The Common Sense Conservatives

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Common Sense Conservatives, a political discussion group
about current events and other government related matters, every Wednesday
evening from seven to eight pm right here on WUSMN
fifteen ninety AM, WUSMN ninety five point three FM and
streaming live on WUSMN dot Live. Making sense of the
inverted reality we are subject to every day, The Common

(00:24):
Sense Conservatives are here to help bring you back to reality.
Now your host Chris Wyatt, Todd McKinley, and John Gorvin.

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Hello everyone, and welcome to the Common Sense Conservatives were
broadcasting right out of Lovely downtown Nashville, New Hampshire. Todd,
it looks like we're missing a member this evening. I
think mister Colonel Chris Wyatt didn't make it. I'm expecting
that flight was a little bit much for him. He's
probably tuckered out and passed out right leave.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Yeah, I imagine when did he fly over? Do you
do you remember that he fly over today or yesterday?

Speaker 2 (00:59):
I don't call when he said he was leaving. For
some reason, it was over the weekend, but it could
have been today. You know what. I think said something
about that, didn't he right?

Speaker 3 (01:10):
Yeah? Plus with this storm here. Who knows how it's affected,
you know, flights across the pond, right.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Yeah, I didn't even know there was a storm going on.
You're saying that they're getting pretty hard over there in
the in the u k.

Speaker 3 (01:21):
Well, no, there's a there's a there's a hurricane right
in the middle of the Atlantic right now.

Speaker 2 (01:25):
Okay, go for that easy, come on, man, they just
get a little extra lift right here.

Speaker 3 (01:31):
Yeah, you can get above them, no problem. But it's
just a matter of getting through them, get to get
up to that altitude. That's the thing. And this thing's
a huge storm apparently.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
Is it Is it over? Did he actually fly through
that or would it be probably?

Speaker 3 (01:48):
But but it has affected a lot of the storm,
a lot of the air traffic through the Atlantic, especially
from Atlanta, and of course it points south from there
for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Yeah, I can I can imagine quite make the runway
because you ran out of fuel. Fight and the winds.

Speaker 3 (02:05):
Right and now I think they got enough. But anyway, Yeah,
he's over there for for the for the listeners, and
I don't know. Yeah, the colonel. Colonel's over in London
right now. He's covering the rugby worlds. What is the
world Cup for Females.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
Right, I think that's what it is.

Speaker 4 (02:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:20):
I'm not not too big into rugby myself, so that
what it is. If he tells me, then I know.
But and I know he said it last week, but
I don't really type of information. Yeah, you know, I
got a mind like a still trap. Nothing gets out,
nothing gets in, right, nothing gets in. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Yeah, once that, once that traps closed, that's it. My
mind's made up nothing.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
That's right. So what's going on today, Todd? What's going
on in the world?

Speaker 3 (02:47):
Man?

Speaker 2 (02:47):
What's going out there in Tennessee? You got anything going on?

Speaker 3 (02:50):
Not much, just just just you know, paying attention to
our agubernatorial race that is heating up. You know, we
had the president founder of the Tennessee Gunno or Gun
Owners Tennessee FIR Arms Association excuse me, a couple of
weeks ago talking about this race, and of course, uh,
you know, it's heated up. And I think John Rose,

(03:11):
who who's Marsha Blackburn's opponent, just won a major straw
pole at one of the big county Reagan Day dinners.
I think he won like sixty sixty percent and she
won like thirty some percent, and anybody else got like
five percent or something like that, but that was that
was a big coup right there. I mean, that's that's huge.
Sixty some percent, you know, again against Marshall black Run,

(03:33):
a very well known person in Tennessee, whether you like
or not, certainly has a name recognition. And that was
a big win for John Rose, who's probably going to
be outspent three four, five to one, and of course
have any number of big names against him. So but
it's going to be interesting, I think if if he's
able to do that in other counties and gain gain traction.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
Absolutely man. So yeah, she's really not a I don't
think she's a big favorite. I was talking to somebody
that lives in Tennessee here this week, well you know,
Aaron and and he was saying that too. He says,
you know, it's just she's kind of like you do
nothing senator in Uh.

Speaker 3 (04:07):
Well, yeah. The thing is that it's the establishment who's
going to show up in numbers for her. So she's
going to show up with a base of voters right
right off the bat, going to you know, across the
entire state, people who know her. You know, she's been
in the state wide races at least twice. And of
course she was a well known member of the House
and so people people in the GOP know her and

(04:28):
who she is. So it's just a matter of John
Rose being able to cobble a base together to kind
of counter that, and then it's a matter of all
the other undecideds that are out there.

Speaker 2 (04:37):
For sure, that's a feat going against the party.

Speaker 3 (04:39):
That's a feat, right, absolutely. But you know, I think
people should stand up and not just allow anybody to
just roll into to put public office, especially something like
that as a governor, a senator, you know, a member
of the House or something like that. You know, maybe
maybe if it's a lower level office where somebody's done
a decent job. You know, hey, we're not going to
run against X y Z because he or she's done

(05:01):
a good job. Uh, you know, un let's say the
county commission or whatever. Why I upset that, you know
what I'm saying, if they've not done a good job,
run against them by all means.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
For sure, No, I think you should still run against
somebody even if they did a good job. It's not
because you're trying to take them out arouse them. But
how are people to know who you are when they're done. Well,
I mean, if you want to run when they're finished,
you got no namesake, nobody knows.

Speaker 3 (05:21):
I get what you're saying. I mean, I'm talking about
from a personal standpoint. If I if I know someone
so in the county commission who's done a good job,
it's like, I'm not going to going to go run
against them just to just a run, you know what
I mean.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
Yeah, well, you know, some people are in too win it,
and some people are just in sure other reasons.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
But if it's for high office like that, I think
people should have competition, and good worthy competition, not just
to say, you know, somebody just puts your name on
the ballot and shows up to two events and it's like,
oh I campaign Like, no, you're not campaigning, You're just
you're gonna take you know, a set number of votes
from people who are going to be protest voting, which
if you're that there's another good candidate who really needs

(05:55):
those votes, you just take away from them because the
establishment candidate is going to come in with a numb voters. Anyway. Yeah,
that makes sense, you know. Yeah, name recognition and access
to money goes a long way, and these these types
of racists.

Speaker 2 (06:10):
And then yeah, when you well, when you know who's
who and what's what in your party, I mean that's
that means a great deal because let's say, you know,
it greases the machine kind of recognition and it's no slight.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
To the individual voters. But you have to think about it.
How many of them really care about getting into your
policies of you know, whatever it may be. What's your
policy on you know, housing, what's your policy on enticing
businesses to move to the state. You know, how how
are you going to handle homelessness, whatever it is. Most
people don't care about the nuts and bolts of your
policy or ideas, you know. They want the slogans, you know,

(06:45):
the feel good stuff of you know, you're number one
and you're great because of X. You know, for all
these different reasons you don't have to change, you know,
and of course people flock to that. It's like, man,
they're telling me, how great I am. I don't have
to change. I'm going to support that because most people
don't want to change, right, They don't want realize that, hey,
I need to make better decisions too, you know.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Uhh, Yeah, a lot of.

Speaker 3 (07:05):
People just love love the same old same. Hey, you're
you're number one. Don't worry about you know you you
fiction yourself. It's everybody else that's to blame. Vote for
me because I'm going to keep supporting you and all
the stuff that you're doing, no matter no matter what
how good it is or how bad it is, you know.
And it's it's sad that it's that way.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Yeah, No, I I think the thing about policy is
it's uh, it's going to be the partisanship policy anyway,
isn't it. I mean, whether you're in the left of
the right doesn't matter. The party decides the policy. And
you see these people going there with these great ideas.
But when you're in the coming coming at you going, well,
you know, this is what we really need to do,
and I'll lame with the party.

Speaker 3 (07:42):
And I'll tell you who does that are the people
who realize, oh, I'm gonna need the money to get
re elected because if not, the people aren't going to
pay attention to what I do down here, whether it's
in Nashville, which is the capital that you know, Tennessee,
or whether it's you know, so somewhere else you know,
Picke a state capital pick Washington, d C. You know,
most people aren't going to pay attention to your votes

(08:03):
or what you do on a daily basis. It's what
you go back and tell them that you're doing, and
what what the media is telling them, you know what
I'm saying, So you can make yourself look like you're
the most conservative person even though you're probably a moderate
or even slightly on the left, depending on how how
how how much people want to pay attention to you.

Speaker 2 (08:18):
You know, absolutely, I had a thought I was going
to follow through with and behind me.

Speaker 3 (08:28):
It's up to the individual voters to stand up and
and and pay attention to what your you know, what
your voting record is, what you've said, what you've supported
and so on, who you've supported, et cetera. What kind
of policies have you been behind and advocated for. Whether
whether they were enacted is besides the point. You know,
if you're living in a conservative district, you should be
fairly conservative as as a member of Congress or representative whatever.

Speaker 5 (08:51):
Right.

Speaker 2 (08:52):
Yeah, No, I was sitting there thinking about the fact
that there's so many echo chambers out there about issues
and policies. You know, you get these big trade organizations
and the people they represent have their own packs and
any I mean, there is a such thing as congressional
capture right where where these industry types are. They're running
into DC every day and they're having these meetings in

(09:13):
these offices with these representatives every day. And these people,
these people have the bucks. They don't meet staffers, They
meet the representative or the senator themselves, and they sit
down and have these great discussions and good old boy
conversations and do a little bit of bonding. And it's
a slap on the back and somewhere you go and
I'm going to get my way, and your little guys

(09:33):
out there that are trying your best to actually tell
them the truth or push them in the right direction
that we've most beneficial for society or being hurt so.
And this is where sometimes you see the policies start
taking a different effect or different a change you know
that you, you, you and I would normally agree with,
but we're seeing that happening anyway.

Speaker 3 (09:51):
Well you think about that. A lot of that has
to do with you know, uh, individuals like say, you
and I, for example, we want to come out and
talk about real policies, really real issues, But who wants
to hear them. Most voters don't want to hear that.
They want to hear you know, the pie in the sky.
You know, everything's great, number one. You know that's it.

(10:12):
Don't don't sit there and tell us how we're failing
or what we need to do. But that's better. So
so if the person who's going to come out there
and basically tell you your guys are great, you know,
don't worry about anything. It's going to be taken care of,
you know, are the ones who are going to take
a lot of that money from behind the scenes of
the special interest So they don't give two damns what
the voters care about because they're they're not going to

(10:33):
tell you, you know, their policies or anything. And that's
that's the sad part. People don't vote for the people
who tell them their policies, you know how it can
affect you positively or negatively. They want the people who
are going to tell them everything's great, hunky dory. But really,
who's taking the big money from behind the scenes from
big donors or or big pack interests, And those are
the ones who scare off everyday good people, you know,

(10:56):
candidates for public office because they can't raise that type
of money.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
No, it gets it's it's incredible trying to try.

Speaker 3 (11:04):
I probably went down a rabbit hole there. But essentially,
the people who bring in the big money from outside
of your district are the ones who are who are
selling you out. Just so you know. So if it's
you're elected, you're current representative, who's in there who brings
in big money from? Say again, I'll say Nashville because
that's where I'm from, Tennessee. So if you're bringing in
big money from Nashville or Washington, well you're not listening

(11:25):
to the people you're supposed to be representing, and that's
the person you probably shouldn't be voting for. Just to
give everybody an.

Speaker 2 (11:30):
Idea, yeah, no, Yeah, there's a lot of outside influence,
but you know these there's no secret anymore. And I
think we said on this show a number of times,
is a lot of your members of Congress spend a
majority of their time fundraising, and that fundraising or more
it's fundraising for the party, not themselves.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
Fundraising for the party, not themselves or their own packs.
And then they got a fundraise for their own political coffers,
and that they have a pack or whatever. They have
to fund that as well. And you know what comes
with the money that gets that pushed into those packs,
if you will, It's favors, you know what I'm saying.
It's favors for say, health care, the health care industry.
As an example, you know, here in Northeast Tennessee, we

(12:09):
have a company called Ballot about Health. They have a monopoly.
They have a monopoly in Tennessee, and of course a
lot of the rep. Representatives that are in there now
have supported that and ensured that they have a monopoly.
But at the same time, whenever they come to campaign,
they act as if they're going to fix healthcare. You know,
they're working on all these things. It's going to be great,
grand and wonderful. People go to Washington and do the

(12:29):
same thing, but all of them have taken money from
this healthcare company.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
Yeah uh. And they donate both sides so they control,
they control both sides of the aisle to get there.

Speaker 3 (12:40):
Well, in Tennessee, there's only one side of the aisle.
And well it's funny is people that go to Nashville,
and again I'm gonna pick on Nashville that come to
these back to their home districts that are very safe
Republican and then actually have anything, you know, have the
audacity to call out Democrats in Nashville. And it's like, well,
or are you also calling out people in your own party?
Because you we have super majority Republican party in Nashville,

(13:03):
you know, in both houses, the State House and the Senate.
So you can't really come back to these safe Republican
districts and say the Democrats are the problem because because
they're not. Yeah, they may be loud and boisterous, but
guess what, their vote is not affecting you. So it's
probably people from your own party that's affecting you as well.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
Absolutely. Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
Let's see, somebody asked a question here asking me about
my flags. I let somebody use my flag. You asked
my Tennessee flag for a Reagan Day dinner here in
Sullivan County that'll be tomorrow for the Republican Party. So
I don't have my usual backdrop, somebody asked me in
the comment there on my Facebook page. Oh yeah, yeah,

(13:46):
just in case, just in case people are wondering about
my backdrop.

