December 12, 2025 • 34 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Seven oh six here a PET five KRCD talk station.
I'm very happy Friday, Extra Special Friday, at least from
my perspective, but I hope you share my perspective in studio,
Former Congressman brad Winstrip Citizen brand web Strip. You still
have your licensed practice medicine because I want to talk
about healthcare with you. Welcome back, Brad. It's always great
seeing you.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, thank you. Yes, I do, and I am.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I remind people it's doctor brad Winstrip, so.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, and you know I'm still engaging here and there
academically and especially but.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, and a consulting love is yes out in the world.
I understand you have new employment, new means of income,
but it involves the medical profession generally speaking, a lot
of it at national security and security which we're going
to get to as well because we're season venice well
and tankers. Now we're dropping bombs on Venezuela and drug dealers.
And some really good success with Trump's trade policies, our
(01:08):
trade deficit has narrowed substantially. More exports from our country,
fewer imports into our country. The tariffs in spite of
all the you know, the whaling and gnashing of teeth
about Teriff apparently is now starting to bear some fruit
for our benefits. So putting that aside for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
We'll get to that.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yes we will if we have done as expected.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Of course, they had to vote on these various healthcare proposals,
you know, extending these subsidies under Obamacare or coming up
with an alternative solution. Both the Republicans and the Democrats
senate versions of these, you know, efforts both got shot down.
We all expected that to happen. So we're back to
square one. I guess at this point we only bought
(01:51):
until what the eighteenth of December in terms of keeping
the government open under the continuing resolution that exists. I
seem to recall that being the case they had to
work out. They're trying to hand out the balance of
the appropriations bills during this window of opportunity.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They're going to try to Yeah luck right, Yeah, well,
you know, they are moving. I will I will say
that the people on Appropriations are working hard.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
I will tell you that.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
But that's because it's under Republican control right now. But
that doesn't mean that it won't still end up in
some kind of end of your bill an omnibus, well
an omnibus or another cr which we've gotten so used to.
I just don't know why we don't have a collection
of people on both sides of the aisle that feel
it's their obligation and duty to get this done one
(02:34):
way or another, even if you don't like everything that's
in it.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's one of the core job functions of being a
US House Representatives member work on the twelve appropriations bills.
What other jobs do you really have by way of
I mean, if you had a list and do a
responsibility memo or something. Working on twelve appropriations bills and
getting done on a calendar year basis is like first
and foremost.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
And I have seen it done.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
But sometimes it's just on not all twelve, but a
lot of them, and.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
We'll package those together.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
And right now I do see that Republicans are working
hard to do that, because when we have the majority
like that, especially in the House, we get them done.
Now you get over the Senate, and that's another situation
a lot of times, but that's the way our government
was made up and we have to recognize that. But
onto healthcare, as you were talking about the situation is
(03:25):
such like the Affordable Care Act is not anything Republicans
ever supported, right, they didn't support.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
It to begin with.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
And the idea of these subsidies, as the Democrats promoted
it during COVID was this is just during COVID, this
is temporary.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
They put the.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
End date on that under the guys that after COVID,
we won't really need it. But the fact of the
matter is they do need it to carry out their
plan to keep it going. And you know it includes
things like increasing health premiums for the majority of the
consumers to subsidize the minority with expense of medical conditions,
(04:01):
et cetera. That's somewhat the nature of insurance anyway, I
get that. But the way this is set up, it's
just increasing the cost. It's only benefiting insurance companies for
them to want to take on the Affordable Care Act
as it exists. But the Democrats want these additional subsidies
(04:26):
rather than recognizing that the Affordable Care Act was a failure.
It's not affordable. It isn't It never was going to
be the way it was set up, and you could
see that. Yet you know it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Well, they'll just call it affordable.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Lord knows how it might have worked out, But the
rug was pulled out from under when the Supreme Court
did its original analysis of the constitutionality of it in
the first place, right out of the gate. In spite
of the fact that they found that attacks wasn't attax
and they ultimately upheld it, they shot down the commerce
clause argument. Democrats are trying to use the commerce Clause
(05:00):
the United States Constitution to say that they could use
it to force you to buy something. Now they can
prevent you from doing something under the commerce clause engaging
in commercial activity, traveling across state lines, blah blah blah,
but they can't make you, was the pronouncement from the
Supreme Court. And once we weren't mandated to buy it
and they couldn't force us to buy it, the house
(05:20):
of cards collapsed on itself.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Yeah, which is obviously what Republicans pursued too, was the
individual mandate, Yeah, because then you know, you're purchasing something
basically at gunpoint or threat with why with threat with
threat of going to jail basically And you know, but
but Donald Trump, his first action Donald Trump during his
first term, he in many ways solved a lot of
(05:45):
this by getting the so called short term health insurance.
The Trump's clarification needs to be a permanent law where
people have options to buy outside of the Affordable Care
Act and have them available, and so you can buy
(06:07):
something that allows you to say, get catastrophic insurance or
meet your needs and nuns don't have to buy insurance
for contraception.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Well, if you're outside of Obamacare and you're not obligated
to work with Obamacare, buy an Obamacare plan. You've got
two hundred plus medical insurance providers out in the world.
That's what I speak for. Cover Sincy. He's an insurance
broger for medical insurance. There are hundreds of companies out there.
You don't have to You can buy just a catastrophic
policy period.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
You don't have to buy anything else. You might be
really in a gem if you have some other problems.
You're not going to have your day to day regular
checkups covered and your you know, maybe emergency visits won't
be covered. But you know, if you get clobbered with
a cancer diagnosis, whatever, you might have coverage for something
like that. But nobody can force you to buy something.
Nobody can force you to buy Obamacare airgo. You don't
have to buy this full plate of benefits that Obamacare
(07:00):
provides that cost so much damn money. I mean, there
is an open market out there, have a choice.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Yes, you know, the same people that are for decades
been screaming about choice are often trying to give people
no choice on other matters.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Yeah, and the fact that there's not enough education out
there about how the insurance market works makes people think
that I'm only stuck with either what my employer provides me,
which if you've got an employer covered policy, then you
know you're a leg up on a lot of Americans.
That's a good thing, I guess for a lot of reasons.
I mean, it lets market a little bit. There's some
downsides for that, but whatever. But if you're not covered
(07:36):
by an employer policy, you're not stuck having to choose
an Obama care plan. You know, you can go to
a different medical insurance provider and buy only what you need.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Isn't that an ad for an insurance company.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's an ad for cover sensing, And I'm happy to
give it to them for free just because that's what
they do. And there are other brokers out in the
world that may do the same thing as is my
friends that cover since you, but you know, they pay
to support the show, and I'm just explaining to you
what they do, which is a reflection of the fact
that there is a market out there that has nothing
to do with Obamacare exactly.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
And you can and you know, the federal courts agreed
the federal law allows for both to exist. Yeah, so
let's put that though, clarify it in law, and without
an agency trying to strike it down in the process
as well.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, we are our own worst enemy when it comes
to this. I mean, let's let's reveal the elephant in
the room that I mentioned many times before. First off,
because that mandate that you must engage in commercial activity
that you didn't want to do, forcing you to buy
Obamacare shot down as unconstitutional. That blew up what the
(08:46):
ultimate goal here. The Democrats want to keep this alive.
