In this episode, we dive into three seismic stories shaping free speech, economic policy, and global security. President Trump’s executive order on Section 230 takes aim at Big Tech censorship, challenging social media platforms’ liability protections under the Communications Decency Act. With conservatives facing demonetized accounts and content removals, we explore whether platforms like Facebook and YouTube should face accountability for political bias or retain their legal shields.
Meanwhile, a dramatic shake-up at the Federal Reserve sees Trump fire Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, sparking a legal battle over central bank independence. Will this unprecedented move undermine the Fed’s credibility in a polarized world?
On the global stage, Australia severs diplomatic ties with Iran after uncovering state-sponsored antisemitic attacks. Prime Minister Albanese’s historic expulsion of Iran’s ambassador and designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group signal a bold stance against terrorism.
Join us as we unpack these pivotal moments impacting your rights, freedoms, and the global order. Subscribe for hard-hitting analysis on Big Tech censorship, Federal Reserve controversies, and international relations. Share your thoughts in the comments!
Keywords: Trump executive order, Section 230, Big Tech censorship, social media accountability, Federal Reserve firing, Lisa Cook mortgage fraud, central bank independence, Australia Iran relations, IRGC terrorist designation, antisemitic attacks, free speech, political bias, global security.
RyanFSamuels.com
https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=1&affid=176&source_id=RyanSamuels
https://theryansamuelsshow.myshopify.com/
https://twitter.com/RyanFSamuels
https://www.facebook.com/TheRyanSamuelsShow/
https://rumble.com/user/RyanFSamuels
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ha_kVpgTc6K2cvbPVKGjQ
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
In one, he was sitting at the Resolute Desk in
the Oval Office.
In another, he was sittingalongside other leaders and JD
Vance and South Koreandignitaries and leaders.
It was a completely ridiculousand unhinged day.
And here is Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
All right, thank you.
It's going to be a good showtonight.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
We got some great things to talk about.
(02:16):
Thank you, so, oh, I'm out.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Good evening patriots .
Welcome to the show.
I hope that the sound isworking and that my microphone
is doing well.
I'm not sure if it is, but wedefinitely have a really good
show this evening.
Always something going on in theworld.
There's never a shortage ofnews for us here at the show.
(04:34):
So a couple of things we'regoing to talk about.
Number one we're going to talkabout the firing of Lisa Cook,
who is at the Federal Reserve.
We're going to go over all ofthat.
Iran is misbehaving and theyneed to get spanked.
And we're going to talk aboutSection 230 and Donald Trump's
(04:57):
executive order on Section 230and what it is and how it
affects you, and especiallypodcasts like this.
So those are the three topicsfor tonight.
We are totally, 100% going toget into them and before we
begin, make sure you hit thatlike, share and subscribe button
(05:20):
.
Follow this show.
If you're on the podcast, makesure that you download the
podcast and turn on automaticdownloads.
So if you turn, if you're onApple podcast or Spotify and you
turn on automatic downloads,then every time you open it
(05:43):
it'll download.
It downloads then every timeyou open it it'll download it.
Now, when they say download,it's not like.
It saves it to your device andyou got to keep it there.
It kind of saves it to thebackground of your device, so
it's not going to take up awhole bunch of room.
Just turn on automaticdownloads.
It is probably the best thingthat you can do for the show,
but let's get into it.
What do we want to do first?
(06:04):
I say let's do Section 230first.
So now we're going to doSection 230 first, primarily
because it really does affectthe show.
Now, section 230 was passed byCongress and what it does is
(06:26):
that this is what regulates theInternet, this is what regulates
Facebook.
This is what permitted Facebookand X and Twitter to censor
conservatives across the country.
Donald Trump just signed anexecutive order.
We're going to go over that.
I definitely have some commentson that, but this is just a
short, quick video by the WallStreet Journal.
An executive order.
(06:46):
We're going to go over that.
I definitely have some commentson that, but this is just a
short quick video by the WallStreet Journal explaining what
this is.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Leaders in government and tech want to rewrite a law
that shapes the internet.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
It is clear that Section 230 in its current form
is no longer working.
Aren't you so glad we're out ofthat when people are wearing
masks when they talk to you,like how preposterous was all of
that.
Speaker 6 (07:10):
When you look back, Law needs to be updated so that
it continues to work well.
Speaker 7 (07:17):
I think that Congress should update the law to make
sure that it's working asintended.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Section 230 is a law that governs who's liable for
what people post on social media, but some critics say it lets
platforms censor users or spreadharmful information and should
be rewritten.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Most everyone agrees that it's time to review Section
230, but there's not a lot ofconsensus about what the
problems are with it or what todo about it.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
To understand this debate.
It will help to dissect thebill.
Here's the first criticalpassage no provider or user of
an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of anyinformation provided by another
information content provider.
This gives websites the firstof two key protections.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
One is immunity when one of their users posts
something that might beoffensive or harmful.
In that case, the user is theone liable for the speech, not
the internet company that hostedit.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
In other words, twitter isn't liable for what
people tweet.
That's different fromtraditional media companies, who
can be sued over what theypublish.
The other key protection thatSection 230 gives internet
companies is the freedom tomoderate the content that users
upload.
The freedom to moderate comesfrom this passage Companies that
operate in good faith have thepower to restrict access to
(08:41):
material that they consider tobe objectionable, whether or not
such material isconstitutionally protected.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So if they take down a post that's offensive or
harmful, they won't be heldliable for that either.
It was written when theinternet was really so.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
This is the problem.
Right there, we don't need towatch any more video.
But this is the issue is thatthey're not held liable if they
take down your content for anyreason.
Now, they can take down yourcontent simply because of the
color of your skin.
They can take down your contentbecause they don't like what
you have to say.
Now, this is a tough topic.
(09:17):
Does a private company have theright to do that?
I would argue well, yeah, rightto do that.
I would argue well, yeah.
But if the federal governmentis coercing the private company
to do that, which is exactlywhat we saw in the 2020 election
, this is what we saw under theBiden administration.
We saw all of this, and I was avictim of it.
(09:38):
I mean, my Facebook page hadbeen demonetized forever.
It still is.
So I mean, they've gotten alittle bit better.
But my YouTube account was shutdown.
You know, I had thousands offollowers.
Now I have 300 because I had tostart a new one, my Twitter,
same thing.
It was reactivated by Elon Musk, thank you.
(10:00):
I was one of the ones taken offof the block list, but you know
, what does Congress need to do?
(10:20):
This is a law enacted byCongress.
So we need to fix this.
Say what you want to say onthese platforms, but you should
not be shielded from facing theconsequences.
If you lie about a company orslander somebody, you should be
(10:43):
able to face the consequencesbecause you are the publisher.
I agree with that.
But I don't think that thesecompanies, these publicly traded
companies, should bewithdrawing content.
I think a much better avenue iscontent preferences, which
we're starting to see with X orTwitter, where you can choose
(11:06):
the content you would like tosee.
Do you want to see graphiccontent?
No, okay, well, make sure youdon't have graphic content.
Also, you should be able toselect I want to see Republican
news.
I don't want to see Democratnews.
This is disturbing to me.
I don't want to see anythinganti-white or anti-black.
You should be able to selectall of those things.
But you know, limiting speechat all is dangerous.
(11:27):
But Donald Trump has definitelytaken a step towards this,
towards fixing this he has.
What Donald Trump has done ishe has signed an executive order
which he promised that he woulddo.
(11:48):
Here is Donald Trump when hewas campaigning for president.
This is remember when he usedto do this out of Mar-a-Lago.
Then we just don't have a freecountry.
Speaker 8 (12:00):
It's as simple as that out of Mar-a-Lago, Then we
just don't have a free country.
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
If this most fundamental right is allowed to
perish then the we got a commenthere from Josh Snoke.
Thank you, buddy, I appreciateit.
Comment from Rayleigh.
President Trump, three hearts,yes, I agree.
Speaker 8 (12:27):
The rest of our rights and liberties will topple
just like dominoes one by one,they'll go down.
That's why today, I'mannouncing my plan to shatter
the left-wing censorship regimeand to reclaim the right to free
speech for all americans andreclaim is a very important word
(12:47):
in this case, because they'vetaken it away.
In recent weeks, bombshellreports have confirmed that a
sinister group of deep statebureaucrats, silicon Valley
tyrants, left-wing activists anddepraved corporate news media
have been conspiring tomanipulate and silence the
American people Correct.
(13:08):
They have collaborated tosuppress vital information on
everything from elections topublic health.
The censorship cartel must bedismantled and destroyed, and it
must happen immediately.
And here's my plan.
First, within hours of myinauguration, I will sign an
(13:28):
executive order banning anyfederal department or agency
from colluding with anyorganization, business or person
to censor, limit, categorize orimpede the lawful speech of
American citizens.
I will then ban federal moneyfrom being used to label
domestic speech as mis ordisinformation, and I will begin
(13:53):
the process of identifying andfiring every federal bureaucrat
who has engaged in domesticcensorship, directly or
indirectly, whether they are theDepartment of Homeland Security
, the Department of Health,human Services, the FBI, the DOJ
, no matter who they are.
Second, I will order theDepartment of Justice to
(14:15):
investigate all parties involvedin the new online censorship
regime, which is absolutelydestructive and terrible, and to
aggressively prosecute any andall crimes identified.
These include possibleviolations of federal civil
rights law.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
This is what I'm looking for.
This is what I'm waiting for.
Okay, so obviously, when Trumpis campaigning, he embellishes a
little bit.
Within hours of my inauguration, I'm going to sign this
executive order.
I'm going to start puttingpeople in jail.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
He's campaigning, I get it, butthis is what I'm looking for.
(14:56):
I want those FBI agents thatwent to Twitter and that went to
Facebook and forced them totake down information.
They should be in prison.
Their directors should be inprison.
The people above them whoordered that, the politicians
(15:17):
that ordered that they should bein prison, because that is
government interfering with yourbasic, fundamental rights to
free speech.
And that's precisely andexactly what I'm looking for.
So it is now August and DonaldTrump has signed the executive
order.
Here is a video of him signingit.
Speaker 8 (15:47):
Therefore, today I'm signing an executive order to
protect and uphold the freespeech and rights of the
American people.
Currently, social media giantslike Twitter receive an
unprecedented liability shieldbased on the theory that they're
a neutral platform, whichthey're not.
I'm not an editor with aviewpoint.
My executive order calls fornew regulations under Section
(16:16):
230 of the CommunicationsDecency Act to make it that
social media companies thatengage in censoring or any
political conduct will not beable to keep their liability
shield.
That's a big deal.
They have a shield.
They can do a big deal.
They have a shield.
They can do what they want.
They have a shield.
They're not going to have thatshield.
My executive order furtherinstructs the Federal Trade
(16:36):
Commission FTC to prohibitsocial media companies from
engaging in any deceptive actsor practices affecting commerce.
