Ep. 758 - Roller Coaster Monday - American Perspective with Rick Thomas

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
A rare and balanced view on politics in today's world,
based on facts born of rationality, common sense, and logic,
providing context on today's events. This is American Perspective with
Rick Thomas.

Speaker 2 (00:21):
Hello everyone, welcome back. It is American Perspective and I
am your host, Rick. Ah.

Speaker 3 (00:33):
It's been a.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Roller coaster of a Monday for me. I saw some
items in the in the plethora of news articles, and
I was like, yay, and then I saw something else
and I went ugh. And then I saw something else
and I went yay, and then I saw something else
and went ugh. So I'm gonna bring all of those

(00:57):
to you, tonit. We're gonna see, We're gonna see what
happens here in terms of the roller coaster, we won't
call it a roller coaster of a more of emotions,
but definitely a roller coaster of things that are going
on here anyway. All right, I would like to ask

(01:21):
has anybody heard from Bonnie or Fat Pause in terms
of what's going on with them. I was thinking about
them all weekend, praying, of course, for Fat Pause is
full recovery, and I just wanted to know if there's
any Whiskey Warrior p ones out there who know of

(01:42):
anything for him, because like I said, I've sent an
email and last week and I haven't heard anything back.
Not that I'm necessarily expecting anything from her, but anyway,
all right, so oh let's see. Let's go ahead and

(02:03):
get things kicked off. First things First, of course, is
tonight's Pledge of Allegiance. It is being done by the
NJY Camps Girls Band, the NJY Camp's Girls Band. So
if you are of mine, please stand, remove your hat
if you're wearing one like me, place your hand over

(02:26):
your heart, and follow along with the NJY Camps Girls
Band as they perform their version of the Pledge of Allegiance.

(02:54):
All right, and of course I thank them for that
wonderful rendition of the pledge. There we go. If you
would like to hear your rendition of the pledge played
here on the program, all you need to do is
record yourself performing the pledge in your style. Then take
that audio file, video file, whatever kind of file, and
attach you to an email, send it off to me,

(03:16):
send it to fans fa ns at American Perspective dot online.
That's fans fa ns at American Perspective dot online. And
I will get you into the program or get you
into the rotation. We are at twenty or twenty. I

(03:38):
need twenty one. I'm looking for twenty one. I need
twenty one. So if you are of mind to send
that in, that would be great. And if you do
it on your phone, you can share it. Use the
share option to share it to me and send it
off to fans fa NS at American Perspective dot online. Well,

(04:01):
I hope everybody, if you're planning on having turkey and
it's frozen, you've got it out now. Oh there's Bonnie.
So apparently Fat Pause is still not awake. No other change,

(04:21):
and yeah, we are definitely thinking of you right now,
Bonnie and Fat Pause and praying for his recovery. And yeah,
we're all doing that just so everybody knows. All right, Okay,

(04:42):
so let's go on to tonight's headline sponsor. I'm wearing
one of their fabulous shirts. This one here is the
Declaration of Independent shirt put on to you or provided
to you as or from the website. Boy, I'm just
meaning this thing all the hell from the website the

(05:03):
flag shirt dot Com. Oh boy, here we go. You
guys get to see multiples of me until I can
get that fixed. There we go. So so head on
over to the flag shirt dot Com and get yourself
some patriotic gear, whether it's in the colors of the Red,
White and Blue or stylized like mine, where it highlights spectacular,

(05:31):
spectacular American American stuff like you know, the Liberty Bell,
Mount Rushmore, the Lincoln Memorial, the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution of the United States, so on and so forth.
Head on over to the flag shirt dot Com check
out all of their men's women's kids made in the USA,

(05:52):
and all of their accessories in the fantastic red, white,
and blue at americanized styles and you can you can't.
You can definitely check out all of their stuff. I'm sorry,
this is just one of the one of the Whisky

(06:12):
Warrior p ones was a little thrown off when I
UH switched screens. Anyway, head on over to the flagshirt
dot com and check out all of their styles. And
if you order seventy five dollars or more of their product,
you can receive you will receive free shipping. But I
know not everybody can order seventy five dollars or more,

(06:33):
and so because of that, I am going to help
you out. All you need to do is go to
flag shirt dot American Perspective dot online. That's flag shirt
dot American Perspective dot online, and you will be presented
with a coupon code. And all you have to do
is take that coupon code, copy and paste it into

(06:53):
the promo code box at checkout at the flag shirt
dot Com and you will get five dollars off your order.
Once again, go to flag shirt dot American Perspective dot online,
be presented with that coupon code, copy and paste the
coupon code into the promo code with promo code box
at checkout at the flag shirt dot com. And uh,

(07:17):
the flag shirt dot com. M my close captioning screws
that up every every single time U go to the
flag shirt dot com and get yourself patriotized. All right, yeahlady,

(07:37):
Well you folks in Texas, Yes, you're gonna have a
fantastic opportunity to get one of the greatest infomercial salespeople
ever as one of your congressmen. Congress persons, Oh, who
remembers this guy? Hi, it's Vince with Sham. Wow. You'll

(07:59):
be saying wow every time you use this towel. It's
like a shammy. It's like a towel.

