July 18, 2025 • 39 mins
Seg 1 – What’s on the Legislative Docket?
Seg 2 – A Potential Win for the Second Amendment
Seg 3 – European Governments Aim for Permanent Power
Seg 4 – What Is Truth?
Seg 2 – A Potential Win for the Second Amendment
Seg 3 – European Governments Aim for Permanent Power
Seg 4 – What Is Truth?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. No
that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Hello, Welcome to liber Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Anthontis.
On today's edition, we are talking what's come out of
the big beautiful bill in favor of gun right. We'll
also be talking what's coming down the legislative pipeline and
what is the truth all that and more on today's show.
Please remember Limit Nation is sponsored by Liutination dot com.
(00:54):
You can access podcast breaking news analysis and arrange of
biting and bren shows to what Chap Talk Freedom and
you just founders for the Great American Constitution and your
unlibitted Nation. Radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio
American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angele's We're very fortunate
to have whether US Libtin Nations Editor at Large, man
of infinite knowledge, mister Jim fid how are you, Jim.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I'm doing all right. My infinite knowledge is feeling less
infinite than usual, but I'll do my best.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Well, we're only looking for infinite insight today rather than knowledge.
Let's see how we go with that. So, the big
news of the last few weeks has been the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act that got signed into law by
President Trump on Independence Day. Now the ramifications of that
(01:43):
rollout are just starting to be felt. I think all
of the lawsuits are coming in fast and furious. By
the way, Fast or Furious not just a movie title
for those of you who want to go down the
illegal firearms Barack Obama root, oh boy, that's a roback
so on. That's what I'm back in the in the day.
(02:03):
But so everybody's wondering we have Well I'm wondering, certainly.
I hope I'm not alone in this is This is
quite a legislative accomplishment for Donald Trump and the reason
he put it together. It will try to get Congress
to put it together in one big beautiful bill. It
is that he might not have the power after twenty
(02:25):
twenty six midterms, so he wanted to get the main
bulk of his legislative agenda through while Republicans still control
the House and the Senate. But there's plenty of time
left before the midterms. So what's on the legislative docket
coming up? Is there anything that would appeal to the
(02:49):
liberty minded folk out there or is there anything that
would be a bit of a worry for a liberty
minded folk out there that we can see coming down
the legislative pipeline.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Well, you know, Mark, the big beautiful Bill has been
kind of the central focus for like six months now. Uh,
but then now that that's out of the way, Congress
has remembered. Oh, let's let me think about it. It
seems like they finally remembered. There's a isn't there This
country over in Europe is having some problems with their neighbors, Uh.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Like all of them.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
No, so Ukraine and Russia. There's the the congressional docket.
It's just funny to me. It kind of reminds me
of the meme where, uh, you know, you've got the
somebody helping somebody else from the pool. But then there's
a there's a chair with a skeleton down at the
very bottom, and yeah, label, it's like it's like Ukraine
(03:45):
in Russia has been the chair at the bottom of
the pool until now. Uh but uh but anyway, So,
so Congress is working on a new round of sanctions
against Russia. Then, according to Senate Majority Leader John Thune
has roughly eighty supporters. I mean, it should pass the
(04:07):
Senate at least fairly quickly. They're just waiting on Trump's word,
you know him, for him to say go basically. But
also there's there's word of some legislation in the works,
and we don't really have any details yet because this
is being hashed out between the White House and Congress.
That's supposed to empower the President to hit Rush a
(04:33):
little harder somehow, but at a little more pressure. That's
super vague, and I have no idea what that's actually
going to flesh out to be, but that's.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I would Yeah. So I've been looking into this actually,
and it seems that Donald Trump is a little annoyed
with Vladimir Pooth at least the time of recording, in
terms of his and willingness to come to the table
with at least reductions on what's happening between the two countries.
(05:06):
And my guess is I might be completely around. Time
might prove me completely wrong on this, but it seems
that sanctions and diplomatic pressures that have been applied so
far have been fairly lightweight. But the entirety of Congress
pretty much has been against expanding those. And I think
(05:30):
what it takes is actually the president to say this
is what we want to do, because obviously this has
been an ongoing war for years now. Oh yeah, there
was under Joe Biden. We had a lot of tough talk,
not tough enough to retaliate, plenty of red lines, plenty
of red light. Well, everybody remembers Barack Obama's lines in
(05:54):
the sand with Syria that really were that It kind
of puts proof to the term lines in the sand
because you can discuff those out.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
I was just about to say the thing about lines
in the sand is I mean even the wind will
blow those around.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Absolutely, So yeah, we see. I think we can pretty
confidently predict that there's going to be some kind of
increase in pressure and sanctions, and now that will be aimed. Chiefly,
I would imagine at Russia's ability to operate financially in
(06:26):
preslobal markets. So we've got that coming to look forward
to or not or to, depending on.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Well, I don't know. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Another thing in this actually kind of and it shouldn't
have because we do this every year, but it kind
of caught me by surprise because I mean, you know,
the Big Beautiful Bill Act is is more or less
a government funding bill, so you kind of take for
granted like, Okay, that's government spending none for the year. No, no,
it isn't. No, no, no, they're they're working on. Uh. Congressional
(07:02):
Republicans are trying to push a almost nine and a half
uh billion dollar recision bill. Now that's yes, that's the
code of fining the DOGE cuts. And uh. Then now
there's talk of okay, well this is threatening government shut down.
And because you know, September thirtyth is rolling around the
end of the fiscal year. Uh, and so next year's
(07:24):
budget or a continuing resolution which is something like next
year's budget is going to have to be passed by then,
or we've got this whole uh, this whole same song
and dance of you know, shut down or.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
It's it's amazing that that comes around so regularly, and
we we still treats it as, oh, this is an operation, well,
when it's really not. It's it's it's going on an operation.
It's the new normal.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Everyone acts surprised, Oh, now we're out of money. How'd
that happen? What does nature of government funding?
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yes, and here's the thing, it's that's Juan, Well, I
guess that starts in September, right, and things can be funded.
Is it through to I might have this wrong through
to December like without reaching a full government shutdown? Well,
the well, it depends the you know, the the end
(08:22):
of the fiscal whatever they have it funded through, which
I think is September thirtieth. When that day hits, if
nothing else has happened, then they're you know, quote unquote
out of money. They're not actually out of money, and
everything isn't going to necessarily shut down on October first, but.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
Not that everything is going to shut down anyways. It's
not how so called shutdowns actually work. Would probably save
us a lot of money if they actually did.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
But I mean, there's an argument for it, right, there's
a sorry on that note, Yeah, go ahead, Ireland went.
I think it was two years without actually having a
government in place, and things seem to run pretty well.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Imagine that.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
I know, it's shocking, right. It's almost as though, was
it Ronald Reagan who said the solution to government problems
is not more government?
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Yeah, well you can it doesn't. You don't have to
look very hard to find government solutions to problems that
were created by government solutions to problems that were created
by government solutions.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Uh, it's it's it's the infinite regression or the turtles
all the way down theory. So that's something fun to
look up for, haven't you could?
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Right? I guess I guess for some folks you can
call a job security. But anyway, so that's gonna be
you know that that's they can pass a continuing resolution,
which is what's been happening here lately, to kick the
can down the road. Maybe a few months, maybe you know,
half a year, maybe a whole year. It just it depends.
