Gaetz and Gabbard and Hegseth, Oh My

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Jonathan Rose, CEO of Genesis Gold Group. As Americans,
we work hard every day to provide for our families
and ensure their future. But with the uncertainty facing our economy,
it is more important than ever to safeguard your wealth
and protect your retirement savings. Educated investors look to safe
haven assets to shield themselves from the economic storm. Tangible

(00:23):
assets like gold and silver can provide stability, security, and
most importantly, peace of mind. In nineteen ninety seven, the
Taxpayer Relief Act allowed Americans to hold physical precious metals
like gold and silver in their iras for the first time. Today,
Genesis Gold Group helps our clients transfer existing iras for

(00:44):
one ks and other retirement accounts into physical gold and silver.

Speaker 2 (00:48):
Tax and penalty three.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
With thousands of satisfied clients, five star reviews and fully
accredited with the Better Business Bureau, our experienced team is
here to help you navigate the process, Start Finish. Now
is the time to educate yourself on the importance of
a diversified portfolio. Include intangible assets like gold and silver.
Cool now to receive our free wealth protection Kit and

(01:12):
digital dott A defense guide. Call now and will include
our extremely popular silver Prepper bar free when you open
your account, add it to your IRA, or have it
sent your home. Call Genesis Gold Group today an eight
hundred two hundred gold Prepper bar only available through Genesis
Gold Group.

Speaker 2 (01:56):
You're listening to the jd Rucker Shows. Let's begin.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
I remember back in twenty seventeen, during the early days,
weeks months of the Trump administration, the first Trump administration,
my feeling it wasn't even disappointment, wasn't isn't as strong
enough term. I felt them any ways, betrayed. You know,
I did have concerns going in. As soon as he won,

(02:21):
I thought, okay, now our biggest concern is we're going
to take advantage of the calls for bipartisanship and unity,
and they were going to sneak in a bunch of
Democrats into the administration.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
I was wrong.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
It was far worse than that. We started seeing the
uniparty swamp the greater threat, even worse than the Democrats
as a party that the uniparty swamp is far worse
in many ways. Started them seeing them insert their people in.
We started seeing the deep state inserting its people in.

(02:56):
And yes, we even saw the globalist elite cabal inserting
their people into the Trump administration. I was very, very concerned.
Praise God that Trump himself was very strong some people
in that administration that were good. Otherwise it could have
been an absolutely horrible, horrible four years and obviously led

(03:19):
to eight years. Thankfully that didn't happen. We did have
some good things come out of it. But let's look
at some of those picks. I mean, we had the
uniparty swamp, We had rights previous for example, who is
at least was a card carrying member of the uniparty swamp.
We had a deep state represented very thoroughly, people like
hr McMaster involved very heavily in the intelligence side of

(03:46):
the administration, and he is he's as deep state as
it gets. We had Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State, the
first one, and he he is I'm sorry, he is
the globalst League of ball.

Speaker 2 (03:59):
He is.

Speaker 3 (04:00):
He is one of the one of the most active
members of the Global's Lee cobaltist at the time. What
a rogue's gallery of just really bad people. And even
compared to some Democrat administrations, obviously we were just coming
off the Obama had pure evil in the cabinet. I mean,

(04:23):
just as bad as it gets. If you rate that
as an F. Trump's administration his first term was at
best a D minus. It might have actually failed, but
again because of Trump's very I mean, the Dud's a
fast learner. He picked up on things pretty darn quickly.
And praise God for that, because if he hadn't, he

(04:44):
could have been overrun. I mean, he he opened the
door and the rats started just piling in. Now, I
went into this last election, the one what a week
a little over a week ago. Now, I went into
this election very confident, extremely confident that he had learned

(05:05):
from his first administration, and that if he was going
to to uh get the blessing the opportunity to have
a second administration, that he would do. For goodness, has
he done just that?

Speaker 4 (05:21):
He is.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
His initial picks so far I would rate at worst
a B plus. And that's with me being mister critical. Oh,
I don't know if I want to rate it an A.
If you put put truth serum in me, I'd probably
say it's an A minus. Okay, there are a couple
of questionable picks, and we'll get to those, But for
the most part, even the surprise picks are surprising in

(05:45):
a positive way. And I am I'm excited. I mean,
I have not been this excited and this hopeful. Excited
is probably the wrong word. I haven't been this hopeful
about the future of this nation since twenty I don't
even know. I don't recall the last time I was

(06:08):
this jazzed. I mean, I am juiced up, I am
pumped up, I am excited an extreme that we have
an opportunity here now for those of you who I
don't have any there's no wood around me for me
to knock, and I'm not superstitious anyway, so I'm not
going to knock on wood. But I think you understand
what I'm saying there. We don't want to count count

(06:30):
our chickens before they hatch, even though we are starting
to see some cracks, we already see some chickens starting
to pop up. And again, we're just a week in
a day or two removed from the amazing election, the
most important election of our lifetimes. And I stand by
those words, even though I've never seen them in the
past about other elections. This time, I believe it was,

(06:52):
and I believe it is, and I think that we
are we have reason to be very hopeful, but there's
a lot of work to be done Donald Trump, and
not just by the Trump administration, and not just by
Congress or the Senate. There's a lot of work to
be done by a whole lot of us, we the people.

(07:14):
I want to take a brief moment, though, to remind
everybody of something, and I'll probably if you watch this
show every day, you're gonna hear me talk about this
probably once or twice a month, maybe even more, because
it amazes me. It blows me away when I think
about God's will, when I think about how wrong we

(07:35):
are and how right He always is. I would imagine
that if you are a Trump supporter, that with a
ninety nine point niney nine percent certainty, you back back
in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, and probably definitely
twenty twenty two and twenty twenty three, you were thinking
to yourself, my goodness, wish Donald Trump had been allowed

(08:00):
to win in twenty twenty I really wish that he
Depending upon your perspective, you are either thinking I really
wish he would have won, or like me, I really
wish he hadn't had the elections stolen. If we had
our will done. Then Donald Trump would have won the

(08:21):
twenty twenty election, we wouldn't have had to deal with
Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. But here's the thing. If
he had won, he would have won without control of Congress.
He would not have been able to achieve a mandate
and an ability to enact his agenda.

Speaker 2 (08:43):
That's number one.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
Number two, Mike Pence would be Vice President of the
United States currently right now, unless he got himself booted somehow.
He would have also been the facto candidate, but he
would have been the front runner to be the twenty
twenty four were Republican nominee, and he probably would have
been going up against Gavin Newsom or somebody like that,

(09:06):
and he probably would have Okay, again, this is in
the scenario where Trump wins or is allowed to win.
In twenty twenty, we would have had Bill Barr still
likely as Attorney General at least at that point. He
probably would have gotten himself fired or quit or whatever

(09:27):
between twenty twenty one and now, but he would have
been still the Attorney General of the United States.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
The bad people that.

Speaker 3 (09:36):
Were still in the Trump administration, he purchased a lot
of them, but there were still some horrible, horrible people,
including the aforementioned Vice President and Attorney General of the
United States.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
Both of those guys.

Speaker 3 (09:50):
Were still in office and would have remember, but that
wasn't God's plan. God's plan was not to have Trump
sort of limp beyond COVID limp with the hampering of
of his first administration. God's plan, as we're seeing unfolding

(10:12):
before us, was for us to suffer, for us to
see what would happen if, if God forbid, that it
ever happens again. But we didn't get to taste the
last four years of utter destruction of the United States
of America. They have decimated this nation, they being Nancy Pelosi,

(10:36):
Chuck Schumer, and yes, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. We
got to witness at firsthand. We got to live it,
and we're paying the price for that. But it's not
over yet. I would say the vast majority, we're definitely
not out. We can rebound from the last four years

(10:56):
of debacle. And here's the important part, we can rebound stronger.
We already have juvenated and jacked up Donald Trump putting together.

Speaker 2 (11:11):
What I can.

Speaker 3 (11:11):
I'll go ahead and say it as of now, even
if everybody else he adds to his administration is mediocre,
he's already added enough strength to this administration to make
it the strongest. And by strength, I'm not talking about
the most powerful or authoritarian. I'm saying strongest as far
as as what we need for each role to put

(11:32):
together the strongest cabinet at the beginning of a cabinet
and then the rest of his administration. The people that
he's putting in place are for the most part awesome.
There are a couple of question marks, but so far
nothing super ultra glaring, and we'll get to those, but
I want you to think about that. You know, what

(11:53):
have we learned over the last four years? America has
learned that the Democrat Party is a disaster. Just you
and me, Democrats or former Democrats, many independents, perhaps a
lot of never Trump Republicans are starting to realize, holy crap.
The Democrats, who maybe they thought weren't so bad, or

(12:14):
maybe some of them thought that Democrats were good, are
now realizing, oh my goodness, their policies are awful. They
are way, way, way, way way too woke, and they
are destroying our nation, and we the people are suffering
as a result. Had Trump one had hour will been
done instead of God's will, a majority of the American
people would not know how awful democrats are. What about

(12:36):
corporate media though, had Trump won, corporate media would have
gone on it's merry way, would have continued to attack him,
would have do, which is do their self fulfilling prophecies
of oh, Trump's going to be awful, and look, Trump's awful.
You know, Trump does this, Trump does that, And it
doesn't matter if he really is awful at this, that

(12:57):
or the other. They're going to claim that he's offul
what their narrative is going to be before they even
utter it the first time. If they're starting to ask questions,
it's because they think they already know the answer, and
even if that answer is wrong, they're still wanting to
say that answer. In other words, we wouldn't have known.
We the people, and you and I have known this
for years. But other normies will call them people that

(13:19):
aren't maybe as politically minded. Maybe they're not watching a
whole lot of CNN or Fox News or MSNBC or
ABC or CBS. Maybe they're watching the Kardashians. I don't
even know if that's even that's probably not even still
a show, is it.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Whatever? Yellowstone, I guess I saw I don't watch TV
news or not whatever.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
They would be doing their things. Those people, they would
still think, oh, okay, well, if I need to get
my news, I need to go to the CNN or
or Fox News. They wouldn't have been been exposed to
the reality that they trust is down so low because
more people have tuned in, because more people have paid attention.

