how's a thirteen year old kid going
to pay back a smuggler? You can only imagine. Woman's
an interesting character. He's also right now a ping pond ball.
(35:45):
As many deportations as there ben Trump is frustrated that
ICE has not gotten more people out. From the perspective
of Homan, He's trying to explain that, look at the
abuse that we're getting when our agents come in, we
not only we have to be extremely peaceful, we've got
civilians that are trying to obstruct us. In the meantime,
Trump is wondering why the numbers aren't any higher from
(36:06):
the perspective of Home and he is a hard guy
who thinks the illegal shouldn't be in here. But he's
also if you just listen to him, because he's seen
so many of these cases of children that have been
put in terrible situations that they've rescued. And then to
hear lefties try to claim that they're on the side
of humanity and human compassion and concern when they were
perfectly fine with eleven year old girls being used as
(36:30):
sex toys for twenty five gang leaders. And let me
be well, that isn't what's going on. Well what do
you think is going on? How do you think those
children are getting By the fact that MSNBC isn't telling
you that that's what's going on doesn't mean it's not
going on. Now, let me move to an issue that
(36:52):
is making some people on my side uncomfortable, not uncomfortable
about it. Let's back into the story this way. I'm
going to quote from the twenty seventeen Pharawell address of
(37:15):
the outgoing President of the United States. For those of
you who don't even know recent history, that would have
been Obama. See when presidents leave, they give a farewell address.
George Washington's was the most famous turned out to be prophetic.
This is a section from Obama and the farewell addresses.
In the case of Washington, he was warning about issues
(37:36):
that needed to be confront of the future. When you've
got an egomaniact like Obama, his farewell address is going
to be to draw attention to and pat himself on
the back for every great thing that he did. I'm
pretty sure Trump's farewell address will kind of be like that.
You think Trump's farewell address will be looking forward to
future already. You think it's going to be a legacy
of going out about all the great and wonderful things
that he did. Anyway, here's Obama again. This is Obama
(38:02):
and what he's bragging about. We have taken out tens
of thousands of terrorists. In fact, under Obama, drone strikes
increased tenfold, which created anti US backlash in several nations.
When Obama campaigned for president in two thousand and seven,
(38:23):
he said, quote, we will again set an example for
the world that the law is not subject to the
whims of stubborn rulers. Many Americans voted for Obama two
thousand and eight expected a sea change in Washington. However,
in his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret
attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when
(38:45):
drones slaughtered wedding parties and other innocents. In twenty ten,
Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Senatece Blair, stunned Washington by
announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing.
Blair revealed a Congressional committee that the news stand for
extraditional killing sport and again, this is Obama's guy. Whether
(39:05):
that American is involved in a group that is trying
to attack us, whether that American has or is a
threat to other Americans. We don't target people for free speech.
We target them for taking actions The threatned Americans. In
other words, Obama's rhetoric was to brag about the terrorists
that he was killing is dropping drones all over the place.
(39:29):
Most Americans supported this, and if anything, some wanted even
more of it. Most Americans were perfectly fine with bombing
out terrorists in other countries so that they could stop
their plotting to attack and kill people here. Now, where
(39:50):
am I going with this? Let's accept whether you agree
with that or not. Let's accept Obama's premise for a
moment that going out and targeting and killing terrorists is
a good thing. Obama did it right and left that
he bragged about it, and he bragged about it in
his farewell address. Our foreigners were smuggling drugs into the
(40:18):
United States terrorists? If not? Why not? Now, I think
you're grasping at what issue I'm driving at, which is
the attacks and the drug boats. And in particular, this
was a second strike on that Venezuelan on the drug
(40:39):
the Venezuelan drug boat that was hit a second time,
apparently under the authorization of Hegesath.
Speaker 3 (40:45):
Well, why did you hit it again? Why is it
okay to kill vague people.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
That Obama says were terrorist, but it's not okay to
kill foreigners that are smuggling drugs into the United States.
Are the drugs that are being smuggled into the United States,
the highly addictive stuff that is coming in, any less
dangerous than the threat of terrorists, I would argue not.
(41:20):
There are a lot of issues out there that I
worry about, a lot of issues that are difficult ones
you wring your hands about, and so on. Whether or
not we dropped a second by bomb and killed a
few of the smugglers that didn't die at the time
we dropped the first one is not anything that's causing
me to lose sleep. As for the people who arguing, well,
(41:42):
this is an extradicial action, how is it any more
extra judicial than all of Obama's terror strikes? Now again,
what I do, we're bringing up these issues is trying
to force people to develop some sort of ideology and
consistent thinking. Liberals will never do this because simply what
we do is good, the other side does is bad.
(42:06):
They focus, I think, on the second strike because they
weren't getting anywhere persuading people that knocking out the drug
boats is a bad thing. To say, well, the drugs
are all gone and all this the only reason to
drop the second strike is just to go and kill people. Well,
even I don't deny that, but what was the point
of dropping the drone, of using the drone bombs and
(42:27):
the terrorists? The point was to kill him because they
are bad people. So which is it? If there's a
democratic president, terrorists are bad, but there's a Republican president,
terrorists are not bad. One of the more common sense
Republican members of the Congresses, Anna Paulina. She posted on
(42:53):
x Obama authorized over five hundred strikes and the press
said nothing. She essentially right about that. You go back
to the eight years of Obama, see how much press
coverage and outrage there were over all of Obama's drone attacks.
There was coverage of it, but it was never outrage,
and the coverage was very, very minor, and if there
was any take on it, it was generally a good thing,
(43:15):
a successful hit. Now, an obvious example was the bragging
and crowing ensuring when we hit bin Laden, nobody, well,
I wouldn't see nobody. Virtually everyone can agree that Obama
that Bin Laden had it coming in. It was a
good thing that we took out him as the leader
of a major terrorist movement that attacked the United States
of America, the other people that were underlings in lower levels,
(43:39):
at the level of terror and so on. Generally speaking,
when we were taking them out with these hits, it
was perceived as a good thing. And Anna Paulina Luna
is pointing out in her commentary here that Obama drop
had authorized five hundred strikes, press had nothing continuing. Meanwhile,
an admiral with a strike package and intel reports protects
the Americans from narco terrorists. Good term, And all of
(44:04):
a sudden people decide to virtue signal the mental gymnastics
of politics by those who lack critical thinking skills. Oh
is that good critical thinking skills? Someone who would lack
critical thinking skills, that would be the definition of someone
who's a liberal, a definition of somebody who watches MSNBC
and rather than processing to evaluate and decide whether or
(44:25):
not any of the things that they're listening to or
nodding their head, no, do not completely contradict something that
we're listening to a nod in their head about a
year ago, that would be the lacking of critical thinking skills.
Back to Anna Paulina Luno, who states this so well,
those who lack critical thinking skills is truly impressive. I
will one hundred percent continue to back the men who
(44:46):
stand up and protect this country against those that are
trying to murder our citizens. Well done, Secretary of War,
Pete hegxith, We thank you for protecting Americans. Now, then
there's this whole issue of lack of unity on the
right of some of the people who are America First
(45:08):
are somehow taking an extremely narrow view of what America
First means it. Somehow drug dealers that are thirty five
miles off off our coast, boats that are filled with fentanyl,
well that's not America First. But if there were somehow
in Savannah, Georgia, it would be a different thing. The
larger point, though, is this, if there are people that
(45:33):
are not on our shores, met them in the water,
or in Central Africa or the Middle East, and they
are plotting to do approcious things to our people, innocent civilians.
We've been established now through several different presidents, that we
have accepted that it is okay to kill them. And
as they say Obama was the drone attack or a
(45:54):
chief problem of global terrorism is still real. It would
certainly seem as though a greater problem is the amount
of illegal drugs that are flooding this country from overseas,
and the more they come in in this great quantity
is why they're so inexpensive. It has explained any number
of times. The root of the fenodol crisis is how
(46:17):
cheap it is. Because there's so damn much of it,
they lace fedidol into less potent drugs. It's so perverse.
It used to be that drug dealers would water down
their stuff. They would use like telcumpowder and put it
into the cocaine because it looked the same, so that
people would be spending more more pronounce in the cocaine
(46:38):
when a lot of it was the tail comporter. Because
the tail comporter is so cheap. Fedidol is so cheap
that they're lacing it into less potent drugs because the
fedool is so inexpensive because it's flowing into this country.
So Trump's bombing some of them that are bringing the
stuff in. Let's pull the delegation here, Paula, you bothered
(46:58):
that Trump is bombing these people?
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Load?
Speaker 2 (47:01):
Are you bothered by the second bomb being dropped?
Speaker 3 (47:03):
No?
Speaker 2 (47:04):
I mean even if I thought, well, maybe you didn't
have to drop the second Bob on my priority list
of things that I'm going to be worried about, it's
whether or not I have to take a whiz before
the end of your day's podcast would be at a
higher priority level than that. This is the Mark Belling podcast.
This is the Mark Belling podcast. Now, let me explain
(47:26):
something about gloating and crowing. Do you want some help
on the rules of gloating and crowing? Don't gloat and
crow very close to the time that it could be
shoved back in your face. You see what I'm saying now.
