Speaker 1: About the ten percent. Tom Cotton, a senator from Arkansas,
Speaker 1: is a great guy, friend of mine, supporter of mine.
Speaker 1: I'm a supporter of his too, And he wrote a
Speaker 1: pretty nasty story about the head of Intel, and I said, well,
Speaker 1: if that's right, he should resign. And he came in,
Speaker 1: he saw me, we talked for a while. I liked
Speaker 1: him a lot. I thought he was very good. I
Speaker 1: thought he was somewhat a victim, but you know, nobody's
Speaker 1: a total victim, I guess. And I said, you know what,
Speaker 1: I think the United States should be given ten percent
Speaker 1: of Intel. And he said I would consider that. I said, well,
Speaker 1: I'd like you to do that.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Libery Lockdowns, Clinton Russell. It's been a while.
Speaker 2: I apologize. Took a little break. Internet connection issues, weather issues,
Speaker 2: running Errand's travel, you know, live in life. But the
Speaker 2: good news is while I was away, you and I
Speaker 2: became ten percent owners of Intel. Who would have thought
Speaker 2: didn't even have to buy it. Nope, that's actually not true.
Speaker 2: That's not what happened. So I did a little digging
Speaker 2: because at first glance, I was like, well, this is
Speaker 2: concerning odd unusual for those that are not familiar with
Speaker 2: recent history of crises and government interaction in the private market.
Speaker 2: Probably the best case study on what we're describing here
Speaker 2: was two thousand and eight, which is really where I
Speaker 2: cut my teeth. I just came out of college. I
Speaker 2: had entered the mortgage industry, and I was right in
Speaker 2: the heart of basically the Great Recession, and it was
Speaker 2: not fun. But what we saw happen as a consequence
Speaker 2: of the Great Recession was the federal government acquired multiple
Speaker 2: large institutions. I think they took on like GM for
Speaker 2: a time, bunch of liquidations, Washington Mutual got liquidated, well,
Speaker 2: I mean Bear Stearns, all of these companies that were
Speaker 2: going bust and then others that were being bailed out
Speaker 2: and being kind of technically acquired for a time by
Speaker 2: the United States federal government. And I opposed all of it.
Speaker 2: And you shouldn't be surprised. I am a free market capitalist.
Speaker 2: I believe in creative destruction. I believe that if you
Speaker 2: make bad business decisions as they did which led to
Speaker 2: that crisis, they ought to go bust, but they did not.
Speaker 2: George Bush and then Barack Obama, they continued this process
Speaker 2: of bailing out these very large many of the more
Speaker 2: fortune five hundred corporations at the time, and this was
Speaker 2: done as a like last resort. Basically, the catastrophe was
Speaker 2: going to be so significant they had no choice. That
Speaker 2: was the argument that we were being told, right, Well,
Speaker 2: this is an interesting situation and quite different from two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight, which was indeed a crisis.
Speaker 3: Let's take a look back in history. October third, two
Speaker 3: thousand and eight. That was the day President George W.
Speaker 3: Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the sweeping piece
Speaker 3: of legislation designed to inject capital into a reeling US
Speaker 3: financial system. Now, the legislation's centerpiece was the seven hundred
Speaker 3: billion dollar Troubled Asset Relief Program TARP, the youth taxpayer
Speaker 3: money to hoover up billions of toxic debt held by banks.
Speaker 3: A clean sweep, a clean wipe of balance sheets that
Speaker 3: in theory, would keep the banks solvent and encourage them
Speaker 3: to continue lending to consumers and businesses. It would be
Speaker 3: the biggest government intervention in markets since the Great Depression.
Speaker 2: The banking institutions across the world were in danger of
Speaker 2: completely going bust. You had all of the collateralized debt obligations,
Speaker 2: the CEOs that were essentially sitting on the books of
Speaker 2: insurance companies and banking institutions and hedge funds and everybody else,
Speaker 2: and had they defaulted, the durative's contracts would have just
Speaker 2: blown up the entire economy, the global economy. I was
Speaker 2: fine with that. I know that's an unpopular opinion amongst
Speaker 2: many people, but I believe that if there are people
Speaker 2: that are making bad bets, they ought to go bust.
