Matt Davis - The Patriot Party - World Ablaze with George Fontes

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome back, Little Ways audience. Today, I have guests Matt Davis.
He is host of the Patriot Party podcast, and I
wanted to get you on here because I know that
you put the Constitution first, and as we just discussed
before we recorded, you consider yourself a conservative, but you're
not necessarily hard set on party line, so to speak

(00:28):
more about holding people accountable to the Constitution ad as
is written, and how it is intended for us to
live under those guidelines in the United States of America.
And so with all that being said, Matt, what explain
exactly to me what you consider yourself? Because I don't
think I don't know. There's the terms being thrown around, Republican, conservative,

(00:48):
maga everything. I'm not sure what you consider yourself. I
know that I'm not a Democrat myself, but I can't
really I'm not maga either. You know, I'm conservative. How
would you define yourself? And what do you think of
all of these different names that everybody's trying to make
for every single different group.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
Let me touch down on a couple of important issues,
because you named off several things, so let me unpack
it just a little bit. And the way I look
at it, and I put out some videos on this
Maga maha those America. First, those are all righteous movements
if they are not connected to a political party. They

(01:29):
any complete political disassociation to be truly righteous, because then
there is no agenda connected to the movement itself.

Speaker 1 (01:38):
Gotcha. And so with that being said, what do you
consider yourself now?

Speaker 2 (01:43):
The movement that we're going to go into, the Patriot
Party movement itself. It's an unbiased movement set on a
couple of standards, and we'll go over those personally, subjectively,
not objectively. I am a I mean common sense concernervative,
which I had a really good discussion the other day
on one of my podcasts with a guy who's doing

(02:06):
some really big stuff with veteran stuff across the country
and with the White House, and he made a lot
of sense when we were talking. We actually were going
back and forth, had a great debate, and he made
a lot of sense when he said, today's coming since
conservatives are nineteen eighties Democrats.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
Yeah. Now, I've had that same discussion and that I
think are spot on with. Yeah, the Democrat party today
is not the Democrat of old whatsoever. And I know
a lot of people today that would have said, well,
that actually have said that they consider themselves probably leaning
more liberal or more democratic back in their youth, and
it was a different time. And now they're like looking
back on that saying it's not the same party, and

(02:46):
they have definitely shifted over a bunch more to the right.
Some stay a little more center. But yeah, I agree
with you on that statement. It is the Democrat Party
of the eighties really in today's Democrat Party. I don't
know what they are and what they actually stand for, but.

Speaker 3 (03:02):
I could think of a lot of choice names. I'm
not going to say here right now.

Speaker 1 (03:06):
You can say whatever the heck you want, this is
your time. But yeah, I agree with you on that team,
and so putting putting the Patriot Party. The intent is
to do things differently, now is it your Is it
your intent to actually form your own party with its own.

Speaker 3 (03:22):
Supporters, or is it.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Just an organization you want to form to keep people
accountable and on track with the constitution.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
This is a in my perspective and people that I've
debated with, If it could be implemented, if enough people
want it, this could be a generational change, a reset
to the country, the reset that we need everybody over
complicates everything, so uh, I mean a lot of times.

Speaker 3 (03:47):
That's I mean, that's why we have you know, uh.

Speaker 2 (03:50):
Legislation coming out there's thousands of pages long. It doesn't
need to be thousands of pages long as time like
a Stevens King, Stephen King's book, you know, he could
say everything he needs to say a three hundred pag,
but he writes some eleven hundred pages. So a lot
of times. And I grew up in a family of lawyers.
I was eight years old in the jury stand watching
family members try cases. I worked, helped with motions. I

(04:15):
was actually the black sheep that didn't go to law school.
I was the only guy in my family didn't go
to law school. In my family, men were lawyers and
women were teachers. So I went in to be an entrepreneur.
But lawyers, and I've talked to a lot of them
in my lifetime. And I was talking to one one time,

(04:38):
super smart guy, and we were talking about we were
getting into an idea that I had, and I was like,
I don't want to give you too much of it
because I don't want you to take it and run
with it before I can get it in and run
with it. And he said, NA, you don't have to
worry about that because lawyers thinking circles, and CEOs and
business and entrepreneurs, business people think in a straight line,

(04:59):
connect the dots ahead. And that's the problem I think
with a lot of Washington d C right now is
everyone wants to overcomplicate everything.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
They're the simplest in this movement.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
I mean, so the mission statement is truth and Constitution
above all because hashtag truth matters. What it is is
it's formed into a grassroots movement where we are demanding
to hold the media and politicians to a higher standard,
using truth and constitution as a moral compass. So you know,

(05:35):
we use something called the three Peace when we break
down whether in executive order, whether you know, laws that
are existing laws that are being able to be challenged,
and you got judges saying, well, I think Congress meant,
which we'll get into in just a second, in essence,

(05:55):
means it's unconstitutional because it's avoid by vagueness. So the
three PA the Patriot Party Principles, which people can find
on our brand new website. You know, they can print
them off. We use the twenty seven Amendments to the constitution.
We use a little bit of constitutional doctrine. One of

(06:16):
the big ones, like I was just speaking of, is
avoid by vagueness. That basically means that any law that
is written needs to be written so the average American
citizen of an average intelligence can read and understand the law.
When we have judges saying I think Congress meant to
say that if they don't know, we as citizens assure

(06:38):
as heck don't know. So it's unconstitutional and too often right, well,
an interpretation is subjective by nature, So it just continues
to money in a road and the road and the road.
And then what we added in we actually just added
this in with a really we had a really good
UH interview. I think it was the last interview with

(07:02):
the with the UH, with the guy who invented thoughts
of political giants or political giants of thought, and UH,
he brought something else to my attention. So we added
the second part of the Declaration of Independence to the
Three peas, and that is to handle politicians like Senator
Tim Kaine who want to come out and say that

(07:26):
rights are granted by government and if you look back,
one declaration of independence blows out apart there's amendments that
blow that apart, there's doctrine that blows out apart. But
if you look back in the history books to before
the American Revolution, that is the same thing, in the
same frame of mind that the monarchs had. They literally

(07:48):
said that rights were granted by the crown or by
the parliament.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
So we are being pushed back in time.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
You've heard to say, and if you don't learn from
history or do to repeat it. And I feel like
that's kind of what's going back. There's other things that
have happened with the CRTs and the splitting of races
being taught in schools. Also, now we're doing segregation again.
I mean, it's just like we didn't learn, so now

(08:16):
we're going back and we need a reset.

Speaker 3 (08:20):
And none of this would have happened.

Speaker 2 (08:21):
None of this legislation that has caused law fare, that
has caused the eroding of the constitution, that has caused
a broken criminal justice system, none of this or other
pitfalls would have happened. It could have all been avoided
if the politicians would have just used and followed the constitution.

Speaker 3 (08:41):
And in my mind that all these laws that.

Speaker 2 (08:44):
Are unconstitutional need to start being amended or repealed.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
So let's go over those constitutional amendments that are needed. Like,
let's talk about, for example, some of the laws that
you say that are unconstitution and I have some things
that have happened recently that people claim to be unconstitutional.
Now we'll get into as well and ask your pin
on that. But give me some examples of what laws
you are considering unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
I mean, you'd you'd be hard pressed to find the
law that wasn't it was not unconstitutional at this point,
because the legislative branch has gotten so used to over
the last one hundred years, you could you could just
pick a law, just pick one and we go through
the language of it, any of the language. Like I said,
the most recent one was when the judge, oh man,

(09:33):
what was he? He was ruling on something and he said,
I can't remember it. I report so much news I
cannot remember. But the judge literally said, I think Congress
meant this. If Congress doesn't specifically state what they mean,
or at least for a normal person to be able
to read, it's not a judge.

Speaker 3 (09:52):
And see, here's the thing, here's the thing.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
We truly believe that all it's gonna take everybody wants
to say, well, we just can't get back there.

Speaker 3 (10:03):
We can't.

Speaker 2 (10:04):
It's going to take one administration to go in and
to to say we're gonna do everything humanly possible to
follow the Constitution on all legislation, policies.

Speaker 3 (10:20):
Everything that comes out of this administration.

Speaker 2 (10:23):
And obviously the public is going to have to hold
And I think that will start a domino effect too,
especially if the administrations start putting, start putting out, putting
their laws like that, that that it will almost decap
the media in a way where they won't be able
to to to put stuff in these echo chambers that
is just basically pushing emotional buttons of people and and

(10:45):
and they leave out parts of stories so they can
spin it this way or spend it that way.

Speaker 3 (10:50):
And I think that one we have to demand truth.

Speaker 2 (10:53):
But that truth if it if it comes out, if
it starts at the top, if it starts to the top,
it will it will roll downhill. And the top is Washington,
d C. It's got to start there. And then see,
I think it'll be a hard road to hoe for
the next political party, Democrat or Republican to say we're

(11:17):
going to backslide and start challenging everything and see how
far we can take it, how far we can take
it all these interpretations. If the administration before didn't and
we started rebuilding our country back to what I believe
it can. I don't know if it ever has been
as great as it can, but but back to make
America great again.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
I agree in that sentiment. That's the original. That's what
MACGA originally meant was make America great again. Now it's
just looked at as a way to shame people and
point to a group that are being labeled extremists, you know,
people without empathy, that don't care for other people's livelihoods
or even the way they want to live, which is

(11:57):
a bunch of bullshit. In my opinion, that's not what
Magaz stands for whatsoever. That being said, I'm not even
claiming to be MAGA, but I do like, I do
like what it means, because we did need to make
America griding, and we got away from what we were culturally,
we got away from what we were morally. And when
when you're talking about constitutionality, I mean, look, there's it's

(12:17):
been written purposely to be interpreted so that it can
evolve over time, because throughout time mankind will evolve where
we're going to learn things, we're going to progress, and
we're going to move on, and we're going to want
to say, well, maybe stoning someone to death wasn't the
right way to handle that as particular crime. And I'm
going back aways but you know, well, I know that

(12:37):
was an American value. But I'm just saying, you know,
we can, we can, we can move on, and we
can evolve. Right. So, I believe the Constitution was originally
intentionally written this way so it could be amended to
keep up with the times that we're living in. But
I don't believe that it can be so convoluted with
lawyers speak that as you said, you can't read it

(12:59):
and say it says that I am not supposed to
pick up a gun and shoot someone just because I
want to shoot him. That's very very easy right to interpret.
It shouldn't have all this word in there to where
a lawyer can go, well, it doesn't quite say you
can't shoot the guy. It says that you shouldn't shoot him,
but you possibly could if he felt a certain way
about him and if he offended you. But did he

(13:20):
offend you, and then you get in this whole frickin'
rabbit hole of what is our judiciary system right now
in the courts, right lawyers arguing and trying to interpret
law to convince you that you know, my client's right,
you're wrong, and they did nothing wrong whatsoever in shooting
and murdering someone. I know it's an extreme example, but
you know, I get where you're going with what you're saying,
and how the wording is just so, it's just so big,

(13:43):
there's so much in it, and there's no reason it
takes five hundred pages just to say one simple thing,
don't do this because this will happen. Literally, that's all
it needs to say. Now, let's talk Let's talk about
a few things that have happened recently that are considered unconstitutional,
at least in the eyes of the left. So let's
talk about border security. Let's talk about how Donald Trump
is handling that stuff. I'm sure you have an opainon
on it. For example, blowing up the boats. Okay, so

(14:10):
recently using the Navy and coast Guard, which they've always
have been used. By the way, when it comes to
policing all of these cartels and drug runners. But for example,
is it unconstitutional per se to be able to use
extreme force against these cartels, these narcos, for example, if

(14:32):
we're talking about the constitution, because recently, from what I recall,
I thought that they were labeled as domestic or actual
terrorists anyway, considered terrorist organizations. Now, so you have these
people in Congress, right, people that are saying that's wrong.
You know, there's no due process. We are not supposed

(14:52):
to be able to do that. That's inhumane. That's not
how I handled things. That's declaring war. They would even say, which, yeah,
so again, yeah, what do you think? What do you
think of that scenario?

