Latest / Palafox Media Network / Political Matrix News: Trump - Iran - Voter Rights and the Moon, Oh My

Transcript

Political Matrix News: Trump - Iran - Voter Rights and the Moon, Oh My · Palafox Media Network

• Scott Miller: folks and welcome to the Polyclamatrix News. I'm Scott Miller along here with my compadres Greg Fink and Mike Bates. Noted both. Here today to talk about the stories. Today we've had the Supreme Court news. We've had lots of news from the court. Like last week, which was basically a dull week where we're having to kind of make up things to talk about. This week, there's been a lot of very critical things going on. I we could probably start with the most trending thing, which is the Trump speech. Where was this thing at? I think it was over in the Middle East somewhere or it had a Middle Eastern crowd in front of it. I know that. Greg Fink: I know it looked like he was at the White House, but you know. Mike Bates: Yeah, I he was in the White House. You didn't think he was in the White House? Scott Miller: must have watched a different speech then. I have watched a different speech then. ⁓ Greg Fink: Well, I mean, the thing is that when you're watching it on the internet, it can be anywhere. Scott Miller: It could be anywhere. Mike Bates: Yeah, no, I think it was in the White House. I think it was in White House. But I will say this about the speech. It was absolutely pointless. ⁓ was the most pointless speech that man has ever given. And he's given a lot of pointless speeches. I was extremely disappointed that he didn't lay out the objectives. Now, he did say what his objectives were. I mean, I'm not going to say that he didn't say anything at all. And I wrote him down. He said that ⁓ Greg Fink: You know? Scott Miller: Yeah. Greg Fink: That's for your fan. Oh, yeah, I credit. I Mike Bates: The objectives were to destroy Iran's ability to project power beyond its borders, to destroy its air force and Navy, to annihilate its defense industrial capacity. we've pretty much accomplished that. But as I have said from the very beginning of this conflict, if this ends with the Islamic still in charge of then the ⁓ the operation will have been pointless and we should never have done it. And I don't want to see us end this war until the mad mullahs of Iran are out of power. And sadly, the administration does not share that objective apparently. I think he's looking for an off-ramp that will leave the existing government in charge. And all that will do is leave a far more dangerous and determined Iran intact. Now they're pretty much broken, but they will build over time and they will build back to be even more dangerous than they were before this war began. Greg Fink: ⁓ yeah. Well what I'm hoping for is that maybe something he just didn't say is what's gonna happen and maybe he just didn't show his cards yet and maybe there is gonna be a regime change and maybe he's did not want to lay it out for everybody to follow up with or or counter or to obstruct and I mean he does have a history of that as well doing things without anybody knowing and so there is that but you're right if he does keep on this track that he did I mean basically crippling them is not removing them crippling them a cripple can always get better and so I mean and we don't need they don't need to have the opportunity to get better at all they need to be removed from power like I said before the whole IRGC everything needs to be annihilated and done levels Scott Miller: a certain amount of his speech on this topic is kind of driven by where he thinks the Democrat talking points are going to go. And so he doesn't really say things like pushing for regime change, even though today he actually kind of, not in this speech, but in some other comments he made today, he pretty much intimated that by the time we're done with them, he believes that the Iranian people will be in a much better position to rise up against them. mean, he gives the Democrats, ⁓ think he believes that if he gives the Democrats the talking point that they want, that a regime change war ⁓ and it's going to be another endless war, another Afghanistan, another Iraq, ⁓ that where he's going to lose even his base, although he's still kind of losing his base and being kind of cagey about it. Greg Fink: All Yeah, but here's a cage of guy. Mike Bates: Well, and I will acknowledge that if he announces that the goal is regime change, then all that does is harden the resolve of the regime not to be overthrown. Okay, so I acknowledge that sometimes you don't want to state your objectives, but the American people deserve to know what the objectives are. And if we really do have the objective of overthrowing the regime, we need to the Iranian people know that, we need to let our allies know that, and we need to be open and honest about it from the beginning. I don't see the advantage of hiding that. They're going to resist us regardless. And we've got the overwhelming military superiority regardless. So we should just admit that's what our goal is. And because we aren't admitting that, I fear that ain't our goal. My goal, I don't believe it's the administration's goal. Greg Fink: I'm hoping you're wrong. Scott Miller: Personally what I think you ought to do is send operatives into Iran and whisper into the ears of the resistance, be at these coordinates at this time and we'll airdrop you in endless amounts of weapons and then you guys go take your country. That's an oversimplification but something along those lines. transport them, air drop them some weapons in there and let them take business matters into their own hands. Greg Fink: Right. Yeah, baby, baby, baby. Mike Bates: Yeah, and you're absolutely right on that. And I assume we are doing that. I mean, please tell me we are doing that. Now, we are going to announce that, but we must be doing that. mean, America is not run by idiots. We must have that plan. But it's been a month. haven't done that already? Why aren't the Iranian people already uprising? some of that may be because the internet shut off in Iran. People ⁓ aren't even of what's going on. All they're hearing is regime propaganda. It may also be that they're afraid to be on the streets because we're still blowing stuff up. Greg Fink: No. Hopefully. That's true. Mike Bates: They don't want to die from a building collapsing on them. But I would certainly hope that our Intel, CIA and others are over there coordinating in the exact manner that you mean, you just said, providing them with the weaponry, them with the intelligence and helping them do it. But let's also remember that the IRGC and the Iranian army are not the same thing. We're never going to convert the IRGC. But if we can convince the leaders of the Iranian army to turn against the IRGC. Now we have a well armed, although the IRGC is better armed, but will this police have an armed army that can do it? Not to mention the Kurds allegedly two weeks ago that were heading into Iran. What are they up to these days? Greg Fink: Yeah, who knows? mean, that's the big thing is that we have such a disconnect here in communication. And so, I mean, I know point last couple of weeks ago was that you wanted to hear him say this and ⁓ wants to hear him say it, but he's not going to. And think or less he's not going to give the bait, like Scott said, to the Democrat on the political side to use that terminology, regime change, I guess is against the sort of Geneva Convention or your... World War or a world court thing or some blah blah blah BS thing because you know everybody wants to take it way too far on what it really is but he doesn't want to use that that talking pointer that soundbite to be used against him and to basically annihilate the entire Republican Party in the midterms and Barely basically guarantee an impeachment and guarantee that you know this sport will be have no more purse strings whatsoever Now the funding will be cut off tear it terribly Mike Bates: Well, if you're speaking of things that are against the law, that didn't stop Donald Trump a couple days ago from threatening to bomb the civilian electrical generating facilities and their desalination plants. That actually would be an acknowledged war crime, and he threatened to do it anyway. It's like, what the hell, Donald? I mean... Greg Fink: Well, you got a point there. I can't explain that one. And Don Shop, like we said before, he says what he does. mean, his parents or what, ⁓ you that's how he's done his projects and trades and his deals. I he peels everybody off the ceiling and that's what does. mean, that's his mojo. Scott Miller: Yeah, part of his, ⁓ well, part of his ⁓ negotiating strategy is to sow chaos on the other side. Mike Bates: And it could be bluster, I acknowledge that. Greg Fink: Now, is it a good idea? Probably not for most people. mean, it may be not a really good idea in a long-term solution, but you know it is what it