They smile in your face | HBR Talk 382

This week we are back to are regularly scheduled interruption, our examination of the USAIDs Coup attempt, under the Humanitarian Initiative Veil, of course, because how else are they gonna keep using your government as an access route to your wallets?

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, and welcome to HBr Talk three eighty two. They
smile in your face, uh and all the while, all
the time they want to take your place, the backstabbers,
And we are unfortunately back to that because I couldn't
find anything light and cute that I thought we we
could discuss instead of this tonight. This is kind of

(00:22):
important anyway. It's it's a coup attempt, and it, you know,
might still be They might still be trying to do this.
They probably are. Even even after they get they get caught,
they usually will try to you know, ah, well we're
not doing that.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Now, we've stopped.

Speaker 1 (00:41):
We're sorry, you know, we apologize. But then in the
background and all right, well let's let's pivot to uh,
this and we'll call it something else, we'll relabel it
and and everything, but we're still going to do the
same thing. So that's where we we are tonight. Sorry, Yes,

(01:02):
I'm your host, Tanna Wallen here with nonsense annihilator Lauren
Brooks and the personification of perceptivity Mike Stevenson a while
with the doge in charge Brian Martinez the background, making
sure the cargoes room broom room, and tonight we have
to fall back to the treacherous ground under the Humanitarian
Initiative VEIL to deal with our raging USAIDS infection. But

(01:28):
before we do that, we gotta do what we gotta do,
and so it is time to shill the shills. As always,
Honeybadgery Radio dishes out Ace morgas board of thought provoking discussions,
and as experiences both recent and long past have demonstrated,
the provoked thoughts are fighting back, They've made it clear
that for people like us, relying on third party payment

(01:49):
platforms like Patreon to fund our work is treading on
thin ice or building our house in the path of
a rapidly growing wildfire. Light of this, we strongly encourage
our supporters to switch at least their support for us
to feed the Badger dot Com the most stable way
to help us out. And if you want to tip
us directly instead of relying on any social media platform's

(02:12):
tip jar, the link for that is feed the Badger
dot Com slash just the tip. So that's feed the
Badger dot Com slash just the tip, because you don't
want to slash the whole thing. That kind of leads
to gender ideology. Actually, and as always, the same risk

(02:34):
applies to our social media platforms, both both the the
wildfire risk and having the whole thing slashed, which is
why you should further provoke the thought police by tracking
our thought provoking discussions on Honeybadger Brigade dot com, where
you can find your way to all of our content,
as well as a link to feed the Badger dot

(02:54):
com in the drop down menu at the top of
the page. And uh, oh my gosh, Murder of Crows
is on it tonight. Yes, herpes Ghanas Syphilides, yep, yep.
The these agencies that fund these NGOs that try to

(03:18):
enact coup attempts against the nation that is feeding them. Yeah,
they're every every STI. The book just kind of like
morphed all into one big ball of STI and then
now they've shoved it down our throats. So what you're
looking at is a Twitter thread we've been going through

(03:40):
and we will start there. But there's a rabbit hole,
because there's always a rabbit hole. There's always a fucking
rabbit hole, guys. There is never just a simple discussion
about shit. So so tonight we're gonna dig into that hole.

(04:01):
And yes, then you and no it's strong with this one.
But they asked for it. They were they've been asking
for it and capital lungs, you know, screaming for it,
begging please please dig into our hole. And so we will.
But with that, I want to remind you before we

(04:24):
do anything else, the last thing that we looked at
was this gobbledegook of a sentence that they they left
us with trying to explain briefly. Okay, guys, here's what
we're doing. So we're gonna we're gonna listen to that again,
because holy fuck.

Speaker 3 (04:45):
The foment of the current constitutional crisis is our opportunity
to catalyze and synergize a dynamic change making, a dynamic
change making fractal ecosystems capable of co generation, the emergence
of the new thriving together based socio political economic governance systems.

(05:07):
That is a long sentence.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
Even they admit, even they have to admit that the
the buzzword soup is a little to it, right, So
what what did they what did they basically say, there,
let's let's go over it again.

Speaker 3 (05:29):
The foment of the current constitutional crisis is.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
In other words, we are upset at the outcome of
the recent election and and uh the policies of the
new administration, not that there's actually a constitutional crisis, not
that it's actually being supported you know, as a constitutional crisis,

(05:55):
and and not that there is actually uh a a
cou going on from the side they oppose. This is
called a air and free election in which the people
had their say and the administration came in and began
doing what the people said we want. Like that's that's

(06:17):
what has them so upset. But yeah, the the foement
of the current constitutional crisis.

Speaker 3 (06:27):
Is our opportunity to catalyze and synergize a dynamic change making.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
In other words, this is our opportunity. This this new administration.
They know they don't have the experience that the uh,
you know, existing establishment has with working with the bureaucracy
uh to uh to maintain a stronghold over the people.
And so we can sneak in under their radar and

(06:57):
do things behind their back. That's what she's saying.

Speaker 3 (06:59):
There a dynamic change making fractal ecosystems capable of co
generating the emergence of the new thriving together, meaning.

Speaker 1 (07:12):
We could take all the tiny little organizations and departments
and agencies and sub agencies and offices and so on,
and conspire to overthrow them from the inside and from
behind their backs.

Speaker 3 (07:36):
Based socio political economic governance systems.

Speaker 1 (07:41):
Meaning that what they're going to use isn't a military overthrow, right,
It's not an information war that gets the people on
their side. It's going to be control over the economy

(08:01):
and control over the conversation, ways of preventing people from
dissentic and ways of punishing people if they try.

Speaker 3 (08:13):
Long sentence, and that.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
Is a long sentence, and it is a means of
disguising the fact that what she just said was that
all of these various organizations that use the US AIDS
infection USAID system infection to reach through your federal government

(08:41):
into your pocket and take your money and pay their
grifters to do jackshit for the people they say they're
doing things for all those people they're they're going to
try to conspire to get a clamp on the economy

(09:03):
through various means of controlling how money flows, so that
if you dissent, they can punish you. And they want
to get a clamp on social media so that they
have total control over all of the different ways that
money flows, and in doing so, that will give them

(09:26):
control over your ability to dissent to that ideas to
you know, attempt to participate in the civic process as
a decision makers. As what you are. The nation that
you live in is a corporation. Every nation is a corporation, right.

(09:51):
The shareholders in the corporation are the people in the nation.
So you, the shareholders in this corporation known as the
United States, are basically being told, no, fuck you, We're
gonna run it, and you don't get to decide. You
don't your vote's not going to count. We're going to
make sure that you can't make informed choices, and we're

(10:13):
going to control you so that you have no choice
when you vote, and you just basically are going in
and ticking off a box so that it looks like
you approve of what we're doing. And we're going to
prevent you from stopping us from stealing your money, which
is what we're doing, and that is essentially the entirety

(10:37):
of us as Outlook, they're entitled to your money. They're
coming for your dollars and your kids, by the way,
and that's where we are. So how are they going
to do this? Well, here we go. This is a
hell of a thing. Right, they have this organize system.

(11:02):
There's always an organized system, right, There's always a method,
there's always a how are you going to do this? Guys,
Well here's how and here we go.

Speaker 4 (11:12):
This is the our Common Purpose initiative and it ties
into an implementation initiative called more Perfect, and it ties
completely into the panel you just heard from Prea Shanker.
You know, this whole notion that that civil society is
clearly part of the sustainability requirements that we have. So

(11:36):
with that, and again I.

Speaker 1 (11:37):
Apologize now when they say sustainability, they're not talking about
you being able to maintain a solid economy, being able
to grow food or anything, you know, keeping the environment
from tanking so that you know, we don't end up
in some some sort of weird industrial pollution laid and

(12:00):
cancer cluster or something. No, it's it's about sustaining their
way of government. Right. So this thing he mentioned are
the art common Purpose thing. We'll get into that in
a minute, but I'll let I'll let it go here
for a minute, all guys.

Speaker 4 (12:18):
As the Steve, I mean, he literally did this for
me because once he knew he couldn't get here, so
hit it.

Speaker 5 (12:24):
Thank you, hello, and thanks for including me in your
conversation today. I'm very grateful to my friend Bob Bernstein
for this invitation.

Speaker 1 (12:35):
By the way, this guy really sounds like he should
be going bueller bueller. He's very, very exciting speaker.

Speaker 5 (12:44):
I'm Stephen Hinz. I'm the co chair of a national
commission that was organized by the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences to.

Speaker 1 (12:51):
Study just just a point here, all right, I want
you to want you to think about the name of this.
This This is not the American Academy of protecting the
civil and human rights of the citizens, protecting the shareholders
of the corporation that our nation is now the arts

(13:13):
and sciences the people who think they're better than you.
So he is what did he say he is? Let's see,
let's listen to this again.

Speaker 5 (13:22):
The I'm very grateful to my friend Bob Bernstein for
this invitation. I'm Stephen Heinz. I'm the co chair of
a national commission.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
Of people who think they're better than you.

Speaker 5 (13:36):
That was organized by the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences to study the health of American democracy.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
There it is there are democracy, So what do they
mean when they say democracy? They mean their ability to
manipulate votes and other processes in within the democratic republic,

(14:04):
that we are the representative republic, that we are to
to to override the public. That's that's what they mean
by democracy and a very short.

Speaker 6 (14:19):
And they will always have a stranglehold over this situation
as long as everyone's convinced that democracy is the best
or indeed only way to proceed with things. And that's
why there are so many of us pushing back against
this and saying it's it's not just to do with

(14:41):
the adage that democracy is the worst possible system apart
from all the others.

Speaker 5 (14:47):
No, it's.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
It's there.

Speaker 6 (14:50):
There are other systems better than this. There are other
systems who with better track records for sustaining a country
for millennia. As a posed to centuries, democracy has only
lasted for centuries. You could consider ancient Greece, but even

(15:12):
that only lasted for centuries. That too eventually shrank into nothingness,
and so did the Roman Empire. But monarchies have kept
on going. They've weaved in between the democracies, and they
will continue to do so. It's but it's it's a

(15:34):
tricky questions as to what degree we can ever get
back to that or if we can get beyond that
into and into something that's neither monarchy nor democracy, like
anarcho capitalism. Oh no ah, he said it, Yeah, I
said it. It's it sounds like pie in the sky.
But you know, we do live in different times, in

(15:58):
very different times, and maybe there's such a thing as
a narco monarchy, what would it I'm trying to think
as flexibly as I can, you know, or a narco
capitalist monarchy or whatever it is, whatever combination of things

(16:20):
will work. But this constant insistence that the only thing
that can work is democracy is it seems to be
finally having having its legs like shoved out from under
it because like, especially given that it's conducted by people

(16:45):
who call it our democracy, and we're trying to translate
what they mean by our democracy. They don't call it
the democracy. They don't even call it democracy with out
the definite article or without an indefinite article like a democracy.

