Hell. The saund what's your name at the time of his list had a
statue every started shaking off and an eagle lit fly tennis gonna be here when
you him out of the freedom, start a ring and a feel, and
it'll be who like the whole man he's raining down, brought courtesy and wild
and will liberals be worn? Your viewpoints will be subjected to straight scrutiny.
You're listening to Right Side Radio. It's like my eyes have been blown while
we have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom
they entrust, our nation's highest officers. We stand united and are resolved to
do something about it, which, whether we like it or not spelled Judy,
you and I have a rendezvous with destiny. You tuned into right Side
Radio. All right, guys, you have founded on this bonus edition on
the Right Side Radio program recording July seventh, twenty twenty four. I was
sitting at home this afternoon and decided, after rewatching the fifteenth episode of Chris
McDaniels America, that I wanted to put out the podcast version of it.
If you guys like this, let me know, maybe we'll start to ute
the MP three format utilize the podcast version of Chris McDaniels America. For some
of you folks who just aren't able to watch the full length video but enjoy
being able to sit down and watch a podcast or listen to a podcast,
let me know, because maybe we can work something out with the Midnight Ride
network. Maybe we can start to get the MP three, get the podcast
version of the show out there, because right now is only a video show.
But talking with Chris over the weekend and just different ideas to try to
get new people to watch, I figured I would release it to my audience.
And of course, no matter what we do, remember to like and
subscribe to the Right Side Radio program. We're on iTunes, iHeartRadio, Spotify,
Spreaker, Amazon Music, and so many more. So make sure that
you are checking that out wherever you get your podcast, and remember leave us
that five star review because again that helps more people find us as well.
But without any further ado. Again, I did a shorter show this week
because of the holiday as well, so that's part of the reason why I
felt like maybe a bonus episode would be good for you guys, Not that
I don't do enough with the Morning coffees every day anyway, but I just
felt like I wanted to do a little bit more. So with that said,
here is the fifteenth episode of Chris McDaniel's America, where Chris and I
are talking about Supreme Court decisions, the liberals attack on the Supreme Court,
and the Biden Trump debate. So let's listen, and I hope you guys
enjoy. Welcome to another episode of Chris McDaniel's America. Hear on the Midnight
Ride Network, your home of the anti establishment movement in this country, with
me as always Jack Fairchild's check. How are you today? Doing pretty good?
Chris, Well, it's been an awful lot going on since the last
show. I mean, my goodness, I don't know where to begin.
Frankly, we could talk about debates when we could talk about the Supreme Court
of the United States, we could talk about the Democrats attack on that institution,
we could talk about the fact that their screaming, bloody murder over no
justifiable reason, or we could just ignore all of that and have fun.
But I think we're going to be forced to discuss it. I think so.
I don't think there's any way around it. And the thing that gets
my attention here is that I realized some of you have probably seen immeasurable news
coverage on this already, So I don't want to be in a dead horse.
So maybe we can handle it from a slightly different perspective yet still get
valid points out for people to understand. Hopefully. Now, the last show,
we talked about the Supreme Court of the United States and they had a
series of very big decisions coming down. You saw that occur Friday of last
week, toward the end of the term, and we knew these decisions were
coming. We were excited about them, and for the most part, they
were pretty good decisions. Now there were some I found per help is problematic,
but as a whole, pretty good decisions. Let's go over a couple
of those real quick before we transition into the Trump immunity decision. That's what
everybody wants to talk about. But first and foremost this Chubbrun decision. Now,
people sometimes when we talk about administrative agencies or the administrative might of the
state, their eyes close over. But let's just hit where it's supposed to
be hit. There's no more dangerous I think, threat to your liberty than
unelected bureaucrats, right, you can't control them, these folks who are appointed
most of the time, or they're hired by someone who's appointed, and they
end up promulgating regulations that have the force of law. I know about you,
but I don't want to live in a country like that. I don't
want to live where some unelected bureaucrat can tell me how to live, what
to do, and if I don't follow his instructions, I can be in
committed of a crime. I can be fined significantly. And so years ago,
there was a decision back in eighty four called the chuv Run decision.
I won't bore you with the facts. Long story short. The Supreme Court
said that agencies are given deferential treatment when it comes to how they interpret vague
regulations or vague statues. What that means is a penhead. A purecrat can
read something, interpret it differently, and apply it and penalize you outside of
the normal scheme of the democratic process. Now, this is a republic.
This is a republic, we're going to talk about that again later, not
a democracy. But we do have a process by which things are supposed to
occur. The Court did finally reverse Chevron, stripping a lot of this arbitrary
power away from these administrative agencies. That's a good good win for liberty.
We thank god for the court decision. We think over the long haul you
may see some real benefits as a result of that. I think the first
benefit should be the Congress needs to be the one to actually make the laws
and quit passing that bug down to agencies. Number Two, Congress should have
the when an agency passes the regulation, could either repeal it right or ignore
it as they see fit. Number Three, most of those regulations are just
impermissible in the first place. So we're happy to see the Supreme Court peeling
back layers of federal power because again, bear in mind, federal power right
now is the biggest threat to your liberty. The federal government is out of
control, that's abusive, It's got more resources than it knows what to do.
If you think otherwise, just look at the way they're proceeding with these
prosecutions of various entities, including President Trump across the United States. What you
don't want is an out of control federal government, which is what we've got.
What this does, it helps peel back that power just a bit Hopefully
the Supreme Court can stick around this six to three majority today have going right
now for a long long time in key peeling back federal power. Very thankful
today for Gorsage, Very thankful today for Alito, Very thankful today for Thomas.
Those three guys have stood the ground every single time, vote conservatively every
single time, even though sometimes we lose Roberts or a Kavanaugh. Already in
a Burritt, they're disappointed in her lately. It me too. Yeah,
we'll discuss that in a future show. But we thank God for those three,
at least today. The previous three number two there was a decision dealing
with Biden the administration and how they were using social media or in trying to
influence social media to curtail or censor a certain conservative thought that the government found
objectionable. This is sort of the Supreme Court I think may have gotten it
wrong. You know, you think about the power of the federal government and
how they basically have this unique ability now because they touch every aspect of everybody's
lives to threaten and to extort and to force people into positions normally those people
might not have taken. Well, we know the federal government was used to
tell Biden, this administration to tell Facebook and ex or Twitter or whatever the
case may be, to stand down or censor some of this objection content,
and they did. They were sued as the result of that. Supreme Court
ruled on the side of the government. This decision made no sense to me.