Speaker 2 (13:49):
Because I know I was good, That's what I was
getting ready to go to. I'm like what happened here.
I'm seeing a whole lot of panel board and there
was a picture there. I didn't even know there was
a picture by right, Well.

Speaker 3 (14:00):
Yeah, that's an old that's an old Yeah, I don't
I don't know where that's from. That's old home interior nonsense.
But I'm not gonna take it down. I'll leave it up.

Speaker 2 (14:08):
So well, I'm gonna assume the wife does the decorating.

Speaker 3 (14:11):
No, that's my mom. It was my mom's back in
the day.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
So oh your mother, Yeah, that's my mother.

Speaker 4 (14:16):
You know.

Speaker 3 (14:17):
Yes, I'll leave it up.

Speaker 2 (14:18):
You are You're not You're not in an a basement
right now, are you?

Speaker 3 (14:22):
No, I'm in I'm in a living room made my
little home office. That's what That's what it is.

Speaker 2 (14:31):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
Yeah. But anyway, Yeah, So the Colonel's not with us
tonight in case everybody's wandering, and of course some of
our chats are you know, because he shares out to
his his audience in South Africa. So we're not seeing
that chat tonight. So that that's that's that's interesting. The
number of people that we we we missed by by
not having him as a as a guest or as
a host.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
Right, Oh yeah, brings well he's a fellow host. I mean,
I don't like a co things so much. Right, It's like,
you know, somebody's taking second seats, so we're all just
toast where you know, we're fellow host each other.

Speaker 3 (15:06):
Right, Yeah, we share the primary duty every week or
rotating generally.

Speaker 2 (15:11):
Yeah, yes, more like that, you know. So, yeah, it's
it just sounds better to me. It sounds more balanced.
So it's starting to sound like artificial intelligence. Remember when
I was I was picking on artificial intelligence just and
was just awful, we should be using our for here
I am chat chat bodying away with artificial intelligence. And
but but it's kind of like a concern to me,

(15:33):
you know, because I did it, and sometimes it's useful.
I find Rock kind of useful. But you know, I've
done co pilot, and I've done open AI, and I've
used all these different chat but even made up. And
I started thinking, you know, because the way they interact
with you, in the way they always trying to steer
the conversation, you're not they're not trying to allow you

(15:55):
to be in charge of this conversation, right, They're always
asking you questions and trying to resteer and redirect the
comment conversation and the way they answer questions, and they
repeat themselves a lot. I'm starting thinking, are they trying
to get us hoopoped on this stuff just for big
fat brainwashing? Call it conspiratorial if you like to. I'm
just throwing it out there to give a thought. You know,
just think about it if you're going to use those

(16:15):
sorts of things, because I noticed that sometimes I actually
point out the thing with them, all you're doing is
repeating yourself. This is just a waste of my time.
Hang up on another one. Well you know, yeah, I
put it down, but then I am using it.

Speaker 3 (16:29):
Right, absolutely.

Speaker 2 (16:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (16:31):
I'm not gotten into using any sort of thing like, hey,
I like that, but I I did do it. I
was working on writing something and I was like, just
write by chance. I was like trying to get some
ideas of how to how to form formulate something. And
I use it one time and I'm like, this doesn't
this thing doesn't really have an idea of what I'm
trying to get at here. You know, I didn't really
grasp it's the subjects. So something moved off.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
Yeah, well stuff off you They got a database and
they'll pull stuff off the Internet if they're cannet to
the Internet. Sometimes I find they're not and have to
encourage them to go connect. And but if you think
about it, if it's all left of stuff on Google
that they're pulling off, and then you're just getting leftist rhetoric, right,
So that's not hopeful. And the other thing is it's

(17:15):
created by leftists. They're always going to push that leftist
agenda on you. But they are useful. I mean, you know,
if you got a song idea or something, and you know,
got a little bit of brain fog and you're like, hey,
could you help me out, give me some brainstorm here,
and I'm trying to get around this, and they'll shoot
you some lyrics or something. Hey, that's not half bad.
I think I'll steal that, you know, stuff like that,
little stuff they can be useful for. I started doing

(17:39):
it because I drive for a living and so I
can't be you know, pushing buttons while I'm driving down
the road. So I started talking to these things, trying
to educate myself about things. Sometimes those history or or
sometimes it's politics. I didn't find it particularly particularly useful
to try to pick up on top of the hour

(17:59):
news or anything. It seemed totally useless for that because
when you ask for something, it's just, you know, tell
me about this, and it gives you a vague response.
It's like there was no details on that. You know,
there was nothing in depth on that. It just gave
me like a glster where it's so bad. It was
just it was a headline. So I mean, that's kind
of useless if it's not going to give you any
details into it. So now you got to keep fishing
and going deeper and deeper with the thing. It's like

(18:21):
pulling teeth after why you realize you're just you feel
like you're fighting with it. So it's kind of some
of it's ridiculous and some of it's actually useful.

Speaker 3 (18:29):
Yeah, tell us how you feel about it. Should should
they be out on the roads taking up some trucking
jobs or something.

Speaker 2 (18:35):
Or no, oh no, don't get me started. You know better,
and get me started on this AI and autonomous vehicles
and stuff. That's a whole lot of nonsense, but it's
within itself. I take an interest in technology. I like technology.
I think I'm like Chris, you know, I think it's
pretty cool. It's interesting, you know, growing up on Star
Wars and stuff, and I wasn't into Star Wars like
a lot of other kids were, but I got into it.

(18:56):
Some of it this great storytelling in the fantasy of
being able to fly out in space one day, find
these fighter jets and all that. That's kint of cool stuff.
And the robots and stuff they have was kind of cool.
Now we're in a day and age when they're building
these robots, humanoid robots and various other types of robots
and stuff. So I'll go on YouTube and watch like
they have these expos and right, so some people will

(19:18):
go through all the expos and do recordings. They'll give
you us summarization of each ex bowl and stuff like that.
You get to see some of the video and stuff
of what they're up to and how things are developing
and coming about. Some of it's really fascinating. It's really
interesting to watch and see, you know. But when you
start talking about autonomous vehicles on the road, my thing is,
and I've gotten pretty edgy about it here on this show,

(19:40):
is people come first. This country was not founded on
the idea that corporations have the greatest power. It wasn't
found on the idea that technology has the greatest power.
We don't do things for technology first. We don't do
things for corporations first. This country is founded for people
and people to have freedoms. So I get really upset
when I start hearing about me and replaced a job

(20:01):
market where by by technology. I think that's just ridiculousness.
And I think it's toughly careless to rush into it
as rapidly as we as Americans are doing, you know,
And when I talk to our US senators often's about it,
I get, well, we got to be first to you know,
it's a competition in the globe, and we got to
be the first.

Speaker 5 (20:18):
You know.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
It's you're putting us out a lot of risk. You
realize that, right, how about some security to them about that? Well,
we're concerned. I'm like, but you leave us all at
risk what you're doing.

Speaker 3 (20:28):
Well, but you think about this, these members of the
US House, US Senate and on both sides of the aisle,
you know, these are people who are worth you know,
even the poorest of them are worth you know, millions
upon millions of dollars. So they'm worried about a job
is something they're not gonna have to ever worry about.
Most of them never have to work another day in

(20:48):
their life, for sure, unless they want to.

Speaker 5 (20:50):
Right.

Speaker 3 (20:50):
So for them to to sit there and and and say, oh,
they're concerned, is that they're lying to you for sure.
I mean because they don't share there any sort of
concerned that you have. If they were truly concerned, they'd
be like, yeah, this is a real issue. We're about
to lose jobs. Here, I'm about to lose my job,
and I need this job, you know what I'm saying.
Whereas somebody who's working in the trades, you know, driving

(21:11):
a truck for example, working construction, you know you need
those jobs.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
Now.

Speaker 3 (21:15):
You may be able to lose a job and not
have to work for maybe a month or two, maybe
have some money saved up, but eventually you're gonna need
that that paycheck again. Whereas these members of Congress could
lose a job tomorrow and they're fine, They're gonna go
pedal their influence if you will, connections and still make
six figure salaries, you know, for the next few several years.
Right Whereas you you as a truck driver, guess what,

(21:37):
you lose that job after after that savings where it
runs out for after a couple of months, there's nothing
else you can do if you can't get another driving
job or a job, you know, construction.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
That's it the idea. Idealistically you should have a reserve
about six months. Well, yeah, so that's just happens that
you could. You could make it for six months without
a job. I mean, nobody wants to have to go
through it because it's your saving right, right. But the
truth of the matter is, and not to paint a
picture like you're not in touch with reality, because I
think you are. But I think the majority of people,

(22:08):
about ninety percent of people in this country anymore, living
week to week. They're living paycheck to paycheck right at
this particular point in time because of the turmoil through
the economy in the last four or five years, people
are way behind. People are trying to build themselves out
of debt. You see jobs, jobs out there in the market,
but I just think they're little paying jobs that just
ain't going to cover for people. You know, they don't

(22:29):
want to waste their time on nonsense. They're not idealistic jobs.

Speaker 3 (22:33):
No, yeah, I get that, but I am saying, you know,
somebody who has, you know, several million dollars ten million,
hundred million dollars in the bank saying that they're concerned
about something yea is Yeah, they may have. They may
it may be a concern for them if you as
a political issue, but as far as a livelihood issue,
it's not quite the same concern that you you would

(22:54):
have if you will if you're losing your job. You
know what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
Yep, yes, you're No, you near the nail rate on
the head on that one. Look, these people in Congress,
they can pass the Stock Act all they want to,
But these people are in Congress are investing into things.
They know where to put their money because they're way
ahead of the aprill. They're seeing what's coming on years
down the road. Okay, this is autonomous vehicle thing. This
was in delipment development for like what last ten, fifteen,

(23:18):
twenty years. They've already known this stuff is going to happen. Yeah,
that's a pain. No mind of the name. Yeah, read
the name on the on the radio. But I saw
you reading the comments there. She's she's cool chick down
from down south.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
Now, what's that?

Speaker 2 (23:34):
Yeah? All right, bob, Hey, guys, how you be crawling
out my mud? Honey? So how you doing bob tail?
So anyway, I give up my train of thought there.
Oh but yeah, no, they're they're they're investing into this stuff.
They know what's coming. Uh. They haven't been messed in

(23:54):
anything in the trucking So they've had thirty years as
parking studies and trucking right and they've done nothing to
effectuate any kind of change or to better the circumstances
for truck drivers in this country, probably because they know
where they're going in the future anyway, but they've had
no concern because they can't make money off it. There's
no money to be made off this. There's nothing to
invest too for fixing parking issues. So when they decide

(24:15):
they're going to pass money in Congress, say hey, you
know what, we're going to fix these parking issues for
these truck drivers. You know, they've they've beat on our
doors long enough, and we're going to have to do
something about this. You know, because the parking space is
only eleven trucks to one parking space out there. That
give you any ideas when you're driving down the road
and you see all these trucks parked alongside the interstate
on the off ramps and entrance ramps and clogging up
the rest areas, and people are rare in the backs

(24:37):
of trucks because down to that truck should have been there,
they had nowhere to be because they don't have any parking.
They're trying to make this stuff up. You go to Walmart,
you get booted in your charge three hundred three and
fifty four hundred and five hundred dollars to get that
boot off your truck. You know, because the municibilities are
finding these Walmarts and you know, stores and stuff towns
and cities find them big bucks for having overnight truck parking.

(25:00):
So these guys are really just screwed. For thirty years,
they've known this thirty years, have done nothing for this.
But when they decide to do something for this, todd
they pass a bill to put up electronic signs. So
they give grant money out and they put up electronic
signs to tell you how many parking spaces may be
available to the next rest of you. When you get there,
it's like, okay, so you found a way to invest.

(25:22):
Is that what it is? You put it into technology?
Good job you know, if we threw some asphalt down
on the road, these guys might actually have a place
to park when they get there. But that sign you're
in competition with the other fifty trucks in front of you.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Of course, you know. And I think if you're gonna
you're gonna be able, let's say a a rest stop,
you should have some reasonable truck parking there. I think, uh,
to to include slots where they could pull in and
pull a pull out, and also along the sides of
the road leading into and out of And I know
it may be a little bit dangerous, but you know,
truck drivers, I mean aren't the ones I'm worried about

(25:57):
so much. It's it's the mom and pop people who
think that they you know, think that these truckers are
sport sport cars and they zip and zip around them,
cut them off, you know, do one hundred miles an hour.
That's the ones I worry about, not the truckers, if
you will, So these guys would know how to park
in these situations, and they should add stuff like that
in there for them.

Speaker 2 (26:15):
Yeah, absolutely so. Uh But the point is that members
of Congress don't make any money off it, so they
don't care. And when they do care, it's for something
that their buddy down here has got these electronic signs.
Now he's proposing, Uh, he'll make the money off it,
you know. And this is this is the problem with
our with our society today. We're not investing money where
it should be. We're not going to invest money where
it's going into best benefits members of society. They keep

(26:38):
telling us that, you know, truck drivers have to have
rest breaks because it's unsafe if they don't. But yet
they don't provide anywhere for them to get the rest breaks.
It's contradiction. It's a complete and total contradiction. So but
if there's money involved, though, man, I'm telling you what. Man,
I'm already I'm down there. Let's get this bill pass, guys,
because we're all gonna make bank. You know. That's how
you see it happening. It happened with the electronic logging

(26:59):
device that Chris he loves to hear me talk so
much about. It happened to be a congressman in Florida,
happened to be the committee chairman, and somebody from a big,
large corporate carrier comes down and talks to him and says, hey,
we got to get all these trucks using these telematics devices.
It boomed the industry for telematics devices up six seven
eight billion dollars. So they just fleashed that already fledgling

(27:21):
industry because everybody's struggling to make ends meet with it,
and they just leashed them for billions and millions of dollars.
Never mind the unfunded Mandate Reforms Act or anything that
was supposed to protect people from being gouged that way.
We'll push that aside because you know, safety.