is. And we're not gonna change them. Scott Miller: I guarantee you there are going a lot of people laughing in the comments while I say this, but Trump's focus really is peace he has a long history of advocating for peace. And think I would be shocked to see Greg Fink: It is. Scott Miller: bombing things like desalination plants and power plants and things like that. I don't know, maybe power plants, but desalination plants and things that are crucial to people's survival, like the civilian survival, I'd be surprised to see him going after that kind of infrastructure. Greg Fink: Right. Mike Bates: Well I would too but that begs the question then why threaten it? mean at some point it's bluster and at some point it's losing credibility. Scott Miller: Because it's chaos! Well, because he sows chaos in doing it. Greg Fink: And that's just way he governs. It is frustrating. Mike Bates: One of the many things I find frustrating about the man. Scott Miller: And I do too. I'm just recognizing that he does it. I'm not saying that it's a good tactic. one thing that I've criticized him about consistently is fights unnecessarily. And I mean political fights, not this. ⁓ Mike Bates: Yeah, I know what you mean. Greg Fink: I mean he and Piggy fought with Rosie O'Donnell for no reason. mean come on. where it all started. And it started with the whole birther movement with Obama. But yeah. Scott Miller: Exactly. Mike Bates: The one point. Yeah, the one, well, do you even want me to comment on that? No, I will anyway. No, will anyway. No, no, no, I'm going to comment on it anyway. OK. And I'm just going to say and I've been consistent about the Obama birth certificate from the very beginning. I've never changed my position. And that is this. find it highly implausible Barack Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. OK. However. Greg Fink: ⁓ just go next. ⁓ ahead. ⁓ Mike Bates: I think it is disgraceful that Barack Obama never authorized the state of Hawaii to release his original long-form birth certificate precisely because by refusing to do so, all it did was sow chaos division. ⁓ Barack Obama was an incredibly divisive president and he did it deliberately and that was disgraceful. That's all I'm gonna say about. Greg Fink: again. Another president that's so chaos, just kind of like Biden, who Biden had indicted 94 times. Another president that, mean... Scott Miller: Yeah, but Biden do that on purpose. ⁓ just chaotically walked into it. He didn't do it on purpose. It wasn't like his grand plan. Greg Fink: ⁓ no, it's accident. And so basically, well, it wasn't a grand plan, but when we talk about Trump's method of using chaos to govern, it's not that much different than the ones. mean, people keep on. Scott Miller: It's incredibly different. Trump at least can plan sowing the chaos and then actually work through it and wind up with a profit at the end. These other guys just sow chaos as a smoke screen. Greg Fink: What? Well, well, well, well, well, well, I mean, that's what I was saying. Well, was trying to say was that, mean, people keep on saying that he's the only chaotic president and he's not. I mean, you know, I mean, exactly. I mean, everybody thinks that he's a he's the one that's breaking the mold here and he's the only one that's been this controversial and this divisive. no, no, no, no. Obama was extremely divisive. Biden was extremely divisive. W actually W wasn't pretty. He is kind of milk toast. Scott Miller: ⁓ wait, no he's not. He's just the one that does it well. Greg Fink: divisive things so for the Patriot Act maybe and Scott Miller: He was more of buddy. ⁓ Greg Fink: Yeah, exactly. He's more of a hangout kind of guy and bill clinton same way. I mean he'd like to party with you I mean just ask anybody Scott Miller: Yeah. Mike Bates: Well, the speech, while I think it was overall horrible, I will acknowledge the one thing that he did say, I wish he would have expanded on it more than he did, but he did call out the other nations who benefit from the oil that comes through the Strait of Hormuz. I the US, we get single digit percentage of our oil out of the Strait of Hormuz. We don't need it. We've got plenty of oil domestically produced. Greg Fink: ⁓ he did, yeah. Mike Bates: plenty of oil imported from Canada, imported from Mexico, and those three countries alone, US, Mexico, Canada, we got all the oil we need. We could do without a drop of Middle East oil, and we, the United States, will not dry. Our pumps will not run dry. The gas lines will not exist because we got plenty of oil, or plenty of gasoline. Now we're gonna pay off the, you know, well, we're gonna pay a lot of money for it, okay, because it's a global commodity, and so the price is gonna go up, but we're not gonna run out. Those other countries, Greg Fink: No. Mike Bates: They are at the risk of running out. So why the hell aren't they doing anything to reopen the Strait of Hormuz? Now they can say all day long, well, it's not our war. Donald Trump's broken. Let him fix it. Yeah, but it's their countries. They're going to suffer. How about they lift a finger for a change? These countries that have been sucking off America's teat since the end of World War II, and they will not lift a finger to help themselves. Greg Fink: Right? Exactly. Exactly. Mike Bates: It's just infuriating. And then you have these candy ass countries like Spain, Italy and France. can't use our bases. Can't use our airspace. What the hell? I I understand this is not a NATO action, but these are supposed to be our allies. We can't take off your freaking air base. Come on. Greg Fink: Right, I know. It's totally ridiculous. mean, whole concept here that, you know, we are only getting single digit amount of oil from them, but we're paying more than double digit percentage in gas. And I understand it's a global market and everything, but I mean, how come they just can't, you know, figure here out and get this global market here fixed? Scott Miller: I'll tell you, Tim Pool had a really good analysis of this whole thing. And he kind of pointed out while he doesn't believe that Trump, this was Trump's plan at the beginning of his administration, it of has presented itself as an opportunity ⁓ for to beyond bringing manufacturing to America for dominance. Now he's also of the and destroyed a bunch of... Greg Fink: Right. Scott Miller: energy relationships so that America has energy dominance over the entire world. and most of Europe are paying dramatically more. You think had a price increase? ⁓ is up three, four hundred percent. It's dramatically more expensive. And them not to be participating in it, you either us or you don't reap any of the benefits. What they have done is turned us into were selling Europe 25 of the natural gas that they use. Now, because these fields been destroyed, they'll take five to 10 years to redevelop. We're selling 66 % of natural gas now. ⁓ And all these BRICS nations we're about, Greg Fink: Right. Scott Miller: getting off the American currency, now they have no choice but to get right back on it because we have cornered the market on energy in the world. And that's going to be the thing that drives American dominance at this point. Mike Bates: Well, that petrodollar is critical. If we lose the petrodollar dominance, our economy will collapse. So that is critical. But these other nations, I said, because they are going to run out, I mean, it's bad enough that you're paying more for it. but least you have it right. And to use an example of food, not gasoline, food. All right. Which would you rather do? Pay a lot of money for food or have no food to buy? Well, obviously you'd just pay more money for it. Now don't want to, but if the choice is paying for expensive food or starved to death, well, how much you want for the food, okay? And you're gonna pay it. Well, that's what we're gonna do in the United States. These other countries, they run the risk of not being able to get the oil at all. And yet they are to lift a finger to help themselves. And I think it is pathetic that these candy ass nations have for so long Greg Fink: Exactly. Right. It is. Mike Bates: depended on the United States for their economic and military security. And I'm not in favor of abandoning NATO, okay? I'm not. I think it has its value still. But I am sick of these countries just assuming that the United States will take care of them. Well, about you take care of yourself for a change? Scott Miller: Well, you Trump has been very consistent, I'll tell you, in saying that he didn't believe that if we needed them, would come to our aid. ⁓ know, we've always been there for NATO, but he doesn't believe NATO will be there for us. And they seem to be demonstrating that right now. Greg Fink: What a thought. Great. Mike Bates: Yeah, I do though in the interest of accuracy. I have to point this out. Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that is the mutual defense provision that an attack upon one is considered an attack upon all and we will respond accordingly. Now, contrary to what a lot of people think, it doesn't actually require every NATO nation to participate in the defense of one. It is in spirit requiring that, you still have the sovereign authority to decide whether or you're going to. But it's generally that Article 5 means that if one nation is attacked, yeah, we're all going to come in to their defense. Article 5 has only been invoked one in NATO's entire history, and it was invoked on September 11, 2001. And it was the United States who asked for it, and it was these other NATO countries who did come to our aid in this war against terrorism. So in the interest of ⁓ accuracy, you let's acknowledge the one time that it was necessary by treaty through Article 5. Well, we're the ones that asked for it. And those nations did come to our aid. But that doesn't excuse 25 years since. And doesn't excuse even the before that when they weren't spending the required 2 % of their GDP on defense. Donald Trump forced them to do it. And as you guys know, he was terribly criticized for it when he said, well, Greg Fink: Exactly. Mike Bates: You don't do it, we just may not come help you. Russia invades Putin, take what you want, right? He wasn't really meaning that, but man, the left just assumed it was the nectar of the gods, gospel truth to it. It was just bluster, but that's Donald Trump, right? But what did those NATO countries do? They increased their percentage of GDP on defense spending. So in the end, he got what he wanted. And the big thing with Donald Trump that I keep trying to explain to these little crybaby lefties Greg Fink: Exactly. Yes, it did. Mike Bates: is don't pay attention to what he says, pay attention to what he does. Greg Fink: And that's what I think about the speech tonight. As pointless as the speech might have been, I think the actions are going to be more pointed in what we see here in the next week or so. And so I think there was going to be a lot more action that might be counter to what he said to a degree I'm hoping so anyway, as far as regime change and ending this war and just annihilating the entire enemy and taking over the Strait of Hormuz. There should be no reason at all we don't not have any control over that whatsoever with our military superpower ability and their military inability. or lack thereof of any kind of ability whatsoever, we should be taking over that straight and securing everything as we said two or three weeks ago very quickly and very rapidly. And so I think the actions we're going to see hopefully are going to be totally different than what the speech was tonight. Mike Bates: Yeah, I think the more likely outcome though is that Iran's going to impose a toll and these countries are going to pay it because they have to have the oil. So they're going to pay it. They're going to pay the toll and Iran will be enriched because they can charge nearly anything that they want for that toll for safe passage. Scott Miller: Right, except how are they going to get the money? Because we can still impose it. Mike Bates: Well, you simply tell them, no, I mean, that's actually easy to do. You say got a permit, you need a permit to transit straight to Hormuz and the permit costs ⁓ number of millions of dollars. And if you don't get it, we attack your ship. I mean, that's easy. Scott Miller: How do they physically get the money to them? Because as soon as it hits the open market, it's embargoed. Mike Bates: There's always ways to get it through though. There's ways to get it through. Scott Miller: Yeah, well, ⁓ Greg Fink: Well, under it I guess. Mike Bates: I tell you, talked about the petrodollar a moment ago. The worst way to get it through is in something other than US currency. How you get it through? Chinese yuan, right? Maybe do it in rubles. I don't you do it in rials. I don't know, but you do it in something other than dollars. You can bypass that global currency system. Scott Miller: Yeah, but you can't do it with impunity there will a price to pay with the and they know that. ⁓ so it's devil's for sure. But at a certain point, they really don't have ability allow Iran to do that. Greg Fink: Yeah. Scott Miller: especially because all of their future promise is on the Americans. The only thing the Iranians have that they need is oil. The Americans have oil, we have products, we have everything. And so I agree with you, there will be some leakage like that, but I don't believe that they'll have the ability to do it on a large scale that they would really need to. Greg Fink: We have freedom. At least they want do what Obama did, like Trump did mention in his speech that was very good to bring up about dropping off $1.7 billion in cash on a barge to them. I at least that would not happen again. mean, ⁓ do think there's ⁓ parts of the speech tonight that were very important to draw the analogy. And now a lot of my friends, they keep saying, well, you know, it because of this, or y'all just keep on blaming other presidents. And we're not blaming other presidents, we're... We're living history. I mean, he did reiterate in that speech that has been 47 years that they've been in power and they've been killing extorting and hurting Americans in our way of life and our allies and so on and so forth throughout their regime. that was a frustrating part why I didn't, you know, why he didn't say regime change and everybody also understand the political side effect of that. And so that's the reason why I'm hoping the actions over the next couple of weeks are going to do everything they can to to a regime change and to take out all the evil mullahs and get them out of the way. Mike Bates: All right, so again, in the interest of absolute truth, we do have to acknowledge because most people don't know this, the 1.7 billion that Barack Obama gave to Iran was Iranian money. It was Iranian money that had been embargoed and was stored in the US. Barack Obama didn't have to give it back. Greg Fink: ⁓ yeah. Mike Bates: And by giving it back, gave the Iranians the ability to fund terrorism and develop the nuclear program and build and build missiles. So it was a terrible decision to give it back. But let's do make it clear that it wasn't American taxpayer money that we gave them. We gave them back their own money. We just shouldn't have. But it was their own money. Greg Fink: Exactly. It was. Yeah, but it did come out of the system that would have been benefiting American war taxpayers, I'm sure. don't know exactly how ⁓ money, it was just, it's just a trust fund and nothing happens to it. Scott Miller: No, no, no, no, no, it was in a trust fund. Mike Bates: Yeah, Scott's right. mean, was absolutely, was just embargoed money. mean, was even getting the interest on it. Greg Fink: Interesting. Scott Miller: Well, I mean, the account was accruing the interest, so yes. But I mean, they weren't... Greg Fink: Yeah. Mike Bates: Well, right. The account is accrued in the interest and then we gave them the money in the account. Right. Greg Fink: So they got their money back. Scott Miller: Yeah, we have the money the interest that it had accrued. So yes. ⁓ Greg Fink: So basically they got a really cool savings bond with a bunch of interest accrued and got rewarded. Scott Miller: Hell of a maturity date. Mike Bates: Right, but we shouldn't have given them the money to begin with because we could have continued to embargo that money. And what did they do when they got the money? They funded terrorism, they bought drones, they invested in their nuclear weapons program more. So they did exactly what Barack Obama was warned they would do. he did it anyway. He gave them the money anyway. Greg Fink: We should not, you know. Scott Miller: Well, and I know I say this just about every week that we talk about Iran, but I want to point out that any point in the last 47 years, we have plenty of justification to do exactly what we're doing right now. if I go and hire a hitman and he somebody, then I'm just as guilty as the hitman was. ⁓ Greg Fink: exactly. Mike Bates: Absolutely. Scott Miller: because I'm the one that, may not have been the guy that pulled the trigger, but I'm the guy that sent the killer and that's what they are. We could have done it any time in the last 47 years and it would have been entirely justified and shame on us for not doing it because ⁓ we're paying the price for waiting this long to do it. Greg Fink: Right. Exactly. That's where we're at today. So I think another thing happened today. Artemis 2 launched out of Cape Canaveral. Go ahead. was... I miss the moon. Mike Bates: Mm-hmm. Hey, can I do one more thing before we get to the moon? I want to go back to the discussion we were having a moment ago about NATO, okay, and invoking Article 5. And I'm going to come across as a really terrible, and heartless SOB. But I don't care. I'm going to say it