February 5, 2025 • 39 mins
After a few weeks of Trump, the Democrats are having a meltdown. We'll check in on the DNC, where the struggle to balance gender ideology and gun control in their party leadership is ongoing.
The Trump Administration, along with DOGE, is working to dismantle USAID. We'll take a look at why they're doing this and why the Democrats are furious about it.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
The Trump Administration, along with DOGE, is working to dismantle USAID. We'll take a look at why they're doing this and why the Democrats are furious about it.
For the latest news, follow me on Instagram, and X:
@the.ethanbuchanan
@_ethanbuchanan
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Okay, we needed to talk a little bit about what
happened with these planes last week. And this is by
no means my area of expertise, and I'm not going
to try to pretend that it is. I am, by
no means an expert in the air industry, in air travel,
in planes, the construction of planes, the operation of them.
I know very little about this, but I think this
(00:40):
is a very important, tragic case that we need to
have a little bit of discussion on. So it seems
relatively clear to me that this was a tragic accident.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
That's what happened. If you missed it. An army helicopter
crashed into a plane that was carrying sixty seven passengers.
There were three people on the army helicopter. Everybody is dead.
There were no survivors. It was a very very tragic case.
A lot of people are sort of speculating as to
(01:14):
what the cause of this is, and a bunch of
other people are saying, well, this is just an accident,
it had no cause. I think both is true. Those
two things are not mutually exclusive. Accidents can themselves be
caused by something, right, We're all in agreement with that,
And I think that's pretty clearly what happened here. What
(01:34):
I'm not going to do is go and place the
blame on any one particular person. I've seen a lot
of that going around. A bunch of people want to
blame the pilot. They're accusing the pilot of being unqualified,
and hey, that may very well be true. I don't
know that. I don't know any details about who the
pilot was other than she was a member of the
(01:56):
United States military and had previously done a significant amount
of work in the White House for Joe Biden. That's
all I know. I will say this, I am fairly
confident that this is the result of DEI practices inside
the federal government, not on the part of the pilot,
because again, she's a victim of this as well. I
(02:17):
don't think victim blaming is productive. I think the party
that needs to be kind of facing a lot of
the blame for this, frankly, is the FAA. They're the
ones that are supposed to control the traffic in the air,
and it seems like they really dropped the ball here.
I mean, at this point, a lot of the flight
data is out. You can track the flight paths these
two air vehicles were traveling directly towards each other for
(02:40):
quite some time. Somebody at the FAA should have noticed this.
Somebody in the air traffic control tower, which is staffed
by IFAA flight controllers, should have been able to see
these two vehicles are going to crash into each other.
I mean, you can look at the flight data. It's online,
it's available. It's pretty obvious. Anybody paying attention should have
known that. You should have. I've had a flight controller
(03:01):
get on and say, hey, one or both of you
needs to get the hell out of the way, because
you're about to crash into each other. That didn't happen.
Why did that happen? I submit to you that it
is because of DEI. Here's why I say that. We
know that that flight tower was understaffed. That's common knowledge
at this point. Even the New York Times, which we
all know is no right wing outlet, has openly admitted this.
(03:25):
They did a piece about this about how the staffing
was not full. The FAA themselves have come out and said, yeah,
we didn't have the full staffing at that tower. From
what it looks like, they had essentially one person doing
the job of two people. Now this is a very
busy airport. This is Reagan International Airport right outside of Washington, DC.
So this is a very busy airport that's surrounded by
(03:46):
a whole lot of restricted airspace. Right You've got the
White House, you've got the US Capitol, you've got the
Pentagon all right there in the vicinity of each other.
That's all restricted airspace. So there's a lot of traffic
going through very narrow pathways. Because you know, it's Reagan
National Airport, it's busy, there's restrictions, So you need a
(04:07):
lot of eyes on that, right, You need a lot
of people paying attention to what's going on and making
sure that everybody knows what's going on around them. As
far as pilots go, they didn't have that. They had
one person doing the job of two. This has been
openly admitted by the FAA. Now, how does that happen.
That happens when you're not recruiting enough, Right, when you're
not getting the people that you need in the places
(04:29):
you need them to be, you start making exceptions, you
start cutting corners. That's how you end up with one
person doing the job of two. I blame that solely
on DEI if your focus is on having a diverse workforce.
If that's your number one priority, then you're going to
do whatever it takes to get there. Just like if
your focus is on having a qualified workforce, you will
(04:50):
hire whoever is qualified. You will do whatever it takes
to get that qualified workforce. If your focus is having
a diverse workforce, again, you will do whatever you have
to do in in pursuit of that goal, including not
hiring people. Let me give you a hypothetical here. Let's
say you have a mandate from the Secretary of Transportation
to have twenty five percent of air traffic controllers be
(05:13):
people of color. Now, let's say you need five air
traffic controllers. You need way more than that, obviously, but
this is a hypothetical. Let's say you need five air
traffic controllers, twenty five percent of your workforce has to
be diverse. Those numbers aren't going to add up exactly,
but whatever. You can't staff that fifth position if you've
only got one person of color working, right, because then
you won't have twenty five percent. If you just do four,
(05:35):
you've got your twenty five percent. Now you have to
try to find somebody that's a person of color. To
fill that fifth position, but that might not be an option.
People might not want to work for you, period, and
then the people that do want to work for you
might not all be people of color, which means you're
the poll you can take from to find employees is
a lot smaller, and over the last several years, we've
(05:56):
been incentivizing people to not even apply for jobs in
the first place. So basically, you're screwed because you have
a mandate to have a twenty five percent person of
color workforce, which means if you're only getting qualified white
people to apply to that job, you cannot hire them.
And that's not just me saying that we know for
a fact that this has happened, because there's been lawsuits
about it. This isn't me just making something up. This
(06:19):
has quite literally happened, and white people are suing the
FAA about it. So this is a report from Fox Business.
FAA lawsuit claims agency discriminated against air Traffic Controller applicants
on the basis of race. This is a class action
lawsuit against the FAA by one thousand different people alleging
that they applied and got turned away solely because of
(06:41):
their race. And I one hundred percent believe that this
has happened because we know that the previous administration has
been a very DEI focused administration. It has affected every
single aspect of our federal government for four years.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You think there's not going to be long term consequences
to that, there absolutely are. This This is a prime
tragic example of how destructive DEI can be. Nobody is
against having diverse workforces that will come naturally if you
focused on hiring qualified people. The fact that this is
somehow controversial is mind boggling to me. People's lives are
(07:18):
at stake here, and in that situation, there's more important
things than diversity. I mean, I bet that understaffed tower
at Reagan National Airport could have really benefited from the
one thousand white applicants that were turned away. We have
got to be willing to recognize the fact that this
ideology simply does not work. And thankfully, I think we
have a president and an administration that's actually going to
(07:39):
do that. They're actually going to put the safety of
the American people first. All Right, we got a great
show coming up. We will be right back after some ads.
(08:13):
All right, let's check out on the Democrats. Right, how
have they been doing. We haven't heard from them in
a while. They had their convention, the Democratic National Convention.
They voted to select some of their new party leaders,
party officials, and I gotta say they went the wild
route on this one. They picked some interesting characters. I mean,
(08:35):
the event itself was crazy because, as you can imagine,
the Democrats over the last several months since Trump one,
have been having just an absolute crisis. Right. They had
a devastating loss that they should have seen coming, but
they didn't. I don't know why, and so it's been
basically a massive disaster for them since then. They never
saw this loss coming. It was a massive loss. They've
(08:57):
scattered their leaderless. This is the definition of the lowest
of the low for the Democrat Party. They could not
possibly be in a worst position, and that's reflected in
their Democrat National Convention, which had all sorts of weird moments.
