The Constitution, the Fed, and Progressive Insurgence

Seg 1 – The Constitutional Amendment That Never Was
Seg 2 - The Future of the Fed
Seg 3 - The Progressive Insurgents
Seg 4 - The Hijacking of American Institutions

Episode Transcript

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.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
It was freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise,
and freedom is special and read.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangelides, 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 Markangeldes.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network from a flagship station in
the Nation's Capital, WWRC in Washington, d C. I'm your host,
Mark Angelides. We've got quite the special lineup for you
on today's show because so much is happening across America,
specifically in the Nation's Capital. So we're going to be

(00:55):
discussing the rise and rise of the progressive movement currently
led by Bernie Sanders and Alexandria or Cassio Cortes, and
ask whether they are actually representative of the Democratic Party
or whether they're an insurgent brand, much like the MAGA
movement was within the Republican Party back in twenty sixteen

(01:17):
and ask whether they actually have the energy the power
to take over the party. Will also be looking at
the future for the Federal Reserve, what's happening with those
upcoming rate cuts that everybody's talking about. And also we'll
be discussing constitutional amendments, how they happen and why they
keep popping up their ugly heads. All this and more

(01:40):
on today's show. And remember Liberty Nation Radio sponsored by
Liberty Nation, where you can access podcasts, breaking news analysis,
and a range of biting and brilliant shows to what
your appetite for freedom and your fondness for the great
American Constitution. Thanks for being here and you're on Liberty
Nation Radio. I'm Mark Hanjy's. We're joined by Liberty Nations
Editor at Large, mister James Fight Jim Howard.

Speaker 4 (02:00):
I'm doing great, Mark, how are you?

Speaker 3 (02:02):
I'm good? Thank you. Now, what I want to talk
about today is there's so much going on with challenges
against the Donald Trump administration agenda, and we invariably hear
this is unconstitutional. Whether it is or not, I mean
that's a determination for scholars and ultimately the Supreme Court
to decide. But you wrote a fascinating piece a little

(02:24):
while ago on Liberty and the pages of Liberty nation
dot com regarding the amendments that never quite made it,
and I thought, this is a this is an absolutely
fascinating topic to get into. So Jim, give us a
brief overview of the constitutional numbers, the amendments, the proposed
ones versus the ratified ones, just so we can get

(02:46):
an overhead view on it.

Speaker 4 (02:48):
Sure, well, you know, Mark, most people are familiar with
the Bill of Rights, of course. Let's so most of
the amendments, the seventeen amendments that came afterwards. Probably very
few people are familiar with the six amendments that were
actually passed by Congress never fully ratified by the states.
Or well, I guess that's the debate these days for

(03:11):
some of them is.

Speaker 3 (03:12):
Well, yeah, you're referring here to the equal rights which
seems to raise its ugly head every few years. Well,
it seems to be when there's a Democrat in the
White House. But we'll delve into that a bit. Yeah,
So there were a countrartically that there's like eleven thousand

(03:33):
attempted amendments.

Speaker 4 (03:35):
Yeah, almost twelve, like eleven. I think the I think
the full number. I went with kind of a vague
estimate in the article because there are different different ways
of counts, but somewhere around the vicinity of eleven seven hundred.

Speaker 3 (03:49):
So out of all of these, most have just gone nowhere,
and there are six that Congress pass. So there's a
couple of ways, isn't it to actually achieve a constitutional amendment?
First one? Well, what's the first one?

Speaker 4 (04:01):
All right? So the most common way that this happens
is sort of the primary way is for someone to
introduce to Congress a bill that is a constitutional amendment.
It has to pass both chambers of Congress by a
two thirds majority, and then it has to go on
it's sent to the state legislatures, and three fourths of

(04:24):
the state legislatures of however many states you have at
the time, So right now we have fifty states, that's
thirty eight states. In the past, of course there were
fewer states and therefore fewer had to ratify. But three
fourths of the states have to then vote to ratify
these amendments, and then, of course the Archivist of the
United States will then submit it to the Federal Register

(04:45):
and it becomes part of the Constitution. The other pathway
is for two thirds at least of the state legislatures
to vote to hold what's called a constitutional convention. If
at least two states vote for that, I'm sorry. If
at least two thirds of the state vote for that,
then Congress is obligated to hold a convention. Where it's

(05:07):
basically wild West. Anybody can propose an amendment, it gets
a vote on the state delegates at the convention then
vote on the amendments, and whatever amendments get three fourths
of the state votes, it becomes part of the constitution.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
So either way, it's a tricky route to a constitution.

