What’s on the New Legislative Agenda?

Seg 1 – A Bigger, More Beautiful Bill?
Seg 2 – The 2026 Campaign Strategies
Seg 3 – Antifa in for a Surprise
Seg 4 – The Drug Boat Dilemma

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 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 Markangeledes, 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 (00:35):
Hello, Welcome to Liberty Nation radio head Coast to coast
on the Radio America Network. I'm your host, Mark Antonidis.
On today's special edition, we are going to be talking
what comes next for Donald Trump's legislative agenda. Also will
be discussing antifa terrorist organizations and what it means to
be labeled as such. Please do remember Liberty Nation Radio
sponsor by limit nation dot com. You can access podcast

(00:57):
breaking news analysis and arrange of biting and brillange shows
to whetraptite freedom and you find us for the Great
American Constitution. We're joined by a Liberty Nations Editor at Large,
Jim Fight, to discuss what's next on Donald Trump's legislative
agenda and will Congress be a help or a hindrance
for that. Thanks for being here, Jim.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
It's nice to be here. Mark, Thanks for having me.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
So, Jim, you're ore. I guess in England we would
call you a policy wonk, as in somebody who follows
the tracking of policies and stuff, and that is often
used in an affectionate way, So please take.

Speaker 2 (01:35):
I think it's probably a more polite term for than
I might normally hear.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
Well, we also have SPADs and spots, which are like
special policy advice though, but anyway, you don't want to
be a spad or a spot. So that we've seen
Donald Trump's second term here the first nine months coming up,

(02:02):
and he's got one major piece of legislation through aside
from like pocket recisions, but he's got the one big,
beautiful bill Act through that was quite wide ranging. It
covered a lot of things. There's a lot of things
it's covering there. As Donald Trump might say, that's the
first time I've ever done an impersonation on air. But

(02:22):
I did notice that. Greg Gutfield recently said on his show,
he says, when I was a kid, everybody used to
do impressions of John Wayne. Now everybody's doing impressions of
Donald Trump. It's a cultural shift, but an interesting one.
So he had the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It's
had a lot of things in it, very very now.
Of course, much of that is being contested through law courts,

(02:44):
because of course it is. But it was jam packed.
It was jam packed. My question is what's following. So
there's been a rumor that there's going to be another
One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would really ruin the
name of the first one. Should be called the First
Big Beautiful Bill Actor or mark.

Speaker 2 (03:05):
Now we could say the bigger, more Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 3 (03:09):
Oh hey, Donald Trump, if you see this, give us
a give us, give us a retruth or something.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
That's it.

Speaker 3 (03:17):
Yeah, that's the one. So yeah, what would Donald Trump,
with the cooperation of Congress, be looking to achieve going forward.
Obviously there's the midterms coming. There's the midterms coming, But
he's going to want uh, he's going to want some
legislation too. And I don't mean to say this in

(03:39):
like a Marionette sort of way, but he's going to
want something to dangle in front of the vote and
say this is what we've got on offer. This is
why you need to return a Republican House and a
Republican Senate because we're going to get this I'm sorry,
what did you call it?

Speaker 2 (03:55):
This bigger, bigger, more beautiful bill.

Speaker 3 (03:57):
The bigger, more beautiful BILLU. And we know what we
need is we need a Republican Senate and uh and
House to get this through. I mean that's pure politics, right.
But what does he have do you think to offer
going forward?

Speaker 2 (04:16):
Well? Uh, well, with the with the new tariffs in place,
and uh and this new which well, actually I guess
it has gone in effect now the new increased fee
on the H one B work fees one hundred thousand
dollars fee. That's a that's a huge I wonder if

(04:40):
he's he's the administration has has mentioned in in White
House press releases when they're talking about increasing the tariffs
and increasing these fees, about lowering the tax burden on Americans.
And so I wonder if the next big thing or
for anyone who's ever watched the TV show Legend, the

(05:01):
main character he was, he was a writer, and he
was always looking for the coming thing. And I wonder
if the coming Richard Dean Anderson, Yes, yes, yes, and
a guy that's it Nicodemus legend. And if he was
always looking for them, the coming thing, and and I
wonder if the coming thing might not be major tax cuts,

(05:24):
you know, more major tax cuts. Right.

Speaker 3 (05:26):
So we had the the twenty seventeen jobs and jobs cuts, No,
not jobs cuts.