And eventually, I mean, we we all we've all seen
(09:56):
this movie before, right, like we're they're gonna draw out
to the very brink to as far as they possibly
can there's gonna be threats of shutdown. There might even
be a short term temporary shutdown. Something will get past.
Nothing will really change except that it will cost us
more money in the end. And uh, you know, that's
that's the cycle. That's how it's been going, and that's
(10:18):
you know, it's what I expected to happen in the
in the near future.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
We're gonna be talking something slightly more positive after this
short break with Jim Fight. I don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And your Liberty Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio or remain Markus's
leaders when we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Editor
at large, Jim Fight. Jim, thanks for sticking around now.
I did promise our audience something a little more positive,
and for me and for you, I do believe that
anything that's bolster's gun rights in the United States, anything
that boss is any aspect of the Constitution reading in
(11:02):
the United States is a positive development. And there's something
brewing with gun rights, isn't there because of the passage
of the big beautiful Bill.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Yes, there is. The House passed one version of the bill,
and then of course it was drastically changed in the Senate,
and part of those changes were because of the Senate parliamentarian,
who's kind of a rule maker appointed by the Senate
majority leader, not every time they turn over the Senate necessarily,
but just for as long as that person holds the job.
(11:37):
And one of those things in the House version, so
the National Firearms Act of nineteen thirty four regulated machine gun.
That's the big that's sway. You can't go by a
tommy gun, right like that regulated machine guns, but it
also regulated what's called short road rifles and short brow shotguns,
which are just regular old rifles and shot guns that
(12:00):
have a barrel length shorter than some arbitrarily assigned number
of inches.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Like fifteen and a half. Is it, it's, it's, it's
it's it's.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Under sixteen for rifles and under eighteen for shotguns. I
wasn't gonna bog everybody down in the numbers, but hey, it's.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Good to know, right good.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
It is good to know, though, especially if you know,
if you if you have one, I can.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Hear I can hear hundreds of thousands of Americans reaching
for their tape measures right now, right.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Yeah, Well, it's it's crazy and I was talking to uh.
I was actually talking to our executive director at Lisa
Donner and about this a few days back, and uh
and it's like, you know, the crazy thing is you
can you could build a rifle. You know, you can
get rifle kids and build your own rifle, which is
very popular, especially in the kind of the ar community.
(12:50):
You can build you a rifle.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
That is Arma light rifle rather than arry us I
think exactly, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
Yeah, well I don't know, there's a lot of those
guys in Arizona too, But anyways, yeah, so put you
an eighteen inch barrel on there, Great, you got a rifle.
But if you take that barrel off and but a
fourteen inch barrel, you've got a felony unless you've registered it.
And what makes it even more ridiculous is on that
same build, well you take the buttstock off and go
with a pistol build, and your ar is now pistol
(13:19):
and again once again legal. It's definitely some arbitrary rules.
But to get back on the not the rabbit trail
too far down and the gun nerding them. So the
big beautiful bill passed by the House actually removed short
barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and silencers from the NFA
(13:41):
entirely okay, or would have if they were passed. So,
in other words, you could just buy or build these
guns that were at one point classified the same way
as a machine gun, even though mechanically it's no different
from any other rifle. The Senate parliamentarian ruled, well, that's
you know, that's a violation of the Bird rule. And
the Bird rule is this rule to come out of
(14:03):
the seventies specifically to budget reconciliation bills, which are you know, normally, boy,
there's a lot of backtracking to get to the share right.
So in the Senate we have this, you know, the
process of a invoking cloture to avoid or to end
a filibuster, which is why we get the idea of like, okay, well,
(14:24):
legislation requires sixty votes to pass in the Senate instead
of just fifty one. Well, budget reconciliation allows you to
make a budget bill specifically dealing with the federal revenue
and spending and bypass that process and just pass it
with a simple majority. Well, the Bird rule says nothing
(14:45):
that isn't isn't strictly budget related can be included. So
she rules that this, this removal of these items from
the NFA violates the bird rule. Well, here's the problem
with that. And so that's actually that's in the version
that got passed and signed in the law. But here's
the problem with that. In nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme
(15:05):
Court ruled that the NFA was constitutional because it absolutely
is a tax. In fact, it was structured down of
the circle closes, right, Yeah, it was structured as a
tax because they knew that it wouldn't it wouldn't pass
muster any other way. And so now and so so
(15:26):
what how do you square that circle?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right?
Speaker 4 (15:28):
So, now there's actually a lawsuit where where gun advocates
are suing because we have this, we have this this incongruency. Right,
we have these items that were supposed to be removed
from the NFA. Well, they can't be because they're not attacks.
(15:48):
Well why can't they be because the Supreme Court already
said it is attack and the So the eventual process,
what actually happened in the in the bill that passed,
the big beautiful bill that passed, was they just reduced
to that two hundred dollars fee that you would have
to pay to register it down to zero dollars, which
I mean, you know, what's a zero dollar tax? Right,
(16:08):
So that kind of guts it on another level. But
so now so gonna advocates'ursuing to have these items removed
from the NFA.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Right, let me just clarify this from my own mind.
So in nineteen thirty four it comes in saying you
can't have this, that, and the other, and yeah, it's
so that you don't have it, they can't pign you
from it. Sure, you just have to pay the tax
and get on the federal register. And then in nineteen
thirty seven the Supreme Court ruled it because it's a
tax and the taxes that are levied by Congress that
(16:38):
it holds is therefore constitutional. Right, And now Congress has
just signed, well just passed and Donald Trump signed that
there's a zero tax on it, and therefore it actually does.
Does this mean I guess this is the lawsuits claim,
is that therefore it no longer exists and therefore it's
(16:58):
not it's no longer a constitution usial thing because it's
a zero dollar tax.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Right, yeah, right, your mind around that one. It's a
brain vendor, isn't it. But it is.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
It is a brain vendor. However, legislation court cases are
often brought forward and designed and enacted through securitous means.
It's not it's not always a straightforward thing, like even
even the passage of it. It was ruled constitutional by
(17:27):
the nine thirty seventh Supreme Court because it was a
tax levied by Congress.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Yep, exactly. The original legislation was built on the legislation
that reclassified certain drugs in controlled substances as a tax issue.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Right, So what does this We don't know how the
court case will go, but I'm reasonably sure it's going
to go beyond just its first court stop.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
Oh this kind, I mean, I expected a lot lawsuit
like this to happen. I was actually I was shocked,
not that it happened, but by how quickly it happened.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Well, it's kind of people are preparing for these things.
There are so many organizations out there that are looking
to protect American's Second Amendment rights, and that they're looking
for I guess you'd call it cracks in the chinks
in the armor for how to proceed with them. So
they probably had the people who are bringing this for
they've probably had something like this.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
If if not before the measure was added to the
legislation to begin with it just as a as a
just a case, then it least towards the parliamentarian rule
that it would fight. At that point, you know, wheels
were spinning and pins were scribbling on paper. I mean,
people were working on this at that.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Point, James Fight. Thanks ever so much. Really appreciate you
being here.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You know that's what was free, freedom of beach, freedom
of religion, freedom.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and relate.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
And your on Liberty Nation with Marc Angelides and Joe Shaefer,
Limited Nations Enterprise Reporter. Thanks for being here again, Joe,
really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Thanks for having me bark So Joe.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
You wrote just a fascinating article recently on the pages
of Liberty Nation dot com and it was called a
defensive democracy in Europe. It's sinister and darkly familiar. Now
I know that the vast majority of our audience has
heard coast to coast on the Radio American network, so
(19:54):
it is largely American. But I think it's so important
to understand what's happening in Europe to see well two
points A what is likely coming down the pipeline for
America and b what has in some instances already been
attempted in America. Do you want to give us an
(20:15):
overview of what you wrote about in that fascinating article.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Sure, And I think the way you can tie it
with Europe and America is this is a ruling establishment
playbook and they're rolling it out in all the nations
of the West. You know, Australia. New Zealand gets a
good take dose of it too, as we all know.