For example, the time for a Brewer fan to gloat
(47:48):
and crow would have been after they knocked the Cubs
out of the postseason and you aren't even going to
play them again for months. You get months of not
this coming back to bite you. Gloating and crowing about
beating the Bears, I would suggests, is not advisable because
you play them again in twelve days. Now, if you
beat them then again, it's still dangerous because you could
bump into them and the playoffs that they could have
(48:09):
the last left. But this is not the time to
gloat and crow. You understand that, No, don't you don't
let me discuss the Packer Bear game, which is football
games go. Aside from the fact that the Packers one
was a very entertaining game, do you have any analysis
of the game Before I give you mind, I'll give
(48:30):
you the opportunity to analyze the game. Paul said, they're
evenly matched teams. The Packers defense has stepped out to
notch in past years. I can't disagree with any of that. Really,
I will say this, I think the primary reason that
the game was close is because of unbelievable missed opportunities
(48:55):
by Green Bay in the first half. I thought the
Bears played extremely well in the second half, but the
Packers dominated them in the first half, but they didn't
have a massive scoring edge to show for it, in
part because of the terrible pass interception by Love really
the only bad play he made in the entire game,
and I think he said that the cold weather affected
(49:16):
his grip. Was a bad read and whenever you have
a case of a receiver that's open and there's the
defender above and beyond him, you got to throw it
high enough to get past the first defender and not
to so long that it gets to the second one.
It was a terrible pick and it edited a drive
and it cost the Packers a scoring opportunity at a
time in which the Bears were not moving the ball
at all in the Packers who were moving good will.
There was also the Packers were just plagued by penalty
(49:38):
after penalty after penalty in the first half, one of
which just created a Bear drive. I mean, Kishawn Nixon
certainly had a weird game, didn't he. I mean, I
can't honestly say he had a good or a bad game.
It's hard to say because he screwed so much up,
but he made so many good plays in the end,
you might say it's a wash. He's almost responsible entirely
(49:59):
for one of their scores, and then he was responsible
partly responsible at the end of the game for them
not scoring. But the Packers are very, very dominant in
the first half. Now, I have to say I have
this general feeling with regard to football games unless one
team is just way better than the other. If you
dominate a team but you don't have as many points
(50:20):
in the board to show for it, it usually comes
back to haunt you when you lose the game, because
things even out. That's been my experience, and even when
the Packers took off to what was it think that
they have a I think they had a seventeen seventeen
or eighteen point lead at one point of the game.
I didn't feel a sense of comfort about the whole
thing because the Bears had so many missed opportuity. The
(50:41):
Bears rather couldn't do anything, and I just figured at
some point they were going to and then they did,
and the teams then from that point kind of match
scores going back and forth. Next turnovers. The Bears all
season have thrived and winning the turnover battle. In this game,
technically the turnovers were even, and I say technically because
the only Bears turnout was that pick at the end
(51:01):
of the game. However, if Nixon had simply brought knocked
the ball down rather than caught it, it would have
been the same thing. As I explained last week, a
fourth down play is the same as a turnover. If
the Bears had not completed that pass, it would have
been turnover on downs because it was a fourth dound play.
So it's sort of a turnover and sort of not
a turnover, but the earlier turnover committed by Jordan Loves
(51:23):
a score. Turnovers in my mind, usually equate to a
score if a team commits three turnovers and the other
side commits none. It's amazing how many times the team's
loses by three touchdowns. It just happens again and again
and again and again and again. I'm not a great
believer in home field advantage anymore in the NFL. I
don't know that this game in Chicago is going to
(51:45):
be that much different. I thought that the Packers had
a slight edge over the Bears, but didn't take full
advantage of that edge over the Bears. With regard to
the ultimate end of the game. That fourth thound play
that will be talked about for some time, I thought
it was a terrible play called by Ben Johnson. And
Ben Johnson is a spectacular coach of the Bears. However,
(52:09):
he's learned at the feet of the head coach of
the Lions. He came from the Lions, Campbell, and it's
just this constant going for broke, going for broke, going
for broke, going for broke. The Packers were not particularly
effective at stopping the run up the middle, and it's
clear that the Packers missed DeVante Wyatt. I thought Kyle
Brooks did a very very good job, and so did
(52:30):
Engebari and sort of trying to plug the middle on
some of these runs, and they tried to move the
linebackers closer to the line of scrimmage. But I think
Denver's going to try to run right up the gut
of the Packers. And the Packers go to Chicago in
two weeks, they're going to try to run right up
the gut of the Packers and so on. And given
the fact that the Bears still had timeouts, the time
on the clock was not particularly relevant. I think that
(52:51):
they should have run up the middle. Secondly, great credit
must go to the Packer defenders. All gay. Caleb Williams
of the Bears was getting outside the pocket, usually to
his right. Now, interestingly, this play was to the left.
He was getting out of the pocket to the right,
and that was buying time to find an open receiver.
(53:12):
On a play like this, with everyone expecting a run
in every and packed into the middle, the Packers right
side of the defense our left as we watch. In
other words, the Bears left offensive side is the Packers
right defensive side. They all contained going wide, and when
Williams kind of rolled out in that direction. None of
the Packers were in there biting on a run play
and so on. They were all off to the side,
(53:34):
and that forced Williams to have to throw into the
end zone and the defender, Nixon, was in pretty good
position to either knock down the passer simply defend it.
But I think that probably what the Bears are thinking
of doing in that case was having Williams rollout and
the first option was for him to simply run for
the first Now, with everybody thinking the Packers in the
middle of the Packers had I thought pretty good containment
(53:56):
on that play. Now following is almost a no brainer topic.
I've been against a college football playoff when they had
just the two teams. I said, it was perfectly fine.
You can always figure out who the two best teams are.
You don't need no, no, no. Then we had a four.
Then it's gonna be eighth, Then it's gonna be twelve,
and the next thing you know, it's gonna the season's
gonna be going on until the middle of June. That
(54:18):
everybody's gonna be into the playoffs. It doesn't matter how
many teams it was. Whenever there's fourth, then what about
these teams there's a controversy. If you put in more teams,
there won't be a controversy. There's always gonna be a controversy.
So now they go to twelve and there's a total controversy.
People are wondering how in the world you could have
twelve teams in this and Notre Dame is not one
of them. And I agree Notre Dame got shafted, but
(54:40):
it isn't just that simple. Notre Dame is I think
one of the best twelve teams in college football. There
are two teams in that college football playoff that I
think Notre Dame would be favored by fourteen points over.
I think they'd be favored by at least fourteen over
two Lane, and probably fourteen or so over James Madison.
Yet they're both in. Part of it is how they
structure this. They say that at least five of the
(55:01):
twelve have to win their conference. Well, so many conference
winners stunk. The ACC winner was Duke, You couldn't put
them in. They have five losses, So you couldn't put
in the conference winner from the ACC. That means you
grab off to two other conferences. So the winner of
the American Conference got in and the winner of the
Sun Belt Conference got in. Then they have this rule
(55:24):
that at least one of the members of the group
of five gets in. Those are the lesser conferences. Will
two of them got in, but one of them had
to get in because they couldn't put in the winner
of the ACC because the ACC, which is a bad league,
had a five way playoff for first place, and the
two worst teams of the five qualified for the championship
and the worst of those two teams do won the
title game, So you had to squeeze all of these
(55:45):
teams in. So then you have you're down to which
team you're gonna include in which one. Here's the bitch
that Notre Dame has the playoffs put out these rankings
every week starting in the mid season, and all season
Notre Dame was ranked eight or nine. Notre Dame didn't
pay this past week. How do they go from being
ranked eight or nine to being ranked thirteenth? And the
(56:06):
answer is they shouldn't be putting out these prelaboratory rankings
unless they're going to stick to them. It came down
to in the end, Miami, Notre Dame in Alabama, and well,
Notre Dame's better than Miami. The reality is Miami played
Notre Dame early in the season and beat them. Now,
there are other games later on that Miami had bad
losses as well. Notre Dame of dominant wins, but they
(56:27):
had that. Alabama got in even though they badly lost
the SEC title game because they're in the SEC. Do
I think Alabama's the second best team in the SEC
or the third best team in the SEC? No, I
think about the fifth best team in the SEC. But
they were in there in their Alabama in any event,
without regard to whether or not Notre Dame got screwed
or not. The whole problem is once you scrape down
(56:48):
to twelve, you're going to have more controversies than if
there were three or four. Now, if they did it
the old way and they had a two, you probably
just have a rematch of the Ohio State Indiana game,
because everybody thinks that the best two teams in the country.
If you add it to four, I don't think it'd
be too hard to come up with the four. You
have more controversy rather than left less. The more teams
(57:08):
that you included. This also the more teams you include
the greater the chance that somebody that didn't have that
great of a regular season gets hot at the end
and knocks off a team that was better and finally
this for ever since they've done it, I've made fun
of NASCAR and the way they have a championship. Automobile
(57:29):
racing is different than team sports, but NASCAR's people and
the idiots in the media want automobile racing to be
like a team sport, meaning that you have a season,
and you have a champion, and you have playoffs to
get to the championship. The way NASCAR used to do
it is they gave everybody points in at the end
of the year, whoever had the most points won the championship.
