The YoJoeShow™ Podcast – Episode 4

In this episode of the YoJoeShow™ Podcast, we discuss China Trade and Tariffs, DOGE, Social Security Number Fraud, Government Accountability and Autopen use under Biden, the Meta Whistleblower, Father and Son Politics with Charlie Kirk, Bill Maher's visit with Trump, Speaking with Whales and much more! Join us!

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Hey. Hey. Hey, everyone, and welcome to the
Yojo Show podcast. Hey, Joe. How are you
doing today?
Yeah. I'm doing great, Joseph. How are you
doing, Yo?
I'm awake and alive. How's this week been
coming along?
Oh, busy week. Busy week. All good, though.
Can't complain.
Good job. How's,
how's how's Passover going?
Passover has been beautiful, thankfully.

(00:21):
Yeah. Enjoyed the Seder last night.
Yeah. I think on the docket, we have
a whole bunch of very interesting topics to
discuss. The most interesting of which
will be China. I think we're gonna get
started with that.
In terms of place to start.
Yes. So I remember back when I was
doing,
cybersecurity research for the Israeli military intelligence,

(00:44):
and
one of the training materials I had
was and I probably shouldn't be saying this
on a podcast, but it'll be okay.
It was like a it was like a
generic research by the Shin Bet, which is
like the internal like, the Israeli FBI
who are in charge of counterespionage,
I e, finding enemy spies within your country.

(01:04):
And it was about China.
China. China. China.
Specifically about the culture
of
cheating in China.
Because, basically, four hundred years ago, there was
an emperor in China,
and
he kind of prioritized,
I guess, results over everything else even against

(01:25):
playing dirty.
So whereas in a Israeli or American school,
if somebody is caught cheating, they'll usually be
punished.
In China, they'll usually be
rewarded.
So cheating is not necessarily looked upon as
a bad thing. It's actually looked upon as
a good thing. It's a effective way of
getting ahead. And boy, is it effective as
as we as we've seen with, you know,

(01:47):
China copying US manufacturing
and German manufacturing, etcetera.
But basically instilled into the culture for the
last four hundred years
has been this concept of, a, you know,
like cheating and and and stealing is a
legitimate way of getting ahead, and then, b,
in service

(02:07):
of
reporting
to the central authority,
which obviously at the time, it was the
it wasn't the, you know, the chairman. It
wasn't the CCP,
four hundred years ago. But even back then,
even with the emperors,
kind of
spilling the beans or giving the details or
ratting out your friends
was just to be anticipated.

(02:28):
So it's it's a cultural thing that's kind
of been
inbred in many Chinese people, for a very
long time. And, obviously, none of us have
anything against the Chinese people. They are wonderful,
very loving, and very kind people.
But the regime that now rules them is
a little emblematic
of
the Chinese culture,
one must say one may say.

(02:51):
Anything to add?
Yeah. I would say, you know, that definitely
is is
a challenge when you don't look at things
the same way. Right?
When you talk about,
let's say a sporting event, you want to
play by the same rules on both teams,
right? You can't have rules for one team
and different rules for the other. Thank you.
IP theft, you know, basically getting getting the

(03:13):
information and making it work no matter what,
not playing by the rules. That has been
a challenge. That's been one of the things
that,
Chinese trade has always brought up as being
a big barrier to having some fairness
in the trade.
We actually
have a clip that I know we discussed
that probably be a good starting point.

(03:34):
This is from the US Senate Committee on
Aging,
talking about
IP
theft, fairness and so forth. And there's actually
a few clips that we have that go
over this, But I think maybe if we
can,
if we can take a listen, I can,
queue that up, and we can have

(03:55):
Yeah. Definitely.
So I think starting point. Does that does
that make sense? Yes. Definitely. I think people
have a narrative that, you know, The US
is a is a dying superpower.
A lot find,
many resemblances
between
The US' current state and different periods in
Rome's fall. So that's been a very popular

(04:15):
narrative. And then the count and then part
of that narrative is that the counterbalance to
The United States' hegemony starting to collapse,
supposedly,
is the growth of this new Chinese superpower.
I'm a little hesitant on that. So, basically,
this whole culture of lying and cheating, right,

(04:37):
it it basically
is
part of reporting. Right? So if you buy
a a stock in a US company, right,
you'll you'll typically
have control over that stock. You'll be considered
a shareholder. And if you have equal rights,
like with most corporations, you'll actually have the
right to vote on important issues for the
company. Right?
In terms of owning Chinese stocks,

(04:59):
if you're an American, you're not ever owning
a Chinese stock. You own a,
contract with a company in, like, The Seychelles
or one of those tax havens that supposedly
reports to own a representative stock in this
Chinese stock exchange, but you have no rights
whatsoever.
And plus the the communist party has in

(05:19):
every single company within China, they have,
one vote that can override everybody else's vote.
So that that kinda makes it,
obviously, very unfair.
But more realistically,
the numbers
are exaggerations and lies all the way up.
Right? And so
what happens is at the local level, every

(05:41):
manufacturing,
every whatever it is, every the the lowest
level manager is gonna lie
to try and make his numbers look a
little bit better because otherwise,
he's gonna look worse compared to all the
other managers around him who are lying. So
he has to lie in order to not
be penalized
for performing worse than everybody else. Right? And

(06:01):
then that manager will lie to the regional
manager,
which will lie to, you know, to the
VP. And basically, it lies all the way
up. And what happens with exaggerations is, you
know, the first one just exaggerates a little.
Okay. We didn't actually produce eight. We produced,
you know, six. Right?
But we'll say we produced eight. And then
the next manager is like eight. The other

(06:21):
team said they produced 12. We have to
say we produced 16. Right? So the the
the next manager says we produce 16. And
then the next one up says, oh, 16.
That's it. Those guys said they produce 32.
We're probably a 35. Right?
And and, basically, every number from every Chinese
manufacturer is something I'm completely unwilling to trust
in terms of production capabilities, in terms of

(06:44):
financial disclosures, and,
kind of financial results. Like, basically, take everything
that comes out of China with a master
pound worth of salt. Now other reasons why
I think this whole narrative is China
being an upcoming superpower is false is
Chinese are dying to get their money out
of China. There's almost no way to do
so. Most Chinese are therefore forced to invest

(07:06):
in one of two options. Historically, the most
reliable option was real estate. And with Evergrande,
Evergreen,
collapsing and many other Chinese real estate companies
collapsing and all of the ghost cities we've
seen all over China, which is this, you
know, production counts as part of GDP. So
if I have to have good numbers, all
I have to do is is is build.

(07:28):
And then once I build, then, you know,
it's great for the GDP and then it
you know, my my district will be doing
well. I'll get promotions.
But
that is obviously, we've seen that's that's collapsing
because they're building where people don't wanna live
where
right, that that's the whole concept of go
cities. Right? What what the outcome of

(07:49):
basically bad policies or misaligned incentives that we
we've been repeating this again. Misaligned misaligned incentives
cause very bad outcomes. Right? So the the
entire economy
is kind of built on all these fake
numbers. The only other pit place Chinese people
can invest their money is in the the
Chinese stock market. They cannot legally invest it
outside of the Chinese stock market, and that

(08:10):
is filled with lies nonstop. So, yeah, let's
go ahead and and get the first video
going.
Yeah. And before we we we play it,
I'll just point out that, you know, a
number of years ago,
you know, I researched,
sort of a a current event at the
time where,
you know, Toyota and Lexus were having a
real problem that ultimately

(08:31):
it was discovered that those vehicles at the
time, there's a large piece of the market.
They were producing vehicles that had a serious,
computer glitch
where people were dying for a number of
years.
And after
a whistleblower came out manufacturer of the earbags
and they were,
Takata was, like, the largest, manufacturer of earbags

(08:52):
for almost every car company in the world,
and there were there were faulty with their
earbags, and it caused many, many,
lives.
Right. And this was different. This was an
acceleration
slash their centralized computing for their vehicles, the
the Toyota Lexus vehicles as a subset of
their vehicles.
When the software would freeze, it would freeze

(09:14):
everything. There was no fail safe. So you
couldn't use the brakes, you couldn't stop the
acceleration, you couldn't turn the vehicle off, and
a number of people died. A whistleblower came
forth, and ultimately,
the company finally after having all these sort
of fake recalls,
they're saying that their their floor mats were
a problem or the pedal the accelerator pedal
was too big and was getting snagged.

(09:36):
They finally admitted that they had an issue.
You know, they were fined. But by that
time, a number of people had died. And
one of the things that came out when
I was researching, you know, what how this
this could have even happened, how the company
could have been aware
of what was going on.
The whistleblower was actually a translator that would
translate from Japanese to English and back and

(09:56):
forth amongst the engineers,
and she basically posted the information I think
to Facebook at the time,
basically saying, look, they know there's a problem.
So
one of the things in the, I guess,
the totality of of that case was that
it appeared that there was a cultural issue
that some of the people so it's not
just China. This happened in Japan. It can

(10:17):
happen in other countries where there's a tremendous
reluctance
to,
you know, to fail at any
fault. In aviation, that was a problem that
existed,
you know, for many, many years that the
captain
on the flight deck was the person who
would make all the decisions and they were
like the king, basically, the queen theoretically of

(10:38):
that of that flight. And after a very
serious,
you know, disaster,
crew resource management became a thing where ultimately
it wasn't just
the one
captain, but any of the flight crew that
was there. So the first officer or other
people would call the co pilot or any

(10:59):
of the other,
individuals who are on the plane as part
of the, the crew would be able to
voice a concern,
and it wouldn't be that they'd be vetoed
automatically
by the person with the highest seniority.
These sort of systems that can exist again
in government and so forth can lead to

(11:19):
things like this where you know, win at
all costs, don't bring up issues, don't bring
up problems, you just have to accept. I'm
gonna I'm gonna play this now and we'll
kind of be able to get a kind
of a feel for kind of some of
the discussions going on out there.
Let me get this going. Here we go.
So, mister O'Leary, what if there was a
company called WeatherTech?

(11:41):
You know, and they,
they produce really nice mats for their car.
I have them in my f f one
fifty.
And,
and they woke up one day, and they
looked on Alibaba,
and they saw that their products were being
sold on Alibaba.
And they looked in they looked at their,
shipping, and they, you know, they never had

(12:01):
done any business with Alibaba.
And they they look just like the mats
that they produced in, in Illinois,
but and they even had their name on
it.
Right?
What could they do
to stop
this theft
of their of their product, and they got
they'll get they got nothing for it? What

(12:21):
would they what would what would be their
recourse right now?
There is nothing
they can do. You have just told the
story
of a million small businesses in America over
the last twenty years.
They innovate. They create. They're entrepreneurs.
They prove their product in the American's consumer

(12:42):
market. At around 5,000,000 in sales,
they're knocked off. By whom? China.
Very often, the same plants that ran the
molds under a relationship they had with the
company, a lot of companies went to China
Twenty Years ago, ten years ago, and put
their molds there. And during the day, the
company would run the WeatherTech mat, in this

(13:02):
example, here theoretically.
And then at night, they'd run the knockoff
mat.
And they would bring it into the market,
let me guess, 30% off retail of weather
of
of WeatherTech. And I've seen this happen
countless times. And in some cases where the
company is very small, they go out of
business. Nobody hears that tree falling in the
forest.

(13:22):
It happens thousands of times.
There's such an immense opportunity here to just
enforce existing laws. But, really, at the end
of the day, the reason that behemoth company
couldn't do anything about it, they have no
access to the Chinese courts.
They can't
they can't resolve
the complaint through litigation as we do here.
So my my recommendation is, look.

(13:45):
If if you're a Chinese company and you're
and you wanna use our courts to litigate
your complaint,
sorry.
Not until you open yours. We'd love to
work with you. But unless it's a reciprocal
play the whole idea of today's conversation
was just to get to a reciprocal playing
field, a even playing field.
American companies have always been very competitive anywhere

(14:07):
on earth when given a chance
on a transparent and competitive playing field. That's
not the case in China.
I'm I mean, we're all saying the same
thing here. It's it's gotta get fixed. And
finally finally finally, here we are
with tariffs being the excuse, but now
I think she has to come to the
table, and I hope it happens. And I'd

(14:28):
like to see tomorrow morning 400%
tariffs.
Yeah. So rumor has it that is that,
Trump has been,
like,
personally trying to message Xi
and reach out to the Chinese regime to
try and get direct talks between him and

(14:49):
Xi Jinping,
to get direct talks between him and Xi
Jinping
going. But, apparently, Xi has been completely
unwilling to correspond directly with Trump, which is
interesting because we did see them correspond directly
in the previous,
administration.
Yeah. That's, you know, that's that's definitely an

(15:10):
issue. I mean, ultimately,
the question is really
when we talk about trade, the reality is,
first of all, there has to be communication
and be, you know, what what is a
level playing field? You know, that, Breitbart,
you know,
feed that basically came from the hearing
ultimately

(15:32):
sums up pretty much a serious issue, right?
It's not this isn't like every other country.
We've had
countries that have come to the table wanting
to discuss, wanting to be able to have
sort of open negotiations as to how to
move forward with regards to tariffs, with regards
to trade. China's
not willing and interested maybe in playing

(15:54):
the game and having that conversation, and this
may be why.
Yeah. Yeah.
Why should they basically?
No. I agree. I mean, that's
ultimately one of the,
things is, like, if they feel they don't
need to, or at least if they want
to put on the persona that they don't

(16:15):
need to, that they're they have nothing to
discuss and they have no interest in doing
that.
That's
perhaps why
China is an outlier compared to these other,
these other countries. I mean, the other thing
there's,
you know, specifically with regards to IP theft.
Okay? Coming in and taking

(16:37):
really things that have been created here in
The United States,
copying them and
essentially
using them,
you know, all over the world, but basically
through,
you know, essentially manufacturing them in China. That's
a problem. I mean, ultimately,
we
we know that

(16:58):
this happens. It's not just,
isolated to one thing or another. This is
a serious matter that,
I mean, even farmers, I have a clip
that we talked about as well,
that talks about how even
seeds are being
basically stolen and remanufactured,
in in China. I think that'd be a

(17:18):
good next one to queue. For sure. For
sure. There's a surprising amount of tech, that
goes into
the seeds we use for,
for,
agriculture.
Monsanto obviously
is kind of a monopoly on the topic.
One of the reasons is because they've been
extremely innovative at creating
really useful seeds that could be drought resistant.