(14:05):
And that would not have happened if we had our
will done in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one, if
Donald Trump had won, God's will was for Trump to
either lose or have it stolen from either way. Trump
was not going to be allowed to be president against

(14:26):
our will, but by his will, we may have dodged
a bullet. Because if Trump had won, and if Trump
had been allowed to win, and it had been president
the last four years, I believe better off. Yes, we
would probably be very in much better shape, but I

(14:47):
think we would have been even more divided, and if anything,
because of the powers of corporate media, because of the
Democrats playing the rhinos and the never Trumpers and the
neocons consolidating power. I think that we would have been
on the verge of a massive collapse with President Gavin
Newsom in starting in twenty twenty five, or Gretchen Witchmer

(15:09):
or Michelle Obama or whoever it is, because we would
have thrown out Mike Pence or Ronda Santis or somebody
as our candidate in twenty twenty four, because Trump would
not have been allowed to run, we would have lost.
And then the damage that we have seen in real
life the last four years would probably have been infinitesimal

(15:34):
compared to the massive amounts of damage the Democrats, whoever
they put up there, would have been able to inflict
on us. Powered instead of a weakened media, they would
have had an empowered media with a unknowing American people
instead of a far more aware America. And of course

(15:58):
they would have almost certainly had full control of the House,
full control of the Senate. And when I say full control,
I'm saying at this point they would have been already
set and prepared. And again, in the scenario where Trump
was allowed to win his second term in twenty twenty,
they would be set and ready and prepared to pack
the courts. They would have had been able to overcome

(16:20):
any filibuster or just remove the filibuster altogether. They would
have handed Newsom or Witchmer or whoever keys to the
castle in a way that is far beyond what Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris have had the last four years.
They would have been able to do extensively than what

(16:41):
we've seen. So that's just a reminder that our plans suck.
God's plans rule. Even when God's plans horrible, such as
allowing the twenty twenty election to be stolen, that seems
like the end of the world, the world for many
of us at the time. I didn't think it was

(17:03):
the end of the world, but many people were really
just just terrified, and I can understand why they were.
But God's will was for Trump to have the twenty
twenty elections stolen, for America to be exposed to the
truth about both Democrats as well as corporate media, for

(17:24):
Elon Musk to I mean, because let's face it, Trump won,
chances of Elon Musk owning X right now would have
been far far lower, maybe not zero, maybe who knows
what would have happened, Okay, and that hypothetical, but chance
the reason that he bought X was because he saw
what was happening under the Biden Harris regime had it

(17:48):
been a Trump administration instead, maybe the plan on Facebook,
who knows, setting up more rockets. I don't know. But
God's plan rule, even when we think it's bad, it
always works out for the best. Even if the apocalypse
starts tomorrow and there's persecution and tribulation and people are dying.

(18:12):
If you're a Bible believing Christian, you know how the
story ends. So no matter how much heartache and pain
and suffering we go through, we know that at the
very end, we're going to come out on top. Let's
take a quick break. I'm gonna go over a lot

(18:33):
of these picks, Trump's initial picks. Let's take a quick break,
and then when we get you know what, let me
just as a matter of fact, I am going to
just push the button and shut up for a minute
and a half, two minutes. For at least the last oh,
I don't know, two years. Let's see, it might have

(18:54):
been as early as twenty twenty one, but at least,
at the very least in twenty twenty two, we started
talking about and noticing and talking about all of the
crazy things that were happening with this food supply, be like, hey,
did you notice that there's been like a sharp increase
in food production. Plants that are just sort of burning up,
getting sabotaged, blowing up in some cases. And what about
all the chickens that are getting cold, and what about

(19:14):
all the cows that are mysteriously dying. It's like somebody's
attacking their food. That seems to be the case, and
it has continued to be the case for a long time.
This is one of the reasons that the food prices
have gone up so much higher, so much faster than
other things. Yes, we're experiencing mega inflation, but food is
getting it hit hard. It's one of the reasons that

(19:35):
we even launched my company in the first place, and
we were very happy to have done that, but everything happened,
like everything. You can only fight off the inevitable for
so long. And so we are in the very very
near future, not sure what day or anything like that,
but very soon we are going to have to raise
our prices. And so as a result of this, and

(19:58):
I actually have a meeting. I'm not gonna say when,
but I have a meaning to discuss all of this
and how much we're going to raise prices and all
that stuff. But in the meantime, as owner of the company,
I can still offer what I believe to be a good,
awesome deal. So go to Worldviewbeef dot com and once

(20:18):
you're there, just use use promo code JDR. No, no, yeah, yeah, yeah,
use promo code JDR to get the maximum discount. As
of right now, as I'm recording to this this episode,
we are at thirty percent, and we're doing that ahead
of the anticipated price hike. So so do yourself a favor,

(20:41):
do your family favor, do everybody favor, and go to
go there now and use promo code jd R. Yeah,
I desperately need to update that that at the current
special with promo code JDR. At it's actually thirty five.

(21:03):
And it's in celebration of this tremendous victory that we
and UH America versus patriots across the country achieved with
God's God's tremendous blessing last Tuesday. So let's let's hop
right into this. Let's get into some of Trump's Trump's picks,

(21:23):
and to be clear, let's just state right up front
who the bad ones are. I don't think either of
these ones are necessarily bad.

Speaker 2 (21:33):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (21:33):
Rex Tillerson was bad, Okay. HR McMaster was horrible. Okay,
But now go down a list of people. Don't even
get me started on Jeff's sessions. Who's who picking Jeff's
sessions was the first domino in a that that it's spiraled.

(21:57):
Just don't even get me started.

Speaker 2 (21:59):
But now we have again.

Speaker 3 (22:03):
Questionable picks. They're not even bad necessarily they're questionable. Let's
start with Christy Noam. Christy know them, and to be clear,
hers isn't necessarily questionable as much as it is.

Speaker 2 (22:15):
A head scratcher.

Speaker 3 (22:17):
Had you asked me who would be the top twenty
possible secretaries of DHS, secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security,
I was about to say Human Services, Department of Homeland Security.
If you told me to pick out twenty people and
give me a full day to research it and figure

(22:37):
it out to try to try to strip Christy Noam
would not have been on my list.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (22:45):
I have never seen her as even remotely possibly somebody
who could be charged with overseeing the security of the
United States of America. Here in the Homeland Hearing, the
Border chief responsibility falls on the Department of Homeland Security,

(23:06):
and of course the Secretary of DHS having christ you
know them, who is the governor currently the governor of
South Dakota was. She was near the top of the
list at least maybe even at the top of the
list at one point to be Trump's VP nominee to
be his running mate.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
And that's not confided. Trump did do.

Speaker 3 (23:26):
The reason I thought that she was at the top
of the list is because Trump did when she officially
came out to endorse him. They actually had a sign
that was approved by Trump by the campaign, at least
a sign, a couple of signs, huge signs in the
background that showed Trump know Him twenty twenty four. These
were I mean, you could have literally taken those and

(23:48):
turned those into yard signs for a Trump know Hm ticket.
And I thought, my gosh, they're they're really this is
a test balloon. All day they're seeing the optics, are seeing.

Speaker 2 (23:59):
How it fit.

Speaker 3 (24:00):
It's you know, how do they look together? Is she
she is an attractive woman, but is she too small?
Is she too you know? I mean, how did how
did that work? I think that there's a good chance
I don't know, thirty forty maybe fifty chance that she
would have been his running mate had it not been
for for her her stupid book that came out saying yeah, yeah,

(24:23):
some dogs. Now of course, I look, I read the story.
It wasn't It's like, uh yeah, I mean that's that's
a that's a normal action for a red blood a American.
You know, if you've got animal that are that are dangerous,
the animals that that could be that you know that
are that are disobedient. Maybe we're not going to go

(24:44):
over a hill and with a shotgun, but you know
a lot of people will have have animals put down.
I'm not I'm not endorsing it or anything. It just
didn't shock me. It's all like, oh my gosh, she
can't she's she's just you know, super evil. I thought
she was dumb. That was my bigger concern. It's like,
why would you put that in there? Okay, have we
not learned anything from Mitt Romney putting his dog on

(25:07):
the roof of his car. You know, you wanna you
want to get people on both sides of the aisle
upset say that you did something, even if you felt
justified in doing it. Say that you did something bad
to animals. That's all you've done. But apparently she's not done,
at least not with politics. Now she's getting into going
from elected office, which she was. She was in Congress, okay,

(25:27):
and she has been governor. Now she's moving to head
up the Department of Homeland Security. She got me, I mean,
that's that was that one blew me away. But we'll see.
I'm willing to give her a chance because she is
no more. She is very in talent, intelligent, Okay, she's
very talented, and to some extent, even though she's way

(25:49):
up in South Dakota, she's not like she's like on
a border state, at least she's close to the northern border,
I suppose, but she's she's uh, she's not by the
southern border. But she has expressed and the understanding of
the dangers of the illegal alien invasion, that border crisis.

Speaker 2 (26:06):
So we'll see.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
Again, it's questionable, it gets sort of it's a wild card.
I didn't expect him, didn't see it coming, and when
that came across, I had the double check to make
sure that it was real.

Speaker 2 (26:18):
Wait on Trump's.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
Truth social to see, uh, if he was actually gonna announce,
and then he did. He did so, Yes, Christy, No,
I'm the Department of Homeland Security.

Speaker 2 (26:28):
The other one that.

Speaker 3 (26:29):
Was that I I'm And this is not necessarily a
reflection on.

Speaker 2 (26:37):
On whether or not he'll do a good job.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
But I don't like Marco Rubio. Okay, I think he's
a neocon. I think that he is. He is in
many ways of warmonger and having him allegedly, I don't
know that Trump officially selected him yet, I haven't. The
rumors were out and the very credible rumors, some reports
closed and YadA yadaya. A lot of people are already talking.

(27:01):
And maybe he did announce it. But but let's just
assume that Marko Rubio is going to be the Secretary
of State. That one to me on a personal level,
again not necessarily as a political analyst, but personally I
hate the pick.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
But I mean number one, very few.