It only dies to the extent the Court is always trying to play us
safe. The one thing about Roberts as it is, you know, years
ago when he was first appointed, I might remember, before the confirmation,
I had real concerns about him. Not his intellect. The man's brilliant,
not his ability to be a good counselor he has all of the tangil of
abilities to be a great lawyer, a great Supreme Court justice. The problem
was you could sense his reluctance to take bold stances. And it kind of
fits the old tradition of our president's appointing milk toast style Supreme Court justices while
the liberals appoint these warriors to those positions, and our guys say, well,
let's be tepid, then let's be even minded and tempered, and they're
waging culture wars of the Supreme Court. And we always seem to loose when
the court sits in that posture. Robert struct me as one of those people.
And now it seems he's a lot more concerned about the legacy of the
court. And yeah, I guess nothing's wrong with that, but I don't
think he would be as concerned if it wasn't the Roberts Court. That's fair,
right, So he's concerned about the legacy more than I think he has
sometimes finding the right result. So he's always on half measures, always very
careful. No greater example of that than when he refused to reverse or rule
Obamacare unconstitutional. That case was dead to rights. There's no federal justification for
Obamacare at all. And remember he was very clever. He tried to create
an argument why the taxing authority was utilized when it was clearly a penalty.
He had nothing to do with taxation, clearly a penalty. But that was
him, really clever, really careful. Let's not do too much at one
time. We may offend somebody half measures. That struck me as this type
of case. Maybe one day, maybe they wanted the federal government to do
more. Maybe they were hoping a mandate before they could take action in any
event, there was a strong dissension opinion. I think it was a lead
to that rode it and he dissected the majority's opinion and seemed to point out
why why it was that the Roberts decision or the Roberts majority was wrong in
that situation. Another decision obstruction charges for January six protesters in Washington. Remember
another example of federal prosecutors abusing their power. Taking another statute they're supposed to
be utilized for business dealings, finding a little vague part of that. I'm
trying to apply it to folks that were protesting at the capitol. Yeah,
Supreme Court reverse that said you couldn't do that. Another good decision for law
and order in that sense. Here's why when you have a broad criminal statue
that invites corruption, I mean, let's not get ourselves. If the statute
is true, for broad or vague, any really clever prosecutor who so politically
inclined, can bring the charge and indict somebody pretty easily. You've heard the
old say it habit. You can indict a ham sandwich. Yes, it's
true, it's true. Do you know nobody really knows how the indictment process
works. Do you know how that really works? Not really, no,
being honest, all right, let's just say you have a computer has a
very vague statue, right, and he goes to a injury called a grand
jury, and they're sitting in the room. He gets to present evidence and
the statue to the grand jury without defense council present. He gets to introduce
it without hearing the other side of the acquation. And of course this grand
jury sitting there gets to vote one way or the other. Do we issue
an indictment or do we not? Well, what do you think they do?
They're going to listen to the prosecutor and issue of the indictments because I
saw they hear. I challenge people all the time. Just because somebody's indicted,
it doesn't mean they're guilty. We make that big I do. I
make the mistake off, I read it in the paper. So this has
been indicted. I'm like, guilty. But that's not the case. Anybody
can get indicted. So when you have these broad criminal statutes, it invites
abuse. So basically, we're happy the Supreme Court was able to curtail that
and make it more narrowly defined in its application. The abortion case up there
and was it Oregon? Thinks that we talked about that we lost that one
as well. Turns out that the Biden administration file suit up there under Imtala
longstroy Shore, basically saying that the abortion law in that state was too strict
and that they could not exercise emergency room discretion in certain circumstances. Supreme Court
ruled on behalf of the federal government in that sense. By the way,
it was Idaho, not Oregon. It was Oregon where they had the camping
band. Did you see that? I didn't see that one. No.
This may not seem like a lot to most people, but this is pretty
fascinating because what if I told you there was a city in Oregon that implemented
a camping band, In other words, you can't sleep on public property.
And what they're trying to do because they're trying to get around some of the
real problems we have was homelessness. And it's always the liberal cities. I've
noticed always the Northwest rive because they can't manage anything up there because they're run
by liberal lunatics. But in this particular area, there was a law passed
and says, listen, we can't have you out here sleeping on public property.
You've got to find somewhere else to go. It was challenged. It
was challenged. Now, a common sentence approach would say, of course a
city can outlaw that if they wish. Oh no, no, because there's
organizations out there that say that housing is a constitutional right and that to criminalize
them sleeping on a public property violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Supreme Court made it clear that does not. It is not the case.
It is not cruel and unusual punishment the way the Ninth Circuit rule that
it was. And they basically argue the Supreme Court did. They said,
look, the Supreme Court is not here to make law for every city in
this country when it comes to homelessness. Yep, another good decision. We'll
take it. So now back to the one that everyone's talking about community immunity.
I've read the decision. I don't understand all the consternations just yet.
And I tell you why I say just yet, because if you read it
in a vacuum the way the liberal press wants to read it, they may
have someone that Supreme Court took this unprecedented leap into the abyss and that they're
ending democracy as we told it, and that yeah, everybody is dangerous and
nasty and horrible in this six three majority or bludhatics. Well, let me
tell you about the sixtry majority. You may disagree where they're result here.
These are brilliant people, and I assure you that the might like mindedness of
Automas and Amalido in a gorsage. They're just as concerned about executive how we're
being too broad as anybody else is in this country. So for them to
join this decision tells me that the decision was a sound decision legally, and
that the left seems to be hyperventilating over something that probably will never occur unless
you look at the decisions just for a second so we can all understand it.
And it was based in a large part not so, but in a
large part on the separation of powers. That's a really important distinction in this
country. We have a separation of power so that no one branch can become
too powerful. Separation exists, so they will exert force an ambition against one
and the other and to keep them all kind of balanced, if you will.