Speaker 4 (05:30):
Almost twelve yeah, almost twelve thousand actually introduced to Congress.
Only thirty three passed by Congress, and of that, twenty
seven became actual amendments.

Speaker 3 (05:40):
Yeah, the most recent one being the twenty seventh, which
I think is one of it's one of my favorites.
Which it's the one that Congress if they're going to
issue themselves a pay rise, it can't be for the
Congress that they're in.

Speaker 4 (05:54):
Right, Yeah, no pay raids. Well, okay, so the funny
thing is that's actually our founders, like the one of
the ideas of the th that's in the original Uh well,
in the original draft of the Bill of Rights, it
was like twenty amendments. But in the in the in
the original draft the Senate passed was there were twelve amendments,

(06:18):
and what we call the twenty seventh Amendment now, which
was ratified in nineteen ninety two, was was in that
proposed list in seventeen eighty nine. That was article the
second it was it was the original second Amendment.

Speaker 3 (06:32):
So it only took two hundred and forty idea.

Speaker 4 (06:36):
Yeah, two hundred, two hundred and two years I think
from from from being passed by the Senate to being
ratified by the States.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
Yeah, so it's a slow proces. Now. The reason that
this keeps coming up about the ratification process, well, very quickly, Jim,
just give us a rundown, just a bullet point of
the six that haven't made it that the non ratified.

Speaker 4 (07:00):
Okay, So the first one is the original first Amendment,
which is that the number of representatives in the US
House of Representatives would be limited or well, I mean
it is limited, but would be would be set to
no more than one representative per fifty fifty people.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (07:23):
Yeah, which back then kind of made sense. They didn't
go for it, but it kind of it.

Speaker 3 (07:28):
Makes thousand or so, now, isn't.

Speaker 4 (07:30):
That sixty eight hundred representatives If that were the case,
they're about, you know, three hundred and ten million people
in the US.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
And then that there's one that would.

Speaker 4 (07:39):
Have there's what I call the anti thirteenth Amendment. There
were actually a couple that would have been the thirteenth
Amendment if they had been ratified. What I call the
anti thirteen thirteenth Amendment is, uh so, the thirteenth Amendment
is the hey, you can't keep people as slaves amendment? Right, Well,
what I call the anti thirteenth Amendment was posed and

(08:01):
actually passed by Congress in nineteen sixty one, and interestingly enough,
Abraham Lincoln actually had reached out to state governors and
tried to get them to ratify this amendment, not necessarily
in support of slavery, but to prevent the Civil War.
That obviously we know that plan failed, but that amendment
would have made it a constant, would have made it

(08:23):
unconstitutional for anyone to try to amend the Constitution in
a way that would that would prevent state that would
interfere with states handling their own domestic policies, and it
explicitly says including and this is paraphrasing here, but including
It doesn't use the term slavery, but it says including

(08:44):
the basically the forced labor for the state, which was
very clearly I mean, if you look at that, if
you read the time, you know, the times that this happened,
and it was very clearly a protect the state's right
to have slavery. But because of the way that it
was vaguely for political reasons, it would have actually extended
out to, oh Man, pretty much any domestic policy. I mean,

(09:06):
think about you know, federal gun laws would would be
null and void if the state differed.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
All kinds of there's ups and downs. There's ups and down.

Speaker 4 (09:17):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no doubt, Like I don't think, you know,
I'm certainly not arguing, oh man, what a shame.

Speaker 3 (09:21):
Then let let's let's cut that. Let's sure that if
anybody wants to carry on reading about those, they can
go to Gym's article on the page of Liberty nation
dot com. Just a final word, Jim, the Equal Rights
Amendment that keeps coming back again and again and again.
Will it ever be over for that particular amendment.