And of course that entire dynamic was made quite a
(09:18):
bit worse by the fact that the Democrats don't even
know how many genders there are. So a complicated political
process like a party's national convention, that's already something that
you know, you have to do a lot of nimbling around. Right,
there's a lot of different you know, cogs turning. Now
you add the cog of we have to figure out
(09:39):
how many genders there are, and of course we don't
want anybody to feel left out or discriminated again, so
we have to make sure that all of those genders
are represented equally. So here is the Democratic National Convention
trying to figure out genders and how they need to
be represented. This is two minutes of them trying to
get their mind wrapped around just a frankly binary concept
(10:01):
of there are men and there are females. We let
the best person win, right when we're running for officers,
because that's what they're doing. They're trying to figure out
who's going to be the party officers and how they
make sure that that's represented by genders. So take a
listen to this, and you know, try not to get
too much of a headache.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Rules specify that when we have a gender non binary
candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted as
neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices must
be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections,
our elected officers are currently too male and to female.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
In order to be gender balanced, we must we must elect.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
One male, one female, and one person of any gender.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So again, this is what we have to do for
this race.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
We have to let one male, one female, and one
person of any gender.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Oh okay, I'm not going to make you sit through
the whole two minutes of that. That is just terrible.
That's terrible to listen to. But I mean, this is
one of the two major political parties in the United
States and this is what they're getting up to. They're
trying to sort out how many genders there are. So
I mean, that's enough of a headache. That's just the
people that are running the operation, right, What about the
(11:30):
people that are actually the candidates here, Because this was
a race to figure out who would be the new
party officers. They have elections inside the party for these positions.
This is a common thing. Most political parties do this.
So that's the people running the show. What about the
candidates themselves? What about the people running for let's say
DNC chair. So there were a couple of moments from
(11:50):
the DNC chair forum that MSNBC hosted, and MSNBC hosted it.
So there's your red flag right there. But you know,
these are candidates from an important party for an important position,
so hopefully we'll be able to get you know, some
actual policy at least some interesting discussion. Right, we can
sort of see where the party sits after the twenty
(12:11):
twenty four election loss. Nope, actually we can't do that.
We're just gonna sit and listen to the candidate sing.
That's actually what happened. They're like, Hey, you're a candidate
running for this position. Why don't you tell us you
know a little bit about your platform what you want
to do in this position. Nope, she just sings a song.
This is what it sounds like. Take a listen, and
(12:31):
we'll begin with the opening statements.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
Each candidate will have thirty seconds, and we'll start with
doctor Quintessa Hathaway.
Speaker 6 (12:40):
Good evening everyone. It is my desire to be the
nixt DNC tair and I just want to give you
all a little bit of something that's been on my
heart here over the last couple of days.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Let's go inspirational speech.
Speaker 6 (12:53):
You fed all, you fired all.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
That's not a speech.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
You fighted on.
Speaker 6 (13:01):
You fired all when your government is doing you roll?
You fired all?
Speaker 7 (13:10):
Whoa you fired all?
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Thank you thank you, doctor Hathaway. Okay, just imagine for
a moment that you're a serious Democrat in that audience, right.
You want to know who's running your party. You want
to know what they're doing to push your priorities, even
though I think, as a conservative Republican leaning person that
those priorities are stupid. You've got to be sitting there
(13:37):
as a Democrat and think, okay, well, how the heck
am I supposed to vote for you. I have no
idea what you're going to do differently from what you've
been doing for the last you know, two years, which
hasn't worked, right. I mean, in the last two years,
the Democrats went and lost the House of Representatives barely,
(13:58):
but they still lost it, and then they lost the
White House, and then this is what they give to
their Democrat voters. I mean, quite frankly, this is not
a serious organization. This is not a serious party. They
don't take themselves seriously. Clearly, that's the only reason you
get up there and do this. You're supposed to be
talking about your policies, and it said you're singing a song.
That's just vanity, that's what that is. You want to
(14:20):
get up there and say, look at what a great
singer I am. You're supposed to be working in politics
to benefit something greater than yourself, but that's not what's
happening here. I don't know if that person actually won,
but that was for the position of chairman of the
Democrat Party. I do know one of the people who
became one of the I believe several vice chairmen of
(14:41):
the Democrat Party is David Hogg. Now, David Hog is
someone who was a survivor of the Parkland school shooting.
Obviously that's incredibly tragic. I'm not going to make fun
of that. I will say he has locked in on
being a single issue voter, and as you can imagine,
his single issue is gun control. Now, that is not
a winning issue in the United States of America. It
(15:03):
just isn't. We like guns overall, by and large, most
Americans like guns. So if the people leading your party
are people who are only concerned with banning guns, guess
what You're going to lose every election. So I want
to familiarize you with David Hogg and who he is
and what he's been doing in his activism. Here's a
throwback clip. This is when now DNC vice chair. David
(15:25):
Hogg was at some sort of college speaking to students
about gun control, and a Chinese immigrant, legal immigrant, I
should note, asks him, Okay, you want to ban guns.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here. My
single issue, because I'm also a single issue voter, is
making sure that America does not fall under a tyrannical government.
(15:45):
So without guns, how do you go about preventing that?
Because remember that is the purpose of the Second Amendment
and firearms in the United States. It's to keep the
government in check. So here's this Chinese immigrant at this
college asking David hog about this, and he has no answer.
Speaker 8 (16:01):
Hi, my name is Lily Tan Williams. Welcome to my
Lifrail or Die State. Actually, I am a Chinese immigrant
who survived communism and under Mau you know, forty million
people were starving to death after he sold the communism
to them, and twenty million people died murdered during his
(16:21):
cultural revolution. So my question to you, David is that
can you guarantee me a gun owner tonight? Our government
in the US in DC will never never become a
tyrannical government. Can you guarantee that to me?
Speaker 1 (16:39):
There's no way I can ever guarantee that any government
will not be tyrannical.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
Well, then the debate on gun control is over because
I will never give up my guns, never, never, And
you should go to China to see how gun control
works for dictatorship of sacap.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Couldn't have said it better myself. The gun control debate
is over because again that's the big question, right, how
do we keep the government in check? How do the
citizens keep their government in check? Because you can write
all the documents and you can have all the systems
in place that you want, but at the end of
the day, if the monopoly of power is in the
hands of the federal government, you can never guarantee that
(17:17):
the governing officials will follow the law. You just can't.
There's no way to do it because they will break
the law and kill you to do it. We've seen
that in communist country after communist country, in gun controlled
country after gun controlled country. I mean, you'd have thinked
that David Hogg would have had an answer to that question,
because I mean, it's a common question in gun control debates,
but he didn't. And he's one of the people running
(17:39):
the Democrat Party now. So get ready for a whole
lot of winning Republicans, because I mean, the party is
in shambles. The people running the party are not particularly smart.
We're going to win a lot, and I'm excited for it.
All right, we'll be right back, all right. Who's familiar
(18:18):
with us AID? I imagine probably not very many people.
I myself wasn't super familiar with it until just this week.
As the name would suggests. Us AID. That's the agency
that's in charge of handing out the foreign aid that
the United States of America sends out to basically every
country and their mother for God only knows what reason.
(18:40):
It's an incredibly problematic organization, as I and a lot
of other Americans are just now learning for the first time,
this organization is basically just a slush fund that goes
out to anybody who asks nicely for a bunch of
US taxpayer money. And as we'll discuss, a bunch of
the people asking for US taxpayer money and getting it
(19:04):
are not the greatest people. They're just not that nice.
Here's Donald Trump talking about the aid that the United
States was giving, for example, to South Africa. South Africa
is a nation that is predominantly black. It has a
small population of white Anglo farmers from when it was
a English colony, and they have had a huge problem
(19:27):
with being genocided. Lately, they are having their land taken
by the government of South Africa and a lot of
them are being murdered. This is something that has not
been talked about, but the United States has been, through
the usaid back channels, actually funding this. Here's Trump at
Joint Base Andrews. It looks like this is in front
(19:48):
of Air Force One talking about how we've been basically
giving these people handfuls and pallets of cash and they've
been using that to you know, kill people and steal
their land. Which I thought we were all in green
that was a bad thing, but I guess now this
is controversial. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Terrible things are happening in South Africa. The leadership is
doing some terrible things.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
That's horrible things.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
So that's under investigation right now.