Speaker 1 (08:04):
It's like a spunge.

Speaker 2 (08:05):
A regular towel doesn't work wet. This works wet or dry.
This is for the House, the car, the vote, the
r v Sham. Wow, that's right, Vince. Oh, he has
filed paperwork for becoming a congress person. He is going

(08:27):
to be a congressperson for uh, the Temple Kaleen, So
that means all of Fort Hood, the Temple Kaleen and
northern Austin area. That's right. No, I'm not kidding. Yeah,
I'm I'm dead serious. He he filed to run for

(08:50):
Congress as a Republican candidate. His name is Vince Shlomi
s h l O m I Vince Shlomi. He is
one of several that are looking to unseat eighty four
year incumbent John Carcter in the suburban Austin district. So yeah,

(09:15):
we'll be saying wow if he makes it into car.
So you know, I can't tell if this is his
if his full name is this, but he apparently filed
on Friday and submitted under the name Offer Vince Sham.

(09:35):
Wow shlow me Offer Vince Sham wow shlow me. So anyway.
He told Fox News Digital in an interview this Sunday
that his decision to run for office was ultimately motivated
by a desire to quote destroy wokeism and as a

(09:57):
tribute to the late Charlie Kirk, whom he called the
original wokebuster. He also added that the political infighting in
the country eventually inspired him to seek office and make
America happy and sham wow guy. I wonder if he's
going to hand out sham wow's at his fundraising campaigns

(10:21):
and stuff. Anyway, he's a sixty one year old Oh
my gosh. Well, I mean keep in mind, you know,
the sham wow was out a long time ago, but
the sixty one year old Israeli American entrepreneur is aiming
again to unseat Congressman John Carter of Texas. So I'm

(10:42):
going to have to check. I'm gonna check with my
business partner, Ugie and see if he actually is in that,
because he I'm sure he is. Oh, I got I
got to reach out to Ugi on that. But anyway, oh,
I know, I know thee is young. Yeah barely anyway,

(11:05):
So yeah, like I said, it includes northern Austin suburbs
Temple and fort Hood as fort Hood is also fort
Hood is surrounded by Colleen, well, not surrounded, but the
town that's right outside the base is Kaleen, Texas, so
it's in there. So anyway, there are four other, sorry,

(11:27):
five candidates in total, with Shlomi one of them looking
to compete for the Texas thirty first congressional district. So yeah,
there you go. Anyway, he is I didn't know this,

(11:48):
but he's president and CEO of the TV marketing company
Square one Entertainment, and he's skyrocketed to pop culture fame
in the two thousands with his high energy pitch videos
that helped make the super absorbent sham Wow twel a
household name. It was also his rise to fame was

(12:10):
also accompanied by several high profile controversies, including allegations of
harassment and physical altercations, before he eventually stepped out of
the spotlight and reportedly worked to clean up his image.
So yeah, we'll see. He also apparently faced legal battles

(12:31):
tied to a nineteen ninety nine underground comedy film called
The Underground Comedy Movie. Yeah. Also too, he also did
the slap Chop product so Anyway, back in two thousand
and nine, he was arrested in Miami Beach after an

(12:53):
alleged violent altercation with a sex worker, which was an
incident that became tabloid fodder after police photos of his
face injury surfaced. So yeah, anyway, we'll have to see
to see what happens here. But maybe he'll give out
sham walls and slap chops at his parties or whatever. Anyway,

(13:22):
Uh yeah, people, I mean I'm telling you, I'm telling
you you cannot find good quality candidates anywhere. All right,
So you may recall last week I made the comment
or I made the mention of the fact that Eric
Swallwell has announced that he wants to run for governor

(13:49):
of California. Well, he may run into a bit of
a speed bump with that. And by speed bump, i'm
an obstacle like possibly you know what do they call
them spike strips to let the air out of it
out of his tires. See, he's being investigated for mortgage fraud,

(14:19):
and that mortgage fraud is basically that he is that
he claimed that his home over on the East Coast,
or where he purchased was his primary residence which of
course you know, would would particularly violate him being a

(14:41):
congressman too, because congressmen have to have their primary residence
in the from the state or in the state that
they are reportedly representing. However, here's the problem with him
is that if it can be proven in shown that
he actually lived, like literally lived on the East Coast

(15:09):
for his primary residence, the California Constitution, the California Constitution
would forbid him from being governor. Because the California Constitution
in the California Elections Code leave zero ambiguity on this

(15:30):
particular point, his true and primary permanent home must be
in the state of California. So his own legally binding
mortgage documents state signed under penalty of perjury that his
home in Washington, d C. Is his principal residence. Uh huh.