Now, the liberals took this decision and say Oh, the balance is
all thrown off. Now they've given all the power to the president. Not
exactly, not exactly what the court did. It gave power to the president,
or immunity to the president when he's exercising his authority under Article two of
the Constitution. What is Article two? That's the article that defines the powers
of the presidency. So as long as any president's exercising authority within the powers
of the Constitution. It's not a long list. You can look it up
if you want to, any pardonings and all this stuff that you've seen it,
as long as he says an authority there, he has immunity makes sense,
Yeah, it does. And here is why, because if you do
not grant thee immunity as he's exercising core constitutional power, and it stands to
reason Congress could outlaw one of those poor constitutional powers, or at the very
least outlaw a predicate step to enforce one and try to avoid the constitution question
and just say it's criminal with of course is you can't do that because separational
powers. You got to respect the division of authority here. But it went
on to say that as long as the president's exercise is core that is of
those certain defined powers, he has immunity. But if exercise is outside of
that authority, there's no immunity except presumed. All the liberals go crazy over
the word presumed immunity in the law. That happens all the time. Certain
cases are presumed. An example about that Jack, If you're traveling down the
road on a highway and there's a car up ahead of you. In that
car, for whatever reason, slams on breaks. If that car, for
whatever reason's going a little bit too slow, he would not under the minimum
speed limit. If something happens to that car where it's motor goes out and
then you hit the car from behind, it's almost implied that you're a fault.
Yep, right, yep. And that's kind of what they're saying here.
It's presumed that you're a fault. That doesn't mean you are. You
could always just prove it. You can always point out that he went from
zero to sixty to one second with the assimon on braks for no reason whatsoever.
There's ways to attack the presumption of liability, as there will be here
as well. This work gets interesting now the court has said, Love,
here are the parameters of immunity, and they pointed out with great pain,
this isn't simply about Trump, any president, any position, any party.
They said it a couple of times in the decision. They saw this,
this is going to be a really sensitive pluck issue. And so they said,
look, when he's acting in a core function immune, if he's actually
outside of those official core functions, there's a presumption. However, maybe not,
maybe not. Now, Supreme course do this all the time. They
set parameters. Now we have a parameter. We have the rules of the
ballgame. Right now, they've sent it back down to the trial court to
apply the rules of the ball game and adjust it to these set of facts.
This is not alarming. This is the way court systems work. I
guess they thought the Supreme Court was supposed to try this case for them.
The Supreme Court is not there to cry case. This is an appellate court.
It reads the record from a previous court, the trial court. Then
it applies the law the way it's supposed to be applied. The court here's
said, luck, here are the new rules. Look at it again.
Okay, I thought it was yes, yeah, it makes sense, It
makes perfect sense. And there are a couple of things here that I think
are very telling when it comes to the way that the left is handling this.
First off, they know one thing and that's fear. So they're going
to play on people's ignorance. They're going to play on the fear side of
things and continue to try to use different examples that are completely absurd, stuff
like well, now he can just assassinate the Biden family if Trump gets back
in power. Things like that are being utilized just because they understand that they
can create fear. But they also Chris and I think this is another point
that needs to be made. They're also so used to having the liberal side
and what they did do was make create new laws from the bench. We
saw that for years, and I think there that they're getting a taste of
good old true conservative constitutional rulings. Right, they don't get it. But
this is an activist on theirs. What's activists? Exactly? This is legitimate.
And here's the difference. You used the example of the president a murdering
arrival or whatever the case me being and sold Team six breaks them to somebody's
place and shoots them. Yeah, and so to me, are she knows
better than this? She's look I don't like her politics or her legal analysis.
She's brilliant. Now, she's genius. She knows better than this.
And here's why I should know better. First of all, if you look
at Article two of the Constitution, I don't see any power in there for
the president to assassinate a rival. To you. No, So I think
we would all argue if the assassination of a rival is not a court political
function, subject tote immunity right number two, even if it's implied somewhere in
this number of authority, because there's there's express powers in their implied powers.
I haven't seen any argument anywhere historically there's an implying power of the president to
assassinate a political rival. No. And so even if you argue that somehow
there was a presumed immunity there, once you analyze it and break it down,
you recognize there would not be amenity for that. It wouldn't be amenity
to that. And the court gave us rules for the trial courts to apply.
And I'm verily certain to call me crazy, I'm pretty sure any trial
court in the country applying these same rules, whether an assassination or tailt where
it was proven it was directly ordered by the president of a political rival,
is going to indict. It's going and it's going to and it's going to
fight that president guilty or somebody. A jury's gonna find the president guilty of
this this act. And then I guess if you appeal to the Supreme Court,
what are they going to do? No, you're right, so to
yours right, No, No, they're not. She than that. It's
fear mungry, exactly. It's fear mongery. Now it sounds good. I
love the way she wrote it. I'll read that in a second. But
it's just it's just fear mongery. So you have this. According to Roberts,
there's an immunity for criminal prosecution within the outer limit of his official responsibility.
Again, it's vague, but it's enforceable. You know, our constitutionally,
I heard somebody say earlier is majestically vague. I don't know what majestically
vague really means, but I think it makes sense. And here's why.
Here's why this is going to shock you liberals to death. I know you
want a very specific constitution that talks about everything imaginable. The thing would be
seven hundred pages long, can't. You can't provide every caveat every end or
an exception to everything you think is right or wrong in a founding document,
especially when that's only here primarily to make sure the federal government doesn't have too
much power. So it's one of the shortest constitutions in the world. Thank
God for that. You know, the Soviets have a lower constitution than we
do. Yes, it doesn't mean they have more rights. I've been in
North Korea. A constitution the way to do. But I assure you they
don't have more rights what we do. How there is a magical document that
is somewhat vague. But thank gone for that, because whereot is clear,
like the Second Amendment, I'm pretty clear, but you claim that's vague.