Speaker 3 (27:17):
People, if anyone in the Senate knows more about foreign
relations than Marco Rubio. He has studied, okay, he has.
He has led the Intelligence the Intelligence Committee, so he's
seen He's seen a lot of things that other senators,
even other members of Congress. He's seen things that that

(27:41):
perhaps even Donald Trump has yet to see. He knows
things that are happening in the world. So I don't
question his knowledge, and I don't question his skill. He
is he is a very skilled Uh. If anything, I
would argue that he's he's more suited to be a
bureaucrat than the legislator. I would make that argument all day.
I mean, how many, how many things? What legislation is

(28:03):
Marco Rubio known for? We have to go all the
way back to the Gang of Eight and pushing you know,
he was suckered into being the poster boy for amnesty,
like that's that's his uh, his signature piece of legislation that,
praise God, didn't pass, right. Uh So, yeah, maybe he

(28:23):
will do a great job. I don't know, and I'm
gonna I'm gonna give him the benefit of the doubt.
But he is in many ways of warmonger, which is
not a good, good trait for a secretary of State,
not in the Trump administration. So I'm gonna put put
that one as a question mark. So I'm gonna put

(28:44):
I'm gonna put the know him. Uh put her selection
her appointment as about a C plus only because of
the question marks and I'm gonna put put Marco Rubio
as a c miinus and we'll see. There's a chance
that both of them have great upside potential. They both

(29:05):
could prove me wrong, and I pray to god they do.
I hope that they're both astounding, But there's also the
potential that they could both really screw it up bad.
Not gonna lie that that is another one. Ah, son
of a gun, we're coming up on a break. Get

(29:25):
into the other picks. I've got a I'm gonna play
this real quick. And uh, I find it humorous that
when you see corporate media shills, corporate media propagandists out
there pretending to take the high ground, especially against something
like X, which to me, you can say what you

(29:46):
will about Elon Musk, I've said some bad things myself
over the years, but when it comes to freer speech,
X seems to be the place where you get the best.
As far as the major social media sites, You've got Gab,
you've got Pickaxe, You've got ou that are better than
X as far as free speech. But as far as
the major's you know, Facebook, Instagram, YadA, YadA, YadA. Excess

(30:08):
shoals above the rest, but Don Lemon doesn't care.

Speaker 5 (30:12):
Hi everyone, I have loved connecting with all of you
on Twitter and then on X for all of these.

Speaker 4 (30:18):
Years, but it's time for me to leave the platform.

Speaker 5 (30:21):
I once believed that it was a place for honest
debate and discussion, transparency and free speech, but.

Speaker 4 (30:27):
I now feel it does not serve that purpose.

Speaker 5 (30:30):
In addition, starting this Friday, November fifteenth, ex is implementing
new terms of service, which, among other things, states that
quote all disputes be brought exclusively in the US District
Court for the Northern District of Texas or state courts located.

Speaker 4 (30:46):
In Arrant County, Texas. End quote.

Speaker 5 (30:48):
The full terms of service can be found on my
written statement or on the X website now. As The
Washington Post recently reported on exces's decision to change the terms,
this quote ensures that such lawsuits will be heard in
courthouses that are a hub for conservatives, which experts say
could make it easier for X to shield itself from
litigation and punish critics.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
I think that speaks for itself.

Speaker 5 (31:13):
You can find me on YouTube at the Don Lemon Show,
or on TikTok and Facebook at Don Lemon and on
Instagram and Blue Sky at.

Speaker 4 (31:22):
Don Lemon Official. I hope you will join me there.

Speaker 3 (31:26):
Thank you know, there are there are journalists that I despise.
Don Lemon as somebody that I just pity. I just
pity that guy. He's just a loser. Sorry, Don, You're
You're just a loser. Let's take a quick break. If
you want to catch the rest of the show from
another network, go to jdrucker dot com slash rumble. After

(31:51):
Trump was elected president, I received a couple of communications
from people, one via phone text and the other one
via Twitter X direct message. People asking me, hey, now
that now that Trump's back in office, is the economy going.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
To get better? And I said, yeah, in some of
these it definitely will, obviously.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
I mean just Trump's presence alone will have a dramatic
impact on the economy.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
And it will we'll take things to the next level.

Speaker 3 (32:16):
But with that said, the threats still remain. Trump Harris
didn't matter. They're still pushing. They being the powers that be,
are still pushing for central bank digital currencies. They're still
pushing for dedollarisation and the rise of bricks. They're still
pushing for the advancement of a worldwide economy. And while
Trump will do everything in his power to prevent that,

(32:39):
to at least slow it down, some of it is
not within even the power of the United States of
America itself. And this is why there is no reason
you can see by the gold prices, there's no reason
to doubt physical pressures metals as a proper way to
hedge against what is coming, because it's still coming. You know,
there were there were certain scenarios that would have happened

(33:00):
if Kamala Harris had won, and there are certain scenarios
that will happen now that President Trump has won, and
those scenarios still point in the same exact direction. That's
the reason why even central banks are still buying up
as much gold and silver as possible. That's why banks
financial institutions are recommending to their people buy as much
gold and silver as possible. I work with a faith

(33:22):
driven gold company. There are a lot of gold companies
out there that they get recommended by hosts. The one
that I like happens to be driven by faith and
they actually do a tremendous job versus the competition. You
can check out Genesis Gold Group by going to Rumblegold
dot com that's rumblegold dot com, or read my testimony

(33:43):
over JD Rutger dot com slash gold. You know, I've
told myself be a lot more and that's just me.
You guys have told me the same thing. I need
to be a lot more positive with this show when
things are positive. I will have a hard time, though,

(34:04):
being positive when absolute anti American, anti Maga, anti Trump
people such as John Thune are elected as Senate Majority leader.
The secret ballot came back today and as a lot
of us expected, I didn't want to voice it, but

(34:25):
I did have the expectation that Mitch McConnell's hand Taylor
hand groomed boy John Thune was going to win, and
of course it did happen, and it's unfortunate, it's sad,
it's destructive.

Speaker 2 (34:44):
But now it's up to us. You know, we can't focus.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
I could sit here and just rip on him all day,
go over his conservative scores, which are abysmal, anti Trump
sentiment that he's been voicing since twenty sixteen and he's
never stopped. I could start to really attack this guy,
but there's no point because.

Speaker 2 (35:04):
Because he is who he is.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
If you don't know him, already you're going to get
to learn to know him. He is Mitch McConnell two
point zero. And if anything, he's worse than McConnell, because, yes,
is he compromised like McConnell, You bet you, But he's
worse because he has all of his mental acuity in place.
Some would argue that many, if not most, if not all,
of McConnell's moves over the last several years, have been
actually John Thune.

Speaker 2 (35:28):
You receive when the guy, if you're not.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
Familiar with him, McConnell will be there at the podium
and he'll be like talking, he'll have one of his
one of his incidences where he just freezes, you know,
McConnell's as they now call it, he glitches glitchy Mitchie.
The guy that steps in to continue. That's always John Thune.
John Thune has been in many ways. Some people thought

(35:51):
that he was being groomed by McConnell. I would argue
that he's been controlling McConnell for a long time, that
he's been the puppet master, making mcconnald's lips move and
say certain things. I'm not saying that he's the reason
that mcconnald's Compromise Party, the Unit Party Swamp, a deep
stay in the global sleitue cabal. To find all of
Mitch mcconnald's various puppet masters very much, including Big Pharma,

(36:13):
who pays Mitch McConnell or paid Mitch mcconnal more than
any other person in Washington, d C.

Speaker 2 (36:21):
No.

Speaker 3 (36:22):
Now that's who John Thune is now, and he is
Senate Majority Leader, and that sucks. But now our role,
our way that we can fight back. We can't get
him replaced, not anytime soon, which means that we still
have to try to get as many Republicans in line
with what we want them to do in the Senate

(36:43):
as possible because John Thune's is not going to be
the guy that's pushing the MAGA movement. He's not going
to be pushing Agenda forty seven. If anything, he's going
to be trying to slow Trump down on behalf of
the Union Party swamp. Okay, sorry, see, and this is why,
this is why ally everybody writes me. They go to
Jdrutcker dot com slash talk JD Rutger dot com slash talk,

(37:06):
and they say, hey, man, tone it down a bit.
You get a little bit angry, especially when you talk
about rhinos and the Union Party swamp and the deep
stand start to spit, you know, take it easy. That's
what you guys will be sending me and im, and
I'm taking the advice. So we're gonna stop talking about
John Thune. We're gonna move on to the cabinet. But I,
I just I just had to throw throw that out there,

(37:28):
and I'm gonna gonna take a drink. So let's let's
throw in a swoosh. All right, how's a good drink?
Had made good drink? So it was just coffee. Don't worry,
didn't start drinking. Uh, for the sake of John Thune,
he's not worth that much of my time. We'll still

(37:48):
get what we need done done in spite of the
the rhinos.

Speaker 2 (37:56):
Move on, Rucker, move on, all right, let's get let's
get to some positive stuff. All right.

Speaker 3 (38:00):
There again, there aren't positive things that are happening in
our world, and the vast majority of them, at least
from a political perspective, are coming from the Trump team.

Speaker 2 (38:11):
So let's go up and down the list.

Speaker 3 (38:13):
These are We've covered the two questionable selections, so far.
Let's talk about the ones that are and this is
in no particular order. Okay, so this is just I'm
just I'm following a list here of the people that
we're going to be talking about, including Susie will new
White House Chief of Staff. She has been in a

(38:34):
long time ally of President Trump. She's been working with
him on his campaigns ever since twenty sixteen. She is
one of the good guys. Now, I can't say that
on a personal basis. I don't know enough about her,
and I don't think a whole lot of people know
enough about her, except for apparently Donald Trump and his
campaign because they loved her.

Speaker 2 (38:52):
She was the co chair.

Speaker 3 (38:53):
She really helped to drive the Trump campaign in many ways,
and now she's being charged with driving the additions.

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Of various people.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
Now, look, if he had picked her and then and then,
I don't know, somebody like Bill Barr had been thrown
in as a Attorney General, and somebody like Rex Tillerson
had been thrown in as Secretary of State.

Speaker 2 (39:18):
If we started.

Speaker 3 (39:19):
Seeing the cabinet and the and the various appointments, if
we started seeing a bunch of rhinos, neo cons and
global there like we did on Ryan's previous was the
first chief of staff for Trump during the transition period.
Then I would be against Susie Wilds.

Speaker 2 (39:39):
I'd be pointing.

Speaker 3 (39:40):
My finger at her and saying she's another Ryan's She's
not because she's picking helping to pick some good people.
Now we do know that it's not just her. We
do know that, based upon what he said himself, that
Donald Trump Junior is involved in this particular role. I
think a lot of people thought that that Donald Trump
Junior would be playing a major role in the administration.

(40:02):
I think a lot of people thought that the first time,
and he didn't. First first Trump administration, Donald Trump Junior
really wasn't there, And so for the second administration, people
have asked what is his role going to be? I
think he does seems to be and I don't know
if this is I wouldn't put this as a certainty,
but I'd put it over fifty percent chance that he
does have some sort of political ambitions for the future.

(40:25):
And that being the case, you know, I think a
lot of more people, including me, were thinking he's going
to play a bigger role in this second term, and apparently,
from what we've been told by him, his Ma's main
role is just to make sure that the mistakes from
the first administrator second time around. His main goal is
to work with Susie Wilds to make sure that we

(40:46):
get good people in place. And if he is as
he said he was going to be, if he is
guard and he's doing a bang up job, and so
is Susie Wilds. So I'm going to RaSE her as
an as again with some upside there, because chief of staff,
for those who don't realize, chief of staff is arguably

(41:07):
the second most powerful person in the White House, more
powerful than the Vice president in many ways, depending upon
the administration and depending upon the chief of staff, sometimes
they're they're kind of nerved. Sometimes they're they're given the
keys to the castle.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
Right.