Speaker 2 (15:03):
Well, I'm asking you the people that were blown up,
to my knowledge, they weren't American citizens. Correct, Nope, they're
not in America correct, yep, They're not covered by the Constitution.
They're in international water. They've been ruled a terrorist organization,
which means the military takes over instead of federal law enforcement.

Speaker 3 (15:25):
That was legal in my mind. I would debate it
with somebody.

Speaker 2 (15:31):
The and I challenge anyone these these Patriot Party principles,
which I told you what it consists of, is literally
two and a half pages double space got to sitting
here in front of me. Anybody bring me anything that
I can't handle the order that needs to evolve with
the pages that I've got in to two and a

(15:54):
half pages double space that I got here. But as
far as the terrorists, the terrorists or him classifying them
as a terrorist that brings in the military, they're in
international order that they you know, I don't think they
are afforded constitutional rights part of the Constitution.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
Well, and once there designated terrorists, at that point there
is no due process really, you know, they're they're put
on the list. If you're identified as a terrorist and
it's been deemed that what you're doing is against the
United States disinterest in this case infiltrating the United States
and their borders to spread drugs fentanyl, which is a
real thing, you know, And I've talked to a few

(16:38):
x DEA agents who have given me the backstory on
how that works. Yeah, at what point is it unconstitutional
to defend your borders and to defend your interests. And
what's what's interesting about this whole situation is how Venezuela
themselves a government, wants to make a bunch of noise
and threaten the US as if literally telling the entire

(16:59):
world that they support drug running and selling drugs around
the world, which is which is insane. So in your mind, look,
I'm not going to argue that you're incorrect, because I
don't believe you are. It's just it's just crazy that
some people would hate any movement so much, would hate Trump,
for example, so much. I don't even know if you're
pro trumpet doesn't even matter. But for example, our president

(17:20):
put an executive order out there. He was able to
determine that these narcos and all of these drug runners, mafias,
whatever you want to call them. These days, they're terrorists,
they're terrorists, They're on a list. It's done right. And
you got people in the Democrat Party will go so

(17:40):
far as to twist everything so much to turn people
against their government in a way to be so untrusting
and and say it's it's this is wrong. No, you
have to have sympathy and empathy for these drug runners
who are literally killing millions of millions of people through
basically distributing ventanyl and hot drugs and whatever you want
to call these things. There's a new fedanel out now

(18:02):
that that's even worse than what we got or something
like that.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
Yeah, carpit after wear suits to do it. It's like
one to a thousand or somethings. Crazy.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
Yeah, So there's that was one example. And then defending
our borders in general, you know, closing our borders. People
are crying that that's inconstitutional, that we can't be deporting
anybody who who's been here for ten, fifteen, twenty years
to make their own life, Like that's a situation that
is wrong, that that is morally wrong and unconstitutional. I'm
sure you have something to say on that.

Speaker 3 (18:33):
I do. I do, I absolutely do. I'm just team
it up.

Speaker 2 (18:36):
Glad you brought it up first and foremost. All right,
So let me let me so. The Republican Party lost
me last to April twelfth during the fighs of a
with Mike Smith, who was my representative and a constitutional
lawyer who was a tiebreaker to continue warrantless spying on
patriots and Americans break the constitution.

Speaker 3 (19:00):
Trump.

Speaker 2 (19:01):
I actually helped Trump with his campaign strategy and got
it to him through Mike Johnathan before he lost me,
and he used it on one of the debates. But
for me, Trump went off the rails Uh, after Liberation
Day with a lot of stuff. Now he's come back
this this latest hover last week, and I think he's
done something bri some some brilliant things, uh that have
to do with the Constitution and him trying to push

(19:22):
it and then then push him back. But let's get
back to the uh immigration issue that you asked about.

Speaker 3 (19:28):
So, Uh, First, Trump stumbles over.

Speaker 2 (19:33):
His own feet a lot of the times he gets
these loyalists for everything I've read, everybody I've talked to,
he gets loyalist around him when he's supposed to be
getting the Office, Illegal Counsel, the White House Council to
make these executive orders executive actions bulletproof. And that's a
reason they're so they're they're leaky, They're they're they're like
a leaky ship. That's the reason a lot of them

(19:53):
are being challenged. But with the immigration he came in,
he promised the biggest immigration ever, and and then he
goes and uses one hundred year old wartime Act, this
fraught with Fourth Amendment challenges. What he should have used
was the same Act that Obama used to deport way
more people when he first came in as president. Way

(20:14):
more over, the course of time, if you divided it
per what Trump's going to be in versus what he
was in He used the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of nineteen ninety six, which were ratified by
Bill Clinton. That takes away due process. They don't even
see a judge. Local law enforcement can help ICE can
help border patrol, and it is a way to.

Speaker 3 (20:35):
Get them out very quickly.

Speaker 2 (20:37):
Why he decided to use a wartime act to deport
people that has caused all these challenges and allowed all
these challenges and to open the door for all these challenges.

Speaker 3 (20:48):
And I mean, if you really look.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
At it, the reason a lot of these challenges are
probably being able to be had is because the act
itself is on constitutional it's too vague and everybody's got
to interpret it.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
Yeah, I think the reason he probably did that was
because he made the move to declare these people. Because
originally he was just saying, I'm just going after the criminals,
I'm going after the cartels, I'm going after MS thirteen
and going after Trende Arragua all these people, and then
I'm just trying to maybe explain it, maybe wrong, but

(21:21):
you know, the coast fenous terrorists so then maybe that
Wartime Act can apply to that.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
But maybe.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
But the thing is is, why would you use something
to get one percent when you need to use something
to get ninety nine percent. It doesn't make sense. If
it ain't broke, don't fix it. It wasn't broke when
Obama deported like five point three million or whatever.

Speaker 3 (21:46):
When he came in, we were being told there was between.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Seven to fourteen million people that had flooded the border,
maybe even twenty million. Some people said in the high range,
I don't know, I'm gonna go with twelve you know,
which are ten to twelve is what I'm going to
think there are, and just kind of split the difference.
If you come in and most of those people are
not gang members, most of them are not cannot be

(22:11):
classified as terrorists.

Speaker 3 (22:12):
And even the the the way that it was used.

Speaker 2 (22:16):
To classify the gang members got thrown back by.

Speaker 3 (22:22):
The courts saying, no, you overstepped. That's not what it
was meant. That's not what it was meant for.

Speaker 2 (22:27):
They never threatened the United States as holistically as a whole.

Speaker 3 (22:32):
So the the the Act was wrong to start with.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
Now here's my big issue, and you kind of touched
down on it when you said something about we don't
care people that have been here for twenty years or whatever. Okay,
but here, here's the way I'm looking at. You got
all these people that are living off of the states,

(22:56):
the governments that they they reported on I mean all
last year on Fox people that were coming in getting
hotels for free, getting put up in hotels, three hats
a day, cell phones, and in some states making more
money than people that are just enlistening into the military
with a family. Why aren't we going after the people
that are costing us all those tax dollars. What we're

(23:17):
doing is we're deporting in reverse, and not a bunch.

Speaker 3 (23:21):
This is just something to charge the base.

Speaker 2 (23:24):
We are deporting people who are who owned businesses, houses,
who are paying taxes. If these people were paid, we
are literally deporting one hundred billion dollars worth of taxes
and residual could be in the trillions for you know,
free markets out in the free world.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
So why are we deporting in reverse?

Speaker 2 (23:42):
Why not deport all the people that were being complained
about last year. And then when you get to the
people who have been here for five, ten, fifteen, twenty years,
they got jobs or paying taxes. Give them a ten
year pathway to citizenship. We're not talking millions of people.
Give them a ten year pathway to citizenship. If you
don't get any t other than maybe a minor misdemeanor,

(24:02):
if you lose your job, you have to have a
job within three months. You cannot select unemployment because you're
not a citizen. And then after ten years of jumping
through hoops and paying taxes, they have bought their way
to citizenship, and they were already productive in the United
States to start with, Why go through and desecrate the
healthcare systems? Why go through and take these people out?

(24:23):
That some of the economies are.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
Depending on.

Speaker 1 (24:30):
Okay, fair point, But the fact that our economies are
depending on legal workers in and of itself or legal
immigrants is the issue. Though we already have visas in
place for some of this, especially if we're talking about agriculture.
We have the H two, a visa that actually lots
people to be here for a certain amount of time
sponsored by their employer. And the thing that's been uncovered
is especially an ad is that these companies, these farmers,

(24:54):
large organizations are willingly circumventing it to hire people that
they know are illegal. They're not even part of the system,
the H TWOA program whatsoever. They're getting caught for it.
So we have to address that. As far as the
other thing about people being here for twenty something years,
I'm you know, ten years. I agree with you, it's
illegal that they're here, but they've done nothing wrong while

(25:15):
they were here, and they made a life and they
haven't paying taxes. I say, you know, hey, let's have
that conversation with those people. But we do have to
address and I agree with you that, you know, the
people that have come through recently, because that was the problem,
and anyone coming in now, we do have to turn
them back around period. I mean, we do have to
uphold the law regardless. But as you said, you know, hey,
someone's been here fifteen years. They already had a family, everything.

(25:38):
Some of these people actually have businesses, founded businesses and
they've they've done very well and they're contributing. Great. Let's
give them that opportunity. But the counterpoint to that is, well,
they've had twenty years to get it right. What stopped them?

Speaker 2 (25:51):
Well, I would say this, So I have family that
lives over in England.

Speaker 3 (25:57):
My grandmother was from England.

Speaker 2 (25:59):
So my uncle is from England and he and his
wife started with.

Speaker 3 (26:06):
Samsung Magna Box. It was one of those companies.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
When they first started, they ended up weighib like VP
of the company retired from the companies as multimillionaires, tried
to move into the United States legally, paying wazoom ounts
of money for an immigration attorney even said they would
come in and make it part of them getting their
citizenship to come in and open a business here in

(26:29):
the United States. They were bringing millions of dollars into
the United States. After ten years of paying lawyers, they
finally moved to Spain. So if they can't do it
being millionaires, how do the people that don't have that
kind of money do it?