This authority resides inSection five of the federal
trade.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
So essentially, he's saying that, under this act, if
you violate the act, you violate, if you violate this executive
order, you violate yourprotection.
Okay, this is a very good thingand this is a step in the right
direction.
This is exactly what we'relooking for.
The problem is, the left sideof the aisle wants to change it
(17:17):
too, but the left side of theaisle wants to change it in a
manner to which it's not goingto benefit you.
They want total and uttercensorship from the federal
government.
That's what the left wants, andthe left will fight this.
So Donald Trump has one termthree years and four months left
(17:38):
, or three years and threemonths left, really to get
Section 230 revised.
We need the midterm electionsfor this.
This is going to be huge, huge.
It's going to be huge for us toget past it.
Guys, make sure you hit thatlike, share and subscribe button
(18:00):
.
This is a good time.
If you haven't liked it, ifyou're new here, I appreciate
you.
We have a lot of people onright now across all channels.
We're now on Amazon Live, so wehave hundreds of people on live
.
I appreciate all of you.
Make sure you hit that like andfollow button.
But Section 230 is an absolutedisaster.
It benefits the social mediacompanies, it benefits the
(18:20):
websites.
It does not benefit you, theconsumer, and it does not
protect you, the consumer.
In fact, it ensures that youreceive all liability.
So here's Hillary Clintontalking about Section 230 and
how it needs to be changed anyday.
Speaker 10 (18:54):
Now we should be, in my view, repealing something
called section 230, which gaveyou know platforms on the
internet to immunity becausethey were thought to be just
pass-throughs, that theyshouldn't be judged for the
content that is posted.
But we now know that that wasan overly simple view, that if
the platforms, whether it'sFacebook or Twitter X or
Instagram or TikTok, whateverthey are if they don't moderate
(19:16):
and monitor the content, we losetotal control, and it's not
just the social andpsychological effects, it's real
harm.
We should be, in my view,repealing something.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
It's not real harm.
It's nonsense.
It's absolute nonsense.
Hillary Clinton wants to censoryou.
Hillary Clinton wants to putyou in jail for sharing things
on the internet.
The satire.
Oh, ryan, that's hyperbolic.
(19:48):
Ryan, you're lying, ryan,you're exaggerating.
Am I?
Am I exaggerating?
Here is an article, not anarticle.
This is a report from theDepartment of Justice.
(20:12):
Social media influencersentenced for election
interference in 2016presidential race.
The defendant attempted totrick voters into believing they
could vote by text message.
They could vote by text message.
A social media influencer wassentenced today to seven months
in prison and fined $15,000 forhis role in a conspiracy to
(20:34):
interfere with potential voters'rights to vote for the 2016
presidential election.
According to court documents,by 2016, douglas McKay, aka
Ricky Vaughn, had established anaudience on Twitter with
approximately 58,000 followersVery small account.
(20:59):
This is not some massive socialmedia influencer who changed
the outcome of the election.
A February 2016 analysis by MITMedia Lab ranked McKay as one
of the most significantinfluencers of then upcoming
presidential election.
Between September 2016 andNovember 2016, mckay conspired
(21:24):
with other influential Twitterusers and with members of
private online groups to usesocial media platforms,
including Twitter, todisseminate fraudulent messages
that would encourage supportersof presidential candidate,
hillary Clinton, to vote viatext message or social media.
First of all, you can't vote viatext message.
Your normal person believesthat.
(21:45):
Your normal person believesthat this is just a proxy.
They used to silence freespeech and this guy went to jail
(22:13):
for making a satirical socialmedia post.
The left wants to put you injail.
The left wants you.
Here's the picture.
They want to put you in jailfor what you say on the internet
(22:34):
.
It's happened.
Don't say it didn't happen.
There's a conviction of aright-wing provocateur, douglas
Mackey, jailed for postinganti-Clinton memes in 2016,
overturned on appeal.
It was overturned, but this guywent to jail.
(22:54):
Avoid the line.
Vote from home.
Text Hillary to 59925.
It's a joke.
He's not responsible for youbeing an idiot.
He's not responsible for youbeing an idiot.
So Trump wants to limit thecensorship.
The left wants to increase thecensorship.
(23:16):
They think the censorship istoo much or not enough.
So everybody wants to changeSection 230.
It's just a matter of howthey're going to change it.
So even the ADL weighed in onthis, which is the
Anti-Defamation League.
(23:36):
It's super freaking liberal.
I can't stand them.
To be honest here, let's listento what they have to say.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
Yeah, I would say.
Look, I can speak specificallyfrom an ADL perspective.
Adl Center for Technology andSociety has done significant
studies in the responsiveness ofpet platforms, and we've
actually graded them on theirresponsiveness of anti-Semitism,
holocaust denial, other formsof hate.
You have a platform like Metathat just gutted its entire
(24:10):
fact-checking department andthey're moving away from it, and
so what we need to do is weneed to apply pressure in a real
, significant way on techplatforms that they have a
responsibility, that they havean absolute responsibility to
check and remove hateful speech.
(24:30):
that is insightful, notinsightful with a S but
insightful with a C, and so weneed to do that, congress.
There's a role for federalregulators to play, and there's
also a role that states can evenplay too, and we've seen that
in places like California andothers, you hold them
(24:50):
accountable, like right now.
Tech platforms are notaccountable for having
misinformation.
Was it Chair, section 230 ofthe Communications, national
Communications Act, or Federal,the Federal Communications Act?
Congress needs to amend Section230, which provides immunity to
tech platforms right now.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
So they don't want tech platforms to be immune,
because what they want to do isbe able to have control over the
tech platforms.
And having control over thetech platforms is what?
So that they can, by proxy,silence you, which is what
(25:28):
they've been doing for years.
All right, so Donald Trump isin a beef with the Federal
Reserve.
I hate the Federal Reserve.
I do not feel the FederalReserve should exist.
I'm going to preface with that.
I actually sell T-shirts thatsay End the Fed.
That you can get atryanfsamuelscom slash shop.
(25:52):
But the Federal Reserve, ifyou're going to have a Federal
Reserve, is supposed to beindependent of the executive
branch and of Congress.
They're supposed to be makingdecisions when they are not
accountable to people, so thatthey will make the decision.
That is what is best for theeconomy.
(26:12):
That's the way it's supposed towork.
Okay, that they don't have toworry about an election.
So when they get, so that theydon't have to lower the interest
rates if it's too early tolower their interest rates or
raise interest rates if it's nottime to raise the interest
rates, they're supposed to do iton what's best for the economy
to prevent a Great Depression.
(26:33):
Is that happening in theFederal Reserve.
I'm not sure I don't put toomuch stake in them, but Donald
Trump has caused controversy bypressuring Lisa Brooks, who's a
member, lisa Cook excuse me,who's a member of the Federal
(26:54):
Reserve, to resign.
Speaker 12 (26:56):
Now here is a story on that I do want to talk not so
much about the veracity of theclaims against Lisa Cook, but
more about the veracity ofwhether there is indeed cause
for the president to remove her.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
Yeah, and that's the main legal issue here, because
the Federal Reserve Act saysthat the president can remove a
Federal Reserve Board governorfor cause, but the statute
doesn't define or specify whatcause means.
So we have to look to someother statutes for other
agencies that say causegenerally means some sort of
(27:33):
inefficiency, neglect ormalfeasance.
The question here is whetherthe allegations against Fed
Governor Lisa Cook, you know,rise to that level.
You know rise to that level andmy feeling is that until you
have some sort of investigationby, let's say, the Fed inspector
general or some sort ofinvestigation by the Justice
Department that results incharges, it's probably a little
(27:54):
premature to say that theallegations alone satisfy the
four cause standard.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
We should mention that the Federal Reserve,
according to a statement issuedby the central bank, said it
will abide by any court decision, as this will likely be
resolved legally.
And that's kind of where I wantto go to.
Next, elliot, because lisacook's lawyer has made clear
that they will file a lawsuitchallenging this firing.
Tell us a little bit about abbylowell, because he's a high
profile white collar defense andtrial lawyer, known as a top
(28:22):
all right.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
So here's here's.
Here's what happened.
Okay, lisa Cook, for taxbenefits, claimed two separate
properties as her primaryresidence.
Okay, one in one state and onein another state, which is
(28:47):
technically fraud.
Okay, is it a super egregiousact?
Was she forging checks?
Is it super neglect?
Neglectful?
My response to that would be no.
Ok, if you're going to have aFederal Reserve, it should be
independent of government sothat it can make decisions.
But we haven't gotten to LisaCook yet and who she is and kind
of who her character is, andthat is what kind of changed my
(29:12):
mind.
She was appointed by Joe Biden,so right off the bat, she loses
a little bit of dignity with meon that point, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that she isabsolutely dreadful, necessarily
(29:38):
.
Here is Donald Trump answeringthe questions from the press.
Speaker 15 (29:45):
Let's listen the questions from the press.
Let's listen.
You have spoken out verystrongly for a long time about
what you see as theweaponization of government?
Is your administrationweaponizing government by
digging into the mortgagerecords of officials in Goldmine
?
Speaker 8 (30:02):
No, they're public.
I mean, you can find out thoserecords, you can go check out
the records yourself and youshould be doing that job.
Actually you wouldn't do thatbecause that's not the kind of
reporter you are, but you shouldbe doing that job.
I shouldn't have to be doing it.
If you did your job properly,we wouldn't have problems like
Lisa Cook Go ahead.
You were going to say something.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Go Blue.
Speaker 8 (30:25):
I think we have to have lower interest rates.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
He wants the interest rates on national security.
I think we have to have lowerinterest rates.
He wants the interest rateslower.
Obviously, any president wantsthe interest rates lower because
the economy booms.
But if you do it too soon it'snot good for the economy.
It's actually worse for theeconomy and it won't get any
better.
So that's why it's supposed tobe independent.
However, apparently allegedly,the situation is that the trump
(30:53):
administration did look into hermortgage records and discovered
this.
So it sounds like, if this isthe truth and I'm not sure
because I haven't verified ityet that the trump
administration was lookingthrough her records trying to
(31:13):
find something that they coulduse against her and maybe other
people to try to pressure themto get the interest rates down.
That is the accusation.
Whether that's true or not,again, I don't know.
But let's listen to what LaurenIngram had to say.
Speaker 11 (31:25):
Let's listen to what Warren Ingram had to say this
is a contagious disease.
Ok, because now the FederalReserve Governor, lisa Cook, is
under pressure to resign due toallegations that she may have
engaged in mortgage fraud.
Bill, tell us about this.
I mean someone who has a say inthe Fed rate and what that's
(31:49):
doing to mortgages across thecountry.
I mean this is crazy stuff.
She could be potentiallyabusing the system.
Again, no one's guilty untilproven.
Speaker 17 (31:58):
I'll tell you she has a very big problem.
She has a situation where sheclaimed primary residency on a
condo that she bought in Atlanta.
