Episode 1171: Global Engagement Center

CALL IN: 508-637-5596
GUEST: Science blogger Michael D. Shaw
MICHAEL SHAW SUBSTACK: https://mdspov.substack.com

Charles Moscowitz LIVE
Website: https://charlesmoscowitz.com
Moscowitz Author Page:
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Charles-Moscowitz/author/B00BFLX7S0
Buy Me a Coffee, Join me for Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/moscowitz

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
All right, welcome aboard everyone, Charles Moscow, it is here.
Michael D. Shaw is joining me today.

Speaker 2 (00:07):
Hey, it's a nice it's a beautiful day in a neighborhood.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
Yes, indeed, you know, it's a countdown toward President Trump.

Speaker 2 (00:18):
Do you notice, even among the liberal environment that you're in,
there's just a more positive vibe from everybody, even than
the real hardcore liberals.

Speaker 1 (00:34):
Oh, everyone knows that the country bit a bullet. I mean,
it's I think that everyone's senses that, even the hardcore
as you say, I mean, our governor Heally just delivered
an interview with The Globe where she said that she
plans to fully cooperate with the new Trump administration. Well,
a couple of left wingers and liberals are absolutely having

(00:57):
a meltdown over this. But I think that the whole
rotten you know, so called resistance is crumbling. You know,
you still might have Newsome and you might have that
fat guy in Illinois, but other than that, I think
it's it's starting to just disappear. It's it's going They're

(01:18):
finally starting to move inexorably into the dustment of history.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
Yeah, and even with the case of Pritzker and Newsom. Yeah,
they're they're going to turn because the popular will just
isn't isn't with it. And I don't think even those
two are going to want to die on the hill
of whatever the hell the left stands for now, which

(01:46):
I'm not even sure what that is.

Speaker 1 (01:48):
Well, what are they going to do stand in the
way of deporting criminal illegal, violent gang members and drug
dealers and you know, rapists. I mean this, I just
yesterday immolating a woman on a subway car in Brooklyn
and sitting at someone's filming it. And is there throwing

(02:09):
you know, like throwing gas on the fire? I mean,
is this was an illegal alien from Guatemala by the way,
And yeah, I just don't think that. Certainly Eric Adams
is on board. So I think that, you know, the
idea of opposing them being apprehended and reported is not

(02:31):
going to be very popular. It's just is that really
the hill they want to die on?

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yeah? Yeah, exactly. I mean it all started falling apart,
the whole identity thing. I mean, good grief, if you
saw any of the video between Anakisparian and Chank Yugert
where she is just freaking out about how she believed
all the bs and then suddenly it's like it hit

(02:59):
her like a stroke of lightning that her life has
been ruined not by the Republicans but by the Democrats.
And then Chanke Huger was at something with Charlie.

Speaker 1 (03:11):
Hurt, Right, Yeah, Charlie. He was at the Turning Point
USA event and he's, you know exactly. I mean, he said, look,
the Conservatives and the Republicans are a lot more tolerant
and generally a lot I'm a lot more friendly to
opposing opinion than my side. And he's, you know, there

(03:32):
is I think there's going to be a major cleaning
of house over there. You know, they're just it's kind
of it is kind of like like I observed before
the election, it's going to be like the George McGovern
loss of nineteen seventy two, right, I mean, they're going
to have to really like get their house in order,

(03:53):
and it's going to take it could take a decade
before they they come out and come back from this.
And I mean, I don't think that Biden is going
to really his a few more weeks of mischief. I
don't think he's going to be able to do much more.
He's already commuted the sentences of some really, really bad people,
and it didn't go over as being particularly humane. Now

(04:17):
today he's commuting the death sentences of I think it's
twenty four people on death row and these are some
of the worst, you know people, I mean, you know,
slaughtering children, I mean, really violent criminals. And I think,
does he think this is going to be seen as progressive?
I mean, I don't think so, and I don't think

(04:37):
most liberals and progressives are jumping for joy over that either.

Speaker 2 (04:42):
Well, I think what's happening is that it's being revealed
that whoever controls Biden is a hard core lunatic fringe
of the left, because if you wanted to write a
recipe to get people to who leave the left, you
would do stuff like pardoning serial killers and whatever the

(05:07):
hell he's doing now. So it comes down to our
little topic before this model un mentality, where well, gee,
this is my worldview when I was thirteen years old,
and I'm just freaking out. The world has to be
like this and it's all falling apart for those people,

(05:28):
And I feel no sympathy whatsoever because I knew people
like that and they were able to create a fantasy
life for themselves in many cases. I'm thinking one particular
woman who would epitomize this whole thing. She ends up
going to what was then called Radcliffe. She creates an

(05:53):
academic life for herself and is able to live in
this bubble the whole time. But the fact is most
of the others aren't quite as quote fortunate to be
able to do that, And now are coming to the
reality very late in life that this was all a

(06:13):
croc and I seen this. Okay, you go on acsh
and this Henry Miller guy puts up an article. I
could not believe it arguing that the vaccine was beneficial
to the nursing home people.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
Oh my god, that's mean. When did he come up
with that? Would bs? I mean, I've science.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
You can find quote scientific articles for anything you want.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
It was beneficient to them after Cuomo put COVID active
people in the nursing home. Great, yeah, really, that's wonderful.

Speaker 2 (06:57):
There are some of the people that are just to
keep doubling down for the rest of their lives. Yeah,
and there's not much you can do about it.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
No, But it's a dwindling cult of haters basically, And
you know, even you know now that the Wall Street
Journal has done an article that really has said what
we've been saying since before the last election, and that
is that Biden is seriously impaired mentally and physically, to

(07:30):
the point where people surrounding him would keep him sequestered
and out of the scene because he was having good
days and bad days. I remember you even you said
way back when that it's a symptom of sunsetting. It's
a you know, it's a it's a mid to advanced
stage of dementia, something we've all observed. They're now admitting it,

(07:54):
and it does bring up the question of who was
running the country and who was running the executive branch
four years. I mean, apparently he'd have good days and
bad days, and when he was having a bad day,
they just would cancel everything, and that he would basically
have to have long naps. He would just come in
maybe he was cognizant for a few hours in the

(08:14):
course of a day. He had only I think he
only had like a half a dozen cabinet meetings in
his entire presidency, and one of them was headed up
by Jill, and he would have to have everything the
cabinet ministers would have to send their questions to him
in advance for those evens, for those meetings, so he

(08:36):
could already have a formulaic answer, which he couldn't even
do that. So, you know, it's on the one hand,
it's pretty sad, But on the other hand, it's criminal
that this would have been covered up. This should have
been a foot a, you know, a constitutional crisis issue
where he should have been removed from the office. I mean,

(08:57):
they certainly talked about removing Trump in the office for
four years every time he blew his nose, you know,
So you know, this is I would think this is
something that ought to be investigated. It does go to
the level of criminal malfeasans and frust.