(17:07):
It is our democracy, Like, why why do you insist
on calling it that? It's it's for the same reason
communists kept calling everything of the people's whatever it was.
That's what democracy means, rule by the people, and it's
it's obviously a euphemism, like the way the Soviet Union

(17:32):
called everything the people's thing, but it was never the
people's thing. It was the ruling classes thing. And that's
that's what they mean by our democracy. It's not it's
not the people's thing. It's because it's it's something that
the ruling class speak of. It's if anything is our oligarchy.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Yeah, pretty much. When they say that, what they are
saying is we are the owners of this so called democracy.
And they're not enamored of democracy because they think it
gives everyone an equal say, they're enamoredi democracy because they

(18:25):
think it gives them a better opportunity to manipulate the
system by stacking the deck against individuals. And it does.
It does. It gives them a perfect opportunity for it.
In Ohio, when my parents were teaching, the school systems

(18:50):
had a debate going on when my parents were young teachers,
do we become a closed state for union schools? In
other words, the state and national teachers associations, the state

(19:10):
and national teachers unions. They wanted to set it up
so that in the public school system, all of the schools,
all of the teachers had to be union members, as
in clothes shop, and the most of the schools didn't
want that. The overwhelming majority of actual school systems, the

(19:33):
teachers in those school systems did not want that. But
in the urban areas the teachers did want that, and
there were more classroom teachers in bigger school systems in
those areas. So the way that they were voting, each

(19:56):
school system would vote on their own and they decided
to make it an individual democratic vote, and they pushed
and pushed and pushed until they got that changed so
that the school systems could not decide for themselves each
system how they wanted to go. What they had instead

(20:20):
in the school systems prior to the unions was professional associations,
which were more similar to the old fashioned guild where
they did they did create standards and practices as the
the the unions do, but the teachers themselves, the individual

(20:47):
teachers in the local school system systems, had a lot
more input into that, and it wasn't top down, it
was bottom up, and so the people that worked with
and observed the behaviors and needs of the students were
the ones who were most active in deciding what they

(21:08):
should be doing for the students, what the students needed,
and how to best serve them. And then along comes
this change. We're going to change the way we vote
so that instead of giving the school systems, the different
school systems their own say on whether to make it

(21:31):
so that the entire state has to do the same
thing or not. And and you know, they could have
gone through and said, well, our school system is going
to be a union school system even if other school
systems are not. Or our system is going to be
a professional association school system even if other school systems

(21:52):
are not. They they created this, this this manner of
voting in which the number of teachers in the urban
areas were able to overwhelm the vote and force the
country schools, the rural schools basically, and the small town

(22:15):
schools that did not need to have a national association
controlling their curriculum into accepting and joining the National Education Association.
And they did this in every state. Once they had
a strong grip on the entire country, they began inserting,

(22:39):
by the way, the world is going to end in
ten years if we don't stop fishing into the curriculum.
And it wasn't just in science class, where you know,
parents might actually read what the kid is learning and say, no,
wait a minute, I'm going to push back on that
a little bit, just like it wasn't just in health

(23:00):
class when they introduced, by the way, you might be
you might have been born in the wrong body, and
you get special treatment in the classroom if you were.
In fact, you're nobody. If you are, are you know,
content with your your gender and content with your sexuality.

(23:22):
Oh and by the way, five year old kid sexuality
is blah.

Speaker 7 (23:25):
Blah blah blah blah like that, that's where we ended
up as a result of that, right, and they basically
stiff armed the entire country into that by changing the
way the system for voting it into place worked to
overwhelm the majority of schools, the majority of communities, with

(23:52):
the populace of the minority of communities that were urban areas.

Speaker 1 (23:57):
They could have done this without forcing it on everybody else.
So to just keep that in mind when we'll see
a little bit more what this guy has to say, We've.

Speaker 5 (24:12):
Worked together for more than two years, a very diverse
group of Americans from all parts of the country, from
different sectors of our society and with different political perspectives and.

Speaker 1 (24:23):
We so this has been a long standing conspiracy. They've
been working on this individual project. They organized this project
and have been working on it for two years, which
means they've been This is part of the along March
through the institutions. Yes, Murder of Crows, I remember that.

(24:45):
So Murder of Crow seventy five to twelve. We've been
We're supposed weren't we supposed to be under two miles
of ice since the late seventies, And yeah, my area
kind of had a panic about that in nineteen seventy
eight when we had a blizard uh, and the snow
drifts in various areas got as tall as Canadian snow drifts.

(25:09):
So we were we were driving in between walls of
snow for a few weeks after that. It's it's happening,
It's happening, you know. Well, no, it wasn't happening. It's
just that, you know, Ohio is flat up up north,
Southern Ohio is slightly less flat, and as you get
to southeastern Ohio, which it's even much more less flat,

(25:32):
if that makes sense. There's hills in that part of Ohio,
the actual real like bumps in the ground and stuff.
But but where I grew up, like, it's flat, it's
flat flat, and uh because you know it's the where
the glaciers scraped everything off and just rubbed it smooth.

Speaker 6 (25:51):
And this point, at this point, we're being told about
rising sea levels and that means most of the Netherlands
is going to be underwater. Well, they've been told that
they're going to be underwater any year now for the
last few decades. Are like, no, we should to be
done just fine, thank you very much, just busiest man

(26:13):
made structures to make sure that they don't become underwater.

Speaker 1 (26:18):
That's a fucking that. That's what they've done. They've pretty
much conquered it.

Speaker 6 (26:26):
What what is it, the Maldives or whatever it is,
this series of islands of the Indian Ocean that's it's
got the lowest elevation of any of any country, Like
the highest elevation at any point in the series of
islands is like twenty five meters or something. And they've
been warned for decades now that they're going to be
the first to go underwater, and they're still there just

(26:47):
like no, it hasn't happened yet we're bracing for the worst.
But the shoreline doesn't seem to have budged a smagging
inch so far. But yeah, we believe you. Yeah, give it,
give it, Give us all the money you have to
make sure that we can prevent this from happening.

Speaker 1 (27:10):
Like I believe it. I believe it. When wealthy politicians
quit buying shoreline properties.

Speaker 8 (27:19):
Yes, that ship is just like, I mean, how more
in your face can you be?

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Yeah, talking out one side of your mouth.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
Oh my god, the willion it is.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
Well, the glads are nothing, but let me buy this
nine point five million dollars sprawling estate. Get them the.

Speaker 1 (27:45):
Beaches of California.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
Yes, to be.

Speaker 6 (27:48):
Fair, they have enough money to just abandon those particular
properties because they have a dozen other properties elsewhere in
the world. But you can examine what's actually happening to
the sea levels and shawlline and that's what's important. Like
they're never gonna leave those house houses because the sea
isn't fucking moving at all. That's what's important.

Speaker 1 (28:12):
There's another thing that that you gotta you gotta pay
attention to as well, Right, the ice that is floating
in the ocean. If it melts, that doesn't matter at all.
It's it's like sitting on something if it's on top
of the ice that's on land, or the ice that

(28:32):
is propped on the bottom of the ocean and and
goes all the way from the bottom of the ocean
to the to the surface where it stands up out
of the ocean because it can't sink any further. If
that ice melts, that might make a difference. It's very
I want you to take a clear plastic cup and

(28:56):
fill it with water about halfway and then put ice
in it that doesn't touch the bottom. Just put any
ice in it at all. It doesn't touch the bottom,
and uh, I want I want you to to see
what happens to the water level, Like mark it with
a marker, uh, and see what happens to the water

(29:17):
level as that ice melts.

Speaker 6 (29:20):
It does not overflow over the sides of the container.
This is a simple physics experiment that they should teach
you when you're fucking twelve.

Speaker 1 (29:29):
Yeah, but they're they're busy scaring the shit out of
small children because they can't convince adults that ice will
behave differently in in the ocean than it does in
other water. So again, unless they then come through and say, well,
all the all the land mass ice is is going

(29:50):
to melt and that much ice will actually raise the
sea level somehow, then then there's their fear mongering isn't
going to work, right, So, yeah, it's it's kind of
it's kind of pathetic, but yeah, this has been going

(30:12):
on for a long time. Guys. When my parents first
heard from me that, you know, I came home from
school all upset because of some of the environmental stuff
I was being taught, and my dad was like, you know,
when I was in school, they told us we were
severely overpopulated and that by the time you were born,

(30:33):
there wouldn't be room for two people to stand together there.
We would all have just a just a standing room
only left on earth at the rate of birth in
the world, because they weren't considering the rate of death
in the world, or the rate of scientific advancement that
allowed buildings to be made, that that lots of people

(30:58):
can live in a small amount on a small amount
of land, and so on. But in the meantime, none
of that has ever happened. Like every prediction they've made,
none of it has happened. We haven't run out of
fish every ten years for the last seventy years or so,

(31:18):
none of that. So all of these dire predictions are bullshit.
It's just ways of manipulating you. Now, does that mean
that it's okay to dump toxic chemicals into the groundwater. No,
we still have to be not environmentally stupid. Right, don't
set your lakes and rivers on fire, people. We had

(31:40):
a fire at one point in the Ohio River. Actually,
it's been on fire multiple times, and the EPA was
kind of invented because of things that happened in Ohio.
But there's a balance. There's got to be a balance
between the ffforts to not do stupid things environmentally and

(32:05):
the efforts to use environmental science as a scare tactic
to control people economically, which is what these people are doing.
And this, by the way, is why they want control
over social media because this discussion isn't something that they
want us to be allowed to have. They don't want
us to be allowed to have this discussion where you

(32:28):
point out that ice and water do not behave the
way that they are threatening us that they will behave.
That's something that is just not acceptable to the elites.
So going on here.

Speaker 5 (32:47):
You looked at the research, the data, the literature, the.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
Most important propaganda, and we.

Speaker 5 (32:53):
Listen to Americans in fifty communities across this country in
very diverse settings.

Speaker 8 (32:58):
Oh, fifty whole community, the whole com Oh my god,
what did that take you?

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Like an afternoon?

Speaker 1 (33:10):
There's there are are fifty communities on one side, one
quarter one corner of Ohio. Sorry, guys, maybe there's fifty.
Maybe there's only fifty community. No, there's probably more than
fifty communities in Connecticut as tiny as ye. Oh yeah,
there's probably fifty communities in a part of Ohio the

(33:33):
size of Connecticut.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 8 (33:36):
And it was probably like a fucking zoom call, right,
like a zoom mean yeah, people so fullish shit?

