September 8, 2025 • 45 mins
When military veterans analyze politics, they bring a unique perspective that cuts through partisan noise. This episode of Left Face offers exactly that as Dick Wilkinson and Adam Gillard engage in a wide-ranging discussion that connects local Colorado politics with global security concerns.
The conversation begins with a firsthand account of Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser's town hall event, where both hosts witnessed his commitment to addressing community questions and his track record of challenging executive overreach. This leads to a thoughtful analysis of how tax policies impact veteran retirement decisions – with Dick making a compelling economic case for why states should incentivize military retirees to stay local rather than flee to tax-friendly destinations.
Space Command's announced relocation from Colorado Springs to Huntsville becomes a launching point for examining both immediate local impact and long-term strategic considerations. The veterans offer reassurance about Colorado's enduring space industry presence while acknowledging the potential for gradual shifts in defense contractor investments.
Things take a darker turn as they discuss recent military actions against alleged drug traffickers in international waters, raising profound questions about authorization, oversight, and the disturbing precedent of lethal force without clear accountability. This connects to growing concerns about domestic deployment of military assets and constitutional boundaries between state and federal authorities.
Most alarming is their assessment of the recent summit in China that brought together Putin, Xi Jinping, and other leaders opposed to American interests. Drawing on their military expertise, Dick and Adam break down China's growing capabilities in anti-satellite warfare and what Taiwan's semiconductor industry means for American national security. Their analysis offers a sobering reminder of how economic and military threats intertwine in ways most civilian analysts miss.
Want to join the conversation? Connect with us on social media or attend our upcoming events where veterans and community members come together to discuss the politics that shape our lives.
https://bsky.app/profile/leftfaceco.bsky.social
https://www.facebook.com/epccpv
www.EPCCPV.org or info@epccpv.org
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of
Left Face.
This is the Pikes Peaks Regionpodcast for veterans, where we
talk about politics.
I am your co-host, dickWilkinson, and I'm joined this
morning with Adam Gillard.
Good morning, adam.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning Dick.
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Doing well.
We are filming on locationtoday in front of a non-existent
studio audience.
So good to have you over at thehouse.
How have you been this week andwhat?
I guess we're doing a potpourriepisode.
We didn't prep.
This time we're just going togo for a free-for-all.
So let's start with what's themost interesting topic on your
(00:37):
mind this week, adam.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I'd like to talk about the town hall or the meet
and greet that we had over theweekend with Phil Weiser.
I thought that was a prettycool event.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, yeah, I was able to attend that and I was
glad I did because I got to seesome of the qualities about this
candidate that you've seen.
So how did you put thattogether and kind of, what was
the affiliations there?
Who all was involved in thatevent?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So just a good friend of mine, lois, she reached out.
She runs the manitou springsportion of the campaign, okay,
or one of the volunteers upthere doing it.
And then she put me in contactwith the el paso county reps
forum.
Uh, and I'd seen him speak atthe indivisible event a couple
(01:19):
months ago I guess it was nowand uh, you know, we probably
had probably had 700 people atthat meeting and people left
really energized listening tohim.
Good, the community reallyloves him coming out and talking
because so let's say who him isreal quick.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Just let's clear that up.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, so Attorney General Phil Weiser, he's a
current Attorney General.
Current Attorney General runningWeiser.
He's a current attorney general.
He's a current attorney generalrunning for governor.
He was kind of one of the firstbig names to put his name out
there.
Now Senator Bennett is probablythe next biggest competition,
but yeah, so running forgovernor already has a pretty
(02:01):
great track record of fightingthe Trump administration.
He's sued him 35 times already.
So, yeah, just somebody thatI've seen speak in the community
and at that Dem West that wehad, he was out there also, so
he's getting around the state.
You know he's putting in a lotof travel.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
That is a hard part of one of those types of
statewide seats where you've gotto touch every corner, every
county, every little town hallplace you can go to, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
That's got to be a warrior type job.
Yeah, I mean we had like anhour with him because he was
just kind of passing throughfrom Pueblo back up to Denver.
So you know we were able totalk to the IBEW folks and get
the hall reserved so that youknow, even having an hour out
(02:50):
there, you know meetingsomething and you know we got
the word out and you know we had75, 80 people folks that showed
up.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So I was glad to see that, for, really, it's it's
very early in.
You know this race situation,so for candidate events like
that, you are it's it's iffy,because a lot of people aren't
tuned in on what race you're in.
You know what.
You know they thinking about itnext year, right, and so people
coming out to primary typeevents for your campaign, it's
(03:13):
um, tends to be the more diehardpeople that are within the
party, right and um.
I feel like, though, there wasa good representation of not
just party diehards that go toevery political event in town,
but, uh, also people that youknow don't necessarily regularly
attend those types of events,but but either saw where it was
(03:34):
at or him as an interesting uhspeaker, so that was encouraging
to get a bit a bit of adifferent cross section of
people that were politicallymotivated.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, yeah, the, uh, the, the marketing, the
marketing that we did for youknow, I think we got a lot of
good veterans out there that youknow had a lot of good
questions, and I thought histactic at the end of just kind
of taking a lot of questions andthen rapid-fire answering, he
really tried to leave noquestion unanswered.
So I thought it was really coolthat he did that and was
(04:02):
respectful of everybody's timetoo, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Really cool that he did that and was respectful of
everybody's time too.
Yeah, so I asked Mr Weiser aquestion during the rapid fire
section because I realized itwas the chance to kind of get it
out there and I knew that Iwouldn't get a very detailed
answer.
What would you be able to do,or what would be your priorities
, to make Colorado attractive toveterans and retirees that are
(04:28):
getting out at one of thesemilitary bases here and they
look at the landscape of options?
You know we all would get thatlast PCS so we can go kind of
wherever we want on thegovernment's dime.
And people are making a lot offinancial decisions based on if
they're going to work again orif they're going to live off
their retirement and ordisability, and so the
attractiveness of certainregions comes down to financial
(04:49):
choices.
And I think for all of us thatlive here in Colorado, we
understand that there are infact other places that are lower
cost of living.
You know, and we've lived thereas military people If you've
ever been stationed in Georgia,you understand that it's cheaper
to live in Georgia or Oklahomathan it is in Colorado, in
Georgia.
You understand that it'scheaper to live in Georgia or
Oklahoma than it is in Colorado,and so if you had any reason to
(05:11):
go back there, you might choosethat as your landing spot,
because it's a lot cheaper andit's a lot easier for your
family to enjoy your retirement,and so that's got to be a
priority for anybody in thegovernor role and at the state
legislature level to makepolicies that are attractive for
that population.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I think right now our retirement gets taxed at like
20% or not 20, so 20,000.
I think.
I think like it's that's whenour uh taxes for the estate
taxes really start kicking in.
Um, so there's a little bit ofyou know grace there, but uh,
but yeah, a lot of other states.
You know that the retirementthat we get is not taxed at all.
So yeah, it's a lot of otherstates.
(05:45):
You know the retirement that weget is not taxed at all, so
yeah it's a lot more.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
It's hard to compete against that if you're not going
to.
You know if you need the taxmoney in some areas to make
certain programs work, but thenin the other hand you try and
you know you may be supportiveof a tax reduction for certain
populations of people.
Yeah, the you know we, as theveterans, we have to defend our
position and say, well, why doyou want that?
You know, what do you?
Why?
You know, thank you for yourservice is one thing.
(06:08):
Right If it's just like, hey,we want to give you a break, we
want you to, you know, keep asmuch money as you can, but but
what about?
How does that impact the restof society other than the
veterans Right on the showbefore?
But I'll give my my take on it.
The economic impact of havingmilitary retirees in your
(06:30):
community is significant, and Ican't quote a research study, so
I'm speaking anecdotally.
But I would like to think thatthe economic offset of reducing
those taxes and keeping, let'ssay, a couple hundred more
veteran families in thecommunity.
They mostly work again afterthe military.
(06:51):
They mostly work in high-payingjobs where they're contributing
local taxes, they're mostlyspending money on local
resources and so you've got areally a citizen in your
community that is contributingthrough multiple streams of
income and wants to enjoy, youknow, whatever you've, whatever
you've kind of cultivated foreverybody else in the city, and
(07:13):
so the economic impact of thembeing there offsets the tax
reduction to the rest of thecommunity because it's poured
back in through 100 percent.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, that's my take on it.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
You know that's, if anybody in one of those those
decision making positions asked,that would be my answer.
But then of course, if they askme, can you, can you show a
study on that?
Honestly, some of those thingsare researched and that that
information is available, that'ssomething through the uh party
committee that we're on, thecouncil that we're on.
We should look into gettingaccess to some of that research
because I've seen it before.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yeah, so yeah, because you know that's kind of
once you throw that in theirface, then they want the stats,
you got to back it up.
Yeah, once something makessense, I'm like, well, yeah,
that does make sense, but youhave to have an answer for that.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
You got to back it up , yeah, yeah, because otherwise
we have a declared conflict ofinterest.
We would benefit from the taxreduction, and so of course you
know if you want to pick up yourveteran banner and then use
that to lobby to just improveyour own life.
Man, that's not what we'reabout.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
The thing that I, like every elected official that
I talk to, I try to always talkabout active duty taxes.
You know, I think our activeduty troops should not be paying
state taxes, because right now,anybody that's on active duty
here, they're going to be aresident of Florida or Texas or
Arizona Any of those states thatdon't have state tax.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Oh yeah, they're incentivized to switch, yeah, so
they don't really.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
they live in these communities but they don't vote
on who's running our communities.
You know they're voting onArizona or Texas.
So yeah, I think if we were todo that you know with, you know
current, you know Space Force,you know Peterson, you know all
those locations I think you knowyou'd get a lot more blue
people changing theirregistration than red folks,
(09:04):
because red folks are already.
You know, red folks alreadyhave Texas or Florida.
They're happy and they'reprobably going to go back there.
But there's a lot of peopleworking here in these
communities that are going tostay in these communities that
just don't change theirregistration because I mean, I
didn't.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I was registered in Texas when I joined, and so why
would I change?
So I was a citizen of Texaswhen I joined, so I why would I
change, you know?
So I was a citizen of Texaswhen I joined, so I just stayed
that way throughout my entirecareer, because there was never
an incentive to change to somelocal registration or, you know,
proof of residence type thing.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
So, yeah, yeah, when I moved to Arizona, you know we
changed, and then you know,coming up here, you know six
years later or something likethat we didn't change until I
retired.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, yeah, and and I mean I'm in that same boat now
that this was the first move Iever made outside of the
military where I actually had tolike switch everything over, um
, and it was.