So the article was about, you know, the alternative for Germany,
the populist Right party in poll the a f D
(20:43):
in polling was the most it won the most popular
support in a survey for the first time. I think
that was in April or March, so it was the
most popular party in Germany in a national survey. The
ruling coalition government, it's a conservative government, but it has
the Social Democratic Party which is like the leftist but
you know, established leftist party at Germany. The Social Democratic
(21:07):
Party is a junior member of this ruling coalition. So
part of the ruling coalition government passed a motion calling
for the a f D to be banned. You are
not allowed to run in elections the most popular party
in Germany by pulling because they cited the findings of
a ruling government ministry that found the AfD to be extremist.
(21:31):
So this is our need.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
It works.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
The ruling government coalition cites the ruling government ministry that
expert the expertists who find this is a dangerous extremist organization,
and then therefore the ruling political leaders get to ban
their most dangerous opposition. Real nice and tidy if you
(21:53):
can get away with.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
It, how convenient. The state organ that runs under there
are government has found that the people who could kick
us out of government are too dangerous to be led
into government, so therefore stick with us. It's really it's
almost it's almost comic book, how villainous it sounds. And
(22:17):
the problem is that it's actually reality. And let's broaden
this across Europe, and then we'll come back to what
has happened in the United States and to some extent
what may happen going forward. So you have you mentioned
that the AfD, the Alternative for Germany or Alternative for
deutsch Land, they came first in a national survey and
(22:43):
I know our listeners out there thinking it's a pole,
it's a poll. However, they're also that they have presence
within government, but they're kept from power. And this is
also partly what's happened in the Netherlands as well is
and almost certainly what's also happened in France is that
(23:07):
the other parties have come together to block these let's
call them what they are. They're very much right wing
populist parties, right, that's what they are, to keep them
from the levels of power. So in France you have
Marie La Penn's party and that she is currently currently
(23:33):
banned from seeking office for five years for doing what
every single person in the European Parliament was doing. But
they're appealing that now. But she may get in beat Macron,
but it stick yet. But if not, her deputy Jordan
Bardello I think it is, could be leading that charge.
(23:55):
But again it's this case of the ruling establishment goes
ahead with the prosecution against its biggest contender that is
most likely to win and knock it from power and
so criminalizing it. Now in the United Kingdom, my hometown,
we have Nigel Prage's Reform Party and the polling that's
(24:19):
come out there, and we're going to come back to polls.
It's not just one poll that puts Nigel Farrage a
Nig Farag's Party ahead of all of the other parties.
It's every poll. He's a real clear and present danger
to the two party duopoly, the Labor Party and the
alleged Conservative Party, and it looks like he's going to
(24:43):
receive the most amount of votes if an election were
held tomorrow. And now course election isn't going to be
held tomorrow. It's not going to be held because of
the Fixed Term Parliament Act until at the latest twenty
twenty nine. But people are already talking about, and this
is very common in Europe, a rainbow coalition to keep
(25:04):
Nigel Farrage out of paws. What you'd have is the
two main parties that have been in place for one
hundred years or more coming together to try and form
a government against Nigel Farage. And it really goes to
show you that this back and forth for the last
one hundred years. It's really there's not that much difference
(25:26):
between the two if they want to come together and
work together to stop Nigel Farage upsetting the duopoly. And
so this is these parliamentary tricks, these political tricks, and
these lawsuits. And as we started off with these government
(25:47):
institutes warning against a certain political parties that threatened the
status co parties, We've seen it in the US as well,
haven't we.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Well, yeah, I was gonna say, thank god, that wouldn't
happen here. Oh, that already did. And be the most
prominent example all our listeners remember very well is in
the twenty twenty four presidential election, Colorado Secretary of State
Jenna Griswold, and just an open Democrat partisan, you know,
(26:20):
try to get Trump removed from the ballot in her state.
And how did she do it. She cited the findings
of federal judges who are openly antagonistic to Trump, who
declared he is an insurrectionist. So, well, we've got these
official findings he's an insurrectionist, and I know that I
(26:41):
can keep insurrectionists off the ballot. Therefore I could put
my political enemy off the ballot. And she got the
Colorado State Supreme Court to actually go along with this.
This is how dangerous it is. It's amazing that they
actually got that far, and the US Supreme Court, you know,
overturned it. Of course, Trump got what one and a
(27:01):
half million votes or forty forty five percent of the vote
or something. College So you thought, we're talking about hundreds
of over a million people in Colorado are being disenfranchised
by by by these actions, and it's done by citing
these official government findings declaring their political opposition to be
extremist insurrectionists, however you want to call it.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Yeah, it's and now here's the thing that that so
many people fail to take into account when they're getting
involved in these kind of shenanigans is that if you
do it to somebody, somebody will do it to you.
And so the idea that somebody can be barred from
(27:49):
running for office based on partisan nonsense, really, let's let's
call it what it is, a parts and setup is.
I mean, it's anathema to what to how any country
should be runs. It's not civilized. It is my issue
(28:12):
with it. It's just not civilized.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
But you know, you have to go much further than that,
and you can't just ban the political party. You've got
to define the entire information spectrum. That's why they focus
on disinformation so much. Sure, the second half of that
article that I wrote focused on in France, where Emmanuel McCrone,
the Establishment president of the country, said that there is
(28:36):
a tyranny of the news the words where you can
take facts and extremists with the declared extremists can amplify
facts into something dangerous. Therefore, we have to suppress those
facts in order to defend our democracy. And what he
was talking about is illegal aliens, the migrant crisis of Europe.
(29:00):
These people, it's common, the crimes they commit. If you
report on, if those crimes are reported in the media,
that impulldens the extremists, and that threatens democracy. Therefore, we
have to prevent these facts from being platformed at the
major media. It's like, oh, well, that would never happen
in America. Of course, we know that happened the Facebook
(29:23):
and Twitter during the Biden years. It's still happened. They
still want it to happen. Barack Obama just gave a
speech June seventeenth in Connecticut where he said everyone's entitled
to their opinion, but you are not entitled to have
what you think are the facts amplified on big media
(29:45):
and social media platforms. So they want to have the
ability to define the facts of themselves, how they're presented
to the people. In anything, even if it's factually correct,
anything that is a danger to their established power, they
can declare out of bounds in the name of saving democracy.
(30:06):
And they really think this way and they want to
do it. They've already tried to do it. They are
going to keep trying to do it in America again.
And that is the big warning for Europe. It's not
going away. It hasn't stopped. These people are going to
keep doing this again in America, sooner rather than later.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
We're going to take this conversation to another level and
repeat Johnny Cash's infamous question what is truth? After this shortbreak,
don't go.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Anywhere for your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with
Mark Edgelites.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio or Aman your host,
Mark Anthonys, We're continuing our conversation with Libtin Nation's enterprise
report to Joe Shaeffer. Thanks for sticking around, Joe. At
the end of the last segment we got talking about
what Barack Obama had recently said regarding you entire to
your opinion, but you're not entireled to have what you
perceive as facts amplified in the wider world through the media.