I mean, this is supposed to besomebody who's entrusted with
the public good, who's supposedto be looking after interest
rates, and I believe it'sblatant and massive mortgage
fraud.
I believe that there will be acriminal investigation.
I'll leave that to the DOJwhether they do that or not, but
(32:19):
I would anticipate Singer beprosecuted and criminally
charged for mortgage fraud, justbased on what I've seen.
You know I refer people everyday to the Department of Justice
and the Department of Justiceprosecutes cases like this all
the time.
Laura, and whether it's theSchiff case or the Letitia James
case or this case or all theother cases that we refer, this
Cook one is not going away andshe can laugh all she wants, but
(32:40):
the law will catch up with her.
Speaker 11 (32:42):
Yeah, she responded to this today saying she doesn't
have any intention of beingquote bullied to step down from
her position because of somequestions raised in a tweet.
I do intend, she said, to takeany questions about my financial
history seriously and I'mgathering accurate info to
provide the facts.
She also mentioned that thisall occurred before she was a
(33:04):
member of the Board of Governorsat the federal reserve.
Would the timing matter?
Speaker 4 (33:12):
To me it doesn't matter.
As you guys most of you knowthe avid fans I appreciate you
guys.
I don't usually watch a lot ofthese videos.
I get the general gist of itand then I watch them live on
the air so that you guys canhave a genuine reaction.
But I don't think it matters Ifyou're committing fraud on
financial statements for taxpurposes or whatever, and then
(33:35):
you're going to be on the boardof governors, whether or not.
I mean, if you're open tocorruption, you're open to
corruption and you shouldn'thave power over the economy.
And I can't anticipate what heis going to say.
Speaker 17 (33:51):
No, it wouldn't matter.
First of all, she's within thestatute of limitations.
Second of all, she received abenefit while she's been on the
Federal Reserve Board and Iwould actually argue that her
statement tonight.
You know, I think that that'sgoing to be a big problem for
her criminally.
This is just my view.
She lied in my view in herstatement tonight because she
said that the first time sheheard about it was through my
tweet.
She didn't hear about it frommy tweet.
(34:12):
There's no way she doesn'tfollow me on Twitter.
And last night Bloombergcontacted, according to their
story, her and me for comment.
So I think this lady is aprofessional liar.
She shouldn't be at the FederalReserve.
She's going to resign, in myview, and if she doesn't resign,
I do believe that the presidenthas cause to fire her, and that
will be up to the presidentwhether he decides to do that or
not.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So Trump is saying that he has cause to fire her
and he has legitimately firedher.
Ok, obviously she is contestingthat and she is going to fight
that and we're going to see whatthe ruling is, because it's
rather unusual for a presidentto do that.
(34:52):
It's not very common for thatto happen.
But I'm totally good withclearing out anybody that was
appointed by Joe Biden.
I mean, what a disaster thatadministration was.
What an absolute disaster.
(35:12):
Here is MSNBC.
Speaker 14 (35:16):
Her nomination was a highly contested nomination
along party lines by theRepublicans.
The Republicans tried to painther as unqualified and a
left-wing extremist, to thepoint where she was confirmed by
I think it was 50-51, and VicePresident Harris had to come in
to cast the tie-breaking votefor her nomination.
(35:37):
I read through her bio at thetop of this she's extremely
qualified, but the point here isbased on an allegation that the
administration themselves don'teven know to be true.
Where's that part in the linehere?
Speaker 12 (35:52):
It says there's sufficient reason to believe you
may have made the falsestatements Sufficient reason to
believe you may have you hearthat you may have A 14-year term
sufficient reason to believeyou may have.
Speaker 9 (36:05):
You'd think someone would call someone's lawyer and
someone would have thisconversation with them.
Speaker 14 (36:08):
Correct, or you think it would have came up in
her highly contestedconfirmation, so I just think it
is it is.
It is not lost on me that thethat the person other than the
chair that he's decided totarget, is the only black woman
to be serving on the board andthe legal it's always racist.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
With the left, it's the only thing they have to say
Well, you're racist, you don'tlike her because she's black,
not because she committed fraudand there's evidence to suggest
that she committed fraud andthat the evidence is clear but
it is just an accusation, andthat is something that we do
(36:56):
need to keep in mind.
However, trump sent her aletter that says we believe that
there's sufficient evidence togo ahead and remove you.
They feel that they have theauthority, so that's what they
have done.
Sucks for her, but she's goingto fight it.
(37:21):
Let's see.
There's another news story here.
Speaker 9 (37:28):
Hey, sarah, yeah, I have confirmed that the Fed
Governor, liz Cook, is here inJackson Hole, is actually in the
room and we had said earlier.
You asked me if she was there.
I said I didn't see her lastnight but I didn't notice that
she was actually in the roomhere, obviously FHFA Director
Bill Pulte upping the ante thismorning, doing something that
you had pointed out yesterday,sarah, which was that the
(37:48):
apparent violations that arebeing talked about were not
committed during the time thatshe was at the Fed.
But now the idea that BillPulte is saying today well, she
filled out a Fed form.
Well, that creates thepossibility that maybe there was
some of that issue with theallegations.
That does actually relatedirectly to that work, and the
president this morning obviouslysaying he would fire her if she
(38:11):
did not resign.
My understanding is he's in theroom in the conference here at
Jackson Hole, sarah.
Speaker 15 (38:17):
I guess the question now from her is what kind of
response do we get?
And it seems like it has tocome sooner rather than later,
because the president is makingit very clear of his intentions.
If she wants to defend herselfand explain the paperwork and
produce more evidence, sheshould do that.
Speaker 9 (38:39):
The problem becomes, sarah, I think you're absolutely
right from a politicalstandpoint, from a Federal
Reserve reputational standpoint,political standpoint from a
Federal Reserve reputationalstandpoint.
However, she is now in legaljeopardy and I believe I'm not
obviously an attorney, but I'vecovered enough of these things.
The attorney would say don'tsay anything until you're
charged, right?
So there is this balancing ofthe reputation of the Fed, her
(38:59):
own reputation, against thelegal jeopardy she faces, maybe
a little hamstrung.
As you know, she did put out astatement saying she would not
be bullied to leave office by atweet and she was going to be
gathering up to check thedocuments which she did not have
handy.
They're about four or fiveyears old.
So you know, we wait, obviously, for a response and very strong
comments from the president,from the FHA director about the
(39:23):
need for her to resign andobviously Ed Martin yesterday
from the Washington AttorneyGeneral's office.
So there's a lot of pressure onher, but also she faces this
legal jeopardy, tara.
Speaker 6 (39:32):
But, steve, no reports or information about how
she's been received at thesymposium by participants.
Speaker 9 (39:40):
No, I've not had a chance to see that yet.
My guess is she will bereceived well.
Speaker 15 (39:46):
Yeah, although some questions may be from
journalists, I would think aswell.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
Trying to track her down and I'm willing to go ahead
and bet that journalists willnot be chasing her down to
figure out what is going on withthat.
The media is already runningcover for her and we're going to
(40:11):
stay updated on that.
There's kind of big news that'sbeing not intentionally
suppressed but not making it tothe top of the news.
Australia has done somethingpretty significant that we have
not I have not really seen in mylifetime.
(40:31):
Australia has severed alldiplomatic ties with Iran.
They've expelled the ambassador, ahmad Sadehi, and three of his
envoys and they've only givenhim seven days to leave of his
(40:51):
envoys, and they've only givenhim seven days to leave.
The IRGC will be designated asa terrorist organization.
Embassy operations in Tehranare suspended.
So there are a couple of thingsthat led to this.
Number one the Iraniangovernment.
Reports are coming out that theIranian government was behind
the Adas Israel synagoguefirebombing that hit on a Jew,
(41:11):
on a Jewish restaurant.
And Iran is just a problem.
Iran has been a problem for avery long time, a problem that
should have been dealt withbefore we dealt with Iraq,
although it was a differentdynamic at that time before we
dealt with Iraq, although it wasa different dynamic at that
time.
That was, from what Iunderstand, was the original
(41:35):
plan to take over Iraq veryquickly, then Iran and just
eliminate the entire MiddleEastern problem at one point.
But Australia is very weak.
Okay, australia is a veryleft-leaning country, very
European-like, they're not verytough.
But here is the Australianprime minister announcing what
(41:59):
Australia is going to doappalling anti-Semitic attacks.
Speaker 18 (42:12):
Since the terrible events of October 7, 2023, we
have witnessed a number ofappalling anti-Semitic attacks
against Australia's Jewishcommunity.
I've made it clear that thesesorts of incidents have no place
in Australia and that I wantedASIO and the AFP to investigate
(42:32):
as a priority.
Asio has now gathered enoughcredible intelligence to reach a
deeply disturbing conclusionthat the Iranian government
directed at least two of theseattacks.
Iran has sought to disguise itsinvolvement, but ASIO assesses
it was behind the attacks on theLewis Continental Kitchen in
(42:53):
Sydney on October 20 last yearand the Adas Israel Synagogue in
Melbourne on December 6 lastyear.
Speaker 4 (43:04):
So they've recently discovered that Iran is
definitely behind these attacks.
Iran is behind just about everyterrorist attack in the world.
That's not propaganda.
That's not BS.
That's exactly what ishappening.
If you don't think that, oryou're not aware of that, or you
want to disagree on that,that's fine and I would agree
(43:28):
with you, but then we would bothbe wrong, and I cannot have
that.
The Iranian government is pureevil.
This is a regime that wants youdead.
Okay, the Iranian governmentlives for one reason, and one
reason only, and that is to killJews and kill anybody who's not
(43:48):
Muslim.
They are dangerous and theyneed to be stopped from hurting
other people.
I think this is a great step byAustralia to try to resist this
(44:10):
situation and put enough juiceon it to where the world is
watching.
Speaker 18 (44:16):
As he assesses it is likely Iran directed further
attacks as well.
These were extraordinary anddangerous acts of aggression
orchestrated by a foreign nationon Australian soil.
They were attempts to underminesocial cohesion and sow discord
(44:37):
in our community.
It is totally unacceptable andthe Australian government is
taking strong and decisiveaction in response.
A short time ago, we informedthe Iranian ambassador to
Australia that he would beexpelled.
We have suspended operations atour embassy in Tehran and all
our diplomats are now safe in athird country.
(45:00):
I can also announce thegovernment will legislate to
list Iran's IslamicRevolutionary Guard Corps, the
IRGC, as a terroristorganisation.
I've said many times that theAustralian people want two
things they want killing in theMiddle East to stop and they
don't want conflict in theMiddle East brought here.
Iran has sought to do just that.
(45:24):
They have sought to harm andterrify Jewish Australians and
to sow hatred and division inour community.
The actions of my governmentsend a clear message a message
to all Australians that we standagainst anti-Semitism and we
stand against violence, and amessage to nations like Iran who
(45:45):
seek to interfere in ourcountry that your aggression
will not be tolerated.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
I'm pleasantly surprised.