Speaker 1 (33:44):
They went to fifty nursing homes in Florida. What kind
of communities are we talking about? Oh, you know the
ones where like you ask people questions about their political
views and they tell you what their grandchildren are doing
this week because they've seen pictures on the Facebook. Uh

(34:11):
uh yeah, no, I hate to make fun of this,
but I'm sorry. This is this is that's pathetic. Fifty communities.
That's it. That's all they talk to. That's that's him
telling you.

Speaker 9 (34:22):
We we we very carefully cultivated the set of people
we were talking to, curated the set of people we
were talking to to get the answers we wanted so
that we could then come and tell you we.

Speaker 1 (34:38):
Talked to representatives of the people, and this is what
the people had to say, when in fact it's just
their cronies, and with.

Speaker 5 (34:49):
Very divergent points of view. And we came away from
that convinced that are.

Speaker 1 (34:54):
The very divergent points of view are well? The Titanic
is thinking, we think that the chairs should be placed
in a star pattern, and the divergent point is no, no, no, no.
The chairs have always been in rows. We need to
put them in rows. But nobody has considered the possibility
of not running into the iceberg.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
Democracy needs not only to be reformed, but really in
a way, reinvented, reimagined.

Speaker 1 (35:24):
Oh there's another one. What do you just say?

Speaker 2 (35:26):
There?

Speaker 1 (35:28):
And this let's go back.

Speaker 2 (35:30):
Not that far in very.

Speaker 5 (35:33):
Diverse settings and with very divergent points of view, And
we came away from that convinced that our democracy needs
not only to be reformed, but really in a way reinvented.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
Real They need to reinvent democracy, imagined, reimagine democracy. And
what does that mean when they say they want to
reinvent and reimagine things, It means, well, we didn't We're
not getting the results we want. Therefore you're doing it
wrong and we want to change it. Yeah, very simple, right,

(36:07):
what we have right now, If Ohio and the other
states had done this with regard to the unions, we
would have had a better result, a result that was
more representative of what the teachers wanted. We have in
our parliamentary system. We have one set of representatives that

(36:32):
gets voted for that each state gets the same number
of votes regardless of population, and then we have one
set that is specifically representative of the populace. The population,
so if your state has a larger population, you get

(36:55):
more of this type of representative, and if your state
has a smaller population, you less of this type of representative.
And they have districts rather than representing the entire state,
although to a degree they represent the entire state, and
so it allows an equal say for states with smaller populations.

(37:18):
And it also allows individuals to have their sway on
the system by sending representatives that handle both, and this
is important. Both the populous representatives and the representatives of

(37:40):
the actual states have to agree enough that a majority
of both of them pass a law before it actually
goes to be signed by our executive leader. And then
the executive leader has to have been voted in by

(38:02):
the largest number of voters out of everybody that voted
in his election. So you have a popular leader leader
that the populace decided on right, and that also goes
through a system that gives the states their say, and

(38:25):
that does allow states with larger populations a little more sway.
So you have sort of two pins in already for
a democratic popular vote system, but you have a check
on it for a nationwide every state gets their say system,

(38:53):
and then if it turns out to be unconstitutional, then
the Supreme Court can throw it out. So it's pretty
good system because it allows several little checks and balances
that prevent a group of people from coming along and saying, well,
if we can get fifty point zero zero zero one
percent of the population to agree that X is better

(39:16):
than Y, then they can just trample over the forty
nine point nine nine nine percent that you know that
that allows a little bit of contention between them, and
the possibility of back and forth, and the possibility that
actually it takes more of a majority than that to

(39:42):
to override a minority of voters, and something has to
be much more popular to to make that big of
a change. And if that had been the case with
the unionization of our schools, for instance, they would have
had to engage in a significant level of salesmanship to

(40:05):
get the smaller schools to agree to it, because they
wouldn't have been able to just trample them in the process.
Richard Pierre just sent us five dollars and said, there's
a book by Tom Kratman called A Desert called Peace,
which is a science fiction book about a society five

(40:27):
hundred years in our future. The elites have said that
they have a desire to see the rest of the
world outside their gated communities, only to be lit by fire.
So that's the entire thing, I think, And I'm not
sure the way that sentence is written, and there's no

(40:47):
period at the end of it. If that's the entire sentence,
it's not a book I've read, so I don't know
what the story is. So Richard, you might need to
clarify that one a little bit, because I'm not sure
what you're saying there, whether it's if they want if

(41:10):
they want to leave their gated communities but they catch
on fire when they leave, or if they only want
that area to be lit by fire in no place
else or what. I'm not sure there. But in any case,
just as that little lesson, it's going to be important
as we go through this a little bit for the.

Speaker 5 (41:32):
Kinds of challenges we face in the twenty first century.
In June of twenty twenty, we issued this report, Our
Common Purpose, Reinventing American Democracy for the twenty first Century.
It includes thirty one very concrete recommendations for changes to
our institutions, our processes, but also ways to revive a

(41:54):
healthier civic culture.

Speaker 1 (41:56):
So what did he just say there, let's go back
and uh, I'm gonna I'm gonna rewind again here tuitions
are pros a little more than that.

Speaker 5 (42:09):
On very concrete recommendations for changes to our institutions, our processes,
but also ways to revive a healthier civic culture.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
So they're so mad, all right, They're so mad that
men put their foot down and said no, stop stealing
from us. Stop paying women to make stupid choices. Stop
sending us to war when there's nothing for us to

(42:43):
fight for. There's not a cause that we support. There's
not a threat to our homes and our families right.
Stop trampling our property rights, stop trampling our civil rights,
Stop railroading us in the court systems and taking our
chill in a way. They're so mad that men said

(43:03):
no to these things that they want to change the
entire government system, the entire election system, the way that
our leadership of this corporation is decided. This is a
coup is essentially the hostile takeover of a corporation by outsiders,

(43:31):
by minority shareholders and people who are parts of other
corporations other countries. Richard Beierre says, the gated communities would
have all of the modern technology, and those outside would
be living stone age lifestyles. To protect the environment, Oh
I see how that is? Okay, yep, So that the

(43:54):
wealthy people have earned the right to use electric lights
and so on. But you plubs, you plubs that destroy
the environment. It's your fault. We're in this situation. So
you you have to use candles and you have to
heat your home with a fireplace. Well, we have a

(44:17):
furnace that runs on gas or electricity or something. Yeah,
that's how I can see that. I could totally see that.
But yeah, so this is what he's saying. Here is again,
we want to rig the game because we lost in
a fair fight and we don't like it. They're not

(44:39):
protecting your right to vote. They're not protecting the system
that you use to determine the leadership of your corporation.
They are trying to take it over. They are engaging
in a hostile takeover.

Speaker 5 (45:00):
We are now embarked on a campaign with partners all
across the country to help advance these reforms to our
democracy in order to our restore it, to save it, to.

Speaker 1 (45:12):
Have to save our democracy from the voters. Guys, those
evil voters aren't doing what we want them to do.
So how are they going to save our democracy? Oh no, wait, no,
it's their democrats. How are they going to save their
democracy that we, the plubs, are not part of. So

(45:34):
let's take a look at this strategy one. Well, we'll
just look at it. They had this type table of contents, right,
and and let's see if I'm I don't know if
I'm going to go through and read all of this part.
I want to get straight to the strategies just because

(45:56):
the first couple things here are really egregious. Achieve equality
of voice and representation sounds good, right, sounds like they're
trying to make sure that you have your say, But
what does it actually mean? What are they actually trying
to do? Expand both the House of Representatives and the

(46:23):
ways that people can vote for their representatives. Change how
districts are drawn. This is called gerrymandering, by the way,
First to eliminate partisan jerrymandering. So they're going to use
jererymandering to eliminate jerrymandering. Guys that that totally is effective.
And then to make them larger, allowing several representatives per district.

(46:45):
Amend this basically creates contention in Congress between representatives for
the same district. That that's helpful. Amend the Constitution to
allow for congressional regulation of campaign expenditures. So what's wrong
with allowing the government to decide what people can contribute to,

(47:11):
how how people can financially back a candidate that they like.
Can you know what do you think might be the
problem with allowing incumbents to place limitations on your ability
to fund the campaigns of their competition when you disagree

(47:32):
with them. You think that that I might actually be
an incumbent protection practice right there. Yeah, imagine if we
passed along Ohio that said Walmart gets to decide how

(47:53):
much its competitors are allowed to to spend on advertising
in the public media. You think you think CBS would
be able to do much advertising or Walgreens.

Speaker 6 (48:10):
There's there's this disparity. When I saw I saw a
few tweets of people who were saying Donald Trump, Donald
Trump is telling us to uh, to be austere and
to save money. Meanwhile he has fucking golden toilets and everything.

(48:30):
Musk is telling us maybe we should save money because
that will help us, and all these all these all
these evil fucking billionaires are telling us, Yeah, a good
way to save money is to save energy and so
and they're all, well, you can't tell us this. You
don't save money, you're spending billions because because you have billions. Meanwhile,

(48:56):
the government is telling them we're going to loss you
to to useless energy because it's gonna save the planet.

Speaker 8 (49:07):
And that's.

Speaker 6 (49:09):
And that and that's the difference between giving someone good
advice for what it actually means and giving someone the
same advice based on lies, like using less energy isn't
going to save the planet.

Speaker 2 (49:26):
It's not.

Speaker 6 (49:27):
The fucking planet is going to be fine. I mean,
this is this is fucking if you're get If you
if you're gonna save energy, it should be for your
own good. It should be because it's going to save
you money. And frugality is is its own virtue aside

(49:50):
from anything else, like because it prevents you from being
accustomed to using too much energy of any kind, energy
of any kind really, and people should get on board
with that. They should be like, yeah, I should save

(50:10):
money regardless of the fact that people who can afford
to spend money are spending money. I should still save
money no matter how poor I am, because I mean,
that's how you get rich in the first place. That's how.
In the meantime, the other billionaires, the fucking grift of ones,
and especially the government, which is itself a trillionaire. There's

(50:36):
no such thing as a trillion are individually, but the
most world governments are trillionaires. And they're not individual humans,
but they are machines.

Speaker 1 (50:49):
They're corporations. They're trillionair corporations.

Speaker 6 (50:52):
Yeah, they're machine trillionaires. And then and they're here telling you, no,
you should you should be frugal because it's gonna save
the world. In fact, we're going to force you to
be frugal because it's gonna save the world. And that's like,
it's not gonna save the world, and yet they're forcing

(51:13):
you to do it. This is bullshit on two different levels.
Like they're not telling you to do it for your
own good. That telling telling it to you because if
some nonsense is going to convince you that that you're
some fucking environmental freedom fighter who's gonna save the planet,

(51:37):
even though the planet is gonna be fucking fine. And meanwhile,
they're not even asking you, they're not even advising you
to be frugal. They're going, yeah, no, we're gonna fucking
steal all your money to force you to be frugal.
And these fucking deckheads are like, yeah, yeah, no, that's fine, Yeah,
that's that's good. Everyone should be on board with this,

(51:58):
and everyone anyone who's not on board with it, it
is a fucking nazee. It a fascist. Oh that uh,
there are so many layers of this clown world that
it drives me to drink well.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
The sad thing is they have successfully convinced people that
money is something that it is not right. Money is
all money is all currency is of any kind is
a placeholder. It doesn't represent anything else. You spend the
thing that everybody has the same amount of to get it.