You know, I was like man I'mmoving from a lower tax state to
a higher tax state and I likecan't defend against that.
But whatever, I guess you knowwe're retired now.
But uh, the benefit of havingold dick wilkinson here you know
(10:08):
, I'll speak.
You know I'll speak on behalf ofeverybody else I don't know
about the benefit of having mearound but I can tell you how
other veterans impact yourcommunity.
Yeah well, um, I you know thanksfor putting that together and I
did follow up with uh.
They gave me a chance to emailone of his campaign coordinator
people and I was able to sendover a note and say that we'd
(10:30):
like to have him on the show andyou know when it makes sense
for the campaign because, ofcourse, we want to time certain
like media things within yourcycle of you know, primary or
general race type stuff, sothere's probably a right time
for him to do that.
Marry or general race typestuff, so there's probably a
right time for him to do that.
And then, of course, I offered,you know, to support the
(10:50):
campaign.
You know to what degree that Icould.
You know I'm not saying I'mpicking a winner or personally
endorsing anything, yet you knowI haven't heard anything about
any other candidates, but so farI mean he.
I would absolutely vote for himfrom what I heard, yeah, so
that's why I'm willing to help.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, I think, because even when he talked
about fighting the merger forKing, Soopers and Safeway
assuming they're going to findthat merger he told us that the
they were actually likeillegally colluding with each
other to not hire each other'semployees.
Yeah, so like, yeah, like, goafter everybody man.
(11:26):
He is definitely somebodythat's going to fight for the
working class Sure.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
So that was your top item on mind.
I guess I'll share mine and Imight surprise some of our
listeners.
And I might surprise some ofour listeners.
This week there was DonaldTrump.
Our president made anannouncement that the Space
Command is moving to Huntsville,and so that was something that
we have talked about on the showand understood it was.
(11:54):
You know, we described it asjust a ticking clock for
whenever that order comesthrough, and so that happened
this week.
People reached out to me andsaid oh hey, dick, are you
moving to Alabama now, because Iwork in the space industry,
right?
Speaker 2 (12:09):
And.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
I said no, I said I'm not.
Space command is for folks thatdon't necessarily understand
this is not the Space Force,this is the Space Combatant
Command, which is a jointcommand of all the military
branches put together to dojoint operations in a space
environment.
Right, and that's defensive andoffensive and research and
everything else.
Right, and so that's what theSpace Command does.
(12:31):
And if there was ever like aweaponization of space and that
commander would be the one toauthorize like use of force in
space, right, that does notimpact the rest of the services
of the Space Force that theyprovide to the government and
the other military branches andthe intelligence community, et
cetera.
So the management of spacecraftalready on orbit space comm has
(12:53):
almost nothing to do with that.
Um.
The management of newtechnologies and new assets
coming into the service spacecommand has very little to do
with that as well, um, from aacquisition perspective versus
the rest of the Space Force.
So all the rest of thefootprint of the Space Force
activities around here, they'renot changing.
You know Peterson, schrieverand Buckley and then NORAD,
(13:16):
facilities and capabilitiesthere you know all of that stuff
is not going anywhere.
And capabilities there, youknow all of that stuff is not
going anywhere.
So the Space Command is asignificant footprint here and
is a bit of a I want to call ita crown jewel, right, but the
overall impact to the spaceindustry and economy here in
Colorado Springs I think it'sgoing to be pretty limited.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
I would agree in the short term, but in the long term
, I think what you're going tosee is a lot of the bigger.
Space Command is big herebecause the space industry is
big here, because Space Commandand space started really
developing here with Schrieverand things like that.
But as we go forward andthey're looking to replace a lot
(13:59):
of the getting outdated systemsout, of Schriever things are
coming up on end of life.
They're going to take rootsomewhere.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Oh yeah, you're saying the infrastructure
resources will go elsewhere.
Yeah, they'll follow the commandthey're going to follow where
the bigwigs are sitting becausethat's where they make the
decisions and that's going to bethe communities that they want
to help serve the most is theones where you know the raytheon
ceos and you know now got acondo in alabama uh, so you know
(14:29):
, wherever those big programmanagers are sitting and the
four-star generals are sitting,that's where the decisions are
happening and but I think Iguess what I'm saying is there
will endure to be seniorleadership here at these places
in colorado that aren'tnecessarily part of the
combatant command but are stillpart of the rest of the Space
Force management.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Oh yeah, Space is pretty heavy in senior
leadership right now.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, that's all of it.
That's really all space isright now.
Yeah, you know, I didn'trealize there's like only
hundreds of people in the SpaceForce, not thousands, right Like
.
There's like a thousand peoplein the Space Force right now or
something like that.
I'm pretty sure there are a fewthousand now.
Yeah, maybe, maybe this yearthey.
You know, I know therecruitment's never been a
problem, I don't think.
(15:10):
But I mean, it's just, it'stiny.
I mean, even then, even if itwas 10,000 people, like that's
tiny you know, Like that's a lotto go around work-wise.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're still growing into their
mission, I guess, is the pointof that well, and they've been
slowly kind of transferring theresponsibilities yeah out of air
force and so, yeah, they justkind of like gain people just
through that process, throughthe um acquisition of other yeah
responsibilities yeah, thereserve unit, uh, the reserve
plane just shut down this yearand that was about a thousand
(15:42):
people in that space reserveplane that are now kind of uh,
either into the space force orback into the civilian world.
So, yeah, yeah, space ingeneral isn't that large of a
industry community yeah, yeah,it's very small yeah, it's crazy
, and it's crazy and specialisttoo.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Um well, for me, you know, the space command being
top of mind, I think people thataren't from here saw it as a
pretty big blow Politically.
You know, I don't really knowthe impact it could be used as a
talking point against peoplethat are currently in office or
future candidates, you know.
If you want to say, hey, lookat what they didn't do to
support the community, well,that will be a talking point.
(16:22):
And, uh, you know, cherrypicking opportunity to say, hey,
you messed up.
You know.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I mean, if lamborn did one thing, we still had
space, you know.
So now you replace them and,you know, immediately goes away.
And this is right after crankgets the endorsement from trump
too.
You remember that oh no, yeah,like a week before trump came
out and you know, endorsed crankand you talk about all the
great things that he's doing andeverything like that.
I didn't hear about that yeah,so that happened about a week
(16:50):
before, so that's a soften theblow.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Yeah, exactly, he's like hey, man, we're about to
take away your one of your toys,but you think you're a cool guy
?
Yeah, we're not gonna like burnyou down and I down and it
sells around here.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yeah, like you don't get a whole lot of outrage from
the Republican side, or evenwith the Epstein file release,
you know they.
It's silent.
Yeah, they're not sayinganything.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Yeah that's true.
Speaking of that, I saw thatyou know Congress is back in
session, and so the topic justresumed as though it had never
stopped.
Really, you know, once Congressleft early, even to delay votes
on certain things that wereregarding Epstein.
You know content?
Yeah, things have happenedduring recess.
None of it was valid, like newinformation has been released or
(17:35):
anything like that, and soCongress and it's the thing that
I'm noticing is that thebipartisan aspect of it is
starting to get a little bitlouder, that's, there's more
Republicans that are gettinginvolved and saying, like this
is we're out of bounds here.
You know, like, regardless ofwho may or may not be protected
or not by this, like action, thepeople have demanded this.
(17:55):
Yeah, transparency.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It makes sense yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
What they're asking for makes sense, and so the
Republicans are starting to.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
strangely enough, this is a topic where they might
step out of ranks a little bityeah, I think right now four
have standing, including uhbobart, or you know, in the
fourth district.
She's one of the folks that uhsaid that they would sign the
petition, um, and I thinkthey're four short right now on
what they need.
But, yeah, it's good to seesome folks have a backbone
(18:23):
because he's even come out andlike threaten them saying, like
you, yeah, any support of thisis an attack on the trump
administration like what thehell man I?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
mean that's, uh, that's enforcer stuff right
there you know what?
I'm saying that's, that's thegoon mentality of like hey, step
out of line and it's gonna beyour ass right like yeah, yeah,
but, and so many people are justokay with it, they'll just fall
in line and well, it's easierto fall in line than it is to,
you know, say something right.
I mean honestly, and you know, Ithought about this, uh, a day
(18:52):
or two ago.
Um, there are, there'sobviously there's just one
president and vice president,but there are 500 people in
congress over 500 people,there's 400 something.
House members and then 100, youknow, senators 435, over 500
people, there's 400 something.
House members, and then 100senators and so 500 people.
That actually does create someroom for there to be people that
(19:12):
just kind of slip back into thecracks, vote yes on everything
but never really get anyattention for being like a super
hard party liner.
And they're just these safevotes that are built into the
apparatus.
If you will, the Doug Lamborns,if you will, and they don't
want to get you know, they willnever rock the boat because the
local population is a slam dunkreelection and as long as you
(19:33):
don't piss off the top of theparty, you basically you have
guaranteed support from the base.
So don't, don't incite the topof the party to come get you,
you know, and then you can justcruise like for a long, long
time, and so 500 people allowsthat to happen, you know?
Um, good or bad, it's just thestate of affairs right now and
the whip, the majority minority,whips, they just I don't think
(19:56):
there's any motivation for themto do much about that because,
like I said, those are justguaranteed votes in your column.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Right, yeah, so yeah, and that's you know.
When you see folks like Mamdaniin New York upsetting things,
you know even people on your ownside get upset when you start
trying to rock that vote.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
You know you try to take away your you know for sure
votes on whatever topic it is.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Oh, that's true.
Yeah, yeah, if you start messingwith districts that are those
sleepy guaranteed vote districts, yeah you, now you've got the
wrong attention you know, so,again, you know, it's just not,
it's not conducive to the gameof long longevity in politics,
can be supported by just kind ofslipping into those cracks.
You know, know, I don't thinkanybody joins uh a political
(20:44):
office uh to to work like that.
But I think once they get inthere and kind of see what their
left and right limits are,they're like, okay, yeah, I'm
gonna do this, yeah, yeah, andyou know, again, it's it's.
Is it a betrayal of theiroriginal intentions or oath or
promises or whatever?
Maybe?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I think it's absolutely shameful that they're
sitting in the place where ourforefathers wrote all these
documents, that they sit thereand claim the gospel to them and
everything and they expound onhow great the forefathers were.
It's like you're sitting in thesame seat Like, go be great, go
do something that is true.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I really like that because, yeah, as I was just
giving the example of, there arepeople that can slip into the
cracks.
There was no such thing.
There's no such thing assomebody in the Continental
Congress that was like, hey, Ijust want to kind of put a name
on there, but I don't reallywant to say it.