Leave it to a liberal, right, leave it to a liberal. They'll
create powers from not exists, like the assassination of temp Well, where it
specifically spells out of right. You ignore that language altogether. I'm not falling
for it. Or they create a radical, out of control Supreme Court while
when one that's actually based in the constitution, while they ignored a true radical
extreme Supreme Court for years and when it was benefiting. Now I'm gonna give
you an example of how those three, the three liberal justices view the country
as a whole. Now and when they write this very poisonous style of descent,
which I found amusing. It was well written, it was just amusing.
And then in the same breath, in the same week, when Oregon
tempted to make sure that the homeless, you know, could not just dominate
public parts, which is what they were doing. They weren't trust They weren't
saying you couldn't find a hole. They were saying, you just can't do
it. Right here, those three with something you're leading the leading the charge.
They seem to believe that housing is a constitutional right. Don't let us
sink in housing a constitutional right. Now, I've read the Constitution. It's
it's it's there's no mention of housing in the constitution. So about virtue of
that, it's not a constitutional right. But number two, if I drill
down and look at the traditions in the norms of this country, sistans inception
and no point has anyone it's argued reasonably that there's a constitutional right to housing.
But they're trying to stick one in the document here. That's how they
see the world. They don't like it. They're going to mend it.
Even though there's an amendment process. They don't follow that. They want to
rewrite it, like you said, and so put this constitutional right to housing
in the document. What does that look like economically speak? Consider what if
every American citizen now claimed a cost to right to housing? Who pays for
that? That's that's the question, because I can't think of any other cost
to write. Think about my right to speech, No one has to pay
for it. Nope, my right to own a gun, no one has
to pay for it. Just to you. My right to worship, no
one has to pay for it. But those are considerable natural rights. And
the founders realize the kind of rights that we exercise are not ones contingent upon
somebody else paying for it. Are rendering the sermons being forced to it's ethothetical
of liberty. They want the government to pay for it. Who pays for
that? We're already thirty four trillion dollars in dealt with no end to side,
and these idiots want to make a cost to right to housing. It
sounds great in theory. I love the thought process, but in the real
world, with our constitution, it's not approachable to pride, not all.
But think about it. They'll write it in there. They'll write it in
there, and they say that's reasonable. But then Roberts writes and opinion being
really reasonable, arguing that love through core powers there's immunity. And they say
that's just unbelievable. They're not reading the document. They've never read the doctor.
They don't want to read the document. Here's why, because the document
limits their authority. The reason liberals hate the count They say they love the
Constitution. No you don't, No, you do not. You hate that
documently because what it does is it takes your authority, the authority of the
federal government. It says you cannot, you shall not. You hate being
controlled. You know you hate rules. You know you hate that constitution.
You say you love it, but trying to rewrite it every day. Right,
and here we hear, now we hear this argue. But this somehow
the Supreme Court has single handily reversed democracy into democracy. No, it hasn't,
No, it hasn't. But more importantly, it's not a democracy.
It's a republic. The people understand that, No, not at all.
You know the difference, right, you wackos out there. You know the
difference a democracy. There are no riots, You know that, right?
Think about it. Power of government controls solely by the majority vote. So
a fifty one percent of the country decided to take your property, fifty one
percent of the country decided to throw you in jail, the two percent of
the country decided to do X, Y and z. Under a democracy,
that would be the rule of law. Yep, you want to live that
way. I don't think it's right. I don't think it's safer if they
do. I don't think they understand it. They think this democracy concept is
valid and wonderful. It's not. Let's not kill ourselves. Most Americans really
aren't terribly concerned about paying attention to public bears. Nope, most don't know
up from down when it comes to when I say most most Democrats especially,
is what I'm talking about. Most Democrats cannot tell you one thing about how
this government was supposed to function. But they believe they can vote themselves,
pay raisers, they can vote themselves free cell phones, they can vote themselves
X, Y and z. They can take away your property. I guess
you think you could vote away churches if you were so inclined under a democracy,
you could Yep, we're not a democracy. We have core foundation to
write. Some of them you can't touch, no matter how many people you
bring to bear nine percent of your vote. Can't take on my right to
speak, at least not yet, at least not until they get controlled of
the Supreme Court again and actually begin to rewrite the first thing. Yeah,
it's kind based on their concepts of democracy. And when I'm viitting about that,
and I've said this twice before on this show, and it fires me
up. Democracy. Think of a more anti democratic institution than that Supreme Court
they used for sixty years to dominate this country. But they remained Wait,
was road versus Way based on democracy? Nope? Any of the cases that
you love so much, I want to know which one's based on democracy because
you had nine I don't like the Supreme Court justice is dictating the law of
the land from Washington PC. That's not democracy, that's not a garchy.
But but they agreed with the decision, so therefore it was different. That's
the difference. As long as they liked the outcome, you know what,
it's democracy. And that they disliked the outcome and tyranny. It's that that's
libertals. I'm written Lawrence. A lot of ignorance, a lot of puffery,
a lot of talk, but no real practical solutions from goodness, that's
your city's are on fire. Your inner city is a real fire because of
your policies defund the police. Indeed, how's that working out in Portland,
Oregon? Right now? Hope one year for me a break. There's nothing
new Democrats to that doesn't burn to the ground eventually, and then you try
to find an its use and blame conservatives for it. And we're sitting here
telling you, for ten thousand years of human existence, certain things exist for
a reason, and if you'll follow that path, you'll find some degree of
prosperity. But when you abolish the police, when you legalize, I know
libertarians can get mad at me about this. Have you seen the drug legalization
effort up there in the Northwest. I've seen some of it. They didn't
just legalize marijuana. Some of these folks legalized everything. And you say,
to yourself, as a libertary minded person, which I kind of am,
people should be able to do. Have you seen the results of this?
I can only imagine but no, I'm not seen it. Oh homelessness,
mental illness, despair, Ryan crimes. Now, look, here's the thing.
If there was a Faustian bargain. Here can talk about this all right
here here, here's the deal of the If you're Importland, Oregon, here's
the deal. We're gonna legalize drugs for everybody, but conversely, no public
benefits. I think through it would you be for something like that leg a
lot of strugg but no public benefa Listen, if you touch a drug,
no public nothing, yeah, no welfare. That I think that's fair.
Choices have consequences. So therefore I support this because again, if you're gonna
make that choice, if you're gonna make that decision, there's your consequence.