(17:41):
They could be pest resistant.
They can,
obviously,
grow, you know, larger fruit, more beneficial fruit,
etcetera, so that the quality of the of
the produce can can go up.
The discussion on GMO is a a completely
separate one, but it is hardcore tech. Like,
it's years of research and development. And, you

(18:02):
know, GMO kinda makes it easy. But before
GMO,
it was much harder to do this research.
Right? You had to plant, you know, 5,000
trees and then wait for them all to
grow ten years before you can start harvesting
the apples to try and compare and and
create the the next new,
you know,
corn dish or whatever the good apples are
called. Right? Crispy reds or whatever they are.

(18:24):
So it it very long term, very hardcore
research. And then for the Chinese, they just,
you know, come in and copy it.
Yeah. And, you know, again, that's a and
that's another massive discussion in and of itself,
right? Trying to,
debate the ins and outs
of, genetically modified crops here in The United
States. Bottom line is if we invent something,

(18:45):
someone shouldn't be taking it, copying it and
selling it as if it's something that they
created.
Here, this is,
this is via NTD news,
and it's an interesting, very short clip. Let
me just play it right now. Awesome.
They have no interest in protecting
our intellectual property. We had a situation on

(19:05):
our farm and other farms throughout the Midwest
where we're producing seeds. In our case for
Bayer, Chinese nationals that were coming out at
night digging up the pure parent lines of
the seed that we was producing on our
farm only to be taken to Chicago
here, put in a warehouse, and then shipped
back to China. They think that's perfectly fine.
Well, it's not fine. There's hundreds of millions
of dollars going to research and develop these

(19:27):
new products and then to produce and take
it to the marketplace, but yet the Chinese
captured that, the value of that, and stole
it from The United States.
Yeah. Yeah. And that's that's really what we've
been seeing.
I think this whole,
this whole trade tariff with China, I think
the whole kind of world economic order we've

(19:50):
been used to where China is the manufacturer
and the world is the consumer,
specifically America is the consumer,
that is, about to change. We've already started
seeing that kind of ever since COVID. We've
seen, like we said, you know, companies,
moving their manufacturing to Southeast Asia and to
Mexico.
But now we're going to see a whole
lot more in house, especially in The US

(20:11):
in house production.
So the tariffs are critical. Now it it
I think the problem with dictators is that
power gets to their heads, and we see
this every time with every single dictator. Right?
Putin convinced that he can conquer all of
Ukraine within three days.
You know, con convinced that the Ukrainians are
just dying to
to join Russia and to yell, you know,

(20:33):
hail Putin. Right? When in reality,
they were very much, you know, proud of
their own sovereignty.
So
dictators, the power gets their head. With Xi
Jinping, we've def definitely seen this coming as
he kind of
grasp more and
more, to power,
over the past twenty years more or less.
He's basically assassinated every single one of his,

(20:55):
competitors or or anybody
who can seemingly be one, and he's basically
killed anybody who doesn't report yes.
So he lives in, like, a loop. So
dictators end up getting delusional because they end
up killing everybody who gives them bad news,
and then all there are left is with
people who give them good news. So I
think Xi is convinced that China really is
a superpower.

(21:17):
It's funny because, like we said, they're dependent
on their export to The United States and
Europe.
The minute a war starts, they won't have
any export. They're also dependent on their import.
Previously, we mentioned oil from, you know, Iran
and
Qatar natural gas from Qatar and just from
the Middle East.
But it's it's not just that. We're seeing

(21:37):
from all over the world. Right? So, it's
not just oil, lots of raw materials. They're
extremely dependent on imports and on exports.
So the minute a war starts, they they're
left with nothing.
Yeah. No. Absolutely. You know? But but the
persona, the the the stance that they're taking
is that,
that's not the case.

(21:57):
Ultimately, whether we agree or disagree with them,
clearly, their way
of thinking or at least their way of
thinking towards the world is that, you know,
they've been perfectly fair and they're doing everything
correctly. They're also kind of laughing at the
notion that we're going to bring manufacturing back
to The United States. There's that clip that's
gone

(22:17):
somewhat viral that they posted basically making fun
of The US,
manufacturing.
That's I have that one. I have that
one as well. I can I can queue
that one up? This one is entertaining. So
if you guys are, listening only podcast,
advised checking out YouTube.
But, we'll kind of try and summarize what
you're seeing after the clip as well. So

(22:38):
for audio listeners only.
For any yes. Correct. So for any that
don't have audio, ultimately, we'll fill in on,
like, this next one. There's no audio, but
we will describe
what's
playing. And,
ultimately,
listen, humor is the best medicine.
Laughter is the best medicine. I think humor
is terrific, and I have no problems with

(23:00):
trying to make some fun of us. We'll
do the same back to them.
Ultimately,
the question is just how much do they
believe in their own humor? Do they really
believe that our manufacturing
is so incapable
and that the American workers just so not
able
to do what needs to be done.
That being said,

(23:20):
here, let me play, let me play
this.
And again, for those just listening to us,
it shows essentially a factory with a number
of workers sewing garments.
Everybody seems to be pretty much obese and
operating
sort of very slowly and not particularly very
skilled.

(23:41):
Do you wanna describe it a little better,
Josef? Yeah. It's, it's funny because it's
basically
like, I I guess when they wrote to
the AI, you know, making AI a fat
Americans working in factories,
it just copied Chinese factories. So it's very
visibly
Chinese factories. It's very visibly,
like like, they even have, like, the Chinese

(24:01):
little casket, you know, caps that the that
the factory workers wear.
But it is very clearly
Americans, you know, white, fat, obese, sometimes,
African Americans as well, and and spaced out,
basically. They're working, but they're not focused. So
the idea is, yes, you can try and
bring manufacturing back to The US, but Americans
are lazy and don't like hard work. And

(24:23):
like we've mentioned on the previous episode,
the solution to that is technology. We're seeing,
obviously, you know, automation in factories is now
close to 80%, and then the remaining 20%
can be done by humanoid robots very, very
soon,
as in, like,
early next year probably, depending on the factory,
depending on the on the need.

(24:43):
So the that issue won't be an issue.
And I think there are many hardworking Americans,
though they may be hard to find sometimes.
Well, you know, listen. So again, it's all
stereotypes. Just like we can have stereotypes of
other countries they'll have of us. I think
there's a certain level of of amusement with
what they did, but the question is do
they believe it? You know?
Of course, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be

(25:04):
an a normal day here in The United
States legacy media
if we didn't have what used to be
our,
evening,
comedy
basically
slanting on, supporting the same notions that China
is trying to
portray.
I have a clip from Jimmy Kimmel, which,

(25:24):
I find absolutely amusing, although ridiculous, but amusing
nevertheless.
You know, basically
agreeing with China and making fun of us
being able to bring back manufacturing here. And
like you said, you know, a lot of
what is done is via automation.
A lot of what's done will be with
AI. So

(25:46):
this idea that we have and that everyone
here is incapable and physically
incapable of doing manufacturing jobs is, you know,
ridiculous. We can joke about it, but I
think to,
to take it to the level that,
that they're, you know, late night, you know,
show, they're actually making fun of it, making
it seem as if it's a total joke
that we wanna bring back manufacturing here because

(26:07):
we just can't. And China's just gonna absolutely
be better than us is,
a little a little too far. Here, let
me play this. Tell me what you think.
I don't know if you've seen this clip.
Let me go ahead and play it for
you.
Trump said iPhones
can be made in The US.

(26:28):
Yeah. Trump Trump wants American made iPhones. They're
gonna be a little different, though. Watch this.
Apple is proud to offer its first ever
American made iPhone. It's the same iPhone you
love, but instead of Siri, we're introducing
Donnie.
You can ask him questions like,
hey, Donnie. What is the weather today? Climate
change is a hoax invented by China.

(26:50):
Donnie, where's the nearest gas station? Your car
wouldn't need gas if you drove a Tesla.
Donnie, play abracadabra by Lady Gaga. Abracadabra.
A bing bong bing bong bing bong bing
bong bong bong bong bong bong bong bong
bong bong. Donnie, what's on my shopping list?
Milk, bread, Canada, and Greenland.
And Donnie, remind me to pick up my

(27:11):
kids from school. There's no more education department.
Your kids are busy making iPhones.
The American iPhone. Coming soon for $6,000.
Oh my goodness. They're not messing with you.
Johnny.
Yeah. So actually pretty funny,
entertaining,
but

(27:32):
also, unsurprising. It seems like late night shows
can do nothing aside from shit all over
The US.
It seems like that's their primary task in
life is to kind of show the world
and show us how bad we are at
everything. So I think a little bit of
optimism, a little bit of hope, a little
bit of, yes, we can do it spirit,
can can definitely go a long way.

(27:54):
We are the ones who are currently building
the largest rocket on planet Earth that can
take humanity not just to the moon, but
to Mars and is completely reusable. Right? We
are currently
still the masters of manufacturing
EVs.
Here's a
a a statistic
I'm
doubt most of you guys have heard.

(28:14):
In the in China,
Tesla
is the number one best selling EV. The
Tesla model y now for at least a
few months in a row.
That means it's beating out all of the
Chinese competition, including BYD,
including Great Wall, including all of, all of
the other Chinese manufacturers, and there are thousands
of them,
who sell successfully in and around the world,

(28:36):
Mexico, Europe, etcetera.
In China, these companies are struggling and have
not been able to beat the Tesla model
y sales, and even Tesla model three is
up there. So it's it's very interesting.
This is their home turf, and they're basically
not able to win it there. So
maybe the fact that they're successful in other

(28:58):
places has to do with currency manipulation and
trade barriers and some other things as well.
You know, just a a note worth thinking.
Yeah. And I I think you're right. And
listen. This is nothing new. Right?
Here's a clip that I don't think you've
seen. It's an old clip from it has
president Obama being questioned on China trade.

(29:20):
This is, from quite a few years ago.
And look what he had to say. It's
a very quick clip. Let me know your
thoughts on this.
Number three
is that if we don't write the rules,
China will write the rules out in that
region. We will be shut out. American businesses,
American agriculture,
that will mean a loss of US jobs.

(29:40):
That's what Yeah. So Yeah. I mean, you
know, listen. It's it's not like this is
something new or this is something related to
a way that Trump is specifically looking at
it. Right? Yeah. I I saw a video
from Nancy Pelosi,
just like five or seven years ago or
something. Also talking about how we have to
raise tariffs on China, and we have to
start a trade war with them because otherwise,

(30:00):
they're gonna eat our lunch. So it it's
funny.
Trump is being criticized for having, you know,
this ultra right wing radical cabinet,
and he himself is worse than Hitler, etcetera,
etcetera, etcetera.
But then you look at it, and Trump
himself is a former Democrat.
Many high ranking members of,

(30:21):
his current administration
are,
previous, you know, Democrats.
And a lot of the policies
he's been enacting are hardcore Democrat policies. Right?
There are many videos of Obama and of
Clinton talking about how,
basically, we desperately need Doge. Otherwise, The US
is gonna go bankrupt. Otherwise, we won't be
able to cover Social Security and other,

(30:42):
you know, Medicare and Medicaid, etcetera. So
finally, The US is getting up and doing
all of these things that the Democrats have
been promising that they that they do for
decades but never did,
and the Democrats are losing their shit. And
it seems like the reason for that
is because over the past five years,
many, many in the Democratic elite
have basically gotten in on the grift. And

(31:04):
now they have what to lose, and they
don't wanna be exposed, which is why they're
funding Doge, so strongly.
Do we have more, clips on China, or
should we move on to Doge?
I think I think another,
you know, thing that we touched on on
previous episode was, you know, all the tariffs.
Right? So there's a reason why these tariffs
are important.
And
they they're they're basically a means of trying

(31:26):
to level the playing field. Okay. I think
that's really where we're at because we have
tariffs imposed by other countries, including China, and
it makes their markets for the most part
inaccessible to many of our,
manufacturers.
So
here's,
here's Kevin O'Leary, mister wonderful. Again, one more
time, very smart guy,
very successful,

(31:47):
understatement, very successful businessman here in The United
States.
And, let let this is his take
on which has been widely reported
on,
you know, the 25%
tariffs currently being imposed on China and what
his thoughts are on this. Let me know
what you think. Here we go.