anyway. We been intercepting Iranian missiles that have been heading into Turkey. Greg Fink: ⁓ NATO yeah. ⁓ yeah, you had a- ahead. Mike Bates: Turkey is a NATO ally. Now, am I a completely horrible person when I say, why are we intercepting those missiles? Why not let a couple of them land? Because now Iran did attack a NATO country. Turkey can invoke Article 5, and guess what? Now it's a NATO conflict. And those other countries, while not forced to come in, would be pressured to come in. Greg Fink: Compiled, Scott Miller: Yeah, and it wouldn't matter if they hit a hospital or a herd of goats. still attacking the country. ⁓ Mike Bates: true. That's right. And I would vote for the herd of goats. I don't want I don't want to. Yeah, I don't want Turks killed, but Greg Fink: But what, I mean... Scott Miller: I would vote for the herd of goats, absolutely. Greg Fink: Well, I agree. I but I mean, I talked to Scott about this yesterday. mean, aren't them the missiles already to our rain as intercepting them the same as I'm attacking our, I mean, Turkey anyway. Mike Bates: But it didn't hit them. sure, maybe they swung at them. But if they didn't land a punch, did they really hit them? Arguably not. Greg Fink: Yeah, but... That's really not I get it Scott Miller: Arguably not. Well, clearly it's not the same. Legally, Greg, you're right, it is the same thing. But from the net effect, no, because Turkey is able to ignore it because there was no damage. But the minute there's any damage, I mean, I don't care if they hit a Camry that happens to be sitting out there. it still caused damage and it could have killed someone. from that perspective, I think that's the sort of thing to Mike's point that it's going to take to make someone realize, yes, this is a NATO problem, but they're trying to spin this thing as, well, America caused this and we can actually just blame America for this. Because we wouldn't have suffered this damage if the Americans hadn't started this stupid conflict. Greg Fink: ⁓ my gosh. America started it. Mike Bates: And that is what they'd say, isn't it, Scott? Yeah, that is what they'd say, it? Scott Miller: Well, that's what they say publicly, but I'll tell you, a lot of my sources that I'm talking to are in the background, saying, ⁓ God, I'm glad this is finally happening. Greg Fink: ⁓ yeah? Mike Bates: Yeah, but that's even more cowardly. You know, if you're going to say one thing publicly and then cheerlead behind the scenes, screw you. Have the guts and the courage to come out and say what you want and say it publicly. Scott Miller: I agree. I agree. Greg Fink: And what's so hard about saying that we don't want terrorists? I what is so hard about that? I mean, why are terrorists a protective breed? Scott Miller: Amen. Mike Bates: Well, actually, I can tell you what part of the problem is. A lot of these countries have a very large percentage of the electorate that is Islamic, and they don't want to be attacking a Muslim nation when they've got all these Islamists living within their borders. So a lot of it is domestic politics of these countries. And it's not just the lefty Europeans. It's not just the weak European liberals. Greg Fink: Go ahead. Scott Miller: What was that? Mike Bates: It's the Islamists that have moved in that vote and they don't want to be attacking a Muslim nation because they'll tick off the Muslim vote. Scott Miller: Well, let me reframe this in a way that's a little more relatable to Americans. right? So I know all my life, there's been some preacher somewhere talking about the end of days and we're in the end of days and it's about to be over and the coming of Christ is right on the thing. I think that conversation has been going on basically for a hundred, couple hundred years maybe. There've been various little sects that have basically based their entire religion on Greg Fink: So you may are. Scott Miller: specifying a date when Christ is about to come. while a lot of people dismiss them, a lot of people who were Christians were reluctant to just condemn the fact that they're even mentioning it because then makes them sound heretical or just anti-religion or just even as a... I don't know, as an apostate, I know, I hesitate to say that they don't believe in God, but that's the way that they have a feeling that they're going to be portrayed. And I feel like that's what a lot of the more moderate Muslims are. They think what they're doing is dumb, and Iran is run by a cult. that is all about the end times. They want to forth end times because that will bring forth the 12th, is it 12th Mullah or something like that or? Imam, 12th Imam, yeah. Mike Bates: 12th E-bomb, Scott Miller: it's very much like that. The that want go through the rapture and bring back the second coming of Christ and all that. It's the very sort of thought process except they take it to a much more extreme level than I've ever seen in America with the exception of a couple of very narrow cults. Greg Fink: I agree. Mike Bates: Alright, so you want to talk about the moon now, Greg? Greg Fink: What moon? Go ahead. It is. Scott Miller: What, Mike Bates: So Artemis 2 is on the way to the moon. Now they won't be landing on the moon. They're just going to be going around it. But there are astronauts aboard that launched earlier today at about 530 central time, so about 630. You know what's interesting is, me tell you something interesting about Artemis 2. It was scheduled to launch at 642 Eastern time. So I set an alarm on my phone for 630-ish Eastern time. Scott Miller: So they say. Greg Fink: we ever land on the moon? Did we ever get there really? Come on. Who held the camera? Go ahead. Mike Bates: figuring I don't need to watch too much of the countdown. I turn on the TV and it's first like 30 seconds left in the countdown clock. So I don't know how it moved it up, but I did actually see the launch and it was pretty spectacular to see. And I was, you know, kind of holding my breath, a little nervous. once got off in the distance, you know, that camera moving so far ⁓ in it was kind of shaky. I'm like, don't like that. But apparently all has gone well with it and it'll be a 10 day mission around the moon. It won't be landing. Greg Fink: scheduled early. Right. Mike Bates: but they will go farther from Earth than any humans have ever gone before. Greg Fink: Really cool. That's awesome. Mike Bates: And yes, Greg, contrary to what you think, we did in fact land on the moon with the Apollo program. Greg Fink: Were you there? Mike Bates: I was on Earth watching. No, we absolutely landed on the moon. Greg Fink: How do you know? How do you know? It's a very good camera. Okay, who held the camera and who held the microphone? Mike Bates: Which camera? You talk about Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder? It attached to the leg of the lunar module. Greg Fink: The camera that I had Neil Armstrong, yeah, yeah. Sure. Scott Miller: Because they had an idea as they were launching the capsule that they might want to have some pictures. she should probably have a camera in a good spot to see the guy coming down. Greg Fink: They should, but they had no idea what the gravity was or anything like that. mean, you know, they hadn't, there was none. I'm playing with you, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, sort of. Mike Bates: Exactly. And they can do what the gravity was. Come on. Scott Miller: They know exactly what the gravity is. It's one eighth of the earth's gravity. Mike Bates: And the microphone, it was in the space helmets because they were radio transmissions. Greg Fink: Of course it were. Well yeah, mean, but in 1960, what was it, 1969 when they did that? Scott Miller: You know, like this one. Mike Bates: Yeah, they were little ear buds. Nah, so listen, clear something up, Greg. Greg Fink: how come we haven't been back there since? Scott Miller: That's a very good question. Mike Bates: It's been because mostly of money. We've been unwilling to commit the money to do it. Greg Fink: ⁓ we had the money then? We had the money then? We don't have money now? Mike Bates: Well, okay, no, listen, we have the money then? I'm you asked that question because it puts a lot of the world, not just the space program, but it puts a lot of the world into perspective. We, in generation, the post-World War II generation, we think, ⁓ yeah, United States, we're all ⁓ powerful and And it's true that we are, but why are we powerful? Yes, it was critical that the United States be involved in World War II, although the Europeans did a pretty good job defending themselves. Granted, it was the arsenal of democracy in America, and I was shipping it over there in the Lend-Lease Act that gave them all of the, much of the military equipment. So was the American industrial might that equipped the Europeans to defend themselves against the Nazis. But ultimately it was the United States involvement that helped push