We'll still see it that way. Liberals would argue you that, look,
it's their life, let them live it, and if they made mistakes,
you have to pay for it. And if you don't pay for it,
you're eterminally imp Now listen, I don't want to get into the drug organization
debate. There are pros and cons there. I give because I'm a really
liberty liberty minded individual, you know this, yes, And I want people
to live and let live but at the same time, you can't live and
the expect me to pay for your mistakes. Speaking of that, I'm digressing.
We got We'll go go to our sponsor here in a second. I
had a bill a few years ago. Hold on, I had a bill
a few years ago, and this really infuriated the left because what I was
going to do is I was going to attach a nicotine test to folks applying
for Medicaid. I remember that bill, right, And if you think about
it rationally, I'm not saying you can't smoke. Smoke all you want.
I'm just saying, if you smoke, you can be on Medicaid. And
you say, well that that that biolates my civil liberties only doesn't. No,
it doesn't because you don't have a right to be on medicaid. Yeah,
you don't have a right to smoke, necessarily, no right. It's
converted, right, it works together. But if you do and you drop
up the costs for everybody, which is what happens, why should you be
allowed to do that? Right? Well, I did the bill just to
see kind of how they would react, and the liberals and Jackson went berserk,
and they came to see me. They couldn't figure out what they hated
more, Right, tobacco are losing Medicaid because they hate tobacca, and I'm
just giving them the option. I was trying to give people off and they
like that. But if you're smoking and you drop up the cost of medicaid
and it does tremendously, the science shows that it does, why should the
tax beers be forced to pay for that accelerated or that increased amount of coverage?
They shouldn't. So here's what the bill did. It said, listen,
you go take a nicotine test, you're you test positive for it,
you have you go to it to the back of cessation program, and you
have what ninety days to get off of it. Then you test it again.
So now you're giving them a second chance. You could even remain on
medicaid right now. I only did this to see the limits of liberal lunacy,
and we found it. But can you tell me a logical fallacy behind
that bill? Well, Chris, you obviously hated democracy, I guess,
so now I get it. That's the thing, that's the that's the argument,
right, Yeah, because I disagree with them, there's no argument against
it. So therefore they go to some hyperbole like you hate democracy. That
is their argument. I've been called everything but a Baptist for twenty years.
That's fair, no idea. What's next, Chris? You are a Baptist
tract, well theoretically, but well then I'm gonna call you a Baptist.
What are they gonna say about What are they gonna say about that? What
are they gonna say about that? But you should your anti every other denomination.
You can't win in this business. You can't win. So it was
just as it's always going to be an attack. Oh absolutely. One more
example. You know, the if Jesus himself were to run for office.
Let's just say that Jesus were a primary Lindsey Grail. Is he okay?
And you know that the establishment will clearly bad Lindsy Grail? Oh absolutely?
And so what are the hit pieces on Jesus ride right? He turned water
into wine? Does Is that? Is that a Is that a problem?
The pro alcohol? That's what it sounds like. Wait and second, what's
the other political fact that would make he hangs around with really bad people?
Yep, we know him by the company he keeps. They used that one
and gets me. I remember the company he keeps another one. So Jesus
walked on water. Remember that he walked on water. He obviously can't swim,
well, really can't, syep. While here we will elect the senator
that can't swim. That's that's fair. Bottom line here is no matter what
you do in politics, some establishment hat jobs going to attack you. And
unfortunately about forty percent of the population's got their head buried and they're gonna believe
whatever ad they see. So even the Good Lord himself will have a hard
time against lendsa ground in South Carolina. Yep, But any that that's all
hyperbly just to get you liberals and establing felt. But they like harperble,
so we just give them a little bit. Anyway, let's think our sponsors
jacks. They're going to be leaving this afternoon. Well, this year has
come with a lot of uncertainties. Will red hot inflation continue? Will interest
rates continue to soar? How can the Fed promise a soft landing? Would
all signs point to another serious recession If the beginning of this year has shown
us one thing, inflation is not slowing down, and the Fed is completely
incapable of fixing these issues. Like millions of other Americans. I have found
myself asking how am I going to protect myself and my family. That's why
we at the Midnight Ride Network spoke to the folks at Genesis Gold Group,
our new platform partner for the Midnight Ride. They walk me through how I
can protect my savings with real physical gold and silver. Genesis makes it easy
to convert your four oh one K or your I array into a retirement account
backed by precious metals like gold and silver. Genus Gold Group has decades of
experience helping folks just like you preserve your hard earned savings, and the service
provided to their clients is truly one of a kind. Called Genesis Gold today
at eight hundred two hundred gold for a no commitment informative consultation with one of
their experts. Find out if Genesis can be a fit for you. That's
eight hundred two hundred four six five three or visit them at Midnight ridegold dot
com. And when it comes to protecting you and your family's future, I'm
excited to share with you another one of the Midnight Rides new sponsors, Prepper
Beef. Prepperbeef offers a range of freeze dried beef and freezer boxes with steaks
and roast made from high quality All American cattle. These products are made to
last for up to twenty years, ensuring you have access to premium beef for
decades to come. By supporting Prepper Beef, you're not just buying beef.
You're supporting American ranchers values and your family. Join us in our mission to
eat well today and eat well tomorrow. Visit Midnight Ridebeef dot com and stock
up for your future today. All right, good job. I think we
would love you all to support those sponsors if you can. It helps us,
helps the show, and they've been very good to us. Biden,
we can't after the debate the other yep. And you all have already seen
a lot of coverage on the debate. So when I'm gonna being a dead
horse, so to speak, it is sufficient to say that he looked really
bad. Yeah, he looked like that Joe Biden. We knew was there.