Speaker 1 (26:45):
Yeah, but that's the case of someone actually trying versus
someone that actually ignoring the system altogether. Right, that's the difference.
I have friends that are in the same situation from
Mexico and people that I've worked with me for a
long time that you know they're in the same boats.
Like man that the system is not kind. It takes
forever to get through things. You got to jump through
a lot of legal loopholes. One of my friends right
now is trying to get his wife over here. He

(27:07):
became an American citizen, justscus is an American citizenship by the way.
He went through college here everything. He's a computer science engineer,
brilliant guy. And you know, I see the other side
of it that you're talking about. But you know, at
what point do we have to ignore the law because
we feel empathetic towards somebody We mean no personal And
I'm not trying to be that devil by the way,

(27:27):
I'm not that guy, you know. I'm I'm just trying
to call it cut and dry. Right, So, yeah, we
do need to do better. And when it comes to that,
we do need to do better. Let me go ahead.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
Do you think other than my perspective has changed just
a little bit, other than trying to grow it bigger,
and most businesses, you know, that's one of the objectives
is to grow bigger. Other than to try to grow
it bigger, do you think that the government needs to
run with the same kind of efficiency as private industry
as a business, so so it runs proficient and efficient

(28:03):
like a business does, instead of just saying we print.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
Money and uh and and.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
And therefore we don't have to try to try to
work smarter or anything.

Speaker 3 (28:12):
We just print print more of it.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
Would Do you think it should be trying to should
be runn by like a business or do you think
it should just it's a different kind of entity.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
It should run as a business, because in the end
it is an organization regardless, it's a governmental organization. Answers,
I know where, I know where you're gonna go go ahead.

Speaker 3 (28:32):
Well, my question is.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
Yes, we can say, well this person and this person,
But but to me, someone who is living off the
government here illegally is different than somebody who is paying
the government and and owns stuff and has been employed
and has it's there. They're apples and oranges to me,
because one is is something that needs to be cut

(28:59):
off the machine because it's just draining the machine. The
other is actually feeding the machine. That's why I say
it's in reverse. And when I researched it, they said
that the reason they were going after those people is
because they were low hanging fruit, because they lived like
their citizens. They report taxes and everything. So you're going
after these people because they're easy. But what about all

(29:20):
these people that were living in all these hotel rooms
and all all that were that were getting their money,
and there the three meals to where are all these
millions of people?

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Right? So, as I said earlier that that's a that's
a different example, Okay, an example that you said earlier
about how do we handle someone who's actually contributing to
society and paying the taxes and capturing the money here
domestically and building something that's different. And as I said,
if someone has been doing that for ten years, they

(29:50):
made a life here, then I think we can approach
those people differently. I don't. I don't agree with just
stripping people away from the land suddenly when we weren't
enforcing it for so damn long. We should have been
enforcing it the whole time, all these years, we wouldn't
have gotten to this point. We wouldn't have had to
make these hard decisions. These decisions are actually based on
moral principles if you think about it, because now we're

(30:10):
separating families and we're, you know, causing a lot of
harm and strive for these children who are trying to
process everything right, And of course everyone's going to argue, well,
then if that's the case, then go with your wife
for you or your husband and go back to the
land from whence you came, or hence you came, whatever.
But when you're willingly also, as an let's get back

(30:31):
to the employer situation. If you're willingly circumventing a system
to save money by hiring illegal immigrants, it's not the
illegal immigrant's fault, per se. I think we should be
going after those businesses and employers and truly finding them
as they should be under the law. I have a business,
I've had four you know, I know how, I know
how employment law works. I have to deal with it. Okay,

(30:53):
I don't hire illegals because my type of business I
don't need to go that way, and I probably will
never would. But the reality is I am agreeing with you.
But at the same time, we also have to draw
the line and enforce our constitutional laws to protect our
borders and our sovereignty period. And as you were saying earlier,
I've done multiple shoulders on how many people have come

(31:13):
across the border, and you can find all this stuff
at the at the websites for you know, border patrol.
You know we've had we've had a few hundred terrorists
actually caught already coming across the borders. This year. I
think was from janauthin May. I forgot what it was
and I'm my recall is not so good. But you know,

(31:33):
people they can go back to those episodes or just
look up themselves. That's right there. It's public. And if
you think about that, because you're correct, not everyone's a terrorists,
but the danger in not knowing, and when we call interactions,
when we call the act of just interacting with that person,
that's not a kind of for godaways that doesn't count

(31:53):
for the people you don't know. Think of one terrorist,
for example, what they can do when they could ratalize
the safe radically fifteen people, and then that turns into
twenty five and fifty. There was enough terrorists that came
in recently to put fifteen I believe in every state
of America.

Speaker 3 (32:11):
Last time, I looked, Wow, that's something. Is great. They
know that order. I think it's great. He shut the border.

Speaker 2 (32:18):
We I mean, we knew it was just going to
be a matter of executive orders once because he did
it last time, and we knew. And the whole time
the Democrats that Biden, well, we can't do anything.

Speaker 3 (32:28):
Yeah you can.

Speaker 2 (32:28):
You just put back in what you took out the
first day or two you went in, you know, when
you first went into office.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
So getting back to what we're talking about, I agree,
people have been here a while. Let's let's circle back
to them. Give him an opportunity. The people that have
been just coming over, that have been coming over recently,
the ones that were funded by the Democrat Party, that
were flown around and given hotels and everything. We got
to handle that differently. You know, the people who have
been here a while, who's paid into the system. Yeah,

(32:55):
we shouldn't just you know, tear them out of here
and kick them out. I believe if they're not I
could have got to the system and they don't meet
the requirements. Will have their conversation, but we should absolutely
give those people an opportunity. The reason we're at where
we are now is because, as you know, it wasn't
being enforced for all these years, and it's not those
people's faults. They got away with something. All right, fine,
you got you got one over. We're gonna give you

(33:16):
the opportunity to write this. That's how I think we
should approach that personally. Now, the question being, because we're
going to get back to the constitution is a lot
of people are arguing that the way Trump has been
handling this whole thing is unconstitutional. What are your thoughts
on that?

Speaker 2 (33:31):
Absolutely, the act that he used was was full of
Fourth Amendment, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth Amendment. Those have been
the common like pushes of this administration. But like I said,
if we go back to the root of it, the
Act of Self probably wasn't constitutional because of the way
it was written, but he used it and then trying
to push it further when he when I said, he

(33:52):
used the wrong act, you know, but a good a
good thing to come to that was unco institutional, but
the way he just spun it was brilliant and I
didn't like it at all.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
So you know, when he first federalized DC, he could
do it.

Speaker 2 (34:10):
There was I mean, I think for like thirty days
he could go in, he could do an extension.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
He could do it, and that's fine. But then he was.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Talking about going into Chicago and the sovereign states, and
under the Constitution he cannot do that. The governor has
to ask for there are only certain conditions, and he
didn't even meet the condition out that they just ruled
on it in the Supreme Court. He didn't even meet
the condition when he sent them out to la during
the riots. They said, no, that did not constitute for

(34:37):
what you used. So he that was unconstitutional. And we
kept saying, if he tries to send them, you know,
let's put the shoe on the other foot. What would
have happened last year if Biden had tried to federalize
law enforcement in conservative cities and said, I don't like
the way they're being run. Oh, I mean, it would
be unconstitutional on constitutional on constitutional. So what he did

(34:59):
was it was actually brilliant the way he the way
he uh, you know, the way he uh took, the
way he's spun with it. So he flipped the narrative,
he he and they're still calling unconstitutional.

Speaker 3 (35:10):
But the thing he is to say, I said it
on my last show.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
One thing is is most of the time when the
Democrats say something's unconstitutional.

Speaker 3 (35:18):
They're getting it wrong.

Speaker 2 (35:19):
The Republicans get it right when they use it normally,
because you know, their conservative opinion falls right with you know,
how how narrowed the scope on some things are. But
so he flips it. He gets conservative states, my state
being one, Louisiana. I think they're gonna come down to
New Orleans. He's going up to Memphis. The governors are
letting them come in. They're gonna go in, they're gonna

(35:42):
work with law enforcement, they're gonna bring crime down.

Speaker 3 (35:45):
And he already spun in said, hey, we wanted to
come help.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Chicago, but the local people didn't want us to come,
and you know, we hate we couldn't come help them
and and bring their crime down and be safer for
their citizens.

Speaker 3 (35:56):
So he's gonna make.

Speaker 2 (35:57):
Them look bad by spending the narrative instead of pushing
the constitution, which I like and I agree with completely.

Speaker 1 (36:04):
Yeah, the situation now, we're talking about the national guard deployment,
so the situation of Washington. You're absolutely correct that that
can be that can be under the national Guard via
the president or the administration. But as you said, it's
only thirty days. They got up to thirty days, and
it's up to Congress to extend that if they see

(36:25):
that it needs to be done. So you're correct on that. Absolutely.
A lot of people miss that. They think that what
he did was just you know, outlandish, and he was
just being a fascist dictator, and you know that's not
what he did. But what I don't agree with. Is
exactly what you're saying is that I don't believe that
he can take the National Guard in every state now
and federalize it and now say, oh, we're coming in

(36:48):
to clean things up. I understand why he wants to
do it, but there's a danger in it. You know,
you got places that are so crime writing that the
cities themselves did nothing to fix it or right it.
They defunded their police departments. They have you know, judges
and lawyers in place that would rather put, you know,
give someone a slap of the wrist and walk out

(37:08):
without bail for a second degree murder than hold them,
you know, until trial or whatever it is. I mean,
there's a lot of reasons why I think Trump wants
to do this, but the danger is this, once you
give someone power, will you be able to take it
back away from them? And what I see the danger
in all of this is, and why it is unconstitutional,
as you were saying, is once this happens, they see

(37:30):
it works. What's going to stop them from taking the
next step? What's going to stop it before we all
become under martial law? After he's proven Hey, I've gone
state to state, you guys like it. It works. Now
I'm going to take the next step and I'm going
to add even more to it. And that's the danger
I see, you know, and that is exactly why we

(37:51):
have these checks and bounces. You know, absolutely absolutely.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
I mean you just spunk on it. And I always
always term it as it's a slippery slope. Yeah, sure,
where is it going to stop? Its slippery slope? And
they tip for cat It's like, okay, well the means
justify the ends, and they did it. So I'm going
to push it. And my whole thing is, well, where
does it stop? Does it stop in fifty one hundred
years but no constitution? Does it stop when things degrade

(38:15):
down into violence?

Speaker 3 (38:16):
Where does it stop?

Speaker 1 (38:19):
I don't know. I mean what you said is exactly
the truth. It's it's exactly right. It's already been proven that,
you know what, once once they get a little, they
never give it back. They've already been you know, I
live in California, so you can imagine what I go
throughout here.

Speaker 3 (38:32):
I got some friends out there. We talk.

Speaker 1 (38:34):
It's like, man, you know, all the all the laws
they pass without his voting on which they guess they
can do because you know, under the biolaws of the government.
We can pass these bills, we can vote them. We're
doing it on your behalf. Sure, and I wake up
the next morning, my guess is fucking ten dollars and
I got to pay more taxes and it costs me
more to be an employer. You know, there's all these
things that they do and we won't even get in
the gavenue so much. That's that'll be a three hour

(38:56):
discussion that guy. But you know, it's it's it's it's
really it's really insane to me. How you know, the
left is going out of the way because they hate
Trump so much to call everything unconstitutional because you know,
you know, some of it really is. Some of it
is kind of like it's not unsconscitius, but it's so
fucking borderline. It is so borderline that it can literally

(39:17):
go either way depending on who's reading it. And I
agree with you that you know that act was it
called the set was it the Act of seventeen Africa?
It was the war time seventeen ninety six war seventeeny six.
Yees that that wasn't if he that wasn't if he won,
but he pulled it off. And you got to understand that,
you know, what you said is correct. He is brilliant.