It's on life support already. These supplements only make it
appealing as an option because the premiums disappear. It's magic,
it's free. You know, the American taxpayer is covering, and
all that money's going to the insurance companies. So it
just shattered their dream of what I call Medicaid for all,
(09:09):
which is what they wanted. They wanted every man wanting
child in the United States to be insured under one
single thing. That would be Obamacare. And it's going to
be a boiled down form of Medicare, i e. Medicaid,
less coverage, less service, and of course the one size
fits all get in line like a Soviet breadline. Reality
of medicine that would bring about.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Medicaid has at least success on health than any plan
because it's not readily accessible. Not everyone takes it. This
is what you would You would see it has the
highest mortality and morbidity. And you will see people argue
about medicaid and say, well, people are much healthier because
they have Medicaid. Well, you're saying they're healthier because they
(09:49):
have medicaid compared to nothing, Right, that's not what we're
talking about. We're not talking about having nothing available.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Talking about something that actually does what it's supposed to. Anyway,
will continue with citizen brad Winsterrip, Doctor brad Winsterrup in
a moment got a part company here, just mentioned twenty
two three on round forty two between Mason and eleven,
and he talks station Brian Timas here with well, he
served his country. He probably continued to serve his country
(10:17):
serving the American military. He's a doctor, he's Brad Winsor,
a former congressman and also someone who had his high
level security clearance. You're on the Security Council, right, and.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I was on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and now serving on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. I
don't speak for either as I sit here.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Okay, fair enough. I was really impressed. I saw this
article just yesterday. Israel is unveiled and has used and
successfully deployed in combat this thing they call iron Beam.
It's a super high power laser that can lock on
targets and just a fraction of a second, and considering
laser's travel to speed of light, they can blow missiles
out of the sky with it. It's war and it
(11:01):
costs between a buck and two bucks in terms of
energy usage to operate it. This seems to me to
be a complete game changer, Like drones were a game
changer in warfare. We're not going to be making patriot
missiles pretty soon. Because if you can use this successfully
and deploy this successfully, this technology is a absolute total
game changer in war. Drones can be shot out of
(11:23):
the sky and I'm just kind of wondering, and you
may not have any information about I'm not pressing you
for that. If this stuff, this technology as developed, can
work on hypersonic missiles as well, which pose the greatest threat.
From my standpoint, you can chime in on that if
you choose to. But if you can shoot hypersonic missiles
out of the sky with this man, this is this
is revolutionary.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Well, we're always looking for point counterpoint, right, Yeah, no
matter what someone has, do we have it and can
we negate them? You know, that's a countermeasure, measures and countermeasures.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
We develop this with the Israelis and they use one
point five billion dollars of our money to help develop this,
and they've shared this with us, according to the reporting.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Accorney to the reporting. And look, the idea of iron
Dome was in this same vein. It's always like, what
can we do that may be better and cheaper, especially right,
and so you want to pursue these types of measures.
I've always had this in the back of my mind
and sometimes I would I would express it that is
(12:20):
there a better way than just a significantly kinetic force
against this, but have the same result, if not better result.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Right, right, So and cheaper, unlimited. As long as you
have electricity, this will keep firing, you know.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Yeah, And you also want to look, you know, what
is the cost, right, how many dollars are going out
compared to So they're spending dollars on a drone, but
it costs a whole lot more for us to shoot
it out of the sky with, like you said, patriot
missile or something.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Like a million dollars.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah, so you can break the bank, which is what
we did during the Cold War, right, We bostally basically
broke the Soviet Union's bank because we have technologies and
advancements that they just could not keep up with, right,
and so the Cold War basically came to an end.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
So this would be a huge thing.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
I don't think it developed overnight, so it was probably
the making for some time decades. But I give credit
if it is there and it's capable. They did a
good job of keeping it quiet because you certainly don't
want the enemy starting to work on it as well.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Well, and you can't deny that the enemy's working on
as laser beams have been around forever, and they've been
working on high powered lasers for a long time. The
problem was the size, the portability, the speed of target acquisition.
Guess what, we have modern computers that process data instantaneously now,
so with gradually over time, you've shrunk the size of
these you've made them more powerful, and you've allowed for
(13:50):
locking into for targets in great accuracy, at least as
demonstrated by the Israelis in this iron beam situation. And
one can only imagine it's going to get better and better.
I guess pivoting over and I know we're gonna need
aircraft for a long time. But if the iron beam
can shoot a high speed weapon out of the sky,
I imagine it could lock in on a old, I
(14:11):
don't know, jet plane going nine hundred miles an hour
F forty five. We got a huge appropriation for the
development of a new replacement for the F thirty five.
These things come in at a billion dollars or whatever.
A pop boom gone in a fraction of a second. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Unfortunately, we have adversaries that are always seeking nefarious ways
to take us out, and our job is to continually
try to counter that.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
And now you're talking.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
It's interesting you bring that out because now you're talking
about something that we control from land. It is the
Israeli army that has worked on the Iron Dome and
manipulates the Iron Dome. And I've gone to Israel and
seen what they were able to do. But that's very
expensive to shoot these things out of the skies. But
you may be seeing the videos, especially at night time,
(14:56):
as these missiles are coming in, it looks like fireworks.
It looks like or illustrated fireworks because it's.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Like boom, boom, boom.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
They're just knocking them down out of the sky over
their own land, right. So pretty effective tool where maybe
two out of one hundred get through. Well, but there's
cost to that, and if you can reduce that cost
and have a more efficient system, that is a wonderful
thing for us to.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Be able to have.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
And the Israelis are constantly on guard and they're a
good partner to have.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Apparently a favorite of a lot of countries around the world.
The eighth largest arms exporter in the world. The Israelis
are country the size of New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well, it's innovation nation there, that's what they call themselves.
And you know they do that, they probably have fewer
regulations on their innovations.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I imagine, and it does help when you got one
point five billion dollars in the United States capital going
into a program like this Iron Beam. But to the
extent it works the way it's been described, I'd say
it was well worth the investment. Seven twenty six. Right
now more with Brad Weinstrip, Citizen Brad Weinstrup. After I
mentioned my friends at four seven thirty here if you
(16:06):
about KRC Decox station, A very happy Friday to you,
Brad Winsterp. Citizen Brad WINSTERP, Doctor Brad Winsterp, a former
member of Congress, Brad Winsorp and studio talking to him,
and he's still got a security clearance, so he's got
all kinds of details that you and I aren't privy to.
But he is informed, and since he's been there and
done that, he's a perfect person to common on what's
going on in the world. I love, honestly, one can
(16:29):
like being correct. I kind of feel over the years
I might have gone out on a limb a little
bit to make my opinions known about what I believe
in terms of this theory of global climate change. And
I have always always pointed out, I think, what is
a demonstrable objective fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
(16:52):
It is a naturally occurring thing. It's part of our atmosphere,
and it's plant food. Plants thrive and live on our exhalation.
Without it, plants would die. But they also give life
giving oxygen in return for the carbon dioxide that you
and I give them. Well, lo and behold we have
every single day, it seems more and more information. Now
(17:13):
we have this science journal Nate and Journal Nature retracting
what was described as a catastrophic climate change study. We're
all gonna die a la al gore greta Thunberg, Oh
my god. And it's like, well, wait a minute, we
were wrong. After so many organizations and these these Green
New Deal type leeches and NGOs out in the world
(17:34):
sucking up our tax dollars relied on the study to
make the argument that they were worthy of receiving our dollars. Well,
guess what, pull the plug on that one because it
wasn't true. But there's a lot of articles like that
have been retracted after already going out into the world.