Speaker 2 (09:13):
Criminal man phases, and you wonder what was the point. Okay,
if this were a family member, it would be sad
to see someone declining, but you would lose a lot
of sympathy if that guy was a CEO of business
and was screwing up things right and left just to

(09:34):
maintain this illusion that he was in control. It wouldn't
it wouldn't happen.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
So well, that's right, then, that's exactly what's happened. It was.
It is apparently what happened during the Afghanistan fiasco. He
was nowhere to be found. He wasn't answering the phone
that day. Not that he would have done anything if
the hadmen, but you know, the whole thing involved a
massive deception on the part of the people around him,

(10:01):
including Harris, including Peppermin Patty over there, the spokeswoman, and
all the rest of these people in Congress. Sharp is attacked.
Sharp is attack, Sharp is attack. Shop is attacked.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
Right, you know, to talk to you, Okay, here's the thing,
and you've been to media forever, all right, I can
understand how all the rest of the mafia around him
is going to be.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Part of it. But I really don't understand how guy
like Joe Scarborough can say this is the best Biden ever.
What was that all about?

Speaker 1 (10:40):
It was obviously a complete lie and he knew it.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
But why do it? Is what? It?

Speaker 1 (10:46):
Just like they lied about the twenty twenty election, just
like they lied about the J six attack. These are
all you know that They lied about COVID, they lied
about the vaccine. I mean, this is why one of
the primary reasons, the basic reasons why Trump was elected.
People got sick and tired of living this in this

(11:07):
context of lies. And it also shows that the mainstream
media has completely jumped the shark. They've lost their relevancy.
Oh at this point openly nobody believes them anymore. And
they're still doing it if you watch them now. Oh well,
now Elon Musk is now the president as the latest.

(11:28):
I mean, this is like they just haven't learned. They're
continuing to push, you know, hoax after hoax. And I
mean I've been saying to some of these people on
in my Twitter, because I go back and forth. I say, look,
it's one thing to go into the loyal opposition and
criticize legitimate political positions and even maybe to criticize personality.

(11:54):
But to continue on this course of these you know,
these hoaxes and running them up the one up to
the other. You know, it's a little late for that.
You know, you've got to move on. No one's believing
this anymore.

Speaker 2 (12:07):
So why are they doing it? They are they playing
to this hardcore subscriber base that wants to hear this.
I mean, consider that Rachel Maddow, at least before all
the cutbacks are carrying out, MSNBC was at a fifteen
million dollars salary, right, Apparently there are people that watch her.

(12:31):
Apparently there's advertisers on MSNBC that think that's a worthwhile demographic.
But at what point do they not see that it's
all falling apart.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
Well, I mean, I heard it was thirty million. I
don't know, maybe fifteen. But the point is that I
understand she's taking a haircut and they've cut back I
think five yeah, and that those other hosts over there
have taken cutbacks. They're losing money and it's tide to
catch up to them financially. The you know, there's some

(13:05):
rumors that good old Elon Musk is going to step
up and buy MSNBC and replace replace Rachel Maddow with
Laura Loore. Oh my god, that would be a beautiful thing.
But but they're losing their relevancy. They haven't got their
audience back. Even that income poop what's his name, Pacman

(13:27):
David Packman said right after the election that he's been
doing this for I think fifteen years now maybe, and
every year he grows. This is the first time he's
lost something like twenty twenty five percent of his subscribers.
Because people, even liberals don't want to hear this crap anymore.
It's it's all lies. I mean, why and you're going

(13:48):
to pay for it? I mean no, I don't think so.
I mean, and I don't think they're going to get
it back. I mean, what are they going to do?
I mean, what can they really do? I mean it's
they are kind of trapped in this hall grammic like
atmosphere where they're just they're forced to be these cutout
characters that mound these cutout comments, and I don't see

(14:11):
how they can put any substance behind it.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
It's going to go down spiral. It'll take longer than
it did for Saint Francis. For the viewers. He was
in the eighties and nineties, early two thousands, was a
pretty responsible right wing guy. But then somehow he discovered

(14:35):
that he had a hardcore audience of people who were
no other word for it, white supremacists. That wasn't his
particular belief, but he discovered that there was a big
demographic for that. So he doubled down and made more
content toward this white supremacy thing as opposed to just

(15:01):
conservative stuff, and he just spiraled down, down, down, Now,
he didn't start out from having ext number of million
subscribers like MSNBC. But it's the same thing. They're going
to keep playing for the hardcore bass until it just

(15:21):
dwindles and it ends up being what they used to
call little ladies and tennis shoes.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Right, he got wrapped up into a particular ideology. I
mean that happened to Joe Sober and also in terms
of his war against the Jews, you know, he just
got he basically imbibed this ideology. It's a very attractive
ideology in terms of the answering all of the riddles

(15:47):
of the universe, and it makes things very simple and
very basic. I mean, you could blame the Jews. I mean,
e Michael Jones is an example of that. Right, He's
embrace a very very particular view that's been largely rejected
by Christianity and largely rejected by the Catholic Church, and

(16:10):
he has added to it. He's created this hybrid and
that everything then gets squeezed into it. Anything that doesn't
agree with it is edited out of it, and it
reaches a point where someone becomes dishonest, they become warped,
and it's a sad thing actually in that case, to

(16:31):
see because there is someone there who actually is a
very pretty substantial intellectual who actually had a lot to
say before he went down that event, and so you know,
it discredits what is otherwise a great body of work.

Speaker 2 (16:47):
Well, I've seen this happen a few times, Yeah, in
many fields. And it becomes when somebody comes up with
a unified theory of everything and they get hung up
on it. It just it just doesn't work.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
No, it becomes unreal because it's not that's not reality.
I mean, you know, existence and and and morality actually
has a lot more nuanced to it. You know, these
are things that you know suddenly they basically it's they're
playing God at that point. You know, that's it's the
sin of the Garden of Eden. They know everything, they
know all good and all evil, and that you know,

(17:27):
it's a it's a form of vital worship.

Speaker 2 (17:29):
I know.

Speaker 1 (17:30):
I don't mean to get claim that they're involved with
some of the aspects around it, but.

Speaker 2 (17:34):
That's exactly right. And and the trouble is that the
people that tend to fall down is pit tend to
be smarter people that like the fact that they have
an explanation. I mean, one that's current. Now there is
and you have to be very specific here vaccines and autism.

(17:57):
Now the connection it is so much vaccines as it
is the fact that when they were giving you know,
forty vaccines back in the eighties and now they give
two hundred and twenty. It might just be this assault
on the immune system, yes, caused by giving so many vaccines,

(18:18):
but it's not vaccines per se. So this is because
a huge deal RFK and others, and they're trying to
hang their head on this life, as you said, is
not that simple.