(39:37):
He knows what he's doing. You know, a lot of
people think he's stupid, but he really isn't. But again,
there is fear of once you get a little, you're
gonna take more. I don't agree with this National Guard
thing at all. I think that if if a governor
sees that they have an issue, then they could reach out.
That's one thing, but just saying hey, we're coming. And then,
like you said, what happened in Chicago. He tried to
spin it to say, well, we offered help, but you

(39:58):
didn't want it. But but what's behind it, I believe
is wrong. It really is. He shouldn't be doing this.
They should be working with the governments of these states
of the cities to see what they can do to
help them out. But absolutely ignoring any help whatsoever because
you hate Trump that much. Is it's just ridiculous. And

(40:19):
you know, hey, we don't think he's perfect. In my house,
we don't think he's perfect. I'm sure you don't either.
You already said you don't. So it's it's like you
can't ignore a hand that's been reaching out to offer
you help either, especially that from the federal government who's
willing to flip the bill on it. It just doesn't
make any sense. So you already you already just a
few things that people are calling unconstitutional? Right, How do

(40:42):
we write our justice system? Though, in your opinion, how
is it that we're getting I'm gonna I'm gonna touch
on judges because you know, you grew up around lawyers,
you know, many of them. How do we write our
judicial write the judicial system where it just appears that
we have in some place, this is where you could
be a judge by maybe taking courses online. I know

(41:03):
I'm being stretching, but I think you know what I'm
alluding to. You know, how how is this possible? How
how is it that you know, judges themselves will rule
against you know, rule on certain cases in a way
that is unprecedented, just because they don't want to agree
with the Republican party, for example. How do we fix this?

(41:24):
Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Or is it not
supposed to be unpartial?

Speaker 3 (41:28):
It's sound redundant with this, I know I do, but
I have to bring us back again.

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Sure, if we fix the problem with the judicial system
as there is too many people interpreting things. There are
too many people pushing too much to interpret. If we
get back to the laws themselves that were written unconstitutionally
and abiding.

Speaker 3 (41:48):
Them or repeal them, then that's.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
Going to help clean out the criminal justice system. That's
going to help where they can't do lawfair. I mean,
I'm glad lawfair is being you know, televised now, but
it's been going on for a long long time. I mean,
you know, I have intimate knowledge through family members and
cases of the federal system.

Speaker 3 (42:07):
And lawfair has been going on a long time.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
I mean literally, I read a book that was called
like Three Felamies a Day, and they play games with
junior US attorneys and US attorneys where they're go ahead
and judges where they go out to the restaurant and
point somebody out or pick an actor and want them
to build a case with three different felonies just from
what they know about them famous people people walking right
there that do something. The laws are so ambiguous, and

(42:32):
I don't think I'm exaggerating because I'm pretty sure I
read this in a legal book that they can indict
a hamburger.

Speaker 3 (42:37):
You don't even have to be living to be indicted.

Speaker 1 (42:40):
So the problem believe that.

Speaker 2 (42:42):
So the problem with the criminal justice system. I mean,
look at the numbers. We have five percent of the
population and twenty five percent of the incarcerated population in
the world. But yeah, we're supposed to be the most evolved,
you know, innovation.

Speaker 3 (42:57):
No, there's nothing innovating. Well, I mean, I guess it
is big business.

Speaker 2 (43:00):
But you know, we have to start with stopping to
challenge and push because then we get everybody's opinion. You
get a liberal opinion, you get a conservative opinion.

Speaker 3 (43:12):
But the thing is is that a lot of it.

Speaker 2 (43:14):
Now, some of these judges I have read cases because
normally what I'll read when I decide if the judge
is a radical left or if they're you know, doing
something they shouldn't be doing, is if in their written
order they personally attack Trump or the administration.

Speaker 3 (43:33):
They literally say things outside of character.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Of a judgment written is supposed to be written, you know, unbiasedly.
This is what happened, this is the law. No, they
come out and they actually put things in our person.
But that's not a large majority. Twenty percent of these
judges saying no are Trump appointees and then a lot
of other ones are George Bush and that they're conservatives,
and you know some of the Democrats. As long as

(43:56):
there is case law or constitutional precedents, then the judge
is not being radical. But I think what you're saying,
and it is true. Where you get these idiot judges
up in New York. Oh my gosh. The the girl
that was beside him that broke was was whispering into
his ear, the one that was doing push ups with
that with that shirt.

Speaker 3 (44:13):
On, what was what was his name? The one the
one that.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
Presided over that, over that fraud case, and and and
and convicted him guilty before the first day.

Speaker 1 (44:21):
Of the trial. Honestly I could see his face. But Ingrin,
Judge Ingron, I see the face. I'm just like, I
can't recall the name.

Speaker 3 (44:29):
I mean Hoimes. He hit to be a judge.

Speaker 4 (44:31):
He's on, you know, talking to young girl, and he
and he asked the prosecution in the case, well, I
don't want to, you know, object to every I don't
want to rule in their favor, in your favor and everything,
because then they'll get overturned on a pill. And the
whole time is gonna get overturned on the pill the
whole time it was not constitutional gaging lawyers.

Speaker 3 (44:48):
And I mean that case was a kangaroo core.

Speaker 1 (44:51):
But that was a ridiculous case, extremely ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
Yes, and so was Stormy Daniels case.

Speaker 2 (44:57):
The only time the hush money is legal is if
you're paying to somebody to keep quiet on something that
was illegal.

Speaker 3 (45:05):
It has to be in furtherance of a crime.

Speaker 1 (45:08):
There there's that. And then and there was a fact
that two parties agreed to it willingly. It wasn't like
she was calledharsed or forced. She's given the opportunity and
she said, yeah, I'll take it. And then when she
found an opportunity to try to get more whoever talked
to her. Then all of a sudden it turned into
a bigger deal. Suddenly it was like hold on. And
and then the way they made the case by saying, well,
it wasn't so much of his hush money it was
it was it was how you recorded it on your

(45:29):
ledgers in business. It didn't say that you were paying her,
you were paying this other person. Well, yeah, he's paying
the lawyer who was paying her via the contract. But
that was how did they make that software, How did
they call that thirty four counts thirty four council family,
because based on every check that was written, that is
a bunch of bullshit.

Speaker 2 (45:47):
Listen, this is this is how the whole thing went down.

Speaker 3 (45:51):
So have you heard of a Matthew Colangelo?

Speaker 1 (45:54):
No?

Speaker 2 (45:54):
Okay, So this thing got turned down for prosecution.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
Nobody but he was even Alan Bragg. The DA wasn't
going to do it.

Speaker 2 (46:03):
So Alan Matthew Colangelo was high up in the DJ.
He was like a deputy director of something. He goes
all the way down and takes a job as assistant
district attorney in New York. Goes from a high pam federal,
high power, federal job to an assistant DA. And after
he does that and gets in Alan Bragg's here, that's

(46:24):
when the charges came. But the fact that the that
they turned a misdemeanor into thirty four, a misdemeanor who
had gone past the statute of limitations. It had expired.
There's an expiration date on all crimes but murder, as
far as I know, so it had.

Speaker 3 (46:41):
Expired, and.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
That they turned it into thirty four fiunerally it it's
gonna get thrown.

Speaker 3 (46:48):
I don't mean there's no no question. But I mean
all these high powered highs.

Speaker 2 (46:51):
I mean I listened to all of them talk and
you know, all their perspectives and the constitutional lawyers and everybody,
and then I read into it myself and watched it,
and it's I mean, the whole thing was a sham.
I mean, every case that was going on was a
sham except for and even that case in Florida was
But Judge Cannon actually followed the constitution. I mean, you
got that one in DC where they got what twelve

(47:11):
million documents, It is as tall as paper stacks, as
tall as ten national monuments, and they wouldn't even give
them four months to go over it.

Speaker 3 (47:20):
And the.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Second biggest case, so that made the biggest case in history,
The second biggest was Walmart versus Visa, and it took
seven years of litigation and they wouldn't even give them
four months to go through twelve million documents or something.
And it's, oh, you don't need to go through and
we made you a roadmap to everything important. No, I'm
not going to take the defense's road map. There's obviously

(47:43):
stuff in there.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
Well. That the case, the case with the three of
four felonies that without the tray to convict Trump on
what I looked at it from. I'm not a lawyer,
but you know, I'm pretty savvy and reading contracts and things,
and I'll just say that, you know, I looked at
it from a business perspective, and how they tried to
nail them, and in terms of unlawful business practices and

(48:04):
how the money was being handled and how they were recording.
It was a bunch of bullshit. And that was something
that when I look later, New York actually put a
law into effect to try to catch businesses that way,
but they never really enforced it. They never really enforced it,
and so that whole thing was bullshit. It really was like,
you're going to nail the guy based on what he
wrote on his ledger in terms of where the money
was going. It was still an expense, it was still recorded,

(48:25):
it was going to his lawyer. The lawyer had what
was the person handling the contractual agreement between him and
the other person who accepted this deal. Where's the issue?
I mean, they were really reaching, Let's just put that way.
They were reaching.

Speaker 3 (48:39):
It was a.

Speaker 2 (48:40):
Bank, and the bank came and testified on his behalf
and said, we like the deal.

Speaker 3 (48:44):
And we'd do it again.

Speaker 1 (48:46):
Exactly on that one that you're talking about that case
as well. Yes, and and they can't nail them for
that that whatsoever. The bank had no issue there, there
was there was nobody who was taking advantage of there.
There was no victim at all, but the court still
ruled that someone somehow was a victim.

Speaker 3 (49:05):
They rolled it before the case started. I've never seen that.

Speaker 1 (49:10):
Yeah, I know. And and look it's not like I'm
sure we're not sitting here just trying to defend Trump.
The world is just if you just take these examples
of you know, uh, political lawfare, like the biggest, most
apparent cases that you can't ignore. And and there's no
way anyone the right back can look at this and
say that wasn't a political affair. No, No, that was

(49:31):
just Trump getting caught in his No it wasn't. It's obvious.
It's blatantly obvious. And and and ever since Trump got elected,
you've seen the ramping up this political lawfair And like
I said, it's always been there, but not to the
level it's been, not so public. It's ridiculous. So how
how can we fix that? Like you know, like you said,
some of these some of these judges, like Supreme Court

(49:51):
judges for example, they're appointed by Republicans. Okay, fine, understood,
But but how do we how do we fix these
judges you know, know from not Supreme Court for example,
but you know all all the other judges around from
using political lawfare to help their party in achieving their goals.

(50:11):
How is that possible? How can you fight the law
to that that?