(32:07):
If there is
unemployment,
poverty
in The United States, that that is a
a homegrown
American problem, actually, that various different governments have
let down neglected communities.
Well, we're talking about China specifically right now.
China and The United States are in an
economic war, not a military war. They're vying

(32:27):
for supremacy of the largest economy.
Right now,
when we measure it today,
United States is about 26.1%
of the world's GDP and almost
40% of all consumption.
That's a very powerful hand to have when
a lot of the products that China makes,
and I might add, employ Chinese workers. Think

(32:48):
about the dilemma she has this morning.
Right now, as we speak,
there's all kinds of factories where they have
nowhere to sell their products because the tariffs
at 125%
are so punitive.
What are the where where are those workers
going? Are they going to go into the
streets when they're no longer employed? When you're
the supreme leader, the last thing you can
have happen

(33:09):
has the population unemployed
and unfed.
That's what Xi is really
that's the risk he has because it's Would
he
won't Xi just find markets elsewhere in Europe,
in Africa, in Asia?
And as you say, you know, America is
the great consumer. America is buying Chinese products.
So American consumers are gonna be hurt, aren't

(33:30):
they, buying these tariffs?
Who blinks first is the narrative where you
and I are having right now because I
think Xi doesn't have to get elected. He
has to just make sure people are employed.
And when those factories shut down
and it could happen pretty quickly within ninety
days because if you're if you're thinking, oh,
I can make all these products that sell
them to Africa, there's no GDP large enough

(33:50):
to absorb them. The while The United States
consumes the most of everything is the time
to have this discussion. You may not like
the sausage being made and watching it or
the volatility in the markets, but I'm at
the point now after twenty years of dealing
with China, and there's millions of investors that
feel the same way I do. Let's get
this over with. Let's get to the table
and solve this problem because it's it's unsustainable

(34:14):
long term.
Yeah. So this is a great clip. First
of all, I haven't I haven't watched this
yet, but first of all,
watching Kevin O'Leary on the phone, it almost
looks like this is an AI video. But
with his beautiful fancy suit and white shirt
and very nice tie, and then he's wearing
pajama pants on the bottom. So he's very,

(34:34):
used to You know, he does that all
the time. Right? He's on
CNN or Fox News, Fox Business.
He's from the waist up in a suit.
Yeah. And very often, he'll have a second
camera off in a a an iPhone or
something filming him too. And he'll keep he
post those as well on his own chat.
Yeah. So I haven't watched that. I I
think
the top of topic of conversation here is

(34:56):
very interesting.
I mean, the the interviewer's
dumb question,
I literally couldn't hold myself back from laughing
of, like, oh, well, China will just sell
the products elsewhere. It's like, sure. They can
do that at one fifth the price.
Maybe they can sell to Europe at 4
fifths the price. They can sell to, you
know, other developed countries at 3 fifths the
price,

(35:16):
then, like, second world countries at two fifths
the price, and then they'll sell sell it
to,
you know, Africa at one fifths the price.
So one fifth the price, which means that
no profit almost.
So, yeah, that the whole concept
of, oh, sure, they'll you know, everybody else
can just buy instead of The US. That's
false. Yes.
There The US may be a little constrained

(35:37):
on cheap,
you know, Chinese plastic shit,
over the coming few years until manufacturing,
you know, ramps up.
But I I think we are going to
see a pivot. I think, really, Xi doesn't
have
any firm ground to stand on. And if
he thinks he does, then he's he's really
being delusional.
Like Kevin O'Leary said, the question is who

(35:58):
blinks first.
Right?
You want this is I completely agree. And,
of course, China is not giving that
sort of they're they're not giving up. Right?
They're not rolling over and having their belly
petted,
and being submissive. You know, if a very,
a very
articulate
response that actually shows

(36:20):
what China's position is,
is one of defiance and believing that it
doesn't really matter what The United States does
and all the things that, you know, Kevin
O'Leary is saying really aren't that important.
I have a clip that, again, I wanna
share with you. Not sure if you've seen
it, and it articulates the
the,
public relations
answer

(36:41):
that China's also giving.
Let me see if I can Yeah. So
we saw, you know, 75 countries now line
up, to to sign
some form of trade agreements with The US,
hopefully free trade agreements, but actually free trade
agreements. Right?
So the almost projection
that many on the left have been trying
to push

(37:01):
is like, you know, we live in a
free trade world, and now Trump is, you
know, throwing that out the window. And he's
replacing all that with tariffs,
which is very protectionism,
and it's gonna, you know, make US companies
less competitive because now they don't have, you
know, competition to fight against, etcetera.
I think that entire narrative is is very,

(37:21):
very almost kind of false because
sorry. I lost my train of thought. Well,
no. It is.
You know? But that's that's the that's the
narrative. Right? So
here, the clip I actually found that it's
from Victor Gao. He's the VP,
for the Center for China and Globalization.
And he's giving the the other side of

(37:44):
the, you know, of the argument that basically
the the same as would be coming from
China directly.
Let me play that and tell me what
what you think with regards to Just to
finish the,
point I was trying to make. Sure.
Yes. Theoretically, we were in a free trade
agreement world,
but there wasn't free trade. Right? Maybe The
US signed free trade agreements with many countries,

(38:06):
but then they would slowly kind of add
on tariffs and The US wouldn't do anything
in in return. But it doesn't have to
be tariffs.
Right? Many times,
it's regulation. So, I think
one of somebody from the the administration recently
gave the example. They said,
you know, when we signed the free share
trade agreement with South Korea,
we basically agreed, okay. We'll buy South Korean

(38:27):
cars. They're great cars. And in turn, you
guys will
buy American produce, specifically chicken
and
or specifically potatoes, I think, was was the
discussion there. And then what ended up happening
is we realized that South Korea was not
buying any of our potatoes.
And
because they made up some stupid law that,
you can't they can't import external potatoes unless

(38:49):
they know the exact plot of land on
which it grew. So because we're not tracking
our potatoes with the GPS accuracy
from the moment the seed went into the
ground
and until, you know, it's ready for harvest
and then we're when until it gets to
South Korea, therefore, we can't sell. So, yes,
maybe there are zero trade agreements between us
and South Koreans. Right? But in reality, we're

(39:09):
buying a shit ton of South Korean cars
and many other, you know, electronics and other
goods. And in turn, they were buying basically
nothing of ours even if it was, you
know, zero tariffs.
Yep. My my General Motors Buick, as I
mentioned mentioned in other episodes, is actually made
in South Korea. So, you know, that's exactly
what it is.
These these free trade or these fair trade

(39:30):
agreements aren't always they don't always end up
that way if the other players aren't being
totally fair. Here's Victor Gao, and let's see
what
what his,
you know, counterargument
is. China is fully prepared to fight to
the very end because the world is big
enough
that The United States is not the totality
of the market in the world.

(39:51):
So if The United States wants to go
in that direction of completely shutting itself out
on the China market, be my guest. Yeah.
And China will lose The US market, which
as I've said, is 15%.
We can't We don't
we don't care. China has been here for
five thousand years. Most of the time, there
was no United States, and we survived.

(40:12):
And if The United States wants to bully
China,
we will deal with the situation without The
United States, and we expect to survive for
another five thousand years. When you hear Donald
Trump say China wants a deal, it just
doesn't know how to go about it. They're
proud people. JD Vance took talks about Chinese
peasants.
What do you make of their conduct in

(40:33):
this respect? If JD Vance thinks that he's
dealing with the peasants in China, and I'm
proud to be a descendant of the peasants.
Most of us are descendants of the peasants
anyway.
That's our tradition. We are farmers before, but
now we are one of the leading
industrialized
economies
in the world.
So I'm sorry. JD Vance doesn't know what

(40:55):
he's talking about. And, therefore, I don't think
there will be China US dialogue unless The
United States changes its attitude towards China. Deal
with China as it is. Show respect to
China.
Show respect to the Chinese people,
and
don't
try to impose your prejudice
and bias the view about China or about

(41:17):
the rest of the world.
What are your thoughts?
Yeah. So first of all, he said,
you know, China, we're a 5,000 year old
civilization,
and and we're gonna be here for another
five thousand years. I specifically took note with
that because
our concept of China has not been around
for five thousand years. It's barely been around
for fifty years.
I think that that's very true. I think

(41:38):
that that's very true
that,
you know, the China of old isn't the
China that is of of today of contemporary,
discussion.
So that is that's that's an absolute truth.
And, you know Yeah.
I think the 5,000 year old China, it's
like it wasn't one China. It was about
5,000 different Chinas. It was different tribes, different

(42:00):
regions, different kingdoms.
And, yes, there were some great Chinese empires
even they never had anything even closely resembling
the current borders of China. So China, the
way we think of it today, has not
been around for five thousand years. It's barely
been around for, you know, a hundred or
fifty years. It's a little over over 50.
Right? But,
not very long.
And

(42:20):
and then the concept that because of that,
we're gonna be here for another five thousand
years,
that's not a very valid argument. Yes. The
people there will probably be people the truth
is I don't even know if there will
be human beings in five thousand years. But
say the world stays the way it is,
then maybe that argument kinda makes sense, but
that won't be the CCP. Right? Definitely not
the CCP. That's for sure.

(42:42):
And then
another one of his arguments,
was basically The US the China doesn't need
The US, and we could just replace them.
Yeah. Like like we mentioned earlier, that's just
that's just propaganda.
There's no basis to any of that.
Yeah. No. I
that's the position I have. Again, everyone's entitled

(43:02):
to their own opinion.
I I think, you know, this in regards
to the current situation with The US imposed
tariffs,
which I really do believe are a
tool that are being used to level the
playing field and get people to, you know,
all these countries to come to the to
the bargaining table, so to speak.
What I would say is,

(43:22):
you know,
perhaps again, let's you'd mentioned in the past
the value of humor in civilization and, you
know, understanding
maybe
topics through the lens of humor.
The Babylon Bee, which is a,
yes, a a right
leaning site. Terrible kind of yeah. New site.

(43:43):
It's all satire. But I think maybe they'll
provide some relief in understanding where we are
with the tariffs. I have a clip maybe
I'd like to you know, I'd like to
get your your thoughts on this next clip
from the Babylon Bee that explains
the whole tariff situation in a nutshell,
probably easier than,
we can. Let me let me just play
that clip real quick. China, a 34%

(44:04):
tariff. That means Chinese finger traps or finger
traps as they're called in China, will now
cost $18
each. Japan, sushi will now cost a hundred
dollars a roll. Anime, which can be pirated
for free,
will still be pirated for free. So no
change there. Thailand,
well, Thailand's a made up country.
But India,

(44:26):
Slurpees are going up, up, up to $2.99.
Sell, sell, sell. Now South Korea,
which is in this general region over here,
a 25%
tariff was imposed by Trump, and it has
unfortunately offended the nation so much that America
has lost the right to host the next
Squid Games. So, ultimately, you know, listen.

(44:50):
It's better it's better to always take a
step back and get some humor out of
the situation.
I think without that, it's,
it's
it's kind of a difficult journey, right? We
can't take things
without the lens of humor and satire and
sarcasm,
perhaps
helping us
make our way through.

(45:12):
Yeah. So for anybody who's familiar with Babylon
Bee but hasn't heard about Not the Bee,
go to x and follow Not the Bee
immediately.
They basically
post Babylon Bee style posts,
but of it's not the bee. It's not
satire.
It's not a joke. It's a % real
news, And it'll blow your mind if, kind

(45:34):
of when when you watch the not to
be videos or or sorry, less videos, but
you you read their post in their headlines.
And it's just, like, mind boggling
how
unrealistic
and upside down of a world sometimes we
live in. Specifically, we've been seeing this with
the whole woke thing and just many other
things. So in an upside down world, you
you can get satire

(45:54):
headlines that are, unfortunately, not satire at all.
Yeah. No.
I think yeah. So that's the thing. The
Babylon Bee's satire,
they you know, again,
just take it with a grain of salt
and have a laugh, and then not the
bee has, you know, the, the,
actual news as, as it should be reported

(46:14):
without the satire and humor,
take your pick either or.
Sometimes actually listening to the, you know, you,
you have a hard time differentiating. In fact,
posts often on, on Not to Be will
question, is this satire or is this really
happening?
You know, because sometimes the real news is
actually,
is seeming like satire.
And indeed, sometimes the real news actually has,

(46:38):
the most amount of humor if you have
a sense of humor. Right. So here's a
clip from the Jesse Waters prime time Fox
show. Let me know what your thoughts are.
These countries are calling us up,
kissing my ass. They are
they are dying to make a deal. Please
please, sir, make a deal. I'll do anything.
I'll do anything, sir. Trump created maximum leverage

(46:58):
for himself, and now his team's sitting pretty,
taking meetings and doing deals that put America
First.
And if we don't like how the negotiation's
going, our partners have seen the kind of
pain we can cause, and they're motivated to
do what we want, or else we'll make
them feel the same pain.
Everyone said, you don't wanna be last to
come to the table, and China was last.

(47:21):
Yeah. And I think that this is, this
is a great way to kind of end
the China discussion we've been having
is
at the end of the day, you know,
Trump kind of ring the alarm at the
firehouse, and everybody came running to the truck,
and everybody got on board. And there's just
one one nation missing out. We saw 75
nations basically lining up at least 75

(47:43):
to get some type of good good trade
deal,
and China's last like we said, dictators get
delusional.
If it
was Israel trying to make these
tariff demands that The US is,
then BB would be completely delusional. Right? If
this was
Latvia trying to make these demands, then Latvia
would be delusional,

(48:03):
even France,
even Germany.
But when it comes to The United States,
basically, there's nothing that can hold us back
because we are the the client at the
end of the day. China is dependent on
their one one really important client and then
their one backup client, which is Europe. And
then everything else is just at the very
kind of minimal effect level. So they are

(48:25):
dependent on us more than we are dependent
on them. We can get our our cheap
tchotchkes elsewhere. These you know, a lot of
them were manufactured in Mexico anyways.
A lot more will be.
Mexico is getting in line,
for for a good trade deal. Everybody is
aside from
from China, so China will be left behind.
And I think Xi is kinda panicking

(48:47):
because he's acting like he's a superpower. He's
delusional that he is a superpower.
In reality, he lives on top of a
cow a house of cards that hasn't come
collapsing completely down yet, but it is in
the early phases of that happening.
Yeah. And there's a lot of things changing,
you know, again, around the world
that, you know, China has done a good

(49:07):
job of trying to control a lot of
navigational waterways
and trying to prevent,
you know, free movement of,
you know, vessels.
And, you know, in the same sort of
conversation, there's been a lot of talk of
the Panama Canal. We had some interesting news
recently regarding
The United States in brokering,
an arrangement or a deal, you know, with

(49:28):
the Panamanian government
regarding the canal, which was built by The
United States
in,
giving
essentially
preferential passage
to our military ships. Let me play you
this clip. I want to know your thoughts
because it does kind of tie in to
the changes that are happening around the world.
You know, it's it's both through the Panama

(49:49):
Canal and ultimately it's going to be navigating
waters in and around
Asia
where China is trying to control all of
those waterways as well. Just a note on
that. You know, you assume that a superpower
has a sphere of influence. Even a regional
power has a sphere of influence. Right?
China has managed to piss off and get
into a fight with every single one of

(50:10):
its neighbors. It doesn't get along with anybody.
Russia and China, everybody talks about them, you
know, becoming close friends, but they're do not
like each other very much. We saw this
back during the sign of Soviet split, like,
fifty years ago.
But even more recently, basically, Putin realizes

(50:30):
that if
they are if there's some type of union,
you know, East West, then he's basically becoming
Xi Jinping's bitch. And Putin doesn't like being
anybody's bitch. Right? So,
that's why Russia is very hesitant of, getting
close to China. Plus, China has territorial claims
on large parts of, you know,
Asian Russia. Right? Kind of all the way

(50:51):
far east.
So China is at war with their northern
neighbors. They are at war with all of
Southeast Asia because of, you know, the nine
dash line and the South China Sea where
they claim that it's basically all of theirs
based on nothing.
So
they're in fight with every single one of
their neighbors with one exception, and that's Pakistan,
and maybe Iran. Every everybody else, they don't

(51:14):
get along with. So how can you be
a superpower
if you're you don't even have a regional,
you know, sphere of influence. You don't even
have regional allies. You know? The US has
Mexico and Canada both are very close allies.
China's got none of that. They're surrounded by
enemies, all of which hate them because they've
been aggressive to everybody.
And, yeah, they've tried, you know, through the,

(51:36):
the,
what's it called? The belt and,
the belt and road initiative. Belt initiative. Yeah.
Road and belt The road and belt initiative.
Right? We've saw them, you know, investing huge
amounts of money throughout all over the world,
including Panama.
That is what we'll be discussing here about
kind of taking over Panama Canal. And now
we're seeing under Trump and US dominance,

(51:57):
they're starting to lose those cards too. So
like we said, a collapsing house of cards.
Yeah. The Panama Canal was effectively under Chinese
control
in large part, and this is now shifting
back, which, again, this is why this ties
into
the China discussion because this is this is
a huge blow to China.
And let me just play the clip. We
can kinda talk about it a little more.
Here we go.