You know, we can go back to the hockey stick,
and they've since retracted that, which seemed to be the
genesis of this whole thing. So what's your take on
(17:55):
this and the throat slitting that goes on. We were
talking about war between Russia and Ukraine and the break
their brad and mentioned Germany's economy. I said, well, they
cut their own throat. You had comment about Russia might
have been jealous because they had such a thriving, booming
economy in the European Union. Germany was the outlier, one
of the biggest economies in the world. Guess what, they
can't keep the lights on anymore because they pursued these policies.
(18:18):
There's something really nefarious behind the scenes on this, and
I don't hear about it as much anymore.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
How about you, Well, they know you don't. But they
also became dependent on Russian oil and things like that
because they put themselves in this situation. And then we
under the Biden administration NATed and embedded that because we
reduced our outputs so tremendously and the rest is basically history.
(18:45):
But you know, you point to something there. You mentioned
was it Nature magazine?
Speaker 1 (18:50):
One of the studies, and you.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Know, there are so many things I am finding out
and have found out, and especially during COVID because as
I was chairing the Pandemic Committee, we did a hearing
on scientific journals basically and what they were, what they
were putting out, and what was their process. And you
saw things being published that really weren't peer reviewed, that
(19:14):
really weren't tried and tested. And there is a site
you can go to that has retractions of scientific articles.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
And that's not just one or two here and there.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I mean there are many. And of course so many
people go on what ends up in a journal and
in a magazine and take it as gospel. And so
you can have situations where you know you're going to
get published, even though you know this isn't even that
great of a scientific process that you used, and therefore
(19:47):
it sticks because it meets your agenda, and then later
it's retracted. Well how much later, how much later? When
was that Nature article put out? I don't know, maybe
it's in that that piece that you're referring to, Brian, but.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
This s four research, so it's pretty red damn Institute
of Climate Impact Research. And lord knows from the name
of the entity that did the initial study. You know
the outcome of the study before you read the study itself. Oh,
if they're the Institute for Climate Impact Research, weley guess
they believe that carbon dioxide is going to kill us.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
And I can remember too having a hearing on ways
and Means, not when Republicans were running the committee, but
as the effects of climate change on health, and so
they were trying to say, you know, it's destroying our health.
We're not healthy people because of all this terrible climate change.
And and of course that is then addressing the evils
(20:42):
of energy outside of solar panels and windmills. And I said,
have you walked through a hospital and seen how reliant
it is on energy? And do you know that when
Puerto Rico, for example, had two hurricanes and storms, they
had to run on generators.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
To keep people alive.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
So are you you know how actually are you thinking
about this?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Energy saves lives.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Plastics generally speaking, what would the world be if you've
got rid of fossil fuels completely and eradicated them with
a la Gretathonberg's wishes and desires? Hell, that boat she
floats around and wouldn't even exist because it's made up
a bunch of plastics.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
I was in Chicago years ago when they had a
brown out.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
I mean it was so hot.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
I was up there for a Reds Cubs game, and
it was so hot that there was a brown out
across the city. Brian, do you know that five hundred
people died in their homes and apartments from the heat.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Yeah, we say annually more people die from heat than.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Cold, and therefore they're dying from a lack of energy
because they had air conditioners. But there was a brown out, right,
it didn't work. Yeah, so you got to look at
all sides of the issue, and not only that. As
you said, what is wrong with photosynthesis?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Nothing here? We learned about it in second grade or
something like that. Didn't we the circle at the excellent.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
As it was a circle? Right? Yeah, see how it works.
Look what God created for us.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Into those so called experts who say that this climate
change is having a detrimental impact on our health. Over
this whole period of uh industrialization, since we became industrialized
and turned to the nineteen hundreds, right the industrial revolution,
we started using fossil fuels, has life expectancy increased or decreased? Well?
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Rhetorical question in many sectors, though it's decreased, and that's
because of overdoses.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with climate change. Overall.
We live a hell of a lot longer than we
used to, so we do. And look, I'm part of
carbon dioxide.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And I'm for clean water, clean air.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
You know, especially as the doctor, my goodness, we all
want that those are pollutant you're referring to.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
I don't want lead in the water, I don't bercury,
I don't want you eating that stuff. But that has
nothing to do with what they're trying to eradicate, which
is again, I'm not a pollutant. We'll continue with Citizen
Brad Winster for a little out of time in this
segment seven thirty seven right now kr CE Talk Station,
Very happy Friday to you, former Congressman, Citizen Brad winsterrip,
(23:14):
Doctor brad winstermin Studio. Just kind of going through all
the issues that we can get in during this hour.
And you brought up but a rather unusual topic, but
what an amazing tragedy, what a horrific fire, the fire
in Hong Kong. You brought that up over the break.
You said you wanted to hit a point or two
to raise about that.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Well, you know, obviously extremely tragic situation. I mean, it
was a tremendous tragedy. If you've seen any of the
pictures and you know that people were trapped inside.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
That fire, horrific.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
It really looks like the Twin Towers on nine to eleven. Yeah,
and they may not have collapsed in the same way,
but just a horrific situation.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
But what's amazing.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
And I was in Hong Kong before the actual ultimate
takeover of.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Hong Kong July ninety seven.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Well that's when it was authorized that the fifty year Plan,
if you recall, but I was there before they came
in all the Chinese. The Chinese came in and said
we're now taking this over. So they were still somewhat autonomous,
but now they're not.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
What was a source of massive revenue for the Chinese
Communist Party. They didn't want to touch it, but they
had to because it was inconsistent with their business vlosity.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean the world is changing too. I mean
you look at the world of finance. You know, you
used to say New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, right,
Hong Kong, Yeah, right, It was part of it. Now
Hong Kong is just another Chinese city, and it's very
clear when you see what happened here. They established the
Office for Safeguarding National Security, which came out of the
(24:45):
Hong Kong National Security Law, which was brought out in
twenty twenty, which is just China saying we're in charge here,
right and in this result of this fire, you know
we're normally here, you're looking at who's respons sponsible right
where we're going to go in and say and there'll
be all kinds of accusations or at least questions asked.
(25:06):
But there they officials accused international media organizations of spreading
false information and telling them literally on their website, they
warned for foreign correspondence, exercise self discipline, take care of yourselves,
and do not touch the legal red lines. In other words,
be careful what you say about anything that may indicate
(25:28):
that the government was not prepared for something like this
and had had some things wrong.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
And the other thing that is, you.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Don't have free speech on the CCP exactly run the
risk of getting arrested or maybe being disappeared. And I
hate that word. If you don't do, if you don't
follow the line.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
They were determined to eliminate any independent voices on this
that might question the official narrative. The other thing, Brian
is like NGOs and local community groups, normally they would
have coordinated for displaced residents and things like this, But
this Hong Kong is different now, and they're under one
(26:06):
one party rule obviously, and they treat any kind of
independent aid efforts with suspicion. So, you know, people in
this country need to know that when government has that
type of control, it's not a good thing. You think, well,
government can take care of it.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Well. FEMA has been criticized many times, but Joe Biden
politicized FEMA denied resources to the red state fill in
the blank. But everybody got all the money when they
lived in Blue states. FEMA's abuse. Thank you. You've got
organizations like Matthew twenty five ministries who independently can take
contributions and provide one hundred percent of those contributions where
it is needed. How about that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
I love coexists. I love the work that they do.