(15:54):
And by the way, too, they also have a rule
as well where he has to have lived in California
for the five years prior to declaring to be the
governor to run for governor, so he may not actually
be able to get there. And by the way, they
also just in case somebody is like saying, oh, they

(16:15):
can get around that, you know, I mean, all he
has to do is have like a mailbox address.

Speaker 1 (16:20):
Nope.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
The constitutional requirements and election law in California state clearly
that the resident term does not simply mean where one
receives mail or even owns property. It means domicile one's true, fixed,

(16:44):
permanent home. California Elections Code Section three forty nine makes
this point abundantly clear. Quote, a domicile is the place
where a person's habitation is fixed and where they have
intention of remaining. And they also say at a given

(17:05):
time a person may have may have only one domicile, Yeah,
so he may be in trouble. The law further emphasizes
that though a person may have multiple residences, which Swalwell doesn't,

(17:26):
by the way, they may have only one designated domicile.
The domicile is proven by actual habitation plus intent to
remain permanently, so that eliminates any candidate whose legal declarations
show that their true primary home is not in California.
And according to his twenty twenty two mortgage filing, a

(17:50):
sworn declaration of DC as his primary residence that was
in the document where he basically stated under clause as
he literally stated that the intended occupancy of his house
in Washington, d C. Is the principal borrower's primary resident residence.

(18:16):
Oh and his not only did he, but also his
wife signed under that as well. They're not symbolic signatures,
they're real. So yeah, he may not he may not
be able to do it because also, don't forget the
five year requirement is also fatal. California constitution requires five

(18:38):
years of California residency. Immediately before the election. Eric Swalwell
would have had to abandon his d DC domicile, establish
a new California domicile, live in that California domicile as
his primary home for five uninterrupted years. Why why do

(19:01):
these people, why do they seem to think that they
can just get away with this crap. I mean, this
is this is the law. This is the way the
law actually works. And uh, he clearly signed the piece
of paper that said that, yeah, he is not he's
not living in California, which I think is really weird
that he can't. You know, he's representing California but he

(19:23):
can't live but he can't live in California.

Speaker 4 (19:25):
I mean, come on, anyway, Uh whatever, they are Democrats,
they'll they'll figure out a way to get awayund it
because some Democrat judge will say, oh.

Speaker 2 (19:39):
He mean that. Yeah. Speaking of that, the Department of
Justice revealed today what is being called damning evidence against
Latitia James in a new court filing. So the evidence
was submitted to the court by the US Attorney for

(20:01):
the Eastern District of Virginia, Lindsay Halligan, including which included,
I should say, a number of damning exhibits seemingly demonstrative
of James's guilt. Now, according to Attorney Mike Davis of
MRD Law, one exhibit contained James's AFFI David for occupancy

(20:25):
of sorry Affidavid of I gotta get accurate Affidavid of
occupancy for the Norfolk, Virginia property. In the Affidavid, James
had signed a rider that basically said that she was
going to use the home as a secondary residence and
not as an investment property. That rider allowed her to

(20:48):
receive a lower interest rate. Well, there's only one problem.
She actually has never lived at that property and in
fact she rented it out to her niece, along with
several other potentially criminal criminals, people who are participating in

(21:09):
criminal behavior, which apparently, according to Jasmine Crockett. It doesn't
actually mean that they're a criminal. Yeah anyway, so yeah.
Another exhibit that was entered contained James's homeowner's insurance application,
in which the New York Attorney General had alleged that
the Norfolk home remained unoccupied five months out of the year. Well,

(21:34):
this also was false because James's niece was found to
be living at the Norfolk home year round. Now. A
third exhibit combined contained another insurance application in which James
falsely asserted that the Norfolk home was occupied by a
single childless adult. It was actually, in fact occupied by

(21:57):
four different people, including the wild niece they call her
the wild niece and three children. Hm. So, by the way,
the documents filed Thursday also included blurbs laying out Halligan's
case against James. Now, if you look at stuff like this,

(22:22):
I mean this is actual, verified, signed legal documents submitted
as evidence, unlike what we have seen in the past
against Donald Trump. So anyway, James knew that these claims

(22:43):
were false. According to Mike Davis, he says when she
made them in the tweet above, which I'm not going
to show you, but this is in a tweet thread
in the tweet above Chain's claim to have moved into
the property in October of twenty twenty, except that in
September of twenty twenty, James's niece who James, was collecting

(23:04):
rent from registered utilities in the niece's name. So anyway,
and by the way, Davis also noted that prosecutions are
routinely brought in the Eastern District of Virginia for fraud

(23:26):
over similar amounts of cash. So it's not as though,
by the way, it's not as though, you know, this
is something novel. Oh, kind of like the case in
New York where Alvin Bragg did against you know, and
the Aragon case with Latitia James. That one, yeah, totally novel,