it over the edge. The Europeans loosened the lid on the jar, but we ultimately opened it. Greg Fink: I did. Right. Mike Bates: But at the end of World War II, the United States really the only country on the planet that wasn't destroyed. And so we had all the infrastructure and we had all the money. So what did do? We loaned we nations money, we gave nations money, we bought friendships, we bought influence and all that. And so what happened with the space Would you have money then? Greg Fink: Right. So do. Mike Bates: Well, no, were running deficit then too, but we were in the space race against the Russians. And back then with the Red Scare and Sputnik launching before us, I mean, the Russians, you know, they put the first satellite into orbit. They sent the first man into orbit. So the Russians were ahead of us. And Kennedy, to his credit, said, you know, we're going to go land on the moon, not because it easy, it is easy, but because it is hard. Okay. Greg Fink: Right. There we are. Mike Bates: And so, and we did it and we spent a ton of money doing it. And there were a lot of people that did object at the time. There's always a waste of money, but the technologies that we got out of the space program are immeasurable. all across the, and not just computers. I mean, we have more computing in a cell phone than we had in the ⁓ entire program. Okay. But even other things, just materials and communications and it just, it's amazing we have done because of the space program. Greg Fink: And we did. ⁓ yeah. I agree. Scott Miller: Mm. Mike Bates: But we had the national goal then, we had a unified national goal then of beating the Russians. there was a military component as well, because we knew that if the Russians militarized space, that they would be able to dominate. And so we invested in the space program so that the Russians wouldn't win the space race. And they didn't. And the Russians, I mean, hey, they were and still are incredibly capable. Greg Fink: And so... They are. Mike Bates: space travel. mean, I give their scientists tremendous credit and their cosmonauts tremendous credit for what they did and for what they're doing now. I mean, may have a lot of problems, but space program ain't one of them. Greg Fink: I I agree. I mean, and this is not me being a poo poo or on the landing on the moon or anything, but in all reality here, I'm just I am curious on with the massive deficits that we've gone through and other budgets that we've gone through and the cost it took to put us on the moon and how would that fit into our national budget with us being $31 trillion in debt already on spending money on God knows all kinds of other stuff that was not as beneficial. And so I I understand we're doing the Mars stuff, and we do a lot of on Mars as well. And so I'm just curious about how come, if it was so easy to do back then, and we were still in a Cold War with Russia for 25 years after that, until the late 80s, I guess 25 or 30 years probably, after that, until the Iron Curtain fell. I how can we didn't do it again? I we had a Star Wars program, which I guess now people are saying was even a real program. was talking about with Russia and everything. But as far as shooting down missiles and and in our nuclear defense mechanisms and and all that that people are saying, we're not really as you know, put together as we were saying they were because was part of the the verbal with Russia and everything. And during the Cold War. But I mean right now, know, ⁓ it's so beneficial, like you said, we learned so much from it, how can we haven't done it since? Mike Bates: Well, it's because the bulk of NASA's budget went into the space shuttle program. And I'm not saying that was good or bad, but space shuttle also did a lot of good. what we invested it in. We'd been to the moon. It's like, OK, been there, done that. We started developing near space and Earth orbit with the space shuttle program, which did have tremendous cost overruns, way more than it was supposed to be. Couldn't launch as frequently as we wanted it to. And then we had a problem with the Challenger because Greg Fink: It does, yeah. Right. Mike Bates: We launched it in the freezing cold and then we had Columbia. mean, lots of problems, but the space shuttle program ate up NASA's budget was the reason why. And we couldn't get enough funding to do the space shuttle and go back to the moon because the argument of what are we going to gain going back to the moon? It wasn't that big of a leap in technology. convince the politicians to fund that. What's funding it now is actually not the return to the moon. What has secured the funding now is that we want to go to Mars. Greg Fink: ⁓ yeah. Really. Mike Bates: And the moon is simply going to the halfway point, but the launch pad to Mars. We're going to hopefully in the next decade have a permanent base that is manned full time by astronauts on the moon. And from there, we plan to eventually launch a manned mission to Mars. So the Artemis program, yeah, we're going around the moon and should be next landing on the moon. Greg Fink: Right. Mike Bates: But it ain't about the moon, it's about Mars. Greg Fink: Well, yeah, that's cool. Yeah, I agree. so, mean, so I mean, then just go ahead and put it out there. I'm not, you totally being stupid stuff on the moon thing, but ⁓ am a little bit ignorant on this stuff because I haven't really followed as deeply as y'all have. So thank you for educating me on that. Scott Miller: Yeah, yeah, I mean you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right about that. Well, I'll tell you that the only that's... I'm a little lost on it and I follow this technology a lot but the thing that's kind of strange to me is that the... one of things that they say kept us from going back to the moon... Mike Bates: Oh, I have to ask. Go ahead, go ahead, Scott. Scott Miller: was that we lost the technology somehow to protect our capsules from the radiation. Actually, that's one of the big moon skeptic questions is how did they block the radiation that once you get outside the Van Allen belt, there's intense radiation and how we protect our astronauts from that? Because if you've ever seen one of those capsules, ain't a lot to it. Mike Bates: Yeah, but they're still metallic and that metallic is able to block the radiation. Scott Miller: No, it's thin metal. You gotta have something with a little bit of density to it. Mike Bates: But it's still able to, I mean, it's not thick lead, but it's still able to block the radiation. we had, you know, Mylar, now I'm not saying that Mylar is capable of back radiation, heck, it can barely hold in helium, had a birthday party balloon. But Mylar is an example of technology that was created. The visors that had the gold on them, that was to protect radiation. Micron thin, yeah, we developed the technology to do that. Scott Miller: Absolutely. Well, just, there was a lot of conversations before, during ramp up to this about not understanding how to fully protect the astronauts. Maybe what the truth is is that we thought we were protecting them more than we were. And maybe that's, maybe when realized that we weren't protecting them as well as we thought, we said, well, I don't know if we can send them back, because we probably shouldn't have done that to begin with. Greg Fink: Yeah, being overprotected. Mike Bates: Greg, I'm curious, do really think we didn't land on the moon or you just mess with us? Greg Fink: Okay, I get it now. I was playing with you. Mike Bates: Okay, so you do acknowledge that we did land on the moon. Greg Fink: I think it's pretty pretty. Mike Bates: All right, so let tell you why it's not 50-50, it's 100-0. Okay, we absolutely went to the moon. And this is... Scott Miller: We'll get- Greg Fink: Go ahead, give me your senior of view. Mike Bates: This is not even going to be a scientific explanation of why we got there. This is going to be the political explanation of why I know we got there. OK? And that is were in a race to the moon against the Russians. And the Russians had tremendous space technology. And they were able to monitor ⁓ single thing that we were doing en route to the moon and back, including our two way communications. They knew everything we were saying. And if we had landed, well, if we had filmed the moon landing in a Hollywood sound studio, then the Russians would not have picked up transmissions from the moon of our astronauts communicating back to earth. And they, at that time, would have loved nothing more than to come out and prove that, these Americans are full of crap. You know, we're monitoring the moon. They're not sending any transmissions. A hundred percent, Greg, we know Greg Fink: They would have known it. Mike Bates: that man landed on the moon in the Apollo program, 100%. Greg Fink: That's a good argument. That's a beautiful argument and I agree 100 % with that argument. Mike Bates: Okay, thank