NASCAR decided that it wanted to be like football, so
(57:50):
they had had drivers qualify for the playoffs, and then
the last race the top four drivers who ever finished
the highest one the overall championship, without regard to whether
or not they had the most points during the course
of the season. I think that is unbelievably stupid and
has watered down the entire season. All right, there is
the alternative. Formula one does it the way NASCAR used
(58:12):
to They ad a point says, the season goes along
and whoever has the most points at the end of
the season wins a championship. Formula one is I just
it's just to me the oddest thing in America. It
is unbelievably popular on social media and has people that
yap about it all the time, but nobody watches the race.
What they do is they like watch the Netflix shows
(58:34):
about it, but the actual races. The final race of
the season, deciding the championship, was yesterday morning. It started
an hour earlier our time because it was in It's
an Abu Dhabi. First of all, isn't Abu Dhabi kind
of a funny sounding game for a country. I mean
it sounds like Fred Flintstone. Yeabab Aba Dabi. It's an
(58:55):
oil rich country the Emirates. Going into the race, the
points leader was Lando Norris. He drives from McLaren. See
in Formula one, the team that you're on is more
important than any of your driving skills, and McLaren all
year has been the best team over the last few
(59:16):
races of the season. The most dominant driver, however, has
been Max for Stappen, multiple past champion and a driver
for Red Bull so the way the points were set
up in this race, for Stappen had to win and
Norris had to finish fourth or less for Verstappen to
win the championship. So all Norris needed to do is
(59:36):
finish in the top three and less than that if
Max Verstappen doesn't win. So the race went exactly as
you expected it would go. Max for Stappen won the
race by about an hour and a half. I mean,
he's over here and everybody else was like they were
like still in a rack. But Lando Norris finished third,
and all Lando Norris was trying to do is avoid
(59:58):
crashing because you coul yeah you finished twenty six and
get knocked to the back of the pack and so on.
And because he's driving for McLaren and their team, their
cars are so strong, all he had to do was
say I had a fourth place. His teammate was running second.
He's not going to pass him up because he only
needed to be third in So you could say that
it was an undramatic end, and that's why NASCAR goes
(01:00:19):
the other way. Well, the way Formula One had it
was not a dramatic Lando Norris drove safely and was
good enough that he could get into third place. I
still think the model that Formula one has is greater.
What I would do is give a lot of points
for winning a race, and then one point for each
successive thing to steal encourage winning. I am guessing, however,
(01:00:42):
that even though zillions of people listen to my podcast,
only a tiny fraction of those zillions watch the Formula
one race. To me, it's a simple thing to decide
what to do. There is no sports on on Sunday.
I'm not going to start at seven o'clock in the
morning watching football pregame shows. I can't stand pregame shows
for anything. So the race is on and I had it.
I'll admit it was clearly boring. I mean the first
(01:01:05):
lap for Stappan took the lead, Okay, Max is gonna win?
Is Norris gonna finish in the top three? Landa Norris
is running around there and second and third the whole race,
and he was just McClaren cars were so strong. That's
all he needed to do. I think there's a chance
that if he pedaled it, he could have won the race.
But why why take the risk? Go hard into the turns,
run the risk of spinning out and so on if
you only need to finish in third place. The big
(01:01:29):
problem with Formula One, see NASCAR has bent over backwards
to have every race nineteen cars in the lead lap
at the end of the race, seven cars right in
the in the hunt going to the thing, and Formula
One has done just the opposite. Some teams are so
superior in a particular season than anybody else that the
races are all parades. And McLaren just had the best
(01:01:51):
team this year in the best cars, and then winning
all the races, and then Red Bull with for Stapping
came on at the end and everybody else's racing for fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, ten,
eleventh and twelve places. I mean, the way they do
it it places like Slinger still seems to me to
make more sense. Actually, IndyCar here in the United States
probably has it the best. They tend to have competitive
(01:02:13):
races with maybe eight to ten drivers having a chance
of winning the race. There's that everyone thinks the packers
are going to lose next week in Denver. I mean
I swear everyone thinks that, don't you well, I mean
everyone thinks that because and the fact of the matter
is you look at the Packers' schedule before this past Sunday,
they needed to beat the Bears twice, and who cares
(01:02:34):
what happens in the game in Denver, And the presumption
is that the team is going to focus on it that
way as well. What people tend to think is going
to happen, however, often is not what happens. Is it
possible the Packers could beat Denver and lose to the Bears.
It's very possible that that's what could happen. That's today's podcast.
Next one will be released on Wednesday. Talk to you then.
Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
The Mark Dulling podcast is a production of Heart Radio podcasts,
production and engineering by Paul Crownforest. The Mark Billing podcast
is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(01:03:20):
favorite podcasts.
The Mark Belling Podcast is presented by you Line for
quality shipping and industrial supplies. You Line has everything in stock.
Visit you line dot com. The Markbelling Podcast is a
production of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
You know how those magicians start all these tricks. Take
a card, take any car, all right, I'm starting that way,
sort of, Take a scam, any scam. Now. The thing
with magician card tricks is, I imagine every now and
then the magician's trick doesn't work. Something screws up, or
the magician screws up, or something happens. But usually if
(00:41):
you're any good at magic, these tricks work the same
thing with this. Pick a scam. Just pick any scam.
You can all pick one out in your own mind.
Just pick a scam. There's zillions of scams. I love scams.
They helped me prove my point. Paul doesn't know anything
about scams. He's very very naive. I think that if
you you know, if I was a scammer, I targeted
(01:01):
him right and left, and just again and again and
again and again and again and again. Nonetheless, Pick atty scam,
all right, you've done that. Whatever that scam is that
you've picked in your mind. Tell me that it isn't
enabled by Democrats. There's a reason that almost all scammers
(01:24):
are Democrats. For instance, are there any Somali Republicans? I mean,
I swear they talk about, Well, the Democrats pandered the
Somali vote. That's why yilan Omar and all of that.
That's why they couldn't go the whistle other thing in Minnesota?
Are there any Somalis that are Republicans? Look at all
of the people who scam welfare programs here in the
(01:45):
big American cities. They're all Democrats. They all know who
it is that provides cover for them. The Democrats are
the offensive line and the scammers of the running backs.
Now we're going to start here with a story that
we covered only a couple of podcasts ago, because there's
a big update on it. If you are behind in
(02:09):
your podcast, or if you're somebody who commits the terrible
sin of not listening to every one of them. We
did a segment on the people that are scamming here
in Wisconsin the Service Dog program in order to get
around the requirement, get around the restriction against pets in
a rental property. A lot of rental properties say no pets,
(02:32):
but the law requires that you accept service animals even
if you don't accept other pets. You can't say no pets.
In therefore, the service animal can't commit. So what happens?
There are people out there that are certifying every snail, duck, snake,
(02:52):
pit bull as a service animal. We talked about that recently.
There's an update on that, And again, where did I
start this? Procrasts provide cover for all scammers. First, you
Line moves fast, almost as fast as I'm talking here.
You line moves fast so your business doesn't miss a beat.
From shipping at industrial supplies to office furniture, you line
(03:12):
offers a wide range of products that are in stock
and ready to ship the same day if you order
by six pm, even the big stuff. You Line's expert
customer service team is available twenty four to seven to
answer your questions, help you quickly and easily place it, order,
or assist with any other business needs. Visit you line
dot com. Anyway, we were discussing this issue with regard
(03:37):
to the fake service animals and emotional support animals. The
Republicans well, the Wisconsin legislature passed because the legislature writer
is controlled by Republicans. It has got to be done.
With the Republican votes, they passed a bill that will
crack down on the abuse of this. It has become
a significant issue and problem for a lot of rental
(04:00):
property owners and their residents. Many people, for example, prefer
to move into a building with no pets allowed. Obviously,
if you have a pet, you don't want to move
into that building. Some property owners simply don't want the
damage caused by pets, etc. And a whole lot of businesses,
including a zillions of hotels, they say pets are welcome
(04:21):
because a lot of people have pets, et cetera. So
it's a situation that the marketplace can easily work on. Nonetheless,
it's become a major problem because there are a lot
of people who have animals and want to live in
places where no animals are allowed. So they just get
a certification that they're a service animal, even though they're not,
and even though the person doesn't need any kind of service.
(04:46):
There are guide dogs for the blind. I swear I
don't know really of any other kind of people who
need a service animal. There are some They started this
whole thing of emotional support and it's just I think
it was for people that had extreme neuroses where they
were just scared of life, and some having an animal
(05:07):
make them feel better. Now it's everybody with anxiety, which
apparently is everybody under the age of fifty. I start anxiety, anxiety.
I watched these YouTube videos of somebody being pulled over
for a cop I have anxiety. How come they all
have anxiety? It's the cop. Yeah, you want to find
somebody as anxiety a cop? See. I see. The thing
(05:28):
is everybody has anxiety. It's only people that are like
under the age of forty who decided that their anxiety
is something that the rest of the world should give
a crap about. Of course you have anxiety. You've been
pulled over by the cops and you have drugs in
your car. Of course you have anxiety about that. Anyway,
So we passed this bill in Wisconsin, passed the Assembly
(05:51):
on the Senate, pulling back on this and requiring much
more stringent regulations to provide certification for a service atible.