(52:37):
Nobody has more minutes in their day. Everybody has a
twenty four hour day, and when that's up, it's the
next day. It's not the same day anymore. And everybody
needs pretty close to the same amount of sleep, the
same amount of food, and time to eat, time down,

(52:58):
time from working. The only difference between people is you
know how much of that placeholder they can command for
the labor that they do during their non downtime during
their uptime, And that depends on a whole set of factors.

(53:21):
How difficult your labor is, how dangerous it is, how
many people can do it, how badly people need it
to be done. More people are willing to give you
more placeholder for your labor if most people aren't smart
enough to do that labor, and they have to pay
you because there isn't somebody else to do it. Or

(53:44):
most people aren't tough enough to do your labor, so
they have to pay you because there isn't somebody else
to do it, or it's too gary or too dirty
and they just don't want it. They'd really rather you
do that, or if it took you a long time
to learn how to do it, and things like that,

(54:07):
And of course, how much other people's labor you have
to invest in to get the materials you need to
do your labor factors and things like that. Right, how
much it costs other people and how much you end
up with at the end of the day depends on
the wisdom of your labor choices and your capacity for trade.

(54:30):
And that's it. It's that simple when it comes to
how much money people end up with. But the other
thing is, because that's all it is, it's a placeholder.
And when you when you spend that placeholder, what you
are doing is you are paying for other people's time

(54:51):
to do things that you don't want to spend your
time doing. I pay farmers to grow my food by
giving my money to the grocery store for that food,
knowing the grocery store is going to give it to
the distributors who are going to give it to the farmers, right,
And that's the way that works. And obviously that's a

(55:13):
little oversimplified. There's a lot more midtlemen than that. And
sure I could grow my own food, but I can
have more placeholder value from my labor if I pay
somebody else to do that and focus on the labor

(55:33):
I do, and then I can also spend that placeholder
money for other things that I don't want to spend
time on. I don't want to spend time sewing my
own clothes. I don't want to build. Well, I kind
of do want to build my own car, but that's
the whole whole different story. I really can't build my
own car and do the other things I want to do.

Speaker 6 (55:50):
You have an ambulance, you don't need a call.

Speaker 1 (55:55):
We did just purchase a decommissioned ambulance. But if you
want to learn more about that, you need to go
to Feed the Badger and find out how to join
in on the Patreon only after shows for HBr talk,
where I where I spend much more time talking about

(56:15):
the ambulance. But if you want to know a little
bit about the United States, that ambulance came from Kansas,
so the first thing we had to do is replace
the windshield. But in any case, yeah, I still it
would still be really fascinating to build my own car,

(56:37):
but I don't know that I would be that I
have the skill and the talent necessary to make it
street worthy. And the whole point would be to have
something that I built that I could drive. And if
that's not going to happen, then I would be wasting
my placeholder earning capacity doing that. So yeah, essentially, if

(57:05):
you don't want to be like, as David lot Boy
pointed out, a neolithic sub subsistence farmer, you used placeholder
or money to pay for other people's time and other
people's labor, other people's expertise, other people's intelligence and so on,

(57:26):
other people's wisdom. But your so called betters that want
you to become part of a communist system want you
to believe that that is a bad way of doing things,
that it's theft if you voluntarily trade your labor to

(57:50):
get placeholder money placeholder currency for your time, your labor,
your intelligence, your wisdom, and so on expertise, and then
spend some of it to get a variety of different
things that you wouldn't have time to do for yourself
in a given day, and your life is easier. That's theft.

(58:13):
You're being ripped off, and you're ripping other people off.
According to these folks, they hate that, but in the meantime, yeah,
they do it. And most of the time, the people
who are mad at you for that, for living that way,
not only do they live that way, but they live

(58:33):
that way so effectively that they have so optimized their
ability to obtain that placeholder that they have way way
more of it than is necessary to create sustainable, secure
living for them. They have disposable placeholder, and their disposable placeholder.

(58:58):
The way the economy works is if they hoard that
disposable placeholder, it takes away from every individual who is
trying to earn placeholder by selling things or services or
combination both. And so it isn't a bad thing when

(59:22):
one of them buys a gold toilet, because it gives
somebody else the opportunity to earn placeholder. By creating and
transporting and installing and maintaining a gold toilet, it gives
people the opportunity to earn placeholder. By mining gold gives

(59:45):
people the opportunity to earn placeholder by figuring out how
to make a toilet work even if it's made out
of a very very soft metal instead of porcelain, which
seems like it would be problematic to me, but to
each their own. Also, can you imagine sitting on that

(01:00:08):
in New York during a nor'easter?

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
That thing's got to be cold.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
They need to have like a heater a toilet keep
your ass from freezing to the toilet. I don't like
sitting on porcelain in Ohio in the autumn, so like,
come on, guys. But yeah, the idea that that there's
some immorality toward having that placeholder for for your your

(01:00:43):
labor and your time spent and your expertise, and and
how necessary what you're doing is, and how hard it
is to get somebody else to do it and so on,
so that you can diversify your ability to get things
and get services from other people, so that you don't
have to do everything yourself for yourself, and you actually

(01:01:08):
have downtime, which is something that you know, the Neolithic
subsistence farmers did not have downtime. Okay, they worked all
day and they slept all night, and they got up
the next day and they worked all day again, very
little downtime. You get to read a book. If books

(01:01:29):
had existed, they didn't, they wouldn't wouldn't have had to
You get to go. You could. You could be an
entertainer for a living if you're good at it. And
very very few people can say that. But fewer can
say that in an environment where people have to do

(01:01:49):
everything for themselves and nobody has time for entertainment.

Speaker 6 (01:01:53):
We were starting to dread a certain future when people
rely on AI for their information. But once upon a time,
nobody had books and they relied entirely on oral information.
They just talked to each other like they didn't have

(01:02:14):
to remember all these graphic symbols on these pieces of
pulped wood, and they were really really good at talking
to each other because that was the only kind of
communication they had.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
Had.

Speaker 6 (01:02:30):
People often assumed that people in the past were really stupid,
but in all likelihood they were extremely orally efficient. Now
that sounds like an innuendo, but it's not. I mean,
they were, they were, They were. They were probably much

(01:02:52):
better at talking than we are.

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Because besides begin in your endo, uh yeah, well, and
and then that is the point, like you would be
better at the things that you had to do. It's
just that you would only have time for the things
that you had to do. Now we have time for

(01:03:16):
things we want to do, right, Yeah, and and yeah,
Richard Bierre says, it's probably gilded porcelain. I hope so, okay,
because can you imagine how much that sucker would weigh.
Imagine being the being the guy that has to, uh,
you know, handle the transfer of that from from uh,

(01:03:37):
you know, the manufacturing system to the truck. You handle
the forklift like you got to hope that it doesn't
counterbalance the forklift. Gold is heavy, It's incredibly heavy. But
but yeah, so I mean, this is this is why
you should be suspicious of the elites, right they tell

(01:04:00):
you it's immoral and your being taken advantage of when
you engage in a system that actually creates luxury for you.
And in this country, in my country, and in Laurence country,
we can have simultaneous designation of poverty where we're we're

(01:04:28):
labeled poor by our government and by the rest of
society and have not only enough clothing to wear, enough
food to eat, a roof over your head, shoes. Where
there are places in the world where if your poor
shoes are not a thing in your home. You don't

(01:04:48):
have shoes if you don't make them yourself. Right, But
you can have a car and be considered poor. You
can have an entertainment system your house, a television, a
video game system, and be considered poor be eligible for
public assistance. You can have pets animals living with you

(01:05:12):
that you're not going to eat and that don't do
any work and be considered poor. You could pay for
their food and afford your own food and buy drugs
or cigarettes which are technically drugs. Coffee is a drug alcohol.
You can have money for those things and still be
considered poor. You can have a heat in your house

(01:05:38):
from a utility system, you don't have to burn stuff
to eat your house, and be still be considered poor.
Right in our first world nation, our line for poverty
is so much higher because we have that placeholder and

(01:06:00):
a system designed around using that placeholder instead of straight
up trade or doing everything yourself. But yet you're being
told that the existence of that the fact that it
gets used to pay for your labor, and that an

(01:06:22):
investor can make money off of the money that they've
invested without adding labor to it because they have purchased
so much labor and so on that that's somehow immoral,
when it is that system that has raised the overall

(01:06:42):
economy by putting money back into the economy and creating
more ways that different people can use their labor, their expertise,
their skills, their talents, their intelligence, their wisdom, their creativity,
their their character to gain placeholder without being limited to

(01:07:05):
a small set of of of of methods for obtaining it.
And then they can they can choose from a broad
variety of ways to spend that placeholder to get conditions, services, items,
and so on that they want in their lives. It's

(01:07:28):
it's you're a victim of that, guys. You're a victim
of that luxury, that plentiful situation. You're a victim of
being part of a nation so wealthy that you can live,
you can have living conditions that would be considered wealthy
in poor countries and be considered poor in this country.

(01:07:56):
Just think about that. That's I mean to be told that,
and to be told that you would be better off
if the entire country were stripped of that system, so
that it was like the third world country where poverty
means not having enough to eat, not having shoes, not

(01:08:16):
having a roof over your head, not having heat, not
having a cool environment to go into in the summertime,
like air conditioning. First world problems. Really poor countries, yeah,
Richard be Air points out, really poor has no toilets
in a country, a third world country that doesn't have

(01:08:38):
indoor plumbing. People think you're poor now if you don't
have an internet connection in your home, or if the
internet connections in your area are not incredibly reliable, if
you don't have five g I remember when you used
to be poor, if you were still in a party line.

Speaker 6 (01:09:00):
When you were poor, when you didn't have satellite television.

Speaker 1 (01:09:03):
Yep, yep, yep. I remember when you were poor, if
you didn't have a second car. You can be now
poor people have multiple junk cars in their yard. But yeah,
so this is my point here is these people lie

(01:09:27):
to you about the most fundamental things. They tell you
that you are a victim of things that you benefit from,
and that they want to rescue you from those things
so that you can benefit from what real poverty is
like in third world countries, because that would be better
for you. Meredith g gave us five dollars, is said HBr

(01:09:52):
talk three eighty two. Honey for the Badgers, The BS
about democratic reform is like declaration of sentiment. Congressional leadership
already control campaign funding to the point where that when
a favor candidate loses a primary, the party will literally
demand the winner, fire all the people who help the
winner get through the primary, and hire the consultants that

(01:10:13):
will cause them to lose in general. The more you know, well,
or they do what the Democrats did when they wanted
Hillary run and or or was it Biden and Bernie
Sanders actually won the primary and they put their candidate
in instead. Anyway, they like, no, we don't want Bernie Sanders.