Speaker 1 (18:35):
By the way. I mean that's not to say that
the Jews aren't annoying. I mean, you know looks, you know,
you can you can criticize. I mean, Jews do tend
to tend to think we're better than everyone else, and
I get that it's irritating, you know, and it's an
arrogance that's we could we could do without, and it
doesn't it doesn't exactly result in good neighbors. So you know,

(18:57):
you can take criticisms that are real.

Speaker 2 (19:02):
My old friend Don a couple of yers go Vin Lewis,
Catholic apologist. You said, what is about Jews that when
you meet them for the first time, within the first
ten words of the conversation, they have to tell you
they're Jewish.

Speaker 1 (19:19):
Well, it's this kind of it is a smug sense.
And you know, look in the in fairness of criticism,
you could say that it comes from Talmwood. The Talmwood
is a bit supremacist. When you study it, it's sort
of like, that's how the Jews survived two thousand years
without a country. I mean, there's a reason for that.

(19:39):
Didn't just happen by accident. There was this idea we're
a separate nation, we are better than everyone else, and
we have to keep ourselves separate. I get that. I'm
not saying I agree with that. I don't agree with it,
but it's an element that has preserved a Jewish covenant,
which I think is overall good. And you know, it's

(20:01):
kind of trying to create something where where otherwise other
people would disappear. I mean, it's the only case in
history where people have retained their identity without interruption from
the time of Abraham till today. There's no other nation
in the world that has done that. So, yeah, you know,
you have a little bit of an arrogance, maybe a

(20:23):
little bit of smugness, and yes, it can piss people off.
I get it. I mean I pisses me off when
I see this.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
Well, I think we're it might have started going sideways.
Was when the Maccabees through win with Rome.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
Well they did that from day one, I mean the
minute Judah Maccabee liberated Jerusalem and purified the temple and
kicked out the Assyrian Greeks right and began to pre
you know, the first thing he did was send a
tribute to Rome. Yep, because Rome was I mean that wasgmatic.
That's like Israel throwing its lot into the United States,

(21:04):
you know. I mean, Rome was the power of the
it was at that point becoming the main empire of
the world. So he wanted to be on their side.
That's a diplomatic, secular decision. But of course Atumbat is
critical of that. But I'm not sure that that. You know,
I think he did the right thing. Otherwise, you know,
they they went on to create a pretty powerful commonwealth.

Speaker 2 (21:27):
Oh yeah, I think it was the right thing in
that the policy of Rome was to let all the
little conquered peoples do their thing right, which was different
from previous regimes which.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
Would wipe everyone out or ethnically cleanse exactly, but.

Speaker 2 (21:48):
That you know, ended up having other problems, but.

Speaker 1 (21:51):
Right then ended up it backfired on them ultimately. But
at the same time they were able to buy enough
time to create this incredible state that invented some things
that have had positive impacts on the world, like public education.
Not that it's a great thing today, but I'm just
saying they implemented a system of education, They implemented a

(22:13):
sort of a unified culture. They did get back to
a belief in God and in Torah, and they rejected
the Greek elements of the Greek secular state, and at
the same time they embrace other elements of it. You know,
it's kind of that's classic conservatism to take a look
at that which is good and embrace it and then
winnow out that which is bad.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Yeah, interesting history with that. Of course, it would be
nice to have this conversation now of your temple members,
of all these hardcore liberals that you're surrounded by. Are
you getting a different sense that maybe that Trump won.

Speaker 1 (22:59):
Yes, I do. And it brings up a question in
my mind that could deal with anything, and that is,
how do they know on election day? How people voted,
Like they always say, well, the Jewish vote was x
y Z, the Black vote was this, the women vote
was that. How do they know that? Where do they
get that information? Is it like a survey done? Do

(23:20):
they ask people coming out of the pole are you Jewish?
Or are you you know? Are you black? Or the
how did you vote? I mean, how do they do that?

Speaker 2 (23:30):
This is and okay, the way they do it is
with exit polls. But as we've said so many times
on this show, if someone came up to me and
asked me stuff like that, I'd needno them and walk on.

Speaker 1 (23:44):
You know, I've never been asking a question.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
There's a self selection process that if you are volunteering
to be it that I don't know that you're that representative.
And you're exactly right that I've always thought that this
idea the Jews are one hundred and five percent liberal.
I don't. I've never believed that because I've met real people,

(24:11):
you know.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
I think it's that the Jews who are not on
the left keep it quiet. Yeah, because the left wing
Jews who are holding the high ground are so nasty.
They're like regular liberals, except on speed. You know, we're
talking real ugly people who will do stuff to you

(24:33):
that is not pleasant. You know, Jews are very good shunners.
You know you're going to be excommunicated, to use a
Christian term, and you know, I've seen this, I've seen
it in my own life. I mean, it's some of
the most vicious you know. So it's only natural to
want to avoid that, so you keep it quiet. But

(24:53):
I think that at the end of the day, Jews
are a lot more conservative than people realize, and they
themselves realize. But it's a tyranny of power that is
running the high ground, and I'm hoping that with the
election of Trump that's going to start to change.

Speaker 2 (25:09):
I think you could draw the analogy to the entertainment industry,
and I had some experience with that. I was a
member of a couple of secret groups, if you will,
of Hollywood conservatives. Yes, well, it wasn't all that secret,
but there were more people that belonged to these things

(25:32):
than you would care than you would think. Albeit I
remember being at some of these events, one of which
was at David Horowitz's house, and there were people that
were afraid to give their name. There were there were

(25:52):
others who were Golden Age type stars.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
You mean, like at Charlton Heston.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
Well, Charles Heston as well known, someone maybe a little
less well known unless you're a fan of B movies
in the fifties. Marie Windsor okay, who was in like
fifty sixty features always played the bad girl. So these
events took place in the nineties, I remember, And it

(26:21):
was funny. You'd see Marie Windsor sitting over there and
it looked like Marie Windsor for the movies, but older,
you know, and she was very outspoken about her conservative beliefs.
And there were a number of people that you wouldn't
recognize by sight who were, you know, administrative in the industry.

Speaker 1 (26:41):
Right, but they could lose their careers. I mean, I
mean conversely, I remember reading an interview with Dalton Trumbo,
who was one of the communists en Oh, but he
said in this interview, he goes, look, I wasn't really
a communist. I didn't have any particular ideology at all.
But I signed on to the thing because they got
me jobs.

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (27:02):
I wanted to work in Hollywood. I wanted to get
I was ambitious, So they said, oh, you want to
be if you're a communist. Great, you get a network.
I mean, I think that's why a lot of people
do it. I mean you automatically are the door swings open,
the keys, you get the keys to the castle. Suddenly
he's getting all these screen because all of a sudden
he's on the inside. And yet you know he didn't

(27:23):
give a damn about it. I mean he wasn't. It
was all like, you know, it was just sheer ambition.
So that kind of thing goes both ways.