Speaker 4 (09:41):
I don't think it will. And here's why. A lot
of these amendments that didn't get ratified are still technically eligible,
but because there was no time limit. But the era
that equal right and had a time limit of seven years,
and it just simply didn't happen. But in twenty twenty one,
Virginia ratified the amendment, you know, decades too late, and

(10:04):
became the thirty eighth state. So some people argue that
it's legit by the wording of its own law, it
is known.

Speaker 3 (10:12):
I mean that's also ignoring the fact that several states
have actually rescinded their so they're still not thirty eight.
Jim Fight, thanks ever so much for joining us absolutely.

Speaker 1 (10:31):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Angelides.

Speaker 3 (10:36):
And your own Liberty Nation Radio with your host here,
Mark Angelidi's and we are joined by Andrew Moran, Liberty
Nation's economics editor and guru. Andrew, thanks for coming in.
I think what I want to talk about today is
the upcoming suspected rate cuts coming out of the FED,
and specifically why has it taken a couple of questions

(11:01):
for you here, Number one, why has it taken so long?
To get here. Number two, is it a political decision
rather than a fiscal decision that's pushing this potential cut?
And number three, what do you think it will be For.

Speaker 5 (11:16):
Your first question, there are many reasons why, according to
the Federals, they're not they're're not behaving like the European
Union where they're aggressively cutting interest rates. For one of
the earlier of the year, there was concerned about elevated inflation,
and of course inflation is still above the two percent
FED targets. The other concern was about the according to
Drone Power, the fundamental changes of immigration, fiscal, regulatory and

(11:39):
trade policy by the new president. And so now they're
just waiting for, according to them, greater clarity of the
effects of tariffs. So they're just they're they're terrified to
do anything at all, whether to raise rates or cut rates,
just any backlash they have because according to Powell, it's
a challenging scenario in this FED and then in the

(11:59):
situation because on the one hand, tariffs could revive inflation threats,
which would have to force the FED to keep interest
rates higher for longer. But on the other hand, tariffs
could lower economic growth. Therefore they would have to cut
interest rates, but that also threatens inflation again, so that's
the reason why they've been reluctant to continue cutting interest rates.

Speaker 3 (12:18):
And so that brings us to the political angle. Andrew,
is there some politics taking place behind the scenes here
rather than fiscal forethought?

Speaker 5 (12:27):
Well, of course, I mean the Federal Reserve has a
long history of playing politics, since the days of Mariner
Echos in the nineteen thirties.

Speaker 4 (12:34):
Under FDR has.

Speaker 5 (12:36):
Politic Jerome Powell insists that he is not playing politics
at all, but it's just the timing of everything where
you have to think that he is playing politics.

Speaker 3 (12:45):
Now.

Speaker 5 (12:45):
Of course, on Donald Trump's part, he's demanding that Jerome
Powell cut interest rates. You know, he calls him a
quote major loser, and he has lower interest rates now,
otherwise he risks slowing the US economy. So you know,
if I'm Jerome Powell and I'm constantly in so by
the president, I would have to think that I do
want to get I want I want Trump to get
some sort of comeuppens by keeping righted higher for longer.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
Because they were all human.

Speaker 5 (13:09):
Of course, even drop power isn't a robot must feel
insulted having Trump insult them constantly, you know, whether the
FED is a political institution. Just to summarize your the
answer to your question.

Speaker 3 (13:18):
Oh yeah, And so the third part was when and
if I think you told me off camera earlier, it's
like a fifty eight percent chance there's going to be
a cut come June. And so if that goes ahead,
what would that mean for well, across the board? Really,
what would that mean for refinancing America's debt? What would

(13:40):
it mean for home buys things like this?