Speaker 2 (50:15):
Let me let me, let me let me ask you something.
I'm going to give a kind of an analogy here.
I think it will help the audience understand some stuff.
So do you remember it was several years ago. Trump
has had this huge pile of taxes and it came
out that you didn't have to pay any taxes. And
he's like, we are the ones that have the loopholes.
You know, if you don't like him, close them up.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Yeah, remember truth.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
Okay, all these laws have loopholes. We have to close
them up. Because if you don't want judges to be
able to to to have such a an opinion, then
it can't be as ambiguous.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
It has to be.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
It has to It can't be written so the judges
can have such an opinion or there's going to continue
to be lawfair because if it's there, Oh, you can't
get try I'm mad at Trump for not u isn't it.

Speaker 3 (51:05):
You can't get mad at them for not using it.
It's there.

Speaker 1 (51:08):
Yeah, I see what you're saying. But when it comes
to the other side, you know, the prosecution side, when
we're talking about justic attorneys, you know, they build the
careers on how many people they can convict, and I
think some of these loopholes or ambiguity or there purposely
so that they can try to convict as many people
as they can so that they look good, you know,
And that's that's the truth. Look, I know lawyers myself

(51:30):
as well. Oh yeah, and I know, I know that's
the thing that happens. I know it is. You know,
it's like when you see you see someone convicted of
a minor crime, whatever it is, and they come out
the other end with fifty other crimes attached to it.
All of a sudden, you know, they're just trying to
pole whatever they can on top to make sure they
get you on something and if they get you on one,

(51:50):
hopefully can get you on the others. And all of
a sudden, you know, your six months lapping the wrist
turns into thirty years. So yeah, we should close the loopholes.
But as you said, it needs to be done on
both sides. For sure.

Speaker 2 (52:03):
Absolutely, And it's almost like I give another analogy in
the healthcare healthcare system. The way the healthcare system is,
they don't fix the root of the problem. They put
a band aid on it, so you'll have a problem
again in a couple of more years. You know, it
changes your gay to your other need that's not injured
any way, you end up having more problems instead of
fixing the route. You know, it's business.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
They're not going to stop the cash flow. Man, why
would they heal you?

Speaker 3 (52:27):
Okay?

Speaker 2 (52:28):
And that is a private business. And we don't have
the power that we do over government. We the people
have the power over the government. That's what it was
meant to be. We the people vote you in, We
the people take you out. So you know, you have
to take the issues that are that are so serious
you have to.

Speaker 3 (52:43):
Take them up there.

Speaker 2 (52:43):
So if if we go and we start saying, okay,
we need to do this to this judge and this
to this judge, we are literally just putting a band
aid over We are not fixing the root.

Speaker 3 (52:53):
Of the problem.

Speaker 1 (52:55):
Right, I agree. So fixing the root of the problem
comes down to kind of certainly back what we started
the conversation with is the Constitution. People actually know in
the Constitution and understanding the rights and taking advantage of
the rights to keep these people in check because in
the end they all answer to the people they.

Speaker 3 (53:11):
Know absolutely absolutely.

Speaker 2 (53:13):
That's why we want, you know, people to come to
the website and see the Patriot Party principle because it's
not actually the original Constitution because people want to go
back there and they want to say, oh, well, you
believe in slavery. No, it was abolished in the thirteenth Amendment.
The thirteen Amendments are what lines out governmental power, our rights,
all the things, all all men are created equal, all
that you know, the Declaration of Independence, all those things

(53:36):
come together to outline. Really, I believe a document that evolves.
It doesn't need to physically evolve. It was written to evolve.

Speaker 1 (53:45):
Right.

Speaker 3 (53:45):
Let me let me give an example.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
Okay, a lot of people would would would would say, well, well,
they would argue if you said God given rights, well,
what if you don't believe in God? Okay, Well, the
creators were so smart that when they wrote the Declaration
of Independence, they didn't say God. They said, you're creator,

(54:07):
your creator. If you believe in evolution, okay, you were
created through evolution, but you have that right granted to
you by your creator evolution, you know, reincarnate, whatever you
believe in, that's your right.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
But you have the right not by God, but by
your creator.

Speaker 2 (54:27):
So they wrote that document to be able to evolve
with time because back then, I mean, religion was a
huge thing, a lot bigger than it is now.

Speaker 1 (54:36):
Yeah. Absolutely, Well, that's that's another discussion. That'd be another day.
That just almost triggered something here. So let me get
your opinion on this. Okay, are you America first?

Speaker 2 (54:50):
Yes, this is an American first movement, but it is
America first. It's America first, it's maga, it's uh, you know, maha.

Speaker 3 (54:57):
All those are righteous movements.

Speaker 2 (54:59):
I just want not they need political party disassociation so
they have no agenda attached.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
It can be making America great again for as many.

Speaker 2 (55:06):
People as possible, Republican, Democrat, whoever. You know, It's just
it should be intuitive how to make America America first.
I'm America first, not America only. If it costs ten
cents to keep somebody across a kid across the world alive,
and we've said we would. But America First, I mean,
we have a lot of guests on that have America
First companies that are America First guests, and that is

(55:28):
what this movement is about. It is an America First
movement too, because if we don't do something, whether it
be because we don't have we don't we have open
borders and there's no there's no way to have a
sovereign nation with open borders, or whether it be because
it dissolves over something else if we don't put America
first and do something. Maybe not me, maybe not my kids,

(55:49):
but maybe my grandkids are great grandkids, they may not
have an America all right.

Speaker 1 (55:54):
So let's let's circle back to what you kind of said.
You said you're America First, not America only. So let's
expand on that and help us define that statement a bit,
because I think a lot of people are confusing what
America first means versus America only, and when we're talking
about our geopolitical relationships within the world and how we
have to interact with all the other nations around the world,
because I'm sorry, but we can't. We can't show ourselves

(56:18):
out in this modern era. There's just no way we
can just shut ourselves off. We're all too reliant on
each other to some degree. So give me, give me
expand on what you said. Basically, give me a little
more definition on your thoughts on that and what that means.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
Okay, my thoughts are is that? Or they are that?
America first?

Speaker 2 (56:38):
You know, when we look at something, okay, we need
to look at it. How is this going to affect America?
When I say in America only, I only mean, like,
you know, I think we were paying what fifteen fourteen,
nineteen cents a day for medication for kids that were
born with AIDS and to keep them alive. Things like that.
That's humanitarian wor to lead by example. That does not

(57:01):
mean we need to police the world. That's another big
issue we've had is trying to go and police the
world and turn places into democracies that don't need to
be democracies.

Speaker 3 (57:11):
You know.

Speaker 2 (57:11):
But this, now, this is my personal opinion. This is
this has nothing to do with the movement itself. This
is my personal opinion.

Speaker 3 (57:17):
You know.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
Uh, That's all I meant as far as like not
America only is I'm not gonna look as a business
deal gonna be equally good for for uh Europe as
it is for America.

Speaker 3 (57:29):
No, I want it the best it can be for America.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
I'm just saying as far as the humanitarian UH issues,
and a view on humanitarian issues is, I don't care
about you know, twelve cents of my tax dollars per
kid that is keeping alive a day.

Speaker 3 (57:45):
I don't care about that.

Speaker 2 (57:45):
That's that's I mean, you know, how much money then
they waste in the government.

Speaker 3 (57:50):
Yeah, that's nothing. That's not even that. I mean, that's
that's that's nothing.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
So uh, when I say America for so, I mean
that everything that we look at. Case in point, we
were given all these weapons to Israel, and hey, you
know what I think, Israel, they have the right to
defend themselves.

Speaker 3 (58:11):
They were attacked.

Speaker 2 (58:12):
Whatever they're supposed to be our allies, they are our
strategical allies. That cannot be argued whether whether you want
to call them an ally or not. That's some kind
of a personal opinion. But my thing is is that
they have money. They have plenty of money, and they
have stuff we want. They have technology, we buy stuff
from them, so we don't need to be giving them weapons,

(58:34):
and we don't need to be putting them with strings.

Speaker 3 (58:36):
They need to purchase them as a business deal.

Speaker 2 (58:38):
Maybe they get a twenty percent break or a ten
percent break or whatever keeps you know, the military industrial
complex in you know, in the green well. But maybe
they get a discount because they're an ally, but it's
still a business transaction. And that way that you don't
have different factions of different parties.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
Then we can't use them here. You can't use them.
You can't no their mine. I just bought them. I'm
a sovereign nation.

Speaker 1 (59:05):
Yeah, we can touch on Israel slightly in a bit here.
But let's let's talk about constitutionality again. Let's talk about tariffs. Tariffs, loved,
let's let's let I'll just let you go. I think
I think you'll already are pretty good at at just
taking a topic and running with it. So here are your.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
Thoughts, all right, my thoughts on tariff.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
Now, I've been saying this for about ever since Trump
was campaigning and talking.

Speaker 3 (59:31):
About doing these tariffs.

Speaker 2 (59:33):
I've had the same strategy and I actually fed it
into three different paid four ais a couple of months ago,
and it said that my strategy was much more effective.
That would have been much more effective and not as
turbulent and tumultuous across the globe. So I haven't agreed
with the straight across tariff now constitutionality.

Speaker 3 (59:54):
I think they're probably I think they're gonna rule against them.

Speaker 2 (59:58):
I don't know how they were ru against them, if
they'll break it into separate rulings, like you can do
this for this nation because it does fall under this
emergency Act of Fentanyl, but you can't or maybe you
can do it for China, but you can't do it
for these other fifty nations. I don't know how they're
going to rule on that. I do think they're going
to rule against them with these sweeping tariffs. My issue
with Liberation Day was one of my big issues. So

(01:00:21):
my thing is, if you really wanted to do what
you said you wanted to do, which was to bring
China to Neil, and you wanted to balance out trading
the way that you could have instantly stimulated the US economy.
This is not projection of five or ten years from now,

(01:00:41):
with the fact that they're getting tax breaks to automate
their factory, so there's gonna be less workers working for them.
That's not all these variables coming in. This is right now.

Speaker 3 (01:00:49):
Money.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
The first thing you should have done was everything that
the US manufacturers that is being imported into this country
needs to be tariffs so that playing field is even
to buy us right now. So people would have been
more apt to buy us produced goods that are being
produced right now in this country than getting them from overseas,

(01:01:11):
so that would have been stimulating the economy right now.
What I said was you do not need to go
in with a sickle. You need to go in with
a scalpel. Because then what you need to do is
you need to tell all of our allies.

Speaker 3 (01:01:24):
Everybody that you treated as an adversary. You should have
told all of them to begin with. Listen, guys, I'm
giving you two choices.

Speaker 2 (01:01:31):
You can come here and we'll work things out with tariffs,
because tariffs were pretty even you know before this. I
mean what other countries paid versus what we've paid. I
got it all, you know, I looked at all up,
researched it. I won't go into too much detail now
unless you want to later. But so we're not going
to do textiles again. We're not going to do any
of that stuff again because we cannot compete with ten

(01:01:53):
cents an hour.

Speaker 3 (01:01:53):
So we go to our allies and we say, look,
you got two choices.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
You form a coalition with us the Western world against China,
not America, and we bring China to Hill together, or
you don't, and we're gonna tear if the heck out
of everything that comes out of your country. They would
have come together. We would have brought China to hell.

(01:02:19):
China may have brought Russia to Hill.