Tony Evers vetoed the bill. So far as I can tell,
this bill wasn't even controversial. You wouldn't think that abuse
(06:14):
of the service animal thing would be a Democrat versus
Republican issue. I'm sure some of the people who scam
the service animal thing are Republicans, and I'm sure that
some of the people that are bothered by the scam
and victimized by it are Democrats. But when it comes
to any type of scamming, the party that gives cover
for the scammers is the Democrats. So you know, when
(06:38):
evers is is a veto, he's got to give reasons
for it. Now, I'm gonna tell you what the reason
he vetoed it is. You know what the real reason
he vetoed He's an idiot. Well, I mean, that's a
part of it. The reason he vetoed it is because
the Republicans passed it. This is just this snit that
they have. You see, at the same you talk about
(07:01):
prompt arrangement syndrome, but it's really becoming Republican rangers and well,
Republicans passed the bill. We're just we're just against it.
But he's got to come up with raisins. And he said,
first of all, you should have included the disability community
and your discussions on this. First of all, I don't
even know who's the disability community. People with legitimate disabilities
(07:23):
and have an advocacy group, or everybody who just Clay,
I mean, who is supposed to include. Secondly, what does
that have anything to do with whether or not the
bill is properly crowded. He doesn't put anything in his
veto message as to what is flawed in the bill. Well,
it should have included these people, and it may not
(07:44):
take it a consideration. This and a letter of the
Wisconsin Assembly. Evers said he wants to prevent fraudulent representation.
But see that's the thing number goods. Well, yeah, I
want to do that, except, of course they never can
come up with a way to do it. For the Democrats,
(08:05):
every scammer is a Somali, and as we've seen in Minnesota,
they all knew that the Somalis were scamming the programs
that dealt with COVID and so on, but they didn't
want to do anything about it because they didn't want
to lose the Somali vote. Now, the only way that
makes any sense is if they assumed that all Somalis
are scammers. I don't know if all Samalis are scammers,
but we know the Democrats think that way because they
(08:26):
didn't want to stop the scammers for Somalis, for fear
that all Somalis would then turn against them. Bringing us
back to Ebers, but vit to the bill because he
felt it unfairly affects people with disabilities who have legitimate needs.
He doesn't specify how that legislation does that, he just
says it. He also said the bill should have been
developed with input from disability advocates and stakeholders. Okay, we're
(08:49):
gonna move on now, but hold that thought there. No
matter what the scam is serious level of serious like this,
trivial Democrats provides provide cover for the scammers. This doesn't
(09:15):
fall directly into the level of scam because it's something
beyond that. There's a very interesting development on the issue
of the m RNA vaccines Mountain. There is significant confusion
here with regard to COVID vaccines. Not all of them
(09:37):
were mRNA vaccines. One of those that is still available
is a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines were the
ones that developed were developed by Moderna and Pfizer. They
were thought to be the most effective against the COVID
nineteen virus, but they were very, very new and radical
in the way that they worked. They caused this development
(10:00):
of spike protein in your body, and this is supposed
to help out your immune system. So the focus here
is only on the mRNA vaccines. When they were developed,
they were given an emergency approval, and the emergency approval
means that meant that you didn't have to go through
a long term check of side effects, downsides and so on.
(10:24):
The vaccines have now been out that vaccines were developed
right at the end of twenty Most people didn't start
getting them until twenty twenty one, so about five years
into this if people having gotten them, we're beginning to
get And as I said, I think it would take
fifteen to twenty years to know long term whether or
not these things were a good thing or a bad thing.
And since that was the case, best to be very,
(10:47):
very cautious. The greater the risk you were for COVID,
the more it seemed to be that it was a
good idea. The less you were at a risk, the
less if you would be dying of COVID, then for example,
dying of a side effect from the vaccine, maybe you
would err on the side of getting the vaccine. On
(11:09):
the other hand, you're somebody highly unlikely to die of
the vaccine. You would seem to err on the side
of not getting it because the downside of the vaccine
may outweigh the downside of you getting COVID or getting
a serious case of COVID. Anyway, the head of the
CDC during the time that these vaccines were approved is
(11:33):
now calling for the mRNA COVID vaccines to be pulled
off the market. This is a story you will not
I shouldn't say not. You will likely not see in
the mainstream media, and if it is in the mainstream media,
downplayed Robert Redfield. He was the head of the CDC
from twenty eighteen to twenty twenty. And you said, well,
(11:54):
he was a Trumper. Remember that the vaccines were developed
under Trump, they were beginning, they were distributed under Biden.
Operation warp speed was Trump and Trump was putting on
the gas fitalist. Let's get going with the vaccines. Vaccines, vaccines, vaccines.
So the CDC during the period of Trump was not
anti vax not in hisharst term. Robert Redfield. Let me
(12:20):
quote from an interview he gave to the Epic Times.
COVID vaccines from Pfizer and MODERNA should be pulled from circulation.
Centers for Disease Control of Prevention official said in a
new interview quote, I would really like to see the
mRNA vaccine use curtailed, and personally, I'd like to see
it eliminated. There are simply too many unknowns. Robert Redfield
(12:44):
said he's been treating patients who have so called long COVID.
For I heard about long COVID. No one knows for
certain if long COVID is directly because of COVID nineteen,
but it's suspected. Long COVID are the people who didn't
bounce out of COVID and just have developed a number
(13:05):
of long term kind of their lengthy malais in their
lives and so on. Anyway, Redfield, who's a physician no
longer than in the CDC, he said he's been treating
a number of people with long COVID. Now listen to
what he has to say here and again, this is
a guy who has a bias toward thinking that the
MRA vaccines were good because they were developed when he
was at the CDC. But he apparently has an open mind,
(13:26):
he said, as well as people suffering from vaccine injuries.
He said he still favors a protein based COVID nineteen
vaccine from Novavax. Now again, Novavax is the one that's
a more traditional vaccine. The mRNA vaccines are Pfizer and
moreto He said he still supports the one from Novavax,
but no longer advises receiving the mRNA shots, even though
(13:49):
he thinks they prevented deaths among seniors early in the pandemics.
He said, Look, I do think these shots did provide
some protection against COVID, and of course, as we all know,
I think we knew it at the time, but we
certainly know in retrospect who died from COVID, old people
and people who had lots of other abidities. So Redfield
saying he did think that they did provide help for
(14:11):
that group that was at highest risk. Now, you recall
my commentary on all of this is the one size
fits all, one size fits all, I just as I
can teach it just it was insane to me that
people would give these things to kids. Find the long
list of kids who died of COVID. It doesn't exist.
(14:32):
So what are you in the world are you doing?
Putting a jab of something that you have. We've never
have any idea what it's going to mean long term,
because a brand new kind of thing and giving it
to a kid who isn't going to get not only die,
or get even very sick from COVID. So again Redfield
saying he does think that when COVID was really roaring
through in twenty one and twenty two, it did work
(14:54):
to aid some people extremely high risk by knocking down
the seriousness of the virus they got. Anyway, quote, I
don't advocate the mRNA vaccines anymore because as you get
to the idea of vaccine injury, which I give you
an mRNA vaccine, what I do is turn your body
(15:15):
into a spike protein production factory, and spike protein is
a very immune, a toxic protein. In other words, he's
you know, when the mRNA vaccines redeveloped. Okay, it gives
you spike protein, but it's going to fade right out
of your body real quickly. There's a strong body of
evidence that it's not that the spike protein sticks around
long term, and that can strew up your immune system.
(15:38):
We want to have an immune system that works, but
you don't want an immune system that's too strong, because
the MS is too strong creates all these autoimmune diseases
that are out there. So Redfield saying now that we're
deeply into COVID and the forms of COVID that are
out there are not as deadly as people who develop
their outamidity, he does not believe that we should be
giving out the mRNA vaccines anymore. Scam probably isn't the
(16:04):
right word for this, although some people would use it.
There's a theme that we're gonna available for the next
couple of podcasts though, and it's this most government regulators.
It's changing now with Kennedy and the Trump administration. Most
government regulators with regard to health and drugs and so on,
(16:28):
I believe are no more than lobbyists and shills for
the drug companies. There are numerous ways of combating illness
and creating wellness and so on. Drugs are merely one
of them. I mentioned on one of the podcasts last week,
the old debate about it. You have a heart problem,
you go to a cardiologist, he says, take medication. You
(16:51):
go to a heart surgeon. He says, you need surgery. Well,
of course, don't both say that that's the thing they do.
Plus it's the way they make money. It's the part
they do. Likewise, the drugs. Is there a role for vitamins?