Go visit them in Blue Ash see what they do.
It's a perfect example of what people can do on
their own.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Basically, exactly they and they do it.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
But in this case in Hong Kong, I mean any
residents who took to social media to condemn either lax
enforcement or mismanagement or corruption involving the building inspections they
found themselves facing legal warnings or police visits, some things.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Like that, Gee hold on, let's pause because we got
to take a break. But that sounds remarkably like the
European Union these days. Seven forty six will maybe get
a word or two in from Brad winsterp on that
after I mentioned Zimmer heating and air conditioning for and
thank you for sponsoring the school. Seven fifty here if
(27:44):
you have KCD talk station, Happy Friday. One more segment
with citizen Brad Weinster tomorrow after the top of the
own is Beverly Park Williams. She's a local author and
it's a really fascinating book about her her mom and
her mom's sister, Parallel and Separate, a tale of two
sisters separate, like really really young age I didn't even
know each other existed and grew up on opposite sides
(28:04):
of the city of Cincinnati, and how their lives were
impacted and the differences between the two should be fun, Brad,
real quick here, we've got a sort of a decaying
relationship with our NATO allies. I know Trump's made some
comments about them. They are EU pretty much full on socialists,
so they didn't even share our ideology at least what
these left of our capitalist ideology. But what they have
(28:28):
been proving day in and day out, Like the United Kingdom,
they prosecute people for what we would call free speech,
what I would say innocuous statements. Someone feels threatened, they
get prosecuted for it. There is no free speech. There
demonstrable difference between us and the freedoms we enjoy under
our constitution and what I would call oppression, oppression by
(28:51):
European governments against its own citizens.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Yeah. I've seen some of those stories, Brian, and it's
just really amazing to me that this is actually taking place.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Only reason I bring it up, you.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Know, within our allies, even within our Five Eyes partners,
which would be Australia and New Zealand, But in the Brits,
I don't get it. I just don't understand it. You
know why people are so willing to accept this, those
that are in authority, I understand why they like it,
(29:24):
Oh sure, because this is their This goes to their elitism.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
If you will, only their answer is the correct one.
You can't have an alternative, varying point of view. This
happened to the Biden administration with agents in Facebook having
offices established censoring what we were saying online. You know,
we have a right to free speech in this country,
and even negative offensive speech is protected.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
People need to really look at what our founders put
in place and why they put it in place. It
makes complete sense. And look, we were no taxation without representation.
That was the thing, but it was even beyond that,
and now it's I think we've gone even further beyond
(30:10):
that in some instances. But to see it over in
Europe is really interesting. And I think that what you're
seeing from the Trump administration too, is a focus on
our hemisphere as much as anything. If you look at
where they are on defense posture, I think he's very
concerned about what's taking place in our hemisphere, which goes
(30:31):
back to Cuba having Russian missiles things like that. Right,
But we still, I think, you know, we can't ignore
the rest of the world, and the Trump has not
been doing that either.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
I was pleased to see that. At least in so
far as the seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker. They
got a warrant in court ahead of time, and they're
going to go through the proper legal channels to confiscate
the oil and keep it. They're going to have a
legal process for that. And that's the only concern I have,
And I know that anger a lot of listeners because
I'm a constitutionalist. I believe in due process, and I'm
worried and concerned about not only the legality of but
(31:05):
the idea that a president might end up bringing us
into a war by launching missiles and things. But at
least in so far as the tanker is concerned, I
understand it's sanctioned. It's an illegal tanker in the sense
it was flying under a false flag. They got the
approval for the warrant and the boarding of the ship,
and they're going to go through that process. Now do
you think it's an appropriate thing? Because this is going
(31:27):
to regime change? This is the point of it. Oil
is what funds the entire Venezuela and govern at least
ninety percent of it. As I've read that one ship
apparently five percent of these social outlays in a month
with the money that we got from that ship, or
at least the value of that ship, are you in
agreement that we should engage in what is an obvious
effort to change the regime in Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
Well, there was an effort to change the regime in Venezuela.
It was called an election, true, but what happened after
the election It was stolen. It was stolen, it was
completely taken away. So that's that's a good piece of
the argument, because the people there made change by their vote.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
And there's people at the radio screaming right now, going
our election was stolen back in right.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Yeah, I'm sure there are.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
Beware, right, beware of this type of process taking place
anywhere anywhere where they're claiming to have free and fair elections.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Well, going back to unilateral bombing, I always say, you
know what if Canada decides that someone in our country
is a terrorist and they drop a bomb on him
and buys in a mall or whatever. If there were
outside countries that believe the twenty twenty election was stolen
or any other election, they're going to start engaging in
regime change here huh, hey, hey, listen, what's good for
(32:49):
the good for the gander.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
As well, at least getting to the truth, Brian is
always the concern. And you know I always said, you know,
I'm sitting in Congress when all this is going on, like,
I really don't have a way to prove any of
this because it's up to the states that run the
elections to police their own and in Congress, you know,
what can you do?
Speaker 2 (33:11):
It makes it very difficult.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
But I am always in favor of getting to the truth,
no matter what the situation may be a good.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Bad, or indifferent the truth.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
I mean, I went into the Russian collusion investigation. If
Trump did something wrong, we need to know because what
he didn't, they made it all up.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
See going back to it, well, we always point the
finger at the evil doers in the Chinese Communist Party
or in North Korea or in Iran, and we can
look inwardly and see comparable, if not equally offensive conduct
and behavior. So got to mind our own ship or store.
We're gonna end up losing it. It's been great seeing you, man,
(33:51):
hap Merry Christmas to you and your family with the
little kids in the house. I bet it's a real
exciting time over your house.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
It is.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
It is fun. I feel blessed that I have these
two kids. They're just a joy and you know their kids.
Don't get me wrong, but it's just a great thing.
And then Christmas time is especially special.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
Yeah, I miss those times. I'm happy with what I got,
trust me, living my best life, but I really miss
the little kid a company. Maybe someday I'll get a grandchild.
Lauren Eric seven fifty seven, Brad, take care of my brother.
It's great scene. You Merry Christmas and we'll talk again
coming up with the next year, I hope.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Oh absolutely, we always have more. Matter of fact, we
have more today, but.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
We are just dreams of it. Stick around. We're gonna
hear from Beverly Park Williams with their new books. She's
a local author. Parallel and Separate After the
Speaker 3 (34:38):
News, Today's top headlines coming
Seven oh six here a PET five KRCD talk station.
I'm very happy Friday, Extra Special Friday, at least from
my perspective, but I hope you share my perspective in studio,
Former Congressman brad Winstrip Citizen brand web Strip. You still
have your licensed practice medicine because I want to talk
about healthcare with you. Welcome back, Brad. It's always great
seeing you.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, thank you. Yes, I do, and I am.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
I remind people it's doctor brad Winstrip, so.
Speaker 3 (00:40):
Yeah, and you know I'm still engaging here and there
academically and especially but.
Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, and a consulting love is yes out in the world.
I understand you have new employment, new means of income,
but it involves the medical profession generally speaking, a lot
of it at national security and security which we're going
to get to as well because we're season venice well
and tankers. Now we're dropping bombs on Venezuela and drug dealers.