(52:18):
Defense secretary Pete Hegseth announcing a new partnership
for US warships to travel
first and free through the Panama Canal. He
spoke about it today during a cabinet meeting
with president Trump.
And signed a couple of historic deals.
One which is with the Panama Canal Authority,
a framework for US vessels
first and free through the Panama Canal. Right.

(52:40):
And then also a memorandum of understanding
with their,
security minister.
So why is this important? It's a huge
move in deterring China's influence, a growing threat.
This administration has been warning about and for
good reason. Let's take a closer look.
The US spent $350,000,000
engineering the canal, which opened in 02/2014.

(53:02):
Adjusted for inflation, that amounts to roughly 12
to $14,000,000,000
in 2025.
It is now the largest economic contributor for
Panama, and it accounts for 6% of all
global trade.
In 2024 alone, the canal raked in $5,000,000,000.
Now here's the problem.
Chinese companies

(53:23):
control
two of the five ports. You're looking at
them now. They sit on each side of
the Panama Canal,
1 on the Pacific side, the other on
the Atlantic.
Now to understand how this happened, let's go
back to 1977.
That's when president Jimmy Carter signed the Panama
Canal Treaty. It was essentially an American forfeiture
of the canal
in an effort to guarantee so called neutrality.

(53:45):
Then in 02/2017,
Panama established diplomatic relations with China after severing
ties with Taiwan.
Now Chinese influence is apparent all around the
port.
Yeah. So I think there was a mistake
there. He said the construction of the Panama
Canal was completed in 2014.
Maybe 1914
is the right year of the cons the

(54:07):
complete completion of the construction of the Panama
Canal.
I know work, and it started in the
kind of in the late,
kind of nineteenth century, so late eighteen hundreds.
What he may be accurate what he may
be referring to is a refurbishment or
a widening of the Panama Canal to allow
for much larger ships, and I think that
that likely completed in 2014.

(54:27):
Yeah. So China didn't really control
the canal, which is why, you know, CNN
will say Trump is a liar. Trump is
exaggerating.
And it's like, yes. They didn't technically control
the canal. But if they control ports at
both ends and they can have, you know,
cameras and spies and military ships and, you
know, electronic warfare vessels and everything else there.

(54:50):
And even, you know, controlling the ports on
the entrance and exits which are very crucial
for many many ships to, you know, sometimes
they'll offload, cargo or, you know, unload on
unload cargo. Many times they have to refuel
there. If that is controlled by China, then
China definitely has a huge amount of influence
on like was it like he just mentioned,

(55:11):
I think 40% of all US containers go
through there. Right? So just a huge influence
on The US economy. So
those actions at least at least at least
putting the US Navy first,
that makes sense. We are the the, you
know, the dominant world superpower. So
now we're acting a little bit that way
and it it kinda makes sense even if
it's not nice in the play garden.

(55:33):
I think under
the past few democratic regimes,
you know, the world stage was imagined to
be a plague,
you know, a a kindergarten and everybody has
to play nice.
In reality,
the world is a brutal jungle, and everything
is out there to kill you. And if
you're not gonna kill it first, they're gonna
get you. Right? So,

(55:54):
yeah, our objection is to be a beautiful
garden in the, you know, in the crazy
wilderness.
Yeah. And and I I agree with all
that. And just, yeah, to make the point,
yes, I I think you're right. It was
1914.
I think 2014 was referring to was the
expansion or the maintenance operations that were Mhmm.
Being done to widen the canal.

(56:15):
And, you know, the the concern has been
that China's kind of inched its way in
bit by bit and taken
a tremendous amount of liberties with their presence
and
and outright control of the Panama Canal, which
now is
disappearing
because of
the the current administration's,
very strong

(56:35):
demands that that be done given the relationship
of The United States and having,
built a canal and so forth and handing
it over to Panama.
The the anticipation was never that a foreign
country would go and somehow,
put a stronghold there. Totally agree. Yeah. And
it's not just, it's not just Panama.
Like we said, they have ports in, obviously,

(56:56):
Djibouti.
They have a port in,
Pakistan. They they're building ports all over the
world. But not just that, they've become very
efficient at managing ports. So
they've
started to bid on many tenders
for poor management. And the Port Of Haifa,
which is the most important port in in
Israel, is now managed by a Chinese corporation,

(57:16):
which is scary because
the Israeli navy is,
kind of based right next right next door
as well. Right? I think even the Port
Of Ashdod may be controlled by by China
now. China purchased,
Israel's largest dairy company, which is was one
of the largest companies in Israel and, one
of the innovators and pioneers in the whole
kind of dairy world.

(57:38):
Dairy in China wasn't a very common,
you know, source of food for very long,
but it is something Chinese people are very
excited about. So, basically, learning from the Israelis
how to make the best dairy in the
world is something they've now done by purchasing,
you know, one of these flagship Israeli companies.
So now they control the largest Israeli dairy.
They control a whole bunch of other companies.

(57:58):
They they purchased in the West. They control
ports all over the West.
They're very good at managing ports. Right? So
it is and they can put in a
very low tender a very, very affordable bid.
Right? So it's
basically, what we've seen is China send their
tentacles all over the world, all over their
Western world and start taking control, start purchasing
things

(58:18):
kind of like we're starting to see with
Qatar kind of. They're doing it more on
the soft soft power side of, you know,
buying sports teams as to the hard power.
But both of both of those countries are
really trying to influence the West the West
very strongly.
You know, and as United States has let
more and more manufacturing, more and more control
over many of these so called American products

(58:40):
wind up in China.
There's been
a shift, you know, admittedly
in what we manufacture here and really what
the goals are of US companies.
There's a clip from the Sean Ryan show
that talks about,
you know, US innovation
and kind of some very well known, you
know, household names and some things about these

(59:01):
companies we may not be aware of. A
lot of it had to do with changes
because of the work they were doing,
with or for the US government.
And a lot of this has gone to
the wayside. I just think it's important because
you bring up on you know, you brought
up on prior episodes and you are,
mentioning again innovation. I think that's so important.

(59:22):
I think if we're not careful and we
lose innovation,
we lose our foothold, we lose our strength.
Let me let me know your thoughts on
this next clip.
Really kind of perhaps
shedding some light on how things have changed
so much over the years and what kind
of US companies are are up to. Chrysler
used to build cars and missiles. Ford built

(59:44):
satellites until 1990. General Mills, the serial company,
built torpedoes and inertial guidance systems and their
mechanics division.
Everything they learned about building machinery to process
serial, they were able to leverage in the
service of national security to make our war
fighters more lethal. And what happened was that
over time, the government became such a difficult
buyer to work with. All sorts of esoteric

(01:00:04):
rules that only matter for the government. All
sorts of auditing. All sorts of bureaucracy. That
people tried to figure out how to exit
that business. That started in the 70s. Boardroom
started talking about it. It accelerated in the
80s. And then when the last supper happened
in 1993, there was this dinner in the
Pentagon. We used to have 51 major defense
primes. The 15 largest together, they had a
dinner and they said, We need a piece
dividend. We've won the Cold War. We're gonna

(01:00:25):
slash defense spending. So, for every dollar we
used to spend, we're gonna spend 33¢ and
it's gonna happen all at once. You guys
are not all gonna survive. You have our
permission to consolidate, to merge, to try to
find commercial lines of business. Do what you
need to do. And we let that happen
until 1999
when we blocked the merger of Lockheed and
Northrop. We said, okay, this is too much.
So we went from 51 down to five.
The popular narrative is this is when we

(01:00:46):
lost competition in the industrial base. That definitely
happened, but I don't think it's the dominant
problem. The dominant problem is you lost a
consolidation bred conformity.
Okay. So yeah. I mean, I agree that
lack of competition leads to
lack of innovation.
And that,
you know, that's that's definitely a problem. I

(01:01:07):
think we've gone down that road in our
country that,
you know, it's been just too easy to
outsource a lot of what manufacturing we had
here
and that even what we were designing here
perhaps wasn't as innovative as as it needed
to be.
And I think we were at a crossroads
at this point. What are your thoughts?

(01:01:28):
I I think that's a very interesting subject.
Aside from obviously, most people know that during
World War two,
you know, most of the car manufacturers
were,
kind of used to manufacture,
you know, planes, the p 51, and manufactured
tanks, and and other kind of US machinery.
Basically, they went on a com complete, you

(01:01:49):
know, war footing, and all manufacturing basically moved
to to war manufacturing.
I wasn't aware that it continued on for
so long past the end of the war.
I
oddly didn't know that General Mills, the serial
manufacturer, made missiles. That's just a weird,
piece of info to to happen to know.
I think

(01:02:10):
technology
is inherently
relevant for the military. Right?
So it is just
if we are at the forefront of technology,
specifically physical technology as opposed to just software
only,
it can very easily be converted into,
kind of military tech.
The argument against, you know, why nowadays we

(01:02:31):
can't use, you know, Ford to manufacture,
you know, tanks or or fighter jets
is,
a, Ford doesn't manufacture much much in The
US anymore, and then, b,
the military technology
has become so much more technology than military.
Right? So it used to be military
with, you know, a few adaptations
to technology,

(01:02:51):
And now it is basically technology with few
adaptations to military.
So
because military technology is so complex
and so sophisticated
and there are so many unique parts and
and specific, you know, special technologies and stuff
like that, it's a little less possible to
transition companies.
But the fact

(01:03:11):
that everyday US household names were manufacturing
military goods will come surprising to a generation
that woke up
to giving,
you know, Apple giving the CIA access to
a terrorist phone
for a onetime basis just to unlock the
phone so that they can figure out who
this terrorist was is like crazy because how

(01:03:33):
can Apple work with the evil US government?
And, you you know, we're sitting we're seeing,
like, all of these
protests within Google, Alphabet,
you know, against Alphabet, you know, selling servers
to The US and other NATO militaries and
stuff like that as well. So to a
a generation that was very kind of
anti military,
and

(01:03:55):
just just anti
western values,
it has been it's it's almost surprising to
see how many companies used to very closely
work with the military, and it could be
very useful. Right? We know a lot of
civilian tech came out of DARPA, including the
Internet and GPS and self driving cars and
many other things.
And then

(01:04:15):
kind of vice versa,
nowadays, what we're starting to see with companies,
like SpaceX,
which really isn't a military manufacturer. Right? And,
like,
I'm trying to remember the name of the
company. It's by

(01:04:36):
the social media. The guy who sold this
company, the the who invented Oculus and sold
the company to,
to Facebook,
He started a company, and,
Palantir is a very relevant one as well.
They kind of made they they make very,
very, very advanced AI for for the military
and kind of the West. So it's it's

(01:04:58):
important that there now are companies
that are very kind of, you know, proud
in supporting
Western values and the Western
militaries.
Yeah. No. Very true. And I think that,
ultimately,
it's important to understand the interlinking between
Andrel. Sorry. The name of the company I
was referring to is Andrel. And if anybody

(01:05:19):
isn't familiar with them,
they are on the very, very forefront of
military technology. In general, it's very funny when
people, talk about the military industrial complex. They're
not very rich. They're not very profitable. They're
not very successful.
Like we said, when during that last supper,
when they were condensed from 55 innovative companies
down to five, they basically just became, you

(01:05:39):
know,
bureaucracies, government bureaucracies, extensions of the government bureaucracy.
So they lost all kind of sense of
innovation,
and that's what we're starting to see with
companies like On Drill and Palantir
and SpaceX really kind of where which are
startups, and they had to fight for the
right to be able to compete
in kind of in in military,

(01:06:02):
you know, offers and stuff like that. Finally,
we're starting to see some real innovation come
to military technology. But, obviously, it is very
bifurcated from civilian technology because
those those have kind of diverged over the
years. So being able to kind of put
our military
our our industry on a military path if
when
World War three breaks out is

(01:06:22):
much more questionable and and hard. And one
of the advantages of Andreel is that they
are focusing on being affordable
and being able to ramp up manufacturing at
a very high speed, unlike legacy men you
know, weapon manufacturers like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
Yeah. And I think what I was saying
earlier is, you know, the interlinking between our
government and private enterprise,

(01:06:44):
you know, although
there's good and bad that comes with it,
there's an understanding
that
private corporations will be, you know, The United
States isn't in the manufacturing business itself.
There are companies that manufacture weapons and manufacture
other things that provide infrastructure
for our government. That's why it's incredibly important
that there'd be a close eye on all

(01:07:06):
this,
that the monies that are being spent, taxpayer
money, that it's going to the most effective,
most innovative companies,
that what's being done with those monies is
producing the best results,
and that there's a tremendous level of efficiency.
Now we we would all agree probably that
most governments
are not,
you know, viewed as being the most efficient

(01:07:27):
enterprises.
Yeah. And I think that's
that's an important consideration in all this. With
all the technology and everything that exists, we
have to make sure that we hold the
government accountable to make sure that if,
you know, work is being offloaded to to
various projects,
in the private sector, that those companies aren't
just there to reap

(01:07:47):
the the financial benefits and make huge amounts
of money. That there has to be a
net actual value
to to the base, to the people, to
the constituents of our country that these are
the right companies and best companies and that
our government is as efficient as it can
be. Does that make sense?
Yeah. Yeah. And if we're discussing efficiency,

(01:08:09):
like you said, government is always the list
least efficient of any contender on any bid.
They're always, like, far less efficient than even
the very worst, the very most inefficient of
of manufacturing companies
or companies in general. So they're just bad
at whatever they do.
So that's why a small government just kind
of seems to make sense because if you

(01:08:31):
wanna get things done, you just want the
least amount of people in the way. And
the more government bureaucrats you have, the more
people there are along the way to getting
things done.
And, yeah, discussing government efficiency finally finally,
after
decades many, many decades of zero action on
the efficiency front and just, you know, the
solution to every problem was more spending,

(01:08:53):
suddenly we have Doge which has been cutting
spending
and cutting waste, and that is very, very
critical. And that that helps improve efficiency. In
general, just enabling, you know, modern payment systems,
modern
infrastructure.
The fact that to get, you know, for
government employees to retire, it doesn't have to
go down a physical mine.
Right? And, you know, be limited by the

(01:09:14):
speed of the mine shaft. Right? And so
many other things is is very crucial.
But aside from just cutting efficiency and waste,
what they've been been discovering is
also fraud.
A lot of fraud like we've like we
discussed before.
We already discussed how many, you know, wrongfully
listed people there were on the social,

(01:09:36):
Social Security network.
Now what we discovered is that they were
giving Social Security cards to basically every illegal
who came to The US
and, you know, claimed to be a
immigrant.
Not an immigrant, a refugee. Right? So anybody
who came claimed to be a refugee basically
just got a Social Security number, which means

(01:09:56):
they can work legally in The US, which
in the past was a very hard thing
to to receive.
And more importantly is they can use that
to vote. And what Doge has discovered is
many have actually done that. And this doesn't
seem like it was a mistake.
This seems like it may have been deliberate.
So let's let's go ahead and and watch
that video. Yeah. There's a clip that do

(01:10:17):
we have that we can let's let's take
a look at this right now. Reveal what's
really going on.
Doge exposed our immigration asylum disaster. That was
the tip of the iceberg. Now here's the
story.
DOSH has found that immigration
gave a work authorization
document to illegals
just five months after they filed for asylum.