(23:48):
brand new, never been tried before. No, this is this
is something that happens on a regular basis. So she
is actually being charged with stuff that is routinely, routinely
filed and prosecuted. So this isn't something new. But anyway, unfortunately,

(24:11):
so there's your high. Unfortunately, here's a low. That same
federal judge has decided to dismiss both the James Comy
case as well as the Letitia James indictments. Now keep
in mind, Neither of these cases are being dismissed because

(24:33):
there is no case. There's no evidence. You know, there's
no other you know, there was a procedural error necessarily
about the cases themselves. No, the judge is dismissing those
two cases because of the fact that, according to the judge,
Lindsay Halligan was not properly a point. So US District

(25:03):
Judge Cameron McGowan Curry said that all actions flowing from
the appointment of Lindsay Halligan, whom the Trump administration named
as interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia,
will quote unlawful exercises of executive power and are hereby
set aside. Yes, that judge is presiding over both cases. Uh,

(25:36):
Curry dismissed the indictments without prejudice. So, for those of
you that are not a legal eagle, when you dismiss
a case without prejudice, it means that the case can
be brought forth forward once again. If you get a
case dismissed with prejudice, that means it cannot be brought

(25:58):
forward ever again. So the judge, in dismissing this basically said, Hey,
if you get a properly appointed prosecutor here, you can
retry this one. Well, there's only one problem the James
Comy case is the statute of limitations is run out.

(26:20):
So the chances of James Comy being retried in this
particular manner is very slim. There would have to be
I would imagine some extenuating circumstances proven to the court
before they could even get the case going again. But
in terms of the Letitia James case, that can absolutely

(26:43):
get brought up once again. And now all of that
is assuming, of course, all of that is assuming, of course,
that the appeal of this decision gets upheld. So again
you've got to remember, in the process, the justice process,

(27:06):
the judicial process, there still is the appeal process that
could do. I mean you can appeal, he can appeal.
The Department of Justice can appeal this decision, and they
likely will. So we'll just have to see what happens.
And the Curry the judge. Their decision was focused on

(27:31):
twenty eight Title twenty eight United States Code, Section five
forty six, which allows interim attorneys to serve for one
hundred and twenty days, further providing the district courts may
appoint a US attorney to fill vacancies at the end
of that timeframe if the Senate hasn't already appointed a replacement.

(27:52):
So yeah. During the hearing on November thirteenth, the Justice
Department argued that the law did didn't confine the Attorney
General to an initial one hundred and twenty days for
appointing prosecutors. Rather, it said the law allowed for successive
appointments of attorneys who would each have one hundred and

(28:12):
twenty day limits on their time in office. Now. Curry
disagreed and said on November twenty fourth that the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia had power
to appoint a replacement for Eric Siebert, which was Halligan's predecessor.
We'll just have to see where this happened, what happens here.

(28:34):
But yeah, so the left, of course is like yay,
and you know, look, leftist lunatics. I'm not talking to
my whiskey warrior p Ones here and any other conservative
with the brain, but you leftist lunatic morons. You guys
don't seem to get it. Even though this is a

(28:55):
court win, it doesn't you've won the battle. But you
have definitely not won the war on this one or
any of the ones where a federal judge says something,
because you got to remember these federal judges, many of
them are activists in black robes, and many of them
are outstretching their constitutional boundaries. I'm not calling this judge

(29:20):
outstretching their constitutional boundaries, although there is some question with
regards to this. But again, keep in mind, there's a
lot that can happen between now and the end of
the judicial process. So this one's going to come back,
I promise you. But anyway, I'm fairly certain of that.

(29:44):
All right, let's go ahead and talk about my morning
elixir that I get every single morning, and that is
coffee I get. I drink my coffee out of a
big sixteen ounce mug that was a gift from my
Whiskey Warrior children are my whisky children, I should say,
And it's a big mug that says father like no other.

(30:07):
I drink it every day. I think of them. I
drink out of it every day, and I think of them.
And I want to tell you that if you still
haven't tried seventeen seventy five coffee, now is your shot.
The seventeen seventy five starter kit has dropped. There's a
limited number of units available. In each unit, you're getting

(30:30):
the Bull Dark Roast that hits hard, the Smooth Medium roast,
and the Vitality Mushroom coffee for clean energy and laser
focus with no crash. All of these coffees are single origin,
small batch, toxin free, and mold free. Plus you're also
getting a gold spoon clip that's my personal favorite, because

(30:54):
freedom isn't scooped with plastic. You'll also be receiving a
frouther that is strong enough not only to stir up
your coffee, but will also stir up your mother in
law's opinions, not that that's really all that hard. And
you'll also be receiving a black seventeen seventy five tumbler.