Speaker 2: I should never, as a taxpayer, be obligated to bail
Speaker 2: you out. Also, as a consequence of those bailouts, we
Speaker 2: didn't have a real reset when it came to the
Speaker 2: real estate market, and therefore the real estate bust, which
Speaker 2: was significant, would have been catastrophic, and all of the
Speaker 2: young people that are now watching this that are renting
Speaker 2: into their thirties or maybe even the forties would have
Speaker 2: been able to buy homes, and home prices would be
Speaker 2: much lower today than they are now as a consequence
Speaker 2: of those billouts that they did. So long story short,
Speaker 2: there are a lot of unintended consequences when the federal
Speaker 2: government gets involved in the free market, which makes it
Speaker 2: not a free market, it makes it a hybrid economy.
Speaker 2: Which is ironic here because the argument that's being made
Speaker 2: by President Trump is that you have to intervene on
Speaker 2: behalf of Intel because they are one of our top
Speaker 2: microprocessor manufacturers.
Speaker 1: Intel is the biggest, most powerful chip company in the world.
Speaker 1: And then they started leaving it and they started going
Speaker 1: to foreign countries, in particular Taiwan. And if we had
Speaker 1: a president would have said, Okay, you can go to Taiwan,
Speaker 1: but we're going to put a one hundred percent tariff
Speaker 1: for a two hundred or three hundred or five hundred
Speaker 1: percent tariff. Anybody that sells into the United States as
Speaker 1: to pay, they wouldn't have left.
Speaker 2: And if they were to go bust, well, then we
Speaker 2: would be left with a bunch of Chinese corporations. And
Speaker 2: we can't be reliant on the CCP to produce microprocessors
Speaker 2: because what if we end up in a war over Taiwan. Well,
Speaker 2: that's an interesting problem, and I'll admit that the more
Speaker 2: interesting aspect of that is that why are we getting
Speaker 2: our lunch eaten by the communists? Like why is it
Speaker 2: that America, like the country that has dominated cutting edge
Speaker 2: big tech for my entire life much longer than that,
Speaker 2: all the way back to the fifties. I'm sure, so
Speaker 2: seventy five years we've been dominating big tech, but just
Speaker 2: when it comes to this one industry, we can't compete.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's not just one industry. Maybe the whole idea
Speaker 2: that we are the leading class of all big tech
Speaker 2: is false now as a consequence of US becoming more
Speaker 2: and more like China, and China becoming more and more
Speaker 2: like the old version of US where they are freeing
Speaker 2: up their markets, we're going the opposite direction, as evidence
Speaker 2: by the Wald Trump's decision yesterday. So for those that
Speaker 2: are unaware, Intel hit its high sometime around like it's
Speaker 2: all time high sometime in the year twenty twenty. Since then,
Speaker 2: it is down approximately sixty percent from its all time high,
Speaker 2: So it is struggling. If you look at Nvidia and
Speaker 2: other microprocessing corporations which are traded on the American stock market,
Speaker 2: they are hitting their all time highs and some of them,
Speaker 2: like in Nvidia, are going absolutely just bonkers, I mean
Speaker 2: ten x. It's extraordinary what they have accomplished and what
Speaker 2: they have done in terms of market value. So, based
Speaker 2: off of my reading, in Nvidia dominates because they are
Speaker 2: not in fact manufacturing the vast majority of their products,
Speaker 2: if not all of their products in America, but rather
Speaker 2: they are doing it in Taiwan, they are doing it overseas. Intel,
Speaker 2: being kind of the last bastion of American technology in
Speaker 2: this arena, has been getting destroyed by them and many
Speaker 2: other corporations. So Trump decided to buy ten percent of them.
Speaker 2: I mean, the way he phrased it was essentially that
Speaker 2: it was like a gift.
Speaker 1: I think the United States, she'd be given ten percent
Speaker 1: of Intel, And he said I would consider that.
Speaker 2: That we weren't acquiring it. But that's not exactly true.