I am pleasantly surprised withAustralia and I'm glad they're
taking a stand.
I think it's good.
I think it looks good on them.
I think that it sends a messageto the rest of the world.
I think it brings attention tothe rest of the world and that
(46:20):
the UN needs to do somethingabout Iran.
Let's watch this.
Speaker 19 (46:27):
This is Now to Iran, if we can.
This week, Iranian officialsare expected to resume talks
with European Union members onnuclear issues.
This comes amid threats ofreact.
Speaker 4 (46:45):
Right.
So now Iran.
The concern about Iran is thatthey're reactivating their
nuclear program, which is notsurprising.
Hey Tom, welcome back on buddy.
I appreciate it, jd.
Hey Ryan, sorry I missed thelive show.
I'll rewatch.
Hope you're having a good night, brother.
(47:06):
I'm having a great night, man.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
I appreciate you, but Iran istrying to rebuild a nuclear
program.
Here's the thing.
Iran doesn't have any otheroption.
Okay, iran has basically twooptions Either submit to the
(47:26):
United States, the West andIsrael, which are people they
hate more than anything onplanet Earth, or what you need
to do is become a nuclear powerand then use in the field of
politics.
That is not something that Irancan do based on principle.
(47:49):
That's going to be really toughfor them to do.
So let's watch this clip fromReal America's Voice.
Speaker 19 (48:00):
Activating United Nations sanctions if Tehran
continues to refuse to negotiate.
These sanctions may snap backif leaders are not able to reach
a deal on Iran's nuclearprograms during talks this week.
Let's welcome to AmericanSunrise the deputy director of
the National Council ofResistance of Iran and the
(48:21):
author of the Iran Threat.
It's good to have you with us.
Alireza Jaffer-Deza.
I'm sure I just said that allwrong, but you say your name for
us, because for some reason inEnglish this is just so hard for
us.
Speaker 12 (48:35):
It's Alireza Jaffer-Deza.
It's always a pleasure to be onyour show.
Speaker 19 (48:38):
It's always good to have you, even if I can't say
your name but your comments.
As we look down the barrel ofall the things happening on the
geopolitical scale, how wouldyou grade President Trump's
actions so far regarding Iran?
Speaker 12 (48:55):
Well, certainly the the president, as ever since he
came to office, has called forending the nuclear weapons
program of the Iran regime.
He's been so focused on thatand very unwavering on that, and
I think that also look at thefirst term, when it came to the
terrorism of the Iranian regime.
(49:16):
It was under President Trump'swatch that the terror master,
qasem Soleimani, who was thecommander of the Quds Force that
carried out all the terroroperations of the regime, but
also their terror practices inthe region, he was eliminated.
So that's the kind of policyyou need to see when it comes to
(49:37):
the Iran regime being veryunwavering in ending their
nuclear threat, ending theirmissile program, ending their
drone program, ending theirterror operations, but also
ending the killing of their ownpeople inside Iran.
Speaker 6 (49:53):
So where does that leave Iran?
Exactly Because you've gotIran's Khamenei.
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Iran's going to be a problem.
It's not over with Iran.
Iran is going to continue to doterrorist attacks.
They're going to continue topursue a nuclear weapon.
They're going to continue toterrorize the world and try to
(50:25):
kill Jews and people like youevery day.
Iran is definitely a problem.
However, it's going to be.
It's tough.
It's a tough decision on whatto do about Iran.
Here is another report.
It's just a quick little clipon australia severing ties with
(50:51):
with iran.
Now, this is a big deal.
So typically, when a countrysevers ties diplomatically with
another country, it's not a goodsign of things to come.
Speaker 20 (51:02):
We have declared iran's ambassador to australia
persona nonata, as well as threeother Iranian officials, and
they will have seven days toleave the country.
This is the first time in thepost-war period that Australia
has expelled an ambassador.
We have declared Iran'sambassador to Australia persona
non grata, as well as three.
(51:22):
This is a big deal.
Speaker 4 (51:27):
But it's not really being covered.
As far as I know, we're one ofthe only shows covering it, and
the Iranian people continue tochant in the streets.
(51:49):
Just so you can see just howbad I ran as, let me pull this
up here.
Speaker 21 (52:11):
Let me pull this up here, logan, then you realize
Well, you might be hearing moreof it.
After the US bombed Iran, evenPresident Trump made mention of
it as he celebrated thosestrikes.
Speaker 8 (52:22):
For 40 years Iran has been saying death to America,
death to Israel.
Speaker 21 (52:26):
So are Iranians really wishing death on
Americans?
Well, no, marbar-amerika mightliterally mean death to America,
but it's generally translatedas down with the USA.
Iran's Supreme Leader,ayatollah Ali Khamenei, explains
it here.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Get the hell out of here.
So if it is, then change it.
Change your chant, if you thinkthe whole world.
This is what drives me insaneabout the left.
This drives me insane about theleft.
(53:08):
This drives me insane.
They're literally chantingdeath to you and then you're
going to go and try to defendthem for it.
Oh, that's not really what theymean.
Yes, that's exactly what theymean.
That's exactly what they mean.
Speaker 16 (53:25):
They've even done this in the united states here,
this is in dearborn, michigananti-israel activists were heard
(53:47):
chanting death to america anddeath to israel at a rally at a
michigan city dubbed the jihadcapital of the us.
Dearborn michigan activist,tarik bazi, ripped the us for
supporting israel and told thecrowd the chant quote death to
israel, has become the mostlogical chant around the world.
He said quote it's not Genocide, joe, that has to go, referring
(54:07):
to President Joe Biden.
Quote it's time the entiresystem has to go.
He also said that quote anysystem that would allow such
atrocities and such devilry tohappen and would support it,
such a system, does not deserveto exist on God's earth.
His comments, of course,spurred chants to call for the
end of the Jewish nation, andhis comments were then followed
(54:28):
by Imam Osama Abdul Ghani, whodeclared that Israel is quote
ISIS, israel.
They are Nazis, they arefascists, they are racist.
Speaker 4 (54:37):
Dear board Sound like Democrats, because that's what
Democrats say.
They call Jews Nazis.
Speaker 16 (54:44):
Has the largest Muslim population in the United
States and has become a hotbedof anti-Israel sentiment in
recent months.
Presidents there have led theefforts to vote uncommitted in
the Democrat primary, ratherthan to vote for Biden, for
support of Israel and the MiddleEast Media Research Institute
executive director StevenZalinski branded the city quote
(55:05):
America's jihad capital.
Speaker 4 (55:11):
It's a problem.
It's a massive problem, tom.
It sounds like Iran doesn'tbelieve that they will
eventually be removed from theworld stage.
They're religiousfundamentalists, so their
principle of fighting is for allof all of eternity and their
god.
So that's a scary thing,because nobody fights harder.
(55:34):
Okay, there's a fundamentaldifference about fighting a
terrorist who's fighting onbehalf of their god and somebody
who's fighting on behalf of apaycheck.
There there's that.
That's definitely a situationthat is widely different.
So they're basically Iran islike the last terrorist country
(56:00):
left on earth.
You can make arguments aboutothers, but for the most part,
they are the last.
Who is this Public Islamistprayer for Hamas?
And then they support Hamas too, but they're behind Hamas.
(56:23):
The country of Iran Is behindHamas.
Let's see this is Iyad Jihad.
Abu Hamid Leads a publicIslamist prayer for Hamas while
blocking the roads in Montreal,calling for a swift defeat of
(56:45):
the Jews in support of thedesignated terrorist entity
under approval and protection ofSMB.
This is Montreal, not Tehran.
Speaker 22 (56:55):
Oh Allah, I hope that you will go mighty to us in
those needs, the rational andthe post-mortem numbers.
Speaker 5 (57:24):
What does it be read?
No-transcript.
What does it mean?
(57:48):
What?
Speaker 4 (57:51):
He is praying for Hamas and the Palestinian people
who support Hamas.
All right.
So it looks like sanctions arecoming from Iran, which needs to
friggin' happen.
I'm glad we destroyed theirnuclear program, but they're
(58:15):
going to try to build it back.
We got another comment here.
That's their leadership andradicals' beliefs.
But the majority of theirpopulation want a new regime and
freedom.
From what I gather, I've heardthat too.
The thing is, the United Statesalways puts that statement out,
(58:35):
that every country supports usand that our actions are
justified, but a lot of timesthat's not the case.
So I'm not sure about thissituation, but a lot of times
that is not the case that we aregoing to be fully supported by
the Iranian people.
(58:55):
With television they don't speakagainst the regime while
they're friends and family.
There's no like secret you knowsociety of people that are
aligning themselves withAmerican values.
You know, maybe there's somepeople there that say, you know,
(59:18):
living here sucks.
But these, these types ofgovernments, these, these big,
you know Islamic regimes.
They use these big you knowIslamic regimes.
They use the Quran to oppresstheir people rather than
teaching them the you know thepeaceful aspects of it.
(59:40):
We could talk theology on Islam, I mean all night long.
I could do that for you know,50 hours, because I definitely
have some very strong opinionson it, but I'm not sure if I
agree with you.
I'm not sure.
I think that they're Persian.
I think they're unified from avery long history of culture, a
(01:00:05):
beautiful culture that has beenhijacked by Islam.
That's what I think, and Ithink that a lot of them are not
going to support the UnitedStates, especially when they're
dragged out in the streets sothat they can chant death to
(01:00:26):
America, death to Israel.
They got a lot of hate.
There's reasons why we reallyhaven't invaded, right?
Let me see this.
My comment comes from anIranian board podcaster that is
a US citizen, but he does say itwill take the Iranian people to
make the change From us doingit will take the Iranian people
(01:00:47):
to make the change from us doingit will be the wrong move.
Yeah, I don't know who you'retalking about, but I know
Patrick Bet-David is Iranianboard.
He's a podcaster.
He talks about it a little bit,but that was.
If you're talking about him.
He was born there a very longtime ago, on the left, when he
was very little, so he probablyknows more than me.
(01:01:08):
But you know it's tough, itreally is tough.
We do have our own people herein the United States that hate
America.
So maybe, maybe there arepeople there that love us, and
I'm sure there are people therethat love us and like us.
And you know we do have asignificant following in Iran on
this show and that's not BS.
The stats came out.
(01:01:28):
I have hundreds, hundreds ofdownloads in Iran.
They may not sound a lot, butI'm talking about hundreds of
downloads every episode.
So when you put out an episode,the podcast is measured on how
many people download it, notmany, how many people just
listen to it.
You know so to get a hundreddownloads or 200 downloads or
300 downloads, that means youknow 20 or 30 000 people listen
(01:01:52):
to it or 10 000 people listen toit.
Yes, patrick bett david is whois I was referring to.
Yeah, man, it's a great show.
I like that guy a lot, I likethe way he runs the show, so,
but you know so they'relistening to this show.