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Yeah, well, I Michael Flores might tend to disagree with that,
but with the case of Troumble. But right, look, there
were some people that were just hardcore comedies.

Speaker 1 (27:45):
Oh yeah, No, there definitely were, and they and they
had power for sure. And that's why you had a
guy like a Trumbo, whether he was or not, sign
on to it because he wanted to get get somewhere.
I mean, I think that that's why you know, you
have a guy not not to go into it. But
the late great Reverend doctor Martin Luther King played footsie

(28:06):
with the communists because he wanted to get somewhere. He's
so inside the bread was buttered on. He wanted to
have influence. I get it. I mean, I think it's
a selling out. But you know, he would not have
been able to have done what he did had he
not at least slightly genuflected to that side. And he did.
I don't think that probably was who he really was.

(28:28):
Maybe it was I don't know, but.

Speaker 2 (28:29):
Okay, But but the times have changed in that the
prevailing mood is going to become myga.

Speaker 1 (28:36):
And it's it is and it's how you can already
feel it, and it's uh, it's it's a I mean,
the only the only fly in the ointment that I
see right now between now and and an inauguration day. Well,
besides the fact that God forbid something could happen to Trump,

(28:58):
if Trump makes it to inauguration day and he's sworn in,
and then we're home free. Yeah, as all of his
cabinet people will be in place. JD. Vance is pretty good.
You know, You've got Kennedy. They'll all be in place.
And so even if they take Trump out, that government
is there and that'll continue. So in a way, it's

(29:20):
a race against time right now. The other problem I
see that it's more than the international stage, and that
is that Iran is in the verge of throwing a
nuke at Tel Aviv. It's a real thing, that's not
a joke. They have been seriously set back originally for
whatever reason. I don't know if it's radical Islam, I

(29:43):
don't know what it is. But Iran has at some
point decided to go to war against Israel. I mean,
it's a traditional ally to Israel, but under the Ayatolas
and the Malas, they have focused obsessively on destroying Israel,
even though Israel never had any particular or beef with Iran,
and they set up all these proxies. You've got the Huthis,

(30:05):
You've got Hamas, You've got Husbala, and Israel has disintegrated
all of them at this point, I mean, they have
completely defeated Hamas. It's still there, but it's no longer
a threat. Same thing with Hasbala. And now with the
fall of Asad, Israel has gone in and they've debilitated

(30:26):
a lot of the serious dangerous weaponry that could be
used against them in Syria. So Iran is now somewhat isolated,
but they still have their nuclear development and they could
still use it. And now it's being said that they're
within days of getting a nuclear warhead, and you get

(30:47):
very naive people in the US State Department and military
establishment and in those of others who say, well, I mean,
that's fine, let Iran have a nuclear bomb, because it'll
be like the United States and Russia. It'll be mutually
assured destruction, and they it'll be a balance.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
But that's not.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
How Iran is operating. They are They believe that they're
going to have seventy virgins and they're going to create
a world order by destroying Israel, and they don't give
a damn if they get hit back. I mean the
Hoja tool Islam has Chemi RAFs and Johnny went on
record as saying that he goes, hey, if we if

(31:27):
Israel hits US with a nuclear bomb, we don't care.
We've got one hundred and thirty million people. But then
if we hit them back, we can take them out.
So that's the mentality they're dealing with. And that's what
I mean. It's really a race against time because I
think that I don't know if Israel has the capability
to do it. They did it twice before.

Speaker 2 (31:50):
I got nuclear development, which well, they build it.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
In Iraq with the Osiris, and they did it in
northern Syria a couple years ago, and in the case
I was listening to an Israeli military I was reading
a site. In the case of Syria, they dropped some
very heavy bombs on that site. And also in the

(32:15):
case of taking out Nazraala, the head of Hezbolapel, How
did you do this? He was like one hundred feet
underground and these airproof bunkers, and nobody was supposed to
be one hundred percent secure. They did it because they
dropped some big bombs and they kept calling over and
dropping them again and again and again until they finally

(32:37):
did it. So Israel has the military capability, and it's
the kind of situation where it's like if you're in
a forest and you wound a lion, you know, you've
got to make sure you kill that lion or else
you're going to be You're going to be toast. And

(32:58):
so Israel has to go in and make sure if
they do this, that they are going to be able
to complete it. And I think it's a window of
opportunity now. But and I do think that Iran is,
you know, like backed into a corner and they're afraid
of what might happen. If Trump becomes president. So there's
a vacuum of lack of power, which is something that

(33:19):
in the Middle East people understand, both Israelis and Arabs.
You know, when you have a vacuum of power. Look
at what Israel's doing right now in Syria, there's a
vacuum of power. They're going in and they're taking out
all these sites that they would have liked to have
done before, but they were afraid to do it because
of Asad. Now that he's gone, they're doing it. I'm
just saying that right now there's a vacuum of power

(33:42):
in the Middle East, and Iran might step up to
respond to that. So these are very perilous weeks as
we go toward toward Trump. Once Trump is in there,
he's unpredictable. Biden, they didn't expect him to do Diddley Squad,
you know, because he would of But in fact of anything,
he was giving Iran billions. Who's releasing funds to Iran

(34:07):
that had been impounded by Jimmy Carter and that helped
Irn fund these proxy armies. So they didn't expect anything.
You know. They're of the mentality that like, well, if
we appease Iran and we give them money, they're going
to be nicer and they're going to join the Western world.
But that's not how it works. Trump understands that. And

(34:29):
I think that Trump does not want to see a
nuclear war in his presidency. He's it's already been leaked
that on the inner chambers of Trump's strategy team that
they feel that they will stop Iran's nuclear capabilities, and
they're just worried about whether or not it'll trigger a

(34:50):
world war. And I think in the case of Trump
and the White House, who will not because Trump will
be in touch with Putin, He'll be in touch with she,
and they will let that happen because it's less likely.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
Well, let me ask you this, is there a scenario
before noon on January twentyeth that things could get bad
enough that Trump would be uninaugurated. Trump would have enough
influence to just step in and say, no, I'm not
going to let Joe screw this up anymore.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
You mean before the twentieth of January. Yeah, I don't
think so.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
No.

Speaker 1 (35:30):
I mean, it's not in the constitution, you know. It's
just that's how USS. That's why there was an amendment
till short in the lame Duck period. The lame duck
period used to go right through till March fifteenth.

Speaker 2 (35:43):
Yeah, and historically.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
Somebody should do a book on this. Maybe I'll write it,
all right, some of the garbage that would happen during
that lame duck period, Some of the worst sort of
policies were put in place because you had an you
had a regime that was going out. They didn't care,
they were unaccountable, and they were in a position where
they could pull off stuff that was not wholesome and

(36:08):
good because they could. They just it happens in the
state level. It always happens in Massachusetts.