Speaker 2: And I did some research to understand exactly why the
Speaker 2: CEO of Intel would be like, sure, you can have
Speaker 2: ten percent of my corporation. Why not? Now, granted, most
Speaker 2: of this happened under the Biden administration, but it doesn't
Speaker 2: change the fact that, yes, you and I were taxed,
Speaker 2: or better put, our savings were inflated away into oblivion
Speaker 2: as a consequence of printing. Most likely is.
Speaker 4: That tax money that the FED is spending. It's not
Speaker 4: tax money. The banks have accounts with the FED much
Speaker 4: the same way that you have an account in a
Speaker 4: commercial bank. So to lend to a bank. We simply
Speaker 4: use the computer to mark up the size of the
Speaker 4: account that they have with the FED. So it's much
Speaker 4: more akin, although not exactly the same, but it's much
Speaker 4: more akin to printing money than it is to borrowing.
Speaker 3: You've been printing money.
Speaker 4: Well effectively, and we need to do that because our
Speaker 4: economy is very weak.
Speaker 2: It was five point seven billion dollars which came from
Speaker 2: the twenty twenty two US Chips Act, which started as
Speaker 2: an investment into Intel. But that wasn't all. There was
Speaker 2: also a three point two billion dollars which came from
Speaker 2: Secure Enclave. Now what is Secure Enclave? Well, it happens
Speaker 2: to be a classified program that Congress authorized last year.
Speaker 2: So I don't know what that's about because it's classified. Now,
Speaker 2: what we do know about it is that it was
Speaker 2: three point two billion additional dollars that was sent from
Speaker 2: you and I to Intel specifically to bolster domestic production
Speaker 2: of microprocessors, but namely specifically to assist with supply chains
Speaker 2: when it comes to the DoD the Department of Defense.
Speaker 2: So what do you call that? Boys and girls? What
Speaker 2: is it called? When the United States federal government starts
Speaker 2: to acquire private corporations. Well, historically that would be described
Speaker 2: as fascism. Now, oftentimes when we see things like this,
Speaker 2: our knee jerk reaction is it's called socialism. That is,
Speaker 2: at least theoretically, where the workers control the means of production. Well,
Speaker 2: that's not exactly what this is now, is it. This
Speaker 2: is the federal government owning the means of production ten
Speaker 2: percent of it. So under a purely like Mussolini framework,
Speaker 2: that would be kind of textbook definition of fascism. So
Speaker 2: why do I bring all this up. Well, one, it's
Speaker 2: very concerning the fact that this is happening not in
Speaker 2: a crisis a la two thousand and eight, but rather
Speaker 2: in an all time high stock market where you don't
Speaker 2: think that there would be in a necessitation for bailouts.
Speaker 2: And yet it's happening right in front of our faces brazenly.
Speaker 2: There's really no excuses being made. Even it's just like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we decided to do that. If you get them pressed
Speaker 2: and they actually are forced to answer, it seems to
Speaker 2: be that they are very concerned about having access to
Speaker 2: the production of microprocessors because it goes into so much
Speaker 2: defense equipment.
Speaker 1: They've had some bed management over the years and they
Speaker 1: got lost, and I said, I think you should pay
Speaker 1: as ten percent of your company and they said, yes,
Speaker 1: that's about ten billion dollars for the I don't get it.
Speaker 1: This comes to the United States of America, and I said,
Speaker 1: I think it would be good having the United States
Speaker 1: as you apartment. He agreed, and they've agreed to do it.
Speaker 1: And I think it's a great deal for them. And
Speaker 1: I think it's a great deal. He walked in wanting
Speaker 1: to keep his job and he ended up giving US
Speaker 1: ten billion dollars with the United States, So we picked
Speaker 1: up ten.
Speaker 2: Billion more importantly in my opinion, and what kind of
Speaker 2: ties all of this together, and really what ties the
Speaker 2: entire Trump administration together all the way to Elon Musk
Speaker 2: in the Doge Department. The AI race, it's the big
Speaker 2: tech AI race, And that's what it really looks like
Speaker 2: to me, is that these micro scissors are going to
Speaker 2: dictate who wins the artificial intelligence race, the race for AGI,
Speaker 2: and whoever gets there will be the dominant nation for
Speaker 2: the next century. At least that's the way they're behaving.