So if you're an Iranian, send amessage.
Let me know.
What is the, the, the?
(01:02:14):
What is the feeling in yourcountry?
Is the feelinganti-establishment, is the
feeling pro-American or is thefeeling not so.
Yeah, yeah, and we'll touchbase, okay, but thank you guys,
so much for tuning in.
I appreciate all the support,as always.
Make sure you hit that likeshare and subscribe button and I
(01:02:37):
will see you next time.
We'll be you next time.
In one, he was sitting at the Resolute Desk in
the Oval Office.
In another, he was sittingalongside other leaders and JD
Vance and South Koreandignitaries and leaders.
It was a completely ridiculousand unhinged day.
And here is Donald Trump.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
All right, thank you.
It's going to be a good showtonight.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
We got some great things to talk about.
(02:16):
Thank you, so, oh, I'm out.
Speaker 4 (04:09):
Good evening patriots .
Welcome to the show.
I hope that the sound isworking and that my microphone
is doing well.
I'm not sure if it is, but wedefinitely have a really good
show this evening.
Always something going on in theworld.
There's never a shortage ofnews for us here at the show.
(04:34):
So a couple of things we'regoing to talk about.
Number one we're going to talkabout the firing of Lisa Cook,
who is at the Federal Reserve.
We're going to go over all ofthat.
Iran is misbehaving and theyneed to get spanked.
And we're going to talk aboutSection 230 and Donald Trump's
(04:57):
executive order on Section 230and what it is and how it
affects you, and especiallypodcasts like this.
So those are the three topicsfor tonight.
We are totally, 100% going toget into them and before we
begin, make sure you hit thatlike, share and subscribe button
(05:20):
.
Follow this show.
If you're on the podcast, makesure that you download the
podcast and turn on automaticdownloads.
So if you turn, if you're onApple podcast or Spotify and you
turn on automatic downloads,then every time you open it
(05:43):
it'll download.
It downloads then every timeyou open it it'll download it.
Now, when they say download,it's not like.
It saves it to your device andyou got to keep it there.
It kind of saves it to thebackground of your device, so
it's not going to take up awhole bunch of room.
Just turn on automaticdownloads.
It is probably the best thingthat you can do for the show,
but let's get into it.
What do we want to do first?
(06:04):
I say let's do Section 230first.
So now we're going to doSection 230 first, primarily
because it really does affectthe show.
Now, section 230 was passed byCongress and what it does is
(06:26):
that this is what regulates theInternet, this is what regulates
Facebook.
This is what permitted Facebookand X and Twitter to censor
conservatives across the country.
Donald Trump just signed anexecutive order.
We're going to go over that.
I definitely have some commentson that, but this is just a
short, quick video by the WallStreet Journal.
An executive order.
(06:46):
We're going to go over that.
I definitely have some commentson that, but this is just a
short quick video by the WallStreet Journal explaining what
this is.
Speaker 5 (06:52):
Leaders in government and tech want to rewrite a law
that shapes the internet.
Speaker 4 (06:56):
It is clear that Section 230 in its current form
is no longer working.
Aren't you so glad we're out ofthat when people are wearing
masks when they talk to you,like how preposterous was all of
that.
Speaker 6 (07:10):
When you look back, Law needs to be updated so that
it continues to work well.
Speaker 7 (07:17):
I think that Congress should update the law to make
sure that it's working asintended.
Speaker 5 (07:23):
Section 230 is a law that governs who's liable for
what people post on social media, but some critics say it lets
platforms censor users or spreadharmful information and should
be rewritten.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Most everyone agrees that it's time to review Section
230, but there's not a lot ofconsensus about what the
problems are with it or what todo about it.
Speaker 5 (07:45):
To understand this debate.
It will help to dissect thebill.
Here's the first criticalpassage no provider or user of
an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the
publisher or speaker of anyinformation provided by another
information content provider.
This gives websites the firstof two key protections.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
One is immunity when one of their users posts
something that might beoffensive or harmful.
In that case, the user is theone liable for the speech, not
the internet company that hostedit.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
In other words, twitter isn't liable for what
people tweet.
That's different fromtraditional media companies, who
can be sued over what theypublish.
The other key protection thatSection 230 gives internet
companies is the freedom tomoderate the content that users
upload.
The freedom to moderate comesfrom this passage Companies that
operate in good faith have thepower to restrict access to
(08:41):
material that they consider tobe objectionable, whether or not
such material isconstitutionally protected.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
So if they take down a post that's offensive or
harmful, they won't be heldliable for that either.
It was written when theinternet was really so.
Speaker 4 (08:56):
This is the problem.
Right there, we don't need towatch any more video.
But this is the issue is thatthey're not held liable if they
take down your content for anyreason.
Now, they can take down yourcontent simply because of the
color of your skin.
They can take down your contentbecause they don't like what
you have to say.
Now, this is a tough topic.
(09:17):
Does a private company have theright to do that?
I would argue well, yeah, rightto do that.
I would argue well, yeah.
But if the federal governmentis coercing the private company
to do that, which is exactlywhat we saw in the 2020 election
, this is what we saw under theBiden administration.
We saw all of this, and I was avictim of it.
(09:38):
I mean, my Facebook page hadbeen demonetized forever.
It still is.
So I mean, they've gotten alittle bit better.
But my YouTube account was shutdown.
You know, I had thousands offollowers.
Now I have 300 because I had tostart a new one, my Twitter,
same thing.
It was reactivated by Elon Musk, thank you.
(10:00):
I was one of the ones taken offof the block list, but you know
, what does Congress need to do?
(10:20):
This is a law enacted byCongress.
So we need to fix this.
Say what you want to say onthese platforms, but you should
not be shielded from facing theconsequences.
If you lie about a company orslander somebody, you should be
(10:43):
able to face the consequencesbecause you are the publisher.
I agree with that.
But I don't think that thesecompanies, these publicly traded
companies, should bewithdrawing content.
I think a much better avenue iscontent preferences, which
we're starting to see with X orTwitter, where you can choose
(11:06):
the content you would like tosee.
Do you want to see graphiccontent?
No, okay, well, make sure youdon't have graphic content.
Also, you should be able toselect I want to see Republican
news.
I don't want to see Democratnews.
This is disturbing to me.
I don't want to see anythinganti-white or anti-black.
You should be able to selectall of those things.
But you know, limiting speechat all is dangerous.
(11:27):
But Donald Trump has definitelytaken a step towards this,
towards fixing this he has.
What Donald Trump has done ishe has signed an executive order
which he promised that he woulddo.
(11:48):
Here is Donald Trump when hewas campaigning for president.
This is remember when he usedto do this out of Mar-a-Lago.
Then we just don't have a freecountry.
Speaker 8 (12:00):
It's as simple as that out of Mar-a-Lago, Then we
just don't have a free country.
It's as simple as that.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
If this most fundamental right is allowed to
perish then the we got a commenthere from Josh Snoke.
Thank you, buddy, I appreciateit.
Comment from Rayleigh.
President Trump, three hearts,yes, I agree.
Speaker 8 (12:27):
The rest of our rights and liberties will topple
just like dominoes one by one,they'll go down.
That's why today, I'mannouncing my plan to shatter
the left-wing censorship regimeand to reclaim the right to free
speech for all americans andreclaim is a very important word
(12:47):
in this case, because they'vetaken it away.
In recent weeks, bombshellreports have confirmed that a
sinister group of deep statebureaucrats, silicon Valley
tyrants, left-wing activists anddepraved corporate news media
have been conspiring tomanipulate and silence the
American people Correct.
(13:08):
They have collaborated tosuppress vital information on
everything from elections topublic health.
The censorship cartel must bedismantled and destroyed, and it
must happen immediately.
And here's my plan.
First, within hours of myinauguration, I will sign an
(13:28):
executive order banning anyfederal department or agency
from colluding with anyorganization, business or person
to censor, limit, categorize orimpede the lawful speech of
American citizens.
I will then ban federal moneyfrom being used to label
domestic speech as mis ordisinformation, and I will begin
(13:53):
the process of identifying andfiring every federal bureaucrat
who has engaged in domesticcensorship, directly or
indirectly, whether they are theDepartment of Homeland Security
, the Department of Health,human Services, the FBI, the DOJ
, no matter who they are.
Second, I will order theDepartment of Justice to
(14:15):
investigate all parties involvedin the new online censorship
regime, which is absolutelydestructive and terrible, and to
aggressively prosecute any andall crimes identified.
These include possibleviolations of federal civil
rights law.
Speaker 4 (14:34):
This is what I'm looking for.
This is what I'm waiting for.
Okay, so obviously, when Trumpis campaigning, he embellishes a
little bit.
Within hours of my inauguration, I'm going to sign this
executive order.
I'm going to start puttingpeople in jail.
Obviously, that didn't happen.
He's campaigning, I get it, butthis is what I'm looking for.
(14:56):
I want those FBI agents thatwent to Twitter and that went to
Facebook and forced them totake down information.
They should be in prison.
Their directors should be inprison.
The people above them whoordered that, the politicians
(15:17):
that ordered that they should bein prison, because that is
government interfering with yourbasic, fundamental rights to
free speech.
And that's precisely andexactly what I'm looking for.
So it is now August and DonaldTrump has signed the executive
order.
Here is a video of him signingit.
Speaker 8 (15:47):
Therefore, today I'm signing an executive order to
protect and uphold the freespeech and rights of the
American people.
Currently, social media giantslike Twitter receive an
unprecedented liability shieldbased on the theory that they're
a neutral platform, whichthey're not.
I'm not an editor with aviewpoint.
My executive order calls fornew regulations under Section
(16:16):
230 of the CommunicationsDecency Act to make it that
social media companies thatengage in censoring or any
political conduct will not beable to keep their liability
shield.
That's a big deal.
They have a shield.
They can do a big deal.
They have a shield.
They can do what they want.
They have a shield.
They're not going to have thatshield.
My executive order furtherinstructs the Federal Trade
(16:36):
Commission FTC to prohibitsocial media companies from
engaging in any deceptive actsor practices affecting commerce.
This authority resides inSection five of the federal
trade.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
So essentially, he's saying that, under this act, if
you violate the act, you violate, if you violate this executive
order, you violate yourprotection.
Okay, this is a very good thingand this is a step in the right
direction.
This is exactly what we'relooking for.
The problem is, the left sideof the aisle wants to change it
(17:17):
too, but the left side of theaisle wants to change it in a
manner to which it's not goingto benefit you.
They want total and uttercensorship from the federal
government.
That's what the left wants, andthe left will fight this.
So Donald Trump has one termthree years and four months left
(17:38):
, or three years and threemonths left, really to get
Section 230 revised.
We need the midterm electionsfor this.
This is going to be huge, huge.
It's going to be huge for us toget past it.
Guys, make sure you hit thatlike, share and subscribe button
(18:00):
.
This is a good time.