Yeah, I don't really have anyideas, I'm just here to like
sign the document.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What are we doing for lunch?
Speaker 1 (21:43):
the document.
Yeah, what are we doing forlunch?
No, everybody there was washighly motivated towards
passionate outcomes and whetherthey agreed or disagreed, they
wanted to, you know, push thatdiscourse.
And if you could assume one ofthose roles and then not push
the discourse you, what are youdoing?
Why?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
are you sitting?
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, what's the point?
Why did you get that job?
Yeah, yeah, that's good, that'sa good, a good point.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I appreciate that the forefathers were not there to
just fill a seat right, and mostof them, when they would go
there, they would, you know,their bank or their farms would
go bankrupt oh, yeah, they hadpersonal.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, they had personal consequences from
taking, taking that time andgoing to do that.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, uh aoc, just put up the bill to uh outlaw
stock trading, like you'd haveto likeest your funds and things
like that.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Set everything aside and not move it at all.
That makes sense to me.
That is a conflict of interestof public trust.
Because you regulate thoseindustries, you regulate those
companies.
You can shut those companiesdown.
Google's been on the blockrecently for antitrust stuff.
If you're a celebritypolitician like AOC and you
start barking real loud aboutantitrust stuff, you could
(22:45):
damage Google and that might bewhat you want.
You know, because you want toback, you know, open AI or
something like that.
You're like yeah, this is myangle and you do that.
Four or five layers removedfrom the problem is what it
looks like, right, but you'repulling that string with your
own hand.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So that conflict of interest is extremely real.
Tim Scott works somewhere inthe administration now and uh,
he just got, you know, kind ofcaught red handed with you know,
legislating over you knowmillions and millions of dollars
that he that he gained in hisportfolio.
Um, after everybody cries aboutPelosi and everything.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And it's wrong about everybody.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
You know it's wrong for everybody to do it.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, it is Yep, yep, and that makes sense.
That outlaw it for.
And you know what I want thereto be disincentives to being in
Congress for forever, right, andmaybe that's one of them.
You know, If you have to putyour whole nest egg into
holdings that you can'tmanipulate or do anything about,
and you're there for 10, 20years and you lose your money
(23:44):
After a couple of terms, youmight be like, hey, I don't like
the direction this is headed.
Yeah, maybe I don't like my ownthoughts.
My lifestyle is not supported by$175,000 a year salary, I got a
multimillion-dollar lifestyle.
That's right, and I have to goback to being a real worker
again.
Yeah, right, Wait wait, wait,wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,wait.
You know a couple of terms ofthat.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
We may have some hot seats open you know, blows my
mind is they get paid reallygood money.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
They're still doing stuff like this and being you
know, it's just shady.
Yeah Well, as we said you know,talk about cost of living.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
DC is an expensive bank.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
I'm going to know what they get, you know.
But I do know that peoplethey'll own a home in their main
district, of course, but thenthey tend to just rent
properties.
You know apartments and stuffin DC.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
I think Doug Lamborn's last year in Colorado
Springs.
He spent like 20 days in theSprings because he had a ranch
up in Montana that he would justspend all of his time in.
Yeah, that's representation ofthe people right there yeah.
That's what we're here for.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Well, in our potpourri episode to continue,
what else is going on?
Is there any, I guess, localstuff?
Is there any events coming upsoon?
Speaker 2 (25:00):
I mean, we got the.
Probably the next thing isOctober 18th is the next big
protest, Okay.
So, yeah, we're going to startworking on locations for that.
It's going to be one of the bignationwide ones that they put a
lot of you know kind of weightbehind in advertising.
Okay, so they're expecting hugenumbers again.
(25:21):
Yeah, that should be anotherbig day for us.
Okay, what I wanted to, I kindof thought about as you're
asking that question did youhear about the, the strike that
we had on a drug boat in theCaribbean?
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yeah, yes, I did yeah .
Military strike, militarystrike on a boat in
international waters.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, with 11 people on it.
Yeah, like that's not a drugrunning boat man.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Oh, I mean, I didn't question whether it was or
wasn't a drug boat, you know,they go for speed in those Well
sure?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, you know they go for speed in those Well sure.
And having 11 extra people onthat means you need to yeah
Right, yeah, that's true, butstill to kill 11 drug runners,
even if they are drug runnerswithout you know An active
military campaign.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, what named campaign did they do
that strike under?
You know who was theauthorizing authority for that,
was it you know?
Yeah, I mean, what namedcampaign did they do that strike
under?
You know who was theauthorizing authority for that,
was it you know?
Yeah, I mean, dea can't order astrike on a boat in
international waters, right, soso?
Speaker 2 (26:25):
was it a Navy helicopter?
Would you know what it was?
I don't know what actually no,yeah, because when you say that,
I saw the video.
So much of our police forcesare militarized now I wouldn't
be surprised if it's like miamipeople.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Yeah, just in case cuba tries to invade yeah, yeah,
but yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
So now we're executing people.
You know, we're not even likegoing onto the boat and seeing
what's on the boat, right, theyjust said hey, everybody, this
was drugs.
These 11 people were carryingdrugs.
Oh, they trust the intelligencecommunity when they get to blow
up.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah, oh, they trust the intelligence community when
they get to blow up a drug boat.
No shit, they don't trust theintelligence community, when
they're like, hey, I don't thinkthat really happened, yeah, you
know.
And he's like, yeah, intel'salways fishy.
Yeah, when the rest of theworld, you can authorize a
strike to kill people based offof you know no upfront like
inspection.
Inspection, like you say, ofthe boat or anything like that's
purely intel, right, right, youcan rely on intel in that
(27:17):
moment, but you can't rely on itin other moments.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Yeah, wow yeah, okay, yeah, like I really think that
that's an international crimeright there, like I think that
would be chargeable, yeah butyou know who doesn't care?
Speaker 1 (27:31):
anybody, all those dead people, they're the only
ones that care.
Right, like the government,whatever government where the
boat actually did come from,isn't gonna say anything.
Uh, the international community, like it wasn't a, we didn't
smoke a cargo vessel, you know,so that you know that would have
got some attention, and eventhat, like iran does that and
(27:51):
nobody does anything, you know,and they blow up cargo vessels
on an oil tanker.
So you know, I mean, there's,there's no consequences so you
know it's uh.
Is it a good idea?
Probably not, but is it uhgonna lead to any outcomes or
policy changes?
I mean, it'll just keephappening more honestly well,
and that's the thing is.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
if people don't like, cause a stink over this, like
it's going to happen, yeah, yeah.
It's precedent, yeah, and it'sgoing to get closer and closer.
Sure, They've already talkedabout having the armed drones
flying over some of the protests.
There's predator drone footageof the LA protests.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
It's like why are they being deployed on our own
folks?
Well, Marines needed somethingto do.
They deployed the Marines andthey were like, hey, let's turn
on our stuff.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Yeah, you know, we talked about it last week where
you know the guard just kind ofhanging out in DC, yeah, just
trying to normalize theirpresence there.
I see them more and more atthat Union Station that they
took over.
You know, I think they got agood presence down there, um,
but then, uh, there's still agrowing.
You know complaints or whatnotabout uh, picking weeds and
(29:03):
things like oh sure uh, yeah, Ithink if we don't get them out
of there soon, they're gonna getbored and like just the marines
on okinawa aren't a goodexample Sure, yeah, you don't
want idle hands or the you knowdevil's workshop, right?
Speaker 1 (29:23):
So that's the last thing you need is armed troops
walking in circles for monthsand months with no mission.
Yeah, like, yeah.
And that's not a knock on thetroops or their discipline or
anything like that, it's just itturns it into a tinderbox?
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
It turns the whole thing into a tinderbox.
The citizens and the troopsboth get worn down by the
activity of just walking around.
You know being present, right,and then you know people start
getting.
Something happens on the subwayand a soldier gets involved,
and you know it's already gonnayou know, we're days away from
something like that days awayfrom something like that.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Yeah, you know, because they are.
You know, on the uh, on thesubways and everything already
you know on publictransportation, so I'm sure
people aren't being nice at whatthey say to them.
You know it's gonna the tide'sgonna turn yeah, the um.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
well, you also mentioned that the chicago push
for as far as putting troops outthere, right that the mayor
says don't come, the governorsays don't come.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
The.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
National Guard from Illinois is not going to be
activated because you know thegovernor is giving orders not to
do that.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So yeah, you mentioned that Trump is trying
to pull him from other places,right, yeah, so I guess the
Texas National Guard is on thehook, offered to be federalized,
or whatever.
Yeah, so I guess the TexasNational Guard is is on the hook
, offered to be federalized, orwhatever.
Yeah, yeah.
So now you're going to sendanother state's national or
another state guard?
Yeah, in against the state.
Yeah, you know that's a.
That sounds crazy to me.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
That sounds like an invasion to me, that's what I
would call it.
Holy shit yeah no-transcript.
(31:40):
Of your state and just be likeokay, do not, you know.
No, no authorized entry fromblah blah blah types of people.
Yeah, like that was happeningdown in Texas no-transcript, and
(32:02):
they said you know you're notauthorized to enter here.
If you need help withinterdiction, you need to tell
us what you need, right, butthis is it.
Like, this is Texas NationalGuard controlled property and
you're federal and you need toget out of here, you know so
that happened last year already.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Right, but that was also like a manufactured crisis.
Well, sure.
You know, they drove straightdown the road and there was like
nothing, right.
They had all thismilitarization of this one area
and then right down the road,the gates were wide open and
nobody was like screamingthrough it.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Yeah, you know I got you.
I mean, I'm not discussing theaccurate, like the
appropriateness of that action,but a state national guard
already rejected the presence ofa federal entity in Texas,
right, and that's a very Texasthing to do, oh, yeah and so,
but of course it's also superTexas to be like.
You want some, you know someshooters, you know you need some
(32:51):
gunslingers you know we gotthose, you know, so I'll loan
you a few gunslingers Likethat's super Texas.
Yeah, we got those, you know, soI'll loan you a few gunslingers
Like that's that's super Texas.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Yeah, the hypocrisy just in general is super Texas.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Oh, is it Now?
I won't own that.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
I don't want to take that you know, that banner.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
I'll hand that banner back to you.
I'm also not governor GregAbbott, so maybe he owns the
hypocrisy piece.
Yeah, but yes, there isdefinitely some, some level of
like hey, don't.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Well, I mean it's don't mess with texas and we
don't care if you mess withanybody else, they do, because
they're going.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
They're going to illinois, that's what I'm saying
, that's, that's, it's proof.