Speaker 2: It's as if they believe that whether or not it's true,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure, but they certainly are behaving as if
Speaker 2: they are very anxious, very concerned that we are headed
Speaker 2: for a war against China. So that in its own
Speaker 2: regard is super concerning. But that's not all, and that's
Speaker 2: certainly not the biggest reason that I'm concerned, because I
Speaker 2: still think that the odds of a hot war between
Speaker 2: America and China are low, at least for now, and
Speaker 2: I hope they stay there. But what really concerns me
Speaker 2: about it is that if you recall, under the Biden administration,
Speaker 2: even without ownership, because they didn't have real ownership in
Speaker 2: Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and just the whole meta
Speaker 2: world landscape, they still applied extraordinary pressure, dragging the CEOs
Speaker 2: of these big corporations up on Capitol Hill and forcing
Speaker 2: them to testify and clarify as to how they were
Speaker 2: dealing with myths and disinformation.
Speaker 5: CEO Mark Zuckerberg is pointing fingers of the Biden administration
Speaker 5: over COVID nineteen. The head of Facebook and Instagram's parent company,
Speaker 5: Meta says in twenty twenty one he was pressured to
Speaker 5: censor social media content about the pandemic. The comments came
Speaker 5: in a letter that Zuckerberg sent to the House Judiciary Committee.
Speaker 5: Zuckerberg specifically mentions posts that Meta classifies as humor and satire.
Speaker 5: He says he regrets censoring content and that he would
Speaker 5: push back if he was asked.
Speaker 2: To do it again, and they caved as a consequence
Speaker 2: of that. If you're like me, you were probably banned
Speaker 2: by a bunch of these platforms what I think were
Speaker 2: censorious coercive measures that were taken by the Biden administration.
Speaker 2: So what do you think is going to happen? Like,
Speaker 2: just for a second, assume that you love Trump and
Speaker 2: you trust him to the end of the earth, which
Speaker 2: I'm sure some of you do. Well, what about when
Speaker 2: President Alexandrio Casio Catz owns ten percent of Intel? Because
Speaker 2: you and I don't actually own this Yes it was
Speaker 2: bought with our money, but we don't own it, and
Speaker 2: we're certainly not going to be able to dictate terms.
Speaker 2: And now the Trump administration, Howard Lutnick and Trump are
Speaker 2: both saying, well, we're not going to have you voting
Speaker 2: shares and will only intervene in certain extraordinary circumstances. But
Speaker 2: do you believe in Maybe you do. Do you believe
Speaker 2: the next administration? I would say absolutely not. Now, this
Speaker 2: is not a really novel thing. This is the first
Speaker 2: time it's happened out in the open, But this has
Speaker 2: been happening for decades through q Tel, which provides seed capital,
Speaker 2: as they did. If you've watched my episode of the
Speaker 2: deep dive that I did on Palanteer, they were involved
Speaker 2: in that too, to a very significant sum of money.
Speaker 2: So I think that's really what we're looking at here,
Speaker 2: is that this is just a more overt avenue of
Speaker 2: what has been happening for quite some time. In fact,
Speaker 2: our entire lives that the intel agencies, the intelligence community
Speaker 2: is not just putting back doors into most of the
Speaker 2: tech companies in America, if not the rest of the world.
Speaker 2: I'm sure they have back doors and a lot of
Speaker 2: those as well, but now they're not just doing it secretly.
Speaker 2: They're not just doing it through inq tel. The federal
Speaker 2: government is actually like out in the open, having press
Speaker 2: conferences where they brag about it that they are acquiring
Speaker 2: ten percent of what used to be one of the
Speaker 2: most successful companies in America. Now, I don't know about you,
Speaker 2: but that doesn't sound awesome to me. It sounds really concerning,
Speaker 2: It sounds really un American it sounds like something that
Speaker 2: we should not be doing now. I will be the
Speaker 2: first to admit I do think that if we can
Speaker 2: have better supply chains that are produced more domestically and
Speaker 2: not be reliant on China, it may be advantageous and
Speaker 2: may prevent a war with China. But on the inverse
Speaker 2: of that, and this is an argument that a lot
Speaker 2: of these people that are more protectionists don't ever look at,
Speaker 2: is that because of trade deals oftentimes that prevents wars.