And some really good success with Trump's trade policies, our
(01:08):
trade deficit has narrowed substantially. More exports from our country,
fewer imports into our country. The tariffs in spite of
all the you know, the whaling and gnashing of teeth
about Teriff apparently is now starting to bear some fruit
for our benefits. So putting that aside for a moment.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
We'll get to that.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
Yes we will if we have done as expected.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Now.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Of course, they had to vote on these various healthcare proposals,
you know, extending these subsidies under Obamacare or coming up
with an alternative solution. Both the Republicans and the Democrats
senate versions of these, you know, efforts both got shot down.
We all expected that to happen. So we're back to
square one. I guess at this point we only bought
(01:51):
until what the eighteenth of December in terms of keeping
the government open under the continuing resolution that exists. I
seem to recall that being the case they had to
work out. They're trying to hand out the balance of
the appropriations bills during this window of opportunity.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
They're going to try to Yeah luck right, Yeah, well,
you know, they are moving. I will I will say
that the people on Appropriations are working hard.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
I will tell you that.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
But that's because it's under Republican control right now. But
that doesn't mean that it won't still end up in
some kind of end of your bill an omnibus, well
an omnibus or another cr which we've gotten so used to.
I just don't know why we don't have a collection
of people on both sides of the aisle that feel
it's their obligation and duty to get this done one
(02:34):
way or another, even if you don't like everything that's
in it.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
It's one of the core job functions of being a
US House Representatives member work on the twelve appropriations bills.
What other jobs do you really have by way of
I mean, if you had a list and do a
responsibility memo or something. Working on twelve appropriations bills and
getting done on a calendar year basis is like first
and foremost.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
And I have seen it done.
Speaker 3 (02:59):
But sometimes it's just on not all twelve, but a
lot of them, and.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
We'll package those together.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
And right now I do see that Republicans are working
hard to do that, because when we have the majority
like that, especially in the House, we get them done.
Now you get over the Senate, and that's another situation
a lot of times, but that's the way our government
was made up and we have to recognize that. But
onto healthcare, as you were talking about the situation is
(03:25):
such like the Affordable Care Act is not anything Republicans
ever supported, right, they didn't support.
Speaker 2 (03:31):
It to begin with.
Speaker 3 (03:32):
And the idea of these subsidies, as the Democrats promoted
it during COVID was this is just during COVID, this
is temporary.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
They put the.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
End date on that under the guys that after COVID,
we won't really need it. But the fact of the
matter is they do need it to carry out their
plan to keep it going. And you know it includes
things like increasing health premiums for the majority of the
consumers to subsidize the minority with expense of medical conditions,
(04:01):
et cetera. That's somewhat the nature of insurance anyway, I
get that. But the way this is set up, it's
just increasing the cost. It's only benefiting insurance companies for
them to want to take on the Affordable Care Act
as it exists. But the Democrats want these additional subsidies
(04:26):
rather than recognizing that the Affordable Care Act was a failure.
It's not affordable. It isn't It never was going to
be the way it was set up, and you could
see that. Yet you know it doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (04:36):
Well, they'll just call it affordable.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Lord knows how it might have worked out, But the
rug was pulled out from under when the Supreme Court
did its original analysis of the constitutionality of it in
the first place, right out of the gate. In spite
of the fact that they found that attacks wasn't attax
and they ultimately upheld it, they shot down the commerce
clause argument. Democrats are trying to use the commerce Clause
(05:00):
the United States Constitution to say that they could use
it to force you to buy something. Now they can
prevent you from doing something under the commerce clause engaging
in commercial activity, traveling across state lines, blah blah blah,
but they can't make you, was the pronouncement from the
Supreme Court. And once we weren't mandated to buy it
and they couldn't force us to buy it, the house
(05:20):
of cards collapsed on itself.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Yeah, which is obviously what Republicans pursued too, was the
individual mandate, Yeah, because then you know, you're purchasing something
basically at gunpoint or threat with why with threat with
threat of going to jail basically And you know, but
but Donald Trump, his first action Donald Trump during his
first term, he in many ways solved a lot of
(05:45):
this by getting the so called short term health insurance.
The Trump's clarification needs to be a permanent law where
people have options to buy outside of the Affordable Care
Act and have them available, and so you can buy
(06:07):
something that allows you to say, get catastrophic insurance or
meet your needs and nuns don't have to buy insurance
for contraception.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Well, if you're outside of Obamacare and you're not obligated
to work with Obamacare, buy an Obamacare plan. You've got
two hundred plus medical insurance providers out in the world.
That's what I speak for. Cover Sincy. He's an insurance
broger for medical insurance. There are hundreds of companies out there.
You don't have to You can buy just a catastrophic
policy period.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
That's it.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
You don't have to buy anything else. You might be
really in a gem if you have some other problems.
You're not going to have your day to day regular
checkups covered and your you know, maybe emergency visits won't
be covered. But you know, if you get clobbered with
a cancer diagnosis, whatever, you might have coverage for something
like that. But nobody can force you to buy something.
Nobody can force you to buy Obamacare airgo. You don't
have to buy this full plate of benefits that Obamacare
(07:00):
provides that cost so much damn money. I mean, there
is an open market out there, have a choice.
Speaker 3 (07:07):
Yes, you know, the same people that are for decades
been screaming about choice are often trying to give people
no choice on other matters.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
Yeah, and the fact that there's not enough education out
there about how the insurance market works makes people think
that I'm only stuck with either what my employer provides me,
which if you've got an employer covered policy, then you
know you're a leg up on a lot of Americans.
That's a good thing, I guess for a lot of reasons.
I mean, it lets market a little bit. There's some
downsides for that, but whatever. But if you're not covered
(07:36):
by an employer policy, you're not stuck having to choose
an Obama care plan. You know, you can go to
a different medical insurance provider and buy only what you need.
Speaker 2 (07:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (07:47):
Isn't that an ad for an insurance company.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
It's an ad for cover sensing, And I'm happy to
give it to them for free just because that's what
they do. And there are other brokers out in the
world that may do the same thing as is my
friends that cover since you, but you know, they pay
to support the show, and I'm just explaining to you
what they do, which is a reflection of the fact
that there is a market out there that has nothing
to do with Obamacare exactly.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
And you can and you know, the federal courts agreed
the federal law allows for both to exist. Yeah, so
let's put that though, clarify it in law, and without
an agency trying to strike it down in the process
as well.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
Yeah, we are our own worst enemy when it comes
to this. I mean, let's let's reveal the elephant in
the room that I mentioned many times before. First off,
because that mandate that you must engage in commercial activity
that you didn't want to do, forcing you to buy
Obamacare shot down as unconstitutional. That blew up what the
(08:46):
ultimate goal here. The Democrats want to keep this alive.
It's on life support already. These supplements only make it
appealing as an option because the premiums disappear. It's magic,
it's free. You know, the American taxpayer is covering, and
all that money's going to the insurance companies. So it
just shattered their dream of what I call Medicaid for all,
(09:09):
which is what they wanted. They wanted every man wanting
child in the United States to be insured under one
single thing. That would be Obamacare. And it's going to
be a boiled down form of Medicare, i e. Medicaid,
less coverage, less service, and of course the one size
fits all get in line like a Soviet breadline. Reality
of medicine that would bring about.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
Medicaid has at least success on health than any plan
because it's not readily accessible. Not everyone takes it. This
is what you would You would see it has the
highest mortality and morbidity. And you will see people argue
about medicaid and say, well, people are much healthier because
they have Medicaid. Well, you're saying they're healthier because they
(09:49):
have medicaid compared to nothing, Right, that's not what we're
talking about. We're not talking about having nothing available.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Talking about something that actually does what it's supposed to. Anyway,
will continue with citizen brad Winsterrip, Doctor brad Winsterrup in
a moment got a part company here, just mentioned twenty
two three on round forty two between Mason and eleven,
and he talks station Brian Timas here with well, he
served his country. He probably continued to serve his country
(10:17):
serving the American military. He's a doctor, he's Brad Winsor,
a former congressman and also someone who had his high
level security clearance. You're on the Security Council, right, and.