(31:15):
It's one hundred and seventy dollars one hundred and seventy
dollars worth of coffee, and gear yours for just ninety
nine dollars. This is for the ones who have been
watching seventeen seventy five coffee blow up on Rumble and
wondering if it is actually worth it. Spoiler alert, it is.

(31:35):
It is go to seventeen seventy five Coffee dot Com,
Forward Slash Studio and grab your starter kit before they're gone.
That is the numbers one seven seventy five Coffee dot
Com Forward Slash, which is the question mark key studio,
stud io and grab your starter kit before they're gone.

(31:58):
One of my Whiskey Warrior p Ones says, coffee so
bold that the Sons of Liberty at the Boston Coffee
Party would actually be rescuing the barrels instead of throwing
them in the bay. Bold beans clean fuel in a
morning routine that stands for something just like rumble does.

(32:19):
Go to seventeen seventy five Coffee dot Com, Forward Slash
Studio and grab your starter kit today. Nice little ad
lib there by. Gee, all right, well, you know this
whole seditious sixth video is gonna stay in the in

(32:45):
the news cycle for a while. But a couple of
these people, a couple of these people have gone on
interviews and they've been asked these questions. They've been asked
questions like, hey, hey, you're in this interview. You're sitting
there talking about the fact that you know you want

(33:09):
troops to disobey unlawful orders. Obviously, so how many unlawful
orders have been have been given. Well, Jason or Jason,
I think it's Jason Crow anyway. Crow, one of the
six said, well, you know, we're not doing that. We're

(33:33):
not talking about that. We're just trying to remind remind
these people of the law. Yes, I sound nasily, not
because of an impression of him, but because he's whining
little bastard anyway. Uh and uh so she Alissa Slutkin,
who was one of the first ones. She was on

(33:54):
ABC News, and yeah, we'll just have to, you know,
listen to it from our own words.

Speaker 5 (34:02):
And here's what White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said
about your video.

Speaker 6 (34:08):
They're suggesting, Nancy that the president has given illegal orders,
which he has not. Every single order that is given
to this United States military by this Commander in chief
and through this command chain of command, through the Secretary
of War is lawful.

Speaker 5 (34:24):
Is that an accurate statement?

Speaker 1 (34:25):
So?

Speaker 7 (34:25):
I think the reason we put that statement out is
because the sheer number of frankly young officers who are
coming to us and saying, I just am not sure,
what do I do? You know, I'm in southcom and
I'm involved in the National Guard. I'm just not sure
what do I do, And I think, look, you don't
have to take my word for it. We've had report
after report of legal officer JAG officers coming forward and saying, look,

(34:48):
I push back on this. I'm not sure that this
is legal. There is such things as illegal orders. That's
why it's in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, going
back to Nuremberg. Right, And it's just a it's a
totally benign statement, and if the president is concerned about it,
then he should stay deeply within the law. But I
think it's important to know it's not hypothetical. Right, This

(35:10):
president in the last administration, his last administration, asked his
Secretary of Defense and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
to quote, shoot at their legs at unarmed protesters in
front of the White House that he wanted moved.

Speaker 5 (35:21):
Actually, I know, I know you're talking about Mark Esper's book.
He didn't exactly say that. He said the President suggested that,
but they were never ordered to do that, and he
got out of it.

Speaker 2 (35:31):
Did you catch that? Did you catch that? Slatkin was
just fact checked live, so she's already I mean, seriously,
I don't know anybody with any kind of an ounce
of intelligence could come and look at this video and
understand who these six are and not come to the

(35:53):
same conclusion that they literally are trying to foment disloyalty
and insubordination within the ranks. Literally. Anyway, we'll let her
kind of finish here of the.

Speaker 7 (36:09):
Oval office quickly so that he wasn't told to actually
do it. And I give him a lot of credit
for that. I knew credit.

Speaker 5 (36:15):
So let's talk right now. Do you believe President Trump
has issued any illegal orders?

Speaker 7 (36:22):
To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that
are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that
are going on with these Caribbean strikes.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
Oh yeah, there it is there. It is. See again,
not a single illegal order has been given to anybody's knowledge.
And yet they put out this video saying, oh, yeah,
you don't have to you don't have to follow illegal orders.

(36:52):
Now think about that for a second. The intent is
there they intend that was the intent of the video,
because even she admits right here, she's like, you know,
we've been getting a lot of questions and stuff like that.
Rather than saying, hey, maybe you want to go and
consult the lawyer or even the jag. Folks, maybe you

(37:14):
ought to consult somebody with a little more experience than you.
Rather than sitting there and answering the questions that way,
they immediately go to this video and say you do
not have to follow unlawful orders, knowing that there's already
some questions in the ranks. That means that their intent
was to foment disloyalty and insubordination within the ranks, which

(37:42):
is a direct violation of Title eighteen United States Code
twenty three eighty seven. Folks, these people knew what they
were doing. They knew it. They knew it. Come on, yeah,
it's just I mean, come on, and three Chevy points