you. And not thank you for me, thank you for yourself that you acknowledge the truth. It's important to acknowledge the truth. Greg Fink: I don't mind other goofy. Well, yeah, I acknowledge it. I know it's a good argument. But another really funny argument here is a federal judge at some federal court that it was constitutional to fund PBS and NPR and that Trump's decision to not fund them was unconstitutional. And that wasn't the Supreme Court, it was some federal appeals court somewhere in America where some judge did not go to law school. But you know, hey. What the hell? Scott Miller: Well, may not have been just an appellate court that did it, but it will soon be ⁓ ⁓ Court because they're not going let that go. Greg Fink: And it was in April Fool's Day. Mike Bates: And the worst part of that decision, the worst part of that judge's decision, and 99 % certain it was an Obama appointee. I remember looking up who appointed the judge, but I've actually done that in a lot of recent cases. So I might be confusing who which judge, because there's a lot of bad judges lately. And I always look them up. Every time there's a story about a federal judge, so and so, I always look up, OK, who appointed this guy? And so I think it was Obama that appointed it. Greg Fink: Yeah, which one? Mike Bates: But here's the thing. There perhaps a slither of an argument that Donald Trump could not ⁓ withhold funding from NPR and PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. However, Congress withdrew the funding. So it wasn't a matter of Donald Trump doing it on his own. OK, you got an argument. And it may not really work, but you got an argument. Greg Fink: Exactly. Mike Bates: Congress withdrew the funding! Now you got no argument! And somebody needs to tell these federal judges to go to hell! To take their unconstitutional rules, shove it up their ass, and we ain't gonna follow it! Greg Fink: Yeah, the other branch. I know. Scott Miller: Well, hopefully that's what the Supreme Court's doing. Mike Bates: Yeah, but I want the administration to do it. The court will eventually do that, but it'll take two years. There was a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He's dead now, thank God. And I'm sorry that I don't remember his name. But he was interviewed. The Ninth Circuit at the time was the most overturned circuit in the country. It's not anymore. I think it's the fifth that's now the most overturned. Might be the fourth. But at the time, it was definitely the ninth. And they were interviewing this jackass lefty judge. Scott Miller: I agree. I agree. Yeah. Greg Fink: Yeah. was. Mike Bates: who was asked by this reporter, and I give credit to the reporter for asking the question, you know, Your Honor, do you feel when judicial rulings get overturned by the Supreme Court? And the guy smirked and his answer was, quote, Well, they can't catch them all. In which case he knew that he was making unconstitutional rulings. They can't catch them all, which meant some of those unconstitutional rulings would survive. The Batman deserved an impeachment, but it didn't happen. But like I said, he's dead now. And I'm sorry I don't remember his name. I want to say it was like Reinhardt maybe, Reinhold, I don't remember. could look it up, but it's not critical. But you could find it if you really want to know. Just look up, know, Ninth Circuit Court can't catch them all. It'll the first result you get. Scott Miller: Mm-hmm. Mike Bates: But these judges are out of control, many of them, and somebody in the administration needs to just stand up and say, you've overstepped your bounds, we ain't doing it. And Donald Trump would not be the first president to do that. Hell, Andrew Jackson in the Indian Removal Act, Supreme Court said, nope. And his answer was, well, you've made the ruling, now let's see you enforce it. And nothing happened because the Supreme Court, none of the judiciary for that matter, has any ability to enforce rulings. And in fact, even, I'll tell you something else. Greg Fink: Yeah, they are. The best comparison. Scott Miller: You Greg Fink: So... Mike Bates: Even, you you think, ⁓ they'll just hold you in contempt of court. Well, the dirty little secret is, judges have no ability to enforce a contempt ruling either. Who enforces a contempt ruling? Well, in the federal courts, it's the US Marshals. So if the US Marshals simply refuse to arrest the person who was found in contempt of court, well, guess what? That person ain't going to, you know, going to jail for contempt of court. And if the DOJ refuses to prosecute, well, that's not happening either. Greg Fink: Exactly. Mike Bates: But I'll tell you where the judges do have the authority. And that is because if a US Marshal were to refuse arrest order from a judge, the judge can't make him do it. But the judge does have the authority to ban him from his courthouse. And you are a federal marshal who is assigned to a US courthouse and the judge bans you and you're not allowed in, well, guess what? It's not that you're out of a job necessarily, but your job might now be that you go to nowhere in North Dakota and you're enforcing some terrible duty station. they have power in that regard. But the judiciary has no enforcement power whatsoever. And somebody needs to call them out on that and say, you're out of line, Your Honor. We ain't doing that. Greg Fink: Can't go in. What do think about Trump's executive order on the voting rights on the absentee mailers? So where basically misreading it that he's saying that states can only do absentee voting to people who are actually on the voting list who apply for it. And for some reason, people are misreading that or not digesting that properly. They're saying, well, he's trying to stop absentee voting. He's starting to stop mail in voting. Like, no, you actually read the executive order. He is telling them that they can only mail to the people who apply for the mail ballots. And basically, he wants the envelopes to be barcoded, which, like Scott and I have talked about before, it doesn't really matter about the envelopes being tracked. It matters about the ballots being tracked. I think the ballots probably should be barcoded. But then again, it takes away the anonymity of a vote, so you have an issue there. I mean, they're saying he's overstepping quite a bit. Mike Bates: No wait! Well, you have to have anonymity to vote, but you can have the barcode on the ballot with a little tear strip. Okay, that could still be done. So I have an answer to your question of what I think of it, but I want to give it after Scott gives his opinion, not because I'm going to disagree with Scott's opinion. I don't know what it's going to be. I'm going to tell you what I think, but I really would like to yield to Scott first because he's going to give a far more detailed answer than I would. So Scott, you want to take that one? Greg Fink: Yeah, I know. You can, yeah. I agree. Scott Miller: Yeah, so one of the things that I want to clear up is that people keep going back to the Constitution there a provision in the Constitution that says that the states have jurisdiction, the is exactly this, it boils down to time, and manner. Or I mean place and not time, because the government can do the time. But the other thing that they omitting is the government can also do the qualifications. And they can say that you have to, you be able to make the argument that they can't say how you what those, the exact process you use, but they do have the ability to say that your process is inadequate. you have to be ⁓ so they can say in order to be a voter, you have to be a US citizen and you have to be of this age. They can say those two things for federal elections. Now they can't say a damn thing about, state and county elections, but they can say that if you're going to elect a federal candidate, elections must, then the people who vote have these qualifications and you prove that they have these qualifications. ⁓ So ⁓ going be the thing this is going to leverage on is, is do the, ⁓ what responsibility these states have as far as proving that the people that they are, whose votes they're counting are qualified be in this election. Greg Fink: Okay. Mike Bates: So what Scott said is absolutely correct. Congress does have the authority in the constitution to regulate that. However, the president does not have the authority to do it through an executive order. So to answer your question directly, Greg, what the president ordered is perfectly but only if Congress does it via legislation. The president doesn't have the authority to do that. Scott Miller: I agree with that. I agree with that. Greg Fink: But whenever he wrote it though, I mean if you read what he wrote, he basically just basically told them they have to enforce the law that's already on the books. Scott Miller: that I mean because these people already have you know that these are already the standards