Speaker 5 (13:42):
Well, I mean it would be twenty five basis points,
so it wouldn't be much. I mean it also rate
cuts in streets generally by the FED. They have a
lagging effect. You know, the research on this could be
from anywhere from nine months to a couple of years.
At the same time, economists in recent and recent in
recent years I've said, well, the market is always forward
looking and they always depend on FED guidance. Therefore, the

(14:03):
mark could react earlier than what history has suggested because
the that has always been a clandestine agency, but now
they're more open and they provide that forward guidance to
the Federal Reserve. But you know, the White House, I
mean they've said for a few months out there they
no longer care what the Fed does, and then they're
going to take actions over the ten year yield. But
based on Trump's comments, it me look like that he's panicking,

(14:24):
whether it's based on the true social posts or pausing
the reciprocal tariffs.

Speaker 3 (14:30):
So if the quarterbase point drop happens, that doesn't really
do much for it, just quarter a point. It doesn't
really do anything for the nine and a half trillion
debt balloon that needs to be refinanced this year, does it?
What can the Trump administration do to get that debt

(14:51):
refinancing at a better rate? They eight hundred debt refinance?

Speaker 4 (14:57):
Well, what hundred Doge?

Speaker 5 (14:59):
Because you this Doge agency, which of course I was
always skeptical that would achieve anything of substance. They have
to find cuts. They have to dramatically cut spending. Otherwise
you're never going to bring down a treasury yield to
a sustainable level. You know, I wrote an article recentlibernation
dot com talking about the Best and Blitz cry how
that push to lower treasury yields potentially backfired because you

(15:21):
still have the tenure yield at around four and between
four point two and four and a half percent even
when you had that financial the market crash post Liberation Day.
So there are many a fiscal side that a lot
of investors are fearful of and that you know, the
administration keep seeing their making cuts and they're trying to
bring in revenue and they're doing all these you know,
wonderful fiscally responsible things, but has yet to show up

(15:43):
in the hard data.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
So when Donald Trump says essentially we don't care what
the Fed does, is he really just banking on the
actions that he's currently taking as in, as you point out,
having those seek out savings, applying tariffs and trying to
or you know, organize I'm presuming that he's trying to

(16:08):
organize as close to free trade arrangements as possible with
all these countries that he's put tariffs on.

Speaker 5 (16:14):
Well, I would say that, well, I would push back.
I'll say that Trump probably cares very much. Is that
the language, let's lay language from Scott Besson is very different.
I mean, Scott Besson has been the voice of reason
so far in the administration on the on the on
the economic side, I mean, according to the Wall Street Journal,
he's been pushing back against Trump and others and others
surrounding him with all this criticism of Jerome Powell and

(16:34):
threatening to fire Jerome Powell. And then you know, Donald
Trump said, yeah, you know, I'm not I'm not going
to fire him. I'm going to allow him to finish
his term. But if you didn't have that voice of
reason and Besson, I'm pretty sure Trump would try to
take we try to do something to get to get
rid of Jerome Powell. Because Kevin has it. He's one
of the top economic advisors of Trump, the real maga guy.
And he told the press before the Good but I

(16:56):
think it was before the Good Friday holiday weekend, he said,
we're studying ways to try to fire Jerome Powell. And
you know a lot of people said, oh, that could
cause havoc in the markets, and this may go off
board here. But Elizabeth Warren, she was seeing Trump demanding
interest rates is bad for the markets. But right before
the election, she was demanding Jerome Powell cut entries by

(17:17):
seventy five pieces points. The Federal Reserve and you said
earlier is a political institution. This shows right here how
everyone is playing politics with the Federal Reserve because they
know how important the Federal Reserve is to you know,
to the swamp.

Speaker 3 (17:33):
Yeah, it seems that whichever way the wind blows is
the way that politicians want to be at sailing in. Now,
Let's say either Jerome Powell is somehow removed, somehow pressure
to be removed from office, or he finished out his term,
which I think finishes twenty twenty six. Anyway, Okay, who

(17:54):
is oh, okay, before the midterms. Interesting, So who then
is next in line to.