If you haven't liked it, ifyou're new here, I appreciate
you.
We have a lot of people onright now across all channels.
We're now on Amazon Live, so wehave hundreds of people on live
.
I appreciate all of you.
Make sure you hit that like andfollow button.
But Section 230 is an absolutedisaster.
It benefits the social mediacompanies, it benefits the
(18:20):
websites.
It does not benefit you, theconsumer, and it does not
protect you, the consumer.
In fact, it ensures that youreceive all liability.
So here's Hillary Clintontalking about Section 230 and
how it needs to be changed anyday.
Speaker 10 (18:54):
Now we should be, in my view, repealing something
called section 230, which gaveyou know platforms on the
internet to immunity becausethey were thought to be just
pass-throughs, that theyshouldn't be judged for the
content that is posted.
But we now know that that wasan overly simple view, that if
the platforms, whether it'sFacebook or Twitter X or
Instagram or TikTok, whateverthey are if they don't moderate
(19:16):
and monitor the content, we losetotal control, and it's not
just the social andpsychological effects, it's real
harm.
We should be, in my view,repealing something.
Speaker 4 (19:27):
It's not real harm.
It's nonsense.
It's absolute nonsense.
Hillary Clinton wants to censoryou.
Hillary Clinton wants to putyou in jail for sharing things
on the internet.
The satire.
Oh, ryan, that's hyperbolic.
(19:48):
Ryan, you're lying, ryan,you're exaggerating.
Am I?
Am I exaggerating?
Here is an article, not anarticle.
This is a report from theDepartment of Justice.
(20:12):
Social media influencersentenced for election
interference in 2016presidential race.
The defendant attempted totrick voters into believing they
could vote by text message.
They could vote by text message.
A social media influencer wassentenced today to seven months
in prison and fined $15,000 forhis role in a conspiracy to
(20:34):
interfere with potential voters'rights to vote for the 2016
presidential election.
According to court documents,by 2016, douglas McKay, aka
Ricky Vaughn, had established anaudience on Twitter with
approximately 58,000 followersVery small account.
(20:59):
This is not some massive socialmedia influencer who changed
the outcome of the election.
A February 2016 analysis by MITMedia Lab ranked McKay as one
of the most significantinfluencers of then upcoming
presidential election.
Between September 2016 andNovember 2016, mckay conspired
(21:24):
with other influential Twitterusers and with members of
private online groups to usesocial media platforms,
including Twitter, todisseminate fraudulent messages
that would encourage supportersof presidential candidate,
hillary Clinton, to vote viatext message or social media.
First of all, you can't vote viatext message.
Your normal person believesthat.
(21:45):
Your normal person believesthat this is just a proxy.
They used to silence freespeech and this guy went to jail
(22:13):
for making a satirical socialmedia post.
The left wants to put you injail.
The left wants you.
Here's the picture.
They want to put you in jailfor what you say on the internet
(22:34):
.
It's happened.
Don't say it didn't happen.
There's a conviction of aright-wing provocateur, douglas
Mackey, jailed for postinganti-Clinton memes in 2016,
overturned on appeal.
It was overturned, but this guywent to jail.
(22:54):
Avoid the line.
Vote from home.
Text Hillary to 59925.
It's a joke.
He's not responsible for youbeing an idiot.
He's not responsible for youbeing an idiot.
So Trump wants to limit thecensorship.
The left wants to increase thecensorship.
(23:16):
They think the censorship istoo much or not enough.
So everybody wants to changeSection 230.
It's just a matter of howthey're going to change it.
So even the ADL weighed in onthis, which is the
Anti-Defamation League.
(23:36):
It's super freaking liberal.
I can't stand them.
To be honest here, let's listento what they have to say.
Speaker 6 (23:48):
Yeah, I would say.
Look, I can speak specificallyfrom an ADL perspective.
Adl Center for Technology andSociety has done significant
studies in the responsiveness ofpet platforms, and we've
actually graded them on theirresponsiveness of anti-Semitism,
holocaust denial, other formsof hate.
You have a platform like Metathat just gutted its entire
(24:10):
fact-checking department andthey're moving away from it, and
so what we need to do is weneed to apply pressure in a real
, significant way on techplatforms that they have a
responsibility, that they havean absolute responsibility to
check and remove hateful speech.
(24:30):
that is insightful, notinsightful with a S but
insightful with a C, and so weneed to do that, congress.
There's a role for federalregulators to play, and there's
also a role that states can evenplay too, and we've seen that
in places like California andothers, you hold them
(24:50):
accountable, like right now.
Tech platforms are notaccountable for having
misinformation.
Was it Chair, section 230 ofthe Communications, national
Communications Act, or Federal,the Federal Communications Act?
Congress needs to amend Section230, which provides immunity to
tech platforms right now.
Speaker 4 (25:07):
So they don't want tech platforms to be immune,
because what they want to do isbe able to have control over the
tech platforms.
And having control over thetech platforms is what?
So that they can, by proxy,silence you, which is what
(25:28):
they've been doing for years.
All right, so Donald Trump isin a beef with the Federal
Reserve.
I hate the Federal Reserve.
I do not feel the FederalReserve should exist.
I'm going to preface with that.
I actually sell T-shirts thatsay End the Fed.
That you can get atryanfsamuelscom slash shop.
(25:52):
But the Federal Reserve, ifyou're going to have a Federal
Reserve, is supposed to beindependent of the executive
branch and of Congress.
They're supposed to be makingdecisions when they are not
accountable to people, so thatthey will make the decision.
That is what is best for theeconomy.
(26:12):
That's the way it's supposed towork.
Okay, that they don't have toworry about an election.
So when they get, so that theydon't have to lower the interest
rates if it's too early tolower their interest rates or
raise interest rates if it's nottime to raise the interest
rates, they're supposed to do iton what's best for the economy
to prevent a Great Depression.
(26:33):
Is that happening in theFederal Reserve.
I'm not sure I don't put toomuch stake in them, but Donald
Trump has caused controversy bypressuring Lisa Brooks, who's a
member, lisa Cook excuse me,who's a member of the Federal
(26:54):
Reserve, to resign.
Speaker 12 (26:56):
Now here is a story on that I do want to talk not so
much about the veracity of theclaims against Lisa Cook, but
more about the veracity ofwhether there is indeed cause
for the president to remove her.
Speaker 7 (27:12):
Yeah, and that's the main legal issue here, because
the Federal Reserve Act saysthat the president can remove a
Federal Reserve Board governorfor cause, but the statute
doesn't define or specify whatcause means.
So we have to look to someother statutes for other
agencies that say causegenerally means some sort of
(27:33):
inefficiency, neglect ormalfeasance.
The question here is whetherthe allegations against Fed
Governor Lisa Cook, you know,rise to that level.
You know rise to that level andmy feeling is that until you
have some sort of investigationby, let's say, the Fed inspector
general or some sort ofinvestigation by the Justice
Department that results incharges, it's probably a little
(27:54):
premature to say that theallegations alone satisfy the
four cause standard.
Speaker 13 (28:00):
We should mention that the Federal Reserve,
according to a statement issuedby the central bank, said it
will abide by any court decision, as this will likely be
resolved legally.
And that's kind of where I wantto go to.
Next, elliot, because lisacook's lawyer has made clear
that they will file a lawsuitchallenging this firing.
Tell us a little bit about abbylowell, because he's a high
profile white collar defense andtrial lawyer, known as a top
(28:22):
all right.
Speaker 4 (28:23):
So here's here's.
Here's what happened.
Okay, lisa Cook, for taxbenefits, claimed two separate
properties as her primaryresidence.
Okay, one in one state and onein another state, which is
(28:47):
technically fraud.
Okay, is it a super egregiousact?
Was she forging checks?
Is it super neglect?
Neglectful?
My response to that would be no.
Ok, if you're going to have aFederal Reserve, it should be
independent of government sothat it can make decisions.
But we haven't gotten to LisaCook yet and who she is and kind
of who her character is, andthat is what kind of changed my
(29:12):
mind.
She was appointed by Joe Biden,so right off the bat, she loses
a little bit of dignity with meon that point, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that she isabsolutely dreadful, necessarily
(29:38):
.
Here is Donald Trump answeringthe questions from the press.
Speaker 15 (29:45):
Let's listen the questions from the press.
Let's listen.
You have spoken out verystrongly for a long time about
what you see as theweaponization of government?
Is your administrationweaponizing government by
digging into the mortgagerecords of officials in Goldmine
?
Speaker 8 (30:02):
No, they're public.
I mean, you can find out thoserecords, you can go check out
the records yourself and youshould be doing that job.
Actually you wouldn't do thatbecause that's not the kind of
reporter you are, but you shouldbe doing that job.
I shouldn't have to be doing it.
If you did your job properly,we wouldn't have problems like
Lisa Cook Go ahead.
You were going to say something.
Speaker 4 (30:22):
Go Blue.
Speaker 8 (30:25):
I think we have to have lower interest rates.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
He wants the interest rates on national security.
I think we have to have lowerinterest rates.
He wants the interest rateslower.
Obviously, any president wantsthe interest rates lower because
the economy booms.
But if you do it too soon it'snot good for the economy.
It's actually worse for theeconomy and it won't get any
better.
So that's why it's supposed tobe independent.
However, apparently allegedly,the situation is that the trump
(30:53):
administration did look into hermortgage records and discovered
this.
So it sounds like, if this isthe truth and I'm not sure
because I haven't verified ityet that the trump
administration was lookingthrough her records trying to
(31:13):
find something that they coulduse against her and maybe other
people to try to pressure themto get the interest rates down.
That is the accusation.
Whether that's true or not,again, I don't know.
But let's listen to what LaurenIngram had to say.
Speaker 11 (31:25):
Let's listen to what Warren Ingram had to say this
is a contagious disease.
Ok, because now the FederalReserve Governor, lisa Cook, is
under pressure to resign due toallegations that she may have
engaged in mortgage fraud.
Bill, tell us about this.
I mean someone who has a say inthe Fed rate and what that's
(31:49):
doing to mortgages across thecountry.
I mean this is crazy stuff.
She could be potentiallyabusing the system.
Again, no one's guilty untilproven.
Speaker 17 (31:58):
I'll tell you she has a very big problem.
She has a situation where sheclaimed primary residency on a
condo that she bought in Atlanta.
I mean, this is supposed to besomebody who's entrusted with
the public good, who's supposedto be looking after interest
rates, and I believe it'sblatant and massive mortgage
fraud.
I believe that there will be acriminal investigation.
I'll leave that to the DOJwhether they do that or not, but
(32:19):
I would anticipate Singer beprosecuted and criminally
charged for mortgage fraud, justbased on what I've seen.
You know I refer people everyday to the Department of Justice
and the Department of Justiceprosecutes cases like this all
the time.
Laura, and whether it's theSchiff case or the Letitia James
case or this case or all theother cases that we refer, this
Cook one is not going away andshe can laugh all she wants, but
(32:40):
the law will catch up with her.