Speaker 3 (27:37):
Is involved, right, absolutely absolutely. Did you see this story
about this this trucker who killed people in Florida making
illegal utah from India hard gender singing. Did you see
that story?

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yes? I did. That thing is just made the rounds,
bro It's everywhere, even a Florida governor lamb based in
California for for making sure he had a c DL license.

Speaker 3 (28:08):
Oh absolutely, yeah, And well apparently I guess the lieutenant governor,
the new lieutenant governor Florida is going out there to
basically apprehend this guy, bringing back to face justice, which
he should. Yeah, but I guess California gave him a license,
Is that right? Game? My drivers.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
Yeah, so these liberal states do that.

Speaker 5 (28:25):
Man.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
Years ago, there was an an investigation apparently Illinois, though
there was a train accident with Amtrak in Illinois and
Chicago are I think outside of Chicago involved a tractor
trailer and a train. An investigation shown that he was
not just a foreigner, but he was given that license.
So they had to go to the d m V to

(28:47):
an investigation and stuff to discover that, you know, for
a couple hundred bucks, here's your license, we'll print it
out for you. And this is what happens. You know,
you get these people and the DMVs that are that
are taking money under the table and just handing out
these licenses. So I don't think you're seeing that from
New Hampshire, but you've seen it from Illinois. Now you're

(29:07):
not realizing it's happening in California. They're given illegals licenses
and tell them you go drive drug. And this is
a problem for the trucking industry, by the way, because
it undermines the the integrity of wages. When you saturate
the industry, you bring these people in here that don't
understand our economics, don't understand you know, to them. It
looks like good money, and they come over here to

(29:27):
work and make that good money. And what they're doing
is they're using these people to saturate the industry, to
keep the wages down so it impacts and then then
they don't train them.

Speaker 4 (29:43):
There.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
That's there was a gentleman out there in Canada talking
about these mountains and stuff. He's trying to traverse out
there in western Canada. He was from the mid East somewhere,
and it was the same thing for him. You know,
he's saying, look, I can't hardly read the signs. They're
throw me into terrain I've never been in before. I'm
winning the ice icy roads. He says, it's dangerous and

(30:04):
they were pushing them. You know, these people don't know,
they don't know the laws, they don't understand the laws.
They're not they're not trained adequately. You know, two three
weeks at a school somewhere. You know what embarrassing it
is to me when somebody walks up here and says, hey, man,
can you teach me how to couple? A couple means
when you hook the tractor up to the trailer and
you need to know how to do that. There's technique

(30:24):
about that. You don't want to just you don't want
to do it wrong. You may get a high hook
or something end up killing somebody. So uh, yeah, you
know there's several people out in the field. You know,
I'm just working and somebody's tapping me on the short
and jump me out. I don't know how to hook
up a truck truck to a trailer. That's the first
thing you should be learning at the trucking school you
went to. They should be ashamed of themselves ever let

(30:46):
you out.

Speaker 3 (30:47):
Yeah, how did you get the truck to the to
where you're at? I mean, I don't know how did
this happen without a trailer?

Speaker 2 (30:54):
Yeah, no, they dropped a trailer or something. I don't know.
The first thing I did last time I walk up,
I'm walking up to the truck and I'm looking at
his fifth one. I'm like, well, the first thing you
need to do is go down there and get some grease. Okay,
you don't have enough grease on your fifth will to
be hooking up to that trailer. That's could be problematic
for you.

Speaker 3 (31:09):
Right.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
Yeah, this is just embarrassing, man. You know, they taught
us how to adjust breaks. They taught us how to
do things before they would even let us get a
truck out on the road.

Speaker 3 (31:19):
Oh. Absolutely, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 4 (31:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (31:23):
It's funny as reminding me of like say, high school
driver's ed training. It's like, oh, just throw me out
in the car, you know, I just wanted to get
out on the road that way and get the license
and all that. It's like all the other things you get.
You have to know before you can operate the vehicle.
You know, it's not a matter of just putting it
in driving, pressing the gas.

Speaker 2 (31:41):
Yeah, Bob. Till here she was talking about, there was
an accident another This was another foreigner who didn't speak English.
For you, I didnt speak English at all, and he come
down to Mountain Grade in Colorado and he missed the
exit or the runaway ramp, so he lost his breaks
missed the runaway ramp, and I think he didn't he
chose not to take it from my understanding, But at

(32:02):
the end of the bottom of the hill he killed
a bunch of people. So uh. Here again, mostly it's
it's ill trained, so they don't put any effort into this.
So this is what we're driving at here, we're talking
about if there's money in it, we're all interested. If
it involves no money at all, the you know, so
be it. But we use these trigger words like safety
to get our way, to make the money right, or

(32:23):
to get our way with say, regulatory capture. You know,
you're going to have the American Trucking Associations and all
their big corporate entities that create the SECO chamber, and
now they're over there with the regulatory agency trying to
make sure that their interests are served. But they're killing
the small independent carriers who make up ninety five percent
of the industry. So yeah, proper training. Congress made a

(32:49):
law saying that the second Transportation may prescribe a minimum
training standard. Well, the FMCSA took that as a challenge
to see how minimum they can make it. It was pathetic.
I think we've had like swift carriers probably have better
training standards and what they come out with.

Speaker 3 (33:08):
Oh, absolutely, absolutely for sure. So I want to switch
gears here real quick. With the Adam Schiff, and of
course he is the accusations of him leaking classified information.
Of course, it goes back many many decades with this guy.
Apparently he served twenty years in the US House, and
of course, a whistleblower, a Democrat whistleblower who apparently had

(33:29):
served on the House Intelligence Committee for about ten years
or more, claims that Adam Shift has been doing this
at least going back to twenty seventeen apparently. So hopefully
this will be like one of those investigations that will
actually go somewhere. I doubt it, but we'll see. As
we talk about Adam Shifty Shifterson all the time, see

(33:49):
how that goes. Hopefully this investigation against Shift actually bears fruit.
I doubt it, but we'll see, we'll see.

Speaker 2 (33:58):
This is the problem, man, They do these they do
some internal investigations or we have these House Committee hearings
for investigation, and right, we get them all there and
nothing comes of it, nothing at all ever comes of
it unless it was Trump. I mean, come on, let's
you know, if it's Trump, he's got to be guilty.
He's got to be Trump. I mean, that's it.

Speaker 3 (34:19):
Yeah. Or the morons that you know I encounter on
a regular that they're like, well he's guilty of you
know whatever. It's like, what are you talking about, Well,
he's guilty of you know whatever. You know, It's like, well, No,
he was accused of that, you know, but there's never
been an actual court case on that or whatever. But
but he's guilty of it. It's like, no, he's not
guilty of something just because a Democrat says he's guilty

(34:42):
of something. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Well, he
was tried, Yeah, he may have had a court he
may have been in court in the past couple of
years defending himself, But it doesn't make him guilty of something.

Speaker 2 (34:55):
No, by the rhetoric of the the legacy media or
or the non sense that people spieled there. Now when
you look get on social media. I mean we've attacked
Facebook and other social media outlets for censoring people and
this whole misinformation stuff. But a lot of people are
getting their information wrong on social media. If you're listening

(35:15):
to your fellow man out there putting it out there,
it's not it's not as they say, you know, and
a lot of people believe in that. Well, it takes
one person to say he's guilty of this and then
get ten people that ten people hit another ten people
each and it spreads like wildfire and it's nuts And

(35:37):
I got a call coming back.

Speaker 3 (35:38):
No, that's true. Yeah, I'll go ahead and see who
it is.

Speaker 2 (35:42):
All right, Hang on a second, go ahead, and uh,
keep the folks entertained.

Speaker 3 (35:51):
No, who's John. John's apparently taking a call. I thought
he was handing it off to a caller there, ladies
and gentlemen. But but anyway, let's see who this person is.
I don't know if it's a caller for the show,
could be could be a caller for the show, could
be the colonel calling in. I don't know. For those
who don't know, the Colonel is across the pond right now.

(36:11):
He is covering the Women's Rugby World Cup, as he
loves to do. But we'll see what kind of report
he has. I was hoping he would be able to
be on here tonight, at least there in the first hour,
give us a report on what he thinks went on
with the Trump putin summon in Alaska, which didn't seem
to bear much fruit other than the fact they've agreed
to talk more moving forward. And I was just hoping

(36:31):
that the Colonel could give us an assessment from his background.
Of course, he's a former intelligence official, so I was
hoping he would be on the show to not be
able to give us set assessment. But it looks like
John's finished with that call.

Speaker 4 (36:42):
John.

Speaker 3 (36:42):
Was it an important call? Or was it somebody just
spamming us? What was going on there?

Speaker 5 (36:47):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (36:47):
I think all calls from Danny is important. Of course,
get him in here. How are you doing, Dan?

Speaker 3 (36:54):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (36:54):
How you thought? Good Man?

Speaker 3 (36:56):
Good Man? That a long time, A long time.

Speaker 5 (37:00):
Yeah, I I totally agree with you. You know you
you were touching on. You can't listen. You just go
by what the politician in your state, or if you're
watching somebody in another state, what they're saying. Uh, they're
gonna say stuff like to make themselves sound like they're
America first, or or if they're in your state, they

(37:22):
might try to sound like they're Tennessee first, the New
Hans first, or you gotta look at what they're doing.
So you do. You're right. You have to look at
the voting grade, because I say, right now, there's three
guys in your state Tennessee, Tim Burshett and Oglas and uh,
the other guy is is the last name is Harshburger.

(37:44):
I mean those the three best ones. I mean, you know,
so you gotta look at these. You got some that
got some forties and fifties, and that's what people got
to look at. I mean, I don't agree. And the
thing here is you've got to be able to even
you should be able to say, you know. And Trump

(38:05):
does listen to people when you're when you're at a rally,
he will listen. He'll ask you know, if people boom,
you realize they don't want this, they don't want this.

Speaker 6 (38:15):
But you can't get.

Speaker 5 (38:16):
Upset with the guy like in the guy in Kentucky.
Okay with you know, people have been getting upset with them.
But I disagree. I disagree. It's it's the fact that
you're going to go after the guy in Kentucky and
I'm trying to think of his last.

Speaker 3 (38:36):
Are you talking with Thomas Massey or yeah, Massy? Yeah ahead.

Speaker 5 (38:42):
He's not the guy that you need to worry about
right now. To sit there and say you're gonna primary
him because he doesn't want to vote on bundle bills,
I agree with him, Okay, because it violates the law.
And the law is the Budget Controlled Act of nineteen
seventy four. I know I've talked about it with you
guys before, but it's a federal law for the people

(39:04):
that don't know that says that you're supposed to have
a balanced budget. Nestled into that that budget is you're
supposed to vote on single subject setting bill. Now that
makes everybody accountable in Congress, in Senate on their votes. Okay,
when you bundle it up, everybody just says, well, I

(39:25):
voted for this, but they didn't vote for that. I
wasn't for that. Well, yeah, because now at least nobody accountable. Still,
you know, I get it, I get it. But if
you really want to go after people in Kentucky, how
about Congressman Brent Guthrie with a forty five f vote
and read a voting grade in twenty three and twenty four,

(39:48):
or how Dodge Okay with the fifty and a forty
four in the last two years. How about those guys?
Or why why not Andy Barr who's running through the
US Senate and for Mcconnald's see who's again this guy
get a fifty nine voting grade and uh in back

(40:08):
to back nds. No, actually a fifty and twenty four.
Excuse me, right, So this guy's in that voting grade
and this guy Andy by okay is very dirty and
Daniel Cameron, they're both getting Mitch McConnell packed money, so
they're bought and pay for. As matter of fact, Uh,

(40:29):
Daniel Cameron was a lawyer for Mitch McConnell for two years.
I think it was in twenty seventeen, twenty fifteen, twenty seventeen.
So this guy's bought in pay for, you know.

Speaker 2 (40:42):
So they you're just when you're describing as somebody who's
leaving a more or less their legacy behind, but they
got other buds, you know that they've been working with.
You know, you scratch my back. I scratched your sort
of scenario. So now when they replace themselves, they're trying
to replace themselves with somebody that will fit right in
and continue the sun for these that they will favors too.

Speaker 5 (41:02):
Yeah, I mean absolutely. And the thing is when you've
got states like and I'm not picking on it. I
figured what your name was, but I'm not picking on you.
When you've got a heavy Republican state like Tennessee and Kentucky,
President drump one by thirty percent over there. So when
you get those numbers, you when you get got people

(41:24):
winning by eighteen to thirty percent, you're beyond the chiefs.
Every state chiefs right now. Until you clean up all
those elections and get rid of the mail in voting,
early voting systems, I mean, you're going to have.

Speaker 6 (41:39):
Cheating going on.

Speaker 5 (41:40):
But when you get these red states. But the problem
is people are not looking at they should be cranking
out B and A voters. And why they're not is
because they're not paying attention. I mean, you've got states
like Arkansas all four ps okay in Congress or voting

(42:00):
grade between forty and fifty. I mean, are you guys,
you know, are they paying attention?

Speaker 6 (42:07):
And then they're not doing any better in the US.