(01:10:38):
That document allowed them to work while they
waited to hear whether their asylum request had
been accepted or denied. So they could work
as an illegal
knowing it would take years before their case
was heard.
The immigration department
mailed them a social security number. No interview.
No proof of identity. Just put it in
the mail. Here's your number.

(01:10:59):
In 2021,
Doe says 270,000
new aliens were issued Social Security numbers, 590,000
in 2022,
'9 hundred and '60 '4 thousand in 2023,
and 2,100,000
in '24 right before Biden left office.
Doge also discovered that 1,300,000
aliens are now receiving Medicaid.

(01:11:21):
Millions received driver's licenses. Some registered to vote
and Doge says some actually did vote. Try
and square that against Democrat claims that Musk
is destroying Social Security and cutting Medicaid. He's
not destroying.
He's weeding out people who don't qualify.
Who is really guilty of misinformation in this
case? It is not Elon Musk.

(01:11:44):
That that is a great ending. That is
a great ending. So anybody can claim to
be an asylum seeker, and then The US
justice system so backed up, it literally takes
seven years before you end up getting a
court date. And then, oops, I forgot to
show up at my court date. Oops, I
never got the the mail to show up.
Right? And as long as these people receive
a Social Security, they can get a driver's
light number. They can get a driver's license

(01:12:05):
and and stuff like that. It's funny. When
we moved to The US, I worked for
a year and a half to get my
wife an immigrant's visa, which upon arrival in
The US is converted into green card. And
I'm pretty sure it took her longer than
five months to get her her actual Social
Security number. But somehow, these illegal migrants are
getting it wicked fast.
And if you look at the the time
frame, right, kind of the the beginning of

(01:12:27):
the Biden administration, it was, you know, huge
numbers. And then towards the end, it just
ramped up to just ridiculous numbers.
And what's interesting is they were literally shipping
these people or busing these people or sometimes
actually flying these people
into swing states. To turn these swing states
into hardcore blue states,
California used to be a swing state until

(01:12:47):
under,
Reagan, they decided to give amnesty to all
of the illegal aliens in California. And ever
since then, it became a hardcore
blue state. And now
there's, you know, very little red in California
to speak of. No matter how
bad California fails, they're just so entrenched. Right?
So Biden's plan was to try and do

(01:13:10):
this to every other swing state. And many
times, the the difference between, you know, the
in swing states between who wins and who
loses can be a few thousand votes.
So
sending in a few tens of thousands of
of illegals and giving them Social Security numbers
and green cards and maybe encouraging vote, vote,
vote. Everybody should go out and vote. Not
every American should go out and vote, but

(01:13:30):
everybody should go out and vote,
really seems what,
the democratic
machine was trying to do,
was to really just steal the democracy of
The United States. Because if the if the
swing states turn into democrat states, then there's
then it's a one party system, and that

(01:13:52):
is very Orwellian.
Yeah. So, you know, that that clip from
Fox Business, I got it through the Benny,
Johnson, you know, social media channel. And the
reason that I I preferred that one is,
Benny had gone and summarized,
you know, some of these numbers. So in
2021,
'2 hundred and '70 thousand, over 270,000,

(01:14:13):
social security numbers were handed out as he
says to criminal aliens,
in that year alone. In 2022
that jumped to over 590,000.
In 2023,
'9 hundred over 964,000.
And, if that wasn't enough, in 2024,

(01:14:33):
that was over 2,000,000
social security numbers. And I'm gonna give you
my experience.
You know, as I've mentioned in previous episodes,
I grew up in Canada.
I came here,
on a visa. I wasn't working initially. That
was not my my goal. And,
when I was issued a social security number,
it clearly said not valid for employment.
It wasn't until later

(01:14:55):
that I
transitioned and got a green card. And then,
you know, years later, I mean, the toll
process took seven years for me to become
a US citizen.
This isn't like something that I'd ever seen
them just handing this out to people. It's
a, it's a long process
and someone arriving in, in, in a new
country,
doesn't typically

(01:15:16):
have the right to just go start working
and taking the job of someone that works
there unless under specific conditions that the person
has a skill that nobody else has or
what have you. But that isn't what was
happening. And clearly, you know, without a doubt,
the motivation to hand out such a, a
huge massive, you know, millions of social security
numbers to individuals who then in turn a

(01:15:36):
percentage of them went and actually registered the
vote and some did. Now it's been discovered,
did actually vote illegally because they're, they're not
citizens and should have not been able to
vote, certainly not in,
federal elections.
You know, that's that's certainly
concerning. I mean, that just,
and it does speak to, as you said,
I mean, we were, you know, we're we're

(01:15:57):
bringing this up because
government
efficiency in and of itself is very important
to innovation and
progress in the country.
But if you have so much fraud, if
you have so much money flying out the
door, going to things that make no sense
or to companies that are just burning the
money or we're allowing individuals to,
infiltrate the workforce

(01:16:18):
and to take benefits
such as Medicare, Medicaid,
housing allowances and so forth, monies that could
be used for other things.
That's a major problem and it's certainly not
going to help,
advance our country.
Yeah. It's it's like, every US's,
citizens' goods and services in terms of what
they receive from the government drops drastically

(01:16:40):
the moment you allow 2,000,000 people to now
get Medicare and Medicaid and and everything else,
right, and Social Security, etcetera.
So,
yeah, it's basically just
we don't care about Americans.
We care about the Democratic Party reigning supreme
for years and decades to come. And that's
what we saw under the Biden administration, and,
arguably, that's straight out treason.

(01:17:02):
So
Yeah. That's definitely a problem. And, you know,
again, when we speak about government efficiency, I
mean, you know, certainly, DOGE is a federal,
you know, initiative.
But this same thing is happening across the
board, you know, in all the states, at
the state level, and certainly at the county
and city levels. There's a lot of inefficiency.
There's a lot of fraud that hasn't even
come to light.

(01:17:24):
We were talking about this case out of
Minnesota
where,
this guy named
Bert,
Kellerman was talking about the fraud
or certainly the questionable,
spending that was going on there that's being
investigated now. Would you like me to pull
that clip up as well? That that talks

(01:17:44):
Yeah. I think I think that that's very
fascinating because we've heard so much about kind
of Doge on the national level,
but the waste and fraud has been, you
know, equally corrupt on the state level as
well.
So,
basically, every state has to initiate their own
Doge. We saw, I think,
Ron DeSantis out of Florida say that basically
he wants to have a Doge for the

(01:18:06):
state of Florida.
And, yeah, there's a lot of fraud, but
just so much waste.
The government has just gotten so used to
just wasting because
money is free, and we could just print
it endlessly.
So why not just continue doing that? Whoever
has to become more efficient. So, obviously, that
creates a tremendous amount of fraud,

(01:18:26):
but it just just waste just just happens.
You know? It's like the,
the US government's wallet is more like a
woven basket with humongous holes, and every coin
is slipping out of every single hole, and
nothing stays. So no man no wonder why
the Democrats had one solution time and time
and time again, and the Republicans, to be

(01:18:47):
honest,
until until Trump. And that was just to
print more or really just add numbers to
a computer system.
Yeah. Let me play this. This is a
clip out of,
Minnesota. Let's let's take a look and,
I'd like to hear your your thoughts on
it. Here we go.
This woman was paying herself $700,000
a year running a nonprofit food bank.

(01:19:09):
So she was just taking donor
and taxpayer money,
buying food, and handing it out to poor
people, and somehow that was worth 3 quarters
of a million dollars a year.
She wasn't running a regular company where you
have to compete with the market and there's
pressure from shareholders or anything. She's just giving
out free stuff.

(01:19:30):
This is a common tactic for Democrats.
They create and exaggerate social problems,
then convince people that the government can solve
them,
which it most likely and often cannot.
After they've allocated taxpayer funds to the problem,
they insert themselves right in the gravy train
and extract

(01:19:52):
wealth off of it and make themselves personally
rich.
This is what Elon Musk is eliminating at
the federal level, but unfortunately, it's going on,
everywhere.
Yeah. I mean, $720,000
is a fairly high salary for CEOs even
in the private industry,
unless you're extremely successful, you know, very profitable

(01:20:13):
large company. And even then, you'll you'll typically
get stock options instead. So it's more than
twice the salary of the president of The
United States for running a food bank.
How many more people have could she have
actually fed
instead of her one salary? Right? And she
again, she's not doing anything valuable. She's not
creating any goods or services that weren't there

(01:20:35):
before. She's taking a lot of government money
and NGO money, which is usually funded from
from other of other government sources.
And
just putting it in her own pocket, like
like we mentioned on on one of the
previous podcasts,
they basically sit you know, every single one
of these NGOs and charities has a board,
and the board is filled with very, very

(01:20:56):
high paying people who basically do nothing. Right?
And
these NGOs, they're all about their perception of
of doing good.
They don't give a damn about the act
actuality of giving good.
So what they actually create
is a lot of bad. Right? Because if
all you care about the perception of good
and not the actuality of good is you

(01:21:17):
end up creating bad situations for a lot
of very very,
kind
of poor people or innocent people or weak
people, the kind of the bottom of the
society
that you claim to to be helping,
really, you're just screwing them over and and
really stealing money from them. Right? This is
money that the state of Minnesota allocated
to feeding the poor, but in reality, it's

(01:21:38):
getting pocketed by some corrupt corrupt,
you know, oh, I work for an NGO.
I'm saving the world. Woah.
Right? So
that's that's really what we've been seeing. It's
par for the course of most NGOs.
When I when I used to meet somebody
who worked for an NGO, I used to
be like, wow. That's amazing, you know, dedication.
That's so inspiring.

(01:21:59):
And nowadays,
I'm, like, 80% sure that it's probably just
a grift.
So many so many NGOs
turned out to be just be money laundering
and scams. So it's really important
if you care about the actuality of doing
good and not the perception of doing good.
Don't just give money to NGOs. Investigate every
single one of the NGOs you give money

(01:22:19):
to and make sure the money
realize how much of the money actually ends
up in the pockets of the needy versus
the administrators who administer kind of
stealing things along the way.
Yeah. And, you know, you wonder how much
you know, look. Here here's
one of the things that's been
asked over and over again during the prior

(01:22:41):
administration.
How much did, you know, even Joe Biden
know what was going on? How much did
all of the government, there are people within
the government that totally were aware of a
lot of the fraudulent or questionable things and
expenditures,
but, you know, federal government is so huge.
State governments are huge. You know, all it
takes is some people just not keeping their

(01:23:01):
eye on the ball
to create,
the the ability
for
rampant
fraud, abuse, and waste.
There's a clip from speaker Johnson talking about
a conversation he had with Joe Biden,
where he didn't seem to know. This had
to do with LNG, with the liquid liquefied

(01:23:22):
natural gas where, you know, gas is is
compressed down to a liquid for transportation by
ship or truck or what have you. And
he didn't know really that I mean, he
seemed to not have a clue what was
being done, an order that would have come
that he should have been aware of. Let
me play that clip. I wanna see what
your thoughts are regarding that. That's a prime

(01:23:44):
example
of,
you know, the government not really seeming to
have control or a handle on what it's
even doing.
Let me play that clip. Here we go.
Long story short, they finally relented. They invited
me to the White House. I show up
and I realized it's actually an ambush because
it's not just me and the president. It's
also
Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem,
you know, the whole the CIA director, everybody.

(01:24:07):
But first, real quickly, mister president, can I
ask you a question?
I cannot answer this to from my, constituents
in Louisiana. Sir, why did you pause LNG
exports to Europe? Like, I don't under you
know, liquefied natural gas is in great demand
by our allies. Why would you do that?
Because you understand we just talked about Ukraine.
You understand you're fueling Vladimir Putin's war machine

(01:24:27):
Yeah. Because they gotta get their gas from
him. You know? And he looks at me
stunned with this, and he said,
I didn't I didn't do that. And I
said,
mister president, you yes. You did. It was
an executive order, like, you know, three weeks
ago. And he goes, no. I didn't do
that. And he's arguing with me. I said,
mister president,
respectfully, can I could I go out here
and ask your secretary to print it out?
We'll read it together. You definitely did that.
And he goes, oh, you talk about natural

(01:24:48):
gas.
Yes, sir. He said, no. No. I you
misunderstand. He said, what I did is I
signed this thing to we're gonna we're gonna
conduct a study on the effects of LNG.
I said, no. You're not, sir. You paused
it. I know. I I have the terminal,
the export terminal in my state. I talked
to those people this morning. You're this is
doing massive damage to our economy, national security.