Speaker 9 (20:15):
We'll make a determination and.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Until such time as we find out what South Africa
is doing. They're taking away land, they're confiscating land, and
actually they're doing things that are perhaps far worse than that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
And yeah, I don't know, that doesn't really sound to
me like a regime that the United States government should
be involved in funding, should frankly be associated with at all.
This is a major problem, and they were getting money
from USAID. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There was more. Caroline Levitt, the White House Press Secretary,
(20:48):
went out with a list of all the crazy things
that USAID had been funding, had been giving money to.
Remember your taxpayer dollars. We talked in the last episode
about how much were text and how ridiculous it is.
You want to know where your money's going. Here's White
House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt saying, look, this is what
(21:08):
we're spending and it's crazy stuff. Take a listen.
Speaker 10 (21:13):
And here's the reason why Elon Musk and others have
been taking a look, because if you look at the
waste and abuse that has run through USAID over the
past several years, these are some of the insane priorities
that that organization has been spending money on. One point
five million dollars to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces, seventy
thousand for a production of a Dei musical in Ireland,
(21:36):
forty seven thousand for a transgender opera in Colombia, thirty
two thousand for a transgender comic book in Peru. I
don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I
don't want my dollars going towards this crap, and I
know the American people don't either. And that's exactly what
Elon Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do
to get the fraud, waste, and abuse out of our
federal government.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Thank you. I could walk into a liquor store and
make better investments than that. Let's be honest here, that
is quite possibly the worst possible use of taxpayer money.
It's unbelievable. The crap that they're spending are hard earned money.
On right, I think we can all agree, even if
(22:18):
you like some of those things, that's not something the
government should be funding. Our taxpayers are supposed to be
used to take care of us. So obviously, the USAID
has essentially been completely shut down. The State Department put
out this message. They said, the United States Agency for
International Development us AID has long strayed from its original
mission of responsibly advancing American interests abroad, and it is
(22:42):
now abundantly clear that significant portions of us AID funding
are not aligned with the core national interests of the
United States. As an interim step towards gaining control and
better understanding over the agency's activity, President Donald J. Trump
appointed Secretary Marco Rubio as acting administrator. Secretary Rubio has
now also notified Congress that a review of USAID's foreign
(23:05):
assistants' activities is underway with an eye towards potential reorganization.
As we evaluate USAID and ensure its alignment with an
America First agenda and the efforts of the State Department,
we will continue to protect the American people's interests and
ensure that their tax dollars are not wasted. So that's
essentially them saying, hey, we've basically shut this program, this
department down for now. We're not spending any money, none
(23:28):
of the money is going out. It's just sitting there, right.
That's not the story. Frankly, we knew this was going
to happen. We knew that Donald Trump and his administration
and Elon Musk with those we're gonna go in and
we're gonna find huge amounts of waste and put a
stop to it. This should not surprise any of us.
Maybe the individual line items that we're wasting money on
(23:49):
should But the concept of a whole of us finding
these problems and then putting a stop to it, that
shouldn't be shocking. It's really not a story. It doesn't matter.
The story here is how livid the Democrats are about this.
They have absolutely lost their minds. They've been rallying, holding protests,
talking about how this is an assault on democracy. Here's
(24:12):
a video of Senator Chris Murphy going on and on
and on about how they shouldn't be allowed to do
this because Congress has control of the purse. They decide
what we spend money on, not the president of the
United States.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today.
Speaker 7 (24:29):
Let's call it what it is.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
The people get to decide how we defend the United
States of America. The people get to decide how their
tax payer money is spent. Elon Musk does not get
to decide.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Okay, first of all, fairpoint, I'll give you that how
many people voted for transgender comic books in Peru, cause
I sure didn't. I don't think most Americans either date
or would if they knew that was in there. But
put that to the side for a minute, because I mean,
I'll give you you that point in concept, fair enough.
Why weren't you protesting when Joe Biden shut down the
(25:07):
construction of the border wall, Because that's the thing that happened.
Congress said, we have put together this much money, we
are hereby declaring that it should be spent on construction
of a border wall. Executive branch, go do it. And
then Trump did it. He was working on it. Joe
Biden came into power and said, no, we're not doing it.
He completely stopped that operation. It's essentially the same thing.
(25:30):
And there were no Democrats protesting in the streets about it.
They just weren't. They didn't care. So is this only
a problem when Democrats do it? Because that's what it
looks like to me. It looks like you guys don't
care about the executive branch pausing a program or operation
when it's something you don't like. But the moment somebody
(25:52):
threatens your transgender comic books in Peru, we have to
shut down the entire country. This is a constitutional crisis.
How about this. I don't believe you. I don't believe
you actually care this much. I think you just want
something to protest about. And this is the first thing
that came available to you. So you're grandstanding. Now, that's
what's happening. But it's not just one Democrat senator too.
(26:12):
This is a coordinated response by the entire Democrat caucus.
Take a listen to Chuck Schumer. He's the Senate minority leader,
he's basically the top Democrat in the Senate, and he's
doing this same number talking about how this is a
threat to democracy and shutting down gay comic books in
Peru is going to destroy our country. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Also, No, this is just the beginning. If DOJA tacks
USAID today, then you can be sure they'll move on
to another target tomorrow. Who knows, maybe there'll be the
Postal Service or the IRS, or even the Social Security
Administration they could be next, or maybe our national security agencies.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
All right, slow down there, Chruck, I'm already on board.
You don't have to sell it to me. Oh no,
God forbid we shut down the what are we gonna do?
God forbid? We let Americans keep their tax dollars and
don't spend it on all this stupid stuff that we've
been spending millions of dollars on for years. I gotta
(27:13):
be honest, I'm not that concerned about it. So and
they're not either. There really aren't. They're gonna pretend to be,
but they aren't. Here's what they're concerned about. They're concerned
about their ability to make money, and they stand to
lose a lot of money off of this USAID thing.
Daily Wire reported this ninety seven percent of political contributions
(27:35):
from USAID employees went to Democrats. Are we surprised at all?
Go back, listen to that cut of Carolyn Levitt talking
about what that money is being spent on, and look
me dead in the eye and tell me you're surprised
that the people that staff that organization, the people that
work there, the people that are actually handing out these grants,
(27:56):
you're surprised that these people are selling out money to
the Democrats. But if you threaten that program, if all
of those government employees lose their jobs, guess what. The
Democrats aren't getting their political contributions anymore. That's where their
real concern is. They don't care about the balance of power,
They don't care about checks and balances. They never did,
and if they did, they would have been on Joe
(28:18):
Biden's case for four straight years. And they weren't. This
is so transparent, this is so obvious. We've created government
slush funds that exist to just fund Democrats and Democrat priorities.
The American people did not vote for that. That's not
what we want from our government. And despite how much
grand standing y'all do, despite how much y'all try to
(28:40):
villainize Elon Musk and Doge and the Trump administration, we're
not all going to suddenly hate the fact that our
money is being spent more responsibly. And we're not going
to start hating the fact that the feet of these
people who are wasting our taxpayer dollars are being held
to the fire. We're not We like this, all right,
We'll be right back, all right. We got some pretty
(29:20):
decent late breaking news that I think deserves to be mentioned.
First of all, the United States officially has a new
Attorney General, Pam Bondy has been confirmed. Now again, I
have spoken on Pam Bondi before in previous episodes. I
(29:43):
am sort of in a jury still out position when
it comes to Pambondy. She has said some things on
red flag laws that I, as a big Second Amendment absolutist,
I don't absolutely love. However, she's not in a legislative position.