And all the vitamins and prep work and massage treatments whatever before they be
twelve shots, you know, caffeine. It just didn't work the way they
anticipated. And here's the thing. You have this to show you how bad
it really is. And again, I don't want to be a dead horse
here because part of me actually feels for him just to be The human side
of me feels, yes, just the human side. And I know there
are some conservatives out there, like the hell of Hills, and that's okay
too, But the human side is like, I'm seeing this eighty plus year
old guy up there, just you know, destroying his like a say what
ever little's left of it, proving to the entire country that he's incapable,
unable to be president. How bad was it? Well, imagine that you
know you're going to be watched by fifty million people. Imagine it's your first
chance to prove to them that you're not the old man that we all say
you. Imagine going to Camp David and having the best debate preppers in the
world come to seeing you and literally sit with you for days on in preparing
you for this one pivotal moment in your political life. Imagine, because it
all happened, they threw everything they could to help him, and he stood
there and he was gone. Yeah. Now that's after all that debate,
that's for all that prayer, that's after all the pressure and the understanding that
you must indeed perform, and he failed as miserably as a person can fail.
But we seem to think that he could handle an international crisis with only
moments to prepare, with only moments to understand if something really were to happen.
He's proven that he can't. He's incapable. He has no business being
anywhere near the White House. He has no business walking my dog across the
street. No, kids, yourself, if you're in a major metropolitan area
and he has a dog walking business, you would not let him walk your
dog. No, but he can be the most powerful man in the free
world. Come on, Democrats, you've all lost your collective minds. You
saw this coming, you knew it was coming. You did nothing about it
because a you're paralyzed, because you're the same type of suck ups, and
you're part of that we have on our party. You were more concerned about
offending the power than you were doing the right thing. You knew he was
incapable, you knew he couldn't handle the job, and you sit there and
let it happen. Now, I don't feel sorry for the Democrats. They
did this to themselves. I feel sorry for the old man that they are
abusing. Yeah, just a bit. He's dead wrong, terrible president.
But I feel sorry for the Democrats. And now now that the whole world
has seen it and there's nowhere else to hide. Now there's a few of
them scrambling for the exit, a few trying to figure out what to do.
But you know what, most the poland Joeler are still stubbornly holding all
to this man because they do they still fear the system that we have in
this country. And here's the system. By the time you get to be
president, you have so many suck ups attached to you that I got so
many people that depend on you for jobs and pay checks and benefits and favors.
You don't dare buck him, even though you know he's a danger to
this country security, you still will prop him up. So here we are
now where this guy has no business running, and we hear all this talk
about how they're going to do something at the convention. No you're not.
No, you're not because you're afraid to. You have you don't have enough
sense to first of all practically and logistically, but secondly, you're afraid to
take action because you may you know you may upset the hand to feed you.
So here's what they do. We see this terrible performance and we shake
our heads and we say, see told you so. And there were excuse
he had a cold. I saw that. What's worse. What's worse taking
this old guy and putting him out there and making a fool of hilm in
you. But then you think the American people are just that stumpid want nothing
to see here. He has some sinus congestion. Well, Jack, you
have you have sinus congestion right now, lame now, And I think you
could out debate Joe Biden. That's that's debate easily easily. No, it's
not debate or pervailable. It may happen. It may not only one way
to do. We got to get him here for a show. Hey,
I'm in favor of that. I like my odds. The kids slip leepy
Joe, all the things they could say, I mean, give us a
thousand reasons, say it was past his bedtime at seven thirty, it was.
They have They have told us now that he has peak operating towers.
It's like myself fall. It has peak operating powers about between ten and four
and outside of that there's there's no battery. Well, is his battery power
runs out about four thirty in the afternoon. Well, if you know the
battery power runs out, maybe he chals a little bbate for on lunchtime dynamic.
Yeah, you don't wait till late, because he took a Yeah he
did drop look presidential. He'm a firm He looked like he knew what he
was talking about. Now here's the thing about American voters. If you go
back to that Nixon Kennedy debate in nineteen CV, you know, Mixon had
all the accolades and the gravitas, you know, all the office power,
if you will, and then he stands there next to this younger candidate in
nineteen sixty or television, which just now kind of come in this really cool
thing. Right now, we're all getting to watch these debates for the first
time, and we got to see what we think the president is supposed to
look like. And Kennedy dominates the debate. Maybe binds about as old as
Lincoln, but equal Nixon. Nixon, who you know, you might remember
he was sweating. He did not look comfortable in front of the camera.
He forgot to shave or something. I think as they said, Yeah,
just like thanks for pointing that out, but he just didn't look as sharp
viscunity. Now, the American people, we've watched a lot of TV shows
over the years, and we like to envision what we think a president should
look like. You know, in my mind, he looks like Mitt Romney,
but it sounds like Na ray Fair. Yeah. Not you know,
Mett Romney looks like Mitt Romney, but he sounds like Bernie Sanders. Party.
You never know what you're gonna get, right, So we have this
actor portrayal for president. It's always a handsome, robust, articulate person,
kind of like Kennedy would be. Kind of is he Reagan was right.
Yeah, And no matter how much we dislike President Obama, great speaker,
great orator, I mean, people attack him to say he wasn't come on,
he had Chris, I didn't agree with a word he said it.
I was like, whoa, Yeah, I need a first time that guy
spoken to can be a president. Chris. I remember because you and I
were hosting talk radio back in that day. You came on. It was
at the Democrat National Convention. I think he was still just a state senator
at the time. You came on and said, this guy's dangerous. You
told everybody that's your president. And look, it wasn't anything he was saying,
because he's a little gibberish, but it's beautiful. Well, you accurately
asked the question, why would they put a state senator at the on this
big of a national state unless they have him circled, And sadly you were
correct. There's no doubt about it. He uh, you know, and
and there are there have been other instances where you have these, you know,
state senators that do well or asked to speak at that stage. You
did not realize this. There's a ton of speakers. You have to understand
any one of those conventions. There are dozens and dozen. Yes, they
speak all day every day, so you have everybody from state centators, city
council. There was something different about this guy. Wasn't that he was a
state senator. I wasn't saying man, I was saying, there's something magic
here. And what do I base that on? Well, you could almost
says the Democrats looking for that style of a candidate. You could almost sense
him contrasting with older candidates of the day. He had a great style of
delivery. So Americans have grown accustomed to watching TV and viewing presidents in a
certain light. He went accustomed to seeing president's perform in a certain way.
I mean, goodness, gracious, I didn't getn't do any of that.