Speaker 2 (36:13):
Well, no, let me put it this way. Maybe it
wasn't clear, but it obviously Trump isn't the president until inauguration.
But what if he takes has to take the bully
pulpit on January tenth or something because something stupid is happening,
He takes the bully pulpit and forces the current regime

(36:37):
to get it together.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
I mean, I think he could. Eisenhower did this. Eisenhower,
after elected and before inaugurated, went to Pammon John in
Korea during the hot period of the war, and he
had a meeting with both sides, and he said, look,
I'm going to be president in two weeks or three weeks.
If you guys don't come to a piece agreement, I'm

(37:00):
going to use nuclear power. And they believed him, and
they came to a treaty. Yes, that's the kind of thing. Yeah, talk,
And I think that's the kind of thing that Trump
could do. I could see that. I could see Trump
going there, getting a meeting and saying, hey, you want
to f around, guess what after January twentieth first, it's

(37:25):
gonna be you know, that's just saying that you're right.
I mean it worked with Eisenhower. That treatise has held
up ever since. There hasn't been a war again in Korea.
So yeah, you know that's use of power and leverage.
And yeah, Trump could do it. I think he could.
You know, I mean maybe Iran isn't that crazy. I

(37:48):
don't know, you know, they well.

Speaker 2 (37:51):
I actually thought of that. I didn't remember this specific timing,
and thank you for the two week thing. Yeah, but
I mean I hope it doesn't come.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
To that, but I don't think it. And also I
think that Biden at this point is so impaired that
I just don't think he's I mean, you know, the
worst thing I think he could do, and he probably
will do it, is he'll give pardons to the j
six Committee and to Fauci, And that's going to bury

(38:22):
the Democratic Party for another century because it's obviously so
you already it's you know, he's maybe these other pardons
that kind of trial balloons to see how the public
reacts to it.

Speaker 2 (38:35):
And it's not good, which is why I wonder what's
in it for Joe Biden.

Speaker 1 (38:44):
Well, I guess the Thursday pardon hunter Biden. I get
that maybe he might pardon the rest of his family.
That didn't go over well even with liberals. But then
these commuting of sentences for you know, fifteen hundred people,
including some really really nasty characters. This is a version

(39:04):
of our system of justice. It takes a huge effort
in terms of due process to get people convicted in
this day and age, and to simply overturn that with
a pardon, you know, that could destroy someone's reputation. Look
what the Nixon pardon did to Ford. It was very damaging.
Now that doesn't mean he shouldn't have done it. I

(39:25):
think he should have done it. I think he did
the right thing, but it was very damaging. You know,
when you give a pardon, you're basically I mean the
infamous Clinton pardons right rich and you know he pardons.
He pardoned his brother, and he pardoned Hillary's two brothers. Yeah, yeah,
I mean, you know, there was pardons. And at the end,

(39:47):
I think I did an interview with someone who wrote
about this. I don't remember who, but he literally had
people sitting in the White House calling people, cold calling
and saying, offering pardons in exchange for money, yeah, you know,
selling them, you know, like and trying to get in.
He had pardons. He was partoning people right up to
the moment he walked out of the White House. I mean,

(40:08):
when George W. Bush showed up at the White House
after Clinton left, he found pardons sitting on the desk
that hadn't been finished yet. I mean, he was just
that was really it, and it completely tarnished what was
left of his his record. And I don't know if
you've noticed, but Bill Clinton now is trying to make

(40:30):
a comeback. I noticed a billboard on the highway here
in Boston promoting his book to the Big Picture of him.
And now he's going on TV. It's not working. Nobody
wants to hurt him. It's flat. It's just it isn't
going anywhere. I mean, he's really been relegated. And now
with Trump's election, that's the final, you know, the final

(40:52):
nail for the Clintons. Nobody wants to hear from them
ever again. They're done. It's like Jimmy Carter.

Speaker 2 (41:00):
But anyway, well, the interesting thing with Jimmy Carter is
he perpetually is staying around to see his reputation deteriorate
more and more. And what better example is this Panama Canal.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
Thing that it does bring up memories of that he
sold it to Panama for a dollar, and you know,
they're violating elements of that treaty. It's that simple. I mean,
they are allowing they're overcharging the United States that is
a vital national security location. They're giving China a pass.

(41:41):
Those are violations of the treaty that was made when
Jimmy Carter handed it open to them. So Trump's absolutely
right about that. That's strategic. That's like, you know, that's
a basic of American security. That canal, it's not that
we got it needs to go down and seize it.
But you know, influence has we brought to bear to

(42:02):
make sure that everything's done right over there?

Speaker 2 (42:05):
Yeah, well and this is just one more card in this,
you know, re establishment of make America great. Yea. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (42:16):
And you know the left time I watched the Twitter page,
I have all the left wingers. Oh, they were all like, oh,
this is horrible, how could they do this? And these
Panama taken back. But people are people don't care. People
are like, Okay, I guess we might have to. I
mean they're not getting what the reaction they were assuming. Yeah,

(42:36):
and now he's talking about buying that Greenland. I remember
last time I already brought that up. People were in
a tizzy over that. These are reasonable. Yeah, this is
the real world, you know, there's these are real national
and international questions. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean,

(42:57):
the United States controlled Greenland and Iceland during World War too. Yeah,
so I mean mainly keep the Nazis out, But these
are national security questions anyways. But there could be a
lot of stuff going down between now and January twentieth,
and it'll be a big, big relief when we have

(43:17):
Inauguration Day, that's for sure. Oh absolutely, it's going to
be beautiful, but God willing.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
Yeah, it's and you know, like we said, I think
last week, as bitter as twenty twenty was, it's better
than it worked out twenty twenty four because all that
momentum built up, which is now being released. I mean,

(43:48):
there were people right after the election that I thought
I was going to hear from, and one of the
guys said, why did you call me? I thought, you know,
and he said, he was just taking me in a
few days to just drink it all in. You know.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
It was a complete landslide. And that's even with all
this everything that was stolen. And that's something that I
do hope that Trump gets into. I don't know if
it's going to be the top priority because there are
a lot of big, bigger issues, but I hope that
they don't drop the ball on election reform. They have

(44:25):
to bring about voter I D same day voting, getting
rid of the machines, just like what Elizabeth Warren called for,
and getting this country on the right path toward the
integrity of one person, one vote, one citizen, one vote.
There were election there was there was still theft in

(44:46):
this election. I think Trump did better than the other
he only won because it was such a huge, huge victory.

Speaker 2 (44:53):
But I think it was egregious. I think in Maricopa.

Speaker 1 (44:59):
Oh again from Kerry Lake, Yeah, are corrupt. I hope
that Attorney General BONDI looks into that that needs to
be investigated. That rotten that is what the Irish used
to call a rotten borough. That and Fulton County, Georgia,
and Wayne County, Michigan. These are rotten boroughs. Probably Boston.