Speaker 2: Let me explain China, Japan, a bunch of nations. They
Speaker 2: own a bunch of our treasuries. Right they want to
Speaker 2: go to war with us when they know that we'll
Speaker 2: default on our payments to them? The answer is no,
Speaker 2: So they buy our debt, we buy their goods. So
Speaker 2: does China want to go to war with us because
Speaker 2: we didn't stop buying their goods? The answer is also no.
Speaker 2: So does that mean that China will probably treat us
Speaker 2: better as a consequence of them not wanting to go
Speaker 2: to war with us? The answer is yes. So historically
Speaker 2: this is the wrong Paul quote. I don't know if
Speaker 2: he originated. It may have been Voltaire or something long
Speaker 2: long ago, but when goods cross borders, armies don't. I'm paraphrasing,
Speaker 2: but that's essentially the quote. Well, it could be argued
Speaker 2: that maybe it's a good thing that we have. We
Speaker 2: are reliant on them when it comes to certain industries,
Speaker 2: and they're reliant on us when it comes to others. Now,
Speaker 2: all that being said, I still would prefer not to
Speaker 2: be reliant on China or any quasi adversarial nation to
Speaker 2: us when it comes to things that are vital. So
Speaker 2: why are we not able to produce these domestically? And
Speaker 2: I think that's the question that's kind of the untold
Speaker 2: story beneath the headline that people are not talking about.
Speaker 2: And I opened a couple minutes into this episode detailing
Speaker 2: out why this is so concerning. Is that dominated We've
Speaker 2: dominated big tech for decades and decades, basically a century now,
Speaker 2: and now we can't compete with them on the most
Speaker 2: important aspect of the next wave of technology. Why, Well,
Speaker 2: I would argue, the answer is not to become more
Speaker 2: like China, which is what we've been doing for decades,
Speaker 2: but to become less like China, to become more like
Speaker 2: the America of the late eighteen hundreds or early nineteen hundreds,
Speaker 2: where we have less regulations, less impetible to growth, less inflation,
Speaker 2: which would allow for domestic production and domestic wages to
Speaker 2: compete in a global marketplace. Those would be things that
Speaker 2: would actually free up our economy and allow us to
Speaker 2: compete with a country like China. Now does that mean
Speaker 2: that we will be able to immediately defeat them in
Speaker 2: this you know, technology arms race so to speak. No,
Speaker 2: it doesn't. But does it give us a better chance? Absolutely?
Speaker 2: And if you're going to make the argument that these
Speaker 2: are critical industries that we cannot afford to lose this race,
Speaker 2: well then I would argue, you cannot afford to keep
Speaker 2: these impediments to growth on the domestic economy. You have
Speaker 2: to liberate us. You must free us. And if you
Speaker 2: argue against this argument, well then what you are in
Speaker 2: fact arguing for is to be more like the CCP,
Speaker 2: to be more like the communists. And that's an interesting
Speaker 2: argument for someone like Donald Trump to have to make,
Speaker 2: and I doubt he would, at least not explicitly. So
Speaker 2: this is kind of a put up or shut up moment.
Speaker 2: Are we able to compete against China? Or aren't we?
Speaker 2: And if the answer is No, then I think we
Speaker 2: need to have a good, long, hard look in the
Speaker 2: mirror and establish why is it because we've brain drained
Speaker 2: ourselves with woke DEI nonsense? Yeah? Probably? Is it because
Speaker 2: of the inflation, because of the printing press that we've
Speaker 2: just worred on for decades? Yeah? Probably because we can't
Speaker 2: afford to live on the wages that we get and
Speaker 2: therefore we basically have outsourced all of the production of
Speaker 2: the highest technologies. Yeah, kind of, that's happened too, So
Speaker 2: maybe we should stop doing some of those things.
Speaker 4: Huh.
Speaker 2: Maybe instead of putting a band aid on this hemorrhaging
Speaker 2: bullet wound, we ought to get to the core issues
Speaker 2: that have put us in this position to begin with.