Speaker 3 (01:02:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
That's a little more complicated, but I think it would
have worked out much better than tariffing textiles ar. I mean,
I just had to pay twenty five percent tariff on
a wedding dress. We're on thousands of dollars. They had
to pay twenty five percent tariff, you know, and it's
made here in the country, but the material I think
comes from another country.

Speaker 3 (01:02:40):
So you know, I think that that would have worked better.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
We wouldn't have We wouldn't have had so so many,
so many flare ups trying to deal with and the
problem was we kept moving the goalpost. You negotiated eleven
percent with I think the Philippines or I think that's.

Speaker 3 (01:02:58):
What it was.

Speaker 2 (01:02:58):
And then on true social before you close a deal,
you said it's twenty one percent, and they're like, WHOA,
we didn't agree to twenty one percent.

Speaker 3 (01:03:05):
You can't make it. You can't make a deal with somebody.

Speaker 2 (01:03:07):
That continues to move the goalpost after you make a
deal with them. So I think we should have I
don't think I think they're gonna be ruled against constitutionally
on to some where somewhere or another. I don't know,
like I said, if it's just gonna limit certain countries,
or if it's just gonna take and say this country
does qualify, or it's just gonna make it all Nolan
boy and say no, you don't have the power to

(01:03:27):
do that. Congress has the power of person.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
You do not have that. This was for emergencies, this
was for sanctions.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
I don't know how that's gonna how that's gonna roll out,
but I think it could have been done much more efficiently.

Speaker 3 (01:03:39):
And then we have this loophole that just expired, just expired.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
A week or two ago, where and a lot of
businesses depending on this where anything it used to be
anything under eight hundred dollars then get tariffed. Now everything
that comes into this country gets a teriff or flat fee.
That means if you've got family traveling abroad or that
lives abroad, and they send you a Christmas or Birthday present,
you got to get your pay to get your own

(01:04:03):
present in the mail.

Speaker 1 (01:04:05):
Yeah, that's that's how it works. Yeah, I don't from
my perspective, I understood what tariffs were intended for. It
is exactly what you said is to buy domestic, to
try to buy in America. It was trying to return
business to America, return manufacturing. But look, that's not going
to happen. That may be in a few industries, but

(01:04:26):
as a whole, we're not going to become the leader
of the world in terms of manufacturing anymore. It's just
not going to happen. There's too many other laws in
place that won't let it happen, and namely, most of
that are environmental. And when we were talking about textiles,
for example, sure there's some made in China, a lot
of it's in Indonesia. And the reason they're there is
because the s ten cents an now or the other

(01:04:47):
is environmental laws are circumvented they can use certain dyes,
they can do things that don't meet OSH standards either
in the workforce, and so therefore it's never going to
come back to the US because as soon as that
cloth comes back here, I mean, we're talking about a
four hundred percent jump. Probably you know I'm guesstimating, but
I'm sure our five to ten dollars T shirts are
now going to become one hundred and twenty to two

(01:05:08):
hundred and fifty for no reason. And they're not even
designer shirts. So sweeping tariffs were kind of a bit much.
But we cannot deny and that you said you did
research on this, We can't deny that there were some
countries that had unproportional tariffs towards American goods, and they
did so for the same reason we're trying to do it.
They're trying to protect their own economy with their own manufacturers.

(01:05:33):
It just makes sense. Two hundred and fifty percent or
ten percent on milk, for example, or soybeans or whatever
it is. It was intentional. It was intentional to protect
their markets, just as what Trump I believe is trying
to do. Now. The problem is is what you said,
he kept moving the goalposts. He didn't stick to anything,
because I think that is a tell he was bluffing.
He was just trying to see who would react and

(01:05:54):
who would come to him and try to negotiate, and
then when they didn't, let me change the terms. You know,
the problem is, I don't think Trump is as strong
as he's trying to make himself out to be. If
you're gonna if you're going to draw a line, a
hard line, then you gotta fucking stick to that, you
really do. If you can draw a line in the sand,
then that's that line in the sand has to stay.
You can't. You can't redraw it because whatever you said

(01:06:17):
or whatever your stance is suddenly didn't work. And like, well,
let me try to get him on this one. That's
not how it works. But I believe, I believe the
tariffs did have to be adjusted with certain industries, right,
But the way he went about just saying I'm tariffing everybody,
and you know it's forty percent this time, two hundred
percent late. Like, dude, you can't do that. You can't
do that, especially in industries where we're not even set

(01:06:38):
up yet to be able to absorb that impact. You know,
what do you what do you gonna do? Apple's a
good case, right, We're going to commit to building our
own plant here. That's not going to be overnight. Man.
If you're gonna start to tariff China basically or Taiwan
or whoever, well, I don't know if he's ever gonna
do it, but just these are just examples. Two hundred
percent on semiconductor trips for example, or parts or whatever

(01:07:01):
that are made for iPhones. How much of your iPhone
going to cost down the road immediately if we just
did that, we were talking now you know they're already
expensive enough. What were we to talk about a five
thousand dollars iPhone? Now, it's not gonna happen. But we're
not even we're not even set up yet in certain industries,
even an automotive to bring everything back. That's the problem
I solved. That's what I saw. You can't just you

(01:07:23):
can't just walk in with a hammer and say we're
doing this now, No, idiot, we can't do that. We
don't make the parts here, we don't have the infrastructure
set up yet, we don't have the manufacturing plants yet.
And so that was the issue I had with the
sweeping terrafs. But I didn't disagree with some countries and
some industries looking at it and going, yeah, we need
to adjust this, you know, if you're going to hit
us for this, and we got to kind of make

(01:07:44):
it even. So I agreed with that my opinion.

Speaker 2 (01:07:48):
Well tell me what, because I only looked up some
of the main countries, but when I looked up what
we were paying and what other countries we're paying for
tariffs before Trump, before Liberation.

Speaker 3 (01:07:59):
Day, because you know, that was part of it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:01):
Yeah, yeah, that was part of.

Speaker 3 (01:08:02):
The deep dive that I did when I reported on it.
I found out the EU.

Speaker 2 (01:08:08):
I think we paid three percent, they paid two point
seven or it was it was right there. Japan was
five and five and China we paid three, they paid eight,
so it was a five percent difference. I never saw
any countries, that any big countries that would mean anything
that we couldn't strong.

Speaker 3 (01:08:25):
Arm, that were charges that it wasn't kind of a
free flowing market.

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
Yeah. Yeah, again, I I don't understand his intent on
on what he was trying to do with everything, but
I'll just use one one example that everybody was crying
about and and and that whole squad. We had Cana,
which was fucking stupid. But for example, they're dairy, right,
they're dairy. They're dairy. They can buy American milk. This

(01:08:51):
is an example that you can look up. This is true.
But they have a quota. Now, we had an agreement
in quota, say okay, you buy x amount, and then
after you get past that quota. Then there was a
tariff impost on our milk. I think it was like
two hundred and it was over two hundred percent. Literally,
my brother and I actually we went down this rabbitle,

(01:09:12):
so it was over two hundred percent, and it was
intent and intended to control and protect the dairy farmers
of Canada, rightfully, so I don't have a problem with that.
But this whole back and forth on teriff with Canada
started with that, and then the Canadians were like, well,
we won't want your milk because it's bad and that's
the reason why that we put these imposes tariffs. Okay,

(01:09:32):
well here's my counter. What's wrong with our organic raw
milk that you guys think that you have and drink
and fine, but you don't want to buy ours. So
that's what triggered this whole thing. And that's just one example.
China for example. Also I don't know what the actual
tariff was, but they were so high, and they also
had a law. I think they had a law. Probably

(01:09:52):
correct me on this later. I don't work. I'm not
going to make this up, but they did have policies
and posed to where American cars couldn't be sold there.
Same thing in Europe. You see so many people importing
BMW's Mercedes volkswagons. How many American cars are in Europe.
Ford had some agreements, Chevy had some agreements, but it

(01:10:14):
wasn't widespread like it is here. It was very lopsided.
And so that was another thing that caught Trump's attentions
like wait a minute, this ain't working out. And I'm
not sure that was necessarily tariff driven, but I think
he used the tariffs to try to get them to
open up those markets.

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
Well, you know, and I want to comment on this
because German, you know, German engineering is black quality engineering.
And if you go to Germany or Italy or somewhere
where you can buy a Porsche of there, it's sixty
percent less than what you pay here or a BMW.

Speaker 3 (01:10:52):
So the problem I think was.

Speaker 2 (01:10:55):
And maybe I'm wrong, but you're getting really nice luxury
cars over here for the same thing or less than
you'd pay for forwards over there.

Speaker 3 (01:11:05):
So I think you're getting a better car. But I mean,
maybe I'm wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Maybe they would want what the US has, Maybe they'd
want the muscle cars. I don't know what import taxes
were for automobiles. I can't speak on that, so I
really don't know that. But you know, another big thing
Trump was talking about is the trade deficit. And I've
used this analogy before too. I'm like, Okay, you got

(01:11:28):
the US and you got China, so you can't get
mad because we, as the US, we're like Walgreens and
China's like Amazon. But you can't get mad that Amazon
sells more goods than Walgreens.

Speaker 1 (01:11:42):
Yeah. Well, and here's the problem with that. Let's let's
get off tariffs and talk about why that happened. We
let that happen. Oh, we gave all these industries away
to China because companies wanted to save money. As China said,
we can save you money, we can mass produce, we
can do X y Z for you, and companies decided,
you know what, it's cheaper to go there and make

(01:12:03):
a hell of a lot more profit. Let's shut down
our plants. We gave it to them years ago. Years ago,
the United States did nothing to protect their own businesses
in the US. Other countries will actually do that, they'll
protect our own industries and businesses. We for some reason,
I don't know why, we really don't. We're just so
profit driven. And now look at where we're at. It

(01:12:24):
affected the jobs markets to no end. The automotive industry
in general was literally run to the ground. I mean,
look at Detroit. You know, it was a shining light,
an example of American ingenuity, American manufacturing, American skill. And
then after everything started getting outsourced, just like that disappeared.

(01:12:48):
You know. Now they have their plants in Mexico. Okay, great,
it's still North America, but it's not in America. And
we're getting parts made in China for some of the
automotive parts. For example, India makes a lot of parts
as well. So the problem the problem is is we
did it to ourselves, and now we're trying to course
correct by bringing a hammer and just saying, you know what,

(01:13:09):
we're gonna tear for everybody. Three hundred four hundred percent
and everything's going to go good. And this is a
short term, like you said, a band aid. It is
a short term fix. Like they're bragging right now the administration. Oh,
we've already brought in trillions dollars trillion dollars and tariffs.
That's not gonna last forever. Man, You know, that's just
the initial that's what you're getting in initially from the
rush because people, there's no other way to go about it.

(01:13:30):
Like as I said earlier, we don't have alternatives. There's
no other we don't have industry set up internally to
absorb the loss of those suppliers. It's just not going
to happen. So this is a band aid. I don't
know where it's going to go. I don't know if
it's gonna blow up. But let's get back to where
this is unconstitutional. Tariffs are not unconstitutional. We were a
tariff nation period. We switched over because of globalization, and

(01:13:54):
once that happened, you can't turn that off. And unfortunately
we due to globalization, free markets and open trade, there's
no way to become a tariff nation again. It's not
gonna happen. Like Trump thinks he can just turn taxes off.
We would all look like that to happen, but terrorists
are not going to do it on their own. It's
just not so we can't go back, like you said before,

(01:14:16):
like some of these things that happened, we can't just
go back like some of them were written for a
certain time. Some of these constitutional laws or the way
we did things were written for a certain time. But
that's why we had these amendments, as you said earlier,
that kept up with the times and had to be
readjusted for what we're going through now. And after we
became a global market, we entered that and everybody else did.