Speaker 5 (18:00):
Well, before Besson was selected to be Treasury Secretary, there
was a report coming out that said Kevin Walsh was
going to be the Treasury Secretary for two years and
then serve as the Federal Reserve chair. Back in twenty eighteen,
Kevin Walsh a former FED governor. He was one of
the top tenors to be the FED chair. Of course,
Trump went with Powell. With Powell, Kevin worsh he's been

(18:22):
on the media circuit recently. He's been just complaining about
Jerome Powell and the Fed. You know how the Fed
doesn't have a certain direction and they don't know what
they're doing. So I think Kevin Warsh is probably going
to be the Selecly successor and Michelle Bowman, who was
recently upgraded to the vice chair of Supervision. She's also
a wild card who could succeed Jbull.

Speaker 4 (18:43):
But those are the two names to watch.

Speaker 3 (18:45):
I always watched those wild card picks, like at Wembley
for the tennis Andrew Moran, thanks ever so much for
joining us.

Speaker 4 (18:52):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (19:00):
It was free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom
of enterprise, and freedom is special and relate.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
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 (19:23):
And your on Liberty Nation radio head Coast to Coast
on the Radio American Network. I'm your host, Mark Angleys.
We're joined today by a Liberty Nation's chief political correspondent,
mister Graham. Jay Noble, thanks for coming in. Graham's the pleasure.
So I guess what I want to talk about today
is we're seeing we're seeing an insurgent progressive movement within

(19:45):
the Democratic Party. And I'm reminded very very strongly of
twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen of the insurgent MAGA movement within
the Republican Party. And now, like I guess it's a
ten years down the line from the start of MAGA. Well,

(20:09):
MAGA under the form that Donald Trump brought it in,
that's the dominant ethos of the of the GOP. Now
is the same thing going to happen with the progressive movement?
Or did it have its chance already and blew it well?

Speaker 6 (20:31):
You know, you could say there's a lot to unpack now.
I think that the bottom line is about leadership any
any political movement, whether it's new or just a kind
of a rehash of something that came before. But you know,
but it needs a strong leader, It needs someone to

(20:55):
kind of coalesce around, and that person to drive it forward.
Because as people have you know, mentioned often before, the
whole Maga America first populist thing wasn't really invented by Trump.
It was already there. It began, really, I guess you
could say it began with the Tea Party. Some would

(21:17):
argue maybe that it's been around lurking in the background
even before that, But and the Tea Party itself wasn't
actually very successful. Really, ultimately, it really really kind of
blew blew over and it was, and it was kind
of already perhaps in decline when suddenly Trump came along

(21:38):
and revived that whole.

Speaker 3 (21:41):
That whole ethos Yeah, that whole thing.

Speaker 6 (21:47):
He kind of revived it and and suddenly made it
into something that was really uh, you know, challenging to
the establishment, and of course, you know, you know, the
rest is history kind of thing. Whereas the progress is
they don't really have a specific leader. I mean, they
have lots of people kind of out there shouting and
screaming and singing and making the rest of us cringe

(22:10):
as we watch it, but you know, they haven't really
looked you know, Alexandro Casio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, you know,
they're not really they're not really leaders because neither one
of them has any charisma. Let's fake it. You know,
they do a lot of shouting and screaming. Bernie Sanders
obviously has got his own little zealously loyal following, but

(22:34):
I don't think there's enough of them to make a difference.
So basically, yeah, I think, you know, the Maga movement
found its leader, the progressive this kind of new kind
of radical progressives who are you know, really got their
clause into the Democratic Party now and are transforming it,
but nevertheless they still don't have a strong central figure

(22:58):
to kind of drive them forward.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Yeah, I think you probably got that right. And it's
interesting that you mentioned Bernie Sanders there, because I see
the guy's been The guy's been in politics, I think
longer than I've been alive. But he since twenty fifteen.

Speaker 6 (23:16):
Think he spoke out against the assassination of Jurius Caesar.

Speaker 3 (23:19):
For me, he did, he did all for it. You
never know with Bernie Sanders. So you have this, you
have Bernie Sanders who's been in politics a long time,
and he's been fringe for a long time. I mean,
he's so fringe he's still technically an independent, right despite
running for the leadership of the Democratic Party. I lose track.