Like, hey, we said don't messwith texas, you mess with
illinois, all you want.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
You know that's very texas and even like the because
going back to when he would justship people out like the human
trafficking aspect of things.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he was sending people out to
different states, yeah,sanctuary cities, and saying
here's your people.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah, yeah, no coordination or anything like
that.
Yeah, just dropping people offwith no resources in the middle
of the winter.
You know that's the goodChristian thing to do.
Yeah, yeah, so frustrating sofrustrating.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Uh well, what, uh, what do we?
What do we see coming upthrough the, the lens in the
rest of the year I.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Oh, the axis of evil is taking shape military folks.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
We can't take our eye off this ball.
You saw the yeah summit out inchina this this last week yeah
even the, the hot mic betweenputin.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Oh, I didn't catch that.
Yeah, him and Xi were sayingtalking about immortality and
organ transplants and stuff.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Mm wow.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Yeah, wow, yeah, it was weird Good for them.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I didn't know they had that.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
You know, a couple of years ago, when they're all
saying Putin was going to diebecause he was all swollen and
everything like that, yeah, theywere saying he had cancer, yeah
.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
I guess he got new organs without cancer.
And he probably got them fromyou know, chinese farmers that
gee, yeah, that's some crazystuff, yeah, but yeah, I mean
Orban was there, um, pretty mucheverybody who jong wong was
(34:59):
there, yeah, um and his daughter.
But did you hear what trumpsaid?
No he did not condemn it, hedid not ask you.
Oh sure he was.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Like I have good relationships with all of them
yeah, he was like oh, I did seeno he said he was kind of like
bummed that he didn't get totell president g to send my
regards to you know, putin, andyeah, like they're my homeboys.
Sorry I missed the party.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yeah, so he's missed out on the.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
You guys playing golf ?
Nobody told me.
Yeah, yes, that did happen.
He threw out a shout-out to hishomeboys.
Yeah, and that's scary.
I'm going to say somethingscary.
That's scary right there.
Yeah, because those folks are,they're very visibly aligning to
not just do a show of forcefrom a military perspective.
(35:41):
They did that, they did aparade of, you know, military
equipment and people, butthey're aligning to show that
the BRICS thing that you know isout there, the different
financial alignment away fromthe United States that they feel
like they're in a positionwhere they can do that right,
where they can execute.
Like maybe everything's beenposturing up to now and it seems
like they're all ready to likepull that ripcord and execute
(36:03):
yeah, just completely take and Ithink that, um, putin's
behavior over, you know,throughout the war in ukraine,
but really since trump tookoffice again, that was sort of
the final testing of the watersfor him, of like, is he really
gonna try to stop this war or ishe just gonna let me do what I
want to do?
Yeah, and we know, we, as westand right now, we know what
has happened.
(36:24):
Putin can do whatever he wantsto do in ukraine or in eastern
europe, right, and there's notgoing to be any significant
consequence, definitely not amilitary consequence that stops
him.
He learned that over the pasteight months and yeah, that's
that to me, was was a big factorin why he would go to a summit
like this and be like, hey, like, let's round up all the
whatever we want to do, let'sget our plans together.
(36:46):
Yeah, you know, yeah, let's doit now.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
So that's that's what I saw out of that event man,
yeah, yeah, that is definitely ascary to put that into the
long-term strategic lens yeah,and I mean obviously we're not
worried about russia from amilitary perspective.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
I mean they're nuclear country, but like an
actual conventional groundwarfare or even advanced warfare
with drones and all this otherstuff, they're not.
They're not a foe, right, likeukraine has kept them at bay,
even made charges into theirterritory and threatened moscow
at times.
Yeah, um, yeah, with withpretty, you know, with ease for
a country that size and havethat funding and back.
(37:22):
If they had actual support ofus, they could have It'd be a
whole different story, right,and so that's what I'm saying is
that Russia is not a formidablemilitary foe.
China is more than Russia isfrom, you know, on most fronts,
right, people, equipment,technology, reach, they have
more than Russia.
(37:42):
But are they challenge us andlike really have a protracted,
like combat situation?
I don't know, man, I feel likewe're still significantly
advantaged over them for a lotof reasons.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Advantage over them for a lot of reasons, From some
of the things that I saw when Iwas still in one.
They have a Blue Sea Navy nowwhere they can actually reach
out and touch folks, which isbig, but one of their big
doctrinal things was take outour space command.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Oh, yeah, ASAT type stuff.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Yeah, the anti-satellite ballistic
missiles yeah, um, and that'sreally just uh.
We rely on it so much in combat, you know the uh being able to
have video and things like thatfor senior leaders immediately
being able to talk immediatelyon the battlefields.
We rely on it so much forpredator feeds and things like
you know all the differentdrones yeah if they take that
(38:42):
out, that's like 80 of ourcommunication right there and
they can do it with so much easeand overwhelmingly um, and they
have jammers.
So if they don't want to do anasat and kind of ruin everything
, yeah, they have jammers andlasers, tons of jammers, yeah
like battalions of battalions ofjammers we have like a couple
hundred people down the roadhere.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Yeah, and they got to like get their stuff together.
China's deployed already.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Yeah, so they are a scary, formidable opponent.
I would say High cost.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
conflict Winnable, but very high cost.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
I don't even think our doctrine considers them near
peer anymore.
Right, I'm pretty sure they'rejust peer, okay, like
adversaries.
So yeah, they're a scary, scaryadversary.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
And we'll use the.
You know meat grinder, right.
That's the—it's a people's—it'sa numbers game, right?
I mean, obviously, robots arekilling robots now.
So like it's a numbers game,right?
I mean, obviously, robots arekilling robots now.
So that's not again.
The war in Ukraine has shown usthat drones on the battlefield
are absolutely the way of thefuture.
There's just no way around that.
Whether it's missile-typedrones or more of your
(39:52):
quadcopter-like observationdrones, they've got from small
squad level all the way up tonational level assets.
Robots are fighting wars now,right, so that changes the
landscape a little bit.
If you go, well, you got abillion people and you got you
know as many people in thatexist in america are military
aged capable people in china,right, like.
(40:14):
And then they've got theanother 700 billion people.
That are a million people thatare not military capable, right,
but they can support the wareffort, yeah, and so this just
from a numbers game.
We can't even come close tohead.
Count on how many bodies canyou shove into the meat grinder,
right and those folks arealready ready to go into the
(40:34):
meat grinder.
They are, and we have a culturaldifference of america.
We, you know, in vietnam, likewe rejected the meat grinder
Right, like there's been a lotof opportunities and instances
where the democracy pushes backon that, you know, on that
military mentality.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
But China doesn't have that.
You know, go to war, go to jail.
There's no jail, we'll justshoot you now.
Get in the bus or you're acasualty.
One way or the other you candie here.
You can die on the battlefield.
Catch a bullet on thebattlefield your family gets a
stipend, die right here.
Nothing happens, right, youknow, we're not even going to
(41:11):
bury you, you know.
So that's the choice right.
And and they've got enoughpeople to coerce that way that
they could have a one-to-onehead count against every citizen
of the United States.
So that makes them appear fromjust that perspective, even if
they were doing it with slingsand arrows.
You know it's a problem, youknow.
So I definitely.
(41:32):
Throughout my time in themilitary, I never was worried
about a government decision fromthe senior commanders that
would push us into real conflictwith them.
And I know that we're not goingto get in a shooting war over
Taiwan, like they can swallowthat thing up all day, any day.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Yeah, you know that's a good point.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
Yeah, that's probably gone and so you know the
pushback on that and that beingthe, that's the Ukraine of Asia.
Yeah, because you know Putinjust went over there and said
hey, you can get Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Yeah, Just whatever you want it.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Whenever you want to float down in that direction,
and it's yours Right, and youknow what's not going to happen
Anything, you know.
And so he said if you want todo it with Trump in office, you
need to do it now, and so Iwould be really surprised if
there's not some I don't know ifit's going to be military, but
some other posture from Chinatowards Taiwan within the next
two years, Right, Like I don'tknow what, but some sort of
(42:25):
consumption posture there youknow.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
Yeah, I mean they keep building land out there and
making their pushes, Navalbases out of sand.
Basically, yeah, and, like Isaid, their Navy's grown
exponentially in the last 20years and they can go out on big
blue water now.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
And if they take Taiwan, we say okay, let's tie
that back in, and then maybe wewrap up on this little piece
right here.
If China we say so what doesthat mean to America?
Every computer chip you've everused is made in Taiwan.
Right Period.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (42:56):
I'm saying Like, yes, we have chip factories in
America, so no, not every period.
You know what I'm saying.
Like, yes, we have chipfactories in america, so no, not
everyone.
But we are so tremendouslydependent on the technology
sector that's in taiwan, thetaiwan I can't remember the name
of the company, but they makethe most chips in the world,
right, and so china already hasmost a lot of that production
under their you know controlanyway.
But taiwan is our safe harborin as Asia for technology that
(43:19):
we import into the United.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
States, yeah, not controlled by the.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Chinese government and so that that goes away and
that leads to an economic impactthat ripples across all kinds
of stuff.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
Right, and you know, and it wouldn't be so much of a
problem if, say, you let theChips and Science Act take
flight and start buildingfactories here to do that first,
which you know, the Bidenadministration had passed and
now all that money is gettingtaken away too.
So even like microchip herelocally is shrinking.
So yeah, we've become sodependent on it and now we're
(43:52):
just going to turn our backs onit and be like, okay, yeah, you
guys can have it.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
Yeah, and that national security issues
concerns there as well.
Right, that we try to sourceeverything the best we can in
the United States, but I promiseyou we're relying on some
commercial technologies that arenot 100 percent homegrown.
(44:15):
Over Taiwan becoming part ofChina, most people would think
it already is right, they don'tknow the difference, right, but
the impact that would be feltafterwards would be, you know,
it would touch everybody.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah, so All right.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
Hey, that's how we like to do it on Left Face.
We like to wrap up on a littlesour note.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
It's like our cliffhanger right, you want to
come back and hear good newsnext time.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Is there going to be an apocalypse this week or not?
I doubt it.
I'm gonna predict.
No, maybe we should start doingthat.
Yeah, right, you need anoctopus that can predict that
for us.
Right, like the one that picksthe super bowl winner yeah, yeah
, we need something like that.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
Yeah, we'll look into that.
All right, correct?
Speaker 1 (44:54):
thanks everybody for listening in the left face.
We'll catch you again next week, all right?
Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of
Left Face.
This is the Pikes Peaks Regionpodcast for veterans, where we
talk about politics.
I am your co-host, dickWilkinson, and I'm joined this
morning with Adam Gillard.