(45:23):
I mean it's a you know, it's institutionally corrupt, has
been for decades. They're run by machines. It's it's you know, California,
they're still counting, right. They got in. They got in
those two congressmen in spite of the fact that those
districts voted for Trump.

Speaker 2 (45:44):
Yeah, well, well that was That's sort of the whole fallacy.
It was most egregious in Maracova. I forget the exact number,
but to believe the results in Maricopa, you had to
believe that there are thirty thousand plus people that cast
ballot where they didn't vote for Trump, sorry, where they
voted for Trump but did not vote for carry Lake.

Speaker 1 (46:06):
Yeah, they voted for Gallego, who's like a real radical left.
Obviously it's stolen, and it's the problem in Maricopa is
that rotten Republican controlled county with people like Stephen Richer
and these other skunks. I mean they are they hate
Carry Lake. They they you know, they it's like a

(46:27):
local kind of rotten. Maybe they may be corrupted by
Mexican drug cartels, it has been rumored. I'm not so.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
I think what happened in Maricopa was the same kind
of thing that happened in the state of Vermont. Right right,
where Vermont had what two hundred and thirty thousand people
in the whole state, The Ben and Jerry types from
New York move up right get bransform. So it was

(46:57):
the same stupid thing.

Speaker 1 (47:00):
They elect Bernie Sanders, and they elect Howard Dean and
all these other New York left wingers.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
But the question was, well, why did you leave New
York only to try to re establish it in Vermont
the people that left.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
LA is happening in New Hampshire now, yeah, I mean so,
I think that's what's happened in Arizona. All the Californians
right now they're moving to Idaho. Are they going to
take over there too.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
I mean, I don't know, it's oh, here's an audience comment.
Twenty twenty was stolen one hundred percent, thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
Yes, absolutely, thank you.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
It does.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
I mean, it's a twenty twenty Oh yeah. I mean, look,
I think it's one of those things we were talking
earlier about people answering questions of posters. Sixty percent of
Republicans then and now believe that election was stolen, probably
a large percentage of Democrats. And it depends and believe

(48:01):
that who uphold And yet I think that had I
think a lot of people refuse to answer that question
even back then, out of fear and just because they
don't want to, you know, they don't want to put
their neck out. You never know, you might end up
getting picked up by this corrupt FBI. So yeah, I mean,
I think most people did believe that it was stolen.

(48:22):
And that's why President Trump. You know, you could say
that it was self serving because he was in office,
sure that you could say that. However, as the elected
president of the United States and chief magistrate, it was
his responsibility to investigate that. It's that simple. That's up
to think that an election couldn't be stolen. Is more

(48:44):
than naive elections are stolen around the world. Why wouldn't
it happen here?

Speaker 2 (48:49):
You know, comed from a viewer and you see this,
Trump should get an eight year term now since he
has won three times.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
You know already. I think Steve Bannon made a crack
during this turning point in USA. I mean he said,
Trump twenty twenty eight, we'll see. I mean, I don't
know it would be Trump prophecy. I'm reading this affecting
the White House for twenty years. Look, I mean it
might take that long to bring back you know, sane

(49:23):
policies and America First policies. Now, I don't know if
you agree with this or not, but during this Congressional
Reconciliation Bill, President Trump wanted Congress to lift the debt ceiling. Now,
I don't know if I think that's the right way

(49:44):
to go, you know, I mean, I think that I
get why Trump wants that, because it's going to cost
money to do the secure the border, to do a
lot of these other things that he wants to do,
and then it would be easy to raise that money
in Congress. But I think that that might not necessarily
be the right approach. I mean, I would think that

(50:07):
it would be better to have the dogie guys musk
and Ramaswami and others do some serious cutting of unnecessary
government costs and really bring in some of these agencies,
and also to allow the private sector to do some
of the things that the government would otherwise do, rather

(50:30):
than raise the death ceiling. So I don't know if
I right.

Speaker 2 (50:33):
But remember that everything in human existence is subject to
the ravages of time. So if you increase the death ceiling,
as bad as that is, you at least buy yourself
a little time while you're doing this doggie self and

(50:54):
everything else, because undoubtedly you're going to run into backlash
when you start really doing some serious cuts.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Right, And I guess you know, it does take time.
It's like Reagan cut the budget and he cut taxes,
but he also raised the debt, mainly because he inherited
a decimated military and he had some other things that
had to It took money. So you know, ultimately he
turned things around. It took a full term before the

(51:28):
economy started to turn around and they started to pay
it on the debt, but he did need to have
that those revenues in the first couple of years at least, So,
I mean that's true. Also, so you could argue it
that way too.

Speaker 2 (51:40):
Well, that's kind of my impression. And I think in
the case of Rabaswami and Musk, they're not going to
be shy about mocking some of the stuff that they're
going to fight.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
Oh yeah, believe me.

Speaker 2 (51:56):
If you look at the federal budget for five seconds,
you can fight stuff that's outrageous. I mean, I did
an article just on the NIH right, and all I
was doing was looking at what was the biggest grant
and what was the smallest grant, And you found out that, inevitably,

(52:24):
the small grants were very practical, you know, we're gonna
get rid of this disease in this particular locality and
so on. And the high money stuff inevitably was this
but the term they use in biology sexy sounding, you know,
nano materials and all this high falutin impractical stuff that's

(52:47):
never gonna work. But these guys got big grants.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
That money is all I mean, it's it's like it's
like crack, you know, it's uh, you know, they don't.
I mean I think that we should look at also
the fact that the budget was changed as a victory
for Trump for two reasons. Firstly, when they first came
out with that budget that Johnson negotiated secretly with Schumer.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
And why the hell did you do that?

Speaker 1 (53:17):
Because he's a skunk, But I mean, he's just that.
I don't think he's any better than McCarthy. But the
point is that it went up on Musk's Twitter, thank
god he has Twitter, and the result was a huge
negative response all over the country and that had an impact.

(53:39):
That's what made them step back. And secondly, the eventual
bill they did pass, it cut out something like three
hundred and fifty billion dollars, including the Global Engagement which
is the title of this program today, and that was
one of the big censorship mills in this country. They've
been cut out, they didn't get the pay raises, which

(54:01):
they don't need, and they cut out a bunch of
other things that they were secretly salting in there. So
it shows that a little public exposure goes a long way. Well,
you're you're.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
Right, So explain this to me. How in the world
the Johnson and Schumer think that it's still you know,
nineteen sixty one and you're Sam Rayburn or something I don't.