Speaker 3 (10:28):
I was on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
and now serving on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. I
don't speak for either as I sit here.
Speaker 1 (10:38):
Okay, fair enough. I was really impressed. I saw this
article just yesterday. Israel is unveiled and has used and
successfully deployed in combat this thing they call iron Beam.
It's a super high power laser that can lock on
targets and just a fraction of a second, and considering
laser's travel to speed of light, they can blow missiles
out of the sky with it. It's war and it
(11:01):
costs between a buck and two bucks in terms of
energy usage to operate it. This seems to me to
be a complete game changer, Like drones were a game
changer in warfare. We're not going to be making patriot
missiles pretty soon. Because if you can use this successfully
and deploy this successfully, this technology is a absolute total
game changer in war. Drones can be shot out of
(11:23):
the sky and I'm just kind of wondering, and you
may not have any information about I'm not pressing you
for that. If this stuff, this technology as developed, can
work on hypersonic missiles as well, which pose the greatest threat.
From my standpoint, you can chime in on that if
you choose to. But if you can shoot hypersonic missiles
out of the sky with this man, this is this
is revolutionary.
Speaker 3 (11:42):
Well, we're always looking for point counterpoint, right, Yeah, no
matter what someone has, do we have it and can
we negate them? You know, that's a countermeasure, measures and countermeasures.
Speaker 1 (11:52):
We develop this with the Israelis and they use one
point five billion dollars of our money to help develop this,
and they've shared this with us, according to the reporting.
Speaker 3 (12:00):
Accorney to the reporting. And look, the idea of iron
Dome was in this same vein. It's always like, what
can we do that may be better and cheaper, especially right,
and so you want to pursue these types of measures.
I've always had this in the back of my mind
and sometimes I would I would express it that is
(12:20):
there a better way than just a significantly kinetic force
against this, but have the same result, if not better result.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
Right, right, So and cheaper, unlimited. As long as you
have electricity, this will keep firing, you know.
Speaker 3 (12:35):
Yeah, And you also want to look, you know, what
is the cost, right, how many dollars are going out
compared to So they're spending dollars on a drone, but
it costs a whole lot more for us to shoot
it out of the sky with, like you said, patriot
missile or something.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
Like a million dollars.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah, so you can break the bank, which is what
we did during the Cold War, right, We bostally basically
broke the Soviet Union's bank because we have technologies and
advancements that they just could not keep up with, right,
and so the Cold War basically came to an end.
Speaker 2 (13:08):
So this would be a huge thing.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
I don't think it developed overnight, so it was probably
the making for some time decades. But I give credit
if it is there and it's capable. They did a
good job of keeping it quiet because you certainly don't
want the enemy starting to work on it as well.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
Well, and you can't deny that the enemy's working on
as laser beams have been around forever, and they've been
working on high powered lasers for a long time. The
problem was the size, the portability, the speed of target acquisition.
Guess what, we have modern computers that process data instantaneously now,
so with gradually over time, you've shrunk the size of
these you've made them more powerful, and you've allowed for
(13:50):
locking into for targets in great accuracy, at least as
demonstrated by the Israelis in this iron beam situation. And
one can only imagine it's going to get better and better.
I guess pivoting over and I know we're gonna need
aircraft for a long time. But if the iron beam
can shoot a high speed weapon out of the sky,
I imagine it could lock in on a old, I
(14:11):
don't know, jet plane going nine hundred miles an hour
F forty five. We got a huge appropriation for the
development of a new replacement for the F thirty five.
These things come in at a billion dollars or whatever.
A pop boom gone in a fraction of a second. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:25):
Unfortunately, we have adversaries that are always seeking nefarious ways
to take us out, and our job is to continually
try to counter that.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
And now you're talking.
Speaker 3 (14:34):
It's interesting you bring that out because now you're talking
about something that we control from land. It is the
Israeli army that has worked on the Iron Dome and
manipulates the Iron Dome. And I've gone to Israel and
seen what they were able to do. But that's very
expensive to shoot these things out of the skies. But
you may be seeing the videos, especially at night time,
(14:56):
as these missiles are coming in, it looks like fireworks.
It looks like or illustrated fireworks because it's.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Like boom, boom, boom.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
They're just knocking them down out of the sky over
their own land, right. So pretty effective tool where maybe
two out of one hundred get through. Well, but there's
cost to that, and if you can reduce that cost
and have a more efficient system, that is a wonderful
thing for us to.
Speaker 2 (15:19):
Be able to have.
Speaker 3 (15:20):
And the Israelis are constantly on guard and they're a
good partner to have.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
Apparently a favorite of a lot of countries around the world.
The eighth largest arms exporter in the world. The Israelis
are country the size of New Jersey.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
Well, it's innovation nation there, that's what they call themselves.
And you know they do that, they probably have fewer
regulations on their innovations.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
I imagine, and it does help when you got one
point five billion dollars in the United States capital going
into a program like this Iron Beam. But to the
extent it works the way it's been described, I'd say
it was well worth the investment. Seven twenty six. Right
now more with Brad Weinstrip, Citizen Brad Weinstrup. After I
mentioned my friends at four seven thirty here if you
(16:06):
about KRC Decox station, A very happy Friday to you,
Brad Winsterp. Citizen Brad WINSTERP, Doctor Brad Winsterp, a former
member of Congress, Brad Winsorp and studio talking to him,
and he's still got a security clearance, so he's got
all kinds of details that you and I aren't privy to.
But he is informed, and since he's been there and
done that, he's a perfect person to common on what's
going on in the world. I love, honestly, one can
(16:29):
like being correct. I kind of feel over the years
I might have gone out on a limb a little
bit to make my opinions known about what I believe
in terms of this theory of global climate change. And
I have always always pointed out, I think, what is
a demonstrable objective fact that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
(16:52):
It is a naturally occurring thing. It's part of our atmosphere,
and it's plant food. Plants thrive and live on our exhalation.
Without it, plants would die. But they also give life
giving oxygen in return for the carbon dioxide that you
and I give them. Well, lo and behold we have
every single day, it seems more and more information. Now
(17:13):
we have this science journal Nate and Journal Nature retracting
what was described as a catastrophic climate change study. We're
all gonna die a la al gore greta Thunberg, Oh
my god. And it's like, well, wait a minute, we
were wrong. After so many organizations and these these Green
New Deal type leeches and NGOs out in the world
(17:34):
sucking up our tax dollars relied on the study to
make the argument that they were worthy of receiving our dollars. Well,
guess what, pull the plug on that one because it
wasn't true. But there's a lot of articles like that
have been retracted after already going out into the world.