Speaker 2: And until we do that, well, then I think we
Speaker 2: are only going to exasperate the issue further. And I
Speaker 2: think that's the direction we're headed. And this is why
Speaker 2: I want to do a full deep dive on it,
Speaker 2: is that I think it's a problem. I think it's
Speaker 2: a significant problem and one that needs to be taken seriously.
Speaker 2: And this is not the answer. This is not how
Speaker 2: you solve this issue. If you thought it was bad
Speaker 2: out of the Biden administration, the censorious nonsense that we
Speaker 2: dealt with from twenty twenty through twenty twenty two and
Speaker 2: three still happening to a certain extent today. Just imagine
Speaker 2: how much worse it can get if they're actually starting
Speaker 2: to acquire major tech companies. What's next? Does the federal
Speaker 2: government acquire twenty five percent of Apple? They have access
Speaker 2: to unlimited money, they have the printing press. Is this
Speaker 2: the direction that we're headed, that they're just going to
Speaker 2: use what little is left of the purchasing power of
Speaker 2: the dollar to acquire corporations? And is that to the
Speaker 2: benefit of the American people for the federal government to
Speaker 2: acquire private corporations. Would argue absolutely not. And again, even
Speaker 2: if you love and trust Donald Trump, just imagine what
Speaker 2: these assets will be utilized for in the future. Say
Speaker 2: Donald Trump steps down and it becomes I don't know,
Speaker 2: some even some benign politician. Do you want the Intel
Speaker 2: agencies to actually have ownership rights, backdoor access to some
Speaker 2: of the most vital corporations that produce the most vital
Speaker 2: goods that you're using right now to watch this or
Speaker 2: listen to this. This is a bad, bad pathway forward.
Speaker 2: This is about as Unamerican as it gets. And while
Speaker 2: I do want to improve our domestic production when it
Speaker 2: comes to these vital industries, I do not want to
Speaker 2: go this path in order to accomplish that task, and
Speaker 2: in fact, I don't think it will. How many examples
Speaker 2: are there of the federal government getting involved with anything
Speaker 2: and the production improving, The answer is virtually none. So
Speaker 2: while Donald Trump is going to spend this as well,
Speaker 2: we had already given them nine point seven billion dollars, Clint,
Speaker 2: So would you rather us just let them keep that
Speaker 2: money and take no ownership for you and your family
Speaker 2: and your progeny moving forward. No, No, that's not what
Speaker 2: I'm arguing. The argument that I'm making is that we
Speaker 2: should not be granting nine point six billion dollars to
Speaker 2: any American corporation's period. Why are you doing that. It's
Speaker 2: not as if this industry isn't profitable. If you look
Speaker 2: at the profit margins for many of their competitors, they're crushing.
Speaker 2: So the real issue is that this is an industry
Speaker 2: that is profitable, and yet we still can't outcompete the communists.
Speaker 2: Really maul that over. Why can't we beat the communists
Speaker 2: in a fucking free market, capitalist race? And if we
Speaker 2: can't beat them because they are using their printing press
Speaker 2: and their influence via the government to give them an advantage, well,
Speaker 2: then that throws a wrench into the arguments of Milton
Speaker 2: Freeman and every free marketer that has ever walked the earth. Now,
Speaker 2: I believe strongly that we can and will win this
Speaker 2: race on our merits, because we still, despite all of
Speaker 2: our flaws, have a much freer economic model than the
Speaker 2: Chinese do. But we are getting perilously close to not
Speaker 2: having that advantage. And if we are already losing in
Speaker 2: this race despite having those advantages, well, then we need
Speaker 2: to lean into our advantages, not lean away from them.
Speaker 2: We need to lean into being more American, not become
Speaker 2: more like the Chinese. And if we do that, well,
Speaker 2: then we might win the race, as vital as it is.
Speaker 2: And if we can't win this race through the free
Speaker 2: market and through legitimate competition and innovation and lowering regulatory bodies,
Speaker 2: lowering taxes, lowering inflation, well then we need to have
Speaker 2: a real come to Jesus moment and really understand what's
Speaker 2: gone so off the rails when it comes to our economy,
Speaker 2: because that's a problem that you're not going to fix
Speaker 2: by looking to the federal government to bail you out.