Speaker 11 (32:42):
Yeah, she responded to this today saying she doesn't
have any intention of beingquote bullied to step down from
her position because of somequestions raised in a tweet.
I do intend, she said, to takeany questions about my financial
history seriously and I'mgathering accurate info to
provide the facts.
She also mentioned that thisall occurred before she was a
(33:04):
member of the Board of Governorsat the federal reserve.
Would the timing matter?
Speaker 4 (33:12):
To me it doesn't matter.
As you guys most of you knowthe avid fans I appreciate you
guys.
I don't usually watch a lot ofthese videos.
I get the general gist of itand then I watch them live on
the air so that you guys canhave a genuine reaction.
But I don't think it matters Ifyou're committing fraud on
financial statements for taxpurposes or whatever, and then
(33:35):
you're going to be on the boardof governors, whether or not.
I mean, if you're open tocorruption, you're open to
corruption and you shouldn'thave power over the economy.
And I can't anticipate what heis going to say.
Speaker 17 (33:51):
No, it wouldn't matter.
First of all, she's within thestatute of limitations.
Second of all, she received abenefit while she's been on the
Federal Reserve Board and Iwould actually argue that her
statement tonight.
You know, I think that that'sgoing to be a big problem for
her criminally.
This is just my view.
She lied in my view in herstatement tonight because she
said that the first time sheheard about it was through my
tweet.
She didn't hear about it frommy tweet.
(34:12):
There's no way she doesn'tfollow me on Twitter.
And last night Bloombergcontacted, according to their
story, her and me for comment.
So I think this lady is aprofessional liar.
She shouldn't be at the FederalReserve.
She's going to resign, in myview, and if she doesn't resign,
I do believe that the presidenthas cause to fire her, and that
will be up to the presidentwhether he decides to do that or
not.
Speaker 4 (34:32):
So Trump is saying that he has cause to fire her
and he has legitimately firedher.
Ok, obviously she is contestingthat and she is going to fight
that and we're going to see whatthe ruling is, because it's
rather unusual for a presidentto do that.
(34:52):
It's not very common for thatto happen.
But I'm totally good withclearing out anybody that was
appointed by Joe Biden.
I mean, what a disaster thatadministration was.
What an absolute disaster.
(35:12):
Here is MSNBC.
Speaker 14 (35:16):
Her nomination was a highly contested nomination
along party lines by theRepublicans.
The Republicans tried to painther as unqualified and a
left-wing extremist, to thepoint where she was confirmed by
I think it was 50-51, and VicePresident Harris had to come in
to cast the tie-breaking votefor her nomination.
(35:37):
I read through her bio at thetop of this she's extremely
qualified, but the point here isbased on an allegation that the
administration themselves don'teven know to be true.
Where's that part in the linehere?
Speaker 12 (35:52):
It says there's sufficient reason to believe you
may have made the falsestatements Sufficient reason to
believe you may have you hearthat you may have A 14-year term
sufficient reason to believeyou may have.
Speaker 9 (36:05):
You'd think someone would call someone's lawyer and
someone would have thisconversation with them.
Speaker 14 (36:08):
Correct, or you think it would have came up in
her highly contestedconfirmation, so I just think it
is it is.
It is not lost on me that thethat the person other than the
chair that he's decided totarget, is the only black woman
to be serving on the board andthe legal it's always racist.
Speaker 4 (36:31):
With the left, it's the only thing they have to say
Well, you're racist, you don'tlike her because she's black,
not because she committed fraudand there's evidence to suggest
that she committed fraud andthat the evidence is clear but
it is just an accusation, andthat is something that we do
(36:56):
need to keep in mind.
However, trump sent her aletter that says we believe that
there's sufficient evidence togo ahead and remove you.
They feel that they have theauthority, so that's what they
have done.
Sucks for her, but she's goingto fight it.
(37:21):
Let's see.
There's another news story here.
Speaker 9 (37:28):
Hey, sarah, yeah, I have confirmed that the Fed
Governor, liz Cook, is here inJackson Hole, is actually in the
room and we had said earlier.
You asked me if she was there.
I said I didn't see her lastnight but I didn't notice that
she was actually in the roomhere, obviously FHFA Director
Bill Pulte upping the ante thismorning, doing something that
you had pointed out yesterday,sarah, which was that the
(37:48):
apparent violations that arebeing talked about were not
committed during the time thatshe was at the Fed.
But now the idea that BillPulte is saying today well, she
filled out a Fed form.
Well, that creates thepossibility that maybe there was
some of that issue with theallegations.
That does actually relatedirectly to that work, and the
president this morning obviouslysaying he would fire her if she
(38:11):
did not resign.
My understanding is he's in theroom in the conference here at
Jackson Hole, sarah.
Speaker 15 (38:17):
I guess the question now from her is what kind of
response do we get?
And it seems like it has tocome sooner rather than later,
because the president is makingit very clear of his intentions.
If she wants to defend herselfand explain the paperwork and
produce more evidence, sheshould do that.
Speaker 9 (38:39):
The problem becomes, sarah, I think you're absolutely
right from a politicalstandpoint, from a Federal
Reserve reputational standpoint,political standpoint from a
Federal Reserve reputationalstandpoint.
However, she is now in legaljeopardy and I believe I'm not
obviously an attorney, but I'vecovered enough of these things.
The attorney would say don'tsay anything until you're
charged, right?
So there is this balancing ofthe reputation of the Fed, her
(38:59):
own reputation, against thelegal jeopardy she faces, maybe
a little hamstrung.
As you know, she did put out astatement saying she would not
be bullied to leave office by atweet and she was going to be
gathering up to check thedocuments which she did not have
handy.
They're about four or fiveyears old.
So you know, we wait, obviously, for a response and very strong
comments from the president,from the FHA director about the
(39:23):
need for her to resign andobviously Ed Martin yesterday
from the Washington AttorneyGeneral's office.
So there's a lot of pressure onher, but also she faces this
legal jeopardy, tara.
Speaker 6 (39:32):
But, steve, no reports or information about how
she's been received at thesymposium by participants.
Speaker 9 (39:40):
No, I've not had a chance to see that yet.
My guess is she will bereceived well.
Speaker 15 (39:46):
Yeah, although some questions may be from
journalists, I would think aswell.
Speaker 4 (39:50):
Trying to track her down and I'm willing to go ahead
and bet that journalists willnot be chasing her down to
figure out what is going on withthat.
The media is already runningcover for her and we're going to
(40:11):
stay updated on that.
There's kind of big news that'sbeing not intentionally
suppressed but not making it tothe top of the news.
Australia has done somethingpretty significant that we have
not I have not really seen in mylifetime.
(40:31):
Australia has severed alldiplomatic ties with Iran.
They've expelled the ambassador, ahmad Sadehi, and three of his
envoys and they've only givenhim seven days to leave of his
(40:51):
envoys, and they've only givenhim seven days to leave.
The IRGC will be designated asa terrorist organization.
Embassy operations in Tehranare suspended.
So there are a couple of thingsthat led to this.
Number one the Iraniangovernment.
Reports are coming out that theIranian government was behind
the Adas Israel synagoguefirebombing that hit on a Jew,
(41:11):
on a Jewish restaurant.
And Iran is just a problem.
Iran has been a problem for avery long time, a problem that
should have been dealt withbefore we dealt with Iraq,
although it was a differentdynamic at that time before we
dealt with Iraq, although it wasa different dynamic at that
time.
That was, from what Iunderstand, was the original
(41:35):
plan to take over Iraq veryquickly, then Iran and just
eliminate the entire MiddleEastern problem at one point.
But Australia is very weak.
Okay, australia is a veryleft-leaning country, very
European-like, they're not verytough.
But here is the Australianprime minister announcing what
(41:59):
Australia is going to doappalling anti-Semitic attacks.
Speaker 18 (42:12):
Since the terrible events of October 7, 2023, we
have witnessed a number ofappalling anti-Semitic attacks
against Australia's Jewishcommunity.
I've made it clear that thesesorts of incidents have no place
in Australia and that I wantedASIO and the AFP to investigate
(42:32):
as a priority.
Asio has now gathered enoughcredible intelligence to reach a
deeply disturbing conclusionthat the Iranian government
directed at least two of theseattacks.
Iran has sought to disguise itsinvolvement, but ASIO assesses
it was behind the attacks on theLewis Continental Kitchen in
(42:53):
Sydney on October 20 last yearand the Adas Israel Synagogue in
Melbourne on December 6 lastyear.
Speaker 4 (43:04):
So they've recently discovered that Iran is
definitely behind these attacks.
Iran is behind just about everyterrorist attack in the world.
That's not propaganda.
That's not BS.
That's exactly what ishappening.
If you don't think that, oryou're not aware of that, or you
want to disagree on that,that's fine and I would agree
(43:28):
with you, but then we would bothbe wrong, and I cannot have
that.
The Iranian government is pureevil.
This is a regime that wants youdead.
Okay, the Iranian governmentlives for one reason, and one
reason only, and that is to killJews and kill anybody who's not
(43:48):
Muslim.
They are dangerous and theyneed to be stopped from hurting
other people.
I think this is a great step byAustralia to try to resist this
(44:10):
situation and put enough juiceon it to where the world is
watching.
Speaker 18 (44:16):
As he assesses it is likely Iran directed further
attacks as well.
These were extraordinary anddangerous acts of aggression
orchestrated by a foreign nationon Australian soil.
They were attempts to underminesocial cohesion and sow discord
(44:37):
in our community.
It is totally unacceptable andthe Australian government is
taking strong and decisiveaction in response.
A short time ago, we informedthe Iranian ambassador to
Australia that he would beexpelled.
We have suspended operations atour embassy in Tehran and all
our diplomats are now safe in athird country.
(45:00):
I can also announce thegovernment will legislate to
list Iran's IslamicRevolutionary Guard Corps, the
IRGC, as a terroristorganisation.
I've said many times that theAustralian people want two
things they want killing in theMiddle East to stop and they
don't want conflict in theMiddle East brought here.
Iran has sought to do just that.
(45:24):
They have sought to harm andterrify Jewish Australians and
to sow hatred and division inour community.
The actions of my governmentsend a clear message a message
to all Australians that we standagainst anti-Semitism and we
stand against violence, and amessage to nations like Iran who
(45:45):
seek to interfere in ourcountry that your aggression
will not be tolerated.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
I'm pleasantly surprised.
I am pleasantly surprised withAustralia and I'm glad they're
taking a stand.
I think it's good.
I think it looks good on them.
I think that it sends a messageto the rest of the world.
I think it brings attention tothe rest of the world and that
(46:20):
the UN needs to do somethingabout Iran.
Let's watch this.
Speaker 19 (46:27):
This is Now to Iran, if we can.
This week, Iranian officialsare expected to resume talks
with European Union members onnuclear issues.
This comes amid threats ofreact.