(01:10:37):
We want because Bernie is more openly socialistic, whereas Biden
and Hillary tried to at least be semi covert in
their socialism. They were the same. All three of those
candidates were the same. Kamala Harris was the same. They

(01:10:57):
all have the same goals. Bernie doesn't know how to
shut up about them, he says the quiet part out loud.
Last independent thinker says, I grew up in a town
or with no town water, only tank water, and what
was trucked in no hot water, and we still had

(01:11:19):
those wind up phones that went to the exchange. Yeah,
the ones you see in the old movies where they
have to crank it to make it work. My dad's
house when he was young, had something called a cistern.
Not to be confused with brethren, they are not the same.
A cistern is a big tank like what last independent

(01:11:45):
was talking about, and it catches rain water and you
use it for gray water. So you wash dishes with it,
you wash your clothes with it. You might even shower
with it. They did, and you know it comes through
if you don't have a means of heating it. It's cold,

(01:12:09):
you get a cold shower, you get you wash your
clothes and cold water. You wash your dishes in cold water.
And your your cleaning method is your soap, which a
lot of times was lie soap, so it's a lot
more harsh than the soap that you're using today. And
I had friends growing up that they bought water for

(01:12:30):
drinking because they're on their farms. All they had was
well water. If something happens to your well, you're fucked.
If you want, you know, to do laundry, you haul
up some well water. If you, you know, and they

(01:12:51):
some of them had cisterns so that they could catch
rain water for stuff like that. And if it didn't
rain for a long time you didn't have water and sistern,
you couldn't use it. You know, you had to you
had to haul up water from the well or you
had to buy water. You had to have it trucked in.
You know, there are places that didn't have Like in

(01:13:14):
the city and in towns, you have gas lines so
you can get natural gas pipe to your house if
you want to run your furnace and your your water
heater and stuff like that. But out in the country
that wasn't necessarily the case until those systems were built.

(01:13:35):
There's there's probably still people that that don't have gas lines.
The apartment I live in, we don't have gas. Everything's
electric and uh. On one side, if the power goes out,
that means you have no heat. But on the other side,
your house doesn't blow up because they haven't been reading
the meter for six months and they don't know there's

(01:13:57):
a leak. You can't get a basement full of carbon
monoxide and and and a spark goes off in the
whole place. There have been multiple house explosions in Ohio
from that, and almost every single time you find out
they have, the gas company hasn't been reading the meter,

(01:14:17):
and if they had been, they would have known there
was a leak. But in a couple of those instances,
the individual owner of the home had interfered with the
way that the the gas comes in to try to
bypass the meter. So it's not every single instance, right,

(01:14:39):
And yeah, out in the country, there's a lot of
pro paine. People might have a great big tank on
their farm and truck comes by and they subscribe essentially
to it. So yeah, there's a lot of people that
grew up without some of the privileges that were used
to like. But you can choose to move to city,

(01:15:00):
you can choose to live on a farm, and we
have the luxury in this country of moving around and
nobody's going to stop us. They are parts of the
city that you don't want to live if you're the
wrong color. We do have that war going on, and
a lot of that is manufactured by these same people.

(01:15:23):
But there isn't some law that says that if you
grew up on a farm in Nebraska that you can't
move to Omaha and you live with all the luxuries
you want that are available in a city, and there's

(01:15:44):
no law that says that if you grew up in
the middle of the city and you had all those luxuries,
you can't give them up and go off grid out
the country either yet, but they're working on that part.
So what do they want to do. They want to
change your House of Representatives. So we just talked a
little bit about ago about how important it is that

(01:16:06):
they have that balance, that the individual voters. Representatives can't
just run roughshod over the states and the different local
cultures by imposing urban culture on the entire rural majority

(01:16:27):
of the country. And most of if you look at
the map of the United States and you look at
where the urban centers are versus where the rural population lives,
the overwhelming majority of the land is rural, not urban.

(01:16:49):
And there are a lot of things that can be
done at the local level in urban centers and can
be done the urban way without imposing the urban way
on farmers and small towns and villages and so on.
But what they want to do is increase the size

(01:17:15):
of the House of Representatives. And they look they claim
that it's because the population has grown, but the fact
is it's uh, it's grown, you know, slowly over time,
and they're wanting to make it sudden and they're not

(01:17:36):
going they're not wanting to balance that out with any
evolution to to ensure equal opportunity for the states. So
they're going to give a history of how the population

(01:17:57):
has expanded and the number of people per representative has grown.
But at the same time, what they're omitting is the
fact that the reason that the representatives haven't grown is
because they're trying to keep the debate possible. You can

(01:18:24):
have a debate in a room full of a few
dozen people, a couple hundred people even, but you know,
if you triple the size of the House of Representatives,
it becomes harder and harder to debate, harder and harder
for them to interact with each other and make decisions

(01:18:47):
and come to agreements and so on, and you do
end up in is such where the proportion ends up
being like it was during that teacher union fight. So
what they're essentially trying to do is give the urban

(01:19:08):
populations the ability to override the rural populations in the
House of Representatives. Then the other thing that I wanted
to make sure that we talked about tonight is ranked

(01:19:28):
choice voting, which they want to do this. They want
to make this how the president is elected, how how
the House and Senate are elected, how your governor and
your state House and your state Senate are elected. They
want all those positions to be elected by ranked choice votings. Right,

(01:19:49):
So for people who don't know what that is, let's
let's see. I actually looked this up. It looks like
I close the tab. Okay, So essentially rank choice voting.
What they do is, let's say you have six candidates
running for a political office, and then they'll say, all right,

(01:20:14):
you have the Democrats, the Republicans, the Green Party, the
Communist Party, which those are two versions of the same party,
which is the same as the Democrat Party. Everybody, it's
not Republican, it's pretty much communists. But you have you
have six different parties, you know, in any election, and annually,
maybe forty some percent of the vote goes to the

(01:20:40):
favored party and thirty to forty percent of the vote
vote goes to the second choice, and the arrest is
divided by the other four candidates. And that happens almost
every year in the presidential elections, whereas in the smaller
elections you might see other parties. The Independent Party sometimes

(01:21:03):
get somebody in. Once in a blue moon you get
a communist or a Green Party person elected, and so on.
But imagine if you went to the poll and instead
of you voting for one person for president, you had
to state your top three choices, your first choice, your

(01:21:28):
second choice, your third choice, and the race is between
you know, somebody whose ideals fit yours perfectly, and five
people whose ideals have complete polar opposition to yours. Who's
your second choice? Who is your second choice in that situation?

(01:21:54):
And why is that important? Because in that election, then
when they go to count the votes, what they're going
to do is, if your first choice isn't the top choice,
it's the bottom choice, the bottom choice gets dumped. That
choice doesn't count. So now, maybe you voted for the

(01:22:18):
Green Party for whatever reason, right, your top choice just
got dumped. What's your second choice? Maybe you voted second
for the popular candidate, or maybe you voted second for
the candidate that got second place in a popular vote.

(01:22:41):
That candidate now gets your vote. They redistribute your vote
to that candidate because your candidate was guaranteed to lose.
That makes sense. And then so in that process, it's

(01:23:03):
possible for enough people, like if you have this top
six and maybe the bottom three all end up getting
getting eliminated because almost nobody voted for them. All those
votes get redistributed, and maybe that bottom three all liked

(01:23:25):
the second place candidate. If the race is close, that
can push the second place candidate to the first place,
and that person can win even though in the popular
vote the other person was the first choice of most people.
Then the other thing is if you know your ballot,

(01:23:49):
if you all you vote for is your favorite candidate
and you don't have a second choice, or your second
and your third choices all got eliminated, your ballot just
isn't counted. All nobody hears how many people voted for
your candidate. So there's been some criticisms of this, one

(01:24:11):
of which is that it can result in a lot
of people's votes just getting dumped. So for instance, that
like the spoiler effect happened. I want to say there

(01:24:32):
have been a couple of places where it's been a problem.
There you go, New York twenty twenty one Democratic mayoral primary,
nearly fifteen percent of ballots, about one hundred and forty
thousand were eliminated, were exhausted, exhausted. In Mainz twenty eighteen

(01:24:56):
congressional race, eight thousand were discarded. One San Francisco race,
more ballots were discarded than counted. Literally, they threw out
more votes than they counted. So what does that do?
It gives the establishment control over who gets elected. Essentially,

(01:25:24):
it creates it.

Speaker 2 (01:25:26):
As if they didn't already have it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
Yeah, yeah, it it opens a pathway for them to cheat.

Speaker 2 (01:25:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:37):
In Alaska's twenty two twenty twenty two special election, Republican
candidates received sixty percent of first round votes, yet a
Democrat one after redistribution. So this isn't a more accurate
way of voting. It isn't a better way of letting

(01:26:02):
the people decide who is going to be their leader.
What it is is a way for the elite to
disguise vote manipulation. It provides cover for vote manipulation. The
complexity of the system makes audits damn near impossible, creates

(01:26:25):
the risk that they can hide vote manipulation undetected errors,
like in an Oklahoma school board election, a programming error
totally just a mistake guys led to the wrong candidate

(01:26:47):
being declared the winner. It doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect,
may even exacerbate it, right make it worse. Where voters
rank a less perverse preferred but more viable candidate hire
to avoid helping their least favored candidate win. So they

(01:27:07):
like you say, you you're looking at Trump versus Hillary
and five other candidates. You might make one of those
other candidates a higher rank because you think Trump or

(01:27:28):
Hillary is the most evil person in the world. Whichever
one you hate, you know, is the most evil person
in the world, and you just cannot abide the idea
that they might win Hillary.

Speaker 8 (01:27:38):
Yeah, all right, just I'm chasting my vote now.

Speaker 1 (01:27:47):
Yeah, I see, I vote no on this. I think
we shouldn't do this. Well no, yeah, But so five
states have made this type of system actually illegal out
of the fifty, ten percent of the states has already
outlawed this, citing multiple concerns that there's quite a bit

(01:28:13):
of leeway for error and manipulation in this. This is
one of the things that they want to do. They
want to make sure that you have the least possible
opportunity of evaluating whether or not the election was run fairly,
because you know, the last eight years, what we discovered

(01:28:36):
was when the election is run fairly, the people's choice
turns out to be different than the establishment's choice. And
when the establishment manipulates the election to cure that problem,
to heal the system so that they get their choice
in their minds, they're fixing democracy. People get upset because

(01:29:02):
they can tell that their say was overridden and and
they they act up, they protest, and you can't have that.
You can't have people getting mad that you told them
you were going to listen to them and then you didn't.