Speaker 6 (23:43):
I lose track of his affiliation, honestly, because one moment
he was an independent, then he's a Democrat again, then
he's an independent.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
Well, I guess for him it's about coalitions. So when
Trump first came to the fact, I was just throwing
real quick. Sorry to interrupt you, but I'll throw in
that that is just about the only thing I do
like about Bernie Sanders is that he is not party
loyal Sure, he's used political parties as just a tool

(24:11):
to be used to his advantage. He's not particularly loyal
to He's never been a loyal Democrat, and I like
the people out there who are not loyal Republicans or
loyal Democrats. So that's one thing I do like about Bernie. Well,
so some would say that Karl Marx wasn't a loyal
Communist either, but still so, Yeah, you had this situation

(24:32):
when Trump was on the rise and at the same
time you had Bernie Sanders, who was also on the
rise at that very same time twenty fifteen, twenty sixteen,
and the supporters for both men were largely interchangeable. I think, yeah,
I knew people then who when asked though, who are

(24:55):
you going to vote for? When it eventually, you know,
when the primer is finding some themselves out, it's like, well,
it's either Bernie or Trump. And it's so weird because
there's such different figures. But you're right, they have well
Trump definitely has the charisma Bernie Sanders, but he doesn't
seem to have that. So I think what he's doing
now is he's kind of hitching his wagon to what

(25:16):
he sees as the star power of Alexandria Corsier Cortez,
who really doesn't have much in the way as what
I'd see as a political philosophy. I think she's more
a vessel for the far left fringe ideas that there's

(25:37):
not one that he doesn't seem to adopt and clasps
clasp to her chest and start championing even though you know,
no matter how ill thought out they are. And so
but the two of them together, they appear to be
the vehicle that's trying to thrust the progressive element to
the forefront of the Democratic Party, to the point where

(25:57):
there's a lot of talk about AOC primary Chuck Schumer
in it for his seat in the Senate. But I
wonder if the progressive have already had their shot, because
they had Joe Biden, who was elected as a moderate
but governed as a progressive. And then you had Kamala Harris,

(26:21):
who embodied every everything you know. She jettistened her career
as a prosecutor putting black men in jail for drug
use whilst smoking drugs herself, as she admitted on more
than one podcast. But then she became the this is
the progressive dream, and she failed, so I wondered, I

(26:41):
just don't think it has the energy to carry on,
does it.

Speaker 6 (26:47):
I don't think so. And I think part of the
problem here, the way I see it, is twofold is
Number one is I believe that the progressives, or the
people who might maybe consider themselves at the fourth front
of the progressive movement, or the leaders of the progressive.

Speaker 3 (27:02):
We're looking at you. I'm sorry, we're looking at Changiga.
Is it chank Wiga?

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Oh?

Speaker 6 (27:09):
Yes, yeah, I'm not sure how to pronounce his name.
Another guy, of course, he's he's disappointed a lot of
progressives recently because he's actually pointed out that, you know,
Trump is not quite you know, the person whoever, whoever lived,
as they try to make it out. But no, I
think the problem is Number one is that I believe

(27:31):
that the progressives don't understand that there are not actually
that many of them, you know, in comparison to the
entire voting population of the US. They're not they're not
for stopping. They're certainly not the majority, and they're not
even a large minority. They are a small minority, you know,
out of all the people who vote Democrats the loudest

(27:55):
ones are always the zealous progressives, So it makes give
gives want to impress the impression that, you know, there's
an awful lot more of them than they really are.
So I think that's part of the problem. And again
I think they I think to a certain extent, they
lack principle. And I think the people behind the scenes,
the real astute, savvy operatives behind the Democratic Party, do

(28:20):
realize that these people lack principle because you know, we,
you know, we kind of conservatives and libertarians, those of
us who are on that kind of side of the
political spectrum, we're often pointing out their hypocrisy, and it's
and it's constant. It's constant. One day they will say
something and then the following day they will say something
which completely contradicts the spirit of what they said the

(28:44):
day before. And I think that that's a real problem.
You know, as you compare to the kind of the
the Make America Great Again movement, it largely is based
on a set of principles that they are following through on,
you know, and that.

Speaker 3 (28:59):
People really believe in.

Speaker 6 (29:01):
The Progressives seem to change their mind from one day
to another, and it's largely driven by what Trump is
saying and doing. And that's the other problem is that
they're reacted rather than proactive.