Speaker 2 (05:35):
I don't know that we wanted.

Speaker 3 (05:37):
Well, it depends on which side of the art that's true,
that'll call it. But yeah, the the tax cuts that
were then renewed in the one big beautiful bill.

Speaker 4 (05:48):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (05:48):
And so to take that even further that that would
be that would be quite historic, I think, because you know,
I know Donald Trump likes to talk about the the historicness,
the historicity of of every decision he makes. And they're
not all not all of them are that historically president, Yeah, yeah,

(06:09):
they're they're not. Many of them are not unprecedented, as
a lot of people like to say that. They're not.
I mean, sure, you know they are what they are,
but they're not always the historic lows or highs that
he says. But if a second round of tax cuts
funded by as you say, the h one B visa

(06:32):
fees are going up to one hundred thousand dollars per
plus the Trump is it the Trump Gold card or something.
They're calling it the Gold visa card.

Speaker 2 (06:41):
Gold card.

Speaker 3 (06:42):
Yeah, yes, it's like a million.

Speaker 2 (06:45):
It makes them sound like a credit card, but it really.

Speaker 3 (06:47):
Does, it really does. But with all that coming in, yeah,
there's a chance that, yeah, he could probably get a
lot of support through Congress for uh an even deeper
tax cut.

Speaker 2 (07:04):
But I wonder I was gonna say alternatively or in
addition to that, with with with more and deeper cuts
into federal spending, especially some of the ridiculous things that
we see, you know every year when with the Festivust
report from oh yeah, uh and and we're seeing a

(07:25):
lot of the same stuff on the on the doge
website where they're pointing out all these things, Hey, we're
spending this much money to do this ridiculous thing. Why
with with deeper cuts there and and job cuts because
a lot of a lot of uh, what he's been
pushing for is is a reduction of the overall size
of the federal government, which I think he's really hit on.

(07:47):
I mean, he's really he's really hit on with the
small government conservatives and libertarians. Here is uh, you know,
put that beast on a diet and slim things up.
So so cuts for sure, but then of course perhaps
a paying down of debt. Our national debt is is

(08:07):
a what's the word we're using here, unprecedented levels? Unprecedented levels.

Speaker 3 (08:13):
Yes, I'm reminded of a fantastic my favorite Bob Hope
film in fact, which the Lemon Drop Kid and he
sings a line in it, pay down the national debt. No,
it doesn't cost a dime to dream, because that's I like,

(08:34):
many people feel that that is never going to happen.

Speaker 2 (08:36):
Jim, Yeah, that's it.

Speaker 3 (08:39):
It should.

Speaker 2 (08:39):
But anyways, you know that's a that's that would be
a big selling point.

Speaker 3 (08:44):
I think, Yeah, I think it needs to be likely
than tax cuts. Yeah, it's to actually pay down the debt.
It's something that needs to be institutionally instigated, as in
each branch of UH, each executive branch, each area of
spending needs to continue to reduce.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
MI conjunction with die.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
Yeah. So, but it can't be like one off cuts, right,
It has to.

Speaker 2 (09:16):
Be permanent reductions. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
Yeah, it's on an annual basis too. Otherwise, you know,
as you say, you need to slim the beasts down,
and the more you feed it, the fatter it gets. Uh,
we're going to be back with Jim Fight after this
shot break. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (09:40):
For your freedom and your liberty. Liberty Nation with Mark Edge.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
Of Ladies, and you're back on Liberty Nation Radio. I
remain your host, Mark Angelidis, and Jim Fight remains Jim Fight,
Editor at large over at Limity nation dot com. Thanks
for being yeah and thanks for sticking around. So we
talked about the the one Big Beautiful Bill and Trump's
a further agenda that we could title if you remind

(10:05):
me of what that is again.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
The Bigger More Beautiful Bill.

Speaker 3 (10:09):
Yeah, there you go. That is a you should You
should put up a website for that, Jim, and then
set it down when ready. So that's what we discussed
what we think might be in such a bill. But
coming into next year and things are really stunned heat
up already is the twenty twenty six mid terms. Now, Jim,

(10:33):
what do you think each party is going to be
campaigning on? I suggested earlier in the show that maybe
Donald Trump would be campaigning on the Bigger, more Beautiful Bill,
whatever that, whatever shape that takes, not for him, but
saying that you have to get Republican the Democrat Republican
senators and representatives re elected to get this bill through,

(10:58):
and that that will be his pitch. I think, think,
what do you think Democrats are going to be off rame?