Speaker 3 (41:20):
And it's because it's not really a it's not a
cabinet position. I think people don't understand that or don't
realize that it's not a cabinet position, that it is
a role that was created after the fact. You know,
it's sort of like, hey, you know, let's have a
chief staff. It's almost like an office manager.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
Right.

Speaker 3 (41:35):
That was the initial idea, but then it started working
its way up, and when when presidents started realizing they
could put their most trusted allies without any any pushback
from Congress. They can just put them in as a
non can house chief of staff. Then it started rising
in its power. That position has become more and more

(41:57):
powerful over the years, to the point that many, many,
many decisions are made, including including make the decisions in
other words, like like the At the very.

Speaker 2 (42:08):
Least, the chief of staff is the gatekeeper, the person
who will who will.

Speaker 3 (42:13):
Tell this secretary or that administrator, or this this general
or that person that's governor whoever, this senator whether they
can even speak to the President at that given moment. So, yes,
So that role is extremely important. I would give Susie
Wiles the a, which is a very good sign.

Speaker 2 (42:34):
We've already done Marco.

Speaker 3 (42:35):
Rubio, all right, at least Stephonic. I've heard a lot
of pushback on this one, and I get it. Okay,
I get it.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
You know, she is not She's not like super ultra
mega conservatives. She is She's powerful.

Speaker 3 (42:47):
She's demonstrated that even in her youth, that she is
very capable of handling the role of leadership, not just
leadership as a representative, but leadership amongst representatives. She is
a leader amongst Republicans in Congress. Now people are pushing back,
He's she's not.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
I mean, she's a.

Speaker 3 (43:09):
New York Conservative, which is to say, you know, she
were in Oklahoma, she would be kind of middle of
the road, right, maybe even a little bit left leaning
compared to an or a Utah Republican. But as a
New York Republican, she is, she's very conservative. But here's
the thing. She's been assigned the role appointed the role

(43:29):
as US Ambassador to the United Nations, which for those
who maybe neither a refresher or a reminder, that's what
Nicki Haley was in the beginning, right, Okay, all right,
So is she another Nicki Haley? A lot of people
are making that parallel. Okay, it's like she's the next
Nicki Haley. She's gonna turn on, No, she won't. The

(43:52):
reason that she's in this role is because she has
been loyal to Trump the entire time. Okay, Nicki Haley was,
We'll forget Nikki Hailey didn't even endorse Trump. Okay, she
endorsed Ted Cruz in twenty sixteen for the primary, you know,
very similar to my pants. Okay, Well, I think we're
we're seeing a trend here, right. You know, a lot

(44:14):
of the people that that jumped on the Trump train
late as far as politicians, they were the first to
jump right off twenty election. They are the first ones,
like John Thune for example, who were like, oh, you
know what, we need to accept the results of the
twenty twenty election.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
It wasn't stolen. January sixth was abysmal and and Trump
should probably go at least.

Speaker 3 (44:36):
Stephanic is not one of those people. She has been
loyal from the beginning of her career. She has maintained
that loyalty and that's the most important part. There's only
two things that the ambassador of the United Nations needs
to be. Number One, they have to be they have
to be strong because they are representing us to the
world at the United Nations. It has to be a
strong person that Stefanic qualifies there. And number two, they

(44:58):
have to be loyal.

Speaker 2 (44:59):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
Okay, she's not gonna be making policies. She's not gonna
be sitting there sitting there saying okay, Iran, here's here's
what's gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
Because I say so.

Speaker 3 (45:09):
No, she's gonna be well, the Trump administration believes this.
The Trump administration believes that the Trump administration is offering this.
She's a messenger, and I'm not trying to downplay the role. Okay,
it's because you know, oh, she's just a messenger. Well,
she's a messenger to world leaders and to her her counterparts.

Speaker 2 (45:26):
So it is.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
I don't think that I'm downplaying it when I say
she's a messenger, but she's The ambassadors don't set policies.
They represent the policies being set from the White House.

Speaker 2 (45:41):
That's it. And so anybody who has I don't think
you're picturing it right now.

Speaker 3 (45:48):
If she were a Secretary of State like Marco Rubio,
I would have the same concerns about her as I
have about Rubio. Maybe not not quite as much because
Rubio's loyalty. Rubyo has been very loyal to Trump, by
the way, ever since after the twenty sixteen election, after
he lost.

Speaker 2 (46:03):
I mean, he jumped right on board and he stayed
on board.

Speaker 3 (46:07):
That's that's the you know, there's one good thing about Rubio.
He ran against Trump, he lost, and then he jumped
on the Trump train and stayed there. So but yeah,
so so Stephanie Stephanic were to be made Secretary of State,
I'd become more concerned about her policies because she'd be
leading the It's not just a representative of the United Nations.

(46:29):
That role is really about setting policies for foreigner relations
and for doing stuff outside of the direct appeal or
the direct guidance from the President. I'm not saying the
President doesn't get involved, but most of the heavy lifting
is done by the And therefore whoever is in charge

(46:50):
of the State Department has a lot of responsibility and
does make a lot of decisions. Ambassador to the United
Nations does not. They just have to be a good
presented it great there. I'm going to give her an
a on that one, even though again and not for
her policies, I disagree with a lot of her politics,
But as far as for this role, hey far better

(47:13):
than Ikki Haley.

Speaker 2 (47:14):
All Right, let's get to Tom Homan. The borders are
Let's see who is the borders are today? If we
look it up, who is the borders are under Joe Biden?
If we looked that up on Google, it'll probably say.

Speaker 3 (47:26):
That it's a right wing conspiracy theory that Kamala Harris
is the borders are, and now that's going to be
changed in the future. It will be you know, especially
once they started attacking Homan, once he really gets going.
Tom Holman, by the ways, the Borders are, once started
attacking him, they'll be comparing him to the kinder and
gentler way of former Borders Are and Vice President Kamala Harris.

(47:47):
But went Man turned the campaigns like, shoot, that's a
conspiracy theory. She was never in charge of the border.
She was never borders are. And then you know, you
look back and yes, I know you're saying she's not
the borders are. But according to this article that you
guys wrote last year on PBS, you said that she's
the borders are.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
They're like Bob blah blah blady.

Speaker 3 (48:11):
Sometimes going after corporate media. But anyway, so yeah, so
there will be some comparisons, but she is currently the
borders are. Hasn't taken that role, has not changed, and
now she's being replaced by Tom Holman, the former acting
Ice Director under Donald Trump and arguably the most based
individual in Washington, DC. And when I say based, what

(48:32):
I mean is he says what he means, he means
what he says and He doesn't care what you or
I or anybody else thinks about it.

Speaker 2 (48:42):
He just goes.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
He's on a mission, and he has been on this
mission for four decades. This mission is to make sure
that the United States of America is safe. There is
not a single person that I could possibly think of
that I would rather have in the role of border
As a matter of fact, if he had been declared
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, I would

(49:06):
have been ecstatic. And if he would have been placed
as ICE Director static. Now that he's placed as Borders
are I perhaps more ecstatic because we don't know exactly
what that means. I mean, is he going to have
power over for example, Christy Knowam. It's it's an ambiguous
it's an extra constitutional position. And really, if assuming that

(49:30):
he reports directly with the President, which he will, it's
possible that he could be setting more more of our
deportation and border security policies than even Christy Knowam, or
whoever the ICE director is or whoever runs customs and
border protection.

Speaker 2 (49:48):
He really might be the guy. And that's awesome.

Speaker 3 (49:53):
So yeah, I'm gonna put Tom Holman's selection or appointment
as Borders are We're given that on an A plus
and if I could add more pluses to the end
of that, I totally would. Because the dude's a stallion,
an absolute stallion. He's a stud I love him. Right,
let's get to another one that I love. You can

(50:15):
put this one down as a question mark. I'm not
going to all but Defense Secretary Pete haig Seth. I'm
laughing not because of him. I'm laughing because of the
reaction to him. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
On the same day.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Pointed as the doge, The Doge director Pete Haggsad actually
stole the headlines because, just like with Christy, know, I
would say even.

Speaker 2 (50:45):
More so than Christy.

Speaker 3 (50:46):
Noan Pete's name had not been on my radar, and
as far as I know, on anybody's radar, there might
have been somebody who had some inside information.

Speaker 2 (50:56):
You know, I don't watch all the shows out there.
But but if.

Speaker 3 (51:01):
You'd given me a week and a team of five
and we were going to come up with who the
most likely top thirty people, top forty people, top fifty,
maybe top one hundred, if you said come up with
an that's overkilled. Let's say you gave us a week
a team of five military and even Trump experts, Republican experts,

(51:22):
conservative experts, whatever, And we sat there in a room
for twelve hours a day to try to go over
and the anticipate and read this. Who is Trump going
to make his secretary of Defense secretary? We would not
have come up with with Fox News host.

Speaker 2 (51:40):
Pete Hagsith by golly, doesn't make sense.

Speaker 3 (51:48):
Because I think in something that people have to understand
about the how the Defense Department works, how the military works,
and often in not the same thing. Okay, how the
Pentagon operates, and civilian oversight of the military. Once you

(52:09):
start understanding that, it's not like pick hake Seith is
going to have access to he's not going to be
sitting there saying, okay, you know bomb Iran. It's not
his call, it's not that's not what the Defense secretary
does there. They're really more about guidance of philosophy. So

(52:30):
you want somebody in there stay with me on this.
You want somebody in there who's going to say, for example, uh,
have a military that's that's woke, and it's not just
less woke. We can't have a military that's woke at all.
Like every single ounce of wokeness has to be drained

(52:51):
out of our military because it looks like there's at
least a good chance that we're going to be into
in direct military conflicts. It's a point in the very
near future. Could be next week, could be next month,
probably not, could be next year, maybe, could be the
year after that. Now we're getting into some some grayer
areas because it seems as if the United States of

(53:13):
America and our allies are on a collision course. And
it's it's like, oh, but Trump will never get into
a war, folks. Sometimes we don't get to decide which
war we get sucked into. Okay, I know we did
with Vietnam. I know we did with Korea. But did
we really get sucked into World War Two? And some
would argue yes, of course, because don't get me started

(53:34):
on on Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories, because they're they're almost
early true. Right, technically speaking, we probably did get sucked in.
But anyway, point b I bringing back in, we might
not have a choice is the point. And so you

(53:54):
want to make sure that you want your defense is
guiding the military from a philosophical perspective more so than
anything else, And a budget. I mean there's day to
day stuff for sure, budgetary concerns and all that stuff.
You know, where do we prioritize budgets where you know,
are we going to be more focused more on space
force or air force or navy or a nice mix

(54:15):
or whatever. You know, do we do how do we
bump up recruitment for marines?