Good morning, adam.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Good morning Dick.
How are you doing?
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Doing well.
We are filming on locationtoday in front of a non-existent
studio audience.
So good to have you over at thehouse.
How have you been this week andwhat?
I guess we're doing a potpourriepisode.
We didn't prep.
This time we're just going togo for a free-for-all.
So let's start with what's themost interesting topic on your
(00:37):
mind this week, adam.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
I'd like to talk about the town hall or the meet
and greet that we had over theweekend with Phil Weiser.
I thought that was a prettycool event.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Yeah, yeah, I was able to attend that and I was
glad I did because I got to seesome of the qualities about this
candidate that you've seen.
So how did you put thattogether and kind of, what was
the affiliations there?
Who all was involved in thatevent?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
So just a good friend of mine, lois, she reached out.
She runs the manitou springsportion of the campaign, okay,
or one of the volunteers upthere doing it.
And then she put me in contactwith the el paso county reps
forum.
Uh, and I'd seen him speak atthe indivisible event a couple
(01:19):
months ago I guess it was nowand uh, you know, we probably
had probably had 700 people atthat meeting and people left
really energized listening tohim.
Good, the community reallyloves him coming out and talking
because so let's say who him isreal quick.
Speaker 1 (01:38):
Just let's clear that up.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
Yeah, so Attorney General Phil Weiser, he's a
current Attorney General.
Current Attorney General runningWeiser.
He's a current attorney general.
He's a current attorney generalrunning for governor.
He was kind of one of the firstbig names to put his name out
there.
Now Senator Bennett is probablythe next biggest competition,
but yeah, so running forgovernor already has a pretty
(02:01):
great track record of fightingthe Trump administration.
He's sued him 35 times already.
So, yeah, just somebody thatI've seen speak in the community
and at that Dem West that wehad, he was out there also, so
he's getting around the state.
You know he's putting in a lotof travel.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
That is a hard part of one of those types of
statewide seats where you've gotto touch every corner, every
county, every little town hallplace you can go to, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
That's got to be a warrior type job.
Yeah, I mean we had like anhour with him because he was
just kind of passing throughfrom Pueblo back up to Denver.
So you know we were able totalk to the IBEW folks and get
the hall reserved so that youknow, even having an hour out
(02:50):
there, you know meetingsomething and you know we got
the word out and you know we had75, 80 people folks that showed
up.
Speaker 1 (02:53):
So I was glad to see that, for, really, it's it's
very early in.
You know this race situation,so for candidate events like
that, you are it's it's iffy,because a lot of people aren't
tuned in on what race you're in.
You know what.
You know they thinking about itnext year, right, and so people
coming out to primary typeevents for your campaign, it's
(03:13):
um, tends to be the more diehardpeople that are within the
party, right and um.
I feel like, though, there wasa good representation of not
just party diehards that go toevery political event in town,
but, uh, also people that youknow don't necessarily regularly
attend those types of events,but but either saw where it was
(03:34):
at or him as an interesting uhspeaker, so that was encouraging
to get a bit a bit of adifferent cross section of
people that were politicallymotivated.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
Yeah, yeah, the, uh, the, the marketing, the
marketing that we did for youknow, I think we got a lot of
good veterans out there that youknow had a lot of good
questions, and I thought histactic at the end of just kind
of taking a lot of questions andthen rapid-fire answering, he
really tried to leave noquestion unanswered.
So I thought it was really coolthat he did that and was
(04:02):
respectful of everybody's timetoo, you know, yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Really cool that he did that and was respectful of
everybody's time too.
Yeah, so I asked Mr Weiser aquestion during the rapid fire
section because I realized itwas the chance to kind of get it
out there and I knew that Iwouldn't get a very detailed
answer.
What would you be able to do,or what would be your priorities
, to make Colorado attractive toveterans and retirees that are
(04:28):
getting out at one of thesemilitary bases here and they
look at the landscape of options?
You know we all would get thatlast PCS so we can go kind of
wherever we want on thegovernment's dime.
And people are making a lot offinancial decisions based on if
they're going to work again orif they're going to live off
their retirement and ordisability, and so the
attractiveness of certainregions comes down to financial
(04:49):
choices.
And I think for all of us thatlive here in Colorado, we
understand that there are infact other places that are lower
cost of living.
You know, and we've lived thereas military people If you've
ever been stationed in Georgia,you understand that it's cheaper
to live in Georgia or Oklahomathan it is in Colorado, in
Georgia.
You understand that it'scheaper to live in Georgia or
Oklahoma than it is in Colorado,and so if you had any reason to
(05:11):
go back there, you might choosethat as your landing spot,
because it's a lot cheaper andit's a lot easier for your
family to enjoy your retirement,and so that's got to be a
priority for anybody in thegovernor role and at the state
legislature level to makepolicies that are attractive for
that population.
Speaker 2 (05:24):
I think right now our retirement gets taxed at like
20% or not 20, so 20,000.
I think.
I think like it's that's whenour uh taxes for the estate
taxes really start kicking in.
Um, so there's a little bit ofyou know grace there, but uh,
but yeah, a lot of other states.
You know that the retirementthat we get is not taxed at all.
So yeah, it's a lot of otherstates.
(05:45):
You know the retirement that weget is not taxed at all, so
yeah it's a lot more.
Speaker 1 (05:46):
It's hard to compete against that if you're not going
to.
You know if you need the taxmoney in some areas to make
certain programs work, but thenin the other hand you try and
you know you may be supportiveof a tax reduction for certain
populations of people.
Yeah, the you know we, as theveterans, we have to defend our
position and say, well, why doyou want that?
You know, what do you?
Why?
You know, thank you for yourservice is one thing.
(06:08):
Right If it's just like, hey,we want to give you a break, we
want you to, you know, keep asmuch money as you can, but but
what about?
How does that impact the restof society other than the
veterans Right on the showbefore?
But I'll give my my take on it.
The economic impact of havingmilitary retirees in your
(06:30):
community is significant, and Ican't quote a research study, so
I'm speaking anecdotally.
But I would like to think thatthe economic offset of reducing
those taxes and keeping, let'ssay, a couple hundred more
veteran families in thecommunity.
They mostly work again afterthe military.
(06:51):
They mostly work in high-payingjobs where they're contributing
local taxes, they're mostlyspending money on local
resources and so you've got areally a citizen in your
community that is contributingthrough multiple streams of
income and wants to enjoy, youknow, whatever you've, whatever
you've kind of cultivated foreverybody else in the city, and
(07:13):
so the economic impact of thembeing there offsets the tax
reduction to the rest of thecommunity because it's poured
back in through 100 percent.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Yeah, that's my take on it.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
You know that's, if anybody in one of those those
decision making positions asked,that would be my answer.
But then of course, if they askme, can you, can you show a
study on that?
Honestly, some of those thingsare researched and that that
information is available, that'ssomething through the uh party
committee that we're on, thecouncil that we're on.
We should look into gettingaccess to some of that research
because I've seen it before.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Yeah, so yeah, because you know that's kind of
once you throw that in theirface, then they want the stats,
you got to back it up.
Yeah, once something makessense, I'm like, well, yeah,
that does make sense, but youhave to have an answer for that.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
You got to back it up , yeah, yeah, because otherwise
we have a declared conflict ofinterest.
We would benefit from the taxreduction, and so of course you
know if you want to pick up yourveteran banner and then use
that to lobby to just improveyour own life.
Man, that's not what we'reabout.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
The thing that I, like every elected official that
I talk to, I try to always talkabout active duty taxes.
You know, I think our activeduty troops should not be paying
state taxes, because right now,anybody that's on active duty
here, they're going to be aresident of Florida or Texas or
Arizona Any of those states thatdon't have state tax.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
Oh yeah, they're incentivized to switch, yeah, so
they don't really.
Speaker 2 (08:41):
they live in these communities but they don't vote
on who's running our communities.
You know they're voting onArizona or Texas.
So yeah, I think if we were todo that you know with, you know
current, you know Space Force,you know Peterson, you know all
those locations I think you knowyou'd get a lot more blue
people changing theirregistration than red folks,
(09:04):
because red folks are already.
You know, red folks alreadyhave Texas or Florida.
They're happy and they'reprobably going to go back there.
But there's a lot of peopleworking here in these
communities that are going tostay in these communities that
just don't change theirregistration because I mean, I
didn't.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
I was registered in Texas when I joined, and so why
would I change?
So I was a citizen of Texaswhen I joined, so I why would I
change, you know?
So I was a citizen of Texaswhen I joined, so I just stayed
that way throughout my entirecareer, because there was never
an incentive to change to somelocal registration or, you know,
proof of residence type thing.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
So, yeah, yeah, when I moved to Arizona, you know we
changed, and then you know,coming up here, you know six
years later or something likethat we didn't change until I
retired.
Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, yeah, and and I mean I'm in that same boat now
that this was the first move Iever made outside of the
military where I actually had tolike switch everything over, um
, and it was.
You know, I was like man I'mmoving from a lower tax state to
a higher tax state and I likecan't defend against that.
But whatever, I guess you knowwe're retired now.
But uh, the benefit of havingold dick wilkinson here you know
(10:08):
, I'll speak.
You know I'll speak on behalf ofeverybody else I don't know
about the benefit of having mearound but I can tell you how
other veterans impact yourcommunity.
Yeah well, um, I you know thanksfor putting that together and I
did follow up with uh.
They gave me a chance to emailone of his campaign coordinator
people and I was able to sendover a note and say that we'd
(10:30):
like to have him on the show andyou know when it makes sense
for the campaign because, ofcourse, we want to time certain
like media things within yourcycle of you know, primary or
general race type stuff, sothere's probably a right time
for him to do that.
Marry or general race typestuff, so there's probably a
right time for him to do that.
And then, of course, I offered,you know, to support the
(10:50):
campaign.
You know to what degree that Icould.
You know I'm not saying I'mpicking a winner or personally
endorsing anything, yet you knowI haven't heard anything about
any other candidates, but so farI mean he.
I would absolutely vote for himfrom what I heard, yeah, so
that's why I'm willing to help.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah, I think, because even when he talked
about fighting the merger forKing, Soopers and Safeway
assuming they're going to findthat merger he told us that the
they were actually likeillegally colluding with each
other to not hire each other'semployees.
Yeah, so like, yeah, like, goafter everybody man.
(11:26):
He is definitely somebodythat's going to fight for the
working class Sure.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
So that was your top item on mind.
I guess I'll share mine and Imight surprise some of our
listeners.
And I might surprise some ofour listeners.
This week there was DonaldTrump.