(31:08):
And this kind of brings me to what is possibly
for me. It's it's the most grating topic in modern politics.
And of course it's not just modern. It's been going
on for a very long time. We all we've all
read about yellow journalism and the history of that. But
the idea that facts shouldn't be the prime focal point
(31:35):
of what the media is reporting and it should be
seen through lenses. I mean this troubles me deeply, and
I'm sure it troubles Johnny Cash, who wrote a whole
song about something similar.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Well, yeah, and the other's two things that go together here.
The one is you know that they wanted to maintain
their power. There are two ways to do it. Suppress
your enemy, but also so control the narrative. Controlling the
narrative is a key thing, and the biggest thing. I've
been about this many times. The most cherished thing to
them is to keep their hold on what I call
(32:10):
a captive audience. And what that means is their their
opinions aren't very popular, you know, especially with their racial divisiveness.
You know, your average white accountant working in Indiana really
doesn't want to have to go to a DEI mandatory
training session when he's at work and be told how
(32:31):
bad white people are. So they know it's unpopular. So
what do they do. They make him do that as
part of his job. That's called the captive audience. You
want to watch a football game, you just want to
watch sports on TV. Now, okay, you're there for that,
but they're going to put in the you know, the propaganda,
the end racism in the end zones and blah blah
blah everything we know. So they love their captive audiences.
(32:54):
And that's how they get to define what the facts are.
That's what you That's what you see in their ominance
of the school system and why they're against school choice.
They want to keep their stranglehold out America's use so
they can propagandize them. It goes all the way from
cradle to grave. They want to control narratives. And it's
so funny. They used to say about Hollywood. Oh, if
(33:16):
you think Hollywood's too liberal, go go form your own
film companies. But you know, you look at them today.
They think X is right wing, which is kind of
a joke in my opinion. But they think it's this
right wing social media platform. So what did they do
they could They went and started Blue Sky. It's a
ghost town. It's like nobody cares about Blue Sky. So
that's not good enough for this. They tried to take
(33:37):
their advice, We're going to start our own thing. Nobody
cares about it. So what they're back to saying, we
gotta we gotta suppress X. We gotta, you know, make
sure these facts don't get amplified on the social media
platform because that's dangerous. So they can't. You know, it's
not hypocrisy. That's why it's stress over and over again.
It's not hypocrisy. It's maintaining power. It's like I get
(34:01):
to do things you don't get to do. That hypocrisy.
It's this is how I stay, you know, in power,
and power is everything to this progressive ruling establishment.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
So yes, they well, here's the thing. They define everything
through the lens of power. That's this whole that's this
whole thing about the patriarchy, right that they see that
as the defining the defining element of the patriarchy. It's
power over somebody else. And that's just not true. That's
(34:33):
not how relationships actually work in the real world, right,
because imagine if okay, let's say your husband, father, and
the way that you lead your life is by exerting
your power and your influence over your wife or over
your children, how is that going to work out for you?
(34:54):
I can tell you we would not work out that
well for most married men. It's a it's a myth.
And of course you have people who run companies. Men
who run companies. If they try and exert a dominance,
they try and do a dominance situation over their employees, well,
(35:15):
their employees are going to go somewhere else pretty darn quick.
And so this whole idea that relationships are dominated are
based on dominance is it's a it's such a false idea,
and it's such an easily disproven idea because you have friends, right,
they are those relationships based on power dynamics? Are they
(35:38):
based on dominance of one over the other? Of course not.
You fall in love with somebody, is it based on
your dominance over them or their dominance over you. For
some people perhaps, but for the vast majority, that's not
just the reality. So the people who say these kind
of things that they say everything is about a dominance,
just imagine what their lives man be like if all
(36:01):
their relationships are governed by this idea of dominance within
a power structure. It's tragic. And as you point out,
they're trying to convince everybody, cradle to grave, all the
school systems, the work environments where that people are forced
to go on mandatory racial awareness training, mandatory sexual behavior trainings.
(36:31):
They're trying to enforce that this is what reality is,
and it's just not the case. That's not the world.
And in many way I feel sorry for the people
who feel that that is the world that they live in,
because it's a prison of their own making, and the
only way to get out of is to is to
realize that that's your opinion, that's not a fact, which
(36:52):
brings us nicely.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
It's also very dangerous for the rest of us because
there's two words to describe this, the only two words
that describe this cultural Marxism. For the committed social revolutionary,
nothing is outside of destroying the established system. Everything, every
single aspect of your life must be deployed in overthrowing
(37:19):
the current system, and so that ends in a shot
to the back of the neck. We learned that in
the Soviet Union, if you are deemed to be upholding
the system in your relationship, in the way you run
your family, and the way you run your company, you
will get shot in the back of the neck. That
is the end result of everything you describe.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
I always tell people this. It always when you know,
when do you know that it's gone wrong? When they
start digging the mass graves? Which is it always happens.
But just to close up on that point, you say
that everything has to bow to that system, there's somebody
else who had that idea, and it kind of flies
in the face of people saying this is left, this
(38:03):
is right. But that was Mussolini who said nothing outside
the system, everything within the system. What did he call
that again, Joe, please remind me fascism.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Fascism is that I consider communism to be the greatest
evil of all time. Communism to me is a far
bigger threat than something that was eliminated one hundred years ago.
They were brutally eliminated in a World war, wiped off
the face of the earth. You know, Adolf Hitler isn't
around anymore, but you know Musolini isn't around anymore. But
(38:38):
the Communists has never gone away. They have not gone away.
The Russian Revolution, you know, the Soviet Union was toppled,
but the thought process that led to the Soviet Union
is still very much with us. And I think it
was transferred to the West more than anything. So culturally
you see it more in the West today than you
(39:00):
do in the former Soviet Union, which is kind of amazing,
which is why Eastern Europe is actually doing more to
defend basic freedoms in Europe than Western Europe. But in
the Cold War it was the exact opposite.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
That they know where it went. Ro Shaefer thanks ever
so much for joining us. Thank you, and that is
all we have time for on this week's edition of
Libtination Radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio American Network.
I've been your host, mar A cant Ladies. I'd like
to thank our guests today, mister James Fight and Joe Shaefer,
and of course thank you the audience for taking the
time each week to tune in and join us here.
(39:35):
Please do remember Liberty Nation does not endorse campaigns, candidates,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement. Thanks for
being here.
The views and opinions expressed on the following program are
those of the host and guests and do not necessarily
represent those of any organization, including one generation away. No
that it was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and read.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (00:33):
Hello, Welcome to liber Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Anthontis.
On today's edition, we are talking what's come out of
the big beautiful bill in favor of gun right. We'll
also be talking what's coming down the legislative pipeline and
what is the truth all that and more on today's show.
Please remember Limit Nation is sponsored by Liutination dot com.
(00:54):
You can access podcast breaking news analysis and arrange of
biting and bren shows to what Chap Talk Freedom and
you just founders for the Great American Constitution and your
unlibitted Nation. Radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio
American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angele's We're very fortunate
to have whether US Libtin Nations Editor at Large, man
of infinite knowledge, mister Jim fid how are you, Jim.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
I'm doing all right. My infinite knowledge is feeling less
infinite than usual, but I'll do my best.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Well, we're only looking for infinite insight today rather than knowledge.