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Well, you know, there's the old standbys of abortion access
and immigration. But but Democrats, a lot of the Democrats
have seemed to have kind of reversed on immigration a bit.

Speaker 3 (11:18):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (11:19):
I mean they're still they still want reform, but they're
they're at least saying they're ready to start backing Board
of Security, which is which is interesting and also possibly
a point that Trump and the other Republicans can lean
on to say, you know, kind of like hey, we
told you so a moment, but you know, I kind

(11:39):
of come back to the idea of this, uh like
the Nope Act for example. This this narrative that the
left has has been pushing here lately after the murder
of Charlie Kirk. Of course, especially that the Trump administration
is is applying pressure to get rid of political enemies,
if you will, like Jimmy him All and Stephen Colbert

(12:01):
and any anyone who has lost their job after disagreeing
with Trump. Of course, it was because the administration applied.
You know, they put the thumb down in the company cave.
That's that's gonna be their narrative. But I could see
I could see that being a big talking point in
the mid terms of like, now, all of a sudden

(12:22):
instead of being but they're going to kind of shy
away from the idea of being the statist party and
more of like, hey, we're I mean, in a way,
that's always been their narrative, We're the one for looking
after the little guy. But but I think they might
really kind of dig down in that and and and

(12:44):
sort of tout themselves as the party of individual liberty.

Speaker 3 (12:47):
Yeah, it's uh, here's the thing. It wouldn't it be
great if voters of all stripes judged whom they voted
for based on this is the person protecting the constitutional rights.
I mean, I think the Constitution and the Republic would
be far far stronger if voters of all stripes said,

(13:12):
you know, look at the candidates and thought which one
is best for constitutionally protected rights?

Speaker 2 (13:16):
Yeah, you're appreaching an a choir on that one, Mark, Yeah,
and and treading very dangerously close to triggering a soapbox
moment here.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
I am.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
I am kind of famously not for people to know
me not a card carrying member of any party, and
I don't vote party line. When when election time rolls around,
I look into all of the candidates that are available
for me to vote for them, not really concerned at
that point with anyone else, and I look at have
they held office before? Great, what's their voting record look like,

(13:49):
because that's public information. Where do they stand on these
issues in interviews? And their their voting record? And you
know the result, I say, kind of nominally, it's not
about what part of they are now because I hold
certain beliefs. The end result is I end up voting
for the people from the same parties. But yeah, and

(14:11):
not the other but uh, but yeah, if if everyone
would vote on the actual performance of the politicians and
the platform, like what is the party actually saying it's
gonna do instead of just relying on well, I'm a Democrat,
so I got to vote for these guys. Or I'm
a Republican, so I got to vote for these guys.
Or well I heard on the radio ad that so

(14:33):
and so said such and such, so I guess I'm
voting for that one.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Yeah. Yeah, it's tough because such a such a way
of voting, and this is a way a lot of
people vote. But I think but they do it based
on I would say, not not whole cloth information, because

(14:57):
you know, you have people who say, I'm not saying
this is the Democrats going into twenty twenty six, but
you know at a party that's or a candidate that's
going out, they're saying, hey, you know, I'm here to
protect your First Amendment rights by standing up for Jimmy
Kimmel and he got fired because of Trump administration. That
sounds like a good free speech argument, right, as long

(15:20):
as you don't as long as you don't dig into
the details, and you think, well, free speech, First Amendment,
that's somebody who respects the Constitution.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
At surface level.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
It makes a grot sounund bite and I think, I mean,
this is almost certainly true of I don't want to
say a majority because I don't know, but many Republicans
and many Democrats going in who are either up for
re election or running for the first time to win
a seat in either House, sorry neither chamber, that they're

(15:52):
all going to be making the case that they are
the best defense of your constitutional rights, and even when
they're on opposites sides, and so either one of them
at least is lying to you, or at worth they're
both lying, like.

Speaker 2 (16:08):
That you said, at least because it's they can't both
be telling the truth, but they can absolutely both be lying.
Is a possibility.