Our president made anannouncement that the Space
Command is moving to Huntsville,and so that was something that
we have talked about on the showand understood it was.
(11:54):
You know, we described it asjust a ticking clock for
whenever that order comesthrough, and so that happened
this week.
People reached out to me andsaid oh hey, dick, are you
moving to Alabama now, because Iwork in the space industry,
right?
Speaker 2 (12:09):
And.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
I said no, I said I'm not.
Space command is for folks thatdon't necessarily understand
this is not the Space Force,this is the Space Combatant
Command, which is a jointcommand of all the military
branches put together to dojoint operations in a space
environment.
Right, and that's defensive andoffensive and research and
everything else.
Right, and so that's what theSpace Command does.
(12:31):
And if there was ever like aweaponization of space and that
commander would be the one toauthorize like use of force in
space, right, that does notimpact the rest of the services
of the Space Force that theyprovide to the government and
the other military branches andthe intelligence community, et
cetera.
So the management of spacecraftalready on orbit space comm has
(12:53):
almost nothing to do with that.
Um.
The management of newtechnologies and new assets
coming into the service spacecommand has very little to do
with that as well, um, from aacquisition perspective versus
the rest of the Space Force.
So all the rest of thefootprint of the Space Force
activities around here, they'renot changing.
You know Peterson, schrieverand Buckley and then NORAD,
(13:16):
facilities and capabilitiesthere you know all of that stuff
is not going anywhere.
And capabilities there, youknow all of that stuff is not
going anywhere.
So the Space Command is asignificant footprint here and
is a bit of a I want to call ita crown jewel, right, but the
overall impact to the spaceindustry and economy here in
Colorado Springs I think it'sgoing to be pretty limited.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
I would agree in the short term, but in the long term
, I think what you're going tosee is a lot of the bigger.
Space Command is big herebecause the space industry is
big here, because Space Commandand space started really
developing here with Schrieverand things like that.
But as we go forward andthey're looking to replace a lot
(13:59):
of the getting outdated systemsout, of Schriever things are
coming up on end of life.
They're going to take rootsomewhere.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Oh yeah, you're saying the infrastructure
resources will go elsewhere.
Yeah, they'll follow the commandthey're going to follow where
the bigwigs are sitting becausethat's where they make the
decisions and that's going to bethe communities that they want
to help serve the most is theones where you know the raytheon
ceos and you know now got acondo in alabama uh, so you know
(14:29):
, wherever those big programmanagers are sitting and the
four-star generals are sitting,that's where the decisions are
happening and but I think Iguess what I'm saying is there
will endure to be seniorleadership here at these places
in colorado that aren'tnecessarily part of the
combatant command but are stillpart of the rest of the Space
Force management.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Oh yeah, Space is pretty heavy in senior
leadership right now.
Speaker 1 (14:49):
Yeah, that's all of it.
That's really all space isright now.
Yeah, you know, I didn'trealize there's like only
hundreds of people in the SpaceForce, not thousands, right Like
.
There's like a thousand peoplein the Space Force right now or
something like that.
I'm pretty sure there are a fewthousand now.
Yeah, maybe, maybe this yearthey.
You know, I know therecruitment's never been a
problem, I don't think.
(15:10):
But I mean, it's just, it'stiny.
I mean, even then, even if itwas 10,000 people, like that's
tiny you know, Like that's a lotto go around work-wise.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're still growing into their
mission, I guess, is the pointof that well, and they've been
slowly kind of transferring theresponsibilities yeah out of air
force and so, yeah, they justkind of like gain people just
through that process, throughthe um acquisition of other yeah
responsibilities yeah, thereserve unit, uh, the reserve
plane just shut down this yearand that was about a thousand
(15:42):
people in that space reserveplane that are now kind of uh,
either into the space force orback into the civilian world.
So, yeah, yeah, space ingeneral isn't that large of a
industry community yeah, yeah,it's very small yeah, it's crazy
, and it's crazy and specialisttoo.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
Um well, for me, you know, the space command being
top of mind, I think people thataren't from here saw it as a
pretty big blow Politically.
You know, I don't really knowthe impact it could be used as a
talking point against peoplethat are currently in office or
future candidates, you know.
If you want to say, hey, lookat what they didn't do to
support the community, well,that will be a talking point.
(16:22):
And, uh, you know, cherrypicking opportunity to say, hey,
you messed up.
You know.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
I mean, if lamborn did one thing, we still had
space, you know.
So now you replace them and,you know, immediately goes away.
And this is right after crankgets the endorsement from trump
too.
You remember that oh no, yeah,like a week before trump came
out and you know, endorsed crankand you talk about all the
great things that he's doing andeverything like that.
I didn't hear about that yeah,so that happened about a week
(16:50):
before, so that's a soften theblow.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Yeah, exactly, he's like hey, man, we're about to
take away your one of your toys,but you think you're a cool guy
?
Yeah, we're not gonna like burnyou down and I down and it
sells around here.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yeah, like you don't get a whole lot of outrage from
the Republican side, or evenwith the Epstein file release,
you know they.
It's silent.
Yeah, they're not sayinganything.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
Yeah that's true.
Speaking of that, I saw thatyou know Congress is back in
session, and so the topic justresumed as though it had never
stopped.
Really, you know, once Congressleft early, even to delay votes
on certain things that wereregarding Epstein.
You know content?
Yeah, things have happenedduring recess.
None of it was valid, like newinformation has been released or
(17:35):
anything like that, and soCongress and it's the thing that
I'm noticing is that thebipartisan aspect of it is
starting to get a little bitlouder, that's, there's more
Republicans that are gettinginvolved and saying, like this
is we're out of bounds here.
You know, like, regardless ofwho may or may not be protected
or not by this, like action, thepeople have demanded this.
(17:55):
Yeah, transparency.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
It makes sense yeah.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
What they're asking for makes sense, and so the
Republicans are starting to.
Speaker 2 (18:02):
strangely enough, this is a topic where they might
step out of ranks a little bityeah, I think right now four
have standing, including uhbobart, or you know, in the
fourth district.
She's one of the folks that uhsaid that they would sign the
petition, um, and I thinkthey're four short right now on
what they need.
But, yeah, it's good to seesome folks have a backbone
(18:23):
because he's even come out andlike threaten them saying, like
you, yeah, any support of thisis an attack on the trump
administration like what thehell man I?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
mean that's, uh, that's enforcer stuff right
there you know what?
I'm saying that's, that's thegoon mentality of like hey, step
out of line and it's gonna beyour ass right like yeah, yeah,
but, and so many people are justokay with it, they'll just fall
in line and well, it's easierto fall in line than it is to,
you know, say something right.
I mean honestly, and you know, Ithought about this, uh, a day
(18:52):
or two ago.
Um, there are, there'sobviously there's just one
president and vice president,but there are 500 people in
congress over 500 people,there's 400 something.
House members and then 100, youknow, senators 435, over 500
people, there's 400 something.
House members, and then 100senators and so 500 people.
That actually does create someroom for there to be people that
(19:12):
just kind of slip back into thecracks, vote yes on everything
but never really get anyattention for being like a super
hard party liner.
And they're just these safevotes that are built into the
apparatus.
If you will, the Doug Lamborns,if you will, and they don't
want to get you know, they willnever rock the boat because the
local population is a slam dunkreelection and as long as you
(19:33):
don't piss off the top of theparty, you basically you have
guaranteed support from the base.
So don't, don't incite the topof the party to come get you,
you know, and then you can justcruise like for a long, long
time, and so 500 people allowsthat to happen, you know?
Um, good or bad, it's just thestate of affairs right now and
the whip, the majority minority,whips, they just I don't think
(19:56):
there's any motivation for themto do much about that because,
like I said, those are justguaranteed votes in your column.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Right, yeah, so yeah, and that's you know.
When you see folks like Mamdaniin New York upsetting things,
you know even people on your ownside get upset when you start
trying to rock that vote.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
Oh yeah.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
You know you try to take away your you know for sure
votes on whatever topic it is.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
Oh, that's true.
Yeah, yeah, if you start messingwith districts that are those
sleepy guaranteed vote districts, yeah you, now you've got the
wrong attention you know, so,again, you know, it's just not,
it's not conducive to the gameof long longevity in politics,
can be supported by just kind ofslipping into those cracks.
You know, know, I don't thinkanybody joins uh a political
(20:44):
office uh to to work like that.
But I think once they get inthere and kind of see what their
left and right limits are,they're like, okay, yeah, I'm
gonna do this, yeah, yeah, andyou know, again, it's it's.
Is it a betrayal of theiroriginal intentions or oath or
promises or whatever?
Maybe?
Speaker 2 (21:03):
I think it's absolutely shameful that they're
sitting in the place where ourforefathers wrote all these
documents, that they sit thereand claim the gospel to them and
everything and they expound onhow great the forefathers were.
It's like you're sitting in thesame seat Like, go be great, go
do something that is true.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
I really like that because, yeah, as I was just
giving the example of, there arepeople that can slip into the
cracks.
There was no such thing.
There's no such thing assomebody in the Continental
Congress that was like, hey, Ijust want to kind of put a name
on there, but I don't reallywant to say it.
Yeah, I don't really have anyideas, I'm just here to like
sign the document.
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What are we doing for lunch?
Speaker 1 (21:43):
the document.
Yeah, what are we doing forlunch?
No, everybody there was washighly motivated towards
passionate outcomes and whetherthey agreed or disagreed, they
wanted to, you know, push thatdiscourse.
And if you could assume one ofthose roles and then not push
the discourse you, what are youdoing?
Why?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
are you sitting?
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Yeah, what's the point?
Why did you get that job?
Yeah, yeah, that's good, that'sa good, a good point.
Speaker 2 (22:02):
I appreciate that the forefathers were not there to
just fill a seat right, and mostof them, when they would go
there, they would, you know,their bank or their farms would
go bankrupt oh, yeah, they hadpersonal.
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Yeah, they had personal consequences from
taking, taking that time andgoing to do that.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Yeah, uh aoc, just put up the bill to uh outlaw
stock trading, like you'd haveto likeest your funds and things
like that.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Set everything aside and not move it at all.
That makes sense to me.
That is a conflict of interestof public trust.
Because you regulate thoseindustries, you regulate those
companies.
You can shut those companiesdown.
Google's been on the blockrecently for antitrust stuff.
If you're a celebritypolitician like AOC and you
start barking real loud aboutantitrust stuff, you could
(22:45):
damage Google and that might bewhat you want.
You know, because you want toback, you know, open AI or
something like that.
You're like yeah, this is myangle and you do that.
Four or five layers removedfrom the problem is what it
looks like, right, but you'repulling that string with your
own hand.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
So that conflict of interest is extremely real.