(01:25:09):
It occurred to me, Barry, he was not
lying to me. He genuinely did not know
what he had signed. And I walked out
of that meeting with fear and loathing because
I thought, we're in serious trouble. Who is
running the country? Like, I don't know who
put the paper in front of him, but
he didn't know.
Yeah. So this this really gets back to
the grift run by legacy media on the
American people,

(01:25:30):
trying for years to convince the American people
that, oh, Biden is smart.
Biden is aware. Biden knows of everything that's
going on. He's focused. He's hardworking.
He's,
they even had an article about how amazing
his sex life is to try and claim
how viral he is, you know. And, you
know, he's the most
viral president. I missed that one.

(01:25:51):
What Yeah. Really? Oh, well, we'll bring it
to the next one. It's okay. I'm glad
it is. It is a must watch where
a mainstream media had, like, a whole,
like, set about how,
Jill claimed that their sex is so amazing,
something like that. Just trying to show that
that that Biden is actually alive and not,

(01:26:11):
you know, senile. Right? Not an old man
who deserves to be in an old age
home, in a nursing
home. Right?
And that kind of gets back to the
auto pen question. Right?
Again, we spoke about this last week. It
makes sense. It made sense that in the
past when presidents have to sign lots of
documents that they have an auto pen.
But
when your president has dementia

(01:26:32):
and doesn't know between right and left,
the real question is who is operating the
auto pen. Because whoever's operating that auto pen
is the actual leader of The United States,
and
it seems like that may have been Joe
Biden surprisingly enough,
and just the Democratic elite. It wasn't just
one person or a cabal.
It was just, it it seems like there
were a few hundred, maybe a few thousand

(01:26:53):
or just like the upper echelons of the
Democratic party and the Democratic donors
who are really kind of moving things around.
Like we saw when when Biden flopped on
the debate,
the result was just to just pull a
fast one and just replace him. Who needs
elections? Who cares about what the American people
think? We
are the leaders. We are the ones who

(01:27:14):
have to make the decision for the American
people. So that that really gets to the
core of the question is, like, who was
the president,
you know, for the for between 2024 and
between 2020 and 2025. Right?
We were asking it back then,
and it almost seemed facetious.
It almost seemed like an exaggeration or a

(01:27:34):
joke.
But the it is a legit question. Like,
who was actually running the the show? Because
it definitely was not Joe Biden.
Well and there was a lot of fishy
things going on as we know the media.
We've now seen, you know, payments being made
through USAID and and other
routes to
a well established media organizations were getting paid

(01:27:56):
by the government,
you know, in a roundabout way, these payments
have been identified.
And then you have, you know, the most
powerful of social media companies,
including Meta
that were, you know,
we we know that prior to the acquisition
of Twitter, now x
by Elon Musk, there was all kinds of
craziness going on over there with the government

(01:28:17):
basically
dictating, you know, much of what they could
and couldn't say.
Have you seen that clip from the whistleblower
that used to work Sarah, I think was
her name, who used to work Yeah. Actually,
about facial hearing. Yeah. That it's very fascinating
hearing. Let me in case anyone hasn't heard
it, let me let me see if I
could queue that one up. That's a very
interesting thing because that was happening

(01:28:39):
during the prior administration. There was, you know,
this
behind the scenes collaboration
between the largest of American companies
and
foreign
powers basically. In this case, the Chinese government,
for the profit and benefit of the company.
And, you
know, oddly, you know, our own government either

(01:29:00):
looked the other way or didn't seem to
be able to figure out that there was
all these behind the scenes deals that were
being done that could put The United States
at risk.
Here it is. Give me one second. Yeah.
Even back with the Twitter files, we realized
that
the same thing was happening at Meta, and
we just didn't have the meta files for
it. And no matter what, you know, the

(01:29:22):
executives and Zuckerberg told us throughout the years
was just a complete lie.
But now we're seeing with this new hearing,
which is definitely worth a listen, is that
basically everything they've been saying, including about the
relationships with China,
was a complete another other lie. Let's let's
give this a watch.
Alright. Here we go.
My name is Sarah Wynne Williams, and I

(01:29:44):
served as the director of global public policy
at Facebook, now Meta, for nearly seven years
starting in 02/2011.
Throughout those seven years,
I saw Meta executives
repeatedly undermine US national security
and betray American values.
They did these things in secret
to win favor with Beijing

(01:30:06):
and build an $18,000,000,000
business in China.
We are engaged in a high stakes
AI right arms race against China.
And during my time at Meta, company executives
lied about what they were doing with the
Chinese Communist Party
to employees,

(01:30:26):
shareholders,
congress,
and the American public.
I sit before this committee today to set
the record straight
about these illegal and dangerous
activities.
Meta's dishonesty
started with the betrayal of core

(01:30:46):
American values.
Mark Zuckerberg
pledged himself
a free speech champion.
Yet I witnessed Meta work hand in glove
with the Chinese Communist Party
to construct
and test
custom built
censorship tools that silenced
and censored

(01:31:07):
their critics.
Yeah. So, I mean,
we saw Zuckerberg.
Obviously, he married, Priscilla Chin, who's who's Chinese,
and he learned Mandarin. It's like, okay, beautiful,
whatever. I've got nothing against, you know, the
the Chinese people, of course. They're wonderful people.
And when we saw with Jared Kushner that
I think his daughter also speaks,

(01:31:28):
Chinese fluently as well. So
but with with Zuckerberg, it really seemed a
fascination with China. And based on this woman's
this very, very brave woman's testimony,
it seems like even though China had blocked
Meta from operating, right, in the space,
they were willing to to go above and

(01:31:50):
beyond and do everything
with
the Chinese government, with the CCP directly working
with them,
including to build up their infrastructure and to
teach them
many of the core technologies that that Meta
has developed over the years. So that's the
interesting part of the hearing we didn't see
in the clip is they weren't just helping
them with censorship

(01:32:10):
and, you know, stuff like that,
including storing all the data of Chinese users
in China, but also all of their correspondence
with Americans
in China, which means that when Zuckerberg said
that no US citizen's data is in China,
that was a complete lie.
Yeah. It turns out from this that that
many of Meta's, attorneys have lied under oath,

(01:32:32):
including possibly Zuckerberg himself.
But they were helping China build
technological capabilities
that China did not have and China was
struggling to build. And they went out of
their way trying to help the CCP do
this. So this wasn't, oh, they worked with
some, you know, Chinese partner, some company that
happens to have ties with the CCP like

(01:32:53):
they all do. No. No. No. This is
working directly with CCP agents
to help the CCP develop develop technology
to spy on their citizens and,
just create this paranoia state,
and do many, many other stuff that they
didn't have access to. The Chinese were struggling

(01:33:14):
to build these, and and Meta was like,
we will help you with anything you want.
We will help you build whatever you want.
The most advanced technologies that were, you know,
developed in The US and discovered and copied
by Meta,
they basically give it all to the Chinese.
So no wonder why Chinese social media companies
are so successful. Right?
Yeah. There's no debate. And and, you know,

(01:33:35):
listen. Ultimately,
if you look at the dates from that
reporting,
which, you know, was presented by the the
New York Post, I mean, ultimately,
this was this explains
perhaps
why,
you know, Trump was deplatformed,
I mean, previously
by Facebook,
that

(01:33:56):
the these media giants weren't always very
unbiased
in who they allowed to get their voice
out.
I mean, if you're having behind the scenes
deals with countries
that have a vested interest in controlling the
narrative in The United States, that's problematic.
You know, at the very least, everyone needs
to be aware of what's going on. If

(01:34:16):
a news organization is being funded by our
government or by a foreign government or getting
benefit,
from a foreign power.
It's important,
you know, just like all of this stuff
about Russia interfering. Well, clearly this was, you
know, if we're to take a face value,
what this whistleblower is saying in all or
in part, You know, China had tremendous control

(01:34:37):
over the narrative in The United States,
and that's a real issue.
And without a doubt, they're, you know, if
this is being exposed or if this power
is being eroded,
that's something that they're not too happy with.
I think we need to keep that in
mind.
I touched upon,
as we were in our last discussion about
the money's flowing through USAID,

(01:35:00):
there's a guy that, Tim
Thornton that goes by the,
online,
moniker of, the old guy not stupid.
He reposted
a story
of USAID
shredding documents. I I want to put that
one up because when things like this are
happening, it's not even that they're just happening.
But if there's actual

(01:35:21):
government,
initiatives to cover up the information,
I mean, that's crazy. I mean, we remember,
you know, there's something called Watergate in this
that's in our in our annals of history.
But if that's happening again now,
that's a problem. I mean, let me let
me post this. I wanna see what you
think. Let me share this with our audience.

(01:35:44):
NBC News is reporting this. USAID staff is
being told to shred and burn other classified
documents. Quote, the US Agency for International Development
is instructing its staff in Washington
to shred and burn documents according to an
email obtained by NBC News.
The document destruction was set to take place
Tuesday according to an email from Erica

(01:36:04):
Carr, the agency's acting executive secretary, quote,
shred as many documents
first and reserve the burn bags for when
the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,
Carr wrote.
I I worked in government for most a
decade. I've never heard of so much shredding
being required that you would know ahead of
time
that, quote, the shredder would become unavailable or

(01:36:27):
need a break. What is that about?
Right. I actually this morning, I got a
message from somebody who left USAID
earlier this year and passed along this email
to me, and my response is naturally is
a standard operating procedure. And
this individual said no that they had never
heard about burning or shredding of, federal records

(01:36:49):
at USAID. But then again, this individual told
me they've never heard of the entire agency
being gutted in their headquarters at the Ronald
Reagan building being shut down. When are documents,
you know, burned
by the state department or USAID? Typically, at
an embassy when it is about to be
overtaken,
marines have the authorization

(01:37:10):
as a means of ensuring the classified records
and personnel data do not get in the
hands
of individuals,
of who are seen as threats.
They do go and burn documents, but that's
not what this situation is here.
Yeah. This is this is utterly crazy. Basically,
we're seeing tactics
used when embassies get overrun

(01:37:32):
to, you know, clear and delete any confidential
information.
We're seeing those same tactics being used within
the US government
against auditing by the US government. Right?
Like we said earlier, USAID,
it was really kind of the the state
department's,
kind of hush money basket where they used

(01:37:55):
to to to spend
money
supposedly for US soft power. But in reality,
they were working against The US people every
single day of the week.
We we saw them supporting terrorists, supporting every
bad thing, anything that
American citizens
don't want USAID
USAID
money to go to. That is exactly what

(01:38:16):
they were funding. So they were working against
the American people.
Samantha Powers is a very, very evil, very
bad person in my opinion.
And, yeah, they've been they've been just working
against you The US and its allies for
for decades, which is why they're so hasty
to burn the documents,
because they cling to be US soft power.

(01:38:38):
But in reality, they were soft power for
the the Chinese Communist Party and and Russia
and Iran,
and, you know, jihadists around the world way
more than they did any good any anything
valuable for the American taxpayer. So it is
very good that they were gutted. The very
important few few important core functions that they
had or were were transferred into the state

(01:38:58):
department. There's no reason it has to be
its own department with the was it a
57 or 60 3 billion dollar a year
budget?
No. Thank you. No. Thank you. You know,
The US has the most soft power because
of our our culture, because of our freedoms,
and that enables creativity that the rest of
the world is jealous of
and is fascinated by. And that's why the

(01:39:19):
rest the rest of the world
like a lot of US content, whether it's
TV shows or movies or music or clothes
or styles or food or whatever it is
for the good and for the bad. The
world tends to copy The United States.
That is soft power, not giving money to
Hamas. I'm sorry.
Yeah. I know. Absolutely. I'm and listen. This

(01:39:40):
isn't, you know, right versus left. This is
government.
This is
government corruption. This is,
you know, the the government machine that
in its
by design, okay,
has the ability for people to creep into
positions that can
make powerful decisions

(01:40:03):
that can cause,
you know, a lot of downstream effects. A
lot of dominoes will fall when these decisions
are being made. You know? And it really
isn't
you know, it's easy. Every time that there's
a switch from the
one party to another,
there you know, obviously, there's gonna be finger
pointed, but it it's not that. I mean,

(01:40:23):
it it's about calling out what needs to
be done. Burning.
Say again?
It's finger pointing is one thing. Document burning,
You know, I'll let I'll let you know,
the nineteen seventy nine revolution in Iran embassy
style,
that
is is not finger pointing. That is just,
you know, evidence removing. And that is illegal.

(01:40:43):
And, again, this again is the Watergate scandal.
This is Enron
Corporation
destroying documents where they were shredding everything they
could as quick as they could. This is
insane because the you know, this
is government hiding government.
Government hiding what actually has happened. You know,
fess up, admit it, move on. Don't hide

(01:41:05):
it. Don't try to, you know, defraud the
American people further by pretending like it didn't
happen. And again, I think everybody in this
country
is, you know, trying to just get a
handle on where we're really at. It's easy
for people to criticize
Doge and saying that there's some people that
are gonna lose their jobs or departments that
perhaps shouldn't have been completely gutted. But I

(01:41:26):
think we're at a point where benefits.
They were yelling and protesting. You'll lose your
benefits. You'll lose your Medicare, your Medicaid, your
social security.
It was never about them. Those people yelling
were the scammers.
Were the No. And any anyone that thinks
this through and really start seeing some of
the level the incredible level
of fraud that's been going on.

(01:41:49):
The only way for this country to survive
financially
is to go and, you know, take a
very firm stance to fix the things that
are wrong and not allow
outright fraud like this.
And I and I think we all have
to come together. It doesn't matter if someone
is, you know, Democrat, Republican, independent,
libertarian, doesn't matter what, you know,

(01:42:10):
which team they are supposedly on. The bottom
line is this is for everyone's benefit.
There was a a really great,
you know,
clip that's been circulating on the Internet for
those who've seen it,
from Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk, of course, he's
a conservative who helped,

(01:42:31):
you know, found Turning Point USA,
and he goes out and goes on college
campuses
and speaks
with students and anyone else that comes forward.
Sometimes he isn't allowed to speak, people prevent
him from talking, but I think really
emblemic of kind of where we're at with
trying to bring the country together.

(01:42:52):
There's the father and son clip. Do you
know which one I'm talking about?
Yes. This is a great one. We're only
gonna show a short portion of it here,
but recommend you guys all, go ahead and
and find the entire clip in its entirety.
It is is is fascinating,
and it is a master class
of communication.
And beyond the

(01:43:12):
skill of communication, it's the touching side of
it that you have
two different,
you know, people that view things differently, father
and son. The father
is liberal,
more siding with the Democrat party. The son
is more conservative,
siding with,
you know, MAGA basically on the conservative side.