You know, we can go back to the hockey stick,
and they've since retracted that, which seemed to be the
genesis of this whole thing. So what's your take on
(17:55):
this and the throat slitting that goes on. We were
talking about war between Russia and Ukraine and the break
their brad and mentioned Germany's economy. I said, well, they
cut their own throat. You had comment about Russia might
have been jealous because they had such a thriving, booming
economy in the European Union. Germany was the outlier, one
of the biggest economies in the world. Guess what, they
can't keep the lights on anymore because they pursued these policies.
(18:18):
There's something really nefarious behind the scenes on this, and
I don't hear about it as much anymore.
Speaker 3 (18:22):
How about you, Well, they know you don't. But they
also became dependent on Russian oil and things like that
because they put themselves in this situation. And then we
under the Biden administration NATed and embedded that because we
reduced our outputs so tremendously and the rest is basically history.
(18:45):
But you know, you point to something there. You mentioned
was it Nature magazine?
Speaker 1 (18:50):
One of the studies, and you.
Speaker 3 (18:53):
Know, there are so many things I am finding out
and have found out, and especially during COVID because as
I was chairing the Pandemic Committee, we did a hearing
on scientific journals basically and what they were, what they
were putting out, and what was their process. And you
saw things being published that really weren't peer reviewed, that
(19:14):
really weren't tried and tested. And there is a site
you can go to that has retractions of scientific articles.
Speaker 2 (19:22):
And that's not just one or two here and there.
Speaker 3 (19:27):
I mean there are many. And of course so many
people go on what ends up in a journal and
in a magazine and take it as gospel. And so
you can have situations where you know you're going to
get published, even though you know this isn't even that
great of a scientific process that you used, and therefore
(19:47):
it sticks because it meets your agenda, and then later
it's retracted. Well how much later, how much later? When
was that Nature article put out? I don't know, maybe
it's in that that piece that you're referring to, Brian, but.
Speaker 1 (20:01):
This s four research, so it's pretty red damn Institute
of Climate Impact Research. And lord knows from the name
of the entity that did the initial study. You know
the outcome of the study before you read the study itself. Oh,
if they're the Institute for Climate Impact Research, weley guess
they believe that carbon dioxide is going to kill us.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
And I can remember too having a hearing on ways
and Means, not when Republicans were running the committee, but
as the effects of climate change on health, and so
they were trying to say, you know, it's destroying our health.
We're not healthy people because of all this terrible climate change.
And and of course that is then addressing the evils
(20:42):
of energy outside of solar panels and windmills. And I said,
have you walked through a hospital and seen how reliant
it is on energy? And do you know that when
Puerto Rico, for example, had two hurricanes and storms, they
had to run on generators.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
To keep people alive.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
So are you you know how actually are you thinking
about this?
Speaker 2 (21:07):
Energy saves lives.
Speaker 1 (21:09):
Plastics generally speaking, what would the world be if you've
got rid of fossil fuels completely and eradicated them with
a la Gretathonberg's wishes and desires? Hell, that boat she
floats around and wouldn't even exist because it's made up
a bunch of plastics.
Speaker 3 (21:21):
I was in Chicago years ago when they had a
brown out.
Speaker 2 (21:26):
I mean it was so hot.
Speaker 3 (21:27):
I was up there for a Reds Cubs game, and
it was so hot that there was a brown out
across the city. Brian, do you know that five hundred
people died in their homes and apartments from the heat.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Yeah, we say annually more people die from heat than.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Cold, and therefore they're dying from a lack of energy
because they had air conditioners. But there was a brown out, right,
it didn't work. Yeah, so you got to look at
all sides of the issue, and not only that. As
you said, what is wrong with photosynthesis?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
Nothing here? We learned about it in second grade or
something like that. Didn't we the circle at the excellent.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
As it was a circle? Right? Yeah, see how it works.
Look what God created for us.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
Into those so called experts who say that this climate
change is having a detrimental impact on our health. Over
this whole period of uh industrialization, since we became industrialized
and turned to the nineteen hundreds, right the industrial revolution,
we started using fossil fuels, has life expectancy increased or decreased? Well?
Speaker 3 (22:31):
Rhetorical question in many sectors, though it's decreased, and that's
because of overdoses.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with climate change. Overall.
We live a hell of a lot longer than we
used to, so we do. And look, I'm part of
carbon dioxide.
Speaker 2 (22:44):
And I'm for clean water, clean air.
Speaker 3 (22:46):
You know, especially as the doctor, my goodness, we all
want that those are pollutant you're referring to.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
I don't want lead in the water, I don't bercury,
I don't want you eating that stuff. But that has
nothing to do with what they're trying to eradicate, which
is again, I'm not a pollutant. We'll continue with Citizen
Brad Winster for a little out of time in this
segment seven thirty seven right now kr CE Talk Station,
Very happy Friday to you, former Congressman, Citizen Brad winsterrip,
(23:14):
Doctor brad winstermin Studio. Just kind of going through all
the issues that we can get in during this hour.
And you brought up but a rather unusual topic, but
what an amazing tragedy, what a horrific fire, the fire
in Hong Kong. You brought that up over the break.
You said you wanted to hit a point or two
to raise about that.
Speaker 3 (23:29):
Well, you know, obviously extremely tragic situation. I mean, it
was a tremendous tragedy. If you've seen any of the
pictures and you know that people were trapped inside.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
That fire, horrific.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
It really looks like the Twin Towers on nine to eleven. Yeah,
and they may not have collapsed in the same way,
but just a horrific situation.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
But what's amazing.
Speaker 3 (23:51):
And I was in Hong Kong before the actual ultimate
takeover of.
Speaker 1 (23:55):
Hong Kong July ninety seven.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Well that's when it was authorized that the fifty year Plan,
if you recall, but I was there before they came
in all the Chinese. The Chinese came in and said
we're now taking this over. So they were still somewhat autonomous,
but now they're not.
Speaker 1 (24:16):
What was a source of massive revenue for the Chinese
Communist Party. They didn't want to touch it, but they
had to because it was inconsistent with their business vlosity.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
Yeah, I mean the world is changing too. I mean
you look at the world of finance. You know, you
used to say New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, right,
Hong Kong, Yeah, right, It was part of it. Now
Hong Kong is just another Chinese city, and it's very
clear when you see what happened here. They established the
Office for Safeguarding National Security, which came out of the
(24:45):
Hong Kong National Security Law, which was brought out in
twenty twenty, which is just China saying we're in charge here,
right and in this result of this fire, you know
we're normally here, you're looking at who's respons sponsible right
where we're going to go in and say and there'll
be all kinds of accusations or at least questions asked.
(25:06):
But there they officials accused international media organizations of spreading
false information and telling them literally on their website, they
warned for foreign correspondence, exercise self discipline, take care of yourselves,
and do not touch the legal red lines. In other words,
be careful what you say about anything that may indicate
(25:28):
that the government was not prepared for something like this
and had had some things wrong.
Speaker 2 (25:34):
And the other thing that is, you.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Don't have free speech on the CCP exactly run the
risk of getting arrested or maybe being disappeared. And I
hate that word. If you don't do, if you don't
follow the line.
Speaker 3 (25:45):
They were determined to eliminate any independent voices on this
that might question the official narrative. The other thing, Brian
is like NGOs and local community groups, normally they would
have coordinated for displaced residents and things like this, But
this Hong Kong is different now, and they're under one
(26:06):
one party rule obviously, and they treat any kind of
independent aid efforts with suspicion. So, you know, people in
this country need to know that when government has that
type of control, it's not a good thing. You think, well,
government can take care of it.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Well. FEMA has been criticized many times, but Joe Biden
politicized FEMA denied resources to the red state fill in
the blank. But everybody got all the money when they
lived in Blue states. FEMA's abuse. Thank you. You've got
organizations like Matthew twenty five ministries who independently can take
contributions and provide one hundred percent of those contributions where
it is needed. How about that? Yeah?