Speaker 1 (54:28):
Get still playing the old playlist, these big fat you
know what they used to call it, what they call
a crap sandwich. Right, it's a fifteen hundred page bill
with all this stuff. I remember interviewing Jack Abramoff from
Ever him. Oh yeah, he came on my show after
he came out of prison, and he had a book

(54:49):
which is pretty good, and he explained how they do this.
I mean, the lobbyists in k Street. They put in
little language into these bills and nobody knows where it.
It's like, you know, s three dash four two three
dash B three b and you click on that and
it goes to another s U vu s U and

(55:10):
before you know, you keep clicking and eventually you get
to something that involves a big check for somebody or
or some kind of really a law that benefits makes
lawyers make more money. You know, it's something and it's
very corrupt. And his answer at the time, and Trump
has gone on records calling for this, was that every

(55:32):
bill before Congress has to be no bigger than a
three thousand words which is about seven pages, ten pages.
It has to be posted online fully so that we
can all see what it is. We don't believe the
media telling us what it is. It could be debated
by high school civics classes. Everybody can get in on it.

(55:54):
And in that way, we're going to clean out these
lobbyist giveaways. And I think that this is a step
in that direction. They were able to cut out a
lot of this garbage that is corrupting the system and
that the uniparty supports. And I don't think that they're
going to get away with it again.

Speaker 2 (56:15):
Well do you. I think there's a book idea for
you that centers around the notion of why does the
elite media and why do these political hacks still think
that it's nineteen fifty three. You know that there isn't

(56:36):
complete digital everything all the time that you can somehow
operate the way you used to. I don't understand how
you can live in the real world at all and
not realize. I mean, I'll give an example something I'm
going through at this moment. All right, thank that we're
buying a house and so, but here's the point. All

(57:00):
the paperwork is online, it's all docustide. You know, you
don't have to go to some title company and all right,
things have changed. How come a guy like Johnson believes
that he's still living in the old times. I truly
don't understand it.

Speaker 1 (57:21):
I think in his case, he knows, but he's got
no he's just got no spine. I mean, I just
get the sense that he's he doesn't have the fortitude.
Let's put it that way. I mean, that's my image
of him, just I mean I say that without any
evidence of just looking at him. I mean, I don't know.
He looks like a sixteen year old kid, and he's

(57:43):
just way over his head, and you know, he's pushed
around by these other people, and you know, their whole
priority was to keep the government open, which by the way,
it would have been a very interesting if it had
not if it had closed, because then Musk and Ramaswami
would have gone a good sense of what could be eliminated.
But either way, I mean, I think we're entering into

(58:06):
a time when they can't pull that off anymore. There's
too much. They tried censorship. It didn't work. They tried
to They removed President Trump's Twitter account. We had thirty
million followers, They destroyed parlor, they destroyed thousands of a
consequenting mind, and yet it didn't work. It didn't work
because people stepped up. You had Rumble, you would gab,

(58:29):
you had all these other sites, and then you had
musk by Twitter and that was the indeed, so.

Speaker 2 (58:36):
Arrogant though, to think that you have this monopoly on
filled to the blank, that you're always going to have
this monopoly. I remember when I was involved with the
music industry and the MP three's came along, and the
file sharing came along, and they just didn't get it.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
Well. They were used to a monopoly they had they had.
I interviewed somebody in the music business a while ago
who talked about this. He was doing Christian music, and
he was saying that they could not get a record
deal in the sixties, seventies and most of the eighties
because there were there were about four or five gatekeepers,
maybe seven gatekeepers, one of whom was Clive Davis from

(59:24):
from coln Arista Records, and they decided what was going
to be heard and not heard, and they had their agendas,
they had their worldview. They wanted things to conform to
a certain way, a certain message, a certain style. You know,
if you can believe by the way some people have

(59:44):
talked about, you know, Laurel Canyon and the fact that
you know, David Crosby from Crosby Stills in nash was
a His father was a high level you know, CIA
type of government types. Anything with Jim Morrison, his father
was a It was an admirle. I mean, a lot
of these people were sort of put in there to

(01:00:07):
be like I mean, they were great musicians, don't get
me wrong. I mean I think, you know, I admire
the music. But and they didn't even make a lot
of the music. It was done by the wrecking Crew.
But you know, they kind of were like steering the
culture in a certain way that fit the establishment.

Speaker 2 (01:00:24):
And that the analogy that was used because I was
a member of the Academy of Recording, Arts and Sciences
back when all this was happening. Yeah, and somebody made
the analogy. One of the meanings that picture. You're at
your elementary school playground. There's a fat kid that's got

(01:00:45):
a big bag of candy and he's selling these little
piece of candy for five stands and he's waving this
bag around and all of a sudden, this whole develops
at the bottom of the band and all the candy
starts flowing all over the playground and he's running around.

(01:01:07):
Wait a minute, that's my candy, that's my candy, and
know what is that? And it all fell apart again.
There were I just have to tell his funny anecdote.
When the MP three stuff really started, I will I

(01:01:27):
got a hold of something and people, okay, picture what
was then a CD. And remember the FP three format
was about eleven times more compressed than the so called
red box format, so you could put more music on
a CD than you could before. Right, So this guy

(01:01:51):
gives me a CD. I put it in the computer
and there's images of every Beatles album cover and if
you click on damage you get all the songs of
those albums all right, anyway, they no.

Speaker 1 (01:02:09):
I mean it's you know, I think that in a way,
the whole music industry it fell apart in the same
way that you know the Internet has done to politics.
It's like everything now is accessible and it cannot be controlled.
I mean, I've heard that the Beatles, for example, were
Tavistock Institute. Now that doesn't take away from the fact
that they were great musicians. I admired the Beatles. I

(01:02:31):
loved the Beatles, but you know, they had to conform
to a certain oh yeah, and the Rolling Stones also.
I mean some of these big bands. I mean they
didn't sit in that perch for nothing. I mean these
were like, it didn't just happen by accident. They were
influencers of not the kind that we are talking we

(01:02:53):
think about today. You know, they were there too. I
mean in the case of the Beatles, I mean, they
glamorized drug use.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
They just did it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
I mean there's no question about that. They deny it.
I mean John Lennon denied that Lucy and the Sky
with Diamonds was about LSD. That's bull crack.

Speaker 2 (01:03:09):
It was.

Speaker 1 (01:03:12):
I mean, they glamorized, you know, and that led to
a lot of people, including people I know personally endying
not dying. So, I mean, I hope this responsibility there
and it was a weakening of the of the of people,
of the culture of the opposition in a way. I mean,
we could talk this is a great subject, we could
go into this deep.