She can't make laws. All she can do is enforce
the laws that are on the books. So I don't know,
(30:06):
we'll see. I don't hate the fact that she's the
attorney general. I am inclined to trust Trump's judgment on
this one. And here's why. I think in her hearings
she made a decent case for the fact that she
would be able to just focus on doing the job
of the attorney general without playing politics, which is what
(30:27):
we want in an attorney general, right. You know, justice
should be blind the laws of the law. The politics
of the attorney general should not matter when it comes
to enforcing the law. That's the job of the attorney general, right,
enforce the law. They're the top law enforcement officer in
the country. So you know, being a political is a
pretty good thing. I think we can all agree, right,
(30:48):
that makes sense. That makes sense. She explicitly said this
when she was in her confirmation hearing. She was having
a back and forth with Senator Adam Schiff, and she well,
Schiff tried to get her on some political nonsense with
Liz Cheney, who again nobody cares about her she's not
(31:08):
in Congress anymore. Why do we keep bringing her up anyway?
He tried to get her on some sort of gotcha
thing talking about Liz Cheney and Pam BONDI is like, listen,
I'm I'm not doing this. I'm not gonna have a
political conversation with you about how evil I do or
don't think that Liz Cheney is. If Liz Cheney commits
(31:30):
a crime, we'll investigate that. And I'm not going to
talk with you right now about an investigation that we
might do in the future. That doesn't make sense right now.
She hasn't been charged with anything. So this is a
ridiculous conversation to have and I'm just not gonna have it,
which is exactly what we want from an attorney general.
Take a listen to this exchange called.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
For it publicly. You are aware of that, aren't you.
Speaker 11 (31:52):
No one has asked me to investigate, but worried about
answer my question right now?
Speaker 7 (32:01):
You are aware of the root ms Bondy, Your.
Speaker 11 (32:04):
Robbery's bondyigher than the national question.
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Is this?
Speaker 11 (32:08):
That's what I want to.
Speaker 12 (32:09):
Question, is this, Do you have the power to say
no to the president and what you're suggesting today by
your non answer is you don't have the independence to
say no to the president. So let me ask you
a different question. Also requires you, if you're going to
be a good Attorney General, to be able to tell
hard truths to the president. So my questions now are
can you tell hard truth to the president. So let
(32:31):
me start with an easy truth that you could speak
to the president. Can you tell us can you tell
him that Donald Trump lost the twenty twenty election? Can
you can you say that? Do you have the independence
to say that? You have the gravitas the statue of
the test of fortitude to say, Donald Trump, you lost
the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 7 (32:51):
Can you tell us that?
Speaker 11 (32:51):
Here today, Senator, what I can tell you is I
will never play politics. You're trying to engage me in
a gotcha.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
I want to question if you.
Speaker 7 (33:01):
Can speak truth. Let me ask you.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
You did.
Speaker 7 (33:08):
Hundreds of cases on day one.
Speaker 11 (33:11):
I will look at every file I am as.
Speaker 7 (33:14):
So will you advise that. Can I answer the question question?
Speaker 11 (33:17):
I would have plenty of staff. You said, of course you.
Speaker 7 (33:19):
Want, you'll be able to review.
Speaker 11 (33:22):
I'm not going to miss this body, nor you.
Speaker 7 (33:26):
All right, let me ask another question.
Speaker 11 (33:28):
You don't want to ask that answers just like this.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Also, she absolutely lit him up there and she called
him on his bs. He's sitting there trying to carry
on about the twenty twenty election, which was check the
math almost five years ago at this point, that doesn't matter.
He's asking her about Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney is not
a public official anymore. That doesn't matter. Liz Chain doesn't
(33:56):
matter the twenty twenty election and who did or did
not win, it doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. And she's
exactly right. He's trying to get her in some sort
of gotcha moment. He's trying to catch her saying something
or not saying something so that they can go ron
and campaign on that. They're not doing their job of
making sure that Pam Bondi is qualified. They're just trying
(34:18):
to go after Trump. That's what they're doing here, and
Pambondi caught them. She called him on it, and she
didn't participate. That was the best possible response. She didn't
try to weasel out of the question. She just said, listen,
this is a stupid question and I'm not gonna answer it.
And Shift didn't like that. He's sitting there going you
can't answer the question. You can't answer the question. No,
(34:40):
it's not that she can't answer the question, it's that
it's a stupid question and it's not worth the time
of day. We shouldn't keep letting the senators get away
with that. Honestly, I really enjoy this just because she
didn't sit and participate in it. It always aggravates me
when I see some sort of official or somebody who
wants to become an official, sitting through one of these
(35:01):
Senate hearings and they're asked all these stupid questions by
a senator or representative or you know, whatever government authority
is questioning them, and they just sort of go along
with it, and they try to basically cover for the
fact that our elected officials are stupid. And Pam Bonni
didn't do that. She's like, no, this is a stupid question.
(35:23):
I'm not participating in this because this is not worth
the time. We need more of this. Can we nominate
more people that will call out these senators for asking
stupid questions. I think that would be a great thing
to do. I don't know that's just me, but anyway,
that clip right there, just that alone that makes me
think maybe she's worth it, you know, maybe she's gonna
(35:46):
be able to do this. We'll keep an eye on her.
If she starts to, you know, get a little grabby
with the guns, we'll call her on that. But as
of right now, I'm confident that she's going to be
able to do a decent job, and I look forward
to seeing what she does, because, as we know, the
Department of Justice is like every other department of the government,
incredibly corrupt. It's got a lot of problems going on,
(36:07):
and it needs to be addressed, it needs to be adjusted,
and I think she'll do that, and I'm excited to
see it. I really am. Okay, moving on from that,
we have one other really big piece of news that
I think, frankly is the most important piece of news
of the week. I don't know. We'll see if that's
actually the case, but from where I stand right now,
it looks like it is. So the war between Israel
(36:30):
and Hamas in Gaza seems to be coming to an end,
right that's slowly drawing down. So now the big question
is where do we go from here? How do we
rebuild that area? Because Gaza has been completely flattened over
the course of this war. So what do we do
with that? Where do we go from here? Well, Donald Trump,
in a meeting with net and Yahoo yesterday just basically
(36:50):
stood up and said, Okay, we're just gonna take it
and it's ours now. We're just going to completely rebuild it,
and it'll be ours and we'll have it and it
belongs to the US. Now, here's what that sounded like.
In his meeting with Benjamin nettin Yahoo, Prime Minister of Israel.
This is Donald Trump speaking with Netanyahu right there.
Speaker 9 (37:08):
The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we
will do a job with it too. We'll own it
and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded
bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site
and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out,
create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of
(37:30):
jobs and housing for the people of the area. Do
a real job to something different. Just can't go back.
If you go back, it's going to end up the
same way it has for one hundred years.
Speaker 5 (37:42):
Now.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Obviously this is going to be a hugely controversial move,
So put that out of your head. Really We don't
know how this is going to go until it goes. Frankly,
that's the reality of the situation. I will say this
is a step up from where we've been because Trump
makes the point right there. We can't keep doing the
same thing and hoping for a different result otherwise. I mean,
(38:03):
we haven't gotten anywhere with this situation in one hundred years,
and it's led to this point where the entire gaza
area is a parking lot now, so we need to
be doing something differently. I think America's stepping in is
probably going to be a decent move. I don't know,
we'll see what exactly happens. If this ends up as
another situation where America is just throwing money into a
(38:25):
Middle East toilet that we're never going to see any
return on investment for, then obviously we should not do it.
But if there's a chance that we can actually create
something worthwhile here, something that reflects our values and our
interests in that region, then sure, why not as long
as we can make something self sustaining over a decent
period of time, If we can actually get to a
(38:46):
point where we have a return on investment, then hey,
I'm not necessarily mad about that, but we're gonna have
to see what happens. All right. That's all I've got
for this episode. Thank y'all very much for listening, and
we will be back.
Okay, we needed to talk a little bit about what
happened with these planes last week. And this is by
no means my area of expertise, and I'm not going
to try to pretend that it is. I am, by
no means an expert in the air industry, in air travel,
in planes, the construction of planes, the operation of them.