Speaker 5 (42:09):
Senate because Tom Clinton is It gives me about a
sixty or sixty five. And he's dirtiest help. He's bought
by AI packed, he's tied to the dirty Military Industrial complex.
He sits on the Intelligence Committee, and he's trying to
screw Tulsey gabtt. He threw a bill on the floor
to cut the funded So I mean, what is he

(42:33):
trying to protect Obama and the Clintons and uh and
Biden and Brennan and Klappa. You know, it's like you
know what I think is going on too. He's trying
to protect them. But he also and you know if
she does a real deep guy, what's she gonna find
on the other aisle with Bush in the Chinese and
uh freaking Todd Rove and every flasher. You know, she's

(42:56):
gonna find a lot of stop So it's unbelievable, you
know what's going on. So people got to really do
some bigots.

Speaker 6 (43:03):
So and going back to the US Senate, you know,
people got to realize the power that the Senate was
and the fact that support it, you know, putting in
and confirming President Trump sex right now, like the attorney
generals and the district attorneys.

Speaker 5 (43:24):
I mean, people got to realize President Trump has no
shot if you have two Democrats senators, President Trump has
no shot of confirming a district judge or district attorney
in those states because before he can even move to
a Senate vote, the nominee has to be signed off

(43:49):
by that senator in that state. So the whole fact
that they changed the seventeenth Amendment back in nineteen thirteen,
on December twenty third, know, they did a couple of
things there, right, they changed they First of all, you
had less than half of Congress there President. The other
half was on Christmas recess, they put in the Federal

(44:13):
Reserve Act. Right, it was all done illegally, non constitutionally
because you didn't you didn't notify everybody. You did this
on you know, on Jacob's Island, Okay, and and and
matter of fact, all three chambers of of uh, you know,
the President and both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats.

(44:34):
So they put the Federal Reserve Act in, which is
you know, the the you know, the the globalist banking cartel,
you know, that's what it is. Control the Federal Reserve
is not part of the government. It's it's it's it's
the global central banking and the roch House and the
Morgans in the rocketball, that's what it is.

Speaker 6 (44:55):
So it's not the government.

Speaker 5 (44:57):
So Jerome Powell is he's puppet of the globus and
so on top of it, that's when they brought in
the federal income tax. You know. So before that we
were paying less than income back tax excuse me.

Speaker 6 (45:15):
Not income tax.

Speaker 3 (45:16):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (45:16):
So we were paying depending on what state you were in,
it was probably it was in a single digits, you know,
anywhere from five to nine percent probably, And they were
funded the country with tariffs, and that was the best
period up until from eighteen seventy to nineteen thirteen was
the richest period in our history of our country. We

(45:39):
were had forty percent tariffs. People don't even understand what's
going on.

Speaker 4 (45:44):
They don't.

Speaker 5 (45:45):
They'll listen to the corrupt thirty media, who's bought and
paid for in one hundred different ways. It's it's it's
it's a dirty meat that the thirty national media is
bought and paid for by the media. And that's your complex.

Speaker 3 (46:01):
There you go. Any any final thoughts you may have
for it tonight, Any final any final thoughts?

Speaker 5 (46:10):
Oh yes, yes, yeah.

Speaker 7 (46:12):
So my point was on the Senate side of things,
is the people gotta you know, uh, realize that even
you got the blue slip rule.

Speaker 5 (46:23):
So again, if you've got dirty you know, we had
twenty eight F and D voters in twenty twenty three,
Okay in the US Senate. Okay, you chopped it down
to about twenty six about okay, you got two better,
but your seeds are not helping you.

Speaker 6 (46:42):
And you have the blue slip rule.

Speaker 5 (46:44):
It's an unsaid rule. And you and during the four
years when corrupt you o'biden was there you had dirty
corrupt Republicans sign an offer and letting his nominations slide through.
So in Republicans state, it shouldn't be happening. It shouldn't
be happening.

Speaker 3 (47:03):
So you know, right, I agree. Yeah, we appreciate you call,
appreciate you calling as always for sure. Uh, without a doubt.
I appreciate any anybody who wants to call in for sure,
love to hear from the listeners, figure out what they
have to say. And you know, as a regular caller

(47:23):
there always interesting. Uh does his homework for sure and
has some strong opinions, and we love that. We invite
that here for sure. Uh. But speaking of Democrats, speaking
of states like Texas, Uh, did you see, John that
they recently voted and approve their redistrictiving bill down in
Texas As the Democrats into their walk out of the state,

(47:46):
if you will. And speaking of walking out, they didn't
just walk out of the state legislature. They fled the
state to Illinois, as we were talking about this last week.
Of course, now the Republicans have had the vote and
of course they approved the new new bill which would
give Republicans if it goes it's enacted. Uh, fully could
potentially give Republicans in the US House five additional seats.
And now we're going to see uh, states like California

(48:08):
trying to cut out as many Republicans as they possibly
can in retaliation to this. So what do you think
about that?

Speaker 2 (48:13):
Well, I wasn't aware that Texas got their Senate to
pass de Billia. I know I had passed or advice
a versus the Senate passed. It was waiting on the House.

Speaker 3 (48:21):
Yeah, so you say that it passes, Yeah, it's passed
at least of the state House, so I think it's
ready ready to be signed here. I don't know if
they both houses down in Texas, but yeah, just re
reading the headlines here, yeah, it looks like uh yeah,
eighty eight to fifty two out of the state House.
So we'll see where it goes from here. But yeah,

(48:42):
it should should be, uh, you know, improve the balance
of power in Washington, which a lot of experts have
looked at this and they're like, you know, seemingly that
this is a straight up redistricting. It's not some sort
of chaotic you know, the way that they draw some
lines of the jerrymandering.

Speaker 2 (48:59):
If you well, so, what's like amted the redistricting because
they weren't really in a ten year period. Yet they
in fact they think they redistricted what just three or
four years ago.

Speaker 3 (49:11):
I believe so. But there's been such an influx of
population in the state over the past few years that
they're going to redraw the line.

Speaker 2 (49:19):
So that's what they had a legitimate reason why. And
it's true that Texas is one of the fastest growing
states in the Union. It's one of the fastest growing
states economically and within population. In fact, a lot of
people are moving from California to Texas to get away
from the California nonsense and the fact they can't afford
to live in California because of their nonsense. So Texas

(49:41):
now were proving that Texas has a legitimate reason to redistrict.
They weren't doing it just to jerrymn just to fill
seats in the US House. They had a reason. But
so when New York and California say they're going to
retaliate in California, by the way, has fifty two members
of the US House, right, a lot for one state.

(50:02):
So they got fifty two members of the US House
and only twelve of them are Republicans. Yep, that's a
lot of Democrats already. How are they gonna take five
seats away from uh, the Republicans in California?

Speaker 3 (50:14):
Wonder Yeah, what'll be funny is is is let's look
at the lines whenever the Republicans finished drawing their lines
in Texas, and let's look at the ones in California,
and let's see which ones were more logical. You know.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
Yeah, they're just gonna saturate They're gonna saturate the rural
ries of California by taking sections of Orange County and
saying okay this or putting it put it into sections
of Orange County. Right, so this section up here, I
mean Orange County now, and I mean.

Speaker 3 (50:42):
They're do it.

Speaker 2 (50:43):
They're gonna district They can't do that. They got to
they got to keep the population right.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
Well, well, the top five most jerry mandered districts in
the country, Texas has two of them. They have the
thirty third district and the thirty fifth district. So there's
two two out of the top five right there. Louisiana
has one, Illinois has one, and Maryland has one. The
third district in Maryland. But when we talk about on
a regular on here that's that basically has somehow has

(51:13):
the population above West Virginia and then somehow snakes around
toward Baltimore too. It's like the population centers there have
nothing in common. One is kind of country and one
is basically city and city city suburban population like they
don't doesn't add up.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
No, No, that's like Christmas talking about with Maryland.

Speaker 3 (51:32):
You know the right, that's that's little La District.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (51:35):
Yeah, And it's held together by basically a little sliver
that's basically a little bit wider than than a highway.
You know what I'm saying. It's disconnecting it.

Speaker 2 (51:44):
You know, it's so stupid they squeeze it in together.

Speaker 3 (51:48):
Yeah right, yeah, absolutely, ye crazy. What do we got?
We got about three minutes here, John.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
Yeah, about that three minutes will be taken our top
of the hour break maybe, so yeah, we got a
couple of things we didn't hit on yet. It was
one of them. Up, go ahead, go ahead, John, Well,
real quick, I guess there's to finish out this hour.
Christi Noman announces that they're going to paint the southern
wall the border wall black, reason being black attracts heat

(52:17):
from the sun. That's going to make it difficult for
people to climb the border wall. So that's true.

Speaker 3 (52:24):
That's true.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
So that's that's kind of intriguing idea. I don't think
a lot of people realize they are still building that
wall since Trump came back into office. In fact, remember
when Biden was trying to sell off the materials for
dirt cheap to get again rid of them, and they
the judge blocked and said, no, you can't do that.
That was designated funds were put you know, so he
had to had to sit there and waited on Trump's arrival.

Speaker 3 (52:46):
Right, Yeah, went on the rearrival, and I think I
think the Texas governor and the Texas law enforcement had
to save some of the stuff they were trying to
get rid up to. They here some of the some
of the stuff that is down there. But yeah, finished
the wall painted black. Whatever you've got to do. Uh,
you know, you're going to stop some people with it.
You're not gonna stop everybody. But at the same time,
we need to ensure that the policies in this country, uh,

(53:09):
don't incentivize people to break our laws and come here,
you know, illegally in Sanctuary City, sanctuary states, don't don't
incentivize people of coming here breaking our laws. You know,
like this truck driver you know that kill those people
in Florida and immediately what does he do, runs out
to California, claims sanctuary and gets a driver's license and
is now back out on the road. Potentially could kill
other people, you know, yeah, American citizens or or or

(53:33):
who knows, could kill anybody out on the road. It
doesn't matter. A person who shouldn't be here in the
first place. And it's regardless of where he's from. You know,
I believe he's from India, right is if India or Pakistani.

Speaker 2 (53:43):
He isn't given his last name. He might actually be
a Sikh. That means very well associated with the place
here in the United States, which does no bearing either way.

Speaker 3 (53:52):
It's not no, not at all. You're here. You're here legally.
I don't care where you're from, you know, and you've
been through through the proper class. You should give a
get a license and you know, a CDL whatever the
case may be. But somebody who's here illegally that we
can't verify who you are, what your background is, what
your training level is, and we're just throwing it, throwing
a license at you what you set in in a
weekend training course, and like here you go, here's the keys,

(54:15):
here's your license. No, I'm sorry.

Speaker 2 (54:18):
See I didn't like the idea of a wall. I
still don't care for the idea of a wall. You
don't put a border wall down there. The cost and
the gaudiness, and it's going.

Speaker 3 (54:27):
To cost so much to maintain it over the next
several decades. For sure.

Speaker 2 (54:31):
Absolutely, But it's not about change. It's not about keeping
people out, and that's what the left trying to make
it be. It's all about keeping people. No, it's about
the ability to properly vet people in the country like
we're supposed to, but keep out the drug trafficking, the
human trafficking, the mealing and things like that that where
if people can just walk across the border. Plus you

(54:52):
got to realize the diseases we're not vetting for diseases.
We've spent so much time and energy and money eradicating
disease in this country, and when you just let people
come into the country, will we nearly not be invented properly.
You're seeing that we saw it coming back up. Bed
bugs they're talking about coming back of eagles. Now, what
if we start getting things like Pollio all over again.

(55:13):
You know, we don't want to trap again, and we
worked hard to get rid of this. But this is
detrimental to the people of the United States of America,
and we you know, they talk about how well we
have to take guns away from people because we have
to protect people. First of all, there's nothing in the
US Constitution saying you have to protect people. But if
you're going to assume that responsibility, then to accept all
of that responsibility, stop trying to fight people on the

(55:34):
border wall where we're trying to protect people, and then
turn around and but tell us that, oh no, but
we still got to get your guns. So, ladies and gentlemen,
we have hit the top of the hour. We're going
to take a quick break here, give you a chance
to catch some of the top of the hour news.
So enjoy that and we'll be back.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
WUSMN fifteen ninety WSMN ninety five point three FM, Nashua, listen,
watch and stream at WSMN dot Live.

Speaker 2 (56:38):
All right, ladies and gentlemen, if you're just now tuning in,
you're listening to commentsons conservatives or here at WSMN fifteen
ninety on your AM down ninety five point three on
your FM down. You can catch at WSMN dot live. Uh, Todd,
I probably should hit on this because I know Billy
must be listening, and I think he would uh, he
would like to know. And the folks in Nashville, if

(57:01):
you haven't heard yet, child portrayal back on track for
former New Hampshire dim Rep. Lawton and partner. So apparently
Stacy Lawton was a man who became a woman who
has a partner that I don't know if it's a
man or woman, because when you do these gender things,
I have no clue what people are talking about anymore. So,
but apparently his partner, her partner whatever, was taking pictures

(57:28):
of children at the daycare facility she worked at, he
she worked at, and was sending him to Stacy, And
they've gotten this whole now child porn thing, and Stacy
obvious obviously lost her position and they were actually trying
to fight this case based on the idea that this
partner of his is incompetent to stand trial, doesn't have

(57:52):
the mental faculties, and the psychologist that was reviewing this goes, Well,
let's see, she got got a associate's degree in such
and such for daycare and down a job. And I
think they're capable of understanding law on home and what's
going on with this process. They can stand trial. So

(58:13):
it is scheduled for November of this year. So there's
no escaping the crimes. And suppose, I should say, allegic crimes.
And so we'll see how that pans out here in
the future.