Speaker 3 (26:48):
I love coexists. I love the work that they do.
Go visit them in Blue Ash see what they do.
It's a perfect example of what people can do on
their own.
Speaker 2 (26:58):
Basically, exactly they and they do it.
Speaker 3 (27:01):
But in this case in Hong Kong, I mean any
residents who took to social media to condemn either lax
enforcement or mismanagement or corruption involving the building inspections they
found themselves facing legal warnings or police visits, some things.
Speaker 1 (27:20):
Like that, Gee hold on, let's pause because we got
to take a break. But that sounds remarkably like the
European Union these days. Seven forty six will maybe get
a word or two in from Brad winsterp on that
after I mentioned Zimmer heating and air conditioning for and
thank you for sponsoring the school. Seven fifty here if
(27:44):
you have KCD talk station, Happy Friday. One more segment
with citizen Brad Weinster tomorrow after the top of the
own is Beverly Park Williams. She's a local author and
it's a really fascinating book about her her mom and
her mom's sister, Parallel and Separate, a tale of two
sisters separate, like really really young age I didn't even
know each other existed and grew up on opposite sides
(28:04):
of the city of Cincinnati, and how their lives were
impacted and the differences between the two should be fun, Brad,
real quick here, we've got a sort of a decaying
relationship with our NATO allies. I know Trump's made some
comments about them. They are EU pretty much full on socialists,
so they didn't even share our ideology at least what
these left of our capitalist ideology. But what they have
(28:28):
been proving day in and day out, Like the United Kingdom,
they prosecute people for what we would call free speech,
what I would say innocuous statements. Someone feels threatened, they
get prosecuted for it. There is no free speech. There
demonstrable difference between us and the freedoms we enjoy under
our constitution and what I would call oppression, oppression by
(28:51):
European governments against its own citizens.
Speaker 3 (28:54):
Yeah. I've seen some of those stories, Brian, and it's
just really amazing to me that this is actually taking place.
Speaker 1 (29:00):
Only reason I bring it up, you.
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Know, within our allies, even within our Five Eyes partners,
which would be Australia and New Zealand, But in the Brits,
I don't get it. I just don't understand it. You
know why people are so willing to accept this, those
that are in authority, I understand why they like it,
(29:24):
Oh sure, because this is their This goes to their elitism.
Speaker 1 (29:29):
If you will, only their answer is the correct one.
You can't have an alternative, varying point of view. This
happened to the Biden administration with agents in Facebook having
offices established censoring what we were saying online. You know,
we have a right to free speech in this country,
and even negative offensive speech is protected.
Speaker 3 (29:50):
People need to really look at what our founders put
in place and why they put it in place. It
makes complete sense. And look, we were no taxation without representation.
That was the thing, but it was even beyond that,
and now it's I think we've gone even further beyond
(30:10):
that in some instances. But to see it over in
Europe is really interesting. And I think that what you're
seeing from the Trump administration too, is a focus on
our hemisphere as much as anything. If you look at
where they are on defense posture, I think he's very
concerned about what's taking place in our hemisphere, which goes
(30:31):
back to Cuba having Russian missiles things like that. Right,
But we still, I think, you know, we can't ignore
the rest of the world, and the Trump has not
been doing that either.
Speaker 1 (30:43):
I was pleased to see that. At least in so
far as the seizure of the Venezuelan oil tanker. They
got a warrant in court ahead of time, and they're
going to go through the proper legal channels to confiscate
the oil and keep it. They're going to have a
legal process for that. And that's the only concern I have,
And I know that anger a lot of listeners because
I'm a constitutionalist. I believe in due process, and I'm
worried and concerned about not only the legality of but
(31:05):
the idea that a president might end up bringing us
into a war by launching missiles and things. But at
least in so far as the tanker is concerned, I
understand it's sanctioned. It's an illegal tanker in the sense
it was flying under a false flag. They got the
approval for the warrant and the boarding of the ship,
and they're going to go through that process. Now do
you think it's an appropriate thing? Because this is going
(31:27):
to regime change? This is the point of it. Oil
is what funds the entire Venezuela and govern at least
ninety percent of it. As I've read that one ship
apparently five percent of these social outlays in a month
with the money that we got from that ship, or
at least the value of that ship, are you in
agreement that we should engage in what is an obvious
effort to change the regime in Venezuela.
Speaker 3 (31:49):
Well, there was an effort to change the regime in Venezuela.
It was called an election, true, but what happened after
the election It was stolen. It was stolen, it was
completely taken away. So that's that's a good piece of
the argument, because the people there made change by their vote.
Speaker 1 (32:11):
And there's people at the radio screaming right now, going
our election was stolen back in right.
Speaker 2 (32:17):
Yeah, I'm sure there are.
Speaker 3 (32:20):
Beware, right, beware of this type of process taking place
anywhere anywhere where they're claiming to have free and fair elections.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Well, going back to unilateral bombing, I always say, you
know what if Canada decides that someone in our country
is a terrorist and they drop a bomb on him
and buys in a mall or whatever. If there were
outside countries that believe the twenty twenty election was stolen
or any other election, they're going to start engaging in
regime change here huh, hey, hey, listen, what's good for
(32:49):
the good for the gander.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
As well, at least getting to the truth, Brian is
always the concern. And you know I always said, you know,
I'm sitting in Congress when all this is going on, like,
I really don't have a way to prove any of
this because it's up to the states that run the
elections to police their own and in Congress, you know,
what can you do?
Speaker 2 (33:11):
It makes it very difficult.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
But I am always in favor of getting to the truth,
no matter what the situation may be a good.
Speaker 2 (33:19):
Bad, or indifferent the truth.
Speaker 3 (33:21):
I mean, I went into the Russian collusion investigation. If
Trump did something wrong, we need to know because what
he didn't, they made it all up.
Speaker 1 (33:31):
See going back to it, well, we always point the
finger at the evil doers in the Chinese Communist Party
or in North Korea or in Iran, and we can
look inwardly and see comparable, if not equally offensive conduct
and behavior. So got to mind our own ship or store.
We're gonna end up losing it. It's been great seeing you, man,
(33:51):
hap Merry Christmas to you and your family with the
little kids in the house. I bet it's a real
exciting time over your house.
Speaker 2 (33:56):
It is.
Speaker 3 (33:56):
It is fun. I feel blessed that I have these
two kids. They're just a joy and you know their kids.
Don't get me wrong, but it's just a great thing.
And then Christmas time is especially special.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
Yeah, I miss those times. I'm happy with what I got,
trust me, living my best life, but I really miss
the little kid a company. Maybe someday I'll get a grandchild.
Lauren Eric seven fifty seven, Brad, take care of my brother.
It's great scene. You Merry Christmas and we'll talk again
coming up with the next year, I hope.
Speaker 2 (34:27):
Oh absolutely, we always have more. Matter of fact, we
have more today, but.
Speaker 1 (34:30):
We are just dreams of it. Stick around. We're gonna
hear from Beverly Park Williams with their new books. She's
a local author. Parallel and Separate After the
Speaker 3 (34:38):
News, Today's top headlines coming
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.