Speaker 3 (29:13):
Yeah, I think that's a great point, Graham. Now we're
going to be back with Graham j. Noble after this
short break. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (29:24):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edge.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
Of Ladies, and you're back on Libut Nation radio head
Coast to Coast on the Radio America Network. I remain
Mark Han't leaders and we continue our conversation with lib
to Nation's cheap political correspondent, Graham, Jay Noble, Thanks for
sticking around, Graham. Now we've been talking about the progressive
movement versus the MAGA movement and the energy that each
side has or doesn't have, and the something I want

(29:52):
to continue on that is that it seems to me
that what's happened is the progressives within the Democratic Party,
as you pointed out earlier, that they are very small minorities,
they're not even a big minority. But the progressive ideology
is embedded in many institutions, and I'm looking at you academia.

(30:14):
You know they have a stranglehold on how the university
and college system works, what it teaches, what values it espouses,
and let's be completely blunt, what propaganda it's going to
indoctrinate in your children. And so that is that's potentially

(30:37):
more powerful than political power, isn't it?

Speaker 6 (30:41):
Well it is in some ways certainly. I mean, obviously
everything is ultimately decided at the ballot box on which
which ideologies people follow, Which which ideas and policies people
decide to favor, comes down to who they vote for.
But the thing is, you know, a on a wider
kind of cultural aspect and the and the general thrust

(31:02):
of American society. Yeah, the the progressives have an ideology
which is now, uh, disproportionately dominant, you know when you
compare it to their numbers, and you know, and you said,
you know, you mentioned academy, and that's where it comes from.
It's because these these schools and these college campuses they

(31:24):
are churning out, you know, indoctrinated hardcore progressives. And these
people with their degrees in gender studies or where they
cut their degrees in, it doesn't seem to matter anymore.
They're going out there and they're going out there into
the corporate world. They're going out there into the world
of government, you know, and they're getting you know, they're

(31:45):
ending up several years later, they're ending up in influential positions.
And so now you've got this, uh, you know, progressive
ideologies that various different ones that are that are you know,
kind of baked into the corporate world. They're into into government,
you know. So there's while there's relatively few of them,

(32:08):
the hardcore progressives, they because of their stranglehold on the
world of academia that allowed them to get their clause
into everything in America. And it's changed it.

Speaker 3 (32:21):
You see it in the in the entertainment media as well.
And I'm not talking about CNN the entertainment media. I'm
talking about like movies and TV. And I can't be
alone in this. And I'm sure I'm not. I'm not
a man of what's the right word, tender sensibility is
to say the least. But you know, and I don't

(32:44):
watch much television or movies in general. But one thing
that's sure to stop me watching something is as soon
as they start with the speeches, they'll have one good episode,
two good episodes. Ah, this is something I might enjoy.
The narratives good, the story is good. You know, it's
telling a fundamental story. They're following the hero journey. I

(33:04):
love looking out for that and shows. But then little stuff,
and for some reason there'll be some kind of speech
about something that has no bearing on the story, and
it's been put in there because the message has become
more important than the medium's. John Peterson had did an

(33:26):
interview with Joe Rogan a few weeks ago and he
mentioned something he talked about something to do with how
parasites have attached themselves to various institutions, and he pointed
out something is quite interesting to some side. He pointed
out humans, sorry animal species, evolve sex to avoid the

(33:50):
parasites because it created a divergence of genetic material that
couldn't be easily replicated by the parasites that were gone.
And he talked about how the parasites and here he's
talking about people who would use an institution's value and
an institution's resource for its own good. That's what he
means when he's talking about parasite there, I think for

(34:10):
its own benefit. And that's exactly what's happened. They've hijacked television, movies, academia.
As you point out political institutions, and as we've seen
in recent weeks, even the judicial system to some degree. Graham,
is there a cure for the I think is it,
doctor gad said, calls it the parasitic mind virus. Is

(34:34):
there a cure?