Speaker 2 (54:20):
How do we do?

Speaker 6 (54:21):
You know?

Speaker 3 (54:21):
Those are the things They're not sitting there, you know,
Pete Haigseth and or any Secretary of Defense not sitting
there like like I think we picture like this.

Speaker 2 (54:29):
This oh this map.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
You know, we've got like this risk style map and
it's projected down and they're they're like they're like moving
little pieces around, and it's like, how do we beat Napoleon?

Speaker 2 (54:40):
You know, I don't know what people think, but that's
not the case.

Speaker 3 (54:43):
Okay, the Defense Secretary does not have access to the
military or to the nuclear codes. Okay, that's not what
they do. That's not what they do. So we need
somebody who's going to it out of the military. That's
the primary concern and understanding that all of a sudden,

(55:04):
it's kind of like duh, you know, me and the
other the five experts out there who didn't think of
Pete Hegseth. We see it, and we're of course that
makes a lot more sense. Here's here's a brief clip
on what Pete Haigeseth thinks about women.

Speaker 7 (55:21):
Just saying we should not have women in combat roles.
It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal,
has made fighting more complicated. We've all served with women
and they're great. It just our institutions don't have to
incentivize that in places where traditionally, not traditionally over human history,
men in those positions are more capable.

Speaker 3 (55:43):
My mom retired as an Army captain. Okay, she was
a nurse practitioner in the United States Army. Served proudly
and uh and I'm very I'm so proud of her
for her service. And she she went to South Korea, Okay,

(56:05):
she went to Germany, she was stationed in Europe for
a while. No point was there a concern that she
would face combat, because that's not that wasn't her role.
She played an extremely important role in the United States Army.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
It's crucial. Okay, we need trained ones, right doctors, nurse practitioners, nurses.
We need these people. We don't.

Speaker 3 (56:33):
My mom, who happened to be four foot nine, she's
a tough lady, but I wouldn't want her on the battlefield.
And not just because she's my mom. I wouldn't want
her on the battlefield if she was anybody's mom or
sister or daughter. It's just not I mean war. There's
a difference between military and war. Women in the military, fine,

(56:58):
women at war only as a last resort. Seriously, you know, people, well,
what about what about Israel? You know the idea of folks.
That's a different situation, Okay, I mean totally different situation.
We have men here, believe it or not. I know,
if you live in Comedy, Fornia on the streets and
you might think to yourself, there's no men here.

Speaker 2 (57:22):
Am I the only man walking around here?

Speaker 3 (57:26):
But there are men in the United States of America.
We need to give them a reason to want to serve.
The reason the recruitment is down is not because of
you know, some lack of anything. It's because of idiocy

(57:48):
coming from the Pentagon, Idiocy coming from the Defense Department,
Idiocy coming from our own military leaders who believe that
and maybe they don't believe this but at least they're
portrayed saying that they believe that diversity, equity, and inclusion
is somehow important for the military.

Speaker 2 (58:06):
It is not, okay, it is not. A man is
a man.

Speaker 3 (58:12):
And if that man wants to fight in they in
the US military, and they have the skills, in the
mindset and the and everything else doesn't matter. I don't
care if they are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, as long
as they want to serve the nation in a combat role.

Speaker 2 (58:30):
Sign them up.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
Marines are over there, Armies are over there. You like
the water, great, here's the Navy. Oh, female, you want
to be in the military, awesome. We have some amazing for.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
You, crucial roles.

Speaker 3 (58:46):
Roles that will make sure that the men that are
in combat are properly supported. You will be able to,
in many ways save their lives. You will make them
more effective by doing this or this or this or this,
and then you know, don't even get me started.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
I can start.

Speaker 3 (59:07):
You guys want me to start, I'll start on transgenders.
I want let's take short break before I get in trouble.
Take short break. When we get back, we'll get some
some more of these awesome, amazing Trump picks.

Speaker 8 (59:25):
A large retail store just canceled a huge order, leaving
us with a ton of extra Mind pillows.

Speaker 2 (59:30):
But you know what, that's their loss.

Speaker 8 (59:33):
I'm gonna make it your gain. For the first time ever,
you get standard classic Mind pillows for wholesale prices only
fourteen eighty eight. I can't believe I'm even saying that,
only fourteen eighty eight. But it gets even better. For
a limited time, I'm gonna offer my entire classic collection
at wholesale prices. Upgrade to a Queen size My Pillow
for just eighteen eighty eight King size only a dollar more.

(59:57):
Get my body pills for twenty nine eighty eight. I
have multi use my pillows for only nine eighty eight.
So go to MyPillow dot com or call the number
on the screen use your promo code to take advantage
of wholesale pricing for the first time ever on TV,
including my standard size My Pillow only fourteen eighty eight.
They've never been offered this low before. We have limited

(01:00:19):
quantities at this price, so limit's going to be ten
and once they're gone, they're gone.

Speaker 3 (01:00:27):
So before we get to the rest of the list
of amazing and awesome and just totally cool picks by
President Trump for his team. We've already covered the bad ones,
the questionable ones. I've covered some of the good ones.
But I want to go back to one that I
already covered. I want to go back to Tom Holman
because there was a video I just forgot to play

(01:00:48):
it when I was talking about him. I got so
excited talking about the stud that is Tom Holman that
I forgot to show him being a stud.

Speaker 2 (01:00:57):
Watch running again.

Speaker 6 (01:00:59):
And we know what happens to these children, Sean, and
look the illuguoisan's coming across the board. People need to
understand thirty one percent of women that make that journey
get raped by criminal cartel's children get raped. I've talked
to little girls as young as nine that have been
raped multiple times. This cartels are animals, and that's why
President Trump's going to take them off the faith of yours.
They've killed more Americans than every terror or terrorist organization

(01:01:21):
in the world, and we're going and President Trump has
committed to call them terrorists organization and use them full
money to the United States Special Operations to take them out.

Speaker 3 (01:01:32):
Man, if you no offence to anybody who might take
offense from this. But if if that's not the guy
that you want defending their border, then you're either dumb
or a Democrat or both or just a dumb Democrat oxymoron.

Speaker 2 (01:01:45):
I know. So, so let's keep keep going, keep going
down this list. We've got.

Speaker 3 (01:01:50):
We've got Mike Walls, Congressman Representative Mike Waaltz from Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:01:55):
Who is he.

Speaker 3 (01:01:57):
He's getting some criticism. I'll admit some criticism from people
like Ron Paul and I get it. I mean, I
understand he is a little bit he's not a non interventionalist,
but he does seem to be an American first guy.
And one of the things that I do like that
very much is that he is very skeptical. That's the
word that they're using in corporate media right now, but

(01:02:17):
he's skeptical of the money that we're giving to Ukraine.
He wants to cut it off. And they have him
tagged to be the National Security Advisor, which I think
fits fits his role very nicely. His focus throughout his
congressional career, well, at least the last couple of years.
I shouldn't say throughout, but but for for a while now,
he has been very focused on China. Now, as anybody

(01:02:42):
who's watched this show knows, I do consider China to
be our greatest foreign threat. Bigger than Russia, bigger than
any European nations, bigger than Iran, bigger than North Korea.
China is the one that concerns me the most. And
it's not just from a military perspective. They they are
trying to destroy us in any way they can because

(01:03:04):
from their perspective, their economy is tanking, so they need
their economy to tank simultaneously to keep theirs propped up.
It's a it's very ugly, ugly scenario that could unfold
if the Chinese Communist Party in Jijingping get too desperate,
which could happen really at any point. Forget about it.

(01:03:27):
I mean, let's take out Taiwan and technically speaking, also
the Philippines. Let's take those out of the equation. Even
without the conflicts in the South China. See, China represents
a tremendous, tremendous threat to us, which is why you
want you want somebody from a from a national security perspective,

(01:03:47):
you need somebody who's going to treat China as an
enemy because they are. Whether we want to admit it,
whether corporate media wants to admit it, whether the uniparty
swamp wants to admit it or not. They are not
our friends. They're not neutral. They hate us, they want
to destroy us. They're working very closely with the globals

(01:04:08):
League cabal. I do believe they're separate, by the way.
To be clear, I do think that just as the
United States as a whole is separate from the globals
elite Cabal. We do have many leaders who are participants.
We have many business leaders who are participants. We have
many people in government who are participants in the Global
elite Cabal. But as a nation, we are opposed to them,

(01:04:32):
just as China. China is opposed to the globals elite Cabal.
But they can work together with the common goal of
taking us down a notch or two or ten, which
is what they want to do. They the Chinese Communist Party,
wants to do that. The Global elite caball wants to
do that. They have different reasons for wanting to do it,
but they are unified in that being their end goal.

(01:04:56):
So so I would give Mike Walls. I will give
him a B plus. Yeah, heeds a b plus potential
for for slightly higher. Also, there's a risk there because
again he's not you know, he is He's not like
a warhawk per se, but he is. He's an interventionist
to some extent. So so we'll see, we'll see how

(01:05:17):
it plays out.

Speaker 2 (01:05:18):
Former Green Beret, which.

Speaker 3 (01:05:21):
Very awesome that aspect of it, his time that he
spent in Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East. From that perspective,
I absolutely adore him. William McGinley, White House Counsel. When
it comes to roles in the White House, I've already
mentioned that the Chief of Staff, as a non cabinet

(01:05:41):
role is still extremely important, arguably the most important, very
close up there as far as doesn't get nearly as
much attention because it all happens behind the scenes. But
the people that you really have to pay attention to
as far as setting policies, the appropriate way is the
White House Counsel. These are the people who are every

(01:06:04):
Every executive order has to go through them. Every decision
by the White House by the President has to be
filtered through them. They have to put their finishing touches
on everything, and sometimes those finishing touches can be can

(01:06:25):
be good. Sometimes they can be bad. But basically they're
in charge of determining what a president and an and
an administration is allowed to do. They're supposed to decipher
this policies. Chances of for example, you know, can we
can we put this in there? If it does get
get put in there, what's going to happen between between

(01:06:47):
you know, us signing this executive order and what's going
to happen to it in the courts, how's the legislation,
how are legislators going to react to it, how are
the states going to react to it? And most importan,
can this get us into any trouble? Okay, it doesn't
sound it's not exactly like, oh my gosh, you know
it's like like the State Department or or the Department

(01:07:13):
of Homeland Security or the Defense Department.

Speaker 2 (01:07:16):
It's not. It's not as pretty as that, and it's not.