Tim Scott works somewhere inthe administration now and uh,
he just got, you know, kind ofcaught red handed with you know,
legislating over you knowmillions and millions of dollars
that he that he gained in hisportfolio.
Um, after everybody cries aboutPelosi and everything.
Speaker 1 (23:20):
And it's wrong about everybody.
Speaker 2 (23:21):
You know it's wrong for everybody to do it.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
Yeah, it is Yep, yep, and that makes sense.
That outlaw it for.
And you know what I want thereto be disincentives to being in
Congress for forever, right, andmaybe that's one of them.
You know, If you have to putyour whole nest egg into
holdings that you can'tmanipulate or do anything about,
and you're there for 10, 20years and you lose your money
(23:44):
After a couple of terms, youmight be like, hey, I don't like
the direction this is headed.
Yeah, maybe I don't like my ownthoughts.
My lifestyle is not supported by$175,000 a year salary, I got a
multimillion-dollar lifestyle.
That's right, and I have to goback to being a real worker
again.
Yeah, right, Wait wait, wait,wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,wait.
You know a couple of terms ofthat.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
We may have some hot seats open you know, blows my
mind is they get paid reallygood money.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
They're still doing stuff like this and being you
know, it's just shady.
Yeah Well, as we said you know,talk about cost of living.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
DC is an expensive bank.
Speaker 1 (24:21):
I'm going to know what they get, you know.
But I do know that peoplethey'll own a home in their main
district, of course, but thenthey tend to just rent
properties.
You know apartments and stuffin DC.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
I think Doug Lamborn's last year in Colorado
Springs.
He spent like 20 days in theSprings because he had a ranch
up in Montana that he would justspend all of his time in.
Yeah, that's representation ofthe people right there yeah.
That's what we're here for.
Speaker 1 (24:51):
Well, in our potpourri episode to continue,
what else is going on?
Is there any, I guess, localstuff?
Is there any events coming upsoon?
Speaker 2 (25:00):
I mean, we got the.
Probably the next thing isOctober 18th is the next big
protest, Okay.
So, yeah, we're going to startworking on locations for that.
It's going to be one of the bignationwide ones that they put a
lot of you know kind of weightbehind in advertising.
Okay, so they're expecting hugenumbers again.
(25:21):
Yeah, that should be anotherbig day for us.
Okay, what I wanted to, I kindof thought about as you're
asking that question did youhear about the, the strike that
we had on a drug boat in theCaribbean?
Speaker 1 (25:36):
Yeah, yes, I did yeah .
Military strike, militarystrike on a boat in
international waters.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
Yeah, with 11 people on it.
Yeah, like that's not a drugrunning boat man.
Speaker 1 (25:48):
Oh, I mean, I didn't question whether it was or
wasn't a drug boat, you know,they go for speed in those Well
sure?
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Yeah, you know they go for speed in those Well sure.
And having 11 extra people onthat means you need to yeah
Right, yeah, that's true, butstill to kill 11 drug runners,
even if they are drug runnerswithout you know An active
military campaign.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Yeah, yeah, I mean, what named campaign did they do
that strike under?
You know who was theauthorizing authority for that,
was it you know?
Yeah, I mean, what namedcampaign did they do that strike
under?
You know who was theauthorizing authority for that,
was it you know?
Yeah, I mean, dea can't order astrike on a boat in
international waters, right, soso?
Speaker 2 (26:25):
was it a Navy helicopter?
Would you know what it was?
I don't know what actually no,yeah, because when you say that,
I saw the video.
So much of our police forcesare militarized now I wouldn't
be surprised if it's like miamipeople.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
Yeah, just in case cuba tries to invade yeah, yeah,
but yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:45):
So now we're executing people.
You know, we're not even likegoing onto the boat and seeing
what's on the boat, right, theyjust said hey, everybody, this
was drugs.
These 11 people were carryingdrugs.
Oh, they trust the intelligencecommunity when they get to blow
up.
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah, oh, they trust the intelligence community when
they get to blow up a drug boat.
No shit, they don't trust theintelligence community, when
they're like, hey, I don't thinkthat really happened, yeah, you
know.
And he's like, yeah, intel'salways fishy.
Yeah, when the rest of theworld, you can authorize a
strike to kill people based offof you know no upfront like
inspection.
Inspection, like you say, ofthe boat or anything like that's
purely intel, right, right, youcan rely on intel in that
(27:17):
moment, but you can't rely on itin other moments.
Speaker 2 (27:19):
Yeah, wow yeah, okay, yeah, like I really think that
that's an international crimeright there, like I think that
would be chargeable, yeah butyou know who doesn't care?
Speaker 1 (27:31):
anybody, all those dead people, they're the only
ones that care.
Right, like the government,whatever government where the
boat actually did come from,isn't gonna say anything.
Uh, the international community, like it wasn't a, we didn't
smoke a cargo vessel, you know,so that you know that would have
got some attention, and eventhat, like iran does that and
(27:51):
nobody does anything, you know,and they blow up cargo vessels
on an oil tanker.
So you know, I mean, there's,there's no consequences so you
know it's uh.
Is it a good idea?
Probably not, but is it uhgonna lead to any outcomes or
policy changes?
I mean, it'll just keephappening more honestly well,
and that's the thing is.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
if people don't like, cause a stink over this, like
it's going to happen, yeah, yeah.
It's precedent, yeah, and it'sgoing to get closer and closer.
Sure, They've already talkedabout having the armed drones
flying over some of the protests.
There's predator drone footageof the LA protests.
Speaker 1 (28:29):
It's like why are they being deployed on our own
folks?
Well, Marines needed somethingto do.
They deployed the Marines andthey were like, hey, let's turn
on our stuff.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Yeah, you know, we talked about it last week where
you know the guard just kind ofhanging out in DC, yeah, just
trying to normalize theirpresence there.
I see them more and more atthat Union Station that they
took over.
You know, I think they got agood presence down there, um,
but then, uh, there's still agrowing.
You know complaints or whatnotabout uh, picking weeds and
(29:03):
things like oh sure uh, yeah, Ithink if we don't get them out
of there soon, they're gonna getbored and like just the marines
on okinawa aren't a goodexample Sure, yeah, you don't
want idle hands or the you knowdevil's workshop, right?
Speaker 1 (29:23):
So that's the last thing you need is armed troops
walking in circles for monthsand months with no mission.
Yeah, like, yeah.
And that's not a knock on thetroops or their discipline or
anything like that, it's just itturns it into a tinderbox?
Speaker 2 (29:35):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
It turns the whole thing into a tinderbox.
The citizens and the troopsboth get worn down by the
activity of just walking around.
You know being present, right,and then you know people start
getting.
Something happens on the subwayand a soldier gets involved,
and you know it's already gonnayou know, we're days away from
something like that days awayfrom something like that.
Speaker 2 (29:59):
Yeah, you know, because they are.
You know, on the uh, on thesubways and everything already
you know on publictransportation, so I'm sure
people aren't being nice at whatthey say to them.
You know it's gonna the tide'sgonna turn yeah, the um.
Speaker 1 (30:09):
well, you also mentioned that the chicago push
for as far as putting troops outthere, right that the mayor
says don't come, the governorsays don't come.
Speaker 2 (30:21):
The.
Speaker 1 (30:22):
National Guard from Illinois is not going to be
activated because you know thegovernor is giving orders not to
do that.
Speaker 2 (30:29):
So yeah, you mentioned that Trump is trying
to pull him from other places,right, yeah, so I guess the
Texas National Guard is on thehook, offered to be federalized,
or whatever.
Yeah, so I guess the TexasNational Guard is is on the hook
, offered to be federalized, orwhatever.
Yeah, yeah.
So now you're going to sendanother state's national or
another state guard?
Yeah, in against the state.
Yeah, you know that's a.
That sounds crazy to me.
Speaker 1 (30:48):
That sounds like an invasion to me, that's what I
would call it.
Holy shit yeah no-transcript.
(31:40):
Of your state and just be likeokay, do not, you know.
No, no authorized entry fromblah blah blah types of people.
Yeah, like that was happeningdown in Texas no-transcript, and
(32:02):
they said you know you're notauthorized to enter here.
If you need help withinterdiction, you need to tell
us what you need, right, butthis is it.
Like, this is Texas NationalGuard controlled property and
you're federal and you need toget out of here, you know so
that happened last year already.
Speaker 2 (32:16):
Right, but that was also like a manufactured crisis.
Well, sure.
You know, they drove straightdown the road and there was like
nothing, right.
They had all thismilitarization of this one area
and then right down the road,the gates were wide open and
nobody was like screamingthrough it.
Speaker 1 (32:30):
Yeah, you know I got you.
I mean, I'm not discussing theaccurate, like the
appropriateness of that action,but a state national guard
already rejected the presence ofa federal entity in Texas,
right, and that's a very Texasthing to do, oh, yeah and so,
but of course it's also superTexas to be like.
You want some, you know someshooters, you know you need some
(32:51):
gunslingers you know we gotthose, you know, so I'll loan
you a few gunslingers Likethat's super Texas.
Yeah, we got those, you know, soI'll loan you a few gunslingers
Like that's that's super Texas.
Speaker 2 (32:57):
Yeah, the hypocrisy just in general is super Texas.
Speaker 1 (33:01):
Oh, is it Now?
I won't own that.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
I don't want to take that you know, that banner.
Speaker 1 (33:06):
I'll hand that banner back to you.
I'm also not governor GregAbbott, so maybe he owns the
hypocrisy piece.
Yeah, but yes, there isdefinitely some, some level of
like hey, don't.
Speaker 2 (33:20):
Well, I mean it's don't mess with texas and we
don't care if you mess withanybody else, they do, because
they're going.
Speaker 1 (33:23):
They're going to illinois, that's what I'm saying
, that's, that's, it's proof.
Like, hey, we said don't messwith texas, you mess with
illinois, all you want.
Speaker 2 (33:28):
You know that's very texas and even like the because
going back to when he would justship people out like the human
trafficking aspect of things.
Speaker 1 (33:37):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, he was sending people out to
different states, yeah,sanctuary cities, and saying
here's your people.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Yeah, yeah, no coordination or anything like
that.
Yeah, just dropping people offwith no resources in the middle
of the winter.
You know that's the goodChristian thing to do.
Yeah, yeah, so frustrating sofrustrating.
Speaker 1 (34:01):
Uh well, what, uh, what do we?
What do we see coming upthrough the, the lens in the
rest of the year I.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
Oh, the axis of evil is taking shape military folks.