(01:43:34):
And,
you know, and he's a Republican
ultimately
coming together to at least have a discussion,
which I think is something we we lack
in this country for the last several years.
People just don't even talk anymore. Let me
queue this up. I think, and I agree
with you, Even the parts that are gonna
be played, I think that these are just,
worthy of someone taking the time to look

(01:43:55):
up the clip and search it to find
the entire,
back and forth because it's very touching, you
know, and informative. Here we go. I think
one of the results of the whole kind
of MAGA movement
was that the left took an anti
MAGA, but the part in MAGA that they
hated most was America.
So they basically

(01:44:17):
had this kind of anti America view, which
is what we saw the USAID and state
department kind of funding.
But, basically, anything that's that's good for America
suddenly became bad and evil, and anything anything
that's bad,
for The US and for the Western values
in the Western world suddenly became good in
their eyes.
Yeah. So this is, this is a great

(01:44:38):
video.
Here we go.
Name is Joey.
I brought my father with me. He's a
very
liberal
father, and,
I'd like I'm part of the enemy within,
the radical liberals,
and I have a question for you.
K. Our family is divided. We're divided the
same way the nation is divided. I'm conservative,

(01:45:00):
by the way. We we fuss and we
fight about this all the time. I see
the nation coming to the same blows that
we are coming to on a daily basis.
Yet I don't see the president or anyone
in his administration
even addressing the issue of the division across
our country and across our families.
I have a serious question.
Will anything ever be remedied? A nation divided

(01:45:21):
against itself will not stand, neither will a
family divided against itself.
Is there any hope? Good point. You know?
So maybe president Trump should put, like, a
couple people who ran for president as Democrats
in his cabinet. Right? It wouldn't hurt a
thing. Yeah. Like Bobby Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard?
Bobby Kennedy, I wonder if his Bobby Kennedy
and Tulsi ran for president as Democrats. Has
that ever happened in modern American history where

(01:45:43):
a president has put two people who ran
against him for the presidency
in his own cabinet. Has that ever happened
before? Doesn't that help get him. Doesn't that
help heal a country? See, that's the division
I'm talking about. Right? No. No. But help
me. He's asking me a question, and he
and he turn he turned on me and
said, Gabe. Get him. Get him. Hold on.
That's that's a father son issue. We're we're
having a dialogue. That's it. But Hold on.
Let me ask you. Why do you think

(01:46:04):
your father is a liberal? Let me ask
you. I think he's a liberal because,
well
I don't know. I'll have him answer. This
is this is Yeah. Right. I'm helping you.
I'm a group therapist. You you understand what
I'm charging for this right now? This is,
like, $5,000
an hour stuff. So yeah.
So I think he's a liberal. I know
he's a liberal because he just he he
just eats he gobbles up everything that he

(01:46:26):
he okay. This is why I know he's
a liberal. Because he voted for Kamala Harris,
and he didn't even know why. Do you
think that maybe he wants to believe government
will do good? Maybe that's Of course. Okay.
That's That that is that a good answer?
Yes. Now maybe your son is going more
conservative
because he thinks government hasn't done a lot
of good. Is that maybe a fair charitable
interpretation? That makes relative sense. Okay. So now

(01:46:47):
we're getting somewhere. So you guys have a
generational divide. You look at government as being
probably a force for good. He's grown up
in a circumstance where he's seen government declare
wars and do a lot of nonsense like
the Iraq war. He's not in his head.
You know, trigger the financial crisis,
only,
accentuate income inequality. So what I'm just saying
for you too, because a father son divide

(01:47:08):
is more important than politics,
is really try to come down at what
generational perspective do they have. Finally, where do
you get your news from?
You, baby. Okay. And where where where do
you where do you get and, sir, where
do you get your news from? I I
don't watch any kind of any kind of
video media at all. I get it mostly
by reading, and I go through a broad
spectrum of different sources

(01:47:28):
from all over. So so here's what I'll
just say in
Look.
I mean, we we'll stop it there. Right?
I mean, it goes on. It it's it's
it's a great clip, isn't it?
Yeah. It's phenomenal,
specifically because the visuals are almost confusing.
When you start the video, you assume that
the son with neck tattoos
and dressed in completely black, you know, totally

(01:47:51):
goth style will be the liberal one, but
it turns out he's the conservative. And the
very conservatively dressed, you know, almost, you know,
British style y style dressed father, you you'd
assume would be the conservative, but he's actually
the liberal.
But the end is the key. Where do
you get your media? Right? So if you
consume your media from the Internet, like we

(01:48:12):
said, the Internet has disrupted
the stronghold legacy media had over the the,
you know, the narrative,
then you're open to a whole bunch of
counternarratives
and you're you realize
a lot of things legacy media doesn't want
you to know. But if you stick to
legacy media, even just reading legacy media,
then you're very much just you're just you're

(01:48:34):
just fed the propaganda that they're feeding you.
So when you scour the Internet, you have
access to lots of sources of all different
types. And even if you are falsely informed
of something, you'll probably see something else
that will kind of counter that.
But if you just read legacy media, you
will be stuck in a bubble.
Yeah. And that's the thing. I mean, we've

(01:48:56):
seen the clips where you have all of
these stations across the country that are literally
reading the exact same script over and over
again. And, you know, ultimately there's really a
small number of organizations that own all of
the media.
And for that reason,
in a diversified conversation back and forth, you
know, conflicting opinions,

(01:49:17):
kind of what we have on here. Ultimately,
we don't always agree a % what we're
talking about, but ultimately the goal is to
have these conversations and discussions
to broaden
the conversation,
not to limit it, not to pigeonhole
what's going on. And you know, I I
think as as time goes on, the hope
is that people will start seeing that a

(01:49:38):
lot of these issues really aren't partisan. This
isn't the right versus left, left versus right.
It's about right versus wrong
and wrong versus right. It's about doing things
for the best of the country.
It's the thing of, like, the father and
son wanting the best for each other. They
love and care for each other, but they
view things from a different lens.

(01:49:58):
And maybe what they're seeing is
same thing,
but they're interpreting it very differently
and being able to converse between both of
them. I think being able to
voice those opinions, the worst thing that could
possibly happen is that that father and son
don't even say what's on their mind. Right?
What's in their hearts
that perhaps as they discuss it, each one

(01:50:19):
of them may inch a little bit closer
to understanding what the broader truth is. Does
that make sense?
If a husband and wife yell at each
other, they're just the husband and wife.
If they don't communicate with each other, then
they're on their way to get divorced. Right?
So No. Totally true. I think while you,
kind of, bring up that last video that
we wanted to show, just kind of a
little bit of a happy ending on the

(01:50:40):
subject, they do have a a small anecdote.
I had got I had went to Toronto
for a relative's bar mitzvah, and they're very
liberal. And their synagogue is extremely, extremely liberal.
And
he knew that kind of my brothers and
I are are slightly conservative
and that we don't think of, you know,

(01:51:00):
Trump as being a a Nazi, which, you
know, five years ago in Canada was unheard
of. So we were kind of the radical
ones, and he was like, you know, you
guys will never get along with a whole
bunch of people here.
So when we arrived and we were sitting
down, he, like, he, like, pointed at a
table or maybe I happened to sit down
and start talking to somebody, and he was

(01:51:21):
like, you guys will never get along.
And
we're having a great conversation. I was like,
why? Why do you think so? He says,
well, you guys are just, like, you know,
complete opposite sides of, you know, the political
discourse.
I was like,
for example he's like, for example, abortions.
I was like, okay. Let's find a common
ground.
I said,

(01:51:43):
do we both agree
that people should have a right for an
an abortion,
at the very, very early stages, you know,
first month or two, right, before the the
fetus is developed? Like, yeah. Most people agree
with that. Okay.
I was like,
do you guys agree
that

(01:52:03):
murdering
a nine month old baby who's still in
the womb and is about is ready to
come out by by putting scissors and start
chopping it to pieces, When we can see
an ultrasound, it reacts to the pain.
Do we agree that that is kind of
evil and should be wrong? They're like, yeah.
Yeah. Obviously.
Right? So I was like, okay. So the
you know, everybody thinks we can't agree with

(01:52:23):
each other. I think that the majority you
know, 80% of Americans agree on 80% of
subjects. Right? So
I think
that, you know, the media will tell you,
oh, these people don't care about women rights,
and that's why they're trying to ban abortion,
and they hate women. Right? And then the
other side is is yelling at you. They
they're murderers, and they wanna kill babies, and

(01:52:45):
they're baby slaughters.
Right? And that's why they wanna enable abortion.
Like, in reality,
we basically all agree
that what some on the very far left
have been doing, which is enabling
abortions at the very end, you know, the
last trimester and, you know, even further on,
even theoretically babies after they've been born. Right?

(01:53:05):
We can abort babies that have been born.
That's just straight out murder. Right? So we
all agree that that is wrong. And we
all agree that, you know, yes, people make
a mistake. Yes. Condoms burst. Yes. There are
issues sometimes.
And at least at the beginning, people should
have a right to say, hey. Listen. This
isn't this isn't I'm not ready for this
right now. Let's let's kind of restart. It's
very early. Nothing much is developed.

(01:53:26):
Most people aside from the very extremely religious
will will usually agree with that. And even
the extreme religious will usually agree to make
an exception for incest and for rape. Right?
Which is something that the media won't tell
you. So it's like based on the the
media you consume, you'll hear one narrative or
another. In reality, 80% of Americans agree

(01:53:47):
that it should be somewhere in the middle.
You know? At the at the beginning, no
problem. At the end, big problem. Somewhere in
the middle is some we should find a
middle ground. Right? And different countries debate that.
By the way, almost the entire world,
abortion is not a big debate. It's agreed
upon that at the very early times, it's
it's not a big deal, especially if you're
taking a pill and something like that. Right?

(01:54:07):
Or using a condom. Some people will say
that that's abortion too. And on the other
end that, you know, that's bad. So almost
everybody agree if you look at most Western
countries, the limit is somewhere in the middle,
whether it's three months or four months or
five months or six months. But somewhere there
is where most countries
put put the
put the line. Right? So instead of saying,
hey. Why don't we have a national conversation

(01:54:28):
and see what most Americans agree upon is
the right moral thing to do and the
wrong moral thing? Like, where exactly should we
put this line? Is it when heartbeat starts?
Is it when the brain develops? Is it
when, you know, the fetus is complete in
terms of its form? Whatever. They're different. You
know, those are all legitimate opinions we can
we can discuss and and have those.

(01:54:48):
But
the the narrative is that it's an all
out war be between people who wanna murder
be babies and people who think that women
have no right to their bodies. Right? When
in reality, it's just a much more nuanced
and sophisticated
decision that most of the world has already
decided somewhere in the middle and had had
had has rules and laws, you know, to
that regard. But for some reason, in The
US, it's like this big topic.

(01:55:10):
We it's a taboo we can't even discuss.
And if we discuss it, it immediately becomes
a war, and that is because of the
media. And everybody there completely agreed with that.
And my uncle who was, like, completely shocked
that we're actually getting along,
it was
like, you know, we're all normal people. We're
all good hearted people. We all understand the
same things. It's just a matter of perspective,

(01:55:31):
and we are fed our perspective based on
the media we consume. So that's kind of
what we saw on the on the previous,
video. But in terms of communication
I I think that I think that that's
super important. And I think that, you know,
like podcasting, why are we talking? We want
to discuss things. You and I have been
doing this for years,
just that now we're actually recording it. But,

(01:55:53):
you know, ultimately sharing ideas, even if they're
differing in part or in whole, I think
that's how we gain a better understanding. And,
you know, one of the other things that
we talked about is that, you know, there
was this recent visit of Bill Maher to
the White House to visit Trump, which was
brokered by his friend Bob, a k a
Kid Rock. A k a Kid Rock. You

(01:56:13):
know, he calls him Bob. You know, Bill
Maher,
you know, talked about this on, you know,
he's got this show on,
HBO.
And, ultimately,
he went and
discussed this visit that a lot of people
were watching. He's an old time Democrat, old
time liberal, old school kind of guy,
and really represents

(01:56:35):
more of what the democrat party used to
be. He's by no means a Trump supporter,
he's by no means MAGA, he's by no
means republican.
Yet he was willing to take the invitation
and go,
And it's, it's again, it's one of these
that I would encourage everyone to go
and,
try to look at the you know, watch,

(01:56:56):
listen to the entire,
monologue and discussion that he's having that where
he recounts his his visit to the White
House. We have a
a a piece of it here where I
think it's just helps
bring together
the truth about our country and how people
need to and he does it, of course.
He's a comedian, so he still points out,

(01:57:17):
you know, his differing
views and what his expectations
are or aren't for Trump.
But he was willing to go meet with
him, and he is reporting back what I
believe is,
an honest
an honest account of what is his visit
was was like. And I think it's helpful
to everyone
that listens to us to understand that, you

(01:57:38):
know, although you and I both, you know,
often will talk about things that seem more,
you know, right leaning, it doesn't mean that
our views are entirely in one way or
the other. We're both individuals
and we view things the way we view
them and that's why we like discussing them
because I think it's unfortunate that everyone seems
to get pigeonholed into one specific
category or camp or whatever. At the end

(01:57:59):
of the day, I agree with you that
most Americans
are much
let's let's take a step back. Maybe there's
American. What people around the world,
generally speaking,
have similar views on the majority of things.
So let me let me queue this up
so we can listen and
and kind of give our own,
you know, comments after. But I think this

(01:58:20):
is this is actually, I think, very helpful.
Here we go.
Oh, I had dinner with President Trump, a
dinner that was set up by my friend
Kid Rock because we share a belief that
there's gotta be something better than hurling insults
from 3,000 miles away. And let me first
say that to all the people who treated
this like it was some kind of summit
meeting,
you're ridiculous.

(01:58:41):
Like, I was gonna sign a treaty or
something. I have
I have no power. I'm a fucking comedian,
and he's the most
powerful leader in the world. I'm not the
leader of anything, except maybe a contingent
of centrist minded people who think there's got
to be a better way of running this
country than hating each other every minute.