(38:04):
it out here. What would have happened if I told
my commanding officer that an order was illegal? Well, uh,
not that I would ever necessarily do that, unless, of course,
it was something like completely obvious save for an example,
fire upon unarmed civilians in a war zone, regardless they're

(38:27):
not enemy combatants, they would be unarmed civilians, and that
would literally be murder. I mean that one would be
extremely obvious. Okay, but yeah, it would have to be
something extremely obvious for me to even be able to
remotely even think that I could do it. Because what

(38:48):
a lot of people don't seem to understand with this
is that if you defy an order, you are going
to be arrested, regardless of whether the order is actually
illegal or legal. The way that it works is you
are guilty of defying an order of disobedience until you

(39:11):
are proven innocent in the military audit. This is where
the military is opposite of the civilian courts. Folks. You
are automatically assumed guilty until proven innocent in a court.
In a military tribunal court of law, you have to

(39:32):
prove without a shadow of a doubt that that particular
order that you decided to go against was actually an
unlawful order. You you better have your damn ducks in

(39:52):
a row if you're gonna do this. I mean, even
if you sit here in question things like oh, you know, well,
like she pointed out the drug boats and stuff, even
if you question that. You got to understand, folks, these
orders are coming down from a far far reaching place

(40:13):
through several people, and you honestly believe that the chain
of command is sitting here saying, oh yeah, troops, you
can just automatically defy the order. No no, no, no, no no.
The way this works, folks, The way this works is
that you damn well better have all of your ducks

(40:35):
in a row. Know everything about the law, backwards, forwards,
inside out, reverse mirror image, black and white, color, you
know all kinds of different places before you do this,
because guaranteed, if you are found that the order was lawful, okay,

(40:56):
and that's we got to use the term correctly. It's
the lawful or if you are found to have disobeyed
a lawful order, you will be hit with punishment forfeiture
in pay, possible jail time, dishonorable discharge from the services,
bad conduct discharge at BCD, the Big Chicken dinner. Man.

(41:17):
If you go and get a BCD, man, it's almost
like you're having a criminal You will have a criminal record.
It will follow you throughout the days of your career
in life. There's nothing to come back from on this,
which is part of the reason why sitting here and
trying to remind people, hey, you don't have to follow
lawful orders. She actually, in my opinion, she actually just

(41:41):
gave ammunition to the prosecution for this because she literally
is saying, hey, we already have a bunch of people
who are questioning these orders, and so we just we
just wanted to affirm the idea that the unlawful orders

(42:03):
could potentially you know, that you don't have to obey them. So,
in other words, what you're telling us Slotkin, Melissa Slotkin,
you're telling us that you see a crack in the
armor and you are going to try and exploit it.
That's literally what you just said. Oh, we already know

(42:23):
that they're so we've getten so many reports people have
doing this. We're getting so many reports of this, and
so we're just gonna go ahead and put out this
video saying that, Yeah, if you think in order, I mean,
that's literally the message that they are giving. If you
think in the order is unlawfully, you don't have to
follow it. What do you think fomenting disorder, disloyalty, attacking morale,

(42:48):
you know all of the things that are listed in
a title eighteen USC. Twenty three eighty seven. All you
have to do is attempt it. That's your intent, folks,
you're in tent was to attempt to foment disloyalty and insubordination.
And they did it because of the fact that and

(43:09):
she just admitted this. They did it because they've been
getting all of these reports all The Secretary of War
ain't messing around. He's not messing around with this because
now Captain Mark Kelly is under the Department of War's

(43:31):
review for misconduct breaking as of today in the Daily Signal.
The Department of War released a statement on Monday announcing
it will review serious allegations of misconduct against Senator Mark Kelly,
who is a retired Navy captain. Now what a lot
of people don't seem to understand is when you retire

(43:53):
from the military, you can get called back, you can
get called back to Nevis, and you can get court martialed.
So the dow's investigation into Kelly's actions follows the seditious
six video that was posted on x the Department of War.

(44:16):
They said, this is a statement. The Department of War
has received serious allegations of misconduct against Captain Mark Kelly, USN,
retired in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice
Title ten, United States Codes six eighty eight, and other
applicable regulations, a thorough review of these allegations have been

(44:38):
initiated to determine for their actions, which may include recall
to active duty for court martial proceedings or other administrative measures.
The statement added, this matter will be handled in compliance
with military law, ensuring due process and impartiality. Further official
comments will be limited to preserve the integrity of the proceedings. Yep,

(45:08):
all they have to do is show demonstrate a intent.
And I know, in a civilian court of law, that's
that's a little difficult to do, especially when you're dealing
with things like I don't know, murder. You know, you
have to have intent, premeditation, you know kind of thing.
But the reality of it is, in this particular situation,