No, you see the problem. Yeah, Hip one point said that we
have defeated medicaid. Well, if you know, technically, he's right,
because he's correct, because it's broke. That's fair, they have defeated.
He was just being honest. It's afer all the honest thing he said,
durend of the debate. You know what else is defeated by hendre medicate.
He's defeat of the budget a few times. He's defeated com of sense border
security, he's defeated at Venezuela. He said a lot of cool things.
But clearly he didn't mean to say that ethic, because that's a corner stall
of his canton made. He was just completely off balance, and he gives
somebody else you'll larn about people who are all balanced. Teleprompters serve a magical
purpose for even the NLU, even the NL a good speech writer. Have
you ever seen a speaker speak and he's got a panel here that's clear in
a panel here of that here. It's not clear to him, it's clear
to you. I heard somebody say, well, that bullet protects you.
No, that's a teleprompter. And what he's saying is, as he's looking
around, look like he's looking at the audience, he's reading these pre programmed
remarks off t prompter. A good speech writer can make Joe Biden look good.
But when you take that teleprompter down and he asks a thief the way
normal, rational, average Americans think, he can't do it. Yo,
all that to say, that's a lot of words just to say that he
doesn't look presidential, he doesn't act presidential. He's going from being a president
to a mericature other just an older man who has no business serving the Democrats,
that is to themselves. Let them fix it if they can. I
don't think they can, Chris, there's an enhanced push now to get Democrats
or are really saying out loud that they need to replace Biden off for the
ballot, that they need to come up with another solution. I don't know
how they can. Of course, the name that they float most commonly is
Gavin Newsom out of California. His policies are terrible. You put him up
there. I don't know that that's a win for well your mind. They
pulled in the crass on the next possible person they would like to have other
than Biden. You know who led that poem, Harris. That doesn't surprise
me. It's shocking. But I don't have much I don't have a high
opinion of what Democrats think, Harris. I guess to them makes the most
logical sense because she's already on that stage, despite the fact she's as bad
as Biden, except for it's not because she's slipping because of the Hey discuss
she's just not good enough. But she's not very bright. No, and
they'll say, you know, they'll argue, what he's just be a misogynist.
No, I know, I'm not. I've nutted her, and I'll
give credit where credits due. There are a lot of bright people out there
there. There are a lot of bright Democrats. I just disagree with them,
Harris. I don't know what she believes because she's always laughing at the
very unopportunity times. She can't seem to deliver a cognizant speech unless she has
the total prompter as well Yeah, that's not who I won't leave in the
free world. No, I don't know. Maybe it's just me. Now
I will see this democrat is not only did you try to clean this up
by saying he had a cold, it was the next day he did deliver
a four minute response. He spoke for four whole minutes. It was solid
four minutes. He has an extra special jello that night for a four whole
minutes he spoke using her tone of prompter. But what was crazy is now
they have bronzer on them. Did you see the I did because I saw
the criticism about him being orange. We've heard all this criticism about Trump on
these years because of the bronzerhus and I'd be dog one. They're not trying
to make Biden with live and so they've taken a foot bronzer. Have you
seen that I did? How far are you willing to go to keep this
band? And you have no clue? There's already some uh And I don't
believe this for a second. I've told you before I don't do conspiracy theories.
There's already a speculation all you know, your hero on the social media
side, maybe the real Joe Biden's already passed away. Have you heard this?
Oh yeah, I referenced it a couple of weeks ago as a joke
to you in a real We don't even deflict that here. What's crazy now
again? Again, let's just say it's you know, there's an eighteen year
old kid out there somewhere right in this and and conservatives get all up in
arms yep, and how these pictures that show all these things that supposedly prove
a real do bite. Well, if this is an actor, he's failing.
Yes, he's a terrible actor. You would think if you have an
actor that's taking the place of a falling president, he would at least be
I don't know, presidential. Let's find the dumbest actor in the country.
So no, it's like if you go back to the Bush air, if
they replaced George Bush with the Will Ferrell version of Will Bush, of George
Bush, that's basically what you'd be doing. If this was an elector of
by all two kids, yourself, one bid. In the modern America political
climate, Will Ferrell would be president in a hartby You've not said he wouldn't.
All you need is a celever, some celebrity made people laugh a little
bit. He'll have fifty one to say it overnight. It's like a few
years ago they were pushing the Rock of the president. They still are.
There's still a fight from the political parties on which one he might decide to
go with. The Republicans and Democrats both are still trying to recruit them.
We think about that though, in a pure democracy, those the people that
will be making your decisions, voters that think the Rock would be a good
president. What do we know about the Rock when he was a wrestler.
He's tough, right anyway, He's a good, tall, dangerous Democracy could
beat so Democrats, you've done it all. Now you've tried herperbole, You've
tried fear mongering, you've tried the cold excuse. Now you're putting bronzer on
this guy. I'm just trying to figure out what might be next. I
mean, it's really interesting, Chris, because I mean there's so much we're
in an unprecedented time because you look at the fact that you have a candidate
that performed as poorly as he did, the fact that they had this debate
before the conventions. I mean, Chris, have we had presidential debates before
the national conventions before or is this the first time they've done that. Man,
that's a great question. Has probably happened, This probably happened, but
I don't have I'm not going to guess and say it has. I'm going
to say that somebody committed with a political malpractice on the Biden side of the
equation, and I think Trump's team still to have been just absolutely jubilant after
it. Now we're getting close to wrapping up so much we've discussed and we've
had a good time today, and you know, it's one of these days
somebody's going to piece together three seconds in this show or four seconds of this
show, and they're going to use it to slap you in me around if
you don't. Oh, they're saving clips here or there out of context for
sure, But remember watch the whole thing, America. They won't watch all
Right. Before we wrap up, I want to pull out a couple of
things because I did. I did see a great quote from Biden after he
failed miserably in front of the country, because look, he has the best
the Democrats have to offer around him, right, And so how do you
fix this? How do you fix this? You create a dynamic and I
think by I'm paraphrasing, but he says something like, I may not be
the man I used to. I might not be as young as I once
was, as I might not communicate the way I once did, but I
know how to tell the truth. I know right from wrong. I said,
wool, that's pretty good. That's not a bad spirit. That doesn't
fix it. But he's basically taken his biggest weakness, that is that he
is old, and he's trying to spin it now into a strength and at
the same time kind of punch at his adversary. He would say, I
may be old, but I know right from wrong. Well, that does
presume a standard that's objective. You can't just say you know right from wrong
and you'll be the sole judge of right from wrong. I'll give you some
examples, give you some examples. So he says he's a good Catholic,
and Catholics know right from roll. You take, for example, the idea
that unborn life is sacred, that Joe Biden know right from wrong when it
comes to unborn life. He doesn't appear to seems that he's forgotten that some
of this is objective. How about the laws which basically set the standard in
this country for right or wrong. I don't know, Like illegal immigration,
does he know right from wrong when it comes to a legal immigration doesn't appear
to Because we have laws he's not enforcing. It seems he doesn't know right
from wrong when it comes to that. What about the right from wrong?
