Latest / Palafox Media Network / Guardians of the Republic: The Hidden Danger of Redistricting
Transcript
- speaker-1: Welcome folks and to the next issue here of the guardians of the Republic. I am joined today with Charles Barfield. I'm special guesting in here today. How you doing Charles? speaker-0: Good, you're doing well, Greg. How are you doing today? speaker-1: I know pretty good. guess our other compadres, we're actually doing this on a makeup day today is the May 7th here. So, and so we're doing on a not a regular scheduled day, but we're just going to go ahead and talk about what's going on here in the news here today and what's going on in politics. It seems like ⁓ the States are taking full advantage of the Supreme court removing any kind of, ⁓ districting that was in the past, making it the new district for the future and having it all redrawn. So, ⁓ Like I think we talked before the show, I think it's all going to probably be undone in the next generation of Supreme courts. Right now this is the iteration that it is and it's a strange, bizarre, weird, but it's, it's, know, it's happening. I mean, what's your opinion? speaker-0: Well, think that it's short-sighted because there's nothing in the Constitution that doesn't give the political party the power to expand the Supreme Court. The United States is exactly going to happen. I don't think the Dems have had the spine or the intellectual strength to do that. But I will give the GOP credit. whether they believe in something, whether it be right, wrong, or different, they can unite on it and get it done. I mean, they can get done. speaker-1: The first time ever. mean, it took this to do it. I mean, we've, I mean, me being a GOP member myself, I have had complaints about how can we cannot unify around any type of issue at all. Like the Democrats are lockstep and goose step and however, whatever kind of step you want to make it for almost every single issue, whether it's transgenderism or, you know, or just any kind of extreme social programs that they're trying to push. And Republicans are always fractured. so you get something like, you know, they're about to lose the house. Like, Hey, let's figure out how we're not going to lose the house. not going to lose power. And that's a uniting ⁓ conversation. speaker-0: Well, I think that the problem ⁓ with that is, again, to be redundant. My problem with it. It's a short sightedness that when the Dems get the power back, I think they now got the green light to expand Skoda's and make up for those seats that ZOP basically just took from them. You know what mean? speaker-1: I mean, I don't think we need to experience CODIS, but I mean, at the same time, you're right. Once you go this far, you're just giving the roadmap to the other guys who are to take over to do the same kind of exaggeration. speaker-0: Well, this is the real issue with that from a legal, social, political standpoint. Slavery and Jim Crow wasn't a theory. It was legal, practical reality for hundreds of years. so you have a system of systemic discrimination. Personally, I don't have a problem with racism. I've always had a problem with discrimination. And usually they're not separable, but technically they are. But most of the people in power in this country, white majority, had to sustain an inherent power to govern and make laws. The reason why you had minority districts because of the vestiges of slavery, the power was all based in white males at one point, and then black men were there eventually, both then women. But in that you had economic advantages economically from the slave laborer. of dollars of wealth that got unpaid and things of that nature. So all the systemic power was vested in white males predominantly. so, in second, when you look at a population, the population from statistical analysis is that you will always have whites, white people with all the political power if you didn't have minority districts. For example, To keep it simple, just say if you had 10 people in a given district, geographically, right? And we know statistically that ⁓ seven of those districts are gonna be white people, correct? So the history of slavery and Jim Crow and oppression has basically said that if you don't, you know, minorities and enslaved people a opportunity, a vote would matter because you always have those seven white people voting for things that are systemically in the best interest of white people. therefore, if you have a minority district, you have some representation. So it goes back to, from a conservative principal standpoint, is that no one wants taxation without representation. So that is it. That's the second thing about it. So why have you... those three people in that minority, you'll permanently be there if you didn't have a district that was minority created. And that's why the judges did that. So that's the historical. And then the other thing about it is that, I will say this, I was in the seventh grade and God gave me this revelation. I was in the seventh grade and it said this, evil. always has a fundamental mischaracterization, misconception. And what I say about all this gerrymandering district that's going on right now is that what I think that the GOP are failing to realize is that there are a lot of minority and even majority people that so turned off by politics that they don't even vote. Every state, hundreds of thousands from Texas to Louisiana to Florida, you have hundreds of thousands of people that either don't vote or the system threw out their votes. So now, I think people are gonna get ticked off and actually empower themselves again and go vote. speaker-1: see. And I hope they do. mean, I hope the voting, I mean, you know, unfortunately the voter behavior and voter activity is not as high, nearly as high as ever should be. But I mean, and also I think the redistricting that we're seeing now because of the Supreme Court's ruling and then if you're ready to take a look at all the redistricting and all the different gerrymandering and the blue states and the red states for the last couple of decades, I mean, it has been a free for all on both sides. of everybody just trying to draw out the opposition and any Republicans are doing it now and in their favor and the Democrats and the Democrat states are going to be doing it in their favor. And, and so, I mean, at the end of the day, what we're seeing here is people manipulating and using the system for their own gain for political power gain. And my question is that where's a fair representation of any of this? mean, I mean, it's not just Republican, it's not just Democrat. It's a, it's a combination of bad behavior. of lot of elected officials period, or just basically trying to seize on power and trying to, you know, make sure that, you know, that their bread is buttered. And it's sad that we're all sitting here as pawns in this horrible political scheme of ⁓ everything. And I mean, granted, this is the latest unredistricting with the Supreme Court, but it's not, it's not the only. You look at the Northeast of America, where all the 13 colonies are, the majority of them are not. All Democrat out there, but they are legislatively all Democrat out there. And so, mean, you know, there's 35, 40, 48 % Republican easily, and MPAs and independents. It's not overwhelmingly Democrat, but your representation is overwhelming. so Republicans are seeing it as like a tip for tat. And it's just sad that we are in the middle of this tip for tat game and we are not getting back to the basics of what this nation was founded on was taking care of the people. speaker-0: Yeah, I'll agree with that characterization from you. ⁓ particularly, I think you bulls are correct in terms of it being all about power. It is raw power and people in power want to keep power because power leads to, ⁓ legislative corruption. Well, ⁓ we have all this inside trade for decades. I'm talking about, it's nothing, nothing new, but it's just like people. speaker-1: It's not new. mean, everybody wants to talk about it just happening now, but it's not just- speaker-0: Yeah, that's been for decades. I mean, you go since the 60s, you got people go into Congress who are economically on the low end. But by the time they got Congress, was fluent, fluent at the highest 1%. And that's inside trade, knowing there's committees and things of that nature where Congress won't do the right thing and ban inside trading. They have access to information and tools, the experts, they have these... hearing supposed to be for the public interest, but those people in those hearings are gaining information. They go out there and act upon it from the stock market to all kinds of investment stuff. it's really, it's really outrageous. think if we lose in that concept that one person won't vote really matters. ⁓ We know that with the Citizens United case, it pretty much wiped that principle out the door. So I think it's a brute assessment of power. And I think what's happening is that I think the GOP, and I think they started this, but I think the DMs are now doing the same thing, particularly in California. But I think what the GOP is not realizing in the aggregate is that the more popular stakes population-wise that can have more seats is going to be the blue stakes. And second, think... ⁓ But what I think is what I'm really hearing that's very surprising from the Dems is that these states like California and other blue states have been entitled to funding economically a lot of the payment to the federal government to the red states that are economically poorer than the blue or fluid like states like New York, California. And they're strongly considering withholding and keeping their fun from the federal government and that's interesting to me because and I like to hear your thoughts on that as a GOP person because of the fact that ⁓ Many times GOP always talk about how characterized for at least 50 years the federal government has been almost a demonic demon badger ⁓ speaker-1: Yeah until the Piper has not been paid. And so, I you know, I mean, I think, I think the deal is that whenever you're confiscating money from on a state level with the idea that it's going to be going to the federal government and you're telling the people that you're taking it. And so you can get a portion of it. to the federal government, then you need to damn well give it your portion that you told the people the reason why you're taking it and your share to the federal government. Now that being said, you know, I don't really understand exactly how these states all have their own different laws. They all have their own different constitutions and they all got their own setups with the federal government. mean, Florida actually turned away a lot of federal dollars for different programs. A lot of us were angry at people and the governors in Florida whenever they would do that or for COVID money, DeSantis would turn away. federal dollars and he has sometimes take it back. Then other ⁓ Republican governors would do the same thing and Democrat governors would do the same thing with the Republicans. Actually, I may correct that. There's no Democrat governor who had ever turned away any federal money. that being said, Democrats are going to take every federal dollar they can date. They're going to take every dollar they can date because they're driven on the fundraising system of a scare tactic click bait. which is the one thing ⁓ Republicans are starting to learn a lot. think the Democrats have taught Republicans how to do a lot of the fundraising of, you know, half answers and half data and scare tactics. know, one thing I talk about a lot is that this whole clickbait mentality of fundraising seems to be driving all of this. At the end of the day, I think all of this is just about raising money. I think the Democrats are reason why they're not putting a lot of arguments against Republicans on this that are kind of legally stick is because they're raising money off the Republicans doing this and vice versa. And why everybody's raising money doing all this. We're all sitting here wondering where the representation is going. How can gases get higher? How come regulations are going out of control? How come there's nobody out there looking for the common guy? How come there's nobody out there for the little man? And, ⁓ you know, we're all sitting out here in the desert getting hit on the head by the federal government. He's doing nothing but using their authority and Republicans are not using it as a small government apparatus either. They're growing government. I'm a Republican because I believe in a small constitutional government and that states can control everything and everything should be managed by the states and not the federal government mandating the states to do anything. That's just my point of view. But, you know, I think that government that governs least governs best. However, there are a lot of parts of the government that they do do good. Actually, one or two things that they do good. They actually take care of the... people first and allow their freedoms and everything else to be first. But that's not being done. mean, Republicans are being just as aggressive as the Democrats were being, and it's very frustrating. speaker-0: Well, I think that the reality of the matter is that the average American now has moved from their feelings to their pocketbook and understanding what really affects them. When the gas prices, when they go gas up, they limit trips, they limit vacations, and to some cases, they limit transportation of work. So they understand that. They understand that the gas prices are the roof. And secondly, understand why they're like that. Because we got a president that's doing an illegal war that's caused all this. And everybody said the sevenies knew that if you do that attack array in that nature, they're going to block that straight. Everybody knows that. The generals told him that. But he said when he was first running, was smarter than the generals. We see that now. speaker-1: Well, I don't think it's a, I just agree with you on being a legal war, but I think it's a stupid war the way we're doing it. And unless we're there to get rid of the terrorists and get rid of the horrible, theocratic government. And that being said, I mean, we have gotten rid of a lot of their oil fields and we've, you know, dismantled lot of their financial ability to do anything. But have we done it in a manner where it's not going to be able, they're not going to be able to recover from it? I don't know. I do think they have a lot of countries who are, they're still allied with like Russia and China, who I think will happily help Iran get back up off their feet. And at the end of the day, this entire war was for not. And so I'm hoping that, you know, I'm not a big fan of war either. I mean, I was in the military. I've seen the, it was a war. It's not good. And, but also at the same time, I don't like terrorism either. And I don't think anybody does. I'm not saying that the people who are against it support terrorism and hopefully they don't. But you have to have a worse thought out better. It cannot be done impulsively like this. speaker-0: Well, this is why is it illegal war. Number one, two reasons. One, that Congress expressly in the Constitution has the sole exclusive power to declare war. And there's a reason for that. Well, in the modern day, there are. You get Congress approval, which is in the authority of the Constitution. And then you can get a mobilization speaker-1: We have a lot of words aren't declared. speaker-0: other people to justify or support the war. That's the first point. Second problem is that the War Powers Act. That's a secondary act that requires any president to get that. So those are two only reason you can do a war. And then he has 60 days, any president has 60 days to, if he were in an urgent or emergent situation. send our troops in Holmes way, he or she has 60 days to do that per constitution. Now, he didn't do that either. So the 60 days wound up, I think, the 30th of April, and yet he came with a lame, lame, ridiculous, ⁓ unjustified excuse. And so this is even making it worse. The 60 days has passed, and they came up with this new ⁓ illogical justification. speaker-1: Because it has ceasefire. speaker-0: There's a seed spot, but there hasn't been no seed spot. And I ask you this question again. Who is he negotiating with? Who is his administration go to? speaker-1: Yeah, I can't answer that. mean, I can't defend them on their legal expertise all that much. mean, it's kind of, it's kind of questioning, but I will defend this. mean, I do think that, you know, the War Powers Act is probably something that needs to be looked at, being talked about whether or not it's even constitutional or not to limit the president by the Congress. I mean, the Congress controls the purse strings, but the executive branch usually controls the military as a commander in chief. ⁓ being the commander in chief, you know, he should supersede. the Congress, which is not the commander in chief. so, I mean, and so there's a lot of debate right now as, as to the legality or the constitutionality of the war. speaker-0: The war parts has been challenged forever, it's one of those arguments. And this is why. The reason why the worst or the most difficult thing any commander can do is send military ⁓ men and women out there in harm's way for war. It is the nuclear human sacrifice from ⁓ a sane, respectable nation. So no one wants to do that easily. Secondly, there was much debate about these powers. So it's very easy or more easier for corruption, robbery, extortion to be handled by foreign governments to one president rather than 435 members of Congress. So that's why the president has the power to send people over or troops over for 60 days, but Congress has the power of purse to fund it. And if you are legitimate and have a reasonable or you should be articulate that in the debate in the intellectual forum. ⁓ because at the end of the day, wait, this, this, ⁓ continue with the markers. will call it for back or lack of better expression is it checking balances. Everyone has an express power, but you also have checking balances. So no one could Trump. ⁓ You have three branches with three unique functions. The Congress make the law, the President enforce the law, ⁓ and you have the judiciary that interpret the law. Those are the three fundamental things we have. So that's why the war powers that have been challenging is not even controversial, but I'm very disappointed that I don't see the outrage of... this 60-day trial and error or sending our troops over there. And I think we just gotta be, we gotta stand up to Israel. My opinion, Israel is the world's greatest terrorist. I think the fact of history say that. I agree with that. I believe that, and I believe that, let me just say this. When there looks like there's a so-called, quote peace of core between this administration and whoever he's supposed to be negotiating with, we don't know. But let's assume that there is some kind of peace record. Who is the only exclusively ⁓ nation that torpedoes that every time? Israel. They bombing Lebanon. So that's speaker-1: Well, they're bombing Lebanon because, I mean, Lebanon's funding a lot of They're bombing them. I mean, it's, mean, you just can't be a sitting duck the whole time. speaker-0: Well, no, Israel is being aggressive with Lebanon and doing that. what they're justifying, no one is agreeing with them that's a little respectable. Even our old allies Britain and France, they're not buying this what Israel is saying. The MAGA and a few GOP is buying this because Israel has been wanting to do this for decades for all different kinds of president of both parties. And they didn't go down that rabbit hole. except for the current president. speaker-1: But the thing is, Israel and Palestinians and, you know, Hezbollah and Hamas and Kuwait, I mean, all these people that are attacking and they're attacking back. This has been going on and it's going to go on. And that's reason why I think the whole idea of a ceasefire is laughable in the end of the day. It's been going on millennium before you and I were born and it's going to be going on for a millennium after we're dead. So, I mean, it's not going to stop. No, I do not think Israel is a terrorist. I think that they're, you know, they're, you know. I'm half Jewish myself, so I'm a very big defender of Israel. so I do think, but also at the same time, I do not believe in them doing genocide. don't believe in anybody doing genocide. I don't think that, you know, there should be a flagrant terrorism or a flagrant, you know, attacks based off. I agree with you to a degree that every time there is a peaceful accord that somebody ends up blowing the whole thing up on the Jewish side because they want to have more power and they're getting overly eager and anxious on that area. At the same time though, I think that, I mean, to have peace in the Middle East, I don't think it's even possible. I just don't see how it's going to happen in our lifetime or any, anybody's lifetime. speaker-0: Well, I think it can happen. I think that, yeah, I agree with you that being a ⁓ historical battle, but I think it brought down to a very simple kind of concept. And JFK was a leader on this. We have to contain Israel. You're not acting like an ally. You're acting more like our terrorists. We're funding Israel with bombs. speaker-1: Acting like a terrorist, acting like a terrorist. You're a preacher. Go back to the story of Jericho. mean... speaker-0: Well, well, that's different because the Jewish people of Israel is not biblical Jews. The biblical Jews look like me. And so and that's why all the Arab nations are saying that ⁓ they tell the nation of Israel now that you left black, but now you came back white. And so the fight for Palestine is a whole lot of misconception, biblical, spiritually. That is a ⁓ 19, what, 1957 whatever year it was created, is a political nation for mutual economic interests, right? Now Judaism is a separate, legitimate religious, faith-based kind of, know, religion, but the whole concept of Zionism is discriminatory on its faith by definition. So you just can't have one group of people. in one area. That's just racism and discrimination, no matter how, what euphemism you put over it. speaker-1: And so the people that are attacking, are they going to allow Israel and the Jewish people to go to their country and live peacefully? I mean, is it a mutual thing or are we only asking one guy here to follow the rules and the other people not to follow the rules? speaker-0: Well, this is the thing, is the over the top aggressiveness of Israel, look how many people that wrong is wrong and right is right. We gotta call what's right what's right, what's is wrong. We go back to the most recent excursion, like when Israel was attacked, don't know, was it like less than a dozen people was killed. But since then Israel has killed about three or four thousand people. So this is what I'm saying. It's like the idea that Bob speaker-1: That attack was a lot more than a dozen people when they attacked a couple years ago. speaker-0: I'm talking about the initial attack. There wasn't that many people that had got initially got killed in the initial war. But by time Israel went and killed thousands to there like a dozen people or so. And that's what I'm saying. The humanity of it is the math is not math. It's like, and then this whole idea is justified, not justified to me when people say Israel has a right to protect themselves. Everybody has a right to protect themselves. Every to protect themselves, but only in the United States do we say that Israel got an unqualified right to protect itself. And when we say that, we don't look like a neutral referee to people outside of the United States. And the thing we have in problems now with that, people who used to be our friends are drifting away from us at all because we follow Israel with no breaks. speaker-1: Yeah, I know we're drifting away from this because they sound like Trump. Okay. mean, I think a lot of it is just their hatred from Trump. I think that if the Democrats were actually doing the same thing, supporting Israel, they'd actually be probably much more in line, I think. speaker-0: I don't agree with Democrats or Republicans for the way that we are Israel. Israel with all this money and bombs and yet they got universal health care Americans gotten zero. We don't have that we've got health care to take me for the average person here and But yet we spend all ⁓ our tax dollars now all of us great percentage of giving Israel billions and trillions over the years and ⁓ We do. But we give Israel more money than just by anybody. And the numbers not even close. Number two is not close. speaker-1: They got favoritism at us, yeah. And so they're going to get more money than the other people who are on me who are also all attacking each other, which is also ironic. We're actually funding people who are attacking the people that we're funding. And so, you know, it's been happening for a lot longer than this president's been around. speaker-0: Well, this, yeah, these problems will continue, but I do believe if that, if we got the purse, American taxpayers' money should be more reasonable thought out how we're gonna distribute them to everybody, and particularly Israel. And this is the thing, have you ever seen, from an intellectual standpoint, like if you go to a bank, you're, the bank got the money, right, and you're a borrower, the borrower don't tell the bank the terms. speaker-1: Alright. speaker-0: of how to give me the money. But that's what we've been doing Israel. We've been, we're the America at the Bank and- speaker-1: No they don't. Oh man. And other countries. Yeah, but that's oversimplifying it. Everybody's saying all the rules. mean, the countries have been telling America how to do everything for years and we've just been following everybody into here. Here's your check and do whatever you want with it. Here's your money. mean, we have not had the accountability or the enforcement at all to make sure. And first of all, I have no idea why we're funding all these. I mean, I get it. We're trying to buy a piece. Wonderful. see how good that's working for us. so, I mean, instead of funding or giving tax breaks and everything else to the American citizens and returning all the federal money back to the states where the states can actually take care of people properly, that'd actually be a good idea what to use that money for. But hey, what do I know? And so, I mean, you're right. I don't think anybody should be dictating how the terms need to be whenever they're receiving the money. The dictation should be on the people giving the money, not the ones receiving it. But America has been falling about ⁓ that pitfall and Trump is just the latest one to do it. He talks a lot and he says he's going to stand up for it, but he's not standing up yet. speaker-0: Yeah, but I think that ⁓ Trump has made it easy for the non-political, ⁓ die-hard political people to feel it in their wallet, with the gas prices, they make the connection. Years before, decades before, with different presidents, you couldn't really always make that connection if you wasn't studying this stuff like we do all the time. now that Joe Biden speaker-1: I mean, I've always been the connection because yeah, I mean, I mean, and also, I mean, I think the whole thing with Venezuela with the Venezuela oil fields opening up here and the other oil fields here in America and other exploration going on around the world, I think, I mean, although it seems like it's been a very long time, it's only been 60 days or 65 days. It hasn't been six or eight or nine months of the gas price. Now it seems like it, it seems like a lifetime with the gas being this high. It's horrible. And whenever you're broken and impoverished, it makes it seem extremely longer than it really is. That being said, think, you know, having enough time to get all the oil exploration, energy exploration and renewable energy and ⁓ more of a stronger grid, power grid for electric and, and, and, ⁓ hydro, know, hydro, ⁓ hydraulic power. And are there different forms of alternative energy, which are very slow, still very slow to get on onto the grid and working, but then as well as oil fuels and the other oil fuels and. out throughout America and Alaska. And I mean, there's a lot of different exploration going on internationally that will be able to handle the pressure we're losing on the Iranian side, but it's going to take time. not going to be quick. speaker-0: Well, let me ask you this. Do you think that the, the Venezuela that heavy duty crew or that very rare that they have, and that's one of the motivations of getting that. ⁓ but cleaning it up is a problem, but they doing it. Well, my question to you is that how do you feel, ⁓ as a, as a GOP intellectual that, it's been legitimate, ⁓ news reporting that, ⁓ that that all and that finances is in four accounts that has directly go to Trump with family. speaker-1: Well, that's wrong. I don't believe in any kind of graft. I don't believe in any. And if it were true, I mean, I don't really believe a lot of stuff here in the media as well either, because I always connect the dots and follow the money on who's saying what, who's paying for who to say what. But that being said, yeah, if there's any kind of theft or any kind of graft or anything like that, I'd be totally against that period. And I'm not into anybody stealing or, or, or robbing the people just to do that. mean, that's wrong. And we've been fighting against corruption like that. And no matter what party it is, period. That being said, hopefully it's being done right and done properly. But if it is being done wrong, needs to be called out. Now I don't think this DOJ is going to do anything about it. I have no idea what this DOJ is doing at all right now, actually. mean, I've seen things, they've dropped the ball on that and everything else is it's categories. mean, it's a, mean. I think they're stepping up or they had the ability to step up, but the DOJ for the last several administrations has just been nothing but a political whipping boy for whoever the heck is in charge. speaker-0: Well, as you know, the Wag the Dog philosophy has been around for decades and decades and decades. the bottom line is this is though is that it doesn't take a rocket science to realize that after all these wars, mean three, the Venice weather's war, the ⁓ Iran war, as well as the undeclared but legitimate real war against Cuba because that blockade on its face. No one's ready to talk about that. So we have three wars and like, in a very short timeframe, by one president. So it's just really, ⁓ it's very interesting ⁓ that ⁓ he ran, meaning Trump, he ran on the philosophy of three wars and he's got three in less than three months. speaker-1: normalcy Yeah, know. At the same time, he also helped solve several other, he helped several other peace accords and several other nations and everything else around the, around the world. So he, he's done both. I mean, he's trying to find peace. I don't think he wants to kill people. I don't think he wants a war. He's actually, think, and this is just my pure opinion and supposition. I think that Trump is thinking that he can basically negotiate and ⁓ play around and. talk semantically the, ⁓ everybody to come to make a deal and work it out. He, I think he likes to, to use intimidation as a power gesture and without, know, pulling the trigger and, and that being said, you know, it's a mess right now. I mean, the whole thing with Cuba, I don't know why we have any issues with Cuba whatsoever. We should knock down any kind of embargo, go ahead and trade with them, get the communism out of there. allow them to be a free state or help them become a free state and because of people there want to be free. And, um, I mean, I don't see any problem with that. mean, do you see a problem with the Cuban state singing and power? I mean, do you think they should be free or do you think they should just be the dictatorship they are right now? speaker-0: Let me first say this being free is equally objective and subjective likewise a terrorist is It depends on who is Articulating that who is a terrorist who not a terrorist so I Really? Well, you know, I mean speaker-1: It is, I agree. Terrorism is a killing innocence. Well, it's creating terror. speaker-0: There are people legitimately feel like the United States is the world's greatest terrorist right now, and Israel. mean, so when so many people are getting killed for no reason, the land grabs and power and all of that, that's one thing. In terms of not just Cuba, it is my belief, morally, spiritually, intellectually. I believe every nation, sovereign nation, has a right to determine its own self-determination. And that's the legal. So if the people in Cuba wants to move from communist dictatorship, they can do that. They can do that. They can't. If they want to. So they can't. How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? How? speaker-1: There's lot of bloodshed and a lot of people dying. speaker-0: Well, that's what I'm trying to say that it has to be dealt with within their own domestic or internal population to do that. When you have external population or external government interfering, that's illegal because you can't do that unless, you know, mean, you know, there are international laws that says that we won't allow suffering. and genocide within a country. That's why you have UN, you have agencies of the UN, the peacekeepers, you have scientists go up there, medical people to check things out, see if you comply with international law. That's one thing. But it's a different thing to say that we don't like you and we think you should be more like us. That's a problem. speaker-1: So you're also assuming, yeah, but you're also assuming that the international people are actually honest and not on the take as well. mean, it goes back to this corruption thing. Everybody's on the take. It's not just American politicians. We've got the European, Asian, African, South American. I mean, all the politicians are on the take. And that's the thing is trying to figure out, you know, getting the chief from the wheat and everything and trying to find out what's really happening here. Because I mean, there's this thing called, you're right. Genocide is horrible, but I think Cuba is basically doing an economic genocide to their own people. mean, they're starving them to death. mean, they're killing them economically. I mean, the people who live in Cuba have no economic freedom, no way to make a living, no way to do anything that would take to fund a takeover of the government because they're being pushed down so hard. so, I mean, I guess my question is just me being ignorant, stupid, uneducated guy here. When sovereignty comes in, ⁓ the nations, ⁓ does the sovereignty go to a nation that is abusing its people financially, food-wise, ⁓ police state-wise? mean, do they still get the same sovereign protection as another country that allows us people to be free? I mean, I'm sure it does, but why? speaker-0: Well, saying, first fundamental legal and practical step in any nation is to be recognized internally and externally as a legitimate government. That's why recognition is a big political, international kind of acknowledgement. So the first part of your question is that most nations must recognize you as a legitimate, reasonable government. If you illegally speaker-1: It is right below. speaker-0: do an illegal coup against international laws and violations, then most reasonable, fair-thinking nations won't recognize your authority. So in that case, you got an illegitimate reign. And then external foreign governments are more inclined to help a potential uprising because a coup was initiated, right? So that's really the answer to your question. But now, the other part actually. speaker-1: My question though is how's Cuba fit into that? How do they fit in the definition of being a country that is recognized as being a wonderful government for their people? speaker-0: Well, I wouldn't say ⁓ in the eyes of the West and the people outside, they will say that, you know, Cuba is all things negative. However, but the Cuban people will have a very different perspective on Cuba and communism. Yeah, you have fragments of that because I believe it would have failed by now. And I think that the destiny of an internal people speaker-1: with the eyes of the speaker-0: has to be self-determined in my view, not just legally, but personally, because that is the order of how a government should be. Because if you have external outsiders coming in, putting people in there, you're have forever chaos, you know, okay? But the answer to question on practical standards, our CIA and other, the Maasad and different... speaker-1: just say there, yeah. speaker-0: Agents that every government use, they do a lot of stuff like you were saying earlier about making the politics corrupt and dirty for power and self-interest. For example, a perfect example that is in the Congo in Africa, where millions of people have died because they're African, black, and brown. The humanity of nations seen to look a blind eye to that. Why are they doing that? Because the economic advantages of all... The diamond, the minerals, the resources in that area. greed. so there's been a lot of killing for decades and suffering in the millions. I'm talking about tens of millions of people over the last 40, 50 years, and no one's really saying anything about it. Now we say things about what's happening in Cuba, Iran, but nothing compares to the outrage and the needless killing from dictators and the gangs. in the Congo and you have a lot of the most of the wealth that we talk in a lot of those Saudi Arabia and some of those countries Arab nations they getting all those goals and all that jewelry all that minerals all the resources from the Congo which is in Africa Dubai right Dubai it all all that stuff from Dubai that wealth is coming from the Congo and you have every nation that you name a nation that's so-called uh, uh, fluent, many resources coming from the Congo area and the people just got gangs and you have suffering, dying, you got people paying the gangs off and killing people off. So that is the greatest humanity, uh, um, uh, diabolical, um, suffering that I've been alone and no one's really talking about like. speaker-1: suffering Exactly. And the international community is not talking about, and that's actually why I go back to my point. I don't really give a damn about what the international people are saying because they have lost their credibility. International courts, the international governance have lost their credibility altogether because they've let so many things and so many different countries go by the wayside and so many people suffer. So if they're upset with Israel or Trump about this, I really don't care. If they're upset about it, if they're defending people that want to kill people for a living. and kill their own citizens, you know, that's, that's just sad and sick. And so that, that being said, you know, we have to go back to doing what's right. And I agree with you on the Congo thing and there's numerous other countries like that as well. And we, know, that's what America is supposed to be doing is and not, or that's what actually the community, internationalist community is supposed to be doing is protecting citizens, protecting people. at all levels and the fact that we've gotten away from that and we started saying, I saw about land grabs and this, that, and then all the greed comes in and all the money comes in and people are getting their families involved in this and other post family. Cause it's not just a Trump family. mean, it's whoever is in power. was the Biden's they did it. Obama's they, their friends and their families made a killing. Clinton's friends and families made a killing. George W's friends and family has made a killing. A lot of Reagan's I mean. Everybody is just a part of it and it's sad and sick. And once we get back to one day and somebody's lifetime, a government that will actually put the people first, that would be a wonderful idea. speaker-0: I think that the difference in distinction from what you were just saying, I agree with what you were saying earlier about the equal opportunities suffering in Congo and other places. I agree with you on that. But what I differ is the latter part what you saying about the difference between the people in the administrations of W, the Obama administration, was the fact that they, which is kind of reasonably fair, that you go in government, you make connections. You get out, you start your own companies or whatever, and you get paid. That's kind of the politics. The difference here is that, there's been an open and notorious grab in the beads of dollars for all things and everybody, Trump, and they're like, what the? speaker-1: Get his word in. Okay. I get it. It is a different level. I will say. mean, and I'm pretty certain that the next president will take it to the next level. And the next one, mean, and I do think that, you know, like you said, politics one-on-one, we're seeing a trend and love it, hate it. And I'm not a big fan of what Trump is doing with that because what it's doing is it's giving a roadmap. for the next president to double down and do it even more. Cause he, believe me, once they're getting away with it, nobody's going to stop. It's not, it's basically a nonpartisan issue. doesn't really matter if they're Republican, Democrat, libertarian, Green Party. It doesn't really matter who they, what party agenda they're in. It has to do with the, the opportunity and the opportunities that you're giving people in your inner circle to. to create wealth based off insider trading and insider information. mean, we even have military guys who are betting on whether or not a war is going to happen or when that missile is going to hit. They're Vegas bets and people who are using their military ⁓ ability to protect people and to protect the constitution and protect America against enemies, foreign and domestic, they're using that information. speaker-0: The key is in speaker-1: to make money off of it, which, it's very creative. I don't think it's legal. I don't think it's a smart idea, but it's extremely creative. And that's a sad part of the society that we are in at this stage right now to where people are doing anything at any level. They could be Trump friends or they can be people who are against Trump who are betting against it. I mean, it's happening at every site. And at the end of the day, it's all about fundraising and they're all ringing the cash registers at a very, very high level. in all different directions and people have got to wake up to the fact that, know, I'm all for fundraising. I'm a fundraiser myself, but you got to tell the truth. You have to do it for the right reasons and for the right people period and the abuse of it and the abuse of everybody else's ability to donate and to use that for old gotten games is just totally wrong. speaker-0: Yeah, I will agree to that. ⁓ But I do believe that. Yeah, there's definitely a level. I would say dimensions. anyway, ⁓ I think what's important too though is that I think that every American voter, and even more importantly, every American non-voter, need to get to the realization that we have to have people of character. speaker-1: You are right, it is a different level. speaker-0: And there had to be something, character used to be a big issue on both all political sides. Where you, Republican, Independent, where character was a big deal. were getting, we were going away from that. Then that's the problem. When you have a person that deficient or defective in a character, it's going to economically harm every individual American. And that's the thing that we need to get back to. And we need people. who have ⁓ a moral humanity, if you're gonna serve in a public capacity. I believe character and a moral humanity because to me, I don't believe in religion, I believe in faith and the Spirit of God. I love, and except Jesus Christ is my personal Lord and Savior, but that being said, ⁓ I do believe, regardless if you have a different faith, belief, I do believe a person has got to believe fundamentally that there's something bigger and greater than you because if not, you have the human limitation to self-destruct because power corrupts. And if you have power, it's gonna make you a self-destructive person if you are not ankle and center and moral character. And that's a problem. got a lack of character in leadership. speaker-1: It goes back to what Martin Luther King says, the content of your character, not the color of your skin. And it goes for everything and for everybody. It's not, you know, I mean, it's about paying values first and paying people first period. you got, you got anything else you want? You got anything else you want to talk about today? speaker-0: Yeah, I think we can. Well, we kind of talked about the Bowling Riders Act. I would like to say this about this cruise ship. Pink virus outbreak that's spreading on one of the Florida's cruise ships. think that, I don't know, it just kind of came out of left field, but then some experts were saying that it's been here for a while. We're not focused on things that can kill us or injure us or put us in the hospital because... all this war and craziness going on. can't, we can't. speaker-1: We got lot going on. Yeah, we got a lot of real problems and one day we're going to have enough people leaving everybody alone to where they can just actually focus on all the different, you know, problems on the buffet table. Because right now I think politics is being treated like a buffet at Golden Corral and people are just picking and choosing what they want to talk about instead of the entire ensemble of food out there. And we have an entire ensemble of problems and issues that need to be faced. And it's going to be interesting this midterm election cycle, see how it goes. speaker-0: Well, let me ask you this question about the Louisiana senator who was caught on a hot mic ⁓ basically talking about Dean Tien. Yeah, that happened today, I think, or yesterday about the German and districts. He literally was talking about, and I'm summarizing about ⁓ doing this to still intimidate voters. He basically was telling ⁓ some people, ⁓ some police officers to go dress with their gun and badge and on election day to show intimidate black voters so they won't vote. So, voter intimidation, voter suppression is... speaker-1: It is a voter fraud. remember you said a couple of weeks ago, there's no such thing as voter fraud, but I disagree. mean, we have the issue in Michigan with the Democrats defrauding the other Democrats and everything else in the Michigan elections. have Republicans defrauding Republicans and Republican primaries. I've been a part of political campaigns for the last 25 some odd years here in Florida, almost 30 years. And I've seen a lot of the corruption upfront. And it's not just really like voter fraud. It's a voter suppression, it's voter intimidation. It's all one big basket of little regularities to basically, in my opinion, I don't think a lot of the elections that we've had the last 40 years, I don't think a lot of them have been legitimate whatsoever at all. And nobody's calling them out because it upsets the apple cart, man. It upsets the insider trading. It upsets all the money. And there's billions of dollars going through counties. mean, you live in Orlando, which is Orange County or Seminole County. I live in Flagler County. And for these small counties, our budgets are almost, or nearly over a billion dollars. And so that being said, there's a lot of people who are basically waiting for their handouts. Who want to make sure their handouts keep getting redone and voter intimidation and voter suppression is alive and well in every single county, every single state, every single nation. Now the biggest thing is once he said, how much character is out there? How much integrity is out there? I would dare say not a lot. Prove me I'm wrong. The thing is you can't prove that it's happening because it costs too much money and it says too many Apple carts to prove it. speaker-0: Yeah, it's not, I think that. ⁓ Well, that's the thing I think when Tony was on here, we had the evidence, and I hear what you're saying, but it's just the evidence is not there to prove that, particularly as it relates to voter fraud. But now when you're about voter suppression and intimidation, particularly from the people who are in power, that is provable and has not been really acted upon in a way that need be particularly ⁓ in Florida. ⁓ governor. speaker-1: I whenever you look at fraud, basically I look at it as a very big overall general term because basically you can use intimidation and suppression at the polls to go ahead and change the results of what, know, because people don't realize election results. The only people who really know the results are the eight or 10 people in that room. We only know what they tell us. We only know what we are told. We are only know what is regurgitated through their megaphone. That is it. We don't know exactly. None of us are able to count the votes. Nobody is able to really see like it was in the old days where you see them count them in person. That doesn't happen anymore. It's not possible anymore. We have so many different, ⁓ you know, electronic ways of voting or signatures, which aren't real signatures. and signatures, which are just slashes or X's. and we have a lot of different, you know, irregular ways of voting that are not consistent. And so, I mean, you're right. Is it provable? Not without people actually looking at the evidence and all of those court cases that everybody was talking about that Trump and all of them. And granted, Trump did not have the smartest legal team in the world. They did not put together an argument worth a damn. You know, this, you're a lawyer. You probably saw the arguments. But the thing is, and you also know this as lawyer, you know, intellectually honest, you know that no court actually was able to see any of the data that was given because no court authorized it to go to the next step. They, not one single court took it to the next step to see what data was there. Probably because they're thinking as all hocus pocus stuff, because these guys were all crackheads who put it all together in a very haphazard way. However, some of them might not have been crackheads who put together and might've. Actually had some good arguments and might have done that, but we never knew. We were never heard. In fact, there has never been one yet case about the 2020 election that ever went to a court to where a judge looked at all the data and a jury looked at all the data to see whether or not it should go forward or not. Just a reasonable look at it. speaker-0: know that's going to be. Well, there have been cases from the bottom and so. That's all I said that there was no real significant ⁓ irregularity. But I do, that's ⁓ on the the things not frequently reported list. They're. courts and court cases that's kind of slow, that's not getting enough noise and attention that they just there, Capitol has won several states, swing states that Trump allegedly won. But I think that the media's suppressing that because they're one of the big uproar in America. So, and then you got to... speaker-1: And that's the answer. got the media suppressing data that they only want to be out there. speaker-0: I agree with that. I agree with you 100 % on that. And I also agree that the so-called, ⁓ well, we know that the voting machines are dubious and suspect because we know that the big lawsuit that Fox settled. then somehow Elon Musk was connected with some of these voting machines, least in Pennsylvania and certain states. And it's very interesting to me how... Eli Musk was the only man in America to call these elections like way before he just knew. speaker-1: The reality here is that it's on both sides. The data is fixed. In my opinion, the idea that we've had free elections on a grand scale to me is laughable because I have seen and people don't realize how much money there is in local government. They are just ignorant to the fact. I don't say they're stupid. They don't realize that even a small little county like a Scandinavian County, Florida has a $900 million budget. That's a lot of money. That goes in and out. That's for one year, by the way, not all time. That's 900 million a year, 880 million a year. And so you have a lot of graft. You have a lot of things. And so, and that's just example of one County and the smaller, mean, the reality here is this is just ⁓ small anecdotal testaments here in Florida and other States. They have a lot of different issues. And the fact that people think that everything is on the up and up is just frustrating. speaker-0: Yeah, I think we do got to clean some stuff up. Uh, I do really, got to be a better, uh, verification process. Not that we need to, uh, be able to have some type of, uh, camera on the counting something. Oh, I agree. speaker-1: I've actually been involved in five campaigns that have been settled by 30 votes or less. I don't know very many consultants or operatives who have been involved in more than one or two. I've been involved in five where we had a recount over, a recount over, a recount over. These were local elections and it settled the difference between a $300 million contracts here or a $50 million contract there or $20 million contract there. And they were, believe me, the people who were... Making sure everything was done in their favor. They weren't the people from those streets. They were the people who are, who are paying the bills. mean, they're the ones who are getting the contracts who are paying the bills to make sure all the legal stuff and everything else. mean, it's, I mean, it's, it is what it is. It's not arguable, but it is arguable if you don't know it and if you haven't been through it. speaker-0: I have say money and greed in a combination is deadly. speaker-1: It is all the way from Israel to the Middle East to everything with Ukraine, which nobody's even talking about Ukraine anymore. mean, that whole conversation there is totally off the map. speaker-0: Yeah, and what a thing about Ukraine is like speaker-1: I think you're the only one talking about it. Exactly. speaker-0: Exactly. Because there was a deal, I think the reason why I talk about hurricane, why I do, because Bill Clinton with the backing of United States government told those people, if you get rid of those weapons or not try to reproduce more weapons, that we will have your back, and militarily, and that we will one day allow you to be a UN member and pull his stock. speaker-1: Was that before he had sexual relations? Yeah, yeah. that before ever he said, I never had sexual relations with that woman. Yeah. Was his word worth anything? agree. speaker-0: But that's one issue. and sign off on that, and that's a problem. The American taxpayer are thinking, ⁓ we're helping these U.S. people. No, it's like a contract. We had a deal, and we breached that deal. it's it's very, and see, I believe the long-term effects of us breaching deals like that make us as a government ⁓ appear untrustworthy, unreliable to our allies, our own allies. speaker-1: forcing the contract. speaker-0: and particularly with all speaker-1: The frustrating part is Ukraine is very corrupt country. We all know that Russia is Russia. So I don't really don't care about how corrupt Ukraine is. The Soviet Union, which is what Putin wants Russia to be again. Nobody's woken up to that fact yet because they're a super under a very big rock. But you know, as bad as Ukraine might be, they are nowhere near as evil as a Russian government. speaker-0: Well, the thing is that he doesn't want ⁓ NATO or any ⁓ Western power, military or economically, in his backyard. I mean, I understand that from a strategic standpoint, but the fact of the matter is that he doesn't have the right to legally and politically let a nation like Ukraine speaker-1: I have an ho- speaker-0: became independent, became recognized for decades by all the international community, and then all of sudden, because he wants to take it back. We can't do that. like I was saying on this program a few weeks ago, it's not like 1913, where we have a very agricultural society. Well, now when you blow stuff up, Greg, it's very expensive. Bums cost a billion dollar bum. So when you start bumming stuff, that's a lot of money. It is. So we just can't. speaker-1: It is our money. Anyway, but we're going to go ahead and call it there for a day here. Thanks a lot for coming on the show and thank you, Tony and Jonathan for letting us fill in here. I look forward to seeing you all again here next week. And whenever you guys take it back here on the full left wing channel and the PowerFox Media Network, basically everybody follow, like, subscribe, do everything you can to. speaker-0: It is. speaker-1: Join the crowd and join the show and make a comment. You know, you don't have to agree with us. really, you know, we'd like you to just make comments on whatever platform you're watching it on. speaker-0: And I'm glad to be here, Greg, with you and we miss Jonathan and Tony. Looking forward to seeing them back.