Let's see how we go with that. So, the big
news of the last few weeks has been the One
Big Beautiful Bill Act that got signed into law by
President Trump on Independence Day. Now the ramifications of that
(01:43):
rollout are just starting to be felt. I think all
of the lawsuits are coming in fast and furious. By
the way, Fast or Furious not just a movie title
for those of you who want to go down the
illegal firearms Barack Obama root, oh boy, that's a roback
so on. That's what I'm back in the in the day.
(02:03):
But so everybody's wondering we have Well I'm wondering, certainly.
I hope I'm not alone in this is This is
quite a legislative accomplishment for Donald Trump and the reason
he put it together. It will try to get Congress
to put it together in one big beautiful bill. It
is that he might not have the power after twenty
(02:25):
twenty six midterms, so he wanted to get the main
bulk of his legislative agenda through while Republicans still control
the House and the Senate. But there's plenty of time
left before the midterms. So what's on the legislative docket
coming up? Is there anything that would appeal to the
(02:49):
liberty minded folk out there or is there anything that
would be a bit of a worry for a liberty
minded folk out there that we can see coming down
the legislative pipeline.
Speaker 4 (02:57):
Well, you know, Mark, the big beautiful Bill has been
kind of the central focus for like six months now. Uh,
but then now that that's out of the way, Congress
has remembered. Oh, let's let me think about it. It
seems like they finally remembered. There's a isn't there This
country over in Europe is having some problems with their neighbors, Uh.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Like all of them.
Speaker 4 (03:25):
No, so Ukraine and Russia. There's the the congressional docket.
It's just funny to me. It kind of reminds me
of the meme where, uh, you know, you've got the
somebody helping somebody else from the pool. But then there's
a there's a chair with a skeleton down at the
very bottom, and yeah, label, it's like it's like Ukraine
(03:45):
in Russia has been the chair at the bottom of
the pool until now. Uh but uh but anyway, So,
so Congress is working on a new round of sanctions
against Russia. Then, according to Senate Majority Leader John Thune
has roughly eighty supporters. I mean, it should pass the
(04:07):
Senate at least fairly quickly. They're just waiting on Trump's word,
you know him, for him to say go basically. But
also there's there's word of some legislation in the works,
and we don't really have any details yet because this
is being hashed out between the White House and Congress.
That's supposed to empower the President to hit Rush a
(04:33):
little harder somehow, but at a little more pressure. That's
super vague, and I have no idea what that's actually
going to flesh out to be, but that's.
Speaker 3 (04:44):
I would Yeah. So I've been looking into this actually,
and it seems that Donald Trump is a little annoyed
with Vladimir Pooth at least the time of recording, in
terms of his and willingness to come to the table
with at least reductions on what's happening between the two countries.
(05:06):
And my guess is I might be completely around. Time
might prove me completely wrong on this, but it seems
that sanctions and diplomatic pressures that have been applied so
far have been fairly lightweight. But the entirety of Congress
pretty much has been against expanding those. And I think
(05:30):
what it takes is actually the president to say this
is what we want to do, because obviously this has
been an ongoing war for years now. Oh yeah, there
was under Joe Biden. We had a lot of tough talk,
not tough enough to retaliate, plenty of red lines, plenty
of red light. Well, everybody remembers Barack Obama's lines in
(05:54):
the sand with Syria that really were that It kind
of puts proof to the term lines in the sand
because you can discuff those out.
Speaker 4 (06:02):
I was just about to say the thing about lines
in the sand is I mean even the wind will
blow those around.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Absolutely, So yeah, we see. I think we can pretty
confidently predict that there's going to be some kind of
increase in pressure and sanctions, and now that will be aimed. Chiefly,
I would imagine at Russia's ability to operate financially in
(06:26):
preslobal markets. So we've got that coming to look forward
to or not or to, depending on.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Well, I don't know. I suppose it's a matter of perspective.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Another thing in this actually kind of and it shouldn't
have because we do this every year, but it kind
of caught me by surprise because I mean, you know,
the Big Beautiful Bill Act is is more or less
a government funding bill, so you kind of take for
granted like, Okay, that's government spending none for the year. No, no,
it isn't. No, no, no, they're they're working on. Uh. Congressional
(07:02):
Republicans are trying to push a almost nine and a half
uh billion dollar recision bill. Now that's yes, that's the
code of fining the DOGE cuts. And uh. Then now
there's talk of okay, well this is threatening government shut down.
And because you know, September thirtyth is rolling around the
end of the fiscal year. Uh, and so next year's
(07:24):
budget or a continuing resolution which is something like next
year's budget is going to have to be passed by then,
or we've got this whole uh, this whole same song
and dance of you know, shut down or.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
It's it's amazing that that comes around so regularly, and
we we still treats it as, oh, this is an operation, well,
when it's really not. It's it's it's going on an operation.
It's the new normal.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
Everyone acts surprised, Oh, now we're out of money. How'd
that happen? What does nature of government funding?
Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yes, and here's the thing, it's that's Juan, Well, I
guess that starts in September, right, and things can be funded.
Is it through to I might have this wrong through
to December like without reaching a full government shutdown? Well,
the well, it depends the you know, the the end
(08:22):
of the fiscal whatever they have it funded through, which
I think is September thirtieth. When that day hits, if
nothing else has happened, then they're you know, quote unquote
out of money. They're not actually out of money, and
everything isn't going to necessarily shut down on October first, but.
Speaker 4 (08:40):
Not that everything is going to shut down anyways. It's
not how so called shutdowns actually work. Would probably save
us a lot of money if they actually did.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
But I mean, there's an argument for it, right, there's
a sorry on that note, Yeah, go ahead, Ireland went.
I think it was two years without actually having a
government in place, and things seem to run pretty well.
Speaker 4 (09:03):
Imagine that.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
I know, it's shocking, right. It's almost as though, was
it Ronald Reagan who said the solution to government problems
is not more government?
Speaker 4 (09:13):
Yeah, well you can it doesn't. You don't have to
look very hard to find government solutions to problems that
were created by government solutions to problems that were created
by government solutions.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Uh, it's it's it's the infinite regression or the turtles
all the way down theory. So that's something fun to
look up for, haven't you could?
Speaker 4 (09:33):
Right? I guess I guess for some folks you can
call a job security. But anyway, so that's gonna be
you know that that's they can pass a continuing resolution,
which is what's been happening here lately, to kick the
can down the road. Maybe a few months, maybe you know,
half a year, maybe a whole year. It just it depends.
And eventually, I mean, we we all we've all seen
(09:56):
this movie before, right, like we're they're gonna draw out
to the very brink to as far as they possibly
can there's gonna be threats of shutdown. There might even
be a short term temporary shutdown. Something will get past.
Nothing will really change except that it will cost us
more money in the end. And uh, you know, that's
that's the cycle. That's how it's been going, and that's
(10:18):
you know, it's what I expected to happen in the
in the near future.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
We're gonna be talking something slightly more positive after this
short break with Jim Fight. I don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
And your Liberty Liberty Nation with Mark Edgelities.
Speaker 3 (10:41):
And you're back on Liberty Nation Radio or remain Markus's
leaders when we're continuing our conversation with Liberty Nations Editor
at large, Jim Fight. Jim, thanks for sticking around now.