Speaker 2 (01:03:31):
Well, well, let me wrap up this story because it
is funny. I will not mention the name of the guy. Yeah,
very well known songwriter. Will not mention his name anyway.
He's in my office and he's decrying the fact of
the MP three's and it's terrible and violating copyright. And

(01:03:52):
they said, okay, you want to see something really illegal,
and I showed this beatle CD so I expected him
to blow his mind, right, right, he says, Mike, can
I get one of those? Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:04:11):
By the way, we have one final comment here from
our texting friend the Yellow Submarine song. Adolf Hitler escaped
to South America on a yellow submarine coincidence, you know, No.
Jerome Corsi, who's been a regular on Mind, did a
book on this topic, and he does say that there
is a possibility that Hitler did escape to Argentina, took

(01:04:35):
on a different identity, and you know, had to live
the rest of his life quietly in Patagonia. I think
that's that's possible. I mean when when true? When when
Truman met Stalin at Potsdam, Stalin said to him that
he felt that Hitler had escaped, he probably did. Why
wouldn't he have I mean, putting myself in his shoes, right,

(01:04:57):
he knew it was all coming to He knew that
anything was crashing down. I mean that he wouldn't have
had an escape route.

Speaker 2 (01:05:04):
I remember as a child that was a huge rumor
all the time, Yes, that there wasn't really dead, and
there's ever been I don't think there's ever been DNA
evidence indicating that he had died. In that. Closest they've
ever got is they had fragments supposedly of a skull
or something, but that was years later. No one really

(01:05:26):
believed it.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
No, there was like a hoax. No, I'm not I'm
not saying I know, I don't know any more than
anyone else, but it's entirely plausible.

Speaker 2 (01:05:35):
I mean, well, there were plenty of lower level Nazis.

Speaker 1 (01:05:38):
That escape, including Megala who ended up in Paraguay. I mean,
and iikman right, he got to eventually hunted down by
the Israelis, But there was plenty of people who got
got out, and you know, they knew it was all
coming down, I mean, they knew everything.

Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
Was the only reason that Megala escaped was and the officials.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
By the way, I agree with you on the College.
Jerome Corsi is very trustworthy. I've had on that program
many times. I admire his work. He's had nothing to
gain by writing that book anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
But but what what happened, because the official story from Israel,
which I take with a grain of soul. The only
reason they didn't get Mangla was they couldn't concentrate on
both Iikman and Mangla, so they picked Iikman.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
Plus Mengela died in his swimming pool. I think, yeah,
he wassonous. Yeah, they knew where Mangla was. They knew
where Aikman was.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
To this day, I don't understand why they picked Eichman
because he wasn't that well known. He was a bureaucrat
mege actually was killing people.

Speaker 1 (01:06:48):
You know, No Ikmen was at think high level. I
think he was a number three man. Yeah, in the
particularly involved in the so called final Solution. I mean
he was. He was a Hebraist, he knew all about
he studied Judaism. He was just absolutely despised Judaism and Jews.
And he actually visited Palestine briefly in nineteen thirty six

(01:07:13):
where he put the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem on the payroll.
And you know, a real enemy of the Jewish people.

Speaker 2 (01:07:20):
There's no question about him. But I'm saying by today's standards,
which you know, maybe that's irrelevant, but by today's standards,
who do you think of as the Angel of death?

Speaker 1 (01:07:32):
Oh yeah, Well, I think Megela got some protection because
he was a doctor and just like Fauci. You know
these guys, they there's like an international fraternity of medical people.
I mean Megla wasn't even the worst one. Von Urscher
was his boss and mentor, and he was involved with
some of the most heinous experiments. He got a slap

(01:07:54):
on the wrist. After the war. I think he did
like two years in prison.

Speaker 2 (01:07:59):
I think he went to private practice.

Speaker 1 (01:08:02):
Well, he went back to his college in Munster and
where he died of natural causes. You know, he was
fine anyway. But great topic. We'll have to get into
it at another time. What do you have coming up
on the sub stock. Well, now that some of the you.

Speaker 2 (01:08:18):
Know, I've got a little bit of time now with
the holidays and and and so on, I think I'm
going to get into it's going to help you with
your book idea. Yes, why these people are so ingrained
in stuff that just ain't true anymore? You know that
they've devoted their entire lives to fill in the blank,

(01:08:39):
even though it's pretty obvious that it's all falling apart.
Remember we started the show, I mentioned Henry Miller with
this absurd article about how the vaccines helped the nursing homes.
He's got to let it go. I mean, whatever credibility
the guy has left.

Speaker 1 (01:08:55):
Yeah, who is he working for? That's that's he he
was in the Leaftist isn't saying that or not.

Speaker 2 (01:09:02):
He's retired. But if you truly, really really believed that
every vaccine has an image of Jonah salk in it
and is saving the world, and you just can't bear
to hear the details about what happened with this one, there's.

Speaker 1 (01:09:23):
You know, there's something about medical issues anyways that people
who come to believe these things, they just absolutely flip
out if you question it. I mean I even recently
had a situation where I mentioned to someone that I
had heard that all these hand sanitizers, I'm not exactly healthy,
and this woman had a melt out over that. How

(01:09:46):
could I say, you know, because they're invested in it.
It's like they've been doing it, and it's you don't.
I mean, it's almost like maybe it's the new religion.
I don't know, but it's there's something about I still
see people, even like at my synagogue, who are still
fully masked. Two years after the pandemic, assuming masks were
ever any good anyway, which they weren't. But putting that aside,

(01:10:08):
they I have never seen their face. I mean they've
been there's still completely with heavy masks and they put
their This one couple they have their son in a mask.
I think it's almost child abuse. Yeah, I mean, it's
just and and you know, it's like I want to
say something to them, but I'm not. I know that
I'll be stepping in.

Speaker 2 (01:10:25):
There people that really bought into it. But I think
you cannot engage these these people.

Speaker 1 (01:10:34):
It's not rational, definitely, And the problem is it.

Speaker 2 (01:10:39):
Well, okay, when when my oldest silver was in college,
they had parents weekend at University of Arizona. All right,
So we're at the hotel and we see this older
couple dressed up in the purple of University of Washington,
and the guy says that he's been going to every

(01:11:00):
University of Washington game home and away since an iteen, sixties, seventies, whatever, right, Right,
So I look at the guy and I said, that's
very interesting. But you graduated from there, what in the
fifties or whatever it was, Have you ever thought about

(01:11:21):
how little your college experience has in common with the
kids that are in college now in the in an
iteen nineties. Okay, so I've got to ask you this,
what are you identifying with exactly the logo? I mean,

(01:11:41):
what is behind all this? And the guy turns ashes
and silent. I realized, why didn't even do this? And
it's like it was like a fundamental thing of his
life to find my.

Speaker 1 (01:11:58):
It's like criticizing the Austin Red Sox.

Speaker 2 (01:12:00):
You know, it's just.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
It's very tribal anyway, Mike. But I want to wish
you a merry Christmas.

Speaker 2 (01:12:09):
Well, thank you very much. And this is one of
the years.

Speaker 1 (01:12:12):
Yes, I want to wish all of my listeners are
very Christmas, happy, happy New Year, and we could look
forward to God willing a very good and interesting and
positive year. So I'll talk to you all right. Sounds good,

(01:12:32):
all right, thanks a lot, all right,