When he forgave student long dead even though he didn't have the authority. Now
I'm still not sure where his right from wrong is. Why don't you get
a chance when you give a chance. Just google Joe Biden lies. You'll
see a long list of those. And I can't claim he knows right from
wrong when he spent his entire career line not get it. Politicians do that
all the time. We don't expect perfect politicians. No politician is perfect.
I get that. If there's a long pattern, though, of deception,
how can he claim he knows right from wrong. He said in two thousand
and eight that a helicopter he was riding in was forced down near Osama bin
Laden's lair. Remember that, I do. It was a sandstorm he made
us all he was taking RPG five. It was the welfare that forced them
to land. Is that right or wrong? That's wrong. He once claimed
to be a coal miner. Didn't he from a family of coal miners?
Think so? He stole up from a British politician. Is that right or
wrong? Yeah? That was plagiarism, pre wrong and O seven he said
he was shot at in Iraq. He was in the greens all and the
mortar landed like three football fields away. Is that right or wrong? Wronged?
In ninety three he said he called Melosa Vitch a quote damn war criminal
to his face in Sarryjevo. The age in the meeting said no, he
didn't that right or wrong? That's wrong. He said he was a civil
rights leader participating in citians. It was proven that he didn't that writer wrong,
wronged. He said he criticized to President George W. Bush's face.
This is back when he could talk. He criticized them during meetings, after
long meetings. They asked the Bush administration about it, and the quote was
George Bush would never sit in a long meeting with Joebizon. He said he
is his dug Warehouse called fire, almost killing his wife and his dog and
his cat, and almost melting his corvette. Turns out it was a kitchen
fire. If that I had cants as a fire. My house is almost
burned down multiple times. This is my selling is out of control in the
kitchen. I mean, we've had smoke, microwaves, explode, everything occur.
That's not a house fire, Joe, Is that right? That's wrong
or wrong? Look, a whole career of exaggerations, a whole career of
ignoring the law, whole career of saying outrageous things, and doesn't seem to
know rightful well. Even a more current example during the debate the other night,
he claimed that he is the only president in history to never lose the
life of militaries of anyone in the military during his time. That's a lie,
because he has lost military life. Well, here's the thing. Everybody
lies, every every politician lies. I get that. But when you take
the high mantle like he has and you say you know right from wrong,
you better be prepared to answer these questions because it's a lifetime spent of really
not knowing right from wrong. I'm not suggesting he's an evil guy. I'm
suggesting that if you're going to be the moral superior to Donald Trump, you
better out like it and be that person. And he has not been under
any circumstances. So there you have it. That's out of control countries and
shambles. It appears everybody's unhappy. We're about to fight each other in the
streets, it looks like. And the best the Democrats can offer us it's
Joe bidenof Hey, I'm gonna wrap up with this. There's a reason for
that. They're as guilty as we are when it comes to propping up the
old establishment. Yep, Joe Bibe is a creature of the establishment. He
is a creature of Washington, d C. You had better candidates, You
had better candidates four years ago, but you wouldn't there upset the establishment,
applepart, because you realize, all of you, you've kissed too many buttes,
you've sold too many souls, you have too many favors you need,
and the establishment to this day still rules this country on both sides of the
equation. And that's the problem. Maybe Trump can finally, maybe at the
very least, he brings it all crashing down and we see the establishment,
for they've always been self serving, uncaring, selfish, undisciplined, ambitious,
crude, rude, egoist to care nothing about this country, just about making
themselves rich at our expense. Both sides are guilty, and we're here to
point it out. This is Christmin Danmeels, America, Zack, thank you
for being here as always. Thank you, Chris. We'll see you next
time. Looks like you've been sleeping well, Megan. He's back to my
pillow guy, and you're looking good, still feeling good. Well, just
when you thought it couldn't get any better, we've got the best pillow ever,
my pillow two point zero. Wow. It's so soft and smooth,
it's cool to the touch. How did you do that? Well? We
took my pillows patented bill and combine it with this new technology that we didn't
have back then when I invented my pillow to bring you the best pillow in
history, my pillow two point zero. Just like all of you, I
never imagined that my pillow could get any better. That's why I haven't changed
it in nearly twenty years. Then I heard about a revolutionary new technology and
I knew I had to bring it to you all. My pillow two point
zho is truly the next generation of my pillow. The My pillow two point
zero is cooler and softer than the last my pillow. It is so comfortable
to sleep on at night. I look forward to going to bed and I
wake up well rested in the morning. Sleep is all about temperature and height.
My pillow two point oh is patent and adjustable. Phil is going to
give you the exact individual support you need from your head to your bed.
And now here's where it gets even better. We've all experienced those temperature related
sleep interruptions where you get too hot, you toss and turn, you flip
your pillow over to the cool side. All that's gone with my brand new
my Pillow two point oh cooling fabric that's made with temperature regulating thread. The
best sleep just got even better. Whether you have a my Pillow or not,
you need to get the brand new MyPillow two point zero caller. Go
to MyPillow dot com now use your promo code and for a limited time,
when you buy one, you'll get a second one. Absolutely breathe, you're
sleeping even better and cooler too, and you're looking good, feeling good.
I knew you would. Is it my pillow dot Com