I know very little about this, but I think this
(00:40):
is a very important, tragic case that we need to
have a little bit of discussion on. So it seems
relatively clear to me that this was a tragic accident.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
Right.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
That's what happened. If you missed it. An army helicopter
crashed into a plane that was carrying sixty seven passengers.
There were three people on the army helicopter. Everybody is dead.
There were no survivors. It was a very very tragic case.
A lot of people are sort of speculating as to
(01:14):
what the cause of this is, and a bunch of
other people are saying, well, this is just an accident,
it had no cause. I think both is true. Those
two things are not mutually exclusive. Accidents can themselves be
caused by something, right, We're all in agreement with that,
And I think that's pretty clearly what happened here. What
(01:34):
I'm not going to do is go and place the
blame on any one particular person. I've seen a lot
of that going around. A bunch of people want to
blame the pilot. They're accusing the pilot of being unqualified,
and hey, that may very well be true. I don't
know that. I don't know any details about who the
pilot was other than she was a member of the
(01:56):
United States military and had previously done a significant amount
of work in the White House for Joe Biden. That's
all I know. I will say this, I am fairly
confident that this is the result of DEI practices inside
the federal government, not on the part of the pilot,
because again, she's a victim of this as well. I
(02:17):
don't think victim blaming is productive. I think the party
that needs to be kind of facing a lot of
the blame for this, frankly, is the FAA. They're the
ones that are supposed to control the traffic in the air,
and it seems like they really dropped the ball here.
I mean, at this point, a lot of the flight
data is out. You can track the flight paths these
two air vehicles were traveling directly towards each other for
(02:40):
quite some time. Somebody at the FAA should have noticed this.
Somebody in the air traffic control tower, which is staffed
by IFAA flight controllers, should have been able to see
these two vehicles are going to crash into each other.
I mean, you can look at the flight data. It's online,
it's available. It's pretty obvious. Anybody paying attention should have
known that. You should have. I've had a flight controller
(03:01):
get on and say, hey, one or both of you
needs to get the hell out of the way, because
you're about to crash into each other. That didn't happen.
Why did that happen? I submit to you that it
is because of DEI. Here's why I say that. We
know that that flight tower was understaffed. That's common knowledge
at this point. Even the New York Times, which we
all know is no right wing outlet, has openly admitted this.
(03:25):
They did a piece about this about how the staffing
was not full. The FAA themselves have come out and said, yeah,
we didn't have the full staffing at that tower. From
what it looks like, they had essentially one person doing
the job of two people. Now this is a very
busy airport. This is Reagan International Airport right outside of Washington, DC.
So this is a very busy airport that's surrounded by
(03:46):
a whole lot of restricted airspace. Right You've got the
White House, you've got the US Capitol, you've got the
Pentagon all right there in the vicinity of each other.
That's all restricted airspace. So there's a lot of traffic
going through very narrow pathways. Because you know, it's Reagan
National Airport, it's busy, there's restrictions, So you need a
(04:07):
lot of eyes on that, right, You need a lot
of people paying attention to what's going on and making
sure that everybody knows what's going on around them. As
far as pilots go, they didn't have that. They had
one person doing the job of two. This has been
openly admitted by the FAA. Now, how does that happen.
That happens when you're not recruiting enough, Right, when you're
not getting the people that you need in the places
(04:29):
you need them to be, you start making exceptions, you
start cutting corners. That's how you end up with one
person doing the job of two. I blame that solely
on DEI if your focus is on having a diverse workforce.
If that's your number one priority, then you're going to
do whatever it takes to get there. Just like if
your focus is on having a qualified workforce, you will
(04:50):
hire whoever is qualified. You will do whatever it takes
to get that qualified workforce. If your focus is having
a diverse workforce, again, you will do whatever you have
to do in in pursuit of that goal, including not
hiring people. Let me give you a hypothetical here. Let's
say you have a mandate from the Secretary of Transportation
to have twenty five percent of air traffic controllers be
(05:13):
people of color. Now, let's say you need five air
traffic controllers. You need way more than that, obviously, but
this is a hypothetical. Let's say you need five air
traffic controllers, twenty five percent of your workforce has to
be diverse. Those numbers aren't going to add up exactly,
but whatever. You can't staff that fifth position if you've
only got one person of color working, right, because then
you won't have twenty five percent. If you just do four,
(05:35):
you've got your twenty five percent. Now you have to
try to find somebody that's a person of color. To
fill that fifth position, but that might not be an option.
People might not want to work for you, period, and
then the people that do want to work for you
might not all be people of color, which means you're
the poll you can take from to find employees is
a lot smaller, and over the last several years, we've
(05:56):
been incentivizing people to not even apply for jobs in
the first place. So basically, you're screwed because you have
a mandate to have a twenty five percent person of
color workforce, which means if you're only getting qualified white
people to apply to that job, you cannot hire them.
And that's not just me saying that we know for
a fact that this has happened, because there's been lawsuits
about it. This isn't me just making something up. This
(06:19):
has quite literally happened, and white people are suing the
FAA about it. So this is a report from Fox Business.
FAA lawsuit claims agency discriminated against air Traffic Controller applicants
on the basis of race. This is a class action
lawsuit against the FAA by one thousand different people alleging
that they applied and got turned away solely because of
(06:41):
their race. And I one hundred percent believe that this
has happened because we know that the previous administration has
been a very DEI focused administration. It has affected every
single aspect of our federal government for four years.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
Now.
Speaker 1 (06:54):
You think there's not going to be long term consequences
to that, there absolutely are. This This is a prime
tragic example of how destructive DEI can be. Nobody is
against having diverse workforces that will come naturally if you
focused on hiring qualified people. The fact that this is
somehow controversial is mind boggling to me. People's lives are
(07:18):
at stake here, and in that situation, there's more important
things than diversity. I mean, I bet that understaffed tower
at Reagan National Airport could have really benefited from the
one thousand white applicants that were turned away. We have
got to be willing to recognize the fact that this
ideology simply does not work. And thankfully, I think we
have a president and an administration that's actually going to
(07:39):
do that. They're actually going to put the safety of
the American people first. All Right, we got a great
show coming up. We will be right back after some ads.
(08:13):
All right, let's check out on the Democrats. Right, how
have they been doing. We haven't heard from them in
a while. They had their convention, the Democratic National Convention.
They voted to select some of their new party leaders,
party officials, and I gotta say they went the wild
route on this one. They picked some interesting characters. I mean,
(08:35):
the event itself was crazy because, as you can imagine,
the Democrats over the last several months since Trump one,
have been having just an absolute crisis. Right. They had
a devastating loss that they should have seen coming, but
they didn't. I don't know why, and so it's been
basically a massive disaster for them since then. They never
saw this loss coming. It was a massive loss. They've
(08:57):
scattered their leaderless. This is the definition of the lowest
of the low for the Democrat Party. They could not
possibly be in a worst position, and that's reflected in
their Democrat National Convention, which had all sorts of weird moments.
And of course that entire dynamic was made quite a
(09:18):
bit worse by the fact that the Democrats don't even
know how many genders there are. So a complicated political
process like a party's national convention, that's already something that
you know, you have to do a lot of nimbling around. Right,
there's a lot of different you know, cogs turning. Now
you add the cog of we have to figure out
(09:39):
how many genders there are, and of course we don't
want anybody to feel left out or discriminated again, so
we have to make sure that all of those genders
are represented equally. So here is the Democratic National Convention
trying to figure out genders and how they need to
be represented. This is two minutes of them trying to
get their mind wrapped around just a frankly binary concept
(10:01):
of there are men and there are females. We let
the best person win, right when we're running for officers,
because that's what they're doing. They're trying to figure out
who's going to be the party officers and how they
make sure that that's represented by genders. So take a
listen to this, and you know, try not to get
too much of a headache.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
Rules specify that when we have a gender non binary
candidate or officer, the non binary individual is counted as
neither male nor female, and the remaining six offices must
be gender balanced. With the results of the previous four elections,
our elected officers are currently too male and to female.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
In order to be gender balanced, we must we must elect.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
One male, one female, and one person of any gender.