(01:29:23):
So you have to hide the fact that you're not listening,
and you have to not listen more sneakily, Yes, this one.

(01:29:45):
This one's a little sneaky too. So essentially, if you're
in a more densely populated area, they want extra members,
whereas there are some districts that get a member even
though their population isn't big enough, which with the idea

(01:30:07):
being that there shouldn't be people who just aren't represented
at all, and there also shouldn't be population density shouldn't
give one small area a significant amount of control over
what happens in the rest of the country, because you
end up with a situation where the people of some

(01:30:28):
section of a city get to vote that the people
of some other state have to give up income from,
say the oil that's under their state to fund free
housing for the people of that city. We just want

(01:30:50):
a profiteer off of these people's labor. We're going to
vote for that, and they shouldn't be able to override
us because there's more of us than there are of them.
Amend or repeal and replace the nineteen sixties having the
law that mandates single member districts for the House, So yeah,

(01:31:15):
what they want multiple member districts. Yeah, support adoption through
state legislation of independent citizen redistricting commissions in all fifty states.
So essentially what they want there, And this is something

(01:31:38):
that's been talked about in Texas recently too. Right now
there's a process for gerrymandering that allows the parties their
say through a system that gives the government input. What
they want to do is take citizens claim to be

(01:32:00):
independent and put them in charge. So you know, we'll
take your word for it that you're not biased toward
Republican or Democrat, or perhaps we'll take five Republicans and
five Democrats and five people who are not affiliated with
either party. But notice there's like six different prominent political

(01:32:26):
parties in the country. Where's the other representation? So it's
just not really changing anything. It's just taking it from
the existing model to a new gerrymandering model that there's

(01:32:47):
less oversight and quite a bit more ability to hide
one's biases in this time, they're going to provide federal
funding for these processes. Instead of allowing, say you to

(01:33:08):
elect people to do it, They're just going to appoint people.
And guess who gets to appoint them? By the way,
do you think do you think maybe the public gets
to elect those people?

Speaker 3 (01:33:22):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:33:22):
Of course not, of course not my god.

Speaker 1 (01:33:31):
Yeah, Amend the Constitution to authorize the regulation of election
contributions and spending, to eliminate undue influence of money in
our political system, and to protect the rights of all
Americans to free speech, political participation, and meaningful representation in government.
Sounds good again when they say it, right, but what

(01:33:55):
they're talking about. I believe the bill was McCain, feineld
or Einstein. I think it was Feinstein, Diane Feinstein and
John McCain introduced this bill that limited individual contributions and
limited group contributions. So it was intended, according to them,

(01:34:23):
to keep Bill Gates from buying an election by just
funneling a bunch of money into a candidate's It was fine,
gold I was wrong, okay, but to h to keep
you know, like somebody like Bill Gates from just funneling
a bunch of money into somebody's campaign, right.

Speaker 2 (01:34:45):
Or George Soros?

Speaker 1 (01:34:47):
Soros? Right?

Speaker 2 (01:34:49):
They know, Actually this is just so fucking backwards.

Speaker 8 (01:34:54):
What it does is give them or or allow them
to find different ways to actually do the thing that
they say that they're not supposed to do.

Speaker 2 (01:35:04):
You know, yep, it's it's just unbelievable.

Speaker 8 (01:35:09):
And nobody bats an eye when the people like George
Soros will do something like this.

Speaker 2 (01:35:17):
But we sent Denish Dasuza went to jail for what
was it?

Speaker 8 (01:35:25):
It was some stupid amount like like some not a
huge amount of money that he donated and he went
to jail, you know, and and listen, listen, If the
laws are the laws, I'm fine with that being the law.

Speaker 2 (01:35:42):
However, when they just look.

Speaker 8 (01:35:46):
The other way when the other side does it, it.

Speaker 2 (01:35:50):
Just it drives me insane.

Speaker 1 (01:35:53):
I like when Rosie O'donnald did it? Yes, yeah, because
every time she got nervous, she voted to or she
donated to the Democrat Party some like. But the reality
is that there are different ways that people do this. Right,
So you have rich guys like Bill Gates or George

(01:36:13):
Soros or any other rich guy. Donald Trump might donate
to a candidate. Okay, they're donating, but some farm co
op in Ohio can all get together as a group,
raise money and donate. You're if you're in a workplace
that has a union, your union donates. It takes In fact,

(01:36:35):
they donate from the money that you pay as dues,
and even if you opt out, you know they the
way they handle that is more of your money goes
to pay for operations, and they cut the amount of
money that other people are paying for operations, and they

(01:36:57):
still send the candidate the same amount of money. So
they just say which money is going where? And technically,
on paper, they haven't taken your money out of your
pocket and donated to a candidate that's going to vote
against your interests. But in reality they have right. And
so when they talk about campaign finance and they focus

(01:37:23):
on individual donors. What they are essentially doing is preventing
people who have the ability to increase their income and
work together as donors from counteracting union donations and other

(01:37:48):
big organizational donations. But if they focus on those big
organizational donations donations, then they also go after the farming
co ops and so on. If they stayed out of it,
and all they do is say, all right, you have
to disclose whose donations paid for what and how much

(01:38:09):
you accepted from whom, and and leave it at that,
and you have to make it public. So say, ninety
percent of Candidate a's campaign money has come from George Soros,
and ninety percent of Candidate b's campaign money came from

(01:38:32):
the a f L c IO. You know, ninety percent
of candidate ces money came from individual donors donating their
drops in a bucket until they filled the bucket. You know,
it gives you an idea as a voter what the
candidate's financially motivated biases are. Who's who are they beholden to?

(01:38:59):
And uh, you know, if you if you're going to
pick somebody and you feel like, you know, if your
only two choices are George Soros versus a FL Cio.
You know, like, all right, I'm voting for the Union
in that one, and I'm like Soros, I don't trust him.
I know what he's thinking, and I don't want that. Right,

(01:39:20):
the union's a lesser of two evils. But if you
have big organization like a union, rich guy, and the
general public, you know, then I'm thinking, you know, maybe
the guy who's going to be biased more toward the
general public is my guy, and so that that would

(01:39:42):
influence people's vote. But instead, what they want is to
control the candidate's ability to buy advertising by saying, well, well,
you know you can't donate. You can't. You can't give

(01:40:09):
this candidate money, even if everybody knows you did it,
even if even if it's going to be a public thing,
you still can't do it. You don't get to have
yours say you can't support putting signs in people's yards
and buying thirty second spaces on advertising platforms, so that
the candidate can say, this is what I'm going to

(01:40:30):
do when I get into office. So what happens Soros
doesn't suffer. What can he do? He can create a
website or a whole bunch of websites, whole bunch of
little sub organizations, and those organizations can then give money
to other organizations, and those organizations can arrange riots in

(01:40:55):
cities all over the country in protests of the candidate
he doesn't like.

Speaker 2 (01:41:03):
Exactly how this pile of bricks get here? Oh my god. Yeah,
it's just unbelievable, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:41:14):
And because there's no receipt tracing that pile of bricks
directly to George Sorows, he has plausible deniability. No, No,
this is the people expressing their opinion. Nobody paid these protesters.
It's what they really think. A lot of people hate
Trump and they're very angry that he won. Yeah, how

(01:41:36):
the fuck did he win? Then? Right, why didn't they
vote against him? No, we have to to make sure
that Americans cannot participate in the political system by putting
their money where their mouth is. Yep. George Torros can

(01:42:03):
also fund organizations that fund organizations that then pay people
to go all over Ohio and get signatures on petitions
to put abortion into our constitution and then hold an
election after getting it changed so that they barely need

(01:42:28):
a majority to make it a constitutional amendment that abortion
must always be legal in Ohio. Which he did, and
they did and they won, and it is now a
constitutional amendment in Ohio that abortion will always be legal here.
Ohio will not prosecute abortion clinics or their owners, or

(01:42:51):
their clinicians or anybody involved for providing abortion. Even if
there's in the future of fal law that outlaws it,
the Feds would have to go after those people because
Ohio can't. Even if there's something that happens in the

(01:43:12):
future where they conclusively prove find a way to communicate
with fetuses in gestation and conclusively prove that the abortion
advocates are lying about how the brain develops in gestation,

(01:43:37):
Ohio still can't do anything about it because it's in
our constitution. So yeah, we can. We have less power
under the laws that these people want to support candidates directly,
but rich people can still manipulate our political system. They

(01:43:59):
just do it without direct support. What else they want
to do? Campaign finance to disclosure laws? All right, So
that I am for campaign finance disclosure laws. The one thing,

(01:44:22):
the one caveat is that they should have it should
be a higher penalty if you're caught attacking someone for
donating to a campaign. Then if you just burglarize them
on the street. Because you're you're violating two things. You're

(01:44:45):
violating that individual's right, and you're also violating the American
principle of free elections. So you're engaging in election interference.
If you're caught trying to intimidate voters by using any
type type of like violence, threat to their employment status,
any type of public shaming. Oh, this person supported this candidate,

(01:45:08):
We're going to publish it in the local newspaper and
embarrass them. We're going to shame them for it. We're
going to pressure their employer to fire them, pressure their
school to kick them out, pressure whatever socially isolate them,
you know, any such thing. Any measures you take to
punish someone for supporting a candidate should be punishable under

(01:45:33):
the law. Like yep, yep. They can't hide the fact
that they did it. Nope, you can't punish them for
it because it's supposed to be a free and fair election.
You don't have to agree with them, but you're not
allowed to take away their right to do that.

Speaker 2 (01:45:53):
Yeah, I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (01:45:56):
We should all know that's but they won't do that.
They'll they'll pass those disclosure laws, but then they'll turn
around and say, well, you know, free speech has consequences.
If you donate to Donald Trump and somebody comes to
your house and burns it down, that's just a consequence. Yeah,
maybe you shouldn't have donated.

Speaker 2 (01:46:23):
Upside down situation we are in right now.

Speaker 1 (01:46:27):
There's another thing too. Fred's part of the retail union.
I can't remember what it's called. Fred works at, I
don't know CVS, And CVS is a unionized company. So

(01:46:48):
the union that that Fred has to pay membership dues to,
that union supports the Democrat candidate. And Fred's name gets
attacked to that. But Fred is a registered Republican, been
a registered Republican all his life, votes Republican, and personally
wants to donate money to a Republican candidate. Does he

(01:47:14):
face on the job discrimination when that comes out? Does
the state try to stop him because he's already donated
to a Democrat? You know, how does that work? So,
like these laws need to be they need to have
a level of complexity that prevents penalizing citizens who are

(01:47:39):
participating in the process, and that stops the state and
the unions and any other organizational donors like besides the unions,
because They're not the only ones. Any other authoritative controllers
of the lives of people, like whether or not you

(01:48:01):
have access to a job, whether or not you have
access to a school, whether or not you have access
to public services, and so on, from applying penalties because
you donated, or forcing you to donate against your will,
or any other such behavior, preventing you from donating to
who you want to donate to because the organization that

(01:48:24):
you're part of donated against your interests. Imagine that needs
to be part of it.