that are out there just clarifying the fact that these are the standards ⁓ Mike Bates: Yep. Greg Fink: I mean... Exactly. Yeah, I mean, there's no state that's going to be telling you or admitting, yeah, we have a bunch of illegals voting now. They do, and they will allow it, but they're not going to come out and even California, even the sanctuary states, they don't say, yes, we encourage illegals and criminals and people who are not eligible to vote to vote. They did not do that. Scott Miller: I'm gonna tell you that this about the illegal actually voting is a red herring to begin with. Because I'm at lot of elections, I've been at elections my whole life, and you don't Greg Fink: Exactly. Scott Miller: And there's just no way that are doing it. The problem is that the mechanisms that would allow illegals to vote ⁓ also the mechanisms that the ⁓ frauds are committed through. So by the illegals' ability to do it, then you've actually fixed the problem with ⁓ the frauds. I there's a lot of impetus for this. It's just an easier conversation to say, we can't have illegals voting. Greg Fink: Yeah, also, right. Yeah, I mean, and also, I think a lot of it is that a lot of the illegals who are voting don't really know they're voting. And so, I mean, because it's done through identity, through the mail-in ballot process, and that's the reason why what he said in his executive order was that the mail-in ballots can only be to those people who have requested one, who basically, which is the way all the laws are in all the states. You usually you don't mail out ballots to people who don't ask for one. Eeeee Mike Bates: ⁓ you do in Washington state. Washington state, every eligible, every registered voter, I'm gonna take out eligible, because it's for people registered that aren't eligible. registered voter in Washington state gets a ballot in the mail. There is no polling place. It's all vote by mail and you automatically get the ballot. And what does that create? The ability for fraud. ⁓ but no fraud ever happens. No, we don't know that. It's because it's difficult to find it because once it's in the... Greg Fink: Okay. I stand correct on that. Yeah it does. ⁓ yeah, it happens everywhere. Mike Bates: ballot box once it's mixed, you know, that's like trying to remove the egg from the cake after it's been baked. It's impossible. Greg Fink: It's a private vote. Exactly like whenever we have these county county transfers and they're supposed to be provisional ballots and they're not being called provisional ballots. They're being treated as regular ballots. And so basically you have people who shouldn't be voting in that county, voting in that county, and you don't really have any regulation or any way of knowing if they're really supposed to be voting or not because in state of Florida, they can change, but the SOE doesn't enforce it. The supervisor of elections does not enforce them to be provisional instead of being regular ballots. Once it goes into that ballot bend, Scott Miller: You're a Greg Fink: It's, you know, a blind ballot. We have no idea whose it is. Scott Miller: And I just want extend what Greg is saying ⁓ we've about this enough that he's kinda leaving a couple of things out. This is that we actually witnessed in Latchawa County where they had 9,000 same day transfers. People who were registered to vote another Florida county who they say came in filled out paperwork to vote on election day. And the fact of the matter is, ⁓ Greg Fink: I have. Here we have. Scott Miller: They don't have enough people in the elections office in Lancho County to process that many applications in a single day. Greg Fink: Yeah because they only have 300 provisional ballots out of 9,000 that should have been provisional. So that's 8,700 that were not provisional that should have been. Mike Bates: Yeah. Scott Miller: And the statute requires that if you do a same day transfer that it is kept segregated from all of the other ballots as a provisional ballot. the reason it's a provisional ballot is if it's later determined that you were not an eligible voter, then they can pull that ballot out. By them all together, you take away that ability. Greg Fink: Exactly. Mike Bates: Mm-hmm. Greg Fink: Zero were counted out and it's a No ⁓ Scott Miller: And it's not like it was an accident. They did it on purpose to affect a goal. Greg Fink: And right now, actually working on a campaign for it in Miami-Dade County. And we have seen in the last three weeks a number of Haitians, and there's not a pick on Haiti people, but Haitians and the Dominican Republic and Cubans who have been elevating the population who are not legal citizens, possibly. And so, I mean, I just learned this today. And so, but basically, their numbers have almost tripled in the last three weeks as far as registered voters. I mean, it is ridiculous and some of the precincts in Miami-Dade County. And so we're seeing a lot of possible fraud being built up and being ready to be shot out all throughout different races already. we're working in numerous different races throughout Florida and a few other states. so I mean, it's starting to look like the Democrats are coming to play again. And what I think they figured out is that they figured out this game very well. And that basically the oversight or the lack thereof is the way they're winning because nobody really wants to pull the trigger on going after this. Nobody wants to look like they're being bigoted or they're being intolerant or they're trying to discriminate against anybody's right to vote. And we aren't either. Nobody wants to discriminate against anybody's right to vote. But what we do want is we want the people who are registered to vote and legal to vote to be voting and not the people who are, you know, being victims of identity theft because they don't even know they're voting. And so we actually have had that issue here and I've done some research here and a few other elections here in the last couple of weeks and a lot of people didn't even know they voted. Scott Miller: Exactly, and honestly we need to start training these political committees how to analyze these things and then divide lists up, these suspicious lists up among their members for them to go and you need look at this list of voters, look at all of these important things and flag the ones that are highly questionable and then challenge these things en masse. ⁓ because otherwise we're gonna get down to election day and we're just gonna have the same old mess we've had before. Greg Fink: Yeah, and so back to the executive order, I heard about all these Supervisors of elections in Maine and all these workers saying that it's unconstitutional. We're going to do it our own way. I'm like, if you actually read it, he's telling you to do it your own way. I he's telling to follow the Constitution and follow the law. Now, if your own way is to throw Constitution out of the window, then, don't, you know, go back to the way it's supposed to be. And so I don't think I just. Mike Bates: But an executive order is unnecessary to require states to follow the law because states are already required to follow the law. Greg Fink: Well, once again, Trump, yeah, but they don't. that's it. But that's reason why Trump does a lot of the things that, well, of course. And we, I agree, but. Mike Bates: Well, then put the DOJ on them. It's a crime to not follow the law. And it's a federal crime, even if it's a state election law that you're violating, it's a federal crime to not follow your state election laws. I don't mean the individuals, I mean the authorities, the election officials. So put the DOJ on them. The executive order was showmanship, and that was it. Greg Fink: I ⁓ I know that, and we agree. They're busy. It was showmanship, was showmanship, I think, in a good way because it's basically letting people know that there's somebody out there being a watchdog who's actually caring about this stuff happening right. Everybody's trying to say he's being authoritarian. He's trying to fix the election. He's not trying to fix anything. He's trying to make sure the election's happening good. And it's about time we at least have somebody with a bully pulpit because Congress ain't doing nothing about it. The Senate is even scared of the SAVE Act, for God's sakes. I have no idea what the heck the hesitancy is on that. idea why they're hesitant on that. But you know, whenever you have two bodies of Congress who are not pulling the trigger, we need somebody, you know, to have a bully pulpit here to do that. And so yeah, it might be showmanship. Sure. I'm okay with that because I want him to show that he actually puts the American people first and their votes first. Scott Miller: Well, I have a little different perspective on that and that's simply that every single law that Congress passes, incumbent on the executive branch to ⁓ start and promulgating rules by which those