Speaker 1 (10:57):
So again, this is what we have to do for
this race.
Speaker 4 (11:01):
We have to let one male, one female, and one
person of any gender.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Oh okay, I'm not going to make you sit through
the whole two minutes of that. That is just terrible.
That's terrible to listen to. But I mean, this is
one of the two major political parties in the United
States and this is what they're getting up to. They're
trying to sort out how many genders there are. So
I mean, that's enough of a headache. That's just the
people that are running the operation, right, What about the
(11:30):
people that are actually the candidates here, Because this was
a race to figure out who would be the new
party officers. They have elections inside the party for these positions.
This is a common thing. Most political parties do this.
So that's the people running the show. What about the
candidates themselves? What about the people running for let's say
DNC chair. So there were a couple of moments from
(11:50):
the DNC chair forum that MSNBC hosted, and MSNBC hosted it.
So there's your red flag right there. But you know,
these are candidates from an important party for an important position,
so hopefully we'll be able to get you know, some
actual policy at least some interesting discussion. Right, we can
sort of see where the party sits after the twenty
(12:11):
twenty four election loss. Nope, actually we can't do that.
We're just gonna sit and listen to the candidate sing.
That's actually what happened. They're like, Hey, you're a candidate
running for this position. Why don't you tell us you
know a little bit about your platform what you want
to do in this position. Nope, she just sings a song.
This is what it sounds like. Take a listen, and
(12:31):
we'll begin with the opening statements.
Speaker 5 (12:33):
Each candidate will have thirty seconds, and we'll start with
doctor Quintessa Hathaway.
Speaker 6 (12:40):
Good evening everyone. It is my desire to be the
nixt DNC tair and I just want to give you
all a little bit of something that's been on my
heart here over the last couple of days.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Let's go inspirational speech.
Speaker 6 (12:53):
You fed all, you fired all.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
That's not a speech.
Speaker 5 (12:58):
You fighted on.
Speaker 6 (13:01):
You fired all when your government is doing you roll?
You fired all?
Speaker 7 (13:10):
Whoa you fired all?
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Thank you thank you, doctor Hathaway. Okay, just imagine for
a moment that you're a serious Democrat in that audience, right.
You want to know who's running your party. You want
to know what they're doing to push your priorities, even
though I think, as a conservative Republican leaning person that
those priorities are stupid. You've got to be sitting there
(13:37):
as a Democrat and think, okay, well, how the heck
am I supposed to vote for you. I have no
idea what you're going to do differently from what you've
been doing for the last you know, two years, which
hasn't worked, right. I mean, in the last two years,
the Democrats went and lost the House of Representatives barely,
(13:58):
but they still lost it, and then they lost the
White House, and then this is what they give to
their Democrat voters. I mean, quite frankly, this is not
a serious organization. This is not a serious party. They
don't take themselves seriously. Clearly, that's the only reason you
get up there and do this. You're supposed to be
talking about your policies, and it said you're singing a song.
That's just vanity, that's what that is. You want to
(14:20):
get up there and say, look at what a great
singer I am. You're supposed to be working in politics
to benefit something greater than yourself, but that's not what's
happening here. I don't know if that person actually won,
but that was for the position of chairman of the
Democrat Party. I do know one of the people who
became one of the I believe several vice chairmen of
(14:41):
the Democrat Party is David Hogg. Now, David Hog is
someone who was a survivor of the Parkland school shooting.
Obviously that's incredibly tragic. I'm not going to make fun
of that. I will say he has locked in on
being a single issue voter, and as you can imagine,
his single issue is gun control. Now, that is not
a winning issue in the United States of America. It
(15:03):
just isn't. We like guns overall, by and large, most
Americans like guns. So if the people leading your party
are people who are only concerned with banning guns, guess
what You're going to lose every election. So I want
to familiarize you with David Hogg and who he is
and what he's been doing in his activism. Here's a
throwback clip. This is when now DNC vice chair. David
(15:25):
Hogg was at some sort of college speaking to students
about gun control, and a Chinese immigrant, legal immigrant, I
should note, asks him, Okay, you want to ban guns.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Here. My
single issue, because I'm also a single issue voter, is
making sure that America does not fall under a tyrannical government.
(15:45):
So without guns, how do you go about preventing that?
Because remember that is the purpose of the Second Amendment
and firearms in the United States. It's to keep the
government in check. So here's this Chinese immigrant at this
college asking David hog about this, and he has no answer.
Speaker 8 (16:01):
Hi, my name is Lily Tan Williams. Welcome to my
Lifrail or Die State. Actually, I am a Chinese immigrant
who survived communism and under Mau you know, forty million
people were starving to death after he sold the communism
to them, and twenty million people died murdered during his
(16:21):
cultural revolution. So my question to you, David is that
can you guarantee me a gun owner tonight? Our government
in the US in DC will never never become a
tyrannical government. Can you guarantee that to me?
Speaker 1 (16:39):
There's no way I can ever guarantee that any government
will not be tyrannical.
Speaker 8 (16:42):
Well, then the debate on gun control is over because
I will never give up my guns, never, never, And
you should go to China to see how gun control
works for dictatorship of sacap.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Couldn't have said it better myself. The gun control debate
is over because again that's the big question, right, how
do we keep the government in check? How do the
citizens keep their government in check? Because you can write
all the documents and you can have all the systems
in place that you want, but at the end of
the day, if the monopoly of power is in the
hands of the federal government, you can never guarantee that
(17:17):
the governing officials will follow the law. You just can't.
There's no way to do it because they will break
the law and kill you to do it. We've seen
that in communist country after communist country, in gun controlled
country after gun controlled country. I mean, you'd have thinked
that David Hogg would have had an answer to that question,
because I mean, it's a common question in gun control debates,
but he didn't. And he's one of the people running
(17:39):
the Democrat Party now. So get ready for a whole
lot of winning Republicans, because I mean, the party is
in shambles. The people running the party are not particularly smart.
We're going to win a lot, and I'm excited for it.
All right, we'll be right back, all right. Who's familiar
(18:18):
with us AID? I imagine probably not very many people.
I myself wasn't super familiar with it until just this week.
As the name would suggests. Us AID. That's the agency
that's in charge of handing out the foreign aid that
the United States of America sends out to basically every
country and their mother for God only knows what reason.
(18:40):
It's an incredibly problematic organization, as I and a lot
of other Americans are just now learning for the first time,
this organization is basically just a slush fund that goes
out to anybody who asks nicely for a bunch of
US taxpayer money. And as we'll discuss, a bunch of
the people asking for US taxpayer money and getting it
(19:04):
are not the greatest people. They're just not that nice.
Here's Donald Trump talking about the aid that the United
States was giving, for example, to South Africa. South Africa
is a nation that is predominantly black. It has a
small population of white Anglo farmers from when it was
a English colony, and they have had a huge problem
(19:27):
with being genocided. Lately, they are having their land taken
by the government of South Africa and a lot of
them are being murdered. This is something that has not
been talked about, but the United States has been, through
the usaid back channels, actually funding this. Here's Trump at
Joint Base Andrews. It looks like this is in front
(19:48):
of Air Force One talking about how we've been basically
giving these people handfuls and pallets of cash and they've
been using that to you know, kill people and steal
their land. Which I thought we were all in green
that was a bad thing, but I guess now this
is controversial. Take a listen.
Speaker 2 (20:03):
Terrible things are happening in South Africa. The leadership is
doing some terrible things.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
That's horrible things.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
So that's under investigation right now.
Speaker 9 (20:15):
We'll make a determination and.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Until such time as we find out what South Africa
is doing. They're taking away land, they're confiscating land, and
actually they're doing things that are perhaps far worse than that.