I did promise our audience something a little more positive,
and for me and for you, I do believe that
anything that's bolster's gun rights in the United States, anything
that boss is any aspect of the Constitution reading in
(11:02):
the United States is a positive development. And there's something
brewing with gun rights, isn't there because of the passage
of the big beautiful Bill.
Speaker 4 (11:14):
Yes, there is. The House passed one version of the bill,
and then of course it was drastically changed in the Senate,
and part of those changes were because of the Senate parliamentarian,
who's kind of a rule maker appointed by the Senate
majority leader, not every time they turn over the Senate necessarily,
but just for as long as that person holds the job.
(11:37):
And one of those things in the House version, so
the National Firearms Act of nineteen thirty four regulated machine gun.
That's the big that's sway. You can't go by a
tommy gun, right like that regulated machine guns, but it
also regulated what's called short road rifles and short brow shotguns,
which are just regular old rifles and shot guns that
(12:00):
have a barrel length shorter than some arbitrarily assigned number
of inches.
Speaker 3 (12:06):
Like fifteen and a half. Is it, it's, it's, it's
it's it's.
Speaker 4 (12:09):
Under sixteen for rifles and under eighteen for shotguns. I
wasn't gonna bog everybody down in the numbers, but hey, it's.
Speaker 3 (12:16):
Good to know, right good.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
It is good to know, though, especially if you know,
if you if you have one, I can.
Speaker 3 (12:21):
Hear I can hear hundreds of thousands of Americans reaching
for their tape measures right now, right.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Yeah, Well, it's it's crazy and I was talking to uh.
I was actually talking to our executive director at Lisa
Donner and about this a few days back, and uh
and it's like, you know, the crazy thing is you
can you could build a rifle. You know, you can
get rifle kids and build your own rifle, which is
very popular, especially in the kind of the ar community.
(12:50):
You can build you a rifle.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
That is Arma light rifle rather than arry us I
think exactly, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
Yeah, well I don't know, there's a lot of those
guys in Arizona too, But anyways, yeah, so put you
an eighteen inch barrel on there, Great, you got a rifle.
But if you take that barrel off and but a
fourteen inch barrel, you've got a felony unless you've registered it.
And what makes it even more ridiculous is on that
same build, well you take the buttstock off and go
with a pistol build, and your ar is now pistol
(13:19):
and again once again legal. It's definitely some arbitrary rules.
But to get back on the not the rabbit trail
too far down and the gun nerding them. So the
big beautiful bill passed by the House actually removed short
barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and silencers from the NFA
(13:41):
entirely okay, or would have if they were passed. So,
in other words, you could just buy or build these
guns that were at one point classified the same way
as a machine gun, even though mechanically it's no different
from any other rifle. The Senate parliamentarian ruled, well, that's
you know, that's a violation of the Bird rule. And
the Bird rule is this rule to come out of
(14:03):
the seventies specifically to budget reconciliation bills, which are you know, normally, boy,
there's a lot of backtracking to get to the share right.
So in the Senate we have this, you know, the
process of a invoking cloture to avoid or to end
a filibuster, which is why we get the idea of like, okay, well,
(14:24):
legislation requires sixty votes to pass in the Senate instead
of just fifty one. Well, budget reconciliation allows you to
make a budget bill specifically dealing with the federal revenue
and spending and bypass that process and just pass it
with a simple majority. Well, the Bird rule says nothing
(14:45):
that isn't isn't strictly budget related can be included. So
she rules that this, this removal of these items from
the NFA violates the bird rule. Well, here's the problem
with that. And so that's actually that's in the version
that got passed and signed in the law. But here's
the problem with that. In nineteen thirty seven, the Supreme
(15:05):
Court ruled that the NFA was constitutional because it absolutely
is a tax. In fact, it was structured down of
the circle closes, right, Yeah, it was structured as a
tax because they knew that it wouldn't it wouldn't pass
muster any other way. And so now and so so
(15:26):
what how do you square that circle?
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Right?
Speaker 4 (15:28):
So, now there's actually a lawsuit where where gun advocates
are suing because we have this, we have this this incongruency. Right,
we have these items that were supposed to be removed
from the NFA. Well, they can't be because they're not attacks.
(15:48):
Well why can't they be because the Supreme Court already
said it is attack and the So the eventual process,
what actually happened in the in the bill that passed,
the big beautiful bill that passed, was they just reduced
to that two hundred dollars fee that you would have
to pay to register it down to zero dollars, which
I mean, you know, what's a zero dollar tax? Right,
(16:08):
So that kind of guts it on another level. But
so now so gonna advocates'ursuing to have these items removed
from the NFA.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
Right, let me just clarify this from my own mind.
So in nineteen thirty four it comes in saying you
can't have this, that, and the other, and yeah, it's
so that you don't have it, they can't pign you
from it. Sure, you just have to pay the tax
and get on the federal register. And then in nineteen
thirty seven the Supreme Court ruled it because it's a
tax and the taxes that are levied by Congress that
(16:38):
it holds is therefore constitutional. Right, And now Congress has
just signed, well just passed and Donald Trump signed that
there's a zero tax on it, and therefore it actually does.
Does this mean I guess this is the lawsuits claim,
is that therefore it no longer exists and therefore it's
(16:58):
not it's no longer a constitution usial thing because it's
a zero dollar tax.
Speaker 4 (17:01):
Right, yeah, right, your mind around that one. It's a
brain vendor, isn't it. But it is.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
It is a brain vendor. However, legislation court cases are
often brought forward and designed and enacted through securitous means.
It's not it's not always a straightforward thing, like even
even the passage of it. It was ruled constitutional by
(17:27):
the nine thirty seventh Supreme Court because it was a
tax levied by Congress.
Speaker 4 (17:32):
Yep, exactly. The original legislation was built on the legislation
that reclassified certain drugs in controlled substances as a tax issue.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
Right, So what does this We don't know how the
court case will go, but I'm reasonably sure it's going
to go beyond just its first court stop.
Speaker 4 (17:56):
Oh this kind, I mean, I expected a lot lawsuit
like this to happen. I was actually I was shocked,
not that it happened, but by how quickly it happened.
Speaker 3 (18:06):
Well, it's kind of people are preparing for these things.
There are so many organizations out there that are looking
to protect American's Second Amendment rights, and that they're looking
for I guess you'd call it cracks in the chinks
in the armor for how to proceed with them. So
they probably had the people who are bringing this for
they've probably had something like this.
Speaker 4 (18:27):
If if not before the measure was added to the
legislation to begin with it just as a as a
just a case, then it least towards the parliamentarian rule
that it would fight. At that point, you know, wheels
were spinning and pins were scribbling on paper. I mean,
people were working on this at that.
Speaker 3 (18:45):
Point, James Fight. Thanks ever so much. Really appreciate you
being here.
Speaker 4 (18:49):
Appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Mark.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
You know that's what was free, freedom of beach, freedom
of religion, freedom.
Speaker 4 (19:02):
Of enterprise, and freedom is special and relate.
Speaker 1 (19:05):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeldes, a production of Libertynation
dot Com, going after what the politicians really mean and
making it all clear for your freedom and your liberty.
Liberty Nation with Markangeledes.