Speaker 3 (58:26):
Yeah, absolutely, it should should.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (58:28):
I shouldn't get off on a technicality, that's for sure.

Speaker 2 (58:32):
No, that's nuts. I don't know what Stacy's rolling. I
guess receiving it. I don't know. Maybe encouraging. I have
no idea. We'll find out though, maybe once they have
a court ruling.

Speaker 3 (58:42):
Yeah, we shall see for sure.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
Uh yeah.

Speaker 3 (58:45):
So what's going on in New Hampshire other than that
big story? Anything? Anything big? What's your governorup duty?

Speaker 2 (58:50):
That was big one? We need Danny Beck That that
wouldn't much my see if I got anything. I mean,
there wasn't a whole lot here in the news that
I saw. I saw on the We the People Facebook
group page. Teresa uh was went to a court today.

(59:11):
There was a thing going on with the So there
was an incident with the child. What was it, foster facility,
some facilityertainment facility, and uh there was sexual assaults and
stuff that had taken place, and so they were having
some sort of thing at the court today and conquered
she went to and she pretty much come back with

(59:33):
just like you'd think, Well, they had the payout and stuff,
and I guess they figured that's going to excuse people
of the criminal behavior. And uh so, I guess people
want accountability. They don't, you know, payouts, nice sale for
for compensation for the victims. But sure she can take paid.
They are suffering and pain away with a payout, but
maybe it helps them get back on track. But at

(59:56):
the same time, people committed crimes. They committed crimes. They
need be held accountable for that. That was a horrible
incident that did happen here in the state. You know,
something you don't like to talk about, but you know,
you admit it happened.

Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
Yeah, right, And and you know it's the thing is
with stuff like that, people say, oh, it's a sensitive
topic or whatever, and it's like and that way they
just kind of gloss over. So they don't have to
talk about it. It's too sensitive to talk about. So
people don't assume or that that stuff's going on because
nobody wants to talk about it. You know, it's hard
to talk about. You know, It's easy to talk about

(01:00:30):
corruption or somebody you know hoarding gold Egyptian gold bars
in their in their their office right or their their
town homes or whatever, you know, former US senator from
New Jersey. But anyway, you know, it's easy to go
after something like that. But these other things that are
just it's so sensitive, people don't want to discuss it,
you know, so people people just gloss over and assume
that's not going on, and it is going on needs

(01:00:52):
to be discussed, and we need to go out to
these people without a doubt. So as you hear this
story about Tulci Gabbard the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence, she's going to slash forty percent of her
office and of course seven hundred million dollars out of
the budget. She said, quote over the last twenty years,
the ODE and I are, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence has become bloated and inefficient, and the intelligence

(01:01:15):
community is rife with abuse of power and authorized leaks
and classified intelligence and politicized weaponization of intelligence. In quote
Gavert said in a press release, I would probably tend
to agree with her that that office has definitely overbloated.
And what happened was whenever they created it, they shifted
a lot of the you know, the Director of Central
Intelligence responsibilities over the OD and I, which is kind

(01:01:38):
of what the job was. Basically took over the Director
of Central Intelligence role, not the Director of Central Intelligence Agency.
Two different hats there that the Director of the CIA
actually wore and created this new position. But what they
didn't do, or what they did do, is they brought
over a bunch of the staff over with them, and
it just continued to grow and become more bloated. Which

(01:01:59):
I agree with cutting this for sure. Well you have
something else to say, maybe he would probably agree that
he'd have a little bit more to say about it.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
The thing about it is, Todd, is this is what
we've talked about and the conservative as conservatives or within
the Republican Party for ever in today was the the
growth of government, the expenditure of government, how much it
cost to run government is just incredible, Like like you
described it best as as bloked unnecessarily spending, you know,
filling seats that don't need to be feeled where we

(01:02:27):
can streamline, cut things down to make it more efficient.
This is probably the first time in our lifetime that
we've seen somebody go into office and make that effort
to cut the bloat right before. In fact, with the
Bush administration, he created a whole different agency, you know,
the DA Department, right, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:02:48):
You know, yeah, yeah. There's so many departments and agencies
that need to be cut, combined and consolidated to reorganize.
I call it. I call it right sizing the federal government. Uh,
you know, because there are some agencies and departments that
that we need, I believe, but which if you right
size the federal government overall, you would have a smaller workforce,

(01:03:10):
a smaller budget. But some departments and agencies may actually
grow in size as you consolidate, like like agencies. But
in the end, you're gonna have less government nonsense. You're
gonna have more of a streamline and those services that
we need, such as intelligence, military, things of that nature.
Get out of the education business, uh, get out of
some of these other things that we don't need to

(01:03:30):
be involved in. Especially a lot of this foreign aid nonsense.

Speaker 2 (01:03:35):
No, yeah, absolutely, Now, get.

Speaker 3 (01:03:39):
To a government that can do the things that we
need it to do from a federal standpoint, from a
constitutional standpoint, and that's it, nothing more, nothing less.

Speaker 2 (01:03:46):
Well, that's that's the problem. Is we've taken on this
role within the globe like it's our place in the
global path by everybody to fix everything for me, trying
to be the daddy and the globe of things. You know,
it's kind of like, got nuts. We'll spend herself. What
are we thirty seven thirty eight trillion dollars into debt?
Now I don't I'm not sure, right, I'll find that
out in the second.

Speaker 3 (01:04:06):
But yeah, well you can go to yeah, just google
the national debt debt clock or whatever. But then you
got to think about all the other debt that's that's
out there, that's unrealized's and that's unplanned for, unbudgeted for,
you know, eighty some trillion if if you look at
everything plus state budget, state deficit, state the excuse me, debt,
you know, personal debt, local government debt, and things of

(01:04:28):
that nature. You know, you're talking about any of the
hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt. You know, that's
just yeah, that's American debt right there.

Speaker 2 (01:04:36):
So we're we're right now at thirty seven trillion, two
hundred and fifty seven billion, five eleven million in county. Wow,
what a relief. It was not quite up to thirty
eight trillion.

Speaker 3 (01:04:45):
I need not to run whatever, relief that it didn't
hit thirty eight and you don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:04:48):
It, right, geez, that's an incredible I mean, can you
really fathom that? I mean, can you really imagine that
kind of money? I mean, if you were if you
took one dollar bills and put them in a building,
what's would you need to store thirty seven trillion, two
hundred and fifty seven billion dollars?

Speaker 3 (01:05:05):
It be to the moon and back a few times.
I think something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:08):
It's an incredible amount of money.

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
But you know, it's funny if you talk about debt
and deficit and whatever. I don't talk about when I
quote unquote when I ran for Congress back in twenty eighteen,
but I would talk about debt and deficit spending and
all this stuff and the need for a balanced budget.
And I had one person honestly tell me, you know
it is after the fact. He comes up and goes, hey,
I love what you're talking about. And this is kind

(01:05:30):
of you know, the people that don't care about policy.
You don't care about that. Came up to me and
he said, you notice everybody kind of glossing over whenever
you talked about debt and deficit. And I said, yeah,
I noticed that. I said, you know, I said, I
get it. He's like, yeah, people don't under people don't
even understand the difference between debt and deficit. And how
can they understand how important it is if they don't
understand the difference between the two words. And I'm not

(01:05:53):
making fun of anybody. And I said, yeah, I did
see that. People just kind of glossed over and looked
at me, you know, with like this that they were looking,
but they weren't paying attention, you know. And he's he's like,
he's like that, just don't even touch on the things
that people are that gloss over. He said, whenever whenever
you find a subject that they want to hear, He's like,
talk about that and pivot that and be able to

(01:06:15):
work in your your rest of your message after you
get their attention or whatever. I said, all I could
probably try to do that, he said, But but as
soon as you start getting in the policy into the weeds,
he said, they're going to tune out quick. And I said, okay,
good to know.

Speaker 2 (01:06:29):
Yeah, yeah, that point I mean, because if you're not
keeping it interesting to the I'm not going to hold
that in that light. They're going to vote for you.
It's a truth, and it's it's an unfortunate truth, that.

Speaker 3 (01:06:39):
Right, he said. You don't have to even go in
depth on on any any of the points. He's like.
He's like, pick pick the three three or four major issues,
touch on it, and talk about how you're pro all
these things everybody is pro, and then you know you're
con against all the things everybody's against. Hit a few
other points to that. This distinguishes you between the other people,

(01:07:02):
and he said, leave it at that, he said, because
most people tune out after a few minutes. Anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:07:07):
See, I like him when people do that. If I'm
listening to a politician talk and they get over my head,
that's great for me because you know what I'm gonna do.

Speaker 3 (01:07:14):
I'm going.

Speaker 2 (01:07:16):
I'm gonna wait. I want to know what that is about.
I want to see what he's doing. And sometimes you know,
people will say things in different ways, kind of abstract ways.
You know, wait a minute, I don't know what he's
talking about. Let me research research. You realize they just
said it in a different way. Didn't sound comprehensible to you,
that's all.

Speaker 3 (01:07:31):
Absolutely, you know, on the on the TV show of
the West Wing, I mean, obviously we're talking about realistic
stuff here. Uh, but they were talking about, you know,
using big words and talking about how you know, big, big,
big ideas or whatever, it forces people to stop and
think about what you're actually saying. And he and they
were talking about how politics for years has just been

(01:07:52):
dumb down, where you talk about just just some of
the most trivial stuff, but you've gotten people spun up
over it. And and that's what your campaign just stuff.
It just doesn't matter, you know. You know, you didn't
say USA, USA three times in a row. You know
you said it. You know, yeah, you know, I'm more
American than you are, you know, And it's like and

(01:08:12):
then that's the fight, you know versus Hey, you're talking
about spending thirty seven trillion dollars versus you're talking about
actually paying it down. You know, it's like you're talking
about debt and deficit or big big things like that.
People gloss over what a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:08:26):
Of people realize. When you're talking to a crowd of people,
you don't have to use big words to impress them.
In fact, it doesn't necessarily impressment. It's better simple and concise. However,
the biggest thing that we see when people are campaigning
is emotional appeal, which means to use fear based conversations.
Oh yeah, that opponent of mind is going to take

(01:08:48):
away your social security if you vote for him. That's
what's gonna happen to you, and all of a sudden,
But I worked hard for that little bit.

Speaker 3 (01:08:55):
But on the episode, even on that episode, I was
talking about I should have made made the point. But
basically the president on there, Jed Bartley, he goes, basically,
what we should do is start to challenge people. You know,
you know, yes, you talk about the big items and
get them you know, you know, raw rah rah. But
then you talk about these other things and get them interested,

(01:09:15):
take push them into getting interested into the big, big items,
and that's how you're going to get them to solve
help you solve those problems, versus just talking about them
all at once, and people glossing over get them charged up,
talk about the big item, and it's like, well, now
I'm interested in what is the big item? I don't
know enough about it, and people people that are you know,
like you and I would would generally go educate ourselves

(01:09:36):
about it and want to learn more. But I know
it's a small fraction of our society that does that, though,
But I think we need to challenge people more and
more to get more involved, to want to educate themselves.
That's my thought.

Speaker 2 (01:09:47):
Well, you know there's that old Greek saying. You know,
you may not take interest in politics, right, politics takes
interesting you. And the thing of it is is, yeah,
you might not be in your comfort zone with it,
but it's easier to say down and watch television and
drink beers to kill your eating. But isn't that a
waste your time? I mean, how what purpose is that?
So politics takes an interest in you means it affects

(01:10:09):
your life, It impactual life things these people are decided upon.
You may have voted for this guy and think you
can just wash your hands to it and walk away,
But as we described earlier in the show, they're going
to do what they want to do if you're not
holding them in check. So you need to be involved
and find that as your source of entertainment. Yeah, it's headache,
and yeah, I can'd of get somewhat boring sometimes, but

(01:10:31):
there's ways, and that's why you get people that do
these shows. You and I are now kind of you know, honestly,
we're speaking a little dryly, but a lot of people
that do these shows, like you listen to Dane La
Roche or back in the days with Rush Limball, he
had a way of pepping it up, and he was
also attacked. He was attacking people's emotions and we don't
normally do that. We're not saying they're trying to get
people emotionally charged here, but Russian Limball was the king

(01:10:53):
of it. Man, he tapping you listen to him, man,
four hours of Rush Limball, I was so wound up.
I was ready to go out and roddle. Somebody heard
at the end of the show was okay, folks, that's
a show will catch us another twenty twenty hours will
start all over twenty hours from not even to do
it again.

Speaker 3 (01:11:08):
No, not that much emotions right now, but absolutely you
got to think about how those shows are structured. It's
you know, it's the same format every day, you know
what I mean. We have a discussion group here, that's
what we do. It's what everyone talk about. You know,
they had a he had a formula from years of
being on the radio down you know, he knew how

(01:11:30):
to how to hit people just the right way at
the right time. You know, a lot of experience.

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
There's there's an art, there's an art to speak absolutely
and we don't necessarily exercise that art.

Speaker 4 (01:11:40):
Now.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
There people who are very very savvy, I'm speaking publicly.
Shooting off the hip is kind of harder to do
it when you have a formatted speech, or you have
a way of delivery, like you know what you're gonna
be saying ahead of time. Yeah, you know the proper inflections,
you know, the proper pauses and stuff like that, and
it comes very powerful form of each one. You know,
how to make the delivery.