Speaker 1 (20:28):
And yeah, I don't know, that doesn't really sound to
me like a regime that the United States government should
be involved in funding, should frankly be associated with at all.
This is a major problem, and they were getting money
from USAID. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
There was more. Caroline Levitt, the White House Press Secretary,
(20:48):
went out with a list of all the crazy things
that USAID had been funding, had been giving money to.
Remember your taxpayer dollars. We talked in the last episode
about how much were text and how ridiculous it is.
You want to know where your money's going. Here's White
House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt saying, look, this is what
(21:08):
we're spending and it's crazy stuff. Take a listen.
Speaker 10 (21:13):
And here's the reason why Elon Musk and others have
been taking a look, because if you look at the
waste and abuse that has run through USAID over the
past several years, these are some of the insane priorities
that that organization has been spending money on. One point
five million dollars to advance DEI in Serbia's workplaces, seventy
thousand for a production of a Dei musical in Ireland,
(21:36):
forty seven thousand for a transgender opera in Colombia, thirty
two thousand for a transgender comic book in Peru. I
don't know about you, but as an American taxpayer, I
don't want my dollars going towards this crap, and I
know the American people don't either. And that's exactly what
Elon Musk has been tasked by President Trump to do
to get the fraud, waste, and abuse out of our
federal government.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Thank you. I could walk into a liquor store and
make better investments than that. Let's be honest here, that
is quite possibly the worst possible use of taxpayer money.
It's unbelievable. The crap that they're spending are hard earned money.
On right, I think we can all agree, even if
(22:18):
you like some of those things, that's not something the
government should be funding. Our taxpayers are supposed to be
used to take care of us. So obviously, the USAID
has essentially been completely shut down. The State Department put
out this message. They said, the United States Agency for
International Development us AID has long strayed from its original
mission of responsibly advancing American interests abroad, and it is
(22:42):
now abundantly clear that significant portions of us AID funding
are not aligned with the core national interests of the
United States. As an interim step towards gaining control and
better understanding over the agency's activity, President Donald J. Trump
appointed Secretary Marco Rubio as acting administrator. Secretary Rubio has
now also notified Congress that a review of USAID's foreign
(23:05):
assistants' activities is underway with an eye towards potential reorganization.
As we evaluate USAID and ensure its alignment with an
America First agenda and the efforts of the State Department,
we will continue to protect the American people's interests and
ensure that their tax dollars are not wasted. So that's
essentially them saying, hey, we've basically shut this program, this
department down for now. We're not spending any money, none
(23:28):
of the money is going out. It's just sitting there, right.
That's not the story. Frankly, we knew this was going
to happen. We knew that Donald Trump and his administration
and Elon Musk with those we're gonna go in and
we're gonna find huge amounts of waste and put a
stop to it. This should not surprise any of us.
Maybe the individual line items that we're wasting money on
(23:49):
should But the concept of a whole of us finding
these problems and then putting a stop to it, that
shouldn't be shocking. It's really not a story. It doesn't matter.
The story here is how livid the Democrats are about this.
They have absolutely lost their minds. They've been rallying, holding protests,
talking about how this is an assault on democracy. Here's
(24:12):
a video of Senator Chris Murphy going on and on
and on about how they shouldn't be allowed to do
this because Congress has control of the purse. They decide
what we spend money on, not the president of the
United States.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today.
Speaker 7 (24:29):
Let's call it what it is.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
The people get to decide how we defend the United
States of America. The people get to decide how their
tax payer money is spent. Elon Musk does not get
to decide.
Speaker 1 (24:44):
Okay, first of all, fairpoint, I'll give you that how
many people voted for transgender comic books in Peru, cause
I sure didn't. I don't think most Americans either date
or would if they knew that was in there. But
put that to the side for a minute, because I mean,
I'll give you you that point in concept, fair enough.
Why weren't you protesting when Joe Biden shut down the
(25:07):
construction of the border wall, Because that's the thing that happened.
Congress said, we have put together this much money, we
are hereby declaring that it should be spent on construction
of a border wall. Executive branch, go do it. And
then Trump did it. He was working on it. Joe
Biden came into power and said, no, we're not doing it.
He completely stopped that operation. It's essentially the same thing.
(25:30):
And there were no Democrats protesting in the streets about it.
They just weren't. They didn't care. So is this only
a problem when Democrats do it? Because that's what it
looks like to me. It looks like you guys don't
care about the executive branch pausing a program or operation
when it's something you don't like. But the moment somebody
(25:52):
threatens your transgender comic books in Peru, we have to
shut down the entire country. This is a constitutional crisis.
How about this. I don't believe you. I don't believe
you actually care this much. I think you just want
something to protest about. And this is the first thing
that came available to you. So you're grandstanding. Now, that's
what's happening. But it's not just one Democrat senator too.
(26:12):
This is a coordinated response by the entire Democrat caucus.
Take a listen to Chuck Schumer. He's the Senate minority leader,
he's basically the top Democrat in the Senate, and he's
doing this same number talking about how this is a
threat to democracy and shutting down gay comic books in
Peru is going to destroy our country. Take a listen.
Speaker 5 (26:33):
Also, No, this is just the beginning. If DOJA tacks
USAID today, then you can be sure they'll move on
to another target tomorrow. Who knows, maybe there'll be the
Postal Service or the IRS, or even the Social Security
Administration they could be next, or maybe our national security agencies.
Speaker 1 (26:52):
All right, slow down there, Chruck, I'm already on board.
You don't have to sell it to me. Oh no,
God forbid we shut down the what are we gonna do?
God forbid? We let Americans keep their tax dollars and
don't spend it on all this stupid stuff that we've
been spending millions of dollars on for years. I gotta
(27:13):
be honest, I'm not that concerned about it. So and
they're not either. There really aren't. They're gonna pretend to be,
but they aren't. Here's what they're concerned about. They're concerned
about their ability to make money, and they stand to
lose a lot of money off of this USAID thing.
Daily Wire reported this ninety seven percent of political contributions
(27:35):
from USAID employees went to Democrats. Are we surprised at all?
Go back, listen to that cut of Carolyn Levitt talking
about what that money is being spent on, and look
me dead in the eye and tell me you're surprised
that the people that staff that organization, the people that
work there, the people that are actually handing out these grants,
(27:56):
you're surprised that these people are selling out money to
the Democrats. But if you threaten that program, if all
of those government employees lose their jobs, guess what. The
Democrats aren't getting their political contributions anymore. That's where their
real concern is. They don't care about the balance of power,
They don't care about checks and balances. They never did,
and if they did, they would have been on Joe
(28:18):
Biden's case for four straight years. And they weren't. This
is so transparent, this is so obvious. We've created government
slush funds that exist to just fund Democrats and Democrat priorities.
The American people did not vote for that. That's not
what we want from our government. And despite how much
grand standing y'all do, despite how much y'all try to
(28:40):
villainize Elon Musk and Doge and the Trump administration, we're
not all going to suddenly hate the fact that our
money is being spent more responsibly. And we're not going
to start hating the fact that the feet of these
people who are wasting our taxpayer dollars are being held
to the fire. We're not We like this, all right,
We'll be right back, all right. We got some pretty
(29:20):
decent late breaking news that I think deserves to be mentioned.
First of all, the United States officially has a new
Attorney General, Pam Bondy has been confirmed. Now again, I
have spoken on Pam Bondi before in previous episodes. I
(29:43):
am sort of in a jury still out position when
it comes to Pambondy. She has said some things on
red flag laws that I, as a big Second Amendment absolutist,
I don't absolutely love. However, she's not in a legislative position.