Speaker 3 (16:14):
Yeah, it's it's like the two doors where you can
ask one question of each of them, Ronald, But yeah,
here's situated. They could both be lying. So what what
you end up with is as an onslaught of information
that much of it is likely false, much of it
is sound bites, much of it is aided by the

(16:36):
spin of the media both sides, you know, both sides
of the aisle, that they're always pushing for their guy
or gal or them. You know, I'm not sure that
they're pushing for theirs. There's no we'll be getting they're
in there as well, there's there'ss. So they're always pushing

(16:59):
for their you want. So the onslaught of misinformation that
you end up with is mountainous in so many ways.
So even if somebody thinks that they are and I
mean I could be guilty of this myself, you know,
as could you. Even if we think that we're doing
like the right research finding out who best resent represents.
Not me, but I'm not an American, says, I can't hypothetical.

(17:24):
You know, I get all this information, and I think
that I'm voting for the most the candidate that the
best represents the chance for protecting the republic, strengthening the constitution,
and essentially looking for looking down the path of freedom
and liberty and saying that's where we're going. We could

(17:45):
all be wrong because of the misinformation, well not just misinformation,
just the lenses through which we look.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
That's why I always ad, I mean absolutely and absolutely
look at what the candidate and the party says they're
going to do. But ignore thing. Ignore the TV commercials,
ignore the radio commercials, ignore the celebrity endorsements. None of
that matters. That's that's all just electionity there dressing.

Speaker 3 (18:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:11):
Yeah. And so if your candidate that you think you
might be voting for has never held office before, all
you can do is look at what the candidate says
and what the party says. But that's why for anyone
who's already held office, I mean, the fruits of their labor,
it's public information. Find it. There's really there's not a

(18:31):
lot of way to spend that. There can be some
I mean, you start looking to vote tallies and okay,
well you voted for this and you voted against that,
and just look at where you personally align on it.
And that's a That's the best advice I could give
any voter is look at for the ones who've already
held office, look at what they voted on last time,
because that's what they're going to support this time.

Speaker 3 (18:49):
Jim Wise words, indeed, thanks ever so much for being here.

Speaker 2 (18:53):
It's been a pleasure.

Speaker 3 (18:54):
Mark, No, that's what was free.

Speaker 1 (19:01):
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom.

Speaker 2 (19:04):
Of enterplase and freedom is special and red.

Speaker 1 (19:07):
This is Liberty Nation with Markangeledes, 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 (19:24):
And you're on Liberty Nation Radio Head Coast Coast on
the Radio America Network, I Romania host Mark Angelies, and I
we're very fortunate to have with US Liberty Nations national
security correspondent Dave Pats and that Dave, there's a there's
something that you and I have been wanting to discuss
for a while, and that is Donald Trump's fairly recent
message regarding Antifa. And now I do want to delve

(19:48):
a little bit into what antifa is and why there
are so many people saying that's not an organization because
it's yeah, besides its flag and it's funding resource and things.
But we're into that. But you brought up a fascinating point.
Now I'm just going to quote the the what do

(20:10):
you call it? The truth? As Don Trump calls it
a truth? Right, So he wrote, quote, I'm pleased to
inform on many USA patriots that I'm designating Antifa, a sick,
dangerous radical left disaster, as a major terrorist organization. Dave,
what stuck out to you there?

Speaker 4 (20:31):
Well, what stuck out was that, you know, you you
have foreign terrorist organization. They're established in law and and
but we don't have any parallel, as best I can tell,
parallel legislation that identifies domestic terrorist organizations. We use the

(20:52):
term and everybody has a pretty good idea as to
what that means.

Speaker 3 (20:55):
But here we have.

Speaker 4 (20:56):
Donald Trump who alters that phrase by calling it a
major terrorist organization. Now, you don't want to get caught
up in verbiage and parsing words so that suddenly all.

Speaker 3 (21:09):
The meaning goes away anyway.

Speaker 4 (21:12):
But the fact is is that there I think that
there is some reason to talk about that, so that
you have some sort of parallelism. You have foreign terrorist
organizations and you have domestic terrorist organizations.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
What I believe is.

Speaker 4 (21:30):
Going to trip the administration up here is and believe
me and TIFA is a terrorist organization. The Summer of
Love with BLM was a demonstration of how terrorist organizations
actually do destroy.

Speaker 2 (21:50):
Property and kill people.

Speaker 4 (21:52):
And I would put BLM in that category as well,
although that probably would raise a lot of hackles. But
the fact is is that Antifa, although they like to
push the idea that they're this loosely organized kind of
philosophically joined organization that basically are a bunch of anarchists,

(22:15):
that simply is not true in application. And ask the
people in Portland, Oregon every night if Antifa is not
an organized organization on the streets of Portland.