Speaker 3 (01:12:01):
The people that do the daily shows that are you know,
they're on three four hours a day, they had their
their their shows set up in segments of like you know,
and so they know the emotion they need to bring
for that segment. You know, this one, I'm going to
be more emotional. I'm to get at the heart strings.

Speaker 5 (01:12:17):
This one.

Speaker 3 (01:12:17):
I'm gonna be more hard hitting. I'm gonna this one,
I'm gonna attack more. This one, I'm gonna be more defensive,
you know, so that they know the emotion that they're
going for within each segment. If you if you watch,
there's a formula that they all follow though.

Speaker 2 (01:12:28):
Yeah. Yeah, they try to leave you on that high.

Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
Note at the end, so that way the next show,
you're not thinking about how pissed off or how how
how sad you got. You're thinking, like, man, that was
a good show. You left them will be on a
high note, So I want to come back the next
the next show.

Speaker 2 (01:12:42):
Absolutely, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
You don't want to heart for them.

Speaker 2 (01:12:44):
You don't want to taper off and dwindle and out.
You know, they leave them wanting more, and that's why
you cut it off. You kind of like you leave
them thirsty. You know, it's like that lead in.

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
You just kind of bring them in. You kind of
preface everything what you're going to get into. You hit
a bunch of those sponsorships up front, and then you
know that next segment you start to get into more
of the conversation if you will, yeah, yeah, oh yeah,
if you listen to enough talk radio. Of course. I'm
sure people like yourself are people that are long haul
trucking right now. They're listening to a lot of those shows,

(01:13:15):
you know, just just to stay awake or to educate
themselves one way or another.

Speaker 2 (01:13:19):
But yeah, some truck drivers love Serah six some because
you can have one station right throughout the w I
never got into it too much. It seemed to me
always hitting a mountain side or something getting cut out anyway,
but they like it. I guess I was part of
the crowd of if it's free, it's for me. And
that's what I like about trest real Radio. You can

(01:13:41):
get something for free these days, terrest Real Radio right here,
w s I men right on the internet for you,
I mean, come on there now, you guys love the
internet right right right?

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
Yeah, absolutely for free. It's for me, that's right. Yeah,
but yeah, yeah, get you get into those shows where
you you form a bond with with that person, you know,
even because that's the way that they structure. They try
to form that bond with the listeners, if you will,
you know, by hitting this segments and just the right way,
you know, So you get the person who loves the
happy stories, you get the person who likes the sad stories.

(01:14:15):
You get the person who likes that that revenge fantasy story.
If you will, you know, and and and that's just
talk radio. If you will, you know, if you think
about it, the way you just tell their stories, you know,
how we're going to get the revenge is you know,
we're gonna stick it to them at the next election cycle.
We're gonna do it doing this way, this way, and
this way. You know that. And that's for people. That's
that's revenge in a lot of ways. That that vote

(01:14:36):
is the way to get revenge against elected officials. You know,
well I just won't vote for them, you know. But
here's what people have to do to get that revenge.
You get that satisfaction. You actually have to show up
and vote. You have to be registered to vote, and
you know, you have to actually go in that voting
booth if you will, and and vote for the other
person or somebody you like better. I mean, that's how
you get the revenge.

Speaker 2 (01:14:55):
The most amazing thing to me is if it's a
federal election, people right there, especially if it's a presidential right.
For some reason, we as a society want to put
it all on one man. So you know, it's Obama's yeah,
ir act it was. It wasn't Congress did passing. It
was Obama's. And you know the same thing with Trump.
We always say it's Trump's this and Trump's that. And

(01:15:15):
truth of the matter is there's a whole Congress rate
there doing work and they're sending bills over to Trump
for Trump to sign, but we say it's his bill.
It's kind of a ridiculous on our part. But when
it comes to a federal election, man, people are there
and it's a long wait, you know, even forty five minutes,
three hours in the line. Sometimes yea in there to
punch a ticket. When it's a state election, maybe twenty

(01:15:35):
five percent of the people show up, right. I always
find that intriguing. Will you be more interested in what's
going on locally or it isn't going to impact you
the most?

Speaker 3 (01:15:44):
But when you think about it, in the presidential election
every four years, how many of those members of Congress,
the House, and Senate are being overwhelmingly re elected And
it's like, you got to think about this. Most of
the problems that you're voting for our new president to
fix were caused by the people that you're off so
re electing to Congress at the same time, Republican or Democrat.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
Maybe maybe it's by design. Maybe I never thought about that,
just we're more simple minded and like to just put
everything on the president. But maybe they get it that
way because if you listen to them talk, they always
talk that way, So maybe they get it that way.
So you're not looking at Congress.

Speaker 3 (01:16:18):
Well, of course, and of course if it's a popular
president or a popular candidate running for president, well what
are those members of Congress do? Or there's candidates for Congress?
Do they jump on the coattails even if they don't
even have an endorsement from the person, They still get
on the on the coattails on the off chance that
people won't care uh to even check if there's an
endorsement of that particular candidate, because guess what, I'm endorsing

(01:16:39):
this presidential candidate and their policy, So therefore it's a
sort of a tacit endorsement to me, even if even
if they haven't said the words, you know what I mean? Yeah,
because most people aren't aren't gonna aren't gonna look whether
you got the endorsement or not. Now, if you do
get the endorsement of a very popular president, like say
Trump as an example, well you're going to go out

(01:17:01):
and tout that and talk about how how he endorsed me,
the only endorse Trump endorse candidate in this entire race.
While the other candidates down the line may say, oh,
I support his agenda the X, Y Z, but they
can't say that they got the endorsement. But for the
person who's not really paying attention to the words, well
I heard Trump and I heard you know, his policies.

(01:17:21):
That's it. You know that they're not paying attention to
who actually got the endorsement. Yeah, it does become the
game of semantics and how you how you use your
words too?

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
Oh man, all the time, all the time. That's why
they leave themselves when they when they say something, they
don't want to promise anything directly. They kind of semantically
say it out there in a way so they're not
really promising anything directly, so they can covertly later runs
well that's not exactly what I said, right, Or.

Speaker 3 (01:17:47):
The person who won't come out and said that they
openly support you, know term limits. They'll say, well, term
limits are are a good idea. You know, well we
turn limit our governor, we urn limit our president, but
won't actually say, well, we should turn limit the position
I'm running for, such as Colm versus House Senate or whatever. Though,
you know what I'm saying, because they don't want to
get into that situation where it's like, oh no, I'm
in my third I'm in my second term, and I
only promise three terms. That's that's not a long time.

(01:18:09):
I need more, you know, So they don't want to
put themselves in that situation. Yeah, to me, it's it's
cowardly though it is.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
I've seen people. I've seen people they didn't win, but
they they they are. Adam said, I'm going to restrict
myself to two terms and that's all I'm going to
stay in for. But whence we didn't see im prove it.

Speaker 6 (01:18:25):
You know, right right?

Speaker 3 (01:18:27):
Oh yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:18:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:18:28):
And you know or people that talk about term limits
and it's like, you know, well you've been in you've
been in office for your you're in your fourth term.
Now how are you talking about you know, and it's
a four year c you know, like a local county Commission.
It's like, well, I support term limits, but you've been
in the county commission twelve or sixteen years. It's like,
I don't think that you do. You know, you can't
really say that, I'm sorry, two terms, two terms in

(01:18:50):
a four year office, that that's reasonable. Maybe maybe three
twelve years and then then let's go ahead and move
it on.

Speaker 2 (01:18:57):
Yeah, just for on that subject, How do you feel
about term limits? I support them.

Speaker 3 (01:19:04):
I support them. And here's the thing. People say, well,
we have term limits, it's it's called elections. But people
usually say that understand the fact that you know the
amount of money that's behind it. You know, you're never
going to actually have that happen. It's to never gonna
go that way unless actually people show up an actual
vote to vote these people out of office.

Speaker 5 (01:19:24):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:19:24):
So we're going to have to institute congressional term limits
on a constitutional basis so that way it can't just
be arbitrary of whenever they decide to leave or whatever.
Because with so much money behind it, and it's so
easy to sell out that most people in your congressional
district aren't paying attention to how you vote. And at
the same time, those who are a part of the
establishment are going to be there to kiss your butt anyway,

(01:19:47):
because you're the person that's in. So they need they
want to make sure that they maintain some level of power,
perceive power or real power by being your best friend
until there's somebody who comes along who has just a
lot more money to be able to spend. But at
the same time, you have that power of incumbency behind
you behind it as well. Everything that you do becomes
a campaign stop, you know what I'm saying, even if
it's an official stop. So it's hard, even if you

(01:20:09):
had a lot of money to throw at it initially
to overcome an established incumbent. But it's up to every
individual person like you and i'd had just to pay
attention and vote and occasionally vote them out of office.
Even if we like them. Sometimes they get to the
point where they've outlived their usefulness I think in office anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
Yeah, I have never been a fan of myself. I
get the concept, but I find myself saying, well, we
have you said earlier? You know, we have a process.
It's called vote the other guy in. You know, we
vote people and if we don't agree with them anymore,
we shouldn't vote for him anymore. But then I also
find myself following up with providing you can get a

(01:20:47):
fair election.

Speaker 3 (01:20:48):
Right, because you think about this, to run for high office,
a US House seat, you think about this, if you
want to really be competitive. You're talking about a million
dollars on the low end nowadays. Yeah, how many people
can go out and honestly truly raise that type of money.
If you don't already have that amount in your own
bank accounts to be able to offer up to spend it,

(01:21:10):
You're probably not able to go out and raise that
type of money unless you just had some drastic major
name recognition. You know, even then, I don't see that,
see it happening, especially in your home districts. And of course,
good luck going to Washington or to Nashville, your state capital,
wherever you may be, and try to raise that money
with no name recognition. Even if you are a decent candidate,

(01:21:32):
nobody's going to back you outright, It's just not gonna happen.

Speaker 2 (01:21:35):
No, you're right, it's it's very difficult. I remember the
first time I heard a presidential campaign cost one hundred
billion dollars, and I'm thinking to myself, oh crap, my god,
how much does it cost to win a presidential election?

Speaker 5 (01:21:49):
Now?

Speaker 2 (01:21:49):
What is it up to? You know, a couple hundred
million or something three Now.

Speaker 3 (01:21:52):
Now it's in the billion or billion, two billion now,
you know.

Speaker 6 (01:21:57):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (01:21:57):
There was a saying I forget who said it. It's like,
you know, it's becoming politics is becoming very expensive to lose,
you know, or to lose a race or something. I
can't remember how it goes, but you know, even just
to lose a presidential race, it's costing you a billion dollars.

Speaker 5 (01:22:11):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
Come on, now, I remember Hillary Clinton was when Obama
beat her, she was twenty eight million or something in
the hole probably yeahself, right, I think somebody kind of
took care of that for her and she became his
secretary of State.

Speaker 3 (01:22:26):
Yeah right, well basically, yeah, that was paid off, basically.
And it's like, Hillary, I'm gonna bring you on the inside.
This will set you up in eight years to be
the person and you know you're gonna be on the
inside of the tent. Like there's a saying I think
it was Fred Thompson, one of his characters, and he's like,
I'd rather have the person on the inside of the

(01:22:48):
tent pissing out versus them on the outside pissing in.
And that's been said about the number of characters throughout
history history, but I think that was a situation where
Obama said that about Hillary. I'd rather have her on
the inside, you know, throw everything out, versus her on
the outside throwing rocks in, you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
Yeah, Yeah, Jardine has enough inside information that she does
have to be on the inside. It's difficult for him.

Speaker 3 (01:23:09):
So you make her Secretary of States, the essentially the
highest cabinet position you can give her, you know, and
and let her be happy there. She can say she
was Secretary of State. She can use that whenever she
runs in eight years. She'll basically bring bring her supporters
onto my side versus fighting me at every turn over
the next four years. And that's what his thought was,
and wisely so I believe.

Speaker 2 (01:23:30):
Yeah, she was Senator for New York for I don't know,
but maybe one term.

Speaker 3 (01:23:36):
Yeah, basically a term. Maybe she got re elected, but
basically whenever she was first lady never lived I don't
think she had ever lived in New York or was
never a real resident there. Establishes residency while still first Lady,
runs for the Senate and gets elected, gets sworn in
while still first Lady. Think about that, she was a
Senator and first Lady at the same time. It was
for only for only like two weeks though, but.

Speaker 2 (01:23:57):
Still, oh wow, yeah, I think about this. I'm gonna
pose it in my head about this, but yeah, because she.

Speaker 3 (01:24:02):
Was right and she's so there's one in at the
first of January, like that first week the presidency switches
over the twentieth, so she was still the first Lady
for about two weeks roughly. Oh kind of weird, huh.

Speaker 2 (01:24:17):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:24:18):
And now people just all love to flock to these
types of people and say, oh, because they were this,
we should they should be president or they should be
the Senator or whatever. It's like, when did the everyday
American people just give over to this celebrity culture and
not only in our everyday lives but in our politics now.
But that's.

Speaker 2 (01:24:39):
She was like a one term center out of New York.

Speaker 3 (01:24:41):
It was just for showing where's she where's she carpetbag too,
you know, And had Rudy Giuliani not gotten cancer and
dropped out, he probably could have beaten her on the
Republican side at that point. Rudy Giuliani now is a
different certainly different guy than he was and too thousand
you know what I mean, or whatever. But he could

(01:25:04):
have beaten her at that point, but he got cancer
and stepped away from the race. And that was kind
of it, you know, let her, let her basically walk
into that that office, versus truly challenging her. You know,
even if he if he lost, you know, if she
won by only like a percent or something, you know,
you'd be able to say, oh, that that there's certainly

(01:25:25):
a lot of chinks in her armor. So setting herself
up in eight years to try to be president or
or whatever the case may be, would have certainly been
a detrimental to that. Even if he had stayed in
the race. I think so she may not have ran
for president two thousand met Who knows, of course, I
don't put it past her ego, though for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:25:45):
She wanted it awfully bad. And there was this whole
thing people talking about back in the day about how
they felt like she was promised she was going to
be next in the line in a boma. Yeah, it
was like everything shifted away from her because you can
tell she was jaded.