That's there a role for exercise? Is there a role
for this? Is there a role for that? There's probably
a role in certain cases for certain things. But what's
happened is is that the companies that make drugs want
(17:12):
drugs to be the answer for everything. Not surprisingly, they
sell drugs. You go to one of the local gas
stations in town. Ask him, if you want to ask
the guy who owns the gas station, do you want
everybody to buy a Tesla? I wouldn't think so. He's
selling gas. Did you follow that analogy or not? Let
(17:37):
me turn my attention to this. If there's anything I understand,
it's human nature. Trump's advisors, according to recent reports, almost
(17:59):
to the point of being unanimous, are encouraging him to
more focus on the issue of affordability. It's clearly, right
now a powerful political issue. I know why Trump is
(18:20):
resistant to this. Trump's resistant to this because he's aware
that inflation stopped growing almost the moment he started changing policy.
The problem is the massive spikes in prices are still here.
(18:46):
The fact that they happen because of Biden and the Democrats.
It's frost and Trump that somehow he's being blamed for
a problem that he has helped to solve that was
created by the Democrats. And I think what his advisors
are telling him is, I know you're frosted by this,
and I know that we're asking you to buy into
(19:06):
something that isn't your fault. But the reality is that
this is a powerful political issue and you have to
be out there on it if nothing else. Start pointing
out that all the inflation, all the problems that have
been created here happened under Biden and the Democrats, and
happened because of what they consciously did. From the Wall
Street shurtle. During closed door meetings of recent weeks, the
(19:29):
president's aids have pressed him to calibrate his message on affordability.
Aids presented Trump with surveys from one of the president's
own posters detailing voters concerns about the cost of living.
His team has begun showing him social media posts that
illustrate how Americans view the economy. Top advisors have taken
(19:50):
turns talking to their boss about his economic messaging and
the need to emphasize what voters are feeling. Almost every
senior White House official is involved in the effort. So
again I understand why Trump is resisted to this. On
the other hand, like it or not, this is becoming
an issue that it's just insane that it is because
(20:11):
it's becoming a democratic issue, as they say, the folly
of the party. Everywhere Democrats run things, the cost I
shouldn't say everywhere. Virtually everywhere Democrats run things, the cost
of living us higher than it is. Republicans run things
in part because of the macs of taxation that they
have that not only is the taxes that we pay,
but are built into all of the products that we buy.
(20:33):
Look at the inflation that we had during the period
of time that Biden was the president, a conscious decision.
They wanted to lift us out of COVID by inflating
the economy, figuring that we remember the court it be transitory.
So here's Trump. So one of I note today a
big statement was released by the Trump administration talking about
(20:56):
the fact that gas prices continue to go down and
that the trend it appears to be long term. No,
there's always regional fluctuations, and gasoline prices the only standard
I go buy are the gas stations that I buy
my gas from normally, which is usually the ones out
here with the radio station, because it's cheaper than in
(21:18):
the city of Milwaukee. And it still seems to be
pretty dog onload of me, and the trend seems to
be downward, and then overall national average has been downprending
for a lengthy period of time. Whether or not that's
because of Trump or not, he's obviously pointing this out,
which means he's getting at least some of the message
from his advisors that you need to be talking about
these things. I would argue the best way to talk
(21:42):
about it is to draw attention to people as to
why this is happening. Everything democrats do drives up the
cost of everything else. Simple example, there are millions and
again part of the problem is is that you you
have to expain millions of examples by not punishing shoplifters.
(22:04):
And in most big cities, even if they arrest you
for shoplifting, the cops and the das don't do anything
to you. We drastically drive up the costs of the
prices because the businesses have to include all of the
lost What do they call it. There's a term for it,
something edge slipage, whatever it is. But whatever, you know,
(22:24):
all the stuff that stole it from them, they have
to inflate the prices of everything else to cover those
amounts of losses. Now, going back to the original premise
of all of this, if there's scammers out there, it's
Democrats providing them cover. I want to quote from a
column on the Wall Street Journal by Kimberly Strassel. Republicans
in recent years were handed the gift of California, that
(22:45):
collapsing paragon of climate virtue, an excellent argument for the
GOP's own better at energy agenda. Their Christmas present this
year is Minnesota. If the party has the wits to
seize on the moral of that state's epic frauds story,
America's welfare system is irredeemably broken. Now. The point that
she's making here is that the Somali thing in Minnesota
(23:10):
was not a one off. The Somali's was simply an
example of a huge group of people who share the
same ethnicity getting involved in doing something that's going on everywhere,
which is scamming the welfare programs we have. Back on
my old TV show, my old pair of the late
(23:31):
JJ Planyan made the famous comment running an aunt of
profit agency in Milwaukee has a license to steal. I
quote it because he's exactly right. It doesn't mean that
all the anti property agencies in Milwaukee's were stealing, but
every one of them that did was able to get
away with it. It's really really easy because you're stealing
money from the government, and the government it isn't coming
(23:52):
out of any government officials pockets. And often the same
with the Somali situation. If a Milwaukee anti property agentgency
and they've been a zilly good take away, say take
any of them is swiping something. Those agencies are run
by influential people in politics. In that case, it's in
the central city, so the politicians give them cover, not
(24:15):
wanting to hack them off by cutting off their scam.
By creating all of these programs, we make it very
very easy for all of them to be ripped off.
And in the case of the situation in Minnesota, you
had the governor and state officials there fully aware the
scamming was going on, but they didn't want to stop
it because they wanted to let the Somalis get away
(24:36):
with it. Back to Strassol. The Minnesota story in which
Somali frauds there's built taxpayers out of more than one
billion dollars has many ugly storylines to choose from. It
is a parable of failed assimilation and the need for
policies that heat the melting pot. It's another warning of
identity politics, of fraudsters using quote minority owned status to
(25:00):
cash in and crying racism to evade scrutiny. It's a
scandal of politicians who look the other way, more eager
to win votes than to enforce the law. There's an
editorial also in the Wall Street Jennal the Great Entitlement
State gift Grift. It's the same thing when you create
(25:23):
all of these Let's suppose we have I'll just use
round numbers here, one hundred government programs. Now, let's imagine
instead of one hundred, you have one hundred thousand government programs.
There's going to be more scamming with one hundred thousand,
because there's more programs to scam. If there's only one
hundred of them, maybe you can keep an eye at
all of them, but the more that are out there,
there are gonna be scammers that look at every single
(25:43):
one of them. In terms of the ethnic component of this,
there are certain ethnic groups that seem to specialize in
certain frauds. The Nigerians are all over the Internet. The
Somalis apparently are all over COVID eight program. There are
(26:03):
other ethnic groups that specialize in Often this is done
from overseas, contacting elderly people who may have lost some
of their skepticism and try to scam a mount of money.
The thing about, well, your credit cards are all going
to be frozen unless you send us one hundred and
(26:24):
ninety five dollars right now, etc. Some of these are
government programs, some of them are out and out scams.
Generally speaking, though, if you have one of these programs
that it is being scammed, the political party and the
political movement that will try to allow the scam to
(26:46):
continue and oppose any effort to crack down in the
scam will be the Democrats. There's a whole other issue
about this that we're going to be addressing in the future,
dealing with why so many children are being diagnosed with autism.
(27:08):
I'll give you a little bit of a hint on this.
In order for somebody to build the government or build
an insurance company for autism treatment. You need an autism patient.
It's the same thing as what's going on over a
children's hospital. In order for all these gender therapy quacks
to be out there chopping off body parts, you need
(27:30):
to have kids who think that they're of the other
gender so that you can start mutilating them and counseling
them and filling their heads with crap. You have a
vested interest in claiming a problem exists if you make
money by addressing the problem. There should be a rule
of law with regard to that, or a billing's rule
(27:50):
on that. But I'm not pithy enough to come up
with one off the top of my head. This is
the Marked Belling podcast. This is the Mark Belling brief rule.
Here as a way of delving into the next topic.
Government officials never get credit for the problems they solve
(28:15):
because the public tends to look forward. I'm going to
give you a perfect example of this and how people
misjudge the politics of something. After the First Gulf War,
the first one, remember Schwartzkoff and Desert Storm get a
(28:36):
rack out of Kuwait. We sent in the American military
and it not only got a rack out of Kuwait
to chased all of the Iraqi troops right back to Baghdad.
There were virtually no American casualties. It was as simply over,
we's not only solved the problem we knew Toed Saddam
Black knocked out a lot of his stuff, drove them
(28:57):
right back to Baghdad, and he knew that knew enough
not to try to invade anybody ever again. Following that war,
Bush's approval rating was over eighty percent. So everybody just
assumed that he would sail the reelection in nineteen ninety two,
and the big shots at the Democratic Party Cuomo at
the time was one of them. They all said, well,
(29:17):
we're not going to run in ninety two because there's
no way Bush is going to lose a weight until
ninety six. That's where you got the second string. That's
where this no account governor from Arkansas Clinton got into
the race. But then what happened was Bush's popularity decided
to skid because of the economy and other factors. Nobody
voted for him for reelection on the basis of what
(29:37):
he had done solved that problem in Iraq because they
were looking onto an oh thing. One of the issues
that I think is frustrating Trump is he thinks that
he's accomplished a lot of people aren't getting credit for
and that's because you never get any credit for what
you'd Okay, fine, that's not a problem anywhere I'm looking
at this. Why haven't you fix this hair which brings
(29:57):
us to the border. You will not see much coverage
of not only the fact that the border crossings have
been reduced, but how many lives we have saved by
identifying the children that were smuggled into this country. Tom
Holman gave an interview over the weekend. Let me remind
(30:19):
you of the number of children that came across the
border illegally under Biden. The best estimate is three hundred
thousand unaccompanied. That number is stagger when you think about
how many of the people that is, and you'll recall
what the scam of the smugglers were get the kids
across the country. And once the kids got across the country,
the parents figured it would be easier for them to
(30:40):
get across as well. The problem is they were simply released.