Speaker 3 (22:27):
So does that do end up talking about Antifa. It's
a really important point about whether it's an organization or not.

Speaker 2 (22:35):
Right.

Speaker 3 (22:36):
I mean, it has a flag that people put you
know that they actually carry the flag. It's because it's
not just in America, of course, it's it's it's worldwide
that they carry a flag. They put these little flag
symbols in their messages and things. They get funding for
different events as well. Now this is not always a

(22:59):
parent tracks these funding, but funds go towards the quote
anti fascist movement and from a diverse array of sources
as well, some of which are quite well known. But
the very fact is that they organize. And so unless
we're playing Bill Clinton's it depends on what the meaning
of is is something that organizes is therefore an organization,

(23:24):
right what one would think, Yeah, it may be decentralized.
So are most of the terrorist organizations in the world,
aren't they do? Yeah?

Speaker 4 (23:33):
I mean that's exactly right. So here's the way it
would be, I think a reasonable way to think about this.
If you've got Antifa in your town and they're throwing
bricks through people's store windows and they have their flag,
which reminds me of the Eddie biz Bizard comedy routine.

Speaker 3 (23:55):
But if they've got their flag and.

Speaker 4 (23:57):
They're destroying proper pretty starting fires, they are a terrorist
organization in the microcosm. You round them up and put
them in jail. That's how easy you can identify that.
I mean, it's a okay, you're not a you're a
loosely organized group of people, but the group I'm looking
at looks organized and you're in trouble.

Speaker 3 (24:19):
Yes, So if it's not an organization, how do they
organize and how do they all end up at the
same place at the same time to create the chaos
to mayhem? And well, let's say with the terror which
they instill in the poor people who end up having
to if they're lucky lived through whatever they're what are

(24:43):
they're doling out for their particular cause at the time. Now,
so Donald Trump calls them a major terrorist organization, now
as you're already say that there is a distinction and
the difference between an f to a foreign terrorist organization
to make see terrorist organization. And when he says a
major terrorist organization, now he might it might just be

(25:07):
you know, social media words sound that's always possible. But
I guess the question is how does one combat If
you're the president of the United States and if you're
you're homeland security, how do you deal with a quasi
organization that says it isn't organized and yet is reaking

(25:29):
havoc across the world.

Speaker 4 (25:31):
Well, as I said, I mean you dealing with it
on the local level. I mean, you got a flag,
you got a bunch of people that are acting out,
and they become the problem. And it might maybe twenty people,
more than likely one hundred, oftentimes two hundred people, and
they're they're acting out and causing problems, and so by

(25:53):
virtue of the fact they've got a flag and they
are are doing things that terrorists do, then you round
them up as terrorists.

Speaker 3 (26:02):
But Dave, surely there's an optics issue and this would
be classed as mostly peaceful Terrorism'll be.

Speaker 4 (26:09):
Right, Yeah, you watch too much CBS, But you know
that Here here's the fundamental problem. I mean, I think
you know, taking it down to its foundational issues, and
that is we don't have legislation that identifies specifically how
to go about doing this. And if Donald Trump wants

(26:29):
to be effective in his identification of major terrorist organization,
it needs legislation. It needs something very specific that lawyers
can't weasel word their way out of.

Speaker 3 (26:44):
Yeah, well, I mean any legislation that comes through to
to designate or put in place plans to treat antifa
as a terrorist group will be challenged, challenged through the
Yazoo believe it was the express I think.

Speaker 4 (27:01):
But see that's why you don't use Zantifa as you know,
the cars, the leb. You used domestic terrorism and identify
what that looks like. And when Antifa behaves that way,
they become that my definition.

Speaker 3 (27:16):
You pointed out earlier that the way to deal with
this on an immediate level is through the local level.
So for example, you see fifty people fire vomiting the
local ice center, that kind of stuff, or sending fireworks
at law enforcement while they're trying to do the job,
while they're wearing the you know, the black garb, the

(27:38):
Antifa flags, things like that. The issue there, Dave, is
that these groups operate mostly in areas that would not
recognize either a Trump's authority to designate something a terrorist organization.
B would push back against the legislation. They're the ones

(27:59):
that are going to be doing the lawsuits to stop
any legislation coming through on this. And see we know
that they don't enforce actual laws anyway, and that's what's
emboldened people like Answell, we can go out, we can write,
we can burn things, and nothing will happen to us,
because the politicians are going to insist that we do

(28:20):
not get charged because it's a it's the voice of
the oppressed crying out against the injustice of a capitalistic society.