Speaker 3 (19:22):
And your on Liberty Nation with Marc Angelides and Joe Shaefer,
Limited Nations Enterprise Reporter. Thanks for being here again, Joe,
really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Thanks for having me bark So Joe.
Speaker 3 (19:34):
You wrote just a fascinating article recently on the pages
of Liberty Nation dot com and it was called a
defensive democracy in Europe. It's sinister and darkly familiar. Now
I know that the vast majority of our audience has
heard coast to coast on the Radio American network, so
(19:54):
it is largely American. But I think it's so important
to understand what's happening in Europe to see well two
points A what is likely coming down the pipeline for
America and b what has in some instances already been
attempted in America. Do you want to give us an
(20:15):
overview of what you wrote about in that fascinating article.
Speaker 2 (20:20):
Sure, And I think the way you can tie it
with Europe and America is this is a ruling establishment
playbook and they're rolling it out in all the nations
of the West. You know, Australia. New Zealand gets a
good take dose of it too, as we all know.
So the article was about, you know, the alternative for Germany,
the populist Right party in poll the a f D
(20:43):
in polling was the most it won the most popular
support in a survey for the first time. I think
that was in April or March, so it was the
most popular party in Germany in a national survey. The
ruling coalition government, it's a conservative government, but it has
the Social Democratic Party which is like the leftist but
you know, established leftist party at Germany. The Social Democratic
(21:07):
Party is a junior member of this ruling coalition. So
part of the ruling coalition government passed a motion calling
for the a f D to be banned. You are
not allowed to run in elections the most popular party
in Germany by pulling because they cited the findings of
a ruling government ministry that found the AfD to be extremist.
(21:31):
So this is our need.
Speaker 3 (21:32):
It works.
Speaker 2 (21:33):
The ruling government coalition cites the ruling government ministry that
expert the expertists who find this is a dangerous extremist organization,
and then therefore the ruling political leaders get to ban
their most dangerous opposition. Real nice and tidy if you
(21:53):
can get away with.
Speaker 3 (21:54):
It, how convenient. The state organ that runs under there
are government has found that the people who could kick
us out of government are too dangerous to be led
into government, so therefore stick with us. It's really it's
almost it's almost comic book, how villainous it sounds. And
(22:17):
the problem is that it's actually reality. And let's broaden
this across Europe, and then we'll come back to what
has happened in the United States and to some extent
what may happen going forward. So you have you mentioned
that the AfD, the Alternative for Germany or Alternative for
deutsch Land, they came first in a national survey and
(22:43):
I know our listeners out there thinking it's a pole,
it's a poll. However, they're also that they have presence
within government, but they're kept from power. And this is
also partly what's happened in the Netherlands as well is
and almost certainly what's also happened in France is that
(23:07):
the other parties have come together to block these let's
call them what they are. They're very much right wing
populist parties, right, that's what they are, to keep them
from the levels of power. So in France you have
Marie La Penn's party and that she is currently currently
(23:33):
banned from seeking office for five years for doing what
every single person in the European Parliament was doing. But
they're appealing that now. But she may get in beat Macron,
but it stick yet. But if not, her deputy Jordan
Bardello I think it is, could be leading that charge.
(23:55):
But again it's this case of the ruling establishment goes
ahead with the prosecution against its biggest contender that is
most likely to win and knock it from power and
so criminalizing it. Now in the United Kingdom, my hometown,
we have Nigel Prage's Reform Party and the polling that's
(24:19):
come out there, and we're going to come back to polls.
It's not just one poll that puts Nigel Farrage a
Nig Farag's Party ahead of all of the other parties.
It's every poll. He's a real clear and present danger
to the two party duopoly, the Labor Party and the
alleged Conservative Party, and it looks like he's going to
(24:43):
receive the most amount of votes if an election were
held tomorrow. And now course election isn't going to be
held tomorrow. It's not going to be held because of
the Fixed Term Parliament Act until at the latest twenty
twenty nine. But people are already talking about, and this
is very common in Europe, a rainbow coalition to keep
(25:04):
Nigel Farrage out of paws. What you'd have is the
two main parties that have been in place for one
hundred years or more coming together to try and form
a government against Nigel Farage. And it really goes to
show you that this back and forth for the last
one hundred years. It's really there's not that much difference
(25:26):
between the two if they want to come together and
work together to stop Nigel Farage upsetting the duopoly. And
so this is these parliamentary tricks, these political tricks, and
these lawsuits. And as we started off with these government
(25:47):
institutes warning against a certain political parties that threatened the
status co parties, We've seen it in the US as well,
haven't we.
Speaker 2 (25:58):
Well, yeah, I was gonna say, thank god, that wouldn't
happen here. Oh, that already did. And be the most
prominent example all our listeners remember very well is in
the twenty twenty four presidential election, Colorado Secretary of State
Jenna Griswold, and just an open Democrat partisan, you know,
(26:20):
try to get Trump removed from the ballot in her state.
And how did she do it. She cited the findings
of federal judges who are openly antagonistic to Trump, who
declared he is an insurrectionist. So, well, we've got these
official findings he's an insurrectionist, and I know that I
(26:41):
can keep insurrectionists off the ballot. Therefore I could put
my political enemy off the ballot. And she got the
Colorado State Supreme Court to actually go along with this.
This is how dangerous it is. It's amazing that they
actually got that far, and the US Supreme Court, you know,
overturned it. Of course, Trump got what one and a
(27:01):
half million votes or forty forty five percent of the vote
or something. College So you thought, we're talking about hundreds
of over a million people in Colorado are being disenfranchised
by by by these actions, and it's done by citing
these official government findings declaring their political opposition to be
extremist insurrectionists, however you want to call it.
Speaker 3 (27:25):
Yeah, it's and now here's the thing that that so
many people fail to take into account when they're getting
involved in these kind of shenanigans is that if you
do it to somebody, somebody will do it to you.
And so the idea that somebody can be barred from
(27:49):
running for office based on partisan nonsense, really, let's let's
call it what it is, a parts and setup is.
I mean, it's anathema to what to how any country
should be runs. It's not civilized. It is my issue
(28:12):
with it. It's just not civilized.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
But you know, you have to go much further than that,
and you can't just ban the political party. You've got
to define the entire information spectrum. That's why they focus
on disinformation so much. Sure, the second half of that
article that I wrote focused on in France, where Emmanuel McCrone,
the Establishment president of the country, said that there is
(28:36):
a tyranny of the news the words where you can
take facts and extremists with the declared extremists can amplify
facts into something dangerous. Therefore, we have to suppress those
facts in order to defend our democracy. And what he
was talking about is illegal aliens, the migrant crisis of Europe.
(29:00):
These people, it's common, the crimes they commit. If you
report on, if those crimes are reported in the media,
that impulldens the extremists, and that threatens democracy. Therefore, we
have to prevent these facts from being platformed at the
major media. It's like, oh, well, that would never happen
in America. Of course, we know that happened the Facebook
(29:23):
and Twitter during the Biden years. It's still happened. They
still want it to happen. Barack Obama just gave a
speech June seventeenth in Connecticut where he said everyone's entitled
to their opinion, but you are not entitled to have
what you think are the facts amplified on big media
(29:45):
and social media platforms. So they want to have the
ability to define the facts of themselves, how they're presented
to the people. In anything, even if it's factually correct,
anything that is a danger to their established power, they
can declare out of bounds in the name of saving democracy.