Speaker 8 (01:48:31):
Imagine if they did anything like this with donating to
like churches, right, the people would be in an uproar,
an absolute fucking uproar.

Speaker 1 (01:48:43):
You bet you.

Speaker 8 (01:48:45):
It's just it's amazing that these people are even have
the audacity to.

Speaker 2 (01:48:54):
Say that this is something that they want to implement.

Speaker 8 (01:48:57):
I mean, I wish more people paid attention to politics,
because then they would realize this.

Speaker 2 (01:49:05):
For what it is and shut it down. You know,
that is ridiculous.

Speaker 8 (01:49:13):
You do not I go to work forty hours a week,
I earn my money. You do not get to tell
me where I can and cannot spend that money. You know,
and if I want to donate to a certain campaign.
Then number one, it's none of your business, you know.

(01:49:34):
Number two, it should have no bearing on my employment
or anything anything.

Speaker 2 (01:49:41):
It shouldn't.

Speaker 8 (01:49:42):
It shouldn't, you know, negate me from society because you
don't like where I put my money towards.

Speaker 6 (01:49:51):
You know.

Speaker 8 (01:49:53):
It's just it's mind blowing. It's mind blowing that more
people are not paying attention to this and it is
and saying something about it, you know, and and pushing
back against this because it's it's it's ridiculous. I say
ridiculous all the time. It's disgusting. I say disgusting all

(01:50:14):
the time. But it is all of those things.

Speaker 1 (01:50:17):
It is, it really is. So what we what we've
seen here so far. They want to control the elected
bodies that decide the laws, right uh. They want to
make it so that they can they can stack the uh,

(01:50:39):
the House of Representatives in their favor and in the
favor of urban areas, places where they can more easily
control the school systems, more easily create a level of uh,
lack of information among the voters, and and so on.
Not that all urban voters are ignorant. You just have

(01:51:02):
to work harder to overcome what what government controlled information
systems are doing to you. It puts, it takes effort.
It takes more effort two not be ignorant in the
city than it does to not be ignorant in the country.

(01:51:23):
You would think the opposite would be true, right, Uh,
based just based on per capita access to local libraries
from walking distance from your home. But that's not the case,
you know. So they want to control that. They want
to control funding and which directly controls communications from from

(01:51:50):
your your representatives. They want to control how you vote,
like the method by which you vote and and therefore
make it more easily controllable what the outcome of the
election is. They want to insist on controlling how you

(01:52:13):
support your candidates. And now they're talking about passing clean
quote clean election laws for federal, state local elections through
mechanisms such as public matching donation systems and democracy vouchers,
which amplify the power of small donors. So if their
candidate isn't getting the money in support that they think

(01:52:36):
their candidate should have, they want to use the tax
dollars of people who donated to their opponents to give
them equal communication power. God, So let's.

Speaker 2 (01:52:51):
Say, how is this democracy again?

Speaker 1 (01:52:57):
Yeah? Let's say you have a candidate like Trump, with
the popularity of Elvis, but who isn't necessarily as polarizing
as as Trump. And it's it's not that Trump himself
is polarizing. It is that the media's attitude toward him

(01:53:18):
has been. But let's say, let's say that doesn't happen,
that that the media fails at polarizing the country in
regard to this candidate. This is this is the Elvis
of candidates, the Michael Jackson of candidates, right, and and
so this individual gets a huge amount of campaign donations

(01:53:44):
from individual voters, all donating the max that they can afford,
and within the law that they're allowed. Organizations that would
normally donate to the establishment candidate, they donate to this
can because the candidate speaks to their interests and so on.

(01:54:05):
And the candidate has a significant war chest as a result,
and the other candidate can't build a war chest because
nobody likes him and nobody wants to donate any money
to him. All the people who donated already, they've already
given money to the candidate they support. Along comes on

(01:54:26):
Uncle Sam and says, whoa WHOA, wait a minute, Well,
I've got money that you gave me, and I'm going
to counteract your donations by giving some of your money
that you gave me, you know, gave as in I
came to you and said, if you don't give me
this money, I'm going to pull out a gun and
shoot you with it gave me. I'm gonna give it

(01:54:49):
to the candidate you don't like and didn't donate to.
Is that in the interest of the voters.

Speaker 2 (01:54:56):
Of course not, well, not.

Speaker 8 (01:55:00):
The voters who would vote for their candidates.

Speaker 3 (01:55:08):
Is just.

Speaker 2 (01:55:10):
My god.

Speaker 1 (01:55:15):
If we're going to override this candidate's popularity by taking
skimming off the top of what we have told people,
we're going to spend building roads for them, JESU pize
democracy vouchers. Citizens receive campaign donation vouchers that they can

(01:55:36):
give to their preferred candidate and be redeemed as cash.
So at least that one. You know, they're pretending that
they're putting control over it in the hands of the people, right,
except why can't you donate your own money?

Speaker 2 (01:55:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:55:55):
Yeah, So again, it's it's giving people the ability to
override the donations of other people. We're gonna just take
their money, give it to you and then you can
donate it to who you want. Or they want the
government to just fully control financing of campaigns, so no

(01:56:19):
campaign donations from the public. Both candidates get an equal
war chest from the taxpayers, and it doesn't matter if
one of them is lying, because there's no truth in
advertising laws for campaigns, So if your candidate falsely advertises something,

(01:56:41):
there's no you don't have any recourse as a consumer,
as a voter.

Speaker 2 (01:56:51):
So much democracy, it's wonderful. And this is why we
don't fucking live in a democracy. We live in a republic.

Speaker 1 (01:57:00):
Yeah, god, now.

Speaker 8 (01:57:02):
Why can't they Well, it's not why they can't understand this.

Speaker 2 (01:57:06):
They do understand this.

Speaker 8 (01:57:08):
They just want to circumvent the rules to get their
people in.

Speaker 1 (01:57:18):
Oh my god. Then we want what were they gonna
do term limits for Supreme Court justices? Why not because
they're doing a bad job in their old age, not
because they become outdated, right, the Constitution is not something
that gets outdated, but because they want they don't want

(01:57:42):
a situation where when president gets to appoint multiple judges,
even though there are checks and balances on how that
appointment takes place. They don't want a situation where a
judge they don't like is in there for a lifetime
they don't want. Uh. Essentially, the people's choices of who

(01:58:10):
you know, gets in there by based on who they
choose to potentially appoint. Like when we voted for Trump,
we all knew that there was this possibility that he
might be appointing multiple judges. That wasn't a mystery, Like,
it wasn't shocked and a surprise. In fact, many of
us were hoping for it.

Speaker 8 (01:58:31):
I mean, but meanwhile, Joe Biden gets to sit in
Congress for.

Speaker 2 (01:58:37):
Half a century. This has been but oh no, no, no, no.

Speaker 8 (01:58:43):
It's the judges, the people who actually study the laws
of this country and know what the hell they're talking
about and have to pass convolution. Yeah, yeah, no, no, no,
they can't be around because some of them might, you know,
rule in a.

Speaker 2 (01:59:00):
Way that I don't like it.

Speaker 1 (01:59:02):
Come on on, you know, I think should have term limits.
Who bureaucrats in the government.

Speaker 6 (01:59:12):
Does Mitch mccuttal still have a job? Miss much mcuttal
is still employed in the federal government?

Speaker 2 (01:59:17):
Is he still alive?

Speaker 1 (01:59:21):
There's two types of term limits I'd introduced. One of
them is if you are a bureaucrat in a government
department or agency or office. You get a limited number
of years and then you you have to go back
to the public sector, the private sector whatever. That's the

(01:59:43):
first one. The second one is if you've served out
your full term as a as a bureaucrat, you cannot then,
you know, become run for office and become congressman or
senator or president or anything like that until there's been

(02:00:06):
a period of time in between your government service and
your time in office, and you can't go from being
the CEO of Pfizer or some other high ranking official
at Pfizer and then become a bureaucrat at the Food

(02:00:27):
and Drug Administration.

Speaker 8 (02:00:28):
Oh my god, this swap is unbelievable, the amount of
times these people just change positions from one company to
another and then into the government.

Speaker 6 (02:00:40):
Yep, how long was that was Nazi wants a face
that's supplus in the government. It was something like fifty years,
wasn't it. Fucking John Kennedy days. Imagine if she had
term limits, if she to fuck off after eight years,

(02:01:02):
imagine how much bullshit you wouldn't have had to go
had to had to go through.

Speaker 1 (02:01:08):
Although at least she had to run for office at least,
which like the head of the Food and Drug Administration doesn't. Yeah,
and it's not just that the people in various offices
within the Food and Drug Administration that control how your
business operates in relation to the government, what rules apply,

(02:01:33):
what rules are enforced, and so on, they don't have
to They don't have to run for office. Nobody votes
for them.

Speaker 2 (02:01:40):
Mhm.