She can't make laws. All she can do is enforce
the laws that are on the books. So I don't know,
(30:06):
we'll see. I don't hate the fact that she's the
attorney general. I am inclined to trust Trump's judgment on
this one. And here's why. I think in her hearings
she made a decent case for the fact that she
would be able to just focus on doing the job
of the attorney general without playing politics, which is what
(30:27):
we want in an attorney general, right. You know, justice
should be blind the laws of the law. The politics
of the attorney general should not matter when it comes
to enforcing the law. That's the job of the attorney general, right,
enforce the law. They're the top law enforcement officer in
the country. So you know, being a political is a
pretty good thing. I think we can all agree, right,
(30:48):
that makes sense. That makes sense. She explicitly said this
when she was in her confirmation hearing. She was having
a back and forth with Senator Adam Schiff, and she well,
Schiff tried to get her on some political nonsense with
Liz Cheney, who again nobody cares about her she's not
(31:08):
in Congress anymore. Why do we keep bringing her up anyway?
He tried to get her on some sort of gotcha
thing talking about Liz Cheney and Pam BONDI is like, listen,
I'm I'm not doing this. I'm not gonna have a
political conversation with you about how evil I do or
don't think that Liz Cheney is. If Liz Cheney commits
(31:30):
a crime, we'll investigate that. And I'm not going to
talk with you right now about an investigation that we
might do in the future. That doesn't make sense right now.
She hasn't been charged with anything. So this is a
ridiculous conversation to have and I'm just not gonna have it,
which is exactly what we want from an attorney general.
Take a listen to this exchange called.
Speaker 7 (31:48):
For it publicly. You are aware of that, aren't you.
Speaker 11 (31:52):
No one has asked me to investigate, but worried about
answer my question right now?
Speaker 7 (32:01):
You are aware of the root ms Bondy, Your.
Speaker 11 (32:04):
Robbery's bondyigher than the national question.
Speaker 7 (32:07):
Is this?
Speaker 11 (32:08):
That's what I want to.
Speaker 12 (32:09):
Question, is this, Do you have the power to say
no to the president and what you're suggesting today by
your non answer is you don't have the independence to
say no to the president. So let me ask you
a different question. Also requires you, if you're going to
be a good Attorney General, to be able to tell
hard truths to the president. So my questions now are
can you tell hard truth to the president. So let
(32:31):
me start with an easy truth that you could speak
to the president. Can you tell us can you tell
him that Donald Trump lost the twenty twenty election? Can
you can you say that? Do you have the independence
to say that? You have the gravitas the statue of
the test of fortitude to say, Donald Trump, you lost
the twenty twenty election.
Speaker 7 (32:51):
Can you tell us that?
Speaker 11 (32:51):
Here today, Senator, what I can tell you is I
will never play politics. You're trying to engage me in
a gotcha.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
I want to question if you.
Speaker 7 (33:01):
Can speak truth. Let me ask you.
Speaker 2 (33:04):
You did.
Speaker 7 (33:08):
Hundreds of cases on day one.
Speaker 11 (33:11):
I will look at every file I am as.
Speaker 7 (33:14):
So will you advise that. Can I answer the question question?
Speaker 11 (33:17):
I would have plenty of staff. You said, of course you.
Speaker 7 (33:19):
Want, you'll be able to review.
Speaker 11 (33:22):
I'm not going to miss this body, nor you.
Speaker 7 (33:26):
All right, let me ask another question.
Speaker 11 (33:28):
You don't want to ask that answers just like this.
Speaker 1 (33:33):
Also, she absolutely lit him up there and she called
him on his bs. He's sitting there trying to carry
on about the twenty twenty election, which was check the
math almost five years ago at this point, that doesn't matter.
He's asking her about Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney is not
a public official anymore. That doesn't matter. Liz Chain doesn't
(33:56):
matter the twenty twenty election and who did or did
not win, it doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. And she's
exactly right. He's trying to get her in some sort
of gotcha moment. He's trying to catch her saying something
or not saying something so that they can go ron
and campaign on that. They're not doing their job of
making sure that Pam Bondi is qualified. They're just trying
(34:18):
to go after Trump. That's what they're doing here, and
Pambondi caught them. She called him on it, and she
didn't participate. That was the best possible response. She didn't
try to weasel out of the question. She just said, listen,
this is a stupid question and I'm not gonna answer it.
And Shift didn't like that. He's sitting there going you
can't answer the question. You can't answer the question. No,
(34:40):
it's not that she can't answer the question, it's that
it's a stupid question and it's not worth the time
of day. We shouldn't keep letting the senators get away
with that. Honestly, I really enjoy this just because she
didn't sit and participate in it. It always aggravates me
when I see some sort of official or somebody who
wants to become an official, sitting through one of these
(35:01):
Senate hearings and they're asked all these stupid questions by
a senator or representative or you know, whatever government authority
is questioning them, and they just sort of go along
with it, and they try to basically cover for the
fact that our elected officials are stupid. And Pam Bonni
didn't do that. She's like, no, this is a stupid question.
(35:23):
I'm not participating in this because this is not worth
the time. We need more of this. Can we nominate
more people that will call out these senators for asking
stupid questions. I think that would be a great thing
to do. I don't know that's just me, but anyway,
that clip right there, just that alone that makes me
think maybe she's worth it, you know, maybe she's gonna
(35:46):
be able to do this. We'll keep an eye on her.
If she starts to, you know, get a little grabby
with the guns, we'll call her on that. But as
of right now, I'm confident that she's going to be
able to do a decent job, and I look forward
to seeing what she does, because, as we know, the
Department of Justice is like every other department of the government,
incredibly corrupt. It's got a lot of problems going on,
(36:07):
and it needs to be addressed, it needs to be adjusted,
and I think she'll do that, and I'm excited to
see it. I really am. Okay, moving on from that,
we have one other really big piece of news that
I think, frankly is the most important piece of news
of the week. I don't know. We'll see if that's
actually the case, but from where I stand right now,
it looks like it is. So the war between Israel
(36:30):
and Hamas in Gaza seems to be coming to an end,
right that's slowly drawing down. So now the big question
is where do we go from here? How do we
rebuild that area? Because Gaza has been completely flattened over
the course of this war. So what do we do
with that? Where do we go from here? Well, Donald Trump,
in a meeting with net and Yahoo yesterday just basically
(36:50):
stood up and said, Okay, we're just gonna take it
and it's ours now. We're just going to completely rebuild it,
and it'll be ours and we'll have it and it
belongs to the US. Now, here's what that sounded like.
In his meeting with Benjamin nettin Yahoo, Prime Minister of Israel.
This is Donald Trump speaking with Netanyahu right there.
Speaker 9 (37:08):
The US will take over the Gaza Strip and we
will do a job with it too. We'll own it
and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded
bombs and other weapons on the site. Level the site
and get rid of the destroyed buildings. Level it out,
create an economic development that will supply unlimited numbers of
(37:30):
jobs and housing for the people of the area. Do
a real job to something different. Just can't go back.
If you go back, it's going to end up the
same way it has for one hundred years.
Speaker 5 (37:42):
Now.
Speaker 1 (37:43):
Obviously this is going to be a hugely controversial move,
So put that out of your head. Really We don't
know how this is going to go until it goes. Frankly,
that's the reality of the situation. I will say this
is a step up from where we've been because Trump
makes the point right there. We can't keep doing the
same thing and hoping for a different result otherwise. I mean,
(38:03):
we haven't gotten anywhere with this situation in one hundred years,
and it's led to this point where the entire gaza
area is a parking lot now, so we need to
be doing something differently. I think America's stepping in is
probably going to be a decent move. I don't know,
we'll see what exactly happens. If this ends up as
another situation where America is just throwing money into a
(38:25):
Middle East toilet that we're never going to see any
return on investment for, then obviously we should not do it.
But if there's a chance that we can actually create
something worthwhile here, something that reflects our values and our
interests in that region, then sure, why not as long
as we can make something self sustaining over a decent
period of time, If we can actually get to a
(38:46):
point where we have a return on investment, then hey,
I'm not necessarily mad about that, but we're gonna have
to see what happens. All right. That's all I've got
for this episode. Thank y'all very much for listening, and
we will be back.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.