(30:06):
And they really think this way and they want to
do it. They've already tried to do it. They are
going to keep trying to do it in America again.
And that is the big warning for Europe. It's not
going away. It hasn't stopped. These people are going to
keep doing this again in America, sooner rather than later.
Speaker 3 (30:23):
We're going to take this conversation to another level and
repeat Johnny Cash's infamous question what is truth? After this shortbreak,
don't go.
Speaker 1 (30:32):
Anywhere for your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with
Mark Edgelites.
Speaker 3 (30:44):
Andrew back on Liberty Nation Radio or Aman your host,
Mark Anthonys, We're continuing our conversation with Libtin Nation's enterprise
report to Joe Shaeffer. Thanks for sticking around, Joe. At
the end of the last segment we got talking about
what Barack Obama had recently said regarding you entire to
your opinion, but you're not entireled to have what you
perceive as facts amplified in the wider world through the media.
(31:08):
And this kind of brings me to what is possibly
for me. It's it's the most grating topic in modern politics.
And of course it's not just modern. It's been going
on for a very long time. We all we've all
read about yellow journalism and the history of that. But
the idea that facts shouldn't be the prime focal point
(31:35):
of what the media is reporting and it should be
seen through lenses. I mean this troubles me deeply, and
I'm sure it troubles Johnny Cash, who wrote a whole
song about something similar.
Speaker 2 (31:48):
Well, yeah, and the other's two things that go together here.
The one is you know that they wanted to maintain
their power. There are two ways to do it. Suppress
your enemy, but also so control the narrative. Controlling the
narrative is a key thing, and the biggest thing. I've
been about this many times. The most cherished thing to
them is to keep their hold on what I call
(32:10):
a captive audience. And what that means is their their
opinions aren't very popular, you know, especially with their racial divisiveness.
You know, your average white accountant working in Indiana really
doesn't want to have to go to a DEI mandatory
training session when he's at work and be told how
(32:31):
bad white people are. So they know it's unpopular. So
what do they do. They make him do that as
part of his job. That's called the captive audience. You
want to watch a football game, you just want to
watch sports on TV. Now, okay, you're there for that,
but they're going to put in the you know, the propaganda,
the end racism in the end zones and blah blah
blah everything we know. So they love their captive audiences.
(32:54):
And that's how they get to define what the facts are.
That's what you That's what you see in their ominance
of the school system and why they're against school choice.
They want to keep their stranglehold out America's use so
they can propagandize them. It goes all the way from
cradle to grave. They want to control narratives. And it's
so funny. They used to say about Hollywood. Oh, if
(33:16):
you think Hollywood's too liberal, go go form your own
film companies. But you know, you look at them today.
They think X is right wing, which is kind of
a joke in my opinion. But they think it's this
right wing social media platform. So what did they do
they could They went and started Blue Sky. It's a
ghost town. It's like nobody cares about Blue Sky. So
that's not good enough for this. They tried to take
(33:37):
their advice, We're going to start our own thing. Nobody
cares about it. So what they're back to saying, we
gotta we gotta suppress X. We gotta, you know, make
sure these facts don't get amplified on the social media
platform because that's dangerous. So they can't. You know, it's
not hypocrisy. That's why it's stress over and over again.
It's not hypocrisy. It's maintaining power. It's like I get
(34:01):
to do things you don't get to do. That hypocrisy.
It's this is how I stay, you know, in power,
and power is everything to this progressive ruling establishment.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
So yes, they well, here's the thing. They define everything
through the lens of power. That's this whole that's this
whole thing about the patriarchy, right that they see that
as the defining the defining element of the patriarchy. It's
power over somebody else. And that's just not true. That's
(34:33):
not how relationships actually work in the real world, right,
because imagine if okay, let's say your husband, father, and
the way that you lead your life is by exerting
your power and your influence over your wife or over
your children, how is that going to work out for you?
(34:54):
I can tell you we would not work out that
well for most married men. It's a it's a myth.
And of course you have people who run companies. Men
who run companies. If they try and exert a dominance,
they try and do a dominance situation over their employees, well,
(35:15):
their employees are going to go somewhere else pretty darn quick.
And so this whole idea that relationships are dominated are
based on dominance is it's a it's such a false idea,
and it's such an easily disproven idea because you have friends, right,
they are those relationships based on power dynamics? Are they
(35:38):
based on dominance of one over the other? Of course not.
You fall in love with somebody, is it based on
your dominance over them or their dominance over you. For
some people perhaps, but for the vast majority, that's not
just the reality. So the people who say these kind
of things that they say everything is about a dominance,
just imagine what their lives man be like if all
(36:01):
their relationships are governed by this idea of dominance within
a power structure. It's tragic. And as you point out,
they're trying to convince everybody, cradle to grave, all the
school systems, the work environments where that people are forced
to go on mandatory racial awareness training, mandatory sexual behavior trainings.
(36:31):
They're trying to enforce that this is what reality is,
and it's just not the case. That's not the world.
And in many way I feel sorry for the people
who feel that that is the world that they live in,
because it's a prison of their own making, and the
only way to get out of is to is to
realize that that's your opinion, that's not a fact, which
(36:52):
brings us nicely.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
It's also very dangerous for the rest of us because
there's two words to describe this, the only two words
that describe this cultural Marxism. For the committed social revolutionary,
nothing is outside of destroying the established system. Everything, every
single aspect of your life must be deployed in overthrowing
(37:19):
the current system, and so that ends in a shot
to the back of the neck. We learned that in
the Soviet Union, if you are deemed to be upholding
the system in your relationship, in the way you run
your family, and the way you run your company, you
will get shot in the back of the neck. That
is the end result of everything you describe.
Speaker 3 (37:41):
I always tell people this. It always when you know,
when do you know that it's gone wrong? When they
start digging the mass graves? Which is it always happens.
But just to close up on that point, you say
that everything has to bow to that system, there's somebody
else who had that idea, and it kind of flies
in the face of people saying this is left, this
(38:03):
is right. But that was Mussolini who said nothing outside
the system, everything within the system. What did he call
that again, Joe, please remind me fascism.
Speaker 2 (38:16):
Fascism is that I consider communism to be the greatest
evil of all time. Communism to me is a far
bigger threat than something that was eliminated one hundred years ago.
They were brutally eliminated in a World war, wiped off
the face of the earth. You know, Adolf Hitler isn't
around anymore, but you know Musolini isn't around anymore. But
(38:38):
the Communists has never gone away. They have not gone away.
The Russian Revolution, you know, the Soviet Union was toppled,
but the thought process that led to the Soviet Union
is still very much with us. And I think it
was transferred to the West more than anything. So culturally
you see it more in the West today than you
(39:00):
do in the former Soviet Union, which is kind of amazing,
which is why Eastern Europe is actually doing more to
defend basic freedoms in Europe than Western Europe. But in
the Cold War it was the exact opposite.
Speaker 3 (39:14):
That they know where it went. Ro Shaefer thanks ever
so much for joining us. Thank you, and that is
all we have time for on this week's edition of
Libtination Radio Head Coast to Coast on the Radio American Network.
I've been your host, mar A cant Ladies. I'd like
to thank our guests today, mister James Fight and Joe Shaefer,
and of course thank you the audience for taking the
time each week to tune in and join us here.
(39:35):
Please do remember Liberty Nation does not endorse campaigns, candidates,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement. Thanks for
being here.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.