statutes are Because they're always passed a lot of gaps in them. Greg Fink: Follow. Scott Miller: and federal rules of procedure are that in lot of cases the departments will have rule making process but there's also latitude for the president to impose additional rules that are not in conflict with the ⁓ Greg Fink: Yeah, because Congress creates them, the president signs off on them and enforces them, then the judicial system makes sure that constitutional. And that's the way it works. And so, I mean... Scott Miller: The judicial assembly determines whether or not people are in violation of one or the other. Greg Fink: Exactly. so Congress has already put in place here that you have to follow these rules through the Voters Act and everything else and basically his executive order might be a sign of showmanship, it's also it might be a little bit redundant as well. But I don't really care what you term it. What it is is saying that, you know, he is reiterating the fact to all you sanctuary states, these people who don't want to pay attention to the Constitution that hey, somebody's, know, maybe the DOJ might be watching. They might want to start paying attention. Maybe he's throwing a sign out there that if you don't follow this, then you you might get a knock on the door by Pam Bondi. You know, I mean, the whole point here is that we have somebody in leadership who's actually standing up for the rights of the voter and putting the voters rights first because nobody else up there seems to be doing it at this moment. Scott Miller: Well, Trump's, the entire reason that Trump does things like this is to basically compel the Democrats to come up in opposition of it and make themselves look like idiots. Greg Fink: Exactly. Yeah, kind of like the Supreme, like the, uh, save the union speech when he is like, you know, stand up if you're patriotic or whatever and nobody stood up. Exactly. Scott Miller: Yeah, he's all... ⁓ Mike Bates: Stand up if you think that your number one goal is to put Americans first and then that single Democrat stood up. Yeah, that was my favorite part of that State of Union dress. Scott Miller: Yeah, I mean, I know, that's kind of the same sort of thing with this executive order. mean, basically, all red states are saying, yeah, all right, that's what we're gonna do. And all the blue states are you can't tell us what to do. ⁓ Well. Greg Fink: Yeah. Exactly. It's kind of like, yeah, it's kind like whenever they're asking for other records for the, when the, what is it, the USDA was asking for other records for the social, for the food stamps and the EBT. the states were very hesitant about giving their records up. And the elections people were asking for other records for all the voters. And the Democrat and blue states did not want to give them up because they said it was confidential. I'm it's not confidential, it's record. You know, I mean, there's nothing confidential about this whatsoever. The red states has zero hesitancy in turning over everything in transparency. The blue states had 100 % hesitancy in keeping everything quiet and cloaked in a very heavy, heavy, heavy coat. Scott Miller: Well, we've seen those records. personally have copies of the entire voter database. ⁓ And all contact information, I have everything but social security numbers. ⁓ And don't want those. ⁓ But know that those are with other government agencies. So why is it all of a sudden like a nuclear code secret? Greg Fink: I have, yeah. Yeah, Florida. Exactly. No we don't. Because it- Mike Bates: Yeah, and there is nothing more important than ensuring the integrity of the vote. Because may disagree, and I don't mean the three of us, so mean Americans, we may disagree, we may disagree aggressively, we may disagree sometimes even violently, right? But if we can't agree that the person holding an elected office from dog catcher to president was lawfully placed there by the vote of the people, Greg Fink: It is. Mike Bates: then we have no confidence in our government? That is the greatest crime against our republic that is even possible. So anybody who does not want to ensure the integrity of the vote is immediately suspect. Why not? Well, it must be because they're benefiting from fraud. Greg Fink: It is. Exactly. They are. Scott Miller: Especially when 80 % of the Americans want it to happen. Greg Fink: Yeah, I agree with this idea. mean, they agree with the concept. So whoever's against this on the dying hill here and can stay on it. They can die on that hill. Go ahead, have fun with it. You know? But... ⁓ Mike Bates: Yeah. Well, I don't think the same act is going to become law, but DHS is going to be funded this month through reconciliation. That's my prediction on those two. Yeah. Greg Fink: How was that? I think so. Scott Miller: Probably soon. Greg Fink: Yeah. Mike Bates: quite honestly, speaking of DHS funding, I'm not quite sure it's legal for Donald Trump to be paying the TSA workers. I mean, says, ⁓ yeah, we're doing this with emergency funds out of the budget. I'm like, I don't know about that. ⁓ Scott Miller: Oh no no no no no, there's a statute that authorizes that, for sure. I'm 100 % sure. Mike Bates: Are you sure that? I'd love for you to send it to me because I'm not aware of it. Look, it may be, Scott, I don't know. I don't know every law in the books, but when I heard he was doing that, I'm like, how the hell are you getting the authority for that? Greg Fink: I thought Elon Musk was paying for it. Scott Miller: by declaring it an emergency, by declaring it an emergency. Mike Bates: Well, yeah, the president's powers expand greatly with a declared emergency. That is true. He can do a lot with emergency powers. Maybe. I don't know. Greg Fink: That's true. Scott Miller: And that is exactly what he's done through this. And it's a pretty easy emergency to demonstrate because it's inhibiting the ability for personally and through commerce to travel. It's impeding, it was really creating an economic hardship, which is the definition of an emergency in America. Greg Fink: safely. Right, I agree. Well you guys got anything else for tonight? Mike Bates: Yep, very true. Scott Miller: I want to get into it next week. evidence that Brennan is very close to being indicted ⁓ among people. Seriously. ⁓ Because has a whole bunch of secret testimony involved ⁓ all these including him saying specifically that the Russia Greg Fink: Really? Mike Bates: John Brennan, seriously? Greg Fink: Alright, you ahead and open with that one. Mike Bates: man, Scott Miller: the Russia briefing had absolutely nothing to do with the alteration to the President's daily briefing that was the basis for all Trump's impeachments. And has absolute proof that he absolutely did know about it. And it was used in that President's daily briefing. ⁓ And knew that it was being used. And he was actively trying to make it not happen. And the people are pushing this is the U.S. Congress. So we have cooperation from Congress and the Justice Department is aggressively going after it, I think ⁓ days are numbered. Greg Fink: And I know. Mike Bates: Well, I hope so because of every single person in Washington who committed crimes against Trump because they wanted to bring down his presidency. He is the one most deserving of imprisonment. Scott Miller: I think it's a tie with him and call me, but yeah, will agree with you. Greg Fink: think I threw Dr. Fauci in there too, but that's just me. But there's a whole different story though. But real quick on a last note on a little Florida political law enforcement note, McCormick, the Congresswoman in District 20, ⁓ was found guilty on all 25 charges by Democrat and in a unanimous vote for the ethics violations. Well, guess she had forged a little bit or changed a little bit numbering around here on a FEMA. Scott Miller: Well, that's a whole different topic. That's right. Greg Fink: invoice our family was ⁓ in the healthcare industry of five million dollars. Scott Miller: She defrauded the US government out of $5 million. Mike Bates: Yeah, and hey, if we're talking about Florida-centric news, did you see that the vice mayor of Coral Springs was murdered? Yeah, and apparently, allegedly, I mean, let's throw that word in because he's not convicted yet, but the husband's the prime suspect. She was shot and killed today. Yeah, it's horrible. Greg Fink: Wow. That is horrible. Mike Bates: I mean, that's preliminary news, but wow. I mean, was stunned when I saw that. Scott Miller: you definitely do not see that often. ⁓ Greg Fink: I guess on a closing note, hopefully we will get regime change and this will be a better week and we end this war here very soon and gas prices get back to normal. ⁓ you guys and also everybody follow us on any platform you want to choose. We're on all of them. You all have a good night. Scott Miller: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Mike Bates: Let's hope so. Thanks, guys.