(45:30):
the intent is obvious. It is one obvious. There is
no other reason to put out a statement like that,
especially now that we know that Alyssa Slatkin was basically saying, Hey,
you know, we've been inundated with all these questionable bah
now we know what the intent is. The intent is

(45:54):
sitting here and basically saying, hey, we've got a lot
of people asking questions about this. Maybe we can utilize
this and uh do something about this by putting out
a video stating that you don't have to follow what
you consider to be unlawful orders. I mean, I'm sorry,
but a private, a sergeant, a corporal, a specialist, I'm

(46:19):
going over the army ranks, a low level enlisted member
is not going to have necessarily the legal chops to
fully understand in the heat of the moment what is
a lawful order and an unlawful order. Again, if it
is something completely obvious, such as you must kill all

(46:44):
these unarmed civilians, women and children, get rid of all
of them in war, that's pretty that's a pretty obvious
unlawful order, Okay. But something like oh, well, you know, yeah,
you're a fire on this boat which contains drug drug

(47:08):
cartel members. Yeah, that's a little more ambiguous and is
not likely to be able to be determined, especially by
a young person who is just in the service or whatever. Yeah,
this was fully intended. Believe me. They can try and
act like this wasn't it. But if you look at Sluckkin,

(47:31):
you look at Kelly, you look at Crow, you look
at all of these guys and gals that are in
this video, and every single one of them, I can
tell you, is a Trump hater, every single one, and
every single one has derision toward the President. So their
full intent, regardless of whether they say it or not,

(47:53):
their full intent was to sow disloyalty and insubordination and
vision in the ranks. That was their whole purpose of
the video. They would have no other reason to comment
on this if it weren't to try and get people
to do the thing that they are looking for, which

(48:14):
is be disloyal, be insubordinate. There is no other explanation
for this, no other logical, no other reasonable, no other
explanation as to why these congress people decided to make
this video and state the things that they stated. So yeah, yep,

(48:40):
so Mark Kelly is still subject to the UCMJ and
is now going to get into trouble for this. Oh,
here's the aditious six, Mark Kelly, Melissa Slotkin, Jason Crowe,
the Representative, Jason Crowe of Colorado, Chris Delugio of Pennsylvania,

(49:03):
and Chrissy Hulihan of Pennsylvania and Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire.
Just you know, take those Take those six seriously. Take
those six. Go and peruse their social media, and I
guarantee you you will find through their actions that their
intent was not to just simply say, hey, you've already

(49:26):
been trained on all of this. You know this, Yeah,
you just remember, No, that isn't the case. That isn't
what they did. That isn't what they did, and they
know it, and now they're in trouble because of it.
All right, let's move on from this because this.

Speaker 1 (49:49):
Just pisses me off.

Speaker 2 (49:50):
I'm sorry, this crap just pisses me off. I'm glad
that Haigseth is doing something, I really am. I wish
you could do it against all of them rather than
just Mark Kelly. But that's okay. It would be just
lovely to see Mark Kelly go down for this. At

(50:10):
least somebody go down for it. Well, speaking of another
thing that is a falsehood by the left, totally shifting
gears here, totally shifting gears here. But you'll recall back

(50:30):
in May that there was a report that came out
that was ordered by President Trump under it was an
executive order. Let's see if I can find that executive order.
Hold on, I thought I saw it in here. Yeah,
it was under Executive Order one four one eight seven,

(50:55):
and uh, this report came out. It was the executive
order was to examine whether or not gender affirming care
was actually something that you know with medical was there
any medical evidence. Was there anything in terms of you know,

(51:17):
whether or not this is supporting these hormone therapies and
other treatments for minors now that identify as transgender. Well,
the published final version came out last Wednesday, and the
published final version after being peer reviewed by ten different

(51:39):
experts and research groups, none of which found any major
faults in the findings that the US doctors presented, basically
stating that US doctors should pause, pause giving common gender

(52:03):
dysphoria treatments until more is known about the long term
effects on patients. Now, one part of this review process
with medical journals and stuff like this is that the
experts will be reviewed or the report is reviewed by experts,

(52:26):
and they are given the chance to basically demonstrate mistakes, errors,
possible flaws in the research methodology, any of these other
things that are running around about this, and there were
none found. In fact, the only complaint, the only complaint

(52:50):
that came in that was of any significance, was the
fact that one of the reviewing research groups basically said, well,
we wish you would have included tod a transgender researcher,
which has nothing to do with it, but the findings
were all in line, incorrect. They couldn't find any errors,

(53:13):
They couldn't find any anything else. So this report, so
the order itself was claiming that US doctors were maiming
teens with gender affirming treatment. That must end, and he
ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to compile
an assessment of the standards of care of miners who

(53:37):
identify as transgender. Now, that report, which again originally came
out in May, found that many of the studies that
proponents of affirming care used to back their treatments, so
the studies that were pro using these medicines were of

(53:58):
quote very low quality, and that in reality there is
little known little known long term psychological and quality of
life effects of these treatments. There's also little evidence known