They weren't with their parents, they weren't with anybody, and
Lord only knows what happened to them, as I said.
ICE has estimated that the number was three hundred thousand
over the weekend. In an interview, Tom Homan has said
that they've managed to identify and find sixty two thousand
(31:01):
of them, and many of them were in the sex trade.
Of course they were in the sex trade. You're thirteen
years old. You need some way to support yourself. The
smugglers that are bringing you what are going to monetize you?
Elsey to monetize a thirteen year old. Not only by
finally ceiling off the border, are we stopping all of
(31:24):
the new ones from coming in? ICE and the related
agencies are rescuing children from this human trafficking that's been
going on on. That term human trafficking. How long has
that term been around you? Fifteen twenty years. When it
(31:45):
first came up, it was an issue of the left.
I don't recall anybody on the right really talking about
human trafficking. It was the media started to discover and
focus on all of the children that were being exploited,
and for that matter, women that were being traffic simply
means being moved around, moved around for the purposes of
prostituting them. Out almost having them in slavery. There were
a number of people who would come from eight countries
(32:06):
in Southeast Asian which they were living in somebody's basement,
almost enslaved. Numerous other instances of people, you know, fifteen
year olds being brought across the border and put into prosity.
It was an issue that was brought up on the
left anymore, though the Left doesn't talk about human trafficking
at all, and I contend the reason they don't talk
about it is it's become apparent the overwhelmingly the largest
(32:29):
sources of human trafficking was the bringing of people across
the border that Biden stopped and forcing. Once they realized
that human trafficking was something that their side was causing
by their non enforcement of the border, they shut up
about it. Now, if IUCE does any attempt to identify
illegal immigrants here in the United States, that's considered to
(32:50):
be a bad thing, when in many instance is what
they are trying to recover. Here are illegal immigrants who
are in children who are in desperately terrible shape, that
are not here with their parents, that are being exploited
in every ugly manner imaginable. Now, as I stated, Trump
(33:12):
is clearly frustrated that he's not getting any credit for
solving any of these things, not only from the media,
but from anybody else. You can say the same thing
for almost every Republican who's ever been elected to anything.
(33:32):
The media isn't going to give you credit for anything.
But as for the public and sometimes your own base,
it's the same as we approach everything else in life.
I'll use an analogy. I like to use analogies. When
do people pray by and large, I don't mean, I
(33:53):
don't mean very religious people. Well, when by and large
do most people pray? In other words, of people who
only pray occasionally, when do they pray something bad is happening,
you're asking God for help. How many people pray after
some great thing occurred and they go and pray for
forty five minutes, thanking God that this great thing occurred.
Not many We've seen, for example, when people, you know,
(34:14):
after nine to eleven, people were wondering whether or not
there was going to be a Muslim jihad and whether
or not there was going to be tear all over
the United States permanently, and buildings are going to be
blown up all over. People were filling churches and praying.
When COVID broke out, people were praying to God, oh
don't let this wipe us out. The point that I'm
(34:35):
making is people tend to focus on the problem in
front of them rather than the success behind them. So
the people that are trying to disempower Trump and put
themselves back into power want all of you to forget
all of the problems they created when they had power.
(35:01):
This is why when the left focuses on ice, they
always try to find some sympathetic figure whose life is
being rowned, who is doing just all of these wonder things,
and never focus on all of the out and now
crooks that have been caught, or the many children said,
these children are being deported in many cases, the children
that are being grabbed up, our children that were put
in the sex trade, that we're living in abject squalid
(35:24):
that were being terribly abused, or that it's still running
around with these bracelets because they still owe money to
their smugglers. And how's a thirteen year old kid going
to pay back a smuggler? You can only imagine. Woman's
an interesting character. He's also right now a ping pond ball.
(35:45):
As many deportations as there ben Trump is frustrated that
ICE has not gotten more people out. From the perspective
of Homan, He's trying to explain that, look at the
abuse that we're getting when our agents come in, we
not only we have to be extremely peaceful, we've got
civilians that are trying to obstruct us. In the meantime,
Trump is wondering why the numbers aren't any higher from
(36:06):
the perspective of Home and he is a hard guy
who thinks the illegal shouldn't be in here. But he's
also if you just listen to him, because he's seen
so many of these cases of children that have been
put in terrible situations that they've rescued. And then to
hear lefties try to claim that they're on the side
of humanity and human compassion and concern when they were
perfectly fine with eleven year old girls being used as
(36:30):
sex toys for twenty five gang leaders. And let me
be well, that isn't what's going on. Well what do
you think is going on? How do you think those
children are getting By the fact that MSNBC isn't telling
you that that's what's going on doesn't mean it's not
going on. Now, let me move to an issue that
(36:52):
is making some people on my side uncomfortable, not uncomfortable
about it. Let's back into the story this way. I'm
going to quote from the twenty seventeen Pharawell address of
(37:15):
the outgoing President of the United States. For those of
you who don't even know recent history, that would have
been Obama. See when presidents leave, they give a farewell address.
George Washington's was the most famous turned out to be prophetic.
This is a section from Obama and the farewell addresses.
In the case of Washington, he was warning about issues
(37:36):
that needed to be confront of the future. When you've
got an egomaniact like Obama, his farewell address is going
to be to draw attention to and pat himself on
the back for every great thing that he did. I'm
pretty sure Trump's farewell address will kind of be like that.
You think Trump's farewell address will be looking forward to
future already. You think it's going to be a legacy
of going out about all the great and wonderful things
that he did. Anyway, here's Obama again. This is Obama
(38:02):
and what he's bragging about. We have taken out tens
of thousands of terrorists. In fact, under Obama, drone strikes
increased tenfold, which created anti US backlash in several nations.
When Obama campaigned for president in two thousand and seven,
(38:23):
he said, quote, we will again set an example for
the world that the law is not subject to the
whims of stubborn rulers. Many Americans voted for Obama two
thousand and eight expected a sea change in Washington. However,
in his first weeks in office, Obama authorized widespread secret
attacks against foreign suspects, some of which spurred headlines when
(38:45):
drones slaughtered wedding parties and other innocents. In twenty ten,
Obama's Director of National Intelligence, Senatece Blair, stunned Washington by
announcing that the administration was also targeting Americans for killing.
Blair revealed a Congressional committee that the news stand for
extraditional killing sport and again, this is Obama's guy. Whether
(39:05):
that American is involved in a group that is trying
to attack us, whether that American has or is a
threat to other Americans. We don't target people for free speech.
We target them for taking actions The threatned Americans. In
other words, Obama's rhetoric was to brag about the terrorists
that he was killing is dropping drones all over the place.
(39:29):
Most Americans supported this, and if anything, some wanted even
more of it. Most Americans were perfectly fine with bombing
out terrorists in other countries so that they could stop
their plotting to attack and kill people here. Now, where
(39:50):
am I going with this? Let's accept whether you agree
with that or not. Let's accept Obama's premise for a
moment that going out and targeting and killing terrorists is
a good thing. Obama did it right and left that
he bragged about it, and he bragged about it in
his farewell address. Our foreigners were smuggling drugs into the
(40:18):
United States terrorists? If not? Why not? Now, I think
you're grasping at what issue I'm driving at, which is
the attacks and the drug boats. And in particular, this
was a second strike on that Venezuelan on the drug
(40:39):
the Venezuelan drug boat that was hit a second time,
apparently under the authorization of Hegesath.
Speaker 3 (40:45):
Well, why did you hit it again? Why is it
okay to kill vague people.
Speaker 2 (40:58):
That Obama says were terrorist, but it's not okay to
kill foreigners that are smuggling drugs into the United States.
Are the drugs that are being smuggled into the United States,
the highly addictive stuff that is coming in, any less
dangerous than the threat of terrorists, I would argue not.
(41:20):
There are a lot of issues out there that I
worry about, a lot of issues that are difficult ones
you wring your hands about, and so on. Whether or
not we dropped a second by bomb and killed a
few of the smugglers that didn't die at the time
we dropped the first one is not anything that's causing
me to lose sleep. As for the people who arguing, well,
(41:42):
this is an extradicial action, how is it any more
extra judicial than all of Obama's terror strikes? Now again,
what I do, we're bringing up these issues is trying
to force people to develop some sort of ideology and
consistent thinking. Liberals will never do this because simply what
we do is good, the other side does is bad.