Speaker 3 (01:25:59):
You know, she was the successor. She was basically the
anointed one, because you think about this, when Bush came in,
everybody expected Gord to win and be president for eight years,
and then whoever he had on his vice president would
have possibly been the successor at that point and whenever
he lost it like he did, and as close as

(01:26:20):
it was, you know, with all the issues with the
hanging chads, et cetera in Florida and the Supreme Court,
you know, all of a sudden, it's like, wait a minute,
who's next. Ah, It's gonna have to be Hillary because
she has this wide name recognition. She stood by Bill,
who left as a popular president despite being a reprehensible human.
Being left fairly popular as president by the way.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
Yeah, yeah, you know so I think did pretty well
when he was president. You know he didn't well Yeah,
I mean he.

Speaker 3 (01:26:46):
Actually, you know a lot of his policies were fairly
compared to what Democrats are today, we're fairly moderate. Yeah,
that's not you know, giving him a thumbs up as
a great guy.

Speaker 2 (01:26:57):
Honestly, he would he would be willing to work with
some across the all had a good idea. But of
course we'd have to be more leaning to his way
of things.

Speaker 3 (01:27:04):
But sure, I mean you had to stroke Bill Clinton's
ego occasionally, but he would definitely work with Republicans on
a lot of things, for sure, And you don't see
that nowadays in most respects for any side of the aisle.

Speaker 2 (01:27:17):
No, No, we're in Like I said at the beginning
when we first started doing this show, I feel like
we're in political warfare. And I think that's where we've
have been for quite some time now. And it's just
a bitter battle between the left and the right, and
the left is really showing their headquarters about it, right.

Speaker 3 (01:27:34):
But you think about this, we're in such political warfare
where you have states like Tennessee overwhelmingly Republican, you know,
over a Republican. I mentioned this earlier, and of course
I'm going to do it again. We're a Republican in
a safe Republican district. We'll come back and say, oh,
we're about on the Democrats. You know, down in Nashville.
It's like you have overwhelming majorities in the state House

(01:27:55):
and state Senate supermajorities. You're not battling the Democrats. I mean, yeah,
they may speak up and say some stupid stuff, but
you're battling other Republicans. That's the problem, you know. So
let's let's stop pretending it's the Democrats, but it's the
people who fall for that, you know. Oh, it's the
Democrats in Nashville that's the problem. No, the other Republicans

(01:28:15):
that are there, that's the problem.

Speaker 2 (01:28:17):
Yeah, you got to have a boogeyman when you're have
an insulting and of course you're going to have a
few rhinyls involved.

Speaker 3 (01:28:21):
And they come back in fundraise to you know, exorbitant
amounts for safe seats, knowing that they're not going to
have to battle against any Democrat, you know, And what
that does. That keeps any any good person who could
replace them out of those primaries because again it's safe
Republican seats or safe Democrats seats. It keeps anybody who
would challenge in a primary out because if you think

(01:28:43):
about what do I need to run a for state rep.
You know, well, you need probably fifty to one hundred
thousand dollars to start off with, because your potential opponent
already has that in the bank, plus they have name recognitions.
So now you've got to overcome that. That amount of
money plus the name recognition to start off with, and
that that keeps a lot of really good candidates out
because they can't go to Nashville or to Washington, DC

(01:29:04):
and raise that money. Where are you going to raise
it up? Either either with your own family and friends,
And I don't know how many people have friends that
they can raise one hundred and fifty one thousand bucks,
you know, within a few weeks to run for public office.
You know what I'm saying. What it takes.

Speaker 2 (01:29:20):
So folks, if you're just tuning in, or if you've
been listening for a while and you're wondering what you're
listening to, you're listening to the common sense conservatives right
here WSM men fifteen ninety on your AM dial, ninety
five point three on your FM down. Also, you can
catch you at WSMN dot live if you're up at
running into the house and that's our state station identification
close to the bottom of the hour. Todd, what do

(01:29:41):
you think about this International Criminal Court investigating the United
States for crimes against humanity? Who specifically they just they
did not see that they just mentioned the United States
and Israel, and the United States had to do with
the occupation of Afghanistan. So it was approved in twenty

(01:30:04):
twenty apparently for them to investigate the United States, and
all of a suddenly now they're doing this.

Speaker 3 (01:30:10):
Okay, good look Trump.

Speaker 2 (01:30:12):
Trump is like, well, we're not part of the room.
We're not signatories on the what is it called the Rome.

Speaker 3 (01:30:17):
Right, Yeah, yeah, we're not we're not signatures to that.
So you know, you have no teeth anyway, I mean,
yeah you can. You can, I guess, find somebody guilty
and absentia and say in court and countries could agree
to you know, if so and so comes our country
will arrest them. That's pretty much that that was what
they would agree to something like that. You know, whatever

(01:30:37):
President Trump wants he leaves office, if he comes to Germany,
we can arrest him. Yeah you're going to really arrest
the former president or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
Dot I doubt it create a whole international incident, right, yeah,
not gonna happen. So, yeah, that's the Trump administration to
declare it is just more law fair against Trump and
that they're not going to recognize it. They don't care.
We're not signatories. So and they pretty much give them
the attitude you give me, good luck, go ahead and
do what you're going to do. But good luck, right and.

Speaker 3 (01:31:03):
And anybody who was going to say put me in
prison if I show up to your country, you know,
even if I'm invited officially, you know, I'm just not
going to go. I just not. I wouldn't show up,
you know, not a hard thing to stay out of
your country.

Speaker 2 (01:31:14):
I would be remiss not to mention that they also
sanctioned members that are investigating apparently, which one member I
think is out of Canada. So I don't know what
they mean by sanction them, like they can't come to
the United States or what they're doing as far as
sanctions go, but I guess they decided they're going to
sanction and retaliation and wish them well, yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:31:37):
Good luck with that. I think was it Henry Kissinger.
Wasn't he not allowed to go to some countries around
the world because he was a you know, international criminal
or war criminal or something like that, or I can't
remember specifically, but I think he can't go to some
country because they said they would arrest it if he
shows up. Now, easy not to show up for your
country if you don't, if you're going to arrest me

(01:31:58):
for just showing up.

Speaker 2 (01:32:00):
Like Mark or Rubio was sanctioned from going to China.
They would arrest him if you showed up in genda
of a. Suddenly he become secretary of state. It's like,
what are you gonna do now?

Speaker 3 (01:32:09):
Right? You're gonna rest the secretary of state if he
has to come to China? No, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (01:32:13):
Yeah, they sided they were gonna make special accommodations. Now
they're gonna forgive it, of course, of course.

Speaker 3 (01:32:18):
And that way they can look as if they're the bigger,
bigger quote unquote bigger man if you will by allowing
him right right, a passage through the country or whatever.
See China, we're not gonna we're not gonna be petty
like the United States. We're gonna basically pardon him. See
we're better than you all. It's like, we're not playing
your nonsense game. So you know who's the bigger man here?

(01:32:39):
You know, people playing the game, the perpet person not
playing games?

Speaker 2 (01:32:43):
Right? So what happened to the tariffs in China? Do
was there anything come of that? Or we just still
charging them on behind court?

Speaker 3 (01:32:50):
That was four weeks ago, John, We don't talk about
that this week.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
Oh, right, it's not like Chris Whyatt responds, No, I
thigured he would say, that's why. That's translation. I don't
have any answers for that.

Speaker 7 (01:33:06):
No.

Speaker 2 (01:33:06):
But when I say something witty though, right, yeah, yeah,
that sounds good like you something he would say. Picked
up on that right away. I guess I've been doing
this a lot with you guys now and starting to
pick up on those little cues.

Speaker 3 (01:33:19):
Not bad, not bad, All right, Monk says, lol, all right.
Got a few few comments over here in this in
the stream, of course, not as many tonight that we
normally have, because we get quite a few from the
South Africa from the audience down there. Of course. Colonel
Chris White is over in England right now covering the
Women's Rugby World Cup. I believe that's what he's covering
right in England, I say, yeah, in case I said Germany,

(01:33:43):
I don't know if I said Germany or I just
popped in my mind, but yeah, he's over in London
right now and going up and down England covering that.
So it should be interesting to hear what he has
to say. Maybe next week. I think he's there for
what two weeks now or we'll be doing.

Speaker 2 (01:33:56):
He said he was going to be there for about four.

Speaker 3 (01:33:58):
Weeks or maybe four weeks yeah, maybe, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:34:00):
Yeah, mid mid September. So we'll have a couple of
shows here next three or two or three shows will
be one hour shows with the Colonel. But that's always
interesting when he's here, you know, we'll take that.

Speaker 3 (01:34:14):
Yeah, I'll be down in Tampa next week for next
week's show down at the American Legion National Convention down
in Tampa. Should be interesting. For some reason, I was
thinking I would be down there tonight because I had
on my calendar that I was leaving on the twentieth
for some reason. But it's actually Friday I leave. But yeah,
so next week I'll be there for that and see
how it goes. We'll be electing a new National Commander,

(01:34:35):
amongst other things. So should be. It should be a
fun time down there. Change the scenery at least for
about a week or so.

Speaker 2 (01:34:42):
So they understand that the schedule anything bet twenty hours
of seven to nine o'clock on Wednesday nights.

Speaker 3 (01:34:46):
That yeah, nothing, nothing, don't worry, Okay, don't worry. I'll
be free next week for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:34:53):
All right, I know I'll be uh, matter of fact,
take a hold of Johnny, because I planned on being
down to Florida, hear uh into September and the beginning
of October. So there's gonna be at least a week
I'll be down there doing a show.

Speaker 3 (01:35:06):
All right, cool? What do you goetting down there? Just
weddings and bodies or whatever?

Speaker 5 (01:35:10):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:35:11):
Yeah, well that's now. We don't talk about that publicly, Todd.
But there are some gator places, so you know, if
I have to dispose of anybody where, I know how
those gators.

Speaker 4 (01:35:25):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:35:25):
Oh yeah, it's humor. Uh work with me here, right anyway.
Let's see Minnesota. Minnesota attorney general is going to see TikTok.
Do you hear about that one?

Speaker 3 (01:35:38):
No, let's tell me more, tell me more.

Speaker 2 (01:35:40):
So Minnesota the Attorney General decided he wants to see TikTok.
Let's see for praying on young people with algorithms. This
sounds like a sexual assault people with aim. Didn't sound
right to me anyway. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has
announced that the state issuing TikTok a lledge that its

(01:36:00):
features violate state consumer protection laws. Democrat Farmer Labor parties
or the Ellison, a member of the Democratic Farmer Labor Party,
said in released Tuesday that the social media platform and
snares young users and cycles of excessive use through f
design features that prey on young people's neuro development vulnerabilities,

(01:36:23):
uses multiple features, maximized users time spent on the platform.
So they're trying to say that the they he referred
to it as being like the nicotine of this stuff
is digital nicotine. That's what he referred to it as. Yeah,
so he's trying to he's trying to align it with that.
It's creating addictiveness and stuff on technologies purposely to keep

(01:36:45):
young people engaged in the platform. Obviously the platform is
going to make money on advertising and things like that.
The fact that people are using it. People don't use it,
then it's not going to go anywhere. I don't know
when he says young people, if he's talking about hey,
but under eighteen, or if he's talking about twenty five
to eighteen, or you know, eighteen to twenty five or
or what he's talking I don't remember. If TikTok he

(01:37:07):
used to have a age limit and I thought it
was eighteen originally, but maybe they've lowered it. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:37:15):
Yeah, it's all a bunch of garbage anyway, for the
most part, social media, I mean it's human beings who
used this stuff, I mean in such ridiculous ways, and
you know, they flocked to some of these accounts that
just don't put out anything productive or constructive. It's mostly
just nonsense, and people just flock to it and make
morons millionaires. You know, I don't understand it, you know,

(01:37:38):
but this is where people getting their news from. Well,
I heard it from Joe Rogan or whatever. You know,
that's well apparently it's a you know, I don't know
if you get if you get your news from him
or some of these other people, it's like you're probably
getting you know, minuscule of the truth and most of
us just exaggerated or hyper hyper inflated, if you will,
you know, over exaggerated. I don't know. I'm not tagging
Joe Rogan for sure, but it's like, don't go to

(01:38:01):
there to get your news, you know what I mean,
get a story, get the entertainment value out of it,
for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:38:06):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:38:06):
You know, if if she's interviewing somebody of interest, by
all means you know, get that story, but don't sit
there and listen everything that they pushes, especially some of
the conspiracy theories that you hear as being full fact.
It's like, that's that's a bit much. In my book, Hey,
studies applies applies to anybody left or right.

Speaker 2 (01:38:22):
By the way, studies just shown that one hundred percent
of conservative conspiracories to come true.

Speaker 3 (01:38:28):
Is that right?

Speaker 2 (01:38:29):
Hey, you just heard it on you just heard it on.

Speaker 3 (01:38:32):
My social medium, but I heard it on the radio. Yeah,
let's be true.

Speaker 2 (01:38:36):
Yeah, So no, they You're right. A lot of these
guys here, you know, pun ins or whatever you want
to call them self, punits or whatever.