(54:20):
of how often patients regret undertaking these treatments. So, in
other words, taking the hormones, going through the process, the
gender surgery, the top surgery, the bottom surgery as a
child is what's being questioned here. And this report also
noted at the same time that the UK itself banned

(54:43):
the use of puberty blockers and other treatments for miners altogether.
So it's not like we're coming to a separate idea
that maybe this is not something that we should be doing.
We're actually in conjunction with doing our own studies. Now,
the report itself said that doctors should focus on psychotherapy

(55:06):
until more is known about the effects of these gender
affirming care treatments for children. Now, the report was widely
denounced by transactivists when it was released in May. But
now that it's been peer reviewed and they could find
nothing wrong with it, well, what the hell, I mean,

(55:32):
where are.

Speaker 1 (55:32):
You going to go?

Speaker 2 (55:33):
Now? Experts have basically said this is the case, folks,
and it's not just you know, Robert F. Kennedy or
anybody else. Now, there's a couple things to note, by
the way, which I find this fascinating on this is

(55:54):
that the main author noted that the report's nine authors
and their particular research process we're completely independent of the
Health and Human Services as well as the fact that
the majority of those authors are Democrats. That's right. So

(56:19):
Democrat doctors, Democrat doctors, the majority have all come together.
Even though this is a bipartisan report, Democrat doctors are
now coming out and saying the reality, which is, we
just don't have enough information to know whether or not
there is a positive effect on this and whether or
not these treatments are actually effective. Folks. This is yeah,

(56:50):
the statement, there's a statement out of it saying that
we are a very politically and ideologically diverse group. Most
of the authors are liberal Democrats. They wouldn't vote for
Trump if he forced them to. This is a bipartisan initiative. Yeah, yep,

(57:18):
so mm hmm. Even the APA, the American psych Psychiatric Association,
which was the only review organization that reviewed it or
even responded to the request for a review, the APA
did not substantively criticize the actual evidence analysis findings. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (57:49):
So yeah, Apparently the trans ideology and the transing the
kids is not a good thing.

Speaker 2 (58:01):
And of course anyone with a brain already freaking knew that.
Let's see, all right, a couple of things really quick.
I don't know if anybody noticed, just in the last

(58:21):
closing minutes here, I don't know if anybody noticed, but
x X has now got a new feature to it
where accounts are being disclosed as to where they are based,
and many of them, apparently, many of the many of
the accounts that are supposedly America first Mega, so on

(58:47):
and so forth came up as not being a part
of America, although that could have a lot to do
with like VPNs or anything like that, because that's where
that would come from. But I'm going to tell you
my account, one hundred percent American, American perspective, American citizen

(59:07):
and an American who runs it. It's all me. But anyway,
that apparently a bunch of leftists jump on this train
and we're like, I've heard they're all from foreign entities. Well,
the House Intel Chief just really quick in the final
closing minute or closing seconds here, the House Intel Chief

(59:29):
warns that foreign actors, in conjunction with what you just
learned about acts, are conspiring with Americans to sow discord
inside the US. Yeah, like that hasn't really been apparent
at all at all. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford said, quote,

(59:51):
I think that there's a whole networkable state and non
state actors that bring that to bear here in the
United States. That is to explore any kind of political
divide that must exist or schisms that may exist even
within a political party. So they kind of help so discord.
We've seen malign influence from state actors that include Russia, China, Iran,

(01:00:17):
and then there's also non state actors that can be
doing the binding of a nation state. So yeah, like,
uh yeah, we're being attacked. Were the people are all
trying to take us down. That's just it. That's just it.
People are taking us down and we know it. No surprise,
there not a single surprise. All right, folks, That is

(01:00:39):
it for me for this evening. Give me a favorite.
If you haven't already, head on over to rumble dot com.
Get yourself an account. It is free, and once you
are signed up and signed in, make sure that you
search up the American Prospective channel and hit that green
follow button to get notified that every time I go live.
Also too, don't forget to across all of my platforms

(01:01:01):
to leave me a thumbs up, thumbs down, or of
course for three chevy of thumb sideways, whether it's ex YouTube, Facebook,
or of course the aforementioned Rumble. We will see it
tomorrow night, five pm Pacific eight pm Eastern time right
here on American Perspective. Have a great rest of your evening, folks,
and don't forget to get that turkey. Don't let the

(01:01:23):
turkey go above forty degrees fahrenheit, to make sure that
you as you're thawing it, to make sure that it's
safe for you to eat on Turkey Day. Anyway, have
a great rest of your evening, and good night everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:01:41):
The previous broadcast was produced in his own by Active
Eyemedia LLC. All rights reserved, he pointed,

All Episodes

Ep. 758 - Roller Coaster Monday

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Betrayal: Weekly

.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;}Ep. 758 - Roller Coaster Monday