(01:14:39):
The tariff thing isn't working. The tariffs to me applied
to certain industries to protect certain markets within certain countries, right,
but it can't be just some sweeping broad thing like
you were saying earlier. It just doesn't work well.

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
I mean, and I don't know if you remember, but
the campaign promise was I'm gonna charge teriffs, but the
other countries are going to pay.

Speaker 3 (01:15:02):
And the thing is now well one country did. The
EU is.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
Paying the US government on a lot of goods that
are being exported fifteen percent. They're paying US fifteen percent,
So he was able to negotiate that. You know, if
he does something good, I call it. If he does
something bad, I call it. And you know, we put
out a merch line on it. So you know, I
did put out one where Trump delivers and then I
put out one side of Bote for this. So we

(01:15:30):
try to commodate with with VOTs on our merch store.

Speaker 3 (01:15:36):
Yeah. Well, you know, it doesn't matter really which way
you go. You can you can find something there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:42):
But but he did do it with the EU. But
I don't think he's going to be able to do
it with anybody else. And it wasn't on everything and
there are some things that are exempt. But you know,
like I said, I don't think he's going to be
able to do it with with with everything else. As
far as you know us losing manufacturing, I looked into
that as well. And you know in the seventies, eighties,

(01:16:05):
nineties it said that we transitioned more away from the
manufacturing because the other countries did take it, and we
went into more innovation, more technological stuff. You know, we
have some of the best micro trips by Navidia, a
couple of others.

Speaker 3 (01:16:18):
You know, we are ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:16:20):
I mean that's really, what our stronghold is is that
we're innovators.

Speaker 3 (01:16:25):
And that's the reason he's.

Speaker 2 (01:16:26):
Able to push a lot of these countries around because
they don't they can't afford not to deal with the
US government. But it's because of innovation, it's not because
of manufacturing.

Speaker 1 (01:16:36):
No. No, I agreed with you on the innovation. But
China has proven to be stealing a lot of those
innovative ideas and designs. I know it is for a
fact because of my business what I do. I have
dealt with Chinese manufacturers direct with certain products, and they
would even call me to say, hey, we can sell
you this direct and I look at it and it's
like a carbon copy of said name brand that I've
invested you know, X amount of dollars in, Like hell,

(01:16:57):
you know, so that does happen. And I was a
manufacturers rep in an industry too, I had my own
rep from for a while, so I have a lot
of insight info on how this crap works and what
really goes on behind the scenes. Yeah, and so we
gave it away, But our innovation is always also being
stolen right now. And you know, China's very good at
reverse engineering. They can reverse engineer stuff as far as

(01:17:19):
the chips go, you know, like Silicon Valley, that's where
everything was made. We had, we had manufacturing plants just
dedicated to making semiconductor ships. We don't do it anymore.
Intel was trying to bring it back years ago. I
don't know what happened to that plant. I don't know
if if it ever came to fruition or if it
was even profitable for them.

Speaker 2 (01:17:37):
I think it's supposed to be. I think I've delayed
by a year. I think next year I was supposed
to be functional. There was one in Arizona and one
in Ohio. I think they had twenty billion in each one.
And they're trying to bring back a lot too, because
you know.

Speaker 3 (01:17:49):
We need.

Speaker 1 (01:17:51):
We need to absolutely need to and semiconductor ships need
to come backer. So I'm glad that that's that's actually happening.
I didn't hear anything on it, any of the progress,
but that's good. So hopefully those that comes comes into
fruition very soon that we can take that back. That'll
that will definitely put us in a different position when
it when it comes to technology, absolutely, you know, and
Trump was trying to push to get you know, batteries

(01:18:14):
made here for electric cars and battery technology. Unfortunately, Hyundai's
center people and you know what happened with that, So
someone called them in as legal What the help? I
don't know, Uh, ridiculous. So yeah, we're I agree with you.
We need each other and and yes, the rest world

(01:18:34):
still does need America. We we are innovators, but we
can't ignore that there aren't innovators in other countries as well,
you know, the EU and especially in like the UK,
there's a there's a lot of software engineers and software
developers right now. Basically there's people that are starting to
look like they're good to rival Google, you know, and
in what they can develop. So it's no longer a
closed market. We don't we don't own the market, you know,

(01:18:57):
all together anymore. But we still are our hedge and
tails ahead of the curve for sure, and we need
to stay there. May bring those plants back online over
here is going to help. As far as the semiconductors.

Speaker 2 (01:19:08):
Absolutely, I've i've gotta, i've gotta, I've gotta give your
audience something that one of my guests on the other
day said, we were having a really good conversation and
he said that the United States innovates, Asia imitates, and
Europe regulates.

Speaker 1 (01:19:28):
I mean that is all very true. That's all true.
I mean seriously, yeah, right, It's like even in our
our in the industry, I mean it's like, you know,
everyone always says that, oh, well, you know, EU standards
are higher, so that you know, if they meet EU standards,
it has no problem meeting the American or US standards. Yeah,

(01:19:49):
and you know what, in some cases that's true. Not
in all, but in some cases that's true for sure.
So what what with with everything we're talking about, I'm
I'm going to start wrapping this up pretty soon, but
I do want to circle back to Israel. And I
don't want to dwell on Israel, by the way, I
just bring them up because it was brought up and

(01:20:09):
we're talking about geopolitical relations now. Middle East has always
been a hotbed and to me personally, I think we
need to reevaluate the relationship, not abandon them, not a
walk awaycause they are a strategic ally. But what has
been going on recently, and this ties back to what
we're talking about about America. First, should we reevaluate our

(01:20:31):
relationship and actually rein them in at times to let
them know that, look, we're not your show pony. You're
not gonna dog walk us and use this as an
excuse for you to just do whatever the hell you
want without consequence. Maybe I'm off on that, maybe you
don't see it my way, but.

Speaker 3 (01:20:51):
That's a loaded statement. How are we going to rain
them in?

Speaker 1 (01:20:53):
Them In're not so loaded? If you want to just
talk about what recently happened when they and I had
to kill those Hamas leaders and guitar and what they
did to another ally by the way us LA Guitar is,
they launched an attack to kill a MOSS leaders on

(01:21:14):
Katari soil, sovereign soil. Government of Guitar was not involved
in this, didn't give them approval, wasn't in on it.
Israel just decided. And what's crazy about this? Even the
Massad in Israel advised the government against doing this. Originally,
I believe that they wanted the Massad to do a
some kind of a ground operation to take care of this,

(01:21:35):
but they didn't heed the warnings of the Massad, and
so the Israeli government decided to do an operation anyway
to where they violated Katari airspace, shot a missile and
destroyed a building trying to kill some OSS leaders on
Katari soil. What happened and this just happened last Tuesday,
by the way, I remember, Okay, so what happened now?

(01:21:58):
After that? The response is couldart calls for an Arab
Islamic summit emergency meeting. We're talking about guitar. We're talking
about Saudi Arabia, the europe not the European but the
the Arab Union, like all those, all those, all those
major leaders. I could pull it up, but we're talking.

(01:22:18):
But I had a list of everyone that was bold,
and they're pretty pissed off, and they actually called for
Trump to reign in Israel, even stating that America has
leverage over Israel. It's time for America to use that leverage. Now,
this is what I mean by Israel using us and
as a show opponent for example, or a show of
four saying you know what we can do, we want

(01:22:39):
because we have America in our corner. That also that
also put us into buying with Qatar because we have
the largest military bass US military base in the Middle
East hosted by Qatar. We're an ally of Qatar. We're
also an ally of Israel. So you can see where

(01:23:01):
everybody's kind of stuck going. What Israel did was wrong,
we should retaliate, but instead of doing so, they know
they can't hold them accountable because the US is also
in Israel's corner. And now we're sitting here, we got
to look at this and go, okay, how do we
handle this? Really, no one's really said anything, which is crazy.
No one's ever didn't really make a statement because we're

(01:23:22):
in a precarious petition because what if Katar and everybody decided,
you know what, We're done with this whole bullshit. Israel's unhanged,
the US is doing anything about it. We lose our base, right,
we lose our relationships in the Middle East with all
these other these other nations and states, which is not
what we need. So that that's one scenario that is
extremely recent. And on top of that, right now, we

(01:23:45):
got two hundred and fifty legislator or people who make
our laws basically and over the representatives in Israel at
a summit.

Speaker 3 (01:23:57):
Yeah, that's that's that's ridiculous. All right.

Speaker 2 (01:23:59):
So I'm gonna rewind back for a minute just to
kind of to pad the case, and I'm getting ready
to make and I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just
gonna try to present an option what I think would
be a good option. But first I want to just
kind of make a point. So we know, last October
seventh it was more brutal than our nine to eleven

(01:24:23):
and per Kappa, it was ten to twelve times the
size of our nine to eleven because they only have
ten million people. We have thirty three times more people
than them. Okay, so it goes to ten to twelve times.
So I don't know if you remember the response from
George Bush, George W. Bush, but he said when the

(01:24:44):
buildings got attacked.

Speaker 3 (01:24:45):
You're either with us or against us. Period.

Speaker 2 (01:24:49):
So this is ten to twelve times more people, a
lot more brutal, burning babies and barrels, cutting heads off,
all that stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:24:58):
And you know, so.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
I think that they're within their realm of rights to
go after these people however they want to their sovereign nation.
Now you have a very good point. They should not
be able to go after all these people with people thinking, oh, well,
we can't do anything about them because the United States

(01:25:21):
is going to we shouldn't get be drug in if
they're haphazard or whatever they're doing, because we weren't dragging
anybody else. And when we said, you know, you're either
with us or you're against us, we were going after
So what I think is going back to making an
America first a business deal, is instead of providing these
embargoes or you know, of weapons and all.

Speaker 3 (01:25:40):
This stuff, you sell it to them.

Speaker 2 (01:25:42):
You're selling another sovereign nation who is an ally, but
not one you're going to go to war for whatever
they want and let them deal with it. Hey, I'm Switzerland.
I don't have none to do with what they do.
But they do have the rights to buy weapons from us.
You deal with them.

Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
So I don't disagree with that. And that's what a
lot of people want, a lot of people want us
to be hands off and just let Israel handle their
shit and whatever happens happens exactly. But the October seventh
thing agreed, and I also say that Israel should hunt
down Hamas and eradicate them period. The sticky sticking point here, though,

(01:26:22):
and what just happened wasn't whether or not Israel had
a right to go after Hamas. It's that they did
so while violating the sovereignty of another nation that, by
the way, is not a terrorist nation and is an
ally of the US, who also hosts our largest military base.
I mean that's where senta Com is operated out of
right there at Central Command. Period. And so if you're

(01:26:46):
going to assert our relationships and put us in between
you Israel and this other nation just because you feel
you have the right to hunt down Amas is what
does it mean for the US? Like how do we
save face in that instance and how do we repair
those relationships to keep our strategic military position in the area.