Speaker 1 (34:07):
We can't take our eye off this ball.
You saw the yeah summit out inchina this this last week yeah
even the, the hot mic betweenputin.
Speaker 2 (34:16):
Oh, I didn't catch that.
Yeah, him and Xi were sayingtalking about immortality and
organ transplants and stuff.
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Mm wow.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
Yeah, wow, yeah, it was weird Good for them.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
I didn't know they had that.
Speaker 2 (34:31):
You know, a couple of years ago, when they're all
saying Putin was going to diebecause he was all swollen and
everything like that, yeah, theywere saying he had cancer, yeah
.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Oh.
Speaker 2 (34:38):
I guess he got new organs without cancer.
And he probably got them fromyou know, chinese farmers that
gee, yeah, that's some crazystuff, yeah, but yeah, I mean
Orban was there, um, pretty mucheverybody who jong wong was
(34:59):
there, yeah, um and his daughter.
But did you hear what trumpsaid?
No he did not condemn it, hedid not ask you.
Oh sure he was.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Like I have good relationships with all of them
yeah, he was like oh, I did seeno he said he was kind of like
bummed that he didn't get totell president g to send my
regards to you know, putin, andyeah, like they're my homeboys.
Sorry I missed the party.
Speaker 2 (35:17):
Yeah, so he's missed out on the.
Speaker 1 (35:19):
You guys playing golf ?
Nobody told me.
Yeah, yes, that did happen.
He threw out a shout-out to hishomeboys.
Yeah, and that's scary.
I'm going to say somethingscary.
That's scary right there.
Yeah, because those folks are,they're very visibly aligning to
not just do a show of forcefrom a military perspective.
(35:41):
They did that, they did aparade of, you know, military
equipment and people, butthey're aligning to show that
the BRICS thing that you know isout there, the different
financial alignment away fromthe United States that they feel
like they're in a positionwhere they can do that right,
where they can execute.
Like maybe everything's beenposturing up to now and it seems
like they're all ready to likepull that ripcord and execute
(36:03):
yeah, just completely take and Ithink that, um, putin's
behavior over, you know,throughout the war in ukraine,
but really since trump tookoffice again, that was sort of
the final testing of the watersfor him, of like, is he really
gonna try to stop this war or ishe just gonna let me do what I
want to do?
Yeah, and we know, we, as westand right now, we know what
has happened.
(36:24):
Putin can do whatever he wantsto do in ukraine or in eastern
europe, right, and there's notgoing to be any significant
consequence, definitely not amilitary consequence that stops
him.
He learned that over the pasteight months and yeah, that's
that to me, was was a big factorin why he would go to a summit
like this and be like, hey, like, let's round up all the
whatever we want to do, let'sget our plans together.
(36:46):
Yeah, you know, yeah, let's doit now.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
So that's that's what I saw out of that event man,
yeah, yeah, that is definitely ascary to put that into the
long-term strategic lens yeah,and I mean obviously we're not
worried about russia from amilitary perspective.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
I mean they're nuclear country, but like an
actual conventional groundwarfare or even advanced warfare
with drones and all this otherstuff, they're not.
They're not a foe, right, likeukraine has kept them at bay,
even made charges into theirterritory and threatened moscow
at times.
Yeah, um, yeah, with withpretty, you know, with ease for
a country that size and havethat funding and back.
(37:22):
If they had actual support ofus, they could have It'd be a
whole different story, right,and so that's what I'm saying is
that Russia is not a formidablemilitary foe.
China is more than Russia isfrom, you know, on most fronts,
right, people, equipment,technology, reach, they have
more than Russia.
(37:42):
But are they challenge us andlike really have a protracted,
like combat situation?
I don't know, man, I feel likewe're still significantly
advantaged over them for a lotof reasons.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
Advantage over them for a lot of reasons, From some
of the things that I saw when Iwas still in one.
They have a Blue Sea Navy nowwhere they can actually reach
out and touch folks, which isbig, but one of their big
doctrinal things was take outour space command.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
Oh, yeah, ASAT type stuff.
Speaker 2 (38:20):
Yeah, the anti-satellite ballistic
missiles yeah, um, and that'sreally just uh.
We rely on it so much in combat, you know the uh being able to
have video and things like thatfor senior leaders immediately
being able to talk immediatelyon the battlefields.
We rely on it so much forpredator feeds and things like
you know all the differentdrones yeah if they take that
(38:42):
out, that's like 80 of ourcommunication right there and
they can do it with so much easeand overwhelmingly um, and they
have jammers.
So if they don't want to do anasat and kind of ruin everything
, yeah, they have jammers andlasers, tons of jammers, yeah
like battalions of battalions ofjammers we have like a couple
hundred people down the roadhere.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
Yeah, and they got to like get their stuff together.
China's deployed already.
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:07):
Yeah, so they are a scary, formidable opponent.
I would say High cost.
Speaker 1 (39:14):
conflict Winnable, but very high cost.
Speaker 2 (39:17):
I don't even think our doctrine considers them near
peer anymore.
Right, I'm pretty sure they'rejust peer, okay, like
adversaries.
So yeah, they're a scary, scaryadversary.
Speaker 1 (39:30):
And we'll use the.
You know meat grinder, right.
That's the—it's a people's—it'sa numbers game, right?
I mean, obviously, robots arekilling robots now.
So like it's a numbers game,right?
I mean, obviously, robots arekilling robots now.
So that's not again.
The war in Ukraine has shown usthat drones on the battlefield
are absolutely the way of thefuture.
There's just no way around that.
Whether it's missile-typedrones or more of your
(39:52):
quadcopter-like observationdrones, they've got from small
squad level all the way up tonational level assets.
Robots are fighting wars now,right, so that changes the
landscape a little bit.
If you go, well, you got abillion people and you got you
know as many people in thatexist in america are military
aged capable people in china,right, like.
(40:14):
And then they've got theanother 700 billion people.
That are a million people thatare not military capable, right,
but they can support the wareffort, yeah, and so this just
from a numbers game.
We can't even come close tohead.
Count on how many bodies canyou shove into the meat grinder,
right and those folks arealready ready to go into the
(40:34):
meat grinder.
They are, and we have a culturaldifference of america.
We, you know, in vietnam, likewe rejected the meat grinder
Right, like there's been a lotof opportunities and instances
where the democracy pushes backon that, you know, on that
military mentality.
Speaker 2 (40:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
But China doesn't have that.
You know, go to war, go to jail.
There's no jail, we'll justshoot you now.
Get in the bus or you're acasualty.
One way or the other you candie here.
You can die on the battlefield.
Catch a bullet on thebattlefield your family gets a
stipend, die right here.
Nothing happens, right, youknow, we're not even going to
(41:11):
bury you, you know.
So that's the choice right.
And and they've got enoughpeople to coerce that way that
they could have a one-to-onehead count against every citizen
of the United States.
So that makes them appear fromjust that perspective, even if
they were doing it with slingsand arrows.
You know it's a problem, youknow.
So I definitely.
(41:32):
Throughout my time in themilitary, I never was worried
about a government decision fromthe senior commanders that
would push us into real conflictwith them.
And I know that we're not goingto get in a shooting war over
Taiwan, like they can swallowthat thing up all day, any day.
Speaker 2 (41:47):
Yeah, you know that's a good point.
Speaker 1 (41:49):
Yeah, that's probably gone and so you know the
pushback on that and that beingthe, that's the Ukraine of Asia.
Yeah, because you know Putinjust went over there and said
hey, you can get Taiwan.
Speaker 2 (42:02):
Yeah, Just whatever you want it.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Whenever you want to float down in that direction,
and it's yours Right, and youknow what's not going to happen
Anything, you know.
And so he said if you want todo it with Trump in office, you
need to do it now, and so Iwould be really surprised if
there's not some I don't know ifit's going to be military, but
some other posture from Chinatowards Taiwan within the next
two years, Right, Like I don'tknow what, but some sort of
(42:25):
consumption posture there youknow.
Speaker 2 (42:27):
Yeah, I mean they keep building land out there and
making their pushes, Navalbases out of sand.
Basically, yeah, and, like Isaid, their Navy's grown
exponentially in the last 20years and they can go out on big
blue water now.
Speaker 1 (42:41):
And if they take Taiwan, we say okay, let's tie
that back in, and then maybe wewrap up on this little piece
right here.
If China we say so what doesthat mean to America?
Every computer chip you've everused is made in Taiwan.
Right Period.
Speaker 2 (42:56):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (42:56):
I'm saying Like, yes, we have chip factories in
America, so no, not every period.
You know what I'm saying.
Like, yes, we have chipfactories in america, so no, not
everyone.
But we are so tremendouslydependent on the technology
sector that's in taiwan, thetaiwan I can't remember the name
of the company, but they makethe most chips in the world,
right, and so china already hasmost a lot of that production
under their you know controlanyway.
But taiwan is our safe harborin as Asia for technology that
(43:19):
we import into the United.
Speaker 2 (43:20):
States, yeah, not controlled by the.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Chinese government and so that that goes away and
that leads to an economic impactthat ripples across all kinds
of stuff.
Speaker 2 (43:28):
Right, and you know, and it wouldn't be so much of a
problem if, say, you let theChips and Science Act take
flight and start buildingfactories here to do that first,
which you know, the Bidenadministration had passed and
now all that money is gettingtaken away too.
So even like microchip herelocally is shrinking.
So yeah, we've become sodependent on it and now we're
(43:52):
just going to turn our backs onit and be like, okay, yeah, you
guys can have it.
Speaker 1 (43:55):
Yeah, and that national security issues
concerns there as well.
Right, that we try to sourceeverything the best we can in
the United States, but I promiseyou we're relying on some
commercial technologies that arenot 100 percent homegrown.
(44:15):
Over Taiwan becoming part ofChina, most people would think
it already is right, they don'tknow the difference, right, but
the impact that would be feltafterwards would be, you know,
it would touch everybody.
Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah, so All right.
Speaker 1 (44:29):
Hey, that's how we like to do it on Left Face.
We like to wrap up on a littlesour note.
Speaker 2 (44:37):
It's like our cliffhanger right, you want to
come back and hear good newsnext time.
Speaker 1 (44:44):
Is there going to be an apocalypse this week or not?
I doubt it.
I'm gonna predict.
No, maybe we should start doingthat.
Yeah, right, you need anoctopus that can predict that
for us.
Right, like the one that picksthe super bowl winner yeah, yeah
, we need something like that.
Speaker 2 (44:52):
Yeah, we'll look into that.
All right, correct?
Speaker 1 (44:54):
thanks everybody for listening in the left face.
We'll catch you again next week, all right?
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.