Speaker 4 (46:45):
Right.
So now Iran.
The concern about Iran is thatthey're reactivating their
nuclear program, which is notsurprising.
Hey Tom, welcome back on buddy.
I appreciate it, jd.
Hey Ryan, sorry I missed thelive show.
I'll rewatch.
Hope you're having a good night, brother.
(47:06):
I'm having a great night, man.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
I appreciate you, but Iran istrying to rebuild a nuclear
program.
Here's the thing.
Iran doesn't have any otheroption.
Okay, iran has basically twooptions Either submit to the
(47:26):
United States, the West andIsrael, which are people they
hate more than anything onplanet Earth, or what you need
to do is become a nuclear powerand then use in the field of
politics.
That is not something that Irancan do based on principle.
(47:49):
That's going to be really toughfor them to do.
So let's watch this clip fromReal America's Voice.
Speaker 19 (48:00):
Activating United Nations sanctions if Tehran
continues to refuse to negotiate.
These sanctions may snap backif leaders are not able to reach
a deal on Iran's nuclearprograms during talks this week.
Let's welcome to AmericanSunrise the deputy director of
the National Council ofResistance of Iran and the
(48:21):
author of the Iran Threat.
It's good to have you with us.
Alireza Jaffer-Deza.
I'm sure I just said that allwrong, but you say your name for
us, because for some reason inEnglish this is just so hard for
us.
Speaker 12 (48:35):
It's Alireza Jaffer-Deza.
It's always a pleasure to be onyour show.
Speaker 19 (48:38):
It's always good to have you, even if I can't say
your name but your comments.
As we look down the barrel ofall the things happening on the
geopolitical scale, how wouldyou grade President Trump's
actions so far regarding Iran?
Speaker 12 (48:55):
Well, certainly the the president, as ever since he
came to office, has called forending the nuclear weapons
program of the Iran regime.
He's been so focused on thatand very unwavering on that, and
I think that also look at thefirst term, when it came to the
terrorism of the Iranian regime.
(49:16):
It was under President Trump'swatch that the terror master,
qasem Soleimani, who was thecommander of the Quds Force that
carried out all the terroroperations of the regime, but
also their terror practices inthe region, he was eliminated.
So that's the kind of policyyou need to see when it comes to
(49:37):
the Iran regime being veryunwavering in ending their
nuclear threat, ending theirmissile program, ending their
drone program, ending theirterror operations, but also
ending the killing of their ownpeople inside Iran.
Speaker 6 (49:53):
So where does that leave Iran?
Exactly Because you've gotIran's Khamenei.
Speaker 4 (50:00):
Iran's going to be a problem.
It's not over with Iran.
Iran is going to continue to doterrorist attacks.
They're going to continue topursue a nuclear weapon.
They're going to continue toterrorize the world and try to
(50:25):
kill Jews and people like youevery day.
Iran is definitely a problem.
However, it's going to be.
It's tough.
It's a tough decision on whatto do about Iran.
Here is another report.
It's just a quick little clipon australia severing ties with
(50:51):
with iran.
Now, this is a big deal.
So typically, when a countrysevers ties diplomatically with
another country, it's not a goodsign of things to come.
Speaker 20 (51:02):
We have declared iran's ambassador to australia
persona nonata, as well as threeother Iranian officials, and
they will have seven days toleave the country.
This is the first time in thepost-war period that Australia
has expelled an ambassador.
We have declared Iran'sambassador to Australia persona
non grata, as well as three.
(51:22):
This is a big deal.
Speaker 4 (51:27):
But it's not really being covered.
As far as I know, we're one ofthe only shows covering it, and
the Iranian people continue tochant in the streets.
(51:49):
Just so you can see just howbad I ran as, let me pull this
up here.
Speaker 21 (52:11):
Let me pull this up here, logan, then you realize
Well, you might be hearing moreof it.
After the US bombed Iran, evenPresident Trump made mention of
it as he celebrated thosestrikes.
Speaker 8 (52:22):
For 40 years Iran has been saying death to America,
death to Israel.
Speaker 21 (52:26):
So are Iranians really wishing death on
Americans?
Well, no, marbar-amerika mightliterally mean death to America,
but it's generally translatedas down with the USA.
Iran's Supreme Leader,ayatollah Ali Khamenei, explains
it here.
Speaker 4 (52:48):
Get the hell out of here.
So if it is, then change it.
Change your chant, if you thinkthe whole world.
This is what drives me insaneabout the left.
This drives me insane about theleft.
(53:08):
This drives me insane.
They're literally chantingdeath to you and then you're
going to go and try to defendthem for it.
Oh, that's not really what theymean.
Yes, that's exactly what theymean.
That's exactly what they mean.
Speaker 16 (53:25):
They've even done this in the united states here,
this is in dearborn, michigananti-israel activists were heard
(53:47):
chanting death to america anddeath to israel at a rally at a
michigan city dubbed the jihadcapital of the us.
Dearborn michigan activist,tarik bazi, ripped the us for
supporting israel and told thecrowd the chant quote death to
israel, has become the mostlogical chant around the world.
He said quote it's not Genocide, joe, that has to go, referring
(54:07):
to President Joe Biden.
Quote it's time the entiresystem has to go.
He also said that quote anysystem that would allow such
atrocities and such devilry tohappen and would support it,
such a system, does not deserveto exist on God's earth.
His comments, of course,spurred chants to call for the
end of the Jewish nation, andhis comments were then followed
(54:28):
by Imam Osama Abdul Ghani, whodeclared that Israel is quote
ISIS, israel.
They are Nazis, they arefascists, they are racist.
Speaker 4 (54:37):
Dear board Sound like Democrats, because that's what
Democrats say.
They call Jews Nazis.
Speaker 16 (54:44):
Has the largest Muslim population in the United
States and has become a hotbedof anti-Israel sentiment in
recent months.
Presidents there have led theefforts to vote uncommitted in
the Democrat primary, ratherthan to vote for Biden, for
support of Israel and the MiddleEast Media Research Institute
executive director StevenZalinski branded the city quote
(55:05):
America's jihad capital.
Speaker 4 (55:11):
It's a problem.
It's a massive problem, tom.
It sounds like Iran doesn'tbelieve that they will
eventually be removed from theworld stage.
They're religiousfundamentalists, so their
principle of fighting is for allof all of eternity and their
god.
So that's a scary thing,because nobody fights harder.
(55:34):
Okay, there's a fundamentaldifference about fighting a
terrorist who's fighting onbehalf of their god and somebody
who's fighting on behalf of apaycheck.
There there's that.
That's definitely a situationthat is widely different.
So they're basically Iran islike the last terrorist country
(56:00):
left on earth.
You can make arguments aboutothers, but for the most part,
they are the last.
Who is this Public Islamistprayer for Hamas?
And then they support Hamas too, but they're behind Hamas.
(56:23):
The country of Iran Is behindHamas.
Let's see this is Iyad Jihad.
Abu Hamid Leads a publicIslamist prayer for Hamas while
blocking the roads in Montreal,calling for a swift defeat of
(56:45):
the Jews in support of thedesignated terrorist entity
under approval and protection ofSMB.
This is Montreal, not Tehran.
Speaker 22 (56:55):
Oh Allah, I hope that you will go mighty to us in
those needs, the rational andthe post-mortem numbers.
Speaker 5 (57:24):
What does it be read?
No-transcript.
What does it mean?
(57:48):
What?
Speaker 4 (57:51):
He is praying for Hamas and the Palestinian people
who support Hamas.
All right.
So it looks like sanctions arecoming from Iran, which needs to
friggin' happen.
I'm glad we destroyed theirnuclear program, but they're
(58:15):
going to try to build it back.
We got another comment here.
That's their leadership andradicals' beliefs.
But the majority of theirpopulation want a new regime and
freedom.
From what I gather, I've heardthat too.
The thing is, the United Statesalways puts that statement out,
(58:35):
that every country supports usand that our actions are
justified, but a lot of timesthat's not the case.
So I'm not sure about thissituation, but a lot of times
that is not the case that we aregoing to be fully supported by
the Iranian people.
(58:55):
With television they don't speakagainst the regime while
they're friends and family.
There's no like secret you knowsociety of people that are
aligning themselves withAmerican values.
You know, maybe there's somepeople there that say, you know,
(59:18):
living here sucks.
But these, these types ofgovernments, these, these big,
you know Islamic regimes.
They use these big you knowIslamic regimes.
They use the Quran to oppresstheir people rather than
teaching them the you know thepeaceful aspects of it.
(59:40):
We could talk theology on Islam, I mean all night long.
I could do that for you know,50 hours, because I definitely
have some very strong opinionson it, but I'm not sure if I
agree with you.
I'm not sure.
I think that they're Persian.
I think they're unified from avery long history of culture, a
(01:00:05):
beautiful culture that has beenhijacked by Islam.
That's what I think, and Ithink that a lot of them are not
going to support the UnitedStates, especially when they're
dragged out in the streets sothat they can chant death to
(01:00:26):
America, death to Israel.
They got a lot of hate.
There's reasons why we reallyhaven't invaded, right?
Let me see this.
My comment comes from anIranian board podcaster that is
a US citizen, but he does say itwill take the Iranian people to
make the change From us doingit will take the Iranian people
(01:00:47):
to make the change from us doingit will be the wrong move.
Yeah, I don't know who you'retalking about, but I know
Patrick Bet-David is Iranianboard.
He's a podcaster.
He talks about it a little bit,but that was.
If you're talking about him.
He was born there a very longtime ago, on the left, when he
was very little, so he probablyknows more than me.
(01:01:08):
But you know it's tough, itreally is tough.
We do have our own people herein the United States that hate
America.
So maybe, maybe there arepeople there that love us, and
I'm sure there are people therethat love us and like us.
And you know we do have asignificant following in Iran on
this show and that's not BS.
The stats came out.
(01:01:28):
I have hundreds, hundreds ofdownloads in Iran.
They may not sound a lot, butI'm talking about hundreds of
downloads every episode.
So when you put out an episode,the podcast is measured on how
many people download it, notmany, how many people just
listen to it.
You know so to get a hundreddownloads or 200 downloads or
300 downloads, that means youknow 20 or 30 000 people listen
(01:01:52):
to it or 10 000 people listen toit.
Yes, patrick bett david is whois I was referring to.
Yeah, man, it's a great show.
I like that guy a lot, I likethe way he runs the show, so,
but you know so they'relistening to this show.
So if you're an Iranian, send amessage.
Let me know.
What is the, the, the?
(01:02:14):
What is the feeling in yourcountry?
Is the feelinganti-establishment, is the
feeling pro-American or is thefeeling not so.
Yeah, yeah, and we'll touchbase, okay, but thank you guys,
so much for tuning in.
I appreciate all the support,as always.
Make sure you hit that likeshare and subscribe button and I
(01:02:37):
will see you next time.
We'll be you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.