Speaker 4 (28:29):
Well, I think I think the the solution to that
is that it becomes a federal a federal problem.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
If you.

Speaker 4 (28:41):
Are spreading anteeth kinds of mayhem, that it's the federal
law that you're breaking. Yeah, by virtue of what you're doing,
your behavior then identifies to you as a domestic terrorist
and and focusing on Antifa alone will will not satisfy anybody. Sure,

(29:05):
you have to throw in all domestic terrorism and identify
it and make the words very succinct and clear as
to what domestic terrorism looks like, so that when you
see it, it by its very nature is considered illegal
and it's a federal offense, not a local one.

Speaker 3 (29:26):
So to push back a little on that, Dave, you've
been talking to God the true libertarian, anonymists libertarian. So
to really perspective, just really on the practicalities of it.
There there is if this were a federal issue, local
state governments would wash their hands with certain local state

(29:48):
guns would wash their hands entirely of it, and all
they do is make press conference saying this is terrible.
We see what happens when ICE goes into places to
arrest people who've entered the country legally and or commits
to crimes while they're here. Also, but if it's federal,
then then you're really playing a game of fifty state

(30:08):
whack am all right, because nobody wants to see permanent
federal enforcement on the streets of every state permanently. Nobody
wants to see that. So a terrorist group or like
a group looking to riot, create mayhem and terror, you know,
they do something in one area and then they disappear,

(30:30):
and then they do something in another area and then disappear.
And surely what you'd end up with short of putting
out an entire federalized troop force to monitor every state,
which we all agree, I think that's just a bad idea.
What you end up with. It's almost like a low
level guerrilla warfare, isn't it. Well?

Speaker 4 (30:52):
I think that also, you know, you their behavior identifies
the organization, but they all have homes, all go somewhere,
and if you take your flag with you into your
apartment or condo, you air go you are in a.

Speaker 3 (31:07):
TIFA terrorists and we there are.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
And I think that initially, I think that the Trump
administration is doing precisely the right thing and that as
they're going after the money and and I think that's
precisely right, you know, but you get very very little
pushback when you start to diminish the flow of funds

(31:31):
to these radical organizations, and again not just Antifa.

Speaker 3 (31:36):
I mean, you have to broaden the.

Speaker 4 (31:37):
Scope of this so that you know you're not even
picking on poor Antifa. And but the fact is that
they're doing the right thing, going after the money. And
you've got these uh, forensic accountants go they finally come
into their room, their happiest clams now that they get
to go do this stuff and you and and then

(31:59):
we go after and prosecute. I would think that not
being a lawyer, but talking to Scott occasionally, I would
think that they could This is one area where rico
would really be appropriate. And from what I know about it, yeah,
Trump has suggested something like that.

Speaker 3 (32:20):
I think we're going to be back with Dave after
this shortbreak. Don't go anywhere.

Speaker 1 (32:29):
For your freedom and your liberty, liberty Nation with Mark Edge, Ladies.

Speaker 3 (32:35):
And Rebecca on Liberty Nation Radio or remain Mark han't
leaders and we continue our conversation with Liberty Nations National
Security correspondent mister Dave Pats and Dave, thank you for
sticking around, really appreciate. I guess the topic we want
to talk about now is what's happening with these recent
spate of bombings of drug boats. Give me your give

(32:57):
me your view from a twenty foot drone.

Speaker 4 (33:00):
Dave, Well, first of all, it's pretty effective behavior modification.
I think if you jump in your speedboat and loaded
up with narcotics, fentanyl and cocaine, there's a very good
chance now that you will not make it to your
destination and that you'll be embraced and kissed by a
health fire missile which will probably in most cases ruin

(33:22):
your entire day.

Speaker 3 (33:24):
Very much, sir, very much, sir. So this is something
actually quite different, though, isn't it that from what we've
seen in the past, even during the height of the
War on drugs, which congratulations drugs it appears you won,
but actually targeting stuff before it's coming into the country,
rather than you know, trying to seize it at the

(33:46):
border or doing interdictions at specific places with the cooperation
of those foreign governments. This seems to be, as you say,
like just sending a huge message to anybody who's going
to try and bring things in, isn't it. Yes, But
nonetheless it's effective and.