Speaker 3 (01:07:18):
As high profile as the Justice Department either, But as
far as who actually puts their fingerprints on important decisions
such as executive orders, White House Counsel So having William
McGinley in there is important. Not only is it dude
wicked smart, but he's also extraordinarily loyal to Donald Trump.
And then you definitely want that you don't want. I mean,

(01:07:40):
is there anything worse than a lawyer, Yes, a backstabbing lawyer,
And you don't want any of those. And William McGinley
is not one of those. We talked about Christy nome
CIA director John Radcliffe. Look, I'm not gonna lie. Oh
and by the way, we'll give we'll give a just
a flat out A to McGinley, John Radcliffe as director.

(01:08:01):
I'm gonna go ahead and put this as a b
not that's not a reflection on Ratcliffe's himself. He was
very good, you know when he was d and I
a director of National Intelligence. He did a fine job.
You know, wasn't like, oh my gosh, that was incredible,
But there's not a whole lot of incredible that can

(01:08:21):
be done.

Speaker 2 (01:08:22):
Here's the thing.

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
If you're a really, really really good DNI, nobody's ever
gonna know about it. It's only if you're a bad
DNI that you know the things happened, terrorist attacks happen, or.

Speaker 2 (01:08:35):
Anything like that.

Speaker 3 (01:08:36):
Now, all of a sudden, it's like, wait a second,
why did the intelligence community not tell.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
Us about this? And begin with how are we ACKed?
Why is this happening.

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
Why is that happening If you don't hear any news
from an intelligence perspective, that's because you got a good
DNI in place.

Speaker 2 (01:08:49):
Okay, so he.

Speaker 3 (01:08:49):
Did a fine job there. Putting him over to CIA
makes a lot of sense. It's almost unfair for me
to give him just a B. But I was really
hoping that they would pick Cash Betel.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
I really was.

Speaker 3 (01:09:00):
I wanted Cash to go in there and say, all right,
you know, here's the Epstein list and uh and here's
the Diddy list, and here's the RFK documents, and.

Speaker 2 (01:09:11):
He just lay it all out there.

Speaker 3 (01:09:13):
Cash declassify everything. And I was really hopeful that that
he would do that. I don't think that that John
Radcliffe is going to do that. Yeah, we'll see he won't.
But but he'll be fine. He'll be fine. Leezelden one
of my favorite guys, somebody that I really did think, Uh,
if there was a chance for there to be a

(01:09:34):
Republican governor in the state of New York, I thought
it could be Lee Zelden. And up until the point
where where Laura Trump really and and Michael Wattley took
over the d n C, he was Leezelden was my choice.
I want him on DNC r Sorry, whoa whoa whoa Rucker.

Speaker 2 (01:09:55):
Before they took over the r n C. Leezelden was
the guy that I wanted. You know, I get it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:00):
A lot of people like to harm Meat Dylan and
I know my good buddy Mike Lindell, you know, he
wanted to the position. Lee Zelden was the guy that
I thought, you know, here's somebody who really could from
a strategic perspective, he could get in there and help
help us to win. Now, as it turned out as
a blessing for everybody that he decided not to run

(01:10:20):
to become the the RNC chair because like I said,
we got Watley, we got Laura Trump, and we won. Okay, well,
I mean, could he have done better?

Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
Who cares? We got what we wanted out of the RNC.

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
We have, We've got good people there for now and
we'll we'll take it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
We'll take it.

Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
So now it looks like it worked out very well
for him too, because as the EPA administrator, here's a
guy that can actually get get us back to where
we were before with Trump in his first term, back
to a state of energy independence, I mean, I don't
think anybody understands how bad off we are from an

(01:11:02):
energy perspective. We've been depleted so far down just just
with our strategic patroleum reserves, not to mention everything else
that has happened as a result of They use the
EPA as the ultimate scapegoard, just as they use climate
change in general as the ultimate ultimate skeleton key to
unlock whatever doors they want. The EPA is the hammer

(01:11:23):
that has been used by the Biden administration as well
as the Obama administration to curtail any efforts that we
might have had to do well anything. It's like, oh,
we don't want to really want that pipeline, Send the
EPA and they'll they'll shut it down. Having Lee Zelden
in there to basically pull back the reins on the

(01:11:44):
environmental gatekeepers and hopefully we'll see I would love for
him to be the wind down Administrator. In other words, Hey,
the EPA is going away. EPA is going away, and
hopefully Lee's Elden will do that, and hopefully he will
be able to sing better than I can. Here's leads out.
I'm talking about energy independence.

Speaker 9 (01:12:05):
One of the biggest issues for so many Americans was
the economy, and the President was talking about unleashing economic prosperity.
Through the EPA, we have the ability to pursue energy dominance,
to be able to make the United States the artificial
intelligence capital of the world, to bring back American jobs
to the auto industry, and so much more.

Speaker 3 (01:12:29):
As with so many of these roles, the not director
of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must be
a direct reflection of the President's policies. They do them
just just by the sheer size of the US government,
which can be reduced, in my humble opinion, by at
least ninety five percent if you got if you really

(01:12:51):
wanted to set things right, that's the way you do it. It's
not going to happen anytime soon. Maybe someday we'll be
able to get a true limited government, constitutional, conservative, populist
whatever into the White House.

Speaker 2 (01:13:05):
Trump's not that guy.

Speaker 3 (01:13:06):
Trump's not the guy that's going to take the uh
take the government down by ninety five percent, and nor
should he necessarily be, because we kind of got to
fix things first before we do that. It's a debate
for another day, and we'll take what we can get.
And I don't want to be trapped in the pipe
dream of we can do it, we can cut everything,
you know, and they're like, okay, well, nobody will ever

(01:13:26):
let you do that. You'd have to be King Rutger,
and nobody wants Rugger.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
The King.

Speaker 3 (01:13:33):
Rutger doesn't want Ruger the King. But with that said,
the EPA administrator has to be able to reflect the
environmental policies, the climate change perspectives of the president. So
what are Donald Trump's perspectives on the climate.

Speaker 10 (01:13:50):
Let's see, when I had these poor fools talking about
global warming, they don't call it that anymore.

Speaker 11 (01:13:56):
They call it climate change because you know, some parts
of the plane are the cool and warming. It didn't work,
so they finally got it right.

Speaker 10 (01:14:03):
They call it. They just call it climate change. They
used to go it global warming. You know, years ago,
they used to call it global cooling. In the nineteen twenties,
they thought the planet was going to freeze. Now they
think the planet's going to burn up. And we're still
waiting for the twelve years. You know, we're down almost
to the end of the twelve year period. You understand
that were these lunatics that know nothing, they predict They said,

(01:14:26):
we have twelve years to live, and people didn't have
babies because they said, we only have another No, no,
it's so crazy. But the problem isn't the fact that
the oceans and five hundred years will raise a quarter
of an inch.

Speaker 11 (01:14:40):
The problem is nuclear weapons. It's nuclear warming.

Speaker 10 (01:14:43):
And these poor fools talk about global warming all the time.

Speaker 11 (01:14:47):
You know, the planet's going to get it's going.

Speaker 10 (01:14:49):
To global warm to a point where the oceans will
rise at the eighth of an inch in three hundred
and fifty five years. You know, they have no idea
what's going to happen to weather. And in the meantime,
we're spending our wealth on this fool of stuff. The
wind doesn't work, it's very expensive, kills the birds, destroys
everything around it.

Speaker 11 (01:15:07):
It's very, very, very very bad.

Speaker 10 (01:15:09):
It's the most expensive energy wind. And then every nine
years you have to replace the turbine. You know, they're
made out of steel.

Speaker 11 (01:15:15):
And they wear out.

Speaker 10 (01:15:17):
But we will create tremendous electricity for our company, for
a country.

Speaker 2 (01:15:25):
Well, there you have it.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
I am not personally waiting for the climate apocalypse to happen,
because it's not happening, nor it didn't happen in the
seventies when they said it was going to happen. Didn't
happen in the eighties and nineties, two thousands, tens, It's
going to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:15:43):
In the twenty twenties. No, it's not.

Speaker 3 (01:15:46):
It's all just a scheme concocted by the Club of
Rome and amongst others, including Klaus Schwab and Henry Kissinger,
who figured, Hey, climate change, all right at the time,
global warming, I mean global cooling, I mean global global
change of the climate, the climate change.

Speaker 2 (01:16:07):
There we go. Whatever they can use as a untestable boogeyman. Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:16:15):
People will often say, you know, I believe in climate
change because I trust the science. Do you trust the
science or do you trust the paid scientists, the political scientists,
which is what they are so many of them. Do
you trust them? Do you trust the narrative of the science,
because the science itself does not point to man made

(01:16:37):
climate change destroying the planet. No matter who's saying it.
I don't care if it's Al Gore or Greta Thunberg
or Alexandria Casio Cortes or Kamala Harris or whoever.

Speaker 2 (01:16:51):
It doesn't matter.

Speaker 3 (01:16:52):
If they'll just keep every every couple of years that
we're all out, somebody else is going to be the
poster child for climate change, and hopefully, Lord Willing, we'll
be able to keep fighting back. And so they're not
gonna stop, Okay, I mean, if we don't change now,
then the world's doomed in nine years, ten years, twelve years,

(01:17:15):
eight years, seven years, twelve years, whatever they All they
have to do is keep kicking the climate change can
down the road. It doesn't matter if they're repeating the
same thing they've said for fifty years that the world's
gonna end in ten for five decades they said it
and we're still here.

Speaker 2 (01:17:34):
Don't get me started. Let's go to Israel. So this
was a I would say, perhaps the most apropos.

Speaker 3 (01:17:44):
Pick generally speaking, when we're picking the US ambassador to
the Nation of Israel. Presidents for the most part picked Jews.
Makes sense, eh, say hey, I'm a Jew. You guys
are Jews.

Speaker 2 (01:18:02):
Let's talk, right. It's been the.

Speaker 3 (01:18:05):
Standard operating procedure for like like two decades at least. Well,
Trump for his second term decided to pick an evangelical,
and not just any evangelical, I mean arguably the evangelical
if you were to listen to to Joel c Rosenberg,
who he skyrocketed to fame when he wrote a book

(01:18:26):
about about terrorists, radical Islamic terrorists taking over planes and
running them into the flying them into the World Trade Center.
He wrote this book before nine to eleven. So that's yeah,
that definitely got him some some some fame, some notoriety.

Speaker 7 (01:18:47):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:18:48):
He's never claimed to be a prophet, but and he's not, obviously,
but he is a Messianic Jew. He does believe in
Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. And he does
run a lot of different price including All Israel News.
So I think it's All Israel dot com or All
Israel News dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:19:05):
Whatever. He responded, He reacts.