Speaker 6 (01:38:43):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:38:44):
They do build these platforms. Some of them are pretty interesting.
But you know, Rush Limbaugh, we go back to that.
One of the things that turned me off about Rush Limbaugh.
I have a hard time listening to this stuff. I
really do, because, like we said earlier, they have any emotions,
they work you up, and it just drives me nuts.
I just want some straight talk, and that's why we
do it like we do here, you know, just straight talk. Well,

(01:39:06):
one time somebody called in. A lady called in. She goes, well,
this is what we need to do and we need
to start making changes. And she wanted to start plotting
with the guy on his radio show and he stops
and his tone changes. He goes, man, this show is
for entertainment purposes. If you really want to make changes
within the party, you're going to have to contact your
local party members. Guys on her way, and as soon

(01:39:27):
as she goes, she's like, oh okay, So she hangs
up with them, and as soon as she does, and
he goes right back into it. I mean just his
voice elevated right back up, picked back up where he
left off, and the whole lock started all over again.
You know, I'm like, right, yeah, entertainment, you might learn
a thing or two. But it's really to me, that's
a joke, you know what I mean?

Speaker 3 (01:39:47):
Right, But you gotta think, man, some of these folks
that you get them so spun up, and it's like
they're so outraged. It's like they don't know where to
put their the outrage. It's like where do you put
the energy. And you get somebody that comes along and
taps into it, like, oh you listen to you said
Rush Limbaugh. Oh you listened to Rush? Or you listen
to Sean Hannay, you listen to X y Z, Well,
let me tap into some of that rhetoric and use

(01:40:09):
it so that I can garner your support. People do that,
you know, it's like, oh, okay, I know that, I
know that you listen to this and this, I know
what they talk about, I know how they use their rhetoric.
I'm going to kind of do some of the same
stuff and I get your support. Even though you're you're
not going to do anything to fix the problems that
you told them that they be pissed off about.

Speaker 2 (01:40:26):
You're not gonna say exactly so talk talk talk that
leads to no action is nothing.

Speaker 3 (01:40:32):
You might just maybe but remember but remember if you
if you elect that person to go, say to Washington
to fix the problem that they pointed out, well, whenever
they get there, they're going to say, oh, by the way,
working on fixing that problem. But guess who's the blame.
It's those Democrats over there, or it's the rhinos over here,
or it's the the executive branch, you know, because if
it happens to be Democrats to control when you're a Republican,

(01:40:54):
it's the executive branch, you know, So you always have
a reason why you've not solved those problems. But you
need to give me that that one more term and
at the same time more money.

Speaker 2 (01:41:05):
Deflection is the name of the game here. Yeah, I fail,
but it's not my fault, like a narcissist or drug addicts. Right,
it's not my fault. Somebody else's somebody else fault. Look
over here, look at what this guy is doing to me.
You got money and.

Speaker 3 (01:41:16):
Support me, right, But they go in there, there's so
much you know, emotion and like, man, they're going to
really go up there and socket to them and fix it.
And then they come back all of a sudden, they're
a little bit more establishment than they were whenever they
went up there. All of a sudden, they're dressing a
little bit better, they're speaking a little bit different. You know,
the rhetoric's changed a little bit. They're getting the talking points,
they're getting the briefings on how they should present certain things.

(01:41:39):
They're going to all those classes and training of how
they should present different issues and items or whatever. If
you're you know, let's pick a random topic, deficit and debt,
call it this, say this, use these keywords, these buzzwords,
and that's what they're doing, and you see it on
social media, you see it on Sunday talk shows, Republicans
using the same talking pointsocrasts do the same thing. You know,

(01:42:01):
it's all from the same hymnal. And eventually you've got
a candidate that's basically created from Washington or created from Nashville,
and you don't you don't have that that person who
went there initially, uh, spitting vinegar. You have now a
polished politician that you need to get rid of again.

Speaker 2 (01:42:16):
Yep, that makes sense there, I hope, so polished politician
you got to get rid of again? Right, Well, what
do you think about some of those guys are kind
of worth keeping. How do you feel about Ram Paul?

Speaker 3 (01:42:26):
I think I think he's up against it, though, you know,
we need to elect more people like like him to
give him some support, you know, instead of getting rid
of people like Thomas Massey in the House, and of
course you got Ram Paul in the Senate. You know,
generally the two most conservative slash I don't know, constitutionally
minded individuals in each of those houses, you know, from

(01:42:47):
what I can see, and now we want to get
rid of them because they're they're calling out people on
their their their their own side, if you.

Speaker 2 (01:42:54):
Will, Well that's see, okay, so what you're getting into here,
I may as well just spill this out right now.
This is called group think processes.

Speaker 3 (01:43:01):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:43:02):
So Donald Trump had the one big beautiful bill or
whatever it was he called it, and it was Rand
Paul that spoke out against it, and he said, well,
I'm not I'm not exactly for this bill. And the
reason why I'm not for this bill is because of
the excess to spending and the bloody deficit. And all
of a suddenly he's the bad guy. He's the bad
guy out and all he did was point out the

(01:43:23):
flaws in the bill and why he's not supporting the bill,
and even our presidents in their attacking the man, this
creates what's called group think processes. Ryan Paul is not
going to allow himself to be subjected to it. He's
still going to speak his will. He's go going to
speak his mind. Hey, he's doing so for the better
interest of his constituent. This is what I like about
Rand Paul. In fact, he was my choice in two
thousand and sixty and it wasn't Trump, it was Ran

(01:43:45):
Paul originally. But at any rate, he stood his ground
on it. But a lot of people become susceptible to
group think processes where somebody starts bowling within the group, right,
and so now people want to hold back. They don't
want to express themselves independently because well, nobody else is
talking about it in the group, or I don't want

(01:44:06):
to be ostracized. And this is what happened to Senator
Cinema on the Democrat Party. She didn't vote the will
of the party. She voted presumably she voted for the
will of her constituents when she went against the bill
to go to remove the filibuster or it wasn't a
bill was it was a rule change change. So at

(01:44:28):
any rate, she went against it, and it was widely known.
So the Democrat Party centered her and basically run her
out of politics.

Speaker 3 (01:44:37):
As a result, your party centers you're basically they're saying
you told the truth against the party basically whenever your
party does.

Speaker 2 (01:44:42):
That, yeah, or they didn't like your choices, so now
they make you. The example is what's called group think
processes to control the masses, you know, within the group,
or to control the group in the direction of the group,
and that's not supposed to work that way. That's not
good using their word, not good democracy, right, it's not

(01:45:03):
a good democratic process. You know, you're supposed to be
able to speak your will, You're supposed to be able
to speak your mind. If you don't, you don't get
fresh new ideas. If people are repressed from doing so,
you remove the ability to have growth because it always
comes on the decision of the select few. And this
is the problem with the parties. And this is why
George Washington warned us of the parties, you know, and

(01:45:26):
his farewell address, which he never delivered. He submitted it,
but he never delivered his farewell address, but he wrote
it in his farewell addressed that political party should not
be a thing in the United States. I'm not saying
word for word for him, but he told us that
there will come a day when you serve the party,
the party doesn't serve you. Referred to them as factions,

(01:45:49):
and that they will take and be in control and
be in charge. And that's what we're seeing today. This
isn't about the will of the American people. He has
nothing to do with American people. If you ask any
of these people, while here on the Street, How do
you feel about this party? How do you feel about
that party? Chances are to tell you they really don't
feel like they fit in. They just feel they feel
obligated to belong because they can't find a place where

(01:46:09):
they do fit in, because the party was never addressing
issues for you.

Speaker 3 (01:46:14):
Yep, I see it, I see exactly. And of course
you think about this Washington whenever he gave that that warning.
By the eighteen hundred election, all of a sudden, political
parties were ripping the country apart. You know what I'm saying, Like, yeah, well,
with not even a generation later, it was just like
the next election or so, political parties were just destroying
each other. I mean you had Jefferson on one side,
you had Adams on the other, just I mean just

(01:46:36):
going at each other. And of course you had Hamilton
and burn their they're problems that they had with one
another too. That led to the infamous duel.

Speaker 6 (01:46:43):
Right, the.

Speaker 2 (01:46:45):
Election of eighteen hundred was referred to as the Revolution
of eighteen.

Speaker 3 (01:46:49):
Hundred, right, or the tumulti election of eighteen yeah right, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:46:53):
They actually referred to like a whole new revolution that
went on between Adamson. There were oppositional people because Adams
was a federalist and Jefferson was a state statist. He
believed in states rights and that things should be limited
in the federal anti federalists. I think they federalists, yeah, correct, true, yeah, yeah,

(01:47:14):
so yeah, he uh yeah, he believed in states rights.
He was very staunch about it. And as president, he
really he acted upon that. He left a lot up
to the states. I mean he was in charge of
expansion and and some military growth and things like that.
But that's the things that the government was supposed to be.

Speaker 3 (01:47:29):
Doing in his day.

Speaker 2 (01:47:30):
You know, it wasn't like what government is today. He
wasn't going in these directions. They're gonna convolute commerce clause
so they can get away with anything, you know, and
rights away right absolutely.

Speaker 3 (01:47:42):
And of course, really what brought our nation together was
debt essentially, and then what's destroying the country today is
now debt.

Speaker 2 (01:47:49):
Right yeah, taxes too. I mean they fought a whole
revolution over a three percent tax, and it's like, what
are we paying now?

Speaker 4 (01:47:57):
Man?

Speaker 2 (01:47:57):
If you add up all the taxes you're paying, you
got your twenty three percent, plus you got so security,
plus you got the excise taxes plus the corporate taxes,
because that indirect tax is going to get passed on
to sales the majority of it at least. Either way,
if you're paying the profits on the corporation and they're
taking some of that to pay the taxes, you're paying
the taxes, but you make a purchase, right, So I
mean when you add it all up, man, you're probably

(01:48:17):
paying fifty percent of the better of your income is
going into taxes.

Speaker 3 (01:48:22):
That's right. Yeah, yeah, paying more than our fair share
in taxes and everything that we do on a daily
basis for sure.

Speaker 2 (01:48:29):
And Dan had a point. You know, this country used
to run. It wasn't just it wasn't just tariffs, but
it was excise taxes. So excise taxes were the first
form of taxes. That's why we had the Whiskey rebellion
because they figured, well, we have to get our money
from somewhere. We got to create a revenue steam for
this government. We just created it. So they created excess.
Right now, This is why I support taxes against corporations

(01:48:53):
and not personal income tax. I hate personal income tax.
But businesses are established to be in business and they
can handle the tax burdens and stuff like that because
they're going to pass that cost on to you as
the consumers. So you're going to pay the tax. You're
not getting out of it. But they're going to handle it.
They're going to administrate all the all the you know,
tax burdens on it and stuff, and you're just gonna

(01:49:14):
pay it through your purchases. It's an easy thing for consumers.
It doesn't burden the American people as a people. But
corporations will have to handle that. Not a big deal
for them. They do. They handle more complex things than that.
I'm sure. Uh so, I don't like personal incometaxt, but
but I value corporate tax because it's fair just all

(01:49:35):
the way around. Nobody gets out of paying it. It's
going to be you know, That's that's the thing the
Democrats should be arguing for, right. They're always saying, well,
everybody should pay their fair share. There should be loopholes. Yeah,
that's the way they go about it.

Speaker 3 (01:49:45):
I call that the flawed fair share argument. You know,
it's like the fair share needle is always moving depending
on who's talking right, it's always a little bit more.
It's always a little bit more, it's never less whenever
it's on the left.

Speaker 2 (01:49:57):
Though, yeah, yeah, well they never stick to the hear
another case of where they say it, but they don't
stick to it. Like I say, you know, the left
are the ones that brought in personal income TAXT to
begin with, and they, if I remember right, they claimed
it was going to be against those who made large money,
not the little guys. So it's gonna be the guys,
you know, the big guys that were millionaires or whatever,

(01:50:17):
made thousands of dollars a year.

Speaker 3 (01:50:19):
Well, if you take away let's say am Elon Mush,
you take away all my money, my my ability to
make money moving forward. Well, you fund the government for
a few days, maybe a few weeks, right, and then
then where are you? You got to go after the
next guy, And eventually you're gonna run out of those
millionaires and billionaires because now all of a sudden, they
can't create anything, can't create jobs, can't create more tax

(01:50:40):
paying citizens that are out there. You know what I'm saying.
So the fair share argument is always paid pay more,
but it never addresses the long term. If you take
and take and take, eventually it's gone. You know, That's
what the left doesn't realize.

Speaker 2 (01:50:52):
Yeah, the people that are that are phenomenally rich now
only have so much to give the benef debt. If
the government can't handle the amount of revenue they're coming
they got coming in and they over spend, then I mean,
come on, man, you can take it from me long musk.
But he ain't got thirty seven trillion dollars.

Speaker 3 (01:51:12):
No, No, all the billionaires in the nation. You fund
the nation for what six months? Maybe you take all
the money they have.

Speaker 2 (01:51:18):
Yeah, maybe maybe.

Speaker 3 (01:51:20):
Six months if that.

Speaker 2 (01:51:22):
So you know what, I think that concludes our show, Todd,
We have reached the top of the second hour. So
ladies and gentlemen, we want to thank you for listening tonight.
We hope you got something out of a little entertainment
or maybe a bit of knowledge that we may have
been able to offer you. As always, uh have a
good week, catch his hair next week, same time, same place,

(01:51:43):
and UH be good. If you can't be good, we'll
be good at it. And we're going

Speaker 4 (01:52:00):
Pret