Speaker 6 (34:37):
I think the cure is already with us, actually, And
I think the cure is Trump's brand of America First populism.
And I think a good example of how that is
the cure is the fact that, well, it is the
way the twenty twenty four election turned out. I mean,
you know, during the during the Biden administration there the

(35:00):
progressors were really going all out and they were employing
all of their tactics, and you talk about parasites. And
one thing that they've done for a while now, and
they've done it extremely successfully, is that they have hijacked
movements that have already that have already got the personnel,
already got the resources, They're already out there in the
public eye. They are powerful kind of single interest groups

(35:26):
or whatever. For example, you know, black Lives Matter. Black
Lives Matter was entirely and very quickly hijacked by the
progressive movement, to the point where at one time I
went to the Black Lives Matter website, just out of
interest to see what they were talking about, and it
was all about transgender rights, and there was almost nothing
on there about black people for a while. They kind

(35:48):
of changed it back after while, but for a while,
the whole BLM website was about transgender stuff.

Speaker 3 (35:53):
And they do this.

Speaker 6 (35:54):
They hijack movements. They hijacked the environmentalist movement. You know,
They've hijacked all these movements. And that's how they that's
how they disproportionately wield kind of cultural power and influence
is by hijacking movements that are already in place. And
of course, and then they have this bullying tactic, because
your average Democrat voter does not go around actually bullying

(36:16):
corporations like, you know, unless you do things our way,
we're not going to buy your stuff and that. But
the progressives do and they and they do this. They
invented casual cult, cancel culture. Look what they did to Tesla,
you know, so they're very good about that. But I
believe the cure is actually the America First agenda. I
think it's the cure.

Speaker 3 (36:37):
Yeah, well, the evidence seems to point to that, but
I wonder if there's not something I'm wondering if the
way to defeat because you know, some of these institutions
were all once quite respected, like you know, your Harvard
University used to be one of the top ten universities
in the world, and you have organizations like the the

(37:03):
national brand of Black Lives Matter actually seemed to have
some drive about, you know, pushing for equality and that
there was something there appeared to be something valuabout, valuable
about it, even if there weren't. But when people don't
recognize that, and I don't really like using the word parasites,
but it's a good analogy, let's drop the parasite bit here.

Speaker 6 (37:26):
But well, I know what you mean the feed We're
not pulling parasites. We're saying that their behavior is on
a kind of a parasitic level.

Speaker 3 (37:38):
Yes, So what you have is you have people who
are looking to take your organization, to take the thing
that you've built and the people before you have built
and made and made Let's carry this one along and
made great that's been made great by people's hard work

(37:58):
and commitment to whatever thatarticular thing is. And what they
do is they're coming along and they're co opting it,
and they're using it not for any particular agenda, because
this ideology it's it's paper thin, it's payper thin. They
don't believe it. They're using it for their own personal power,
their own personal advancement, and their own personal goals. And

(38:20):
until people realize that, you know, you can't let these
hijackers in. They are going to take your organization and
they're going to use it for something that you will
no longer recognize.

Speaker 4 (38:31):
Graham.

Speaker 3 (38:31):
Final word, Can America's great institutions make a comeback?

Speaker 6 (38:36):
Well, that's an interesting question. Can they make it come back?
I think ultimately they are. They've got a long it's
a long road. The road to return is a long roads.
But I think they will start down that road when
the finances start to get squeezed just so much that
they can no longer bear it, and then maybe I

(38:57):
think they'll be on the roadback.

Speaker 4 (39:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (39:00):
Free market economy tends to be the great leveler for
all things. Graham. J. Noble, thanks ever so much for
joining us.

Speaker 6 (39:06):
It's a pleasure, Mark, thank you.

Speaker 3 (39:09):
And that is all we've got time for on this
week's edition of Liberty Nation Radio, heard coast to Coast
on the Radio America Network. From our FLAGSIP station in
the nation's capital, ww RC in Washington, d C. I've
been your host mark antladies. I'd like to thank our
guest today mister James Fight, Andrew Moran and Graham J. Noble,
and of course i'd like to extend my thanks to

(39:29):
you the listeners at home, for taking the time to
tune in each and every week and join us. And
please do remember The Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns,
or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement. Thanks again
for being here.