Speaker 3 (01:19:08):
He woke up and saw the news that Mike Huckabee
was coming to.

Speaker 2 (01:19:12):
Town again, and so he had some thoughts.

Speaker 12 (01:19:17):
Hi, this Joel Rosenberg for All Israel News. We'll be
posting a more detailed update soon, but this is a
very big breaking news here over the last twenty four
hours or so, pro Israel devout evangelical Christian Mike Huckabee
being appointed by President elect Donald Trump to be the

(01:19:38):
next Israeli next US ambassador to Israel. This is the
first time that a devout, openly, unabashedly evangelical Christian has
been appointed as an ambassador to Israel from the United States.
It's not that other Christians haven't been appointed over the years,
but you know, Huckabee has been here over one hundred times.

(01:19:58):
He needs Christian tour. He serves on the advisory board.
He was the first advisory board member who signed on
to All Israel News, our evangelical news site.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
When we started.

Speaker 12 (01:20:10):
On September one, twenty twenty, Huckeby and I co led
a delegation of evangelical Christian leaders to Israel. Now has
December met with Prime Mister Netnako and so forth. Huckeby
is just a very openly solid and devout follower of
Jesus Christ, and he loves Israel Jewish people.

Speaker 4 (01:20:31):
So it's a big deal.

Speaker 12 (01:20:32):
Also the fact that you know, there hasn't been a
non Jewish ambassador appointed by the United States to Israel
in about twenty years or so. So I'll have more
details soon. But waking up here in hurts Sealia, Israel,
right on the coast of the Mediterranean, after speaking at
a Joshua Fund conference here. More details on that later,

(01:20:55):
but from Hurtsalia. This is Joel Rosenberg for All Israel News.

Speaker 3 (01:21:01):
Quick note, I gotta throw this out there. Look, I'm
not a fan and if you couldn't tell, I'm not
a fan of backgrounds. Look, I've had I've had some
nice studios in the past. I intentionally for this show
have decided that I didn't really want a background. We
were even considering a plane wood background literally just just

(01:21:25):
like wood planks, and that's it. I'm not a fan
of not ripping on Joel here. I get it. It
was a beautiful background, but it's sort of like, like, hey,
you know, you got a message.

Speaker 2 (01:21:40):
Great, deliver the message. What did the background have to
do with the message?

Speaker 5 (01:21:43):
Now?

Speaker 3 (01:21:43):
Look, if you're like in a war zone and you're
trying to deliver a message about the war, okay, it
makes sense to have the war in the background, right.
But if you're talking about anyway, just a minor critique,
not a big deal. Let's focus on my Cockapy he
is here's a guy, Okay, he was. He was very
close to getting the Republican nomination for president. You know

(01:22:07):
that was it two thousand and eight? Okay, one Iowa.
He's staunch, evangelical, very very smart guy. Okay, I would
say top he's he's one of my top ten favorite
guys to favorite hosts to listen to. He's got a
great voice, really does have a good voice for for podcasting,

(01:22:29):
for television shows.

Speaker 2 (01:22:31):
I see him online.

Speaker 3 (01:22:32):
I don't even know where is he on TBS or
TB whatever point is that that that he's he's good,
you know, former Arkansas governor, and he is a staunch
ally of Israel. A lot of people are gonna throw
out there. It's funny because because if if Trump had
picked a Jew to be the ambassador Israel, you'd have
all the anti Zionists screaming, oh my gosh, of course,

(01:22:54):
you know, here's another Jew. Trump's going Israel first again.
But you know, it's like, Okay, when I saw the
Mike Hockey thing, I was like, I wonder how they're
gonna react well.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
As predicted who are.

Speaker 3 (01:23:07):
Not by me, but as as other people are saying, Yeah,
I see the anti zion of the conservative side. I'm
not talking about like the the the River to the
Sea people. I'm talking about the the the conservatives, and
there are a lot of them. A lot of conservatives
who are anti anti Zionists, and I'm not one of them,
by the way.

Speaker 2 (01:23:28):
But uh and but I I to be clear, you know,
for is the anti anti Zionist. Look, I get it.

Speaker 3 (01:23:36):
I understand it to some extent, you know, I'm not
I'm not like, oh my gosh, you're an anti Zionist.
We can't be friends. I do have friends that are
anti Zionists. Okay, I just I guess for me, I
don't care enough about about any of that anybody else
to my focus as America. So I like Israel wants

(01:23:58):
to fight. Great, know, they want to fight. They want
to take out Hamas, they want to fight Iran.

Speaker 2 (01:24:02):
Great. They want our help. Sure we can.

Speaker 3 (01:24:05):
We can sell them arms, we can give them, give
them help from you know, with intelligence and stuff like that.
They're an ally there, they're best ally in the Middle East.
They're necessary to prevent the Islamic takeover of the entire region,
because I think that that would end up leading to
the Islamic takeover of the world. That's a discussion for
another day. But yeah, I mean, if they want to

(01:24:27):
buy aid, great, I don't want to send them any aid,
you know, I mean not for free. I don't want
to send Ukraine. Pardon me getting choked up. I don't
want to send Ukraine any aid. I don't want to
send Taiwan any aid. I don't want to send Israel
any free aid. Somebody wants to buy aid from US, great,
and it's not aid. It's a transaction, and I'm we'll

(01:24:47):
do business with him. Point being is that sorry, way
off track there. Point being is that I was looking
at the you know, some of my friends known anti
Zionists out there, and the response with I mean, it
didn't matter, it was and it never does matter. It's like, okay,
so here's my cuckabee, an evangelical Christian Okay, like a pastor, minister, whatever,

(01:25:10):
and it's like, oh my gosh, you know once again
Israel first, It's like, mean, is there anybody, I mean,
the only the only person that they would have accepted
as the ambassadors to the United or to Israel would
have been like Candice Owens, okay, or Nick Fouentes or somebody.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
Right, Look, I got nothing against them either, Okay, just
to be clear, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:25:31):
It's to me, the it takes, it takes too much
of our focus. I think is a conservative movement when
we kind of we put everything, you know, where does
somebody stand or is there? Are they a good conservative
or a bad conservative? It's that always comes back to

(01:25:52):
what is Are they a Zionist? Are they an anti Zionist?

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
Seems to be whatever. I don't get. But anyway, Mike
how could be perfect.

Speaker 3 (01:26:03):
Choice in my humble opinion, I'll give him an a
as far as the pick to be Trump's US ambassador
to the Nation of Israel.

Speaker 2 (01:26:14):
So then we get to the big one, the you know,
I know.

Speaker 3 (01:26:17):
That Pete Haigseth because of his position at Fox News,
because he's he's sort of an easier target, I guess.

Speaker 2 (01:26:26):
Attention.

Speaker 3 (01:26:27):
But news from from this week as far as appointments
by by President Trump is the creation of the Department
of Government Efficiency.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
And I had to. I had to.

Speaker 3 (01:26:41):
My daughter got a kick out of it when I
explained her he just created the Department of Government Efficiency
and she's like, okay, great, and I'm like it's the
Department of Government Efficiencies, Like yeah, I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:26:55):
You keep saying that. I was like, what is that?

Speaker 3 (01:26:57):
What's the acronym? And she's like DG. I'm like, no,
you have to include the O and we got a D.
A discussion about how it's the D O D and
the D O J that for whatever reason, the O
and of is included when you're talking about government anyway.
Because I just went, uh, yeah, here we are, and

(01:27:20):
it's it's like, oh, okay, I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
And I was like, and guess who's gonna run it?
And she's like Elon Musk. I'm like, yep. She's like,
that's crazy, and it is. It is crazy, but.

Speaker 3 (01:27:31):
It's fitting and he's getting help. Elon Musk will be
the head of the Department of Government Efficiency, and the
vag Ramaswamy will be his.

Speaker 2 (01:27:43):
I don't know, assistant.

Speaker 3 (01:27:45):
I don't even know. I mean, it's it's not like,
I mean, these guys are rich. It's not like they're
sitting there, you know, trying to to get get earn
a bigger salary. They don't care about the money aspect
of it. They just want to try to fix fix
government and make him more efficient, which is a herculean task.
We're talking about the least efficient organization in the history

(01:28:11):
of mankind. We're talking about the greatest amount of waste
on a daily basis. The United States government wastes more
of everything, not just money.

Speaker 2 (01:28:23):
But obviously money is a big one. But they may
waste more people, more resources, more time, and definitely more
money in one day than most countries will waste in
a year. It is. It is obscene.

Speaker 3 (01:28:39):
And according to Elon Musk and his allies, people that
are going to be working with him, they think they
can they can trim them about two trillion dollars. That's
a lot of money, folks. Okay, that's a lot of money.
Two trillion dollars. That's two million millions for those who don't.

Speaker 4 (01:29:01):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:29:02):
It's the more zeros, the harder it is to comprehend. Right.

Speaker 3 (01:29:07):
He says he can shave it. He says he can
cut it, and he's going to It's when I say
shave it, it's not like he's going to use a razor.
He's gonna have to take a chainsaw to it at first,
and then an axe to get the rest of the
chunks off, and then maybe we can get down to
the scalpel. I hope, Lord Willing, that we can get
down to the scalpel level.

Speaker 2 (01:29:26):
The success or failure of the Department of Government Efficiency
is going to come down to how empowered they are now.
I believe.

Speaker 3 (01:29:36):
Maybe this is being too hopeful, but I believe that
Trump's going to allow give them.

Speaker 2 (01:29:45):
A lot of power.

Speaker 3 (01:29:46):
I really hope that, you know, because because we're talking
about people who really have no they have no incentives here. Okay,
it's not like Elon Musk, you know, Oh my gosh,
if he fails at this, he's going to he's gonna
lose his day job. And what's he gonna do after that?

Speaker 2 (01:30:06):
You know?

Speaker 3 (01:30:09):
I mean, there's no there's no personal incentive here other
than to succeed, which allows them to take risks, and
right now, folks, we need risks. When it comes to cutting,
I would rather overcut than undercut.

Speaker 2 (01:30:23):
Pardon me.

Speaker 3 (01:30:24):
In other words, I would rather I would rather lose
some some a little bit of positives that maybe this
department or that project.

Speaker 2 (01:30:32):
Or whatever is doing. I would rather lose a little
bit of the positives.

Speaker 3 (01:30:36):
And just get rid of all the negatives. I think
the negatives in almost every department, every agency, every project
the United States government is involved in. I would say
that ninety nine percent or more could be could be
approaching one hundred percent, ninety nine point ninety five percent
or something like.

Speaker 2 (01:30:52):
That that they are worthless.