Speaker 1 (02:01:40):
Right there. The public doesn't even get told how they're
doing their jobs. And it that goes all the way
down to local bureaucracy. By the way, there was a
company that I worked for that started having a kitchen
and uh so some food assembly service. Essentially I used

(02:02:04):
a turbo chef oven, which is a glorified microwave oven
that also has conventional oven heat. It's got a five
hundred gree temperature and it also has convection heat, which
means the heat is moved using air currents inside to
ensure that it'll be be balanced throughout the inside of

(02:02:27):
the and then microwaves are also used to speed up
the heating process. And all you do is you put
the filling of a sandwich, whatever type of meat you're
putting in, whether it's cheeseburgers, like the burger patties for cheeseburgers,
or the chicken patties for chicken sandwiches and stuff like that,

(02:02:48):
or pizzas or whatever you're cooking in there. You put
those in there for a short amount of time, and
you have pre programmed buttons to push, so it's not
real cooking. This button says pizza. You hit pizza, and
you hit how many are in there, and and it
does it automatically or as my husband likes to say, automagic,

(02:03:11):
and and then you pull them out and you have assembled.
You have to put the sandwich together, or you have
to put the pizza in the pizza box. It's really
you know, you a gas station employee can do this.
You don't have to be a chef. So it wasn't
anything fancy, right, but it still has to be clean
because even if you're irradiating the food, even if it's

(02:03:35):
being cooked in a five hundred degree environment, even if
it was already cooked once and you're cooking it a
second time, there is still ample opportunity for you to
introduce salmonella poisoning, listeria, botulism, all manner of nasty ass
things that you know nobody wants in their in their body,
and to avoid that, you have standards and practices that

(02:04:00):
that are known standards and practices to follow in order
to prevent bacteria from being introduced into the food and
bacteria from surviving on the food. It's the food poisoning
is kind of a numbers game. You just want to
make sure that there's not enough on there alive that

(02:04:21):
your body can't overcome it with your body's defenses. But
there's a lot that goes into They have figured out
a lot about how to prevent bacteria from getting into
your food. For instance, hand washing, just like in medicine,
and they have some very interesting stipulations like when you

(02:04:46):
wash your hands, you walk over to the sink, your
hands are dirty, and whatever is on your hands that
you don't want to get on things that you're going
to touch after you wash your hands is on there
when you turn on the faucet. So if you have
a faucet that you have to grab with your dirty
hands to turn it on, and then you wash your hands,
and then in order to turn off the water, you

(02:05:06):
have to grab that faucet that you just got dirty
with your dirty hands. You are now recontaminating your hands,
which kind of defeats the purpose of washing them, especially
if you just touched raw chicken, raw fish or something
like that, right, something that has salmonella, you know, or
lysteria or any other type of nasty germy death pitting

(02:05:32):
in it. And so the health department when they come
in and they look at your kitchen, they want to
see they want to see a hands free, a grip
free means of turning your faucets on. And it's nice
if you have something that just automatically turns on, but
if you have to have handles, you have to be

(02:05:54):
able to manipulate them with your arm, your wrist, your
elbow and not. You don't shouldn't have to have to
grab them with your hands to manipulate them. So usually
that means some the type that has a little wing
sticking off instead of a grip. And if you don't
have the right one, that's that's some points off of

(02:06:16):
your your score. They can suggest that, you know, you
really need to replace those, right, And there's a whole
bunch of little things like that. If you have a
freezer in there, it's gotta have wheels on the bottom,
because you've got to be able to move that freezer
so you can sweep and mop underneath and then put
it back, because otherwise you can get a build up
of of dust and dirt and that can get in

(02:06:37):
the food and all kinds of little things like that.
What types of gloves you have, how much hand sanitizer,
how available to hand sanitizer is, where it is in
relation to the food and the sink and so on,
all kinds of stuff. What your personal protective equipment is,
every single thing there's you go in there. When they

(02:07:01):
come in there, they come in with a clipboard that
practically has a book on it that they have to
check off little boxes. And so this organization, this company,
they had hundreds of stores in the area where they
were starting this food program. And we had gotten the

(02:07:24):
okay to start on a particular day at a particular time.
This is when you can start cooking and serving the food,
not a minute before everything will be ready. Then this
is what you have to accomplish prior to that. And
you know, the day before they come through and they
take off all their boxes, Okay, you've done everything you're

(02:07:44):
supposed to do, right, So everything was great day of
one store out of the hundreds started like eight hours early,
and they offended the gods at the health department. How

(02:08:10):
dare you? How dare you start eight hours early? We said,
ex o'clock? You said, why o'clock? We are the authority.
Guess what we're going to do. So they send them
back every every evaluator, and it comes comes back to
the stores that they had looked at before and went

(02:08:30):
through and every place where they had said, well, this
is good enough. It doesn't actually meet the standard, but
it's so close that we're not going to to dicker
over it. They dickered the fuck out of everything. And
at our store, where they had okayed a whole bunch

(02:08:52):
of things that were borderline and I didn't know this
until afterward, bunch of things that were like, well, you know,
you don't have a full six feet of open space
in front of your electrical panels, but somebody can get
to them with the fire extinguisher and it is close,

(02:09:14):
so we'll let that slide, right. Just little things like that.
They unchecked all of those boxes and gave us twenty
four hours to fix it. On our paperwork about our kitchen,

(02:09:34):
they wrote, clean this whole room like it was. It
was if it was that bad forty eight hours prior.
And they didn't write that on there, but they did
because they were offended. That tells you something, right, Yeah,

(02:09:57):
And I got I got eight hours of overtime out
of that because they basically said, Okay, who's the O
c D person. Oh, that's Hannah. All right, let's send
Hannah's sick Hannah on that room. And I did. I
cleaned that whole room. And this is this is the
worst part. Okay, I get done. I just get done.

(02:10:21):
I had initially they gave me like three or four hours,
and I had it sparkling it like that. The iron
chef would have been like, yeah, I can cook in here.
And and the soda guy came in, the pop guy
that brings the syrup in the bag of the boxes

(02:10:43):
for the and he he has to he does a
couple of different things. One of them has to do
with calibrating the the the R two unit, which is
where the OR two unit in Star Wars got its name.
I'm pretty sure which it's the it's the carbon dioxide

(02:11:08):
uh insertion that that that that makes the pop fizzy basically,
and he fucked us something up. I don't know what
he did, but it caused an explosion of coalis cert
my god, that reached from one end of the room
to the other, from head to toe. The man was

(02:11:33):
dripping like he looked like he had been tarred and
was about to be feathered.

Speaker 2 (02:11:40):
It would have been so pissed.

Speaker 1 (02:11:43):
It like splattered. The ceiling got all over like we
had a It got all over the electrical electrical panels,
got all over my freezer. And so I got another
six hours of overtime out of that, like I got
to clean my My total overtime that I received was eight.

(02:12:04):
But this poor guy and he looked at me and
he was like, I'm so sorry, And I didn't tell
him that I had the health department coming in. I
just looked at him because, like you look at this,
you can't imagine how sad and pitiful this poor guy looked,
just standing there coated and this stuff is sticky. If

(02:12:27):
you just spill your pop on the floor, it's sticky.
But the syrup, yeah is it? When when you get
your pop, a fifth of it is that syrup and
the other four fifths are the soda water. So he
got straight syrup. Fel like if somebody just opened up

(02:12:51):
a barrel of you know, any any kind of pancake
syrup and don't Oh my god, I couldn't. I couldn't
be mad like this. And he had to drive home
like that. Oh no. And we weren't anywhere near like
a truck stop or someplace where he could go get

(02:13:12):
a shower. You know, if I had have lived across
the street, I'd have been like, that's my house over there,
here's the key. You know, I'll let my husband know
what's going on. You need to go get it, get
cleaned up. You know, here's some extra clothes, like but yeah,
this poor guy. And but but the next day when

(02:13:36):
the health department came in, I still had that kitchen spotless,
like completely, but U and they still ding this on stuff.
Oh my god, like there was still stuff there, like
we want you to it's gonna be okay. You can
still do you for your start, but by that date
you have to end. One of the things they dinged
on was the fawcets, not the faucets, but the think handles.

(02:14:02):
And it was because we were supposed to do that,
and they had told us to do that, and the
company had told them that we did that, and they
hadn't checked and we hadn't done that. So, yeah, your
your officials in your government that are supposed to be

(02:14:24):
protecting you from from things like food poisoning and bad
ingredients in your food and poor construction on say, the
system that transports flammable gases into your house to keep

(02:14:44):
it from you know, being cold. Run your furnace, run
your stove, run your water, heat and stuff that that
their job is to make sure that those things don't
make your house explode, whether or not. The officials in
charge who are supposed to be making sure those people

(02:15:06):
do their job right so you don't suffer consequences of
them not doing their job right. They care more about
whether or not their authority is respected than they do
about whether or not they're doing their job.

Speaker 2 (02:15:19):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:15:24):
Yes, David Loboy, I'm from Ohio. So we have sin
candles instead of sink handles, and we have a community
just north of Dayton named after a well known city
in France, Versailles, the city of Treaty Fame, but in
Ohio it's called Versales.

Speaker 6 (02:15:50):
You're allowed to do that, and you're allowed to because
you're not a friends and you're not Portuguese.

Speaker 1 (02:15:56):
That's true. And then we're also allowed to say kro
instead of Cairo because we're rednecks and you can't tell
us what the fuck to do. But but yeah, and
then half half the state says kro and the other

(02:16:16):
half says caro. Not very many people say Cairo. So
there you go. But but then again, if you're from
one part of the state, you're from Ohio, and if
you're from another part of the state, you're from Ohio.

Speaker 2 (02:16:36):
Yeah Ohia.

Speaker 1 (02:16:38):
Yeah, yeah, I grew up in Ohio, but I live
in Ohio, so a certain fandom will understand what I
just said and nobody else does. Yeah, oh, David, you know,
you know, yes, you should know, mister Youngstown.

Speaker 6 (02:17:00):
Okay, I have good authority that it's all Ohio.

Speaker 1 (02:17:06):
Nope, Nope, it's it's all Ohio because because that's where
I grew up. But David, so have you actually seen
the were wolves? I have to have to know, because
I heard about the werewolves in young Town. Youngstown has
were wolves, guys, and and yes, yes, according to other

(02:17:28):
people that I have met from Youngstown, wolfman does have nards.
But with that, and we'll get back to the point there. Yeah,
they they don't this idea of term limits like it's
such a cop out. It is such a cop out.
Judges can be impeached if they don't do their job right,

(02:17:48):
and they should, but the state should not impeach the
people's choices preemptively just because they don't like how they're
doing their job. Let's see, it is nine twenty one.

(02:18:11):
We better get well. We'll continue with this next week.
But you see what's going on here, and there is
more to this. I will continue this next week. It's
the full set of things. We may not go over
the full set of things because some of them are
worse than others, and some of them are easier to
understand than others. But they're closing off all the ways

(02:18:32):
that you can contribute to the process of putting people
in office who are going to determine what the bureaucracy
does and who is involved in it. But they've made
no mention whatsoever of placing any limitations on the power

(02:18:54):
of the bureaucracy. Notice that you should be concerned about
these people. So this coup that they're trying to do,
they're organizing with people from other countries, elites in the
United States and UH financiers from the World Economic Forum

(02:19:20):
to UH to be able to manipulate your elections, control
which candidates you can support, how much you can know
about those candidates, and UH how you vote, and how
how much recourse you have over you know, whether the
election outcome was valid or not. And they've been doing

(02:19:47):
this for two years. They've been working on this for
two years. So we'll we'll talk more about this next week.
Let's see. Yeah, I already read Meredith, jeez, super chow.
We do not have any rumbel rants or super chats.

(02:20:08):
So yeah, that's that's gonna be it. Thanks everybody for listening.
Thanks to my two co hosts for going with This
is some dry material again, I know, but at the
same time, if you really think about it, it's not
like this is this is rage material. This is just
as much rage material as last week. It's just not

(02:20:29):
as graphic. Yeah, this is the Tate State telling you
you can't tell me no. So thanks for going through
that with me. Good idol. Thanks very much Brian for
working in the background to make all of this happen.