(01:27:10):
So that's the sticking point here, because it also Qatar
does host Hamas's leadership arm or their political arm and
that was done intentionally as a way to communicate with them, okay,
and from what I read and heard that it was
really at the request of the United States. And this

(01:27:31):
has been going on since twenty twelve. So Israel knows this,
everybody knows this. Quitar is basically the mediator out there,
is what they are. They're kind of like the Switzerland,
even though many people will argue that they harbor and
fun terrorists, but it's really Iran. So that was the
sticking point here. It wasn't For me, the argument isn't
that Israel doesn't have a right, because they do. The

(01:27:54):
US definitely demonstrates the right. Absolutely know its gonna tell
us what to do, and I think Israel can too.
But it's not like We're going to go invade England
until England to fuck off and launch an attack and
blow a building up because we believe the terrorist is
sitting in that building in England. But Israel is doing
those things, which cops us in a weird position.

Speaker 2 (01:28:15):
Well, there's a couple of things here, So we went
back to twenty twelve. The US was aware that they
were in k TR, so is Israel nobody could have
anticipated a thirteen year later people coming in with rocket
launchers on parachutes to beat the Iron Dome trained my Iran,
nobody could have anticipated that. So you can't really say, well, yeah,

(01:28:37):
they knew they're there, and they know that they're probably
the head on the snake and the reason that their
people are dead.

Speaker 3 (01:28:44):
So my thing is is if you are a.

Speaker 2 (01:28:47):
Country and you are hosting an enemy combatant, then and
I said, you're an enemy combatant of the country who's
going after.

Speaker 1 (01:28:55):
Their enemy, right, but they are the appointed me mediator
is why that was going on. It wasn't because they
were just doing it. If that, if they weren't, if
they weren't a mediator state for example, if they weren't
the mediator there to handle and host these relations and negotiations,
then I see, I see your point for sure. My

(01:29:16):
point is Israel has a right should they not have
consulted both the US and Katar to say, hey, we
know they're there, we know that it's not just a
leadership or the political arm here, it's the actual terrorists
that are actually down on the ground doing all this shit.
They didn't do any of that. They didn't go to
these governments. They didn't go to Qatar and say, you know,
what can we do? We need to make this happen.

Speaker 3 (01:29:39):
Well, let me ask you something. Do you ever let
your left hand know what your right hand is doing?

Speaker 2 (01:29:44):
Is a masade going to tell another government that may
have agents that are paid off in the government, they
can give them a heads up that they're coming after them.

Speaker 1 (01:29:51):
Yeah, I understand that point. It's just again, we have
a strategic relationship with Qatar, okay, And that relationship has
also been said to be one of the more important
partnerships that is a non natal ala in the Middle East,
just as Israel is. And so that that's I think

(01:30:12):
that's really my concern. And what the point is is.

Speaker 2 (01:30:13):
Like the country's American. You're you're concerned is American's relationship
with Kjar, not Israel.

Speaker 3 (01:30:19):
We can put them out.

Speaker 1 (01:30:20):
Oh no, no, no, That's what I'm talking about. And and
and what I'm saying is what Israel did be backtracked.
We're an ally of Israel, and everybody knows we backed
them to knowing right, we're also an ally of Guitar, right, Yeah,
Guitar hosts our largest military space in the entire Middle East.

(01:30:41):
That's how important the relationship is. So we're in the
middle right now because everybody knows we're going to back Israel.
But Israel is so emboldened and they know that we
backed them, and then they pull these things like they
just did with Qatar, and then the US is in
the middle to try to repair this because now after
this Arab emergency meeting that Guitar called, they're all calling

(01:31:04):
on Trump now to reign in Israel a bit.

Speaker 3 (01:31:08):
How do we ran in another sovereign nation?

Speaker 2 (01:31:11):
And isn't it disrespectful to my thing is okay, Well,
we're allies of both. I didn't realize we were such
big allies of k Tar. I've always thought that we
were one of a terrorist. I didn't realize we were
such big allies. But if we're allies of both, okay,
you know what, you got two choices. You can take
it or you can go to war. If you want
to go to war, We'll say you the weapons. If
you want to do is Israel will say the weapons.
You're both our friends. Y'all fight it out. It's a

(01:31:32):
business transactions America. First, we're not going to get into
all the ins and outs. We didn't authorize it. You
didn't let us know if you need weapons, let us know.
If you need weapons, let us know. We're not giving
weapons away anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:31:44):
You can buy.

Speaker 1 (01:31:45):
Them, right. I think most people in America would like
to start seeing that. They would like to see the
Middle East just handle itself. They really would.

Speaker 2 (01:31:54):
Yeah, we got to stop overthrowing these dictators and it
ends up being a vacuum of tear, of sales that
come up and stuff. I mean, we don't know that
democracy is probably not going to work in.

Speaker 3 (01:32:05):
The Middle East.

Speaker 2 (01:32:07):
Yeah, work for the most part, maybe in some parts
if we stay real like hands on. But look how
quickly Afghanistan went back and we spend a trillion dollars
and twenty years over there and trained their military.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
Yeah, I think we should mind our own business as
well when it comes to it. I mean, not all
cultures are compatible. What works for us does not work
for everybody, and we've got to understand that. And you know,
culture and everything about a nation is really based on geography,
what they go through a lot of times, their environment.
And then you also throw in the religion, the religious factor.
Islam and Christianity are not compatible. Sorry, it's not going

(01:32:42):
to work. And if a lot of what we do
and our laws are based on Christianity, which people will
try to ignore and say it isn't, but it is.

Speaker 3 (01:32:49):
It is.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
How are we going to impose that on a country
that practices Islam.

Speaker 2 (01:32:55):
You are speaking at the route. You got to the
root of that one, Bud.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
It's not gonna happen. Yeah, you know, so, I do
think we need to keep our nose out of things,
you know, we do. We need to be vigilant. Though
terrorism isn't the product of the US is involvement, and
everybody who says that is a fucking idiot. And I
don't care how people feel about it. I've done the history.
Terrorism has been a fourteen hundred year tool used by
Islam period, and they've done it against their own people

(01:33:20):
for not being extreme enough in their practice of Islam.
So people may hear this, they may disagree with me.
I've already gotten beat up on the internet by having
Dan Bermowey on the show, and I can care less.
Truth is truth, It's what it is. Absolutely don't have
to We don't have to intertwine everywhere. We could respect
these nations, we respect these cultures, but it doesn't mean
we have to be integrated and amalgamated in every single

(01:33:42):
facet of what we do. We just don't.

Speaker 2 (01:33:44):
Absolutely. I mean parliament works for some people. Look over
and it works, has worked for a long time.

Speaker 1 (01:33:49):
Absolutely, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:33:50):
I mean, you have to respect another sovereign nation.

Speaker 2 (01:33:54):
And I think a lot of problems happened when we
stop respecting sovereign nations and we started strong arming you know, countries.

Speaker 3 (01:34:01):
We have a strong arm Switzerland.

Speaker 2 (01:34:03):
I think about ten or fifteen years ago, we went
in there, their banks said they had been holding in
their vaults stuff since World War Two.

Speaker 3 (01:34:10):
So the US goes in there.

Speaker 1 (01:34:11):
Remember that, you remember it? Oh you know, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:34:14):
This was a while abat It's probably fifteen maybe fifteen
years ago or so. So the US goes in it
because it used to be you could take as much
money as you wanted into the country of Switzerland and
suit people took suitcases and the banks did not share
any I mean, Swiss banks were all about privacy. So
what happened was is that the US goes in and says,

(01:34:35):
we know that you are holding a bunch of historic
artwork and things in your vaults. You owe the Jewish people.
I think it was seven billion dollars. And if you
don't pay the seven billion and give us access and
all the information on every American who has a bank

(01:34:57):
in a bank account in Switzerland and a Swiss bank,
then you are not going to be able to bank
with the world banks anymore. And we threatened Switzerland and
they get crazy, they flipped they fit here here.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
Wow, that's that's fucking ridiculous. That's ridiculous. Yeah, I'm with you, man. America. First,
we need to get back to the basic principle of
the Constitution when to stop over convoluting them with legal
speak and making them pretty much clear cut and dry.
I agree with you, and even with our relationships with

(01:35:32):
others around the world, our geopolitical relationships, we need to
be better partners. I believe you know now that being said,
NATO's a mess. We've always carried it. We've paid over
seventy five seventy two, seventy five percent of NATO every
year and carried everybody period. And people are gonna argue
that NATO is really America whatever. But you can't call
on us if you're not going to pay your pay

(01:35:53):
your end either. It's not a partnerships, not how it works.
But yeah, I agree with a lot of what I
would encourage people to check your website out and listen
to your podcast. Why don't you just slavery but you
know about that where they can find you and everything
that you have to offer, so they can, you know,
interact with your content.

Speaker 2 (01:36:15):
Okay, the you don't put in the Patriot Party podcast,
you just put in the Patriot Party.

Speaker 3 (01:36:21):
We're on Apple, Spotify.

Speaker 2 (01:36:24):
YouTube, and then we have in the description or on
the social media sites themselves there's links to all the
other social media. We have social media going on everywhere.
Our new website, which is the Patriot Party dot Us
all lowercase, all one word, the Patriot Party dot us.

(01:36:45):
It's got a link to our merch store as well
as our other social media and our podcast, and.

Speaker 3 (01:36:52):
It really explains the movement.

Speaker 2 (01:36:56):
So you won't have any questions, or if you do,
you can contact us through the website social media and
there's an email on their Truth and Constitution at gmail
dot com.

Speaker 3 (01:37:05):
You can contact us if you have any questions.

Speaker 2 (01:37:07):
But we've laid it out and the podcast is on
the website, so if you don't want to go to
the podcast and you just go to the website and
you can listen to the podcast off the website. We
run it to the website so and it's it's all
on one page. You just scroll down, very easy to use,
very user friendly. So the Patriot Party dot Us all lowercase.

Speaker 1 (01:37:25):
Yeah, and I'll have i'll have a i'll have you
on our guest page and then I'll also have your
links and whatnot attached to that. So if anyone goes
goes to the website, you know, worldblazepodcast dot com then
they'll be able to see Matt Davis stare as a guest.
And then once you're there, you can click all these
links to what he was just talking about us well,

(01:37:45):
So hopefully that gives people a few places where they
can make it easy to find you. But man, appreciate
the conversation. It was informative, it was fun. I appreciate
the back and forth. We'll push back. That's good to
have once a while. You know. I hate I hate
living I hate living in a world where you're just
kind of in a bowler. I was just like, yeah, yeah, yeah,
you know that's that's not having true discourse. So I

(01:38:06):
appreciate all that. I hope, Yeah, I think we'll have
you back down the road. We'll stay in touch, all right.

Speaker 3 (01:38:12):
Absolutely, thank you so much, so much.

Speaker 1 (01:38:15):
Thank you for taking the time.

Speaker 3 (01:38:17):
Tas your content. Feel attention.

Speaker 2 (01:38:22):
Devils High Redemption stands on my

All Episodes

Matt Davis - The Patriot Party

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

The Joe Rogan Experience

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Matt Davis - The Patriot Party