Speaker 3 (01:30:56):
That's not to say they don't have anything positive. It's
that the positives are greatly outweighed by the negatives.

Speaker 2 (01:31:03):
Chop it. Okay, this could.

Speaker 3 (01:31:05):
Be a true shift, a true paradigm shift for this
nation and thereby for the world. If they can accomplish.
Would they need to accomplish? Would they would they claim
that they will accomplish. They get half of it done,
and they can cut a trillion bucks.

Speaker 2 (01:31:25):
Dude, that would be That would be immense. That'd be huge.

Speaker 3 (01:31:29):
That would be that would be incredible, And we will
feel the effects, and the effects that we feel will
be positive, far more positive than any little positives we
might feel from the actions of the EPA, of the
Energy Department, of the Department of Education, which right now
it's already on the chopping block before Elon Musk is

(01:31:51):
even in there. According to Trump, he's already chopping it. Okay,
We'll let the Elon figure out.

Speaker 2 (01:31:56):
How to chop it.

Speaker 3 (01:31:57):
Let's send the Department of Education back to the States.
And if it were me, I would say tell the states.
Not tell the states from a federal perspective, but I
want the States to say we're gonna take our state
departments of education. We're gonna break it apart and send
it to the districts. Let the districts decide. That's what
I would love. I would love that because I do

(01:32:18):
believe that education should be as localized as possible. And
people are like, well, what about standards? Okay, standards would
then be determined by guess who, the parents and the teachers.
Why because they will have the choice if we were
to revamper education system, they will have the choice to
be able at schools. The districts would have to compete
against each other. Now I'm not just talking about Friday

(01:32:39):
night football games. I'm talking about about academics. I'm talking
about you to start putting out scorecards showing that this
school is very good at sending children to getting them
prepared for college, and this school is very good and
getting people their students prepared for technical trades and this.
You know, I mean, you could start really turning our
education system into something that we could use. Right now,

(01:33:03):
I can't use it. Okay, I've got a young kid
getting homeschooled. I've got an older adult, or not adult,
but an older an older kid who's who's in a
charter school. My oldest children went to private schools, homeschooling,
a nice combination depending on what we were doing at
that time, what was happening in our lives. We've gone

(01:33:25):
up and down the board, and there was unfortunately a
few times where they some of them, a couple of
them had to go spend some time in public schools
and that was that was on me, and I regret it. Well,
we can actually make it to where public schools are manageable. Again,
I'm not saying that no, get rid of homeschooling. That
should be the ultimate intention and goal of parents, but

(01:33:48):
sometimes it's not possible, and then charter schools, private schools
are the alternative. What if we didn't necessarily need that alternative.
All I'm saying is that we can fix it. And
that was a long way too long.

Speaker 2 (01:33:59):
To let spin on this.

Speaker 3 (01:34:01):
Let's let's take one more short break and then I
will get finished off with further discussion of el unmask
Vive Gramaswami in the Department of Government Efficiency.

Speaker 1 (01:34:18):
I'm Jonathan Rose, CEO of Genesis Gold Group. As Americans,
we work hard every day to provide for our families
and ensure their future. But With the uncertainty facing our economy,
it is more important than ever to safeguard your wealth
and protect your retirement savings. Educated investors look to save
haven assets to shield themselves from the economic storm. Tangible

(01:34:42):
assets like gold and silver can provide stability, security, and
most importantly, peace of mind. In nineteen ninety seven, the
Taxpayer Relief Act allowed Americans to hold physical precious metals
like gold and silver in their iras for the first time. Today,
Genesis Gold Group helps our clients transfer existing iras for

(01:35:02):
one ks and other retirement accounts into physical gold and
silver tax and penalty free. With thousands of satisfied clients,
five star reviews and fully accredited with the Better Business Bureau,
our experienced team is here to help you navigate the
process start to finish. Now is the time to educate
yourself on the importance of a diversified portfolio. Include in

(01:35:25):
tangible assets like gold and silver. Call now to receive
our free wealth protection Kit and digital DOTTA Defense Guide.
Call now and will include are extremely popular silver Prepper
bar free when you open your account, adits your IRA,
or have it sent your home cool Genesis Gold Group
Today an eight hundred two hundred gold Prepper bar only
available through Genesis Gold Group.

Speaker 3 (01:35:51):
All right, let's go ahead and bypass talking any further
about Buddy Lane Musk because as I was on break,
I saw two more Trump appointments. They're both huge, and
let's let's dive right into them. Let's start with Tulca
Gabbart as Director of National Intelligence. Yes, I like Tulsi
as a person. There's always going to be a lingering doubt.
For not always, but there will be a lingering doubt

(01:36:11):
whenever somebody goes freshly from a Democrat to an independent
to Republican. Okay, not saying that it can't happen. We
saw with Reagan, we saw with Trump, We've seen it
with Carrie Lake. We've seen it with people that we
now trust. But it did take some time, and let's
face it until I mean, Tulci ran for president, wanted
to run against Trump four years ago. Okay, she's had

(01:36:32):
time to see the air of her ways, I hope,
and I have no reason to believe that there's any
any lingering I guess whatever statism, because that's really the
concern there. But as Director of National Intelligence, the fact
that she's a non interventionalist, the fact that she is
she is a patriot. We know all these things. She's
had bad judgment in the past, as with her political affiliation.

(01:36:56):
But hey, then again, who knows. Maybe she was always
more liberty and more conservative than she let on, but
because she lived in Hawaii, she had to play democrat.
I don't know what her motives were for being a democrat,
or if she has any Democrat leanings anymore. But the
good news is that as Director of National Intelligence, as
long as she's a patriot, as long as her heart

(01:37:17):
is in the right place, and as long as she
has proper judgment, which she appears to have now, proper
judgment on how to you? Because it's a tremendous, easily
abusable position. You get a wealth of information as D
and I information. You often have more information than the president.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:37:36):
One of her primary roles is to decipher the information
her and her team and then present the president with
the shorter version of it, basically, so you do it.
It's an extremely important role. Cannot be understated how important
that role is.

Speaker 2 (01:37:50):
Is she capable? I believe so? Is she up to
the task? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:37:55):
And she is her heart in the right place I
believe so as well. So the question is her ideology appropriate?
Yet that's the only reason why I'm giving her an
A minus maybe a B plus.

Speaker 2 (01:38:11):
There's still so.

Speaker 3 (01:38:13):
Again, it'll take a little bit of time for me
to fully trust anybody who was recently a Democrat, who
recently ran for president of the United States as a Democrat.

Speaker 2 (01:38:23):
And then you'll be like, what about Robert F. Kennedy Junior.

Speaker 3 (01:38:25):
That's different. That's different. And he hasn't even been announced yet,
But that's different because if he stays in his lane
of health. Look, if you're your quote unquote democrat, views
about health might be Republican views about health. Like, there's no,
it's not political. Okay, it really does come down to
the actual science, right, So as long as he stays

(01:38:49):
in that, that making America healthy again, Lane you I mean,
he could still be a Democrat for all I care.
Just stay out of the other stuff. And Trump has
mentioned him many times. Just don't don't mess with the oil.
Don't mess with the oil. Well, I don't want him
to mess with anything other than health.

Speaker 2 (01:39:02):
Okay, let's get food.

Speaker 3 (01:39:05):
Natural regenerative farming, kill the jabs, all that stuff. Great,
get the floor right out of the water. Awesome Republican Democrat.

Speaker 2 (01:39:14):
I don't care.

Speaker 3 (01:39:15):
Okay, with D and I it is a little bit different.
So we'll go with the B plus for Tulsi. Potential
for an A right there, we'll see just to have
trust issues. And then the big one from the day,
attorney general. We've had the worst attorneys general for two decades,
I mean, the worst possible conceivable attorneys general for really
longer than that. Three decades. Yeah, three decades. Wow, three

(01:39:37):
decades of horrible attorneys general. Well that changed today. Representative
Matt Gates has been announced as the attorney general. And
I'm just gonna I'm just gonna.

Speaker 2 (01:39:49):
Leave it at that.

Speaker 3 (01:39:50):
I don't need to tell you, okay, I'm not gonna
try to convince you that he's he's a good attorney
because the attorney general doesn't have to be a good attorney.
The attorney general has to surround them with great attorneys
and they have to have a desire to do what's
best for the country. And I don't think anybody would question.

(01:40:11):
They might say, well, but he went against McCarthy, and
he's he's he's been going against you know, the wrong people,
and whatever I disagree. You can make that argument, but
I do believe that other than you might say, well,
I guess the only complaint you might have is that
he's a showboat. Guess what I want an attorney general
who's a showboat. After what we've been through for the

(01:40:34):
last four years, after what Donald Trump has been through
for the last four years. I want somebody who's aggressive.
I want somebody who's happy and angry at the same time.
You want to see a joyful warrior. Matt Gates as
Attorney General is a joyful warrior. At least that's what
I hope he'll be. I'm gonna go ahead and give
this one an A plus, not just because I like
Matt Gates, but because the bar that has been set

(01:40:57):
for attorneys general over the last three decades is so
low he's gonna go fly way over the bar. Okay, like,
he's not even gonna it's not. It's just pick your
favorite analogy and apply it here. Because Matt Gates as
Attorney General. That's that's winning. Lord Willing, I'll be back

(01:41:19):
very soon with another episode. But in the meantime, you'll
stay strong, stay safe, and God bless. Whether you've been
a prepper for a long time, or maybe you're just
getting started. You're just getting looking around and thinking how
crazy it is.

Speaker 2 (01:41:32):
We usually cover the basics.

Speaker 3 (01:41:34):
You get your foods, you get your water, you get
your ammunition, don't forget your amo. You get your battery chargers,
solar battery chargers or whatever. But a lot of times
I think people will forget their meds. Okay, whether it's
chronic meds, antibiotics, it's I think a lot of people
don't even realize that you can stock.

Speaker 2 (01:41:49):
Up on that stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:41:50):
They go to the doctor, they go to the pharmacy,
and the pharmacists said, oh, here's your two months supply
or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:41:55):
Well, you can.

Speaker 3 (01:41:56):
Actually stock up on a lot of these meds by
going to Jade dot com slash meds. You'll talk to
the good folks over at Jase Medical. They can get
your twelve month supply of certain prescription drugs. They can
get you emergency meds, all sorts of good stuff, things
that you may or may not need. But it's always
good to have it on hand because I guarantee you,

(01:42:17):
even if you don't think you need it today, you
might need it in the future. Jd Rucker dot com
slash meds,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Gaetz and Gabbard and Hegseth, Oh My

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Gaetz and Gabbard and Hegseth, Oh My

NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal