Latest / Palafox Media Network / Guardians of the Republic: Hidden Truth About U.S. Military Spending and Iran That Nobody Talks
Transcript
- speaker-0: Hello folks and welcome to the Guardians of the Republic. am just guesting on here today. I'm Greg Fink joined here today by Charles Bauerfield and Tony Hughes. How are y'all doing today? speaker-1: Greg, Greg, Tony, how y'all doing? speaker-2: We're good. Good to see you. speaker-0: Got a little bit to talk about the labor secretary. She's a resigning recently and a democratic Congresswoman resigned today. Yeah. And we got maps all over Florida that might or might not be happening with redistricting. We've got a lot of things going on. So where do y'all want to jump in? Y'all want to talk about a little bit of war? speaker-2: We gotta talk about Taco Tuesday. It is Taco Tuesday. That's almost weekly, Taco Tuesday. speaker-0: It's talk to Tuesday kind of day too. mean, just throw everything in a shell and break it up. And that's what we got going on here. We got America breaking up like a big old taco shell. it is a mess. ⁓ speaker-2: Charles, you'll appreciate this. saw a meme on Facebook today and I think it was from the Babylon Bee. So, you know, it's satire, but it had a young couple. They were sitting in their lawn chairs on the front yard and it said, you know, no longer necessary to read the book of Revelation. Just go sit out in the front yard and watch it happen. speaker-1: Thank speaker-0: Yeah, Jonathan likes to say when he starts out the show, it's been another week of what is it, what has been given to us by something. What does he say? What kind of hell we're going through with. speaker-2: what next level of hell have we descended into? ⁓ speaker-0: As a Republican, do get it. I'm not a mega Republican. I'm just a regular, you know, good old fashioned Republican. I do like a lot of what Trump is doing. I just don't like the way he's doing it. I don't like the way he's doing almost any of it. But you know, it's think the whole Iraq, the Iraq war was a good reminder of where we're, don't want be going here with Iran. ⁓ speaker-2: You know, it was kind of interesting because I asked Chet GPT this past week, which knows everything, Skynet, but I asked it to Ronald Reagan's policies when he was president and compare those to Donald Trump's president, ⁓ Trump's policies as president. And in thinking about like a Venn diagram, identify the areas where they intersect and try to speaker-0: It knows everything. speaker-2: estimate, and of course, this is just certainly an estimation, but roughly speaking, how much of Ronald Reagan is in Donald Trump? And it gave a pretty fair response, I thought. And again, the things like you, Greg, there are some things I agree that Trump has done. I think Trump was really good as far as closing the border. I think that was definitely something that needed to be done. Some of his deregulation policies are very consistent with those of a conservative, record Republican like myself. But at the end of the day, was only, it was only estimated to be 40%. So that means 60 % is not Ronald Reagan as far as what Trump is doing, especially in the area of foreign affairs. anyway, I just thought that was an interesting, and they had a pretty, of course he, Chad GPT gave a more detailed list than what I'm giving here, but. It actually shows some specifics of Reagan's policies and Trump's policies where they were consistent and also where they were very divergent from each other. But I thought that was, and you brought it up about, there are certainly things that I like, but I think that from a character standpoint, far as the respect for the office, I think he's pushed the envelope way too far out there. the arch he wants to build, the ballroom that he wants to build. You know, I just think those are just total complete waste of money. know, this foolishness about him trying to go after Jerome Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, you know, over some criminal investigation, again, it's just completely absurd. You know, I've actually been in the Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C. I was a banker for 42 years and we had a holding company and we were regulated by the The holding country was regulated by the Federal Reserve. So I had to go up to DCKs and for meetings. It was a very, I mean, it's a beautiful building, but it's a very, very old building and it had never been renovated. And anyone who has ever renovated an old building knows that once you start tearing out what's behind the walls, there's no telling what you're going to find, and especially a building that was built back in the thirties. So I the opening. the hearing in front of this, I guess it was the Senate Banking Committee that took place today, Kevin Warsh's nomination. it was pretty, it was about what you would expect. I mean, I think he's a good pick. I think he's gonna be fine. You know, I know that Trump has promised these interest rate reductions, but, you know, of course, I'm the economist, I guess, in the family here, because that's what I studied, and that's what I used for so long. You know, I think I could build a very convincing argument that interest rates are higher right now because of Trump. Had he not done the tariffs, had that not been the uncertainty about price increases and inflation when he did the tariffs, I think the Fed would have cut rates months ago. I mean, month, the first part of April was Liberation Day a year ago. So we've lived with the of these tariffs for over a year now. And we now have empirical data that, no, it didn't cause inflation to go to 15%, but it did cause it to be over three. And it's not the Federal Reserve's target of two. it has gotten very sticky. And of course, now with rising energy prices, you know, that uncertainty is back again, even more so. you know, I think if Trump had just kept his hands off of it, you know, we would have hit 50,000 of the Dow probably six months ago. I think the rate would be around 2%, 2.2, 2.3 right now. Inside that close enough for government work range I think the Fed would basically keep their hands off and continue to cut prices or cut interest rates, which means home mortgage rates would be lower, home construction would be more robust, homes would more affordable, grocery prices would be more affordable. All these things, the tariffs fit into all this. dominant in the conversation right here, right now here, but I heard, was listening to, Trump did a telephone interview on CNBC this morning. listened to it and one of the things, I mean, he says several things that really almost stopped me cold, which is really hard to do now because I'm always expecting the craziest stuff to come out of his mouth. But you know, he, of course he had to, he had to talk about tariffs and he had, then he had to talk about the Supreme court, how he's so disappointed. They were terrible. You know, they've now opened up a website for, I know companies can come in and ask for the refunds of the tariffs that they need. And the last number I heard was $160 billion requested refunds already, which has really pissed Trump off. because said, you know, they had just added one more line that said, yeah, the tariffs are unlawful, but you can keep what you've already collected. And I'm thinking, okay, in what world Did Republicans ever start believing that the government could tax us illegally? And then once it was determined beyond a shadow of any doubt that the tax was in fact illegal, that the government just gets to keep the money. I mean, when did Republicans, what world did we come into where Republicans thought that was okay? That the government could literally steal your money unlawfully and not pay it back. It blows my mind. That blew my mind today. speaker-0: Charles, what do you think about that? speaker-1: things. First in ⁓ of, generally it's objectively known that when you talk about Reagan versus Trump for the presidency, it is objectively a matter of fact that under Democrat presidents, the time is better, it grows more, every economic factor measurable. And Tony, you be the economic guy, knows this. That's the old federal government data proves that on the Democrat president versus Republican president. So in that sense, Trump is similar to Reagan because that's what the data empirically shows over time. That's just fact. I don't care for either party, honestly. I tend to believe that there's elements of Republican party that used to be relevant to me. the John King type of thick end, the Rockefeller Republican, the George W. Bush Republican. I could deal with that. The Jack Kemp type of Republicanism. But this new stuff right here, I don't, you can use a euphemism or adjective, but it's just crazy to me. The Democrats, I fundamentally have an issue with, which I think that all they care about, in my view, is the expansion of alternative families. And I don't believe in that kind of way. But I deal with Democrats in terms from a humanistic standpoint. So I say all that to preface that my politics not political, it's spiritual and is always guided by that. And it falls where it falls. in terms of what the first point I want to make is, does anyone know these two questions? Who is it that... When it comes to Iran, this war, illegal war, my view, who is the Trump president negotiating with? Number one, who are they with? Number two, does the media or anyone ⁓ who are the agents representing Iran? Because everything Trump says, we know he's a potluck, and we can't believe nothing he says, and we can't really trust Iran. Traditionally, on fundamental stuff, but they look more credible than the Trump administration right now. So I just want to know who are they negotiating with? We have two opposite characterizations of war. have at least, know, early on in this war, 13 of our soldiers unnecessarily died, in my opinion. We have countless of many soldiers that's injured that we don't know about, and they've been covering that up. There's this cowardly media we got doesn't ask any fundamental questions. The American people are just kind of clueless about war. And I don't understand. There's nothing more grave that any society has to deal with war. Even if war is not being legally declared. know, so do y'all know that question? Who are the particulars that are supposed to be talking about. We will cease fire from him three times a speaker-0: We really don't know. mean, actually the big, ⁓ quiet around we have here is that historically whenever we've done these negotiations, these fires have always been pomp and circumstance and ceremony. And you knew who the players were and the parties were. Everybody who usually said similar things until they came together and now worked out great. And it was, mean, here we have two people. saying, or two entities saying two totally different things on random basis and not agreeing to anything. Yes. So doing a ceasefire, but we don't really know who the other individuals are on the Iranian side. And like you said, Trump's credibility as much as I like Trump is not all that great. Iran's credibility is nothing, is zero, except for they're pretty credible at killing their own people. They're really good at that. But I mean, outside of that, mean, nothing that they say can be held to account at all. And then you talk about the media there is a lot of fake news out there. There's a lot of real news out there. There's just a lot of bad. It's just mad bad media altogether. mean, I mean, we have people here and me in the media industry, I know that advertisers control what everybody sees. And so basically all depends on whose agenda is driving the checkbook of whichever media outlet is reporting the news. And so the conservative media outlets are controlled by the conservative advertisers and the liberals, they tell the liberal media, go ahead and stretch it out this way. There's no honesty in any of it. There's no integrity in any of it. I've been in the back rooms before whenever I had to write stories for different newspapers. That's what I couldn't write that because the advertiser would be angry about it. And, you know, I didn't care. I mean, I'm a journalist and I published it anyway, got in a little bit of trouble. You know. I'm the publisher, I'm the assistant publisher. I'm like, Hey, we're going to do it. And, uh, and whenever you go against the system like that, mean, but, and so right now we're in a huge mess. I mean, it's taco Tuesday every day. Pretty much. I mean, because we don't really know when it's going to end or if it's going to or is this or it's about to become another middle Eastern, uh, Vietnam or just an extension of what we did in Iraq, which I actually agree. with Iraq to a degree if we had done it right. I agree with any war if we do it right. And also the whole idea is to kill the enemy and to be done and not to drag it out and drag it out and innocent people die and suffer. That's just not the part of it I'm into. speaker-1: I respect and disagree in a strong and order, right? We should never just go to war. But I think that international laws that all nations have to abide by. And there's encroachment upon another free sovereign nation, then there are international laws and regulations that we have to address or adjudicate before we even declare ourselves. speaker-0: international laws be adjusted to the people who are doing the violations. mean, how come the international law, seems like it's just worth paying and funding most of the international stuff that happens anyway. How come all the, all the international, my opinion, hypocrisy is about America is violating this. They don't ⁓ nothing about all the genocides going on all over the country and all the different human rights violations going on everywhere. mean, they got stuff going on all over the place that is far, far worse. mean, And first of all, what America is doing here with Iran, we are in technically going after a terrorist state and not the citizens of Iran. It's what it should be. It's very tricky though, because you're going against a radical religion instead of a enemy of a nation. So it's a whole different kind of war because it's a war about religion instead of a war about, you know, communism or something like that. So it's it's a lot of different stuff. mean, when the international community started stepping in. I say that we're violating things. keep asking them, what about, know, you guys don't step in and stop anybody else. They don't. speaker-1: Every nation is that sovereign has a right to govern their own and their own manner. Right. So one thing that is, a different between a terrorist ⁓ or activity that every nation has to deal with domestically and from a standpoint. Right. So that's one issue. But what we talking about here is. declaring a war based on something that someone had reached. That's the only time you knew. law did I read violate to justify America attacking him? Netanyahu Netanyahu telling us what to do. speaker-0: I think I ran funding terrorism and funding everything the way had they've been doing it for the last 45 years is just because I think it should have been done by Reagan and just been taken care of a lot earlier. I don't think it should have been festering this long. I mean, for the last 47 years, I mean, there is a point to that. mean, we've had presidents who said they want to stop it and then they didn't. And now we actually have somebody who's saying the same thing the last six presidents said. Who's actually taking action to do what all the other six guys said that they would like to do. And now everybody's upset because, agree with you. I don't think we should just be going into war just willy-nilly at the same time. And Iran is not the, the little daisy on the hill. ⁓ speaker-2: Let me ask you, it's dope. speaker-1: Do you remember Reagan? Tony mentioned Reagan. All that and all the Iraq Contra standards, have we forgotten that? So we have funded, our CIA has funded a whole lot of wars. And some countries will say that's terrorist act. So I think that when I hear the word terrorist, it's about, it's who describing the terrorists sometimes may be the terrorists. I think that war is like the most insane barbaric thing any human beings can do. And we need to be clear about war. You just can't no greater than war, that responsibility. And we're in accountability economically to our soldiers, putting them in harm's way having an agenda, knowing the scope. Like Colin Powell said, speaker-0: It is. speaker-2: So. speaker-1: If you go in, you gotta have a gender and only. American people have no idea why we in war with speaker-2: And you know, talk about the 47 years of shenanigans, which is a very light term to use what Iran has done as a justification for going to war. had this conversation with a friend on Facebook this past week and I said, what about China? You know, in the Korean War, There were 300,000 Chinese soldiers that we fought head to head with in North Korea in that war. I mean, we were directly involved in combat against Chinese soldiers. In Vietnam, China had some 30 to 40,000 soldiers in North Vietnam. They were not on the front lines, but they were manning important positions inside the country. so that North Vietnam could use those soldiers in frontline operations against the United States. You we lost close to 40,000 men in North Korea, the Korean War. lost over 50,000 men in the Vietnam War. Are we going to go to war with China today over Americans that they helped to kill, you know, 70 years ago? Of course not. I I think this argument about look how, look at what Iran has done over the last 47 years. Look at them taking the hostages, know, 47, it doesn't matter. We're the United States of America. have to, sometimes water has to roll off our back like a duck. You know, we just have to sometimes take it in the shorts, grin and bear it and move on. Because if we're going to go to war against Iran for something they did 40 or 50 years ago, speaker-0: Still doing it now. speaker-2: What about China? Let's go fight China. Let's go nuke China because what they did in Korea and Vietnam, I just think it's an argument that just really falls flat. And I don't like Iran. got all these little organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, and they've caused problems mostly for Israel, mostly for Israel, but they have been involved. I think they get blamed and they may be completely guilty. I think they get blamed for a lot of the... the crap that happened to us in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe, maybe, I don't know. I honestly don't know. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. I know ISIS had a lot to do with that. think Al Qaeda had a lot to do with that. I know Osama bin Laden came from Saudi Arabia, not from Iran. You know, I mean, I think there are a lot of really bad players in the Middle East. I think most of them want to kill Israel. I have no doubt that if Iran had gotten a nuclear weapon, they may or may not have used it against Israel. speaker-0: Exactly. speaker-2: I know for a fact Israel's got nuclear weapons. We all know that. I'm sure Israel would launch one against Iran too. To think Iran's going to strike our homeland, they may threaten Europe, maybe. But I thought, and Trump said today on CNBC, out of his own mouth, he said that speaker-1: Exactly. speaker-2: Iran had tried to dig up the uranium from the site that we demolished, we obliterated last summer, and they couldn't get to it. And he said, we were watching them and they gave up trying to get to it because it's buried so deep, there's so much rock and debris in between, you know, here and there that they abandoned it. said the only, the only nation with the technology to extract the nuclear material is United States. So I thought they were an imminent threat. I thought they were like still just like weeks away from having a nuclear weapon. How they, I mean, but that was the whole. speaker-1: you write on that and that you can understand. The opposite word was that was the justification for the war. That was the pretext. That was a lie. Everybody's got a thinking, functioning brain knows that was a lie. the thing is is that, ⁓ you know, we it's important to understand that it's been at least four or five Democrats and Republican presidents for the last four years that Netanyahu and Israel has tried to speaker-0: year. Thank speaker-1: get them to do this foolishness attack ⁓ And danger of this is that this is clearly a David Versica-Lau situation in terms of the money. The United States military, our government spends more ⁓ money than nine of the next world leaders, including China and Russia. So we ought to have the finest bells and whistles of military equipment and all that kind of stuff. But what this little Iran is showing us is that with all these big military spending that we spend as a society dedicated to our military, it's question on military might and proudness because you got Iran taking down big dollar planes that we built taxable dollars with over little $10,000, $15,000 little droves. That now is just not enough. And then secondly, you compound that with the reality that we spent so many bombs and it cost us billions of dollars for one bomb in some cases. And some millions, we dropped all the bombs on Venezuela in a few days and he felt a big bully. And he thought it was going to be the same thing with Iran. But what he doesn't realize, Iran has been around. Those people been around. Hens and tens of thousands of years. They know how to survive. They know how to endure all kind of climatic weathering all kind of society changing climatic environmental changes. They've seen it all been through it all and they're still like I Elton John, but they still standing and they're standing because they're smart people Okay, and so they know how to exist and to continue to exist And they're showing us that everybody that was a military expert knew about that straight. We're going to be shut down. In fact, it's leaking out late that the general told him, but you know, he said when he was first running, he knows more and smarter than the generals. speaker-2: Cool. thought it was to be, he thought it going to you know, shock and awe for three days and then Ramos was going to give up. ⁓ then would be the hero again. It'd be when they bombed the nuclear facility, were in and out, total military success. And the military has done the job. mean, the military objectives have all been achieved. ⁓ I question whether there's really any legitimate military targets left in Iran. I I really think that's where the ceasefire came from. don't think it was so much, you know, the prime minister of Pakistan trying to be a peacemaker. mean, those guys, they housed us on the line for how many decades after 9-11? So I don't really think Pakistan is necessarily a friend of ours. But my point there is that, you know, The whole pretext of the war was just a lie. And everything that Trump has said ever since then has been a lie. didn't come asking for the ceasefire. The military objective list was down to nothing. And now the only thing left was going to be power plants and bridges. Trump, and do give Trump credit for at least having a little situational awareness. I think he knew that the population of this country does not see a power plant as being a military target. That may very well be, but yeah, I heard a commentator of Fox News, you know, give the analogy of World War I and World War II, plants and bridges in Germany and World War II. We know we had troops from the ground in Germany in World War II. You know, we were blowing up bridges so Germany could not move their troops in position to kill our troops. Okay, that's a legitimate military target. We don't have any troops on the ground in Iran. If we take out bridges, it's just because we can and we want to. Okay, they may have driven a military jeep across it one day. I don't know, but there's no movement taking place in Iran that we need to stop some brigade of troops from going from point A to point B to harm our troops. That's just not the case. ⁓ can't say it's the same thing as World War II. I think we were just out of... And I think that's one reason why Trump has now given like a, I mean, the proverbial blank check for this last ceasefire, because now he says, well, we're going to cease fire until Iran presents a unified response. Well, what in the hell is that supposed to mean? I mean, okay, they're fractured. I guess they're fractured. They said they weren't sending anybody to the peace talks. And then the Pakistani guy... So I guess it's the sock puppet for Trump now says, ⁓ well, they're fractured. Can't get a consensus of please don't attack. Okay. We won't attack anymore. Trump. There's, there's no way Trump after the, the, after the fighting has stopped for the last two weeks, there's literally no way politically Trump can start back the military back up again. And I tell you, I think the naval blockade is illegal as well, honestly, because there's been no declaration of war against a ring. speaker-1: Exactly. speaker-0: This may be the younger guy here. We have a lot of other military actions, like a lot of them, lots of them, but we haven't declared a war at all. mean, we've had naval blockades or any kind of thing. I'm the young ignorant one here. What? No. speaker-1: Greg, the actual act of a blockade is actually a war. It is very clearly defined. It is the act of war by definition on its face. Okay. It's like in law, we would say racist, it's a locator, meaning the lad translation of things speak for itself. So whenever you do a blockade, and we talked about this a couple of weeks ago, no one's really talking about in our American media is that effectively there is a blockade against Cuba, which is an act of war. speaker-2: It's act of war by definition. speaker-1: That no one's Yeah, well... speaker-2: Yeah, but Charles, that Putin called Trump up and they let that Russian oil taker through the blockade. So I'm not sure. speaker-1: Yeah, but that was Russian China. This is the irony. In my opinion, the United States will bully these smaller countries that doesn't have nuclear weapons. That's why they won't do that to Russia. And that's why they won't bully China basically said, we going through the strait and we don't care what you say. And they dared us to do anything and we didn't do it because they know the capacity to have nuclear weapons. We don't want that. We don't want that smoke. so to speaker-0: just It's inconsistency with the military. mean, and tell you did say that military did a good job. Now, Ali, my question with that being a, is how in the world strategically, we did not just go after the targets to get rid of all the drones already. mean, how You know, with all the Epic fury and all the bombs and billions of dollars that we've spent, why are we missing those targets? mean, is it our satellites can see everything we do, everything we're typing. They can't see that. speaker-1: Well, I think that's an interesting question, Greg. And the thing is is speaker-2: Sorry, did you ask why are we missing drones? that what you asked? speaker-0: ⁓ yeah, why are we missing the targets? Where the drones are being... speaker-2: Well, they're small they're really hard to see Well, no, that's we're talking apples and orangutans here on a weapon system on a weapon system. No, that's different speaker-0: They can see you and me. speaker-1: Well, I think twofold to try to attempt to answer your question, Greg, number one, all this multi-billion dollar equipment and technology that we have in American military, they're best because we spend the most. ⁓ But think one, some of that is satellite detectable, so to speak. And I think when you have those ⁓ inexpensive like Iran is doing, just like a lot of terrorists in that region, they can transport stuff and easy to hide it to go below our, so it's not really detectable or traceable with all our specific equipment. That's the number one thing right there, I think. And then I think too, it goes back to what I was saying earlier, in a very broad way, these people, these Iranian people have been around way longer than just about a few countries. countries that have been long been surviving as long as they have. I'm talking about tens of thousands of years in animals that are not extinct. Species of animals that got raided, land and sea, or extinct, and the Iranian people are still moving forward through all kinds of weather, pattern changes, and whatever. So some of that is because they know they terrain because they've been living there so long. We're all out of the fifth stage of might. We don't know it. And that's the same thing will happen in Vietnam and Afghanistan. We had the superior technology, but it's something different with the will to survive. And it's like with sports. You can practice all day long, but you can't win the game until it's cleaned. You have to get on the field or the basketball court or whatever sport you're in and then you have to win it. You have to decide. I'm going to win. And so that's what the Iranian people at Baker Station is that they view us a lot different than we view them. Okay. And so they basically trying to survive and they doing what they need to do to try to survive. And I think that the bigger fundamental issue with our military and our society, we got to realize that we could not be spending this kind of money in this military industrial complex, just like prison industrial complex because we've seen right now these short wars or whatever that from Venezuela to Cuba to Iran, three wars with one president less than six months in his term. These guys in three wars and all these weapons is being evolved daily just taken from what we need to do as a society. So now if we had a legitimate military situation to address that was legitimate, right? We have a problem because we we out of weapons and it takes Lockheed and all those military defense contracts. It takes time to build all this stuff. ⁓ wait! These redic- ⁓ speaker-2: and Charles ⁓ to pay for those weapons is not even appropriated yet because the supplemental that's coming in supposedly $250 billion, billion with a B, to replenish the cash. And also fund the operations because obviously as they're flying and they're using up jet fuel and the whole bit, ⁓ that's out of our stocks as well. And just the wear and tear on the airplanes, because you know, we're speaker-0: gonna into a ride shit. speaker-2: We're flying tankers up there for air refueling. 80 % of them are built in 1960. So literally we're flying the tankers that are handling all this refueling. These things are 60 plus years old and it takes a lot to keep up. These are airplanes that should be in museums, okay? And we're still flying them in combat. So it's really just a shame about how we've... allowed our air force specifically to go into disrepair the years. But, you $250 billion is $757 for every woman and child in this country. That's the bill that, so if you got, if you got a family of four, you know, your bill for this war is like 3,200 bucks except, wait, ⁓ not paying for it with tax dollars. speaker-0: Thank you. speaker-2: We're going to borrow the money. So it's going to want to be paid by somebody's great, great grandchildren before it's all said and done. That's who we're sending the bills to. 150 billion and counting. and again, that's something that has not been sold to the American public. Now here's the cost. How far do you think we would go into war if Trump had come up and said on day one, we need to attack Iran. It's going to probably take us, probably will take us a couple of months to handle it. speaker-0: O'bara from China. speaker-2: going to cost us $250 billion. And we're going to put a surtax on every, on every man, woman and child of this country of $800. So we're fixing to send your family of four, you're making family income of $60,000, $70,000. We're going send you a bill this month for $3,200. So you can pay, we can pay for this war. Now, how many people would vote to go to war? I mean, there may be. I think you'd lose MAGA even. I think you'd even lose MAGA then. It's like, ⁓ hell no. don't pay $800 a person to go to war against Iran. Forget that. See, we don't talk about... speaker-0: Especially when they see the big refund checks they're going to be getting. speaker-2: Oh yeah, well they got the doge, they got the doge check and they got the tariff check and now this is where we're going to send you the bill. This is the bill that's coming in. speaker-0: So speaker-2: My friend mine wrote me today. He's paying $7 a gallon of regular unleaded gas in Las Vegas right now. Seven bucks a gallon. I mean, I was thrilled. found diesel for my truck at $5.26 a gallon yesterday. That pot, you know, fill your tank up $150. So. speaker-0: And we finally get to read it again here. What speaker-1: This is out of question for both of you. Now, under the Obama deal with Iran, we had five international experts to not just check, but to verify where, so there was a verification component of that deal. So if Iran were to violate that agreement, the scientists from all over the world that was part of that team could... could check and verify. the or whatever they were trying to get, they need that for power, utility, and all that kind of stuff. That don't mean they're trying to use a bomb, or get a bomb. And the reality of the matter is that everybody always says Israel has a right to defend itself. Well, everybody has got right to defend themselves too, right? It is. But why does get a blanket challenge on They have the right to defend themselves. Every sovereign nation has the inherent right. Now, you get into a legal spatch, you have the inherent right to defend yourself. Okay? And then there's the second level of international law that says that ⁓ you're recognized as sovereign nation, you have the right to do whatever you want to do. Whatever form of government you are. can disagree with people. We've always had dictators and mean and bad guys and dictators that we have dealt with. And we put, plan them up to our CIA. A lot of them. So that doesn't give us the right to be, you know, going in there bombing people's nations. And this is the thing. We had an unlawful Obama agreement. was, it was a verification. know, what experts. No, didn't cost us any of these billions of days we spend right now. And this is the deal. Do you Do any of you, Greg or Tony, believe that you killed supreme Iranian leader? Do you think that his son is going to be nicer to us? So what have we really accomplished? speaker-0: I don't. Yeah. That's my biggest. I mean, my only actually, if you watched my other podcast I was on, and the only way I'd actually ever support this is if we did total regime change and that would be it. And leaving everybody in place like they are now, it's just a waste. And my opinion is a total waste. It's a total cabal and it's a waste of money. It's a waste of life. It's a waste of everything. Unless you're actually going to take the terrorist state out and, and him waffling on that. And basically. Not having the aptitude or the intelligence or the strategic or strategic as Debbie would say, to know exactly how to do it. We never should have gone there. mean, we never should have gone to war if we knew the Strait of Hormuz was not going to be able to be handled or managed. it were, mean, because it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Iran will use that as a weapon, as a financial weapon against the entire world. And so, I mean, yes, do I support war against enemies? I sure as hell do. As poor words are ill thought like this. No, I mean, right now I do not see any proof that this is working or winning at all. And I mean, it's just sad because civilians are dying and other people are dying. Our soldiers are dying for something that never should have been started unless it had a clear. But like y'all said, the reason, and I said this before, the reason why Trump never shows his cards is A, I don't really know if he knows the entire deck yet. But B, you know. The media has a way of twisting everything he says. Basically, he'll say everything's six and they'll say, it's eight, or he'll say everything's five. And they say, oh, it's three. I mean, so basically, as much as he has a credibility issue, it's exacerbated by media that will basically twist every single thing he says against him. And we have people in Congress who have gone ahead and given a heads up to the Iranians for anybody we attack anywhere in the world because they hate Trump so much. We have a lot of internal traitors who are elected officials in our government. And that's just a fact. have people who are only in elected office because they got more votes than another guy. They didn't get elected because they were patriots, where they put America first, they put citizens first, or their neighborhoods first. They got elected because they got more votes than somebody else. And most of the time, they probably stole the votes. And the election rigging has all scales. And Trump is wrong, and he's right. speaker-2: Yeah. Okay. I'm going to have to the bullshit flag on you right there. I grabbed it because they're, they're. All right. but if you're going to say election rig and give me some example, give me some actual hard proof of where something was investigated, something was prosecuted and somebody was convicted. speaker-0: You will never get the investigation or the prosecution because both sides are doing it. You will never get anybody with oversight to do a damn thing about any of it because they're all doing it. Because we actually had this- speaker-2: But, Ian, what proof do you have? Okay, you got a conspiracy theory. speaker-0: I'll tell you one campaign I worked on, Greg Think worked on, Greg worked on a campaign where we had six precincts that had 130 % turnout. And the people voted, they ⁓ to an area to vote that day and then they left town again and they moved out of the district, which is actually fine and legal, but the addresses they chose for this wonderful same day registration were not legal addresses or actual addresses. They were just basically warehouses that they said they lived in. And that's great because, know, the, the incumbent one and the person went in they were giving gift cards to vote that way. But whenever we took it to the people in Tallahassee or we took it to anybody in the county, Latchawa county, they said, you know, we don't want to talk about it. There's nothing to see here. I mean, we literally found all this stuff. have all this data. have people, you know, they, they change their address. Change your address on a form that was not verified by the Latchawa speaker-2: Get one in your campaign file. You already file a lawsuit then. There's a lawsuit. speaker-0: We're actually working on that, you know, it takes a lot of money to file lawsuits and I'm not that rich of a guy. I'm kind of broke. speaker-2: Yeah, but if you, but if you're gonna, but if you're, but where's the Republican party? were obviously working for Republican candidate. ⁓ speaker-0: this happened on Democratic sides and Republican. That's what I'm saying. The cheating and enough people laugh at me. That's because I've been involved in the campaigns. I've seen the vaccines and Jonathan Cole, who's a regular on show. speaker-2: That's wonderful. That's one of the best well-kept conspiracies that you've been able to... I mean, you're talking thousands of people and thousands of people, not a single one is... speaker-0: I'm not going to talk about in the state of Florida. They have a thing called Canada County transfers on Election Day. They're all supposed to be included as provisional ballots. We had 8,700 candidate county transfers in Alajua County. We had 200 provisional ballots. That is 8,700 miles, 200. That's 8,500 that were not provisional ballots that were not counted as provisional ballots because they were two addresses that were not real addresses, but they cannot be verified because once you make a vote, the vote is blind, you know, and so And this is, and it did just happen to that one election. We've been looking at research and everything else. And this is actually a regular occurrence. And the people that control it are the cronyisms, the crony people that control the counties. And that's the thing, people keep thinking about this party issue. And my, you know, it's not, it's not laughable. It's, I mean, it's sad, but people want to keep. speaker-2: I'm not saying that you're telling the truth, right? But all I'm saying is that, you you're talking about a nationwide issue and this is the Trump... this is... I'm personal friends with Pat Holleran, who was the supervisor of elections in Oak Ridge County for a hundred years. Probably knows more about elections. Probably has forgotten more about elections than most election supervisors know. I know, and I just lost his name. speaker-0: Paul Lux? Who? Paul Lux, the current guy there? speaker-2: I know Paul Lux, who was her handpicked And I think Paul is just one of the finest men I've ever met in my entire life. And for me to think that both Pat Holleran and Paul Lux would have been in on a conspiracy to, but they would have to know, they ⁓ have to know, they would have to know because these numbers are significant. If that was happening in Oclusa County or Santa Rosa County, Gambia County, and no one... speaker-0: It wasn't. speaker-2: No one I've lost touch with now, but by 20 years in Pensacola, knew all these people too. Just the idea that they're just looking the other way and it's been so, such a well-kept secret and all the, all the criminals that were involved. I just, I just find that hard to wrap my head around. speaker-0: Let me ahead and correct myself there. let me go ahead and take you somewhere where I sit back. Since I wasn't, I'm not talking about those individual counties. And so I'm not saying it's a widespread national thing. just talking about the stuff that I've been involved in. speaker-2: Well, you they were all cheating. You said they were all cheating and you just gave that as one example. I got it that you have one example, but I think to say that they're cheating, I find it hard to believe. speaker-0: All true. It's just that- speaker-1: me chime in on this. Objectively and generally speaking, there is no such thing as a voter fraud in America. We have the finest elections in any country ever. And every objective people who objectively do from a GOP to a Florida League of Women Voters, everybody that's respectable that deals with these things on a daily basis, always come back and say that statistically, It's not even almost measurable. The so-called few examples, you have like 20 million votes, ⁓ may have like five to 10 situations where a person was actually dead and voted or was in the wrong state. But one thing I do know is that, I'm just being honest with, is the people who I see doing the vote for are the GOP politicians. That's voting somewhere living in a different place. So I buy that. I'm with Tony on that, Greg. I I don't see that. And this is saying too though, that in America people love to sue. And then if you have a strong enough case ⁓ and win, usually they're a prevailing party turning fees and their turns will fund the case if they feel like the case is legit and they can win and get their fees as a prevailing party. speaker-0: I was not. Here's the damages. Yeah. we're, how are you going to pay the damages? So you're saying about boats. You're not saying about money. speaker-2: familiar with the Heritage Foundation. All right, so, and we agree, are we in agreement that the Heritage Foundation is probably one of the most conservative nonprofit out there that are involved in political... speaker-0: Right, yeah. If you want to say that, sure. Go ahead. speaker-2: Okay. So they have an ongoing study about election fraud for the entire country. It goes back from 1982 up through December the 12th of 2025. In the entire country of people that have been prosecuted for election fraud with a conviction less than 2,000. Out of how many votes cast since 1982, less than 2000, according to the Heritage Foundation. In the state of Florida, in the state of Florida, there have been a grand total of 93 convictions for election fraud in the state of Florida since 1982. speaker-0: How many in the last three years? So the show there the last three or four years, how many shows there? speaker-2: can pick any date you want to. In fact, I just pulled it up again. All right, so let me go back and say from 2022 to 2020. Well, let's get 2021. We'll get 2021 to 2025 in the state of Florida. 43 cases in the last four years. speaker-1: There was a very good discussions about that because I don't know that the energy from the GOP about this voter fraud is like a weirdo kind of thing. don't get it because I mean, every objective study and Tony, that's a straight out reference that you brought out that every time I read a new one, it kind of says the same thing. So I don't know, Greg, I just don't. speaker-0: It kind of just, well, I mean, you're right. It's the same thing. It also justifies exactly what I'm saying is that the good old boys have got the system rigged. And I mean, and the good old boys are paying for the heritage foundation. are not paid for by a little trailer park or apartment dwelling for low income individuals. They're paid for by very wealthy people. And my whole point is that, know, all politics is local, right? We can agree on that. And all, you know, Tony, you being a banker, you know, all these guys that have all the government contracts on the control of everything. And they want to make sure their guy gets reelected. So then get their contract re out. mean, that not a, that's pretty normal, speaker-2: It doesn't always work like that, but you're right. It doesn't always work like that. speaker-0: ⁓ The majority of the guys who have the road contracts or building contracts or the painting contracts for the schools, they really want their guys speaker-2: ⁓ I had several customers that were in the road-build business. The problem with the roads is there's only like three companies that build. speaker-0: Exactly, there's only three. speaker-2: saying they're in collusion with each other, but there is sort of this wink, wink, nod, nod. You bid high on this one, I'll bid high on the next one, and Joe will bid high on the next one. So therefore, there's always one low bid because the other two are so incredibly high that it's obvious who's going to get speaker-0: I know there is a bit My whole point here is that the people who control all of that stuff, you know, are the funders and everything else that want to keep everything, keep the cycle going and keep it all going. That's the reason why I'm saying it's not a partisan issue. And that's also the reason why I'm saying a lot of these objective studies, it really is a lot of it, follow the money, see who pays for it. And there's a lot of due diligence and this is, I've been a nerd on this issue for several years, but there's also. I can't identify which county it was, so there was a county I used to live in, maybe, possibly. were 9,000 ballots. The elections office was short on ballots. And the 2000 election, think, was the Bush-Gore election in state of Florida, which was settled by 516 votes. there were ballots had been available for everybody. speaker-2: This study actually lists a the hanging Chad election, right? speaker-0: but the ballots weren't missing out there. They're missing in the part Florida area. I'm not going to identify that part ⁓ on the want to make sure don't get shot anymore. Well, great. speaker-1: you say to this if speaker-0: actually was not butter fried. was just butter malice or malpractice. speaker-1: What about when particularly we talk about Florida now and this happens all over, but particularly with Governor DeSantis, whereas he literally targets predominant black districts and where the polling, he shut the polls out early with people in line. basically throw out, they're throwing out a lot of dominant, with Dade County and big blue. leaning states the regular, which basically does not bullfrog because have a terminal or some strong leader doing it, but you literally taking a constitutional right from thousands of people where you really count the. speaker-2: Joe. speaker-0: with you. I agree with you. mean, I, you know, I haven't, I haven't done a lot of polling. did a lot of statewide polls for like the last 12 years and we're still doing them. And we're usually extremely accurate. And this is the first time we've ever seen a statewide race in the state of Florida win by, and not just one race, but multiple races win by double digits. It is a purple state. We're here and not a red state or a blue state. We are very purple. So where did he go again? Okay. speaker-2: We lost Charles again. speaker-0: So we are a purple state and that being said, let's go up top here. Florida is a purple state, not a red state or a blue state. We do not have elections that are separated by double digits. I'll say it level, not for the top of the line. a sec. Charlie Chris, Ron DeSantis campaign. There's no way it was spread out that far. It's the first time Rick Scott won any race in his life. Actually DeSantis as well. I got common margin and I'm actually a risk guy guy. like it that he won, him winning by 10 points. I mean, granted his opponent was pretty weak, but did not have statistically that that a part of a state. And so was there regularity? speaker-2: But they gotta run, Democrats have gotta run decent candidates though, and I think. speaker-0: They do have to run decent candidates, but your turnout was good. you can't me Democrats were voting for every Scott. You cannot tell me Democrats were voting for Ron DeSantis. Democrats were not voting for DeSantis. there's no way. speaker-1: Well, again, I think the answer to that is the voter disenfranchisement. That's from the governor. ⁓ Santa has done all that. And then you have a lot of constitutional challenges to the Florida state constitution with the voting, you know, in terms of redistricting and doing the maps. When Florida Supreme Court said they was unconstitutional, the GOP led Florida city and Florida House and the governor for one party. Basically consistently bringing in maps that they know are unconstitutional. think ⁓ was he went to I forget about this, but I believe they went beyond Florida to the US Appeal Court and they told him to redo and they basically said Did not him kind of like I mean so The GP GOP doing things that they never did so speaker-2: I will have to say that I kind of laughed my ass off yesterday. I was watching the news and the Republicans came on and they are just lamb blasting Virginia for having the audacity to redistrict themselves and gerrymander to increase the number of Democrat seats in Virginia of all places. It's like elections work. I said, you've got to be shitting me after the whole thing started in Texas. speaker-0: As a way speaker-1: Yes. speaker-2: actually have the total lack of moral character to then turn. I'm completely in favor of redistricting in Texas, but I'm completely against redistricting in Virginia. Because you may think of it as It's like, that is just so total bullshit. speaker-0: I don't know. It is. mean, that's a political hypocrisy which is out there. I I talked to somebody yesterday in Virginia. I was like, if the Republicans were in charge of Virginia, they'd be extremely happy about redistricting Virginia. The thing is, in every state, no matter who the person is, one side is going to be happy, one side is not going to be happy. Elections are, where does it keep going? Elections have consequences. speaker-2: Well, they do. They absolutely do. And yeah, I wanted to jump in and also kind of change the subject a bit because Charles brought up Jack Kent's name just a while ago. There he is. And he's back now. I wanted to bring up, probably, as you mentioned a while ago, Jack Kent. So Greg, you may not be aware of this. If Jonathan was on, he might, I don't know how long Jonathan's lived in Santa Rosa County. Santa Rosa County, Florida used to have a connection to Jack Kent through our school superintendent, Russell. speaker-0: I speaker-2: Benny Russell and Jack Kemp played college football together. And, and I was, I was good friends with, with, with a Benny Russell. I was working at bank in Milton, we had the school boards account and, and Benny was in all that. And Benny was just one of the, one of the finest men I've ever known in my entire life. And Jack Kemp into town ⁓ and, and, and was able to meet Jack Kemp and I tell you, he was really, he was really true. think he was Reagan's ⁓ HUD. speaker-0: Yes. He's You are a wrecker speaker-2: I really felt like Charles, I'd like to hear your perspective, from my perspective, Jack Kent really had a heart for low income, minority oriented housing. Trying to find ways to make the housing better for people and to make it more affordable for people and to also increase the subsidies that we gave to people through HUD, through HUD subsidies. And I just, I just felt like he was just a fine man. It was just, it was terrible when he passed away. And then just a few years later, ironically, Benny passed away as well from basically, I think he was something similar to leukemia, but both of them died of a form of cancer. And it was just heartbreaking. I wanted just, when you mentioned Jack Kemp's name, he was a fan of Jack Kemp. I just thought he was a fine man, fine politician, and really had that moral character and integrity. speaker-1: There's a football player, Lou, I think Lou Lasting. Him and Jack Kent were good friends and he played professional football with Jack Kent. had like a wings business. So I'd never met Jack directly, I don't think, but through him, I kind of learned a lot about him. But independently, I had read and followed his career. ⁓ I loved his policies. think that he was genuine. about, I disagree with him, like I disagree with lot of people. But fundamentally, I liked his economic policies and I think they'll for minorities and for everybody. And I do believe he was sincere in terms of that whole of the American dream. think a lot of people say that and they don't have the best intentions, but I think Jack Kemp did. I really did that. I really liked it. I liked his policy straight up. speaker-0: Yeah, my cousin was his executive assistant and one of his policy writers for 15 years. And so we have a strong family connection to the Kemp family. They're incredible people. is an incredible individual. I never did get to meet him. I was actually late to go meet him and I just missed him by like 10 minutes. I mean, he is an incredible person. speaker-2: We more public service like Ronald Reagan and Jack Kent. speaker-0: Exactly. mean, Jack, we're rolling over his grave right now with everything going on. speaker-2: You're not kidding. speaker-0: So real quick, before we close out, what do y'all think about Sheila McCormick having to resign today before she faced the expulsion the house? speaker-1: Well, I think, I think that, um, the, the right was on the wall in terms of, uh, from what I'm hearing about it, but I also believe that's going to be probably about what three or four more as probably going to do the same thing on both sides in the house. I think, yeah, I think, I think what's going to happen is that in order for the, I think the GOP is concerned that they may need lose the control of the house where I think it's couple of Republicans and a couple of Democrats now. So I think it's gonna, it's gonna be a. speaker-0: What is? speaker-2: Well, she's accused or the suspicion is that she stole or received $5 million in COVID-19 relief funds that she wasn't entitled to. So I'll have to say that takes some balls to steal that much money from the federal government, from the American taxpayer, and then go run for Congress. speaker-0: Well, what she did was, I mean, she was actually a congresswoman when she did that allegedly. And basically, this is COVID relief money that her, that she had basically altered the invoice. And so they basically, ⁓ invoice a hundred times more than what they actually should have received. So, yeah, it's a mess. speaker-1: think she needs to resign. think but I think not all that but look we got we got the president Jared the son-in-law speaker-2: We had a bad night with Charles tonight. I hate to say that about him, he's been in and out. speaker-0: There you go. speaker-1: I think the problem we got, fellows, is that everybody feels like stealing is okay. It's not. It's not. But that's what that's what, that's kind of society. establish a new, infinite, good. speaker-0: Yes, as a new. speaker-2: And I tell you, it's just, you know, I was rewatching some of the House of episodes the other night. you know, unfortunately, all the stereotypes about politicians, about being powerful and having influential friends and being on the take. You like to think that this day and age, some of that would be, would have gone away. But the reality is it ain't gone away. I tell that's just, and it's the money, but it's also the power. which to me has always been more addictive than money because people would, they feel like if I've got power, I'll get the money. So they don't worry about money. They want the power. They want that control, that influence because they think the money and usually it does come, it comes along after the fact. Um, you know, I have no idea how Nancy Pelosi made her money, but you know, if you, if you believe the amount of her net worth today compared to when it was, when it was, when she first went into Congress, you have to kind of scratch. speaker-0: I'll tell you. speaker-2: Right. mean, it may have been quote unquote legal, but you know, but you know, how many times have you traded stock based upon things that you learned in Congress while you were meeting with people or you were at a hearing or, know, a committee hearing or testimony or the, or just the whispers in the hallway. You know, what did you learn? tell that's, you know, and that, that is That is truly a zero sum game because if you're trading on information, you you're buying shares every time there's a stock trade, you're buying stock from someone who believes this is the highest the price is going to be and you're buying it because you think the price is going to go up. So if you know there's something out there that is not widely known yet and you trade on that and you're buying from someone. You know, I'll tell you, this is an honest to God story. I'm not going to mention any names, but when I first came to Pensacola back in the late eighties, I was working for a community bank in downtown Pensacola and they were, they were closely held and there was a lady there who was an officer and she, she had bought, you know, they gave the officers a chance to buy stock in the bank. Right. And so all the officers, I was not, I was not there at the time. I was that 10 days too late, as you will. But I knew this woman very well and she leveraged herself to the nines to try to buy its butt stock because the thought process was, well, the bank is going to sell one day and when it sells to some holding company, they're going to get three or four times book value, which was kind of the going rate. So she leveraged herself up to here. A couple of years goes by and now she's having a hard time paying her bills. ⁓ she goes and talks to one of the directors who was her friend of hers. and said, I need to sell, I need to sell a good bit of my stock because I just can't afford to make these payments on the loan that I took out to buy the stock. And he said, oh, I'm so sorry. I'll be glad to help you. I'll take that off your hands for you as a matter of fact. Well, he bought her stock. And do you know that one month later, one month, the bank announced that they were selling to a holding company out of Atlanta. Now you can't tell me this guy was on the board of directors. You can't tell me that. I've been, wasn't, mean, I was a, I was a new, I was a new young young officer back then, but I now know that you don't have a merger in a month. It just doesn't work like that. So there's no way he did not know. So he was, he was a friend and an officer. that this board member took advantage of because he knew something that she didn't know and only he could know because it was confidential and he traded on it. I'm telling you, that was just, you know, and she was pissed off. was nothing she could do, you know? And so she just kind of grinned and bared it, you know? But that, he made several hundred thousand dollars just on that one transaction because he knew something that she did and it was just wrong. It was just more. speaker-0: made it. could have made the money and you know. ⁓ speaker-2: He could have said, he could have said, Carol, just said her name, ignore that. He could have said, look, you know, just hang in there a little bit longer. If you need to borrow a little bit, I mean, I'd be glad to loan you some extra money to help make some payments. Just hanging there a little bit longer. And if it doesn't happen to six months, I'll buy from you there. Or if it doesn't happen to a year, I'll buy, I'll take it out. He could have done something to have helped her because she took the risk, but no. And I'm just saying anybody that does that. That's a black Mar there. And I think, and you know, as it turned out, this particular guy, probably about 10 years later, got dementia, got Alzheimer's really bad. He wound up dying a really horrible death. And I was thinking, yep, that's karma right there, speaker-0: You guys got anything else you want to talk about tonight or? speaker-2: You know, I just want to say one more thing about, about Trump and our, and our, our, how we lost all of our, we've lost all of our allies. We've lost all of our friends. I heard the prime minister of Canada twice in this past week say, talking to Canadians, look, the game has changed. You know, we used to rely upon the United States as our supply chain. We can't rely upon them anymore. We've got to go to other countries and establish our supply chain somewhere else. we can't just hope that America goes back to normal. in a few years because hope is not a plan. And he's right about that. And I'm thinking to myself, you know, you think about how Trump has pissed off Canada. I mean, it's Canada for God's sake. It's Canada. speaker-0: This should man up and realize that this is a bump in the road. It's going to be over. speaker-2: But they don't know that. How do you know that? if, what if they asked him, what if they asked him selected and Vance does the exact same things. speaker-0: advance cannot be Trump. There's one Trump that can be this bombastically, chaotically. ⁓ speaker-2: Organize. saying, I'm just saying it is so sad when you, when you see what's happened with our allies and NATO, you know, mean, how we, how he's pissed off everybody. Everybody in Europe is mad at us right now. You know, everybody, Canada is mad at us. Mexico's mad at us. Everybody's mad at us. Who are our allies today? We have Israel is our ally because we give them billions upon billions of dollars. speaker-0: What we just said is right. ⁓ We have everybody money, that's a weird part. speaker-2: not subsidizing Canada, but then Trump comes in and said, well, they've ripped us off for years. Charles, if you and I have a transaction and you're an intelligent adult, I'm an intelligent adult, and we enter into a transaction together. And when we look back upon it, you know, 10 years later, it looks like I got the better deal than you. Now you still got what you agreed to. I got what I agreed to, but maybe I got a better deal. Maybe it turned out that what I bought from you, wound up being worth more ultimately than what you sold it for. Does that mean I ripped you off? It is. So how can you say, and oh yeah, by the way, the United States is by far and away the most wealthy, the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I tell you, for us to be ripped off so much, this must be just fricking lucky that we've done so well. But when you sit there and talk about how Canada's ripped us off, how Great Britain's ripped us off, how France's ripped us off, how Switzerland ripped us off, you know, how Japan's ripped us, it's like, Come on. You know, we're not complete total idiots. can we be the richest country in the world? If everybody rips us off, we should be the poorest country in the world. It's just, we stand with us today. We're fixing to get UAE. Who was it gave Trump the airplane UAE. speaker-0: got 35. Cut! speaker-1: Huh? speaker-2: Oh, that's right. It was cut. That's right. Well, we're fixing to give the UAE a credit line. We're fixing to guarantee UAE's debt because they can't sell oil because the strait's blocked. The strait wasn't blocked before we started the war. I mean, I think Iran, Iran hit. speaker-1: Baruzka! I think that you both was asking questions. speaker-2: Well, just really question who are our allies today because we've offended so many people in the world. I just really wonder if there was a serious issue, if they would come to help us. speaker-1: Yeah, I think that people just moving and leaving, they don't trust us no more. They're not mad at us. They don't trust us no more. And then I think that the translation in my view, don't just see Trump. They see... speaker-2: I catch his point. catch his point. Hey, count us out. speaker-0: Yeah, I agree. All right, great. Well, I think Charles and tell you that we're going go ahead and call it evening here. And we're going to go ahead and tell everybody to go ahead and find us on the social media platform of your choice. It's on our Powerpods Media Network. We are the guardians of the Republic. We are one of the different shows here. The Powerpods Media Network is our parent network. It's going to have as the political matrix news as this show here, Guardians of the Republic. And we're also going to be doing several other shows on the network. coming up here over the next several months here. so please stay tuned and follow us and find us and we'll see you all soon. See you. ⁓ good night. speaker-2: Thank you. Good night. speaker-1: Good night.