Speaker 4 (34:05):
It comports, I think with the idea of foreign terrorist organizations,
which is the I think the rubric under which they have.
The administration has taken this particular approach. You know, it's
interesting that for the most part, people did not become

(34:26):
very upset with taking out Solomony and you know, Arab terrorists.
There was a little bit of a dust up, but
nothing past a news cycle. But now all of a sudden,
you know, the people who are real terrorists and doing
real terrorist things that have the potential of being very

(34:50):
diseruptive and destructive to the United States, killing as many
as two hundred and fifty thousand. Of course, during the
Biden administration, the uh uh spread of FETANOYL and fetanyl
least narcotics. President Trump has said, okay, first and foremost

(35:11):
cartels are foreign terrorist organizations. Therefore there's foreign terrorist organizations.
We will use the full power of the United States
in international waters in order to to take them out
and it looks like that's been done very effectively.

Speaker 3 (35:29):
Yeah, it's It's quite the legal process, isn't it. There's
so much criticism of this, particularly from the political left,
for for doing this. And one of the main refrains
I keep seeing both on you know it's called the
mainstream media, social media, even from elected politicians, is that

(35:53):
what we're just killing people indiscriminately now and they And
the first thing that popped in my head was, have
you guys met Barack Obama? Do you remember this guy
with his drone strikes killing lord knows how many an
American citizens? Yeah, yeah, and that and there there's none

(36:15):
of the same pushback. Sure there was the occasional tut tutting,
but it seemed that Barack Obama could do no wrong
in certain eyes. And yet this where he's gone through
the process, as you say, the cartels are, President Trump's
gone through the process of saying designating the Cartels foreign
terrorist organization. And that opens up, like for anybody who

(36:38):
plays any kind of video game from the nineteen nineties,
it opens up a menu of these are the things
you can do now, walk forward, the drop a bomb
on them in international waters. It opens up that whole,
that whole menu of actions that can be taken that
are within the law of the land. And yet it's

(37:01):
almost as though, and I don't want to apply malicious
intent here, but it's almost as though they would rather
the drugs arrive and then deal with what that is.
And as you say that two hundred and fifty thousand
deaths then make America look a little bit tougher than

(37:23):
it is.

Speaker 4 (37:24):
Well, I think that it's a case of not making
America look more tougher than it is. It's making America
look resolute and of a single mind in terms of
dealing with cartels. Now, I think that the left has
a very big problem. They had four years to do nothing.

(37:48):
They had four years to cause the Apparently that's not
what they were voted in for.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
By the way, nothing, Although some people there's an argument
you made that revote people in and they're not allowed
to do anything for you, we'd be in a much
better position. But I'm just.

Speaker 4 (38:03):
Saying, yeah, well, we found out that that's not the case,
and the left has a like I say, they have
a very difficult situation.

Speaker 3 (38:11):
They don't All they do is attack.

Speaker 4 (38:13):
They don't provide any sort of positive solutions themselves because
they don't have any. And so when someone actually does
something that is a positive and proactive is the word
I think is the most appropriate. Proactively deals with a
problem that is causing the deaths of Americans. They have

(38:36):
a big problem, but they don't have any solutions themselves.
This has been the perennial issue between conservatives and liberals.
Liberals seldom have any sort of a solution, whereas conservatives
tend to be proactive. I always used to proactive with
issues and proactive in finding solutions. But in politics, of course,

(39:00):
the Republicans need to look at the playbook for the Democrats.

Speaker 3 (39:04):
I always make the.

Speaker 4 (39:06):
Covert that the Democrats go to knife fights with guns,
Republicans go to lunch.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
And on that note, I think that's probably something we
can all agree on. Dave Patson, thanks ever so much
for being with us today. Thank you, Mark, happy to
be with you. And that's all we have time for
on this week's edition of Liberty Nation Radio. Like being
your host, Mark Angelides, I'd like to thank our special
guests today, mister Jim Fight and Dave Pattson for taking
the time to join us. Of course, thank you the
listeners at home who take the time each week to

(39:37):
tune in. You are appreciated. Now, please remember Libertination does
not endorse campaigns, candidates, or legislation, and this presentation is
no endorsement