(42:06):
They focus, I think, on the second strike because they
weren't getting anywhere persuading people that knocking out the drug
boats is a bad thing. To say, well, the drugs
are all gone and all this the only reason to
drop the second strike is just to go and kill people. Well,
even I don't deny that, but what was the point
of dropping the drone, of using the drone bombs and
(42:27):
the terrorists? The point was to kill him because they
are bad people. So which is it? If there's a
democratic president, terrorists are bad, but there's a Republican president,
terrorists are not bad. One of the more common sense
Republican members of the Congresses, Anna Paulina. She posted on
(42:53):
x Obama authorized over five hundred strikes and the press
said nothing. She essentially right about that. You go back
to the eight years of Obama, see how much press
coverage and outrage there were over all of Obama's drone attacks.
There was coverage of it, but it was never outrage,
and the coverage was very, very minor, and if there
was any take on it, it was generally a good thing,
(43:15):
a successful hit. Now, an obvious example was the bragging
and crowing ensuring when we hit bin Laden, nobody, well,
I wouldn't see nobody. Virtually everyone can agree that Obama
that Bin Laden had it coming in. It was a
good thing that we took out him as the leader
of a major terrorist movement that attacked the United States
of America, the other people that were underlings in lower levels,
(43:39):
at the level of terror and so on. Generally speaking,
when we were taking them out with these hits, it
was perceived as a good thing. And Anna Paulina Luna
is pointing out in her commentary here that Obama drop
had authorized five hundred strikes, press had nothing continuing. Meanwhile,
an admiral with a strike package and intel reports protects
the Americans from narco terrorists. Good term, And all of
(44:04):
a sudden people decide to virtue signal the mental gymnastics
of politics by those who lack critical thinking skills. Oh
is that good critical thinking skills? Someone who would lack
critical thinking skills, that would be the definition of someone
who's a liberal, a definition of somebody who watches MSNBC
and rather than processing to evaluate and decide whether or
(44:25):
not any of the things that they're listening to or
nodding their head, no, do not completely contradict something that
we're listening to a nod in their head about a
year ago, that would be the lacking of critical thinking skills.
Back to Anna Paulina Luno, who states this so well,
those who lack critical thinking skills is truly impressive. I
will one hundred percent continue to back the men who
(44:46):
stand up and protect this country against those that are
trying to murder our citizens. Well done, Secretary of War,
Pete hegxith, We thank you for protecting Americans. Now, then
there's this whole issue of lack of unity on the
right of some of the people who are America First
(45:08):
are somehow taking an extremely narrow view of what America
First means it. Somehow drug dealers that are thirty five
miles off off our coast, boats that are filled with fentanyl,
well that's not America First. But if there were somehow
in Savannah, Georgia, it would be a different thing. The
larger point, though, is this, if there are people that
(45:33):
are not on our shores, met them in the water,
or in Central Africa or the Middle East, and they
are plotting to do approcious things to our people, innocent civilians.
We've been established now through several different presidents, that we
have accepted that it is okay to kill them. And
as they say Obama was the drone attack or a
(45:54):
chief problem of global terrorism is still real. It would
certainly seem as though a greater problem is the amount
of illegal drugs that are flooding this country from overseas,
and the more they come in in this great quantity
is why they're so inexpensive. It has explained any number
of times. The root of the fenodol crisis is how
(46:17):
cheap it is. Because there's so damn much of it,
they lace fedidol into less potent drugs. It's so perverse.
It used to be that drug dealers would water down
their stuff. They would use like telcumpowder and put it
into the cocaine because it looked the same, so that
people would be spending more more pronounce in the cocaine
(46:38):
when a lot of it was the tail comporter. Because
the tail comporter is so cheap. Fedidol is so cheap
that they're lacing it into less potent drugs because the
fedool is so inexpensive because it's flowing into this country.
So Trump's bombing some of them that are bringing the
stuff in. Let's pull the delegation here, Paula, you bothered
(46:58):
that Trump is bombing these people?
Speaker 1 (47:00):
Load?
Speaker 2 (47:01):
Are you bothered by the second bomb being dropped?
Speaker 3 (47:03):
No?
Speaker 2 (47:04):
I mean even if I thought, well, maybe you didn't
have to drop the second Bob on my priority list
of things that I'm going to be worried about, it's
whether or not I have to take a whiz before
the end of your day's podcast would be at a
higher priority level than that. This is the Mark Belling podcast.
This is the Mark Belling podcast. Now, let me explain
(47:26):
something about gloating and crowing. Do you want some help
on the rules of gloating and crowing? Don't gloat and
crow very close to the time that it could be
shoved back in your face. You see what I'm saying now.
For example, the time for a Brewer fan to gloat
(47:48):
and crow would have been after they knocked the Cubs
out of the postseason and you aren't even going to
play them again for months. You get months of not
this coming back to bite you. Gloating and crowing about
beating the Bears, I would suggests, is not advisable because
you play them again in twelve days. Now, if you
beat them then again, it's still dangerous because you could
bump into them and the playoffs that they could have
(48:09):
the last left. But this is not the time to
gloat and crow. You understand that, No, don't you don't
let me discuss the Packer Bear game, which is football
games go. Aside from the fact that the Packers one
was a very entertaining game, do you have any analysis
of the game Before I give you mind, I'll give
(48:30):
you the opportunity to analyze the game. Paul said, they're
evenly matched teams. The Packers defense has stepped out to
notch in past years. I can't disagree with any of that. Really,
I will say this, I think the primary reason that
the game was close is because of unbelievable missed opportunities
(48:55):
by Green Bay in the first half. I thought the
Bears played extremely well in the second half, but the
Packers dominated them in the first half, but they didn't
have a massive scoring edge to show for it, in
part because of the terrible pass interception by Love really
the only bad play he made in the entire game,
and I think he said that the cold weather affected
(49:16):
his grip. Was a bad read and whenever you have
a case of a receiver that's open and there's the
defender above and beyond him, you got to throw it
high enough to get past the first defender and not
to so long that it gets to the second one.
It was a terrible pick and it edited a drive
and it cost the Packers a scoring opportunity at a
time in which the Bears were not moving the ball
at all in the Packers who were moving good will.
There was also the Packers were just plagued by penalty
(49:38):
after penalty after penalty in the first half, one of
which just created a Bear drive. I mean, Kishawn Nixon
certainly had a weird game, didn't he. I mean, I
can't honestly say he had a good or a bad game.
It's hard to say because he screwed so much up,
but he made so many good plays in the end,
you might say it's a wash. He's almost responsible entirely
(49:59):
for one of their scores, and then he was responsible
partly responsible at the end of the game for them
not scoring. But the Packers are very, very dominant in
the first half. Now, I have to say I have
this general feeling with regard to football games unless one
team is just way better than the other. If you
dominate a team but you don't have as many points
(50:20):
in the board to show for it, it usually comes
back to haunt you when you lose the game, because
things even out. That's been my experience, and even when
the Packers took off to what was it think that
they have a I think they had a seventeen seventeen
or eighteen point lead at one point of the game.
I didn't feel a sense of comfort about the whole
thing because the Bears had so many missed opportuity. The
(50:41):
Bears rather couldn't do anything, and I just figured at
some point they were going to and then they did,
and the teams then from that point kind of match
scores going back and forth. Next turnovers. The Bears all
season have thrived and winning the turnover battle. In this game,
technically the turnovers were even, and I say technically because
the only Bears turnout was that pick at the end
(51:01):
of the game. However, if Nixon had simply brought knocked
the ball down rather than caught it, it would have
been the same thing. As I explained last week, a
fourth down play is the same as a turnover. If
the Bears had not completed that pass, it would have
been turnover on downs because it was a fourth dound play.
So it's sort of a turnover and sort of not
a turnover, but the earlier turnover committed by Jordan Loves
(51:23):
a score. Turnovers in my mind, usually equate to a
score if a team commits three turnovers and the other
side commits none. It's amazing how many times the team's
loses by three touchdowns. It just happens again and again
and again and again and again. I'm not a great
believer in home field advantage anymore in the NFL. I
don't know that this game in Chicago is going to
(51:45):
be that much different. I thought that the Packers had
a slight edge over the Bears, but didn't take full
advantage of that edge over the Bears. With regard to
the ultimate end of the game. That fourth thound play
that will be talked about for some time, I thought
it was a terrible play called by Ben Johnson. And
Ben Johnson is a spectacular coach of the Bears. However,
(52:09):
he's learned at the feet of the head coach of
the Lions. He came from the Lions, Campbell, and it's
just this constant going for broke, going for broke, going
for broke, going for broke. The Packers were not particularly
effective at stopping the run up the middle, and it's
clear that the Packers missed DeVante Wyatt. I thought Kyle
Brooks did a very very good job, and so did
(52:30):
Engebari and sort of trying to plug the middle on
some of these runs, and they tried to move the
linebackers closer to the line of scrimmage. But I think
Denver's going to try to run right up the gut
of the Packers. And the Packers go to Chicago in
two weeks, they're going to try to run right up
the gut of the Packers and so on. And given
the fact that the Bears still had timeouts, the time
on the clock was not particularly relevant. I think that
(52:51):
they should have run up the middle. Secondly, great credit
must go to the Packer defenders. All gay. Caleb Williams
of the Bears was getting outside the pocket, usually to
his right. Now, interestingly, this play was to the left.
He was getting out of the pocket to the right,
and that was buying time to find an open receiver.