(01:59:02):
So
thank you.
So,
okay, so meet up in person. Maybe it'll
be different. Spoiler alert, it was.
First good sign before I left for the
capitol, I had my staff collect and print
out
this list of almost 60 different insulting epithets

(01:59:25):
that the president has said about me.
Things like
stupid, dummy, lowlife dummy, sleazebag, sick, sad, stone
cold crazy,
really a dumb guy, fired like a dog,
his show is dead.
There's 60 I brought this to the White
House because I wanted him to sign it,

(01:59:46):
which he did.
Which he did
with good humor. And I know as I
say that, millions of liberal sphincters just
tightened. Oh my god, Bill. Are you gonna

(02:00:06):
say something nice about him? What I'm gonna
do is report exactly what happened. You decide
what you think about it. And if that's
not enough pure Trump hate for you, I
don't give a fuck. So
so, no, I didn't go MAGA.

(02:00:27):
And to the president's credit, there was no
pressure to. After we left the Oval Office,
he showed me the little room off the
office, you know, the one where Clinton used
to
okay.
The Blow Job Room. Okay.

(02:00:47):
Well, not anymore. That that's where they keep
the merch now.
It is.
And
and he gave me a bunch of hats,
but he didn't ask me to take a
picture in one, which I appreciated.
The guy I met
is not the person who the night before

(02:01:08):
the dinner
shit tweeted a bunch of nasty crap about
how he thought this dinner was a bad
idea and what a deranged asshole I was,
I read it and thought, oh, what a
lovely way to welcome someone to your house.

(02:01:28):
But when I got there, that guy wasn't
living there. Now does Trump want respect? Of
course. Who doesn't?
My friend said to me, what are you
gonna wear to the White House? I said,
I don't know, but I'm not gonna dress
like Zelensky. I'll tell you that.
But,
okay, most surreal part of the whole night
was when I got home. I flew back
right after the dinner, and I'm in bed

(02:01:49):
watching sixty minutes from the night before. And
there's Trump in one of their stories, standing
at a podium in a room that looked
to me like one of the rooms and
podium places we'd just been in. And he's
ranting, disgusting. You're a terrible person. And I'm
like, who's that guy?
What happened to Glenda the Goodrich?

(02:02:17):
And and why can't we get the guy
I met to be the public guy? And
I'm not saying it's our responsibility
to do that. It's not. I'm just reporting
exactly what I saw over two and a
half hours. I went into the mine,
and that's what's down there.
A crazy person doesn't live in the White
House. A person who plays a crazy person

(02:02:38):
on TV a lot lives there, which I
know is fucked up. It's just not as
fucked up as I thought it was.
Yeah. This is this is great.
Basically, from every anecdote we've seen of Trump
throughout many years, it seems that on a
personal on a business level when it comes
to business negotiations, he will just slaughter you

(02:02:58):
and eat you up. But on a personal
level, in terms of meeting people, he's very
friendly. He's very easy to get along with.
He can take a joke. He can take
a stab. He can take a nap.
He'll laugh it off. He'll continue. He's usually
very friendly, very easygoing.
And that that's what we saw here. Even
though he wasn't excited about meeting Bill Maher
and, obviously, they had an antagonistic

(02:03:20):
past between them,
overall,
on a personal level, he's he's kind of
a wonderful guy. His TV persona is what
we get a lot and is very entertaining
and one of the reasons why he's been
so successful.
And I think it's also one of the
reasons why the whole world is lining up,
to kiss his ass like he said earlier.
Right? Like we saw earlier.

(02:03:41):
Because that persona is good to make The
US look strong.
Very strong little, maybe a little cuckoo. Always
you can never anticipate his next move. You
know, he can always pull a fast one
on you. But on a personal level, just
a really nice guy who, over many years,
has has done very, very, a lot of
very wonderful things. We've seen many stories of
of charity he's given, you know, secret stuff,

(02:04:04):
not publicized, just helping people in need for
for decades. Right? Of people of of all
ethnicities,
of all races,
even back when he was just a New
York businessman. So, yeah, he's a nice guy,
but he definitely built up his persona over
TV.
Yeah. I can I can attest to,
a conversation I had many years ago?

(02:04:24):
This was long, long, many years,
before he,
he ran for for office public office.
This is
probably in the early days of him being,
you know, on TV,
on the apprentice.
This was when he was, if anything, you
just, you know, someone that everyone,

(02:04:45):
Oprah Winfrey, you name it, everybody
basically
wanted to be around and be seen with
him. He was,
you know, a very successful business person, very
well known throughout the world and certainly in
New York, and he was pretty much loved
by most people.
But
the reality is, you know,

(02:05:05):
today a lot of people have different views
of him. And one of the interesting things
I was told back in those days after
someone
told me that they golf with him from
time to time,
this, this gentleman was in political office and
lived up in the Lake Worth area
and he,
he would golf, at Mar A Lago with,
with Trump periodically.

(02:05:27):
And he said, listen, you know, he asked
him what what's he like, you know, in
real life. And he said, well, you know,
as a person,
he's the most genuine
person you'll ever meet. He'll take this literally,
take the shirt off his back for someone.
He will go and just do kind acts
for people, for his workers.
And over the years, I've had opportunity to

(02:05:48):
speak with some of the people that work
at, you know, his different resorts. And I've
asked, and of course, you know, perhaps they
were scared of maybe saying something different, but
they all have given me very positive
comments about what it's like to work for
the Trump family and the Trump organization.
But this gentleman who who would golf with
Trump from time to time said, listen, he

(02:06:09):
just is that kind of guy.
You won't know how kind he is because
it's not publicized.
Now
on the flip side, when you're in a
business negotiation with him, he can be ruthless.
He knows how to win an argument and
how to get things done, and he wants
to win in business. And perhaps that's what
we're seeing. You know, we see that side

(02:06:31):
of him coming out
that,
is the one side, but just like
Bill Maher says, you know, there's really it's
like like many of us, you know, if
if, for example, someone is a judge,
they may act somewhat differently in the courtroom
than if they are out,
at the beach. They're still the same person,
but they may have different,

(02:06:52):
facets to their personality. And I think in
in some individuals,
perhaps it's more, you know, obvious
as perhaps in Trump's case, but I think
that's super important. And I think ultimately,
understanding that, hearing that, hearing that from a
guy like Bill Maher, you know,
I I think is important for us to

(02:07:13):
have some confidence that the person that's running
our country primarily as the leader of the
free world isn't the things that the media
has made them out to be in such
a negative sense
at all.
And,
you know, I think that
communication is is at the root of all
of this. We need to talk, be it
on a podcast like this,
be it,

(02:07:34):
just casual conversation.
People need to stop shutting others out. We
need to hear each other. We need to
listen to different points of view like that
father and son clip,
with Charlie Kirk. I think that's super important.
And I think that we can learn from,
you know, from the universe and the world
about the importance of communication.

(02:07:55):
Yeah. For for many years, I've been a
fan of a documentary style TV show called
Undercover Boss,
where the CEOs of large corporations will have,
you know, official remake, and they'll go undercover
and talk with, you know, the line employees,
whether it's factories or services or whatever it
is, plumbers. It doesn't matter.
But
just an an getting actual days of hard

(02:08:16):
work kind of getting the the the fingers
dirty,
you know, putting the head in in in
the dust, right, and and really getting to
work, you know, climbing up duct vents and
who knows what else.
But while talking to these employees, they kind
of got to see the inside of what's
what what first of all, what working for
their company is like, but also what these
people actually have to say about about the

(02:08:37):
company.
Now, to the best of my knowledge, I
don't think Trump ever did that.
I don't think Trump is capable of doing
it just because his mannerisms
are so uniquely Trump that no matter what
type of disguise you try and put on
him, he will identifiably be Trump every single
day of the week.
But I always wished for the government, for
the president

(02:08:58):
to have an undercover boss style,
thing. So, yes, Trump never went undercover,
but one thing is consistent from every organization
he's ever worked at is he likes to
ask the opinion of the average Joe who
works for him what they think. You'll see
him regularly talk to the waiters, talk to
the security guards, talk to the policemen,

(02:09:18):
talk to just the regular
the line nurses, whoever it is, the people
who work at his golf resort, just the
caddies,
the the staff members, and ask them for
their opinions on stuff. For for years and
years and years, this is not something new.
We've seen Trump do this. It's it's one
of his ways of really getting the complete
picture of what's going on is just by
asking as many people of of of as

(02:09:40):
possible from
as many backgrounds as possible and as many
ranks and position levels as possible
to get the complete, picture, and that's how
he makes decisions. And he's always been like
that.
So, yes, it's not undercover boss because it's
not undercover, but the fact that we have
a leader in chief who actually cares

(02:10:01):
what the low level employees think is kind
of impressive and remarkable. And it's one of
the nice things of having an an outsider
as opposed to a kind of hardcore politician,
as a leader.
Well, we know that he can go and,
you know, make French fries, so he could
probably go and do other things undercover as
well. But, That wasn't undercover.

(02:10:21):
I know.
But, you know, again, I completely agree with
that. I I like that show,
and I think it's it's,
it's important for us to get in touch
with
kind of everyone around us and certainly
to,
again, communicate.
You know, that's the bottom line. We need
to hear what people are saying. I think,

(02:10:43):
the value of that show was was, you
know,
for the bosses to really understand what the
rank and file was thinking about the company,
thinking about their jobs, thinking about, you know,
how they could improve the company or what
was wrong with it. I mean, these are
things that normally
people wouldn't have the courage perhaps to tell
their bosses.
So it was an interesting show to to

(02:11:05):
say the least. And of course, well put
together had a lot of humor in it.
But, you know, again, back back to this,
it all comes down to communication. If if
we could all just learn to better communicate,
I think it would be,
better for everyone involved. You know, even if
sometimes you hear things like in the undercover
boss that you don't necessarily wanna hear, it's

(02:11:27):
things that you need to hear. You know?
Exactly. It's like that,
the the what you pointed out to me
about the communication with whales.
Yeah.
Right? Yeah. So,
I think,
on that note of kind of communicating or
at least if you wanna pull that up,
we we can watch that quickly. But,
there's not much we have to discuss about.

(02:11:48):
Just a fascinating thing about communication. In in
this case, you know, not our species communication,
which just makes it far more fascinating.
But on on that note of communication, please
communicate with us. We are all into listening
to reading your comments and listening to know
what you think about this podcast.
Specifically, this episode has been,

(02:12:09):
kind of different. We've, you know, showed a
lot of videos. Do you guys like the
more visual style podcast, or do you prefer
the audio only?
Do you guys like the fact that we're
cutting in and and, you know, playing videos
from other sources just kinda making things more
interesting, or do you prefer do you prefer
kind of a more kind of lengthy flowing,

(02:12:30):
conversation?
Yeah. Kind of, get down into the comments,
and please let us know what you think.
Absolutely. And, again, you know, the the goal
is to have as much audio even if
we pay play video clips so that those
that are not watching,
on YouTube or Rumble or elsewhere that has
a video stream that still would won't feel
detached from what's going on.
I'm gonna play this this clip anyways. I

(02:12:52):
do think it has a value very briefly,
and then, I'll make a comment on it.
And I think that'll that'll wrap the show
up. Let me, this one's on YouTube. Let
me see if I can pull it up
here. Hang on.
In 1955,
in the depths of the cold war, the
US Navy launched a classified program to deploy
underwater microphones in an attempt to track enemy
movements.
But amongst the deep mechanical rumblings of the

(02:13:14):
distant submarines,
they also detected something strange, an eerily haunting
whine that echoed across the ocean.
For years, the source of these strange recordings
went undiscovered.
Undentified ships or unknown geological phenomena
seemed the most likely explanation.
That was until the files became declassified
and were handed to a young biologist who

(02:13:36):
suggested another option, that we were listening in
to the conversations of one of the largest
and loudest animals on the planet,
the humpback whale. Previously thought of as a
silent beast of the ocean, whale calls became
a source of deep fascination for scientists and
restless sleepers around the world.
And
I'll stop it right there. I mean, ultimately,

(02:13:58):
the
why I find that valuable was something that
you brought up.
You know,
I remember years ago hearing about
these recordings and you could actually buy the
songs of the humpback whale. This guy, Ben
Miles,
speaks numerous languages.
He spent time in Beijing and speaks Mandarin

(02:14:18):
and so forth.
And he brought that story,
on his YouTube channel. It's an interesting story
just
that communication is extremely important. The reason I
thought it was interesting in the context of
what we've been discussing
is that
sometimes
conversations
on politics and social issues like abortion and
other such things seem like people are talking

(02:14:41):
over each other almost like they're talking two
different languages.
The father and son that we saw in
that Charlie Cook video,
often I think would feel that same way.
And I think that today in the country,
we have people that either won't listen,
and even if they're speaking the same language,
are not communicating
and listening to what the others have to
say. If you take a step back and

(02:15:02):
you understand that we're all trying to communicate
how we see things from our perspective,
and that there is a value in just
allowing that communication,
in encouraging more communication,
in allowing freedom of speech and thought, in
allowing dissent and disagreement.
That's how we move ahead. And that's again,
I think part of why we're here and

(02:15:23):
why after years of talking of getting a
podcast together, you and I have decided to
do this.
And, it's,
on the urging of people we know and
we've talked to and we keep all these
years saying, well, this is podcast, want to
get started. And people are like, well, you
should do it. You definitely, you guys, you
two guys could talk forever about all these
different topics. And

(02:15:45):
I hope that that's really what we're,
scratching the surface on is helping motivate
further discussion and further interest and trying to
bridge the divide
where, you know, not listening
or hearing but not understanding,
could be the worst thing.
Yeah. And worst of all is trying to
block it off and not not be willing

(02:16:06):
to kind of hear it at all.
I think that's enough for episode four. I
think, we
we've covered a lot of topics, brought up
a lot of questions, and stirred some debate
perhaps. Again, we wanna hear back from everyone
as we continue on the journey. Wanna have
you along with us. Be sure to like
and follow and download the, episodes as they

(02:16:27):
come along.
And, we'll be back next time for the
next episode. Right?
Yeah. Awesome. Can't wait. Thank you guys, everybody,
for participating. And, yeah, please let us know
if you prefer this kind of more kind
of
video
different topics kind of coming up, different clips
we comment on, or if you guys prefer
kind of a a free flowing communication,
just conversation,

(02:16:48):
style.
Thank you so much for joining. And on
that note, it's time to end.
Time to end. Bye, yo.
Bye, Joe.
Bye, everyone. Talk to you soon.
Thank you.