(53:12):
On a play like this, with everyone expecting a run
in every and packed into the middle, the Packers right
side of the defense our left as we watch. In
other words, the Bears left offensive side is the Packers
right defensive side. They all contained going wide, and when
Williams kind of rolled out in that direction. None of
the Packers were in there biting on a run play
and so on. They were all off to the side,
(53:34):
and that forced Williams to have to throw into the
end zone and the defender, Nixon, was in pretty good
position to either knock down the passer simply defend it.
But I think that probably what the Bears are thinking
of doing in that case was having Williams rollout and
the first option was for him to simply run for
the first Now, with everybody thinking the Packers in the
middle of the Packers had I thought pretty good containment
(53:56):
on that play. Now following is almost a no brainer topic.
I've been against a college football playoff when they had
just the two teams. I said, it was perfectly fine.
You can always figure out who the two best teams are.
You don't need no, no, no. Then we had a four.
Then it's gonna be eighth, Then it's gonna be twelve,
and the next thing you know, it's gonna the season's
gonna be going on until the middle of June. That
(54:18):
everybody's gonna be into the playoffs. It doesn't matter how
many teams it was. Whenever there's fourth, then what about
these teams there's a controversy. If you put in more teams,
there won't be a controversy. There's always gonna be a controversy.
So now they go to twelve and there's a total controversy.
People are wondering how in the world you could have
twelve teams in this and Notre Dame is not one
of them. And I agree Notre Dame got shafted, but
(54:40):
it isn't just that simple. Notre Dame is I think
one of the best twelve teams in college football. There
are two teams in that college football playoff that I
think Notre Dame would be favored by fourteen points over.
I think they'd be favored by at least fourteen over
two Lane, and probably fourteen or so over James Madison.
Yet they're both in. Part of it is how they
structure this. They say that at least five of the
(55:01):
twelve have to win their conference. Well, so many conference
winners stunk. The ACC winner was Duke, You couldn't put
them in. They have five losses, So you couldn't put
in the conference winner from the ACC. That means you
grab off to two other conferences. So the winner of
the American Conference got in and the winner of the
Sun Belt Conference got in. Then they have this rule
(55:24):
that at least one of the members of the group
of five gets in. Those are the lesser conferences. Will
two of them got in, but one of them had
to get in because they couldn't put in the winner
of the ACC because the ACC, which is a bad league,
had a five way playoff for first place, and the
two worst teams of the five qualified for the championship
and the worst of those two teams do won the
title game, So you had to squeeze all of these
(55:45):
teams in. So then you have you're down to which
team you're gonna include in which one. Here's the bitch
that Notre Dame has the playoffs put out these rankings
every week starting in the mid season, and all season
Notre Dame was ranked eight or nine. Notre Dame didn't
pay this past week. How do they go from being
ranked eight or nine to being ranked thirteenth? And the
(56:06):
answer is they shouldn't be putting out these prelaboratory rankings
unless they're going to stick to them. It came down
to in the end, Miami, Notre Dame in Alabama, and well,
Notre Dame's better than Miami. The reality is Miami played
Notre Dame early in the season and beat them. Now,
there are other games later on that Miami had bad
losses as well. Notre Dame of dominant wins, but they
(56:27):
had that. Alabama got in even though they badly lost
the SEC title game because they're in the SEC. Do
I think Alabama's the second best team in the SEC
or the third best team in the SEC? No, I
think about the fifth best team in the SEC. But
they were in there in their Alabama in any event,
without regard to whether or not Notre Dame got screwed
or not. The whole problem is once you scrape down
(56:48):
to twelve, you're going to have more controversies than if
there were three or four. Now, if they did it
the old way and they had a two, you probably
just have a rematch of the Ohio State Indiana game,
because everybody thinks that the best two teams in the country.
If you add it to four, I don't think it'd
be too hard to come up with the four. You
have more controversy rather than left less. The more teams
(57:08):
that you included. This also the more teams you include
the greater the chance that somebody that didn't have that
great of a regular season gets hot at the end
and knocks off a team that was better and finally
this for ever since they've done it, I've made fun
of NASCAR and the way they have a championship. Automobile
(57:29):
racing is different than team sports, but NASCAR's people and
the idiots in the media want automobile racing to be
like a team sport, meaning that you have a season,
and you have a champion, and you have playoffs to
get to the championship. The way NASCAR used to do
it is they gave everybody points in at the end
of the year, whoever had the most points won the championship.
NASCAR decided that it wanted to be like football, so
(57:50):
they had had drivers qualify for the playoffs, and then
the last race the top four drivers who ever finished
the highest one the overall championship, without regard to whether
or not they had the most points during the course
of the season. I think that is unbelievably stupid and
has watered down the entire season. All right, there is
the alternative. Formula one does it the way NASCAR used
(58:12):
to They ad a point says, the season goes along
and whoever has the most points at the end of
the season wins a championship. Formula one is I just
it's just to me the oddest thing in America. It
is unbelievably popular on social media and has people that
yap about it all the time, but nobody watches the race.
What they do is they like watch the Netflix shows
(58:34):
about it, but the actual races. The final race of
the season, deciding the championship, was yesterday morning. It started
an hour earlier our time because it was in It's
an Abu Dhabi. First of all, isn't Abu Dhabi kind
of a funny sounding game for a country. I mean
it sounds like Fred Flintstone. Yeabab Aba Dabi. It's an
(58:55):
oil rich country the Emirates. Going into the race, the
points leader was Lando Norris. He drives from McLaren. See
in Formula one, the team that you're on is more
important than any of your driving skills, and McLaren all
year has been the best team over the last few
(59:16):
races of the season. The most dominant driver, however, has
been Max for Stappen, multiple past champion and a driver
for Red Bull so the way the points were set
up in this race, for Stappen had to win and
Norris had to finish fourth or less for Verstappen to
win the championship. So all Norris needed to do is
(59:36):
finish in the top three and less than that if
Max Verstappen doesn't win. So the race went exactly as
you expected it would go. Max for Stappen won the
race by about an hour and a half. I mean,
he's over here and everybody else was like they were
like still in a rack. But Lando Norris finished third,
and all Lando Norris was trying to do is avoid
(59:58):
crashing because you coul yeah you finished twenty six and
get knocked to the back of the pack and so on.
And because he's driving for McLaren and their team, their
cars are so strong, all he had to do was
say I had a fourth place. His teammate was running second.
He's not going to pass him up because he only
needed to be third in So you could say that
it was an undramatic end, and that's why NASCAR goes
(01:00:19):
the other way. Well, the way Formula One had it
was not a dramatic Lando Norris drove safely and was
good enough that he could get into third place. I
still think the model that Formula one has is greater.
What I would do is give a lot of points
for winning a race, and then one point for each
successive thing to steal encourage winning. I am guessing, however,
(01:00:42):
that even though zillions of people listen to my podcast,
only a tiny fraction of those zillions watch the Formula
one race. To me, it's a simple thing to decide
what to do. There is no sports on on Sunday.
I'm not going to start at seven o'clock in the
morning watching football pregame shows. I can't stand pregame shows
for anything. So the race is on and I had it.
I'll admit it was clearly boring. I mean the first
(01:01:05):
lap for Stappan took the lead, Okay, Max is gonna win?
Is Norris gonna finish in the top three? Landa Norris
is running around there and second and third the whole race,
and he was just McClaren cars were so strong. That's
all he needed to do. I think there's a chance
that if he pedaled it, he could have won the race.
But why why take the risk? Go hard into the turns,
run the risk of spinning out and so on if
you only need to finish in third place. The big
(01:01:29):
problem with Formula One, see NASCAR has bent over backwards
to have every race nineteen cars in the lead lap
at the end of the race, seven cars right in
the in the hunt going to the thing, and Formula
One has done just the opposite. Some teams are so
superior in a particular season than anybody else that the
races are all parades. And McLaren just had the best
(01:01:51):
team this year in the best cars, and then winning
all the races, and then Red Bull with for Stapping
came on at the end and everybody else's racing for fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth, ten,
eleventh and twelve places. I mean, the way they do
it it places like Slinger still seems to me to
make more sense. Actually, IndyCar here in the United States
probably has it the best. They tend to have competitive
(01:02:13):
races with maybe eight to ten drivers having a chance
of winning the race. There's that everyone thinks the packers
are going to lose next week in Denver. I mean
I swear everyone thinks that, don't you well, I mean
everyone thinks that because and the fact of the matter
is you look at the Packers' schedule before this past Sunday,
they needed to beat the Bears twice, and who cares
(01:02:34):
what happens in the game in Denver, And the presumption
is that the team is going to focus on it that
way as well. What people tend to think is going
to happen, however, often is not what happens. Is it
possible the Packers could beat Denver and lose to the Bears.
It's very possible that that's what could happen. That's today's podcast.
Next one will be released on Wednesday. Talk to you then.
Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
The Mark Dulling podcast is a production of Heart Radio podcasts,
production and engineering by Paul Crownforest. The Mark Billing podcast
is presented by you Line for quality shipping and industrial supplies.
You Line has everything in stock. Visit you line dot com.
Listen to all of Mark's podcasts, always available on the
iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your
(01:03:20):
favorite podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
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.