Speaker 2: I promise you that. So on top of all of that,
Speaker 2: over the past week, Trump federalized the DC Police Force
Speaker 2: to deal with crime. Now an an interesting case because
Speaker 2: it's under the purview of Congress anyway, So this is
Speaker 2: not really a state's rights issue. It's not a ten
Speaker 2: A issue because it's not an infringement on the rights
Speaker 2: of a legitimate state. Like if they were to send
Speaker 2: in the National Guard to deal with crime in Florida, well,
Speaker 2: that's a totally different story. So I didn't have much
Speaker 2: to say when it came to the National Guard rolling
Speaker 2: in on DC because DC's this freakish, weird place, and honestly,
Speaker 2: I hope the worst for it anyways, so I don't
Speaker 2: really care what happens there. But it's getting a lot
Speaker 2: more serious now because after his alleged successes in doing so,
Speaker 2: they have now promised. Trump came out just yesterday and
Speaker 2: said that there would be seventeen hundred National Guard troops
Speaker 2: mobilized to move into nineteen additional states to deal with
Speaker 2: these same issues, to deal with crime. Now, maybe that's good,
Speaker 2: and maybe that'll be a success and maybe crime will
Speaker 2: go down, and maybe people will be happier, and the
Speaker 2: cities will be walkable and livable again, and all these
Speaker 2: other things. Maybe I hope, I don't know. That's really
Speaker 2: not the angle that I analyze these things from. Is
Speaker 2: not so much an outcome, but rather a principal perspective
Speaker 2: on this one, because it is so dangerous to have
Speaker 2: the United States president dictating law and order in every
Speaker 2: state in the Union, which is essentially what he's taking on.
Speaker 1: I really am honored that the National Guard has done
Speaker 1: such an incredible job working with the police, and we
Speaker 1: haven't had to bring in the regular military, which we're
Speaker 1: willing to do we have to, and after we do this,
Speaker 1: we'll go to another location and we'll make it safe. Also,
Speaker 1: we're going to make our country very safe. We're going
Speaker 1: to make our cities very very safe.
Speaker 2: On top of the fact that he is doing really
Speaker 2: kind of dictionary definition of fascism when it comes to well, granted,
Speaker 2: most fascists they don't actually buy at the corporation from
Speaker 2: the former owners. They just take it, so I guess
Speaker 2: it's different in that regard. On top of this kind
Speaker 2: of hybrid alliance with Intel, rolling out national policeing essentially
Speaker 2: into many states. According to them, there will be nineteen
Speaker 2: states that have National Guard troops deployed to them to
Speaker 2: deal with law and order issues in these areas well.
Speaker 2: Just take a step back. As I keep saying, if
Speaker 2: you love and trust Trump to the end of the earth, fine,
Speaker 2: not the point. The point is this is crazy, dangerous.
Speaker 2: Imagine if Joe Biden were using your tax dollars to
Speaker 2: acquire a bunch of failing corporations while simultaneously rolling out
Speaker 2: the National Guard or the US military into your town.
Speaker 2: How you would feel, how you would react. Well, if
Speaker 2: you're a patriotic, bread blooded American, you would you would
Speaker 2: act or react with fury, and rightfully so. But Trump
Speaker 2: does it and it's crickets or worse applause. This is crazy. Now,
Speaker 2: It's not to say that I'm rooting for the battlum
Speaker 2: and chaos that has existed within the Democrat ran hell
Speaker 2: holes of San Francisco and Los Angeles. I fled California
Speaker 2: as a consequence of their policies and what they did
Speaker 2: to destroy my home state. So I am not at
Speaker 2: all endorsing it. I'm just saying, just consider the hypothetical
Speaker 2: once again, President AOC. She sees governor, Well, it probably
Speaker 2: won't be a satisfy then, but say there's some great
Speaker 2: governor that's running Florida, and she just goes, yeah, we
Speaker 2: don't like the way that they're handling it. They're not
Speaker 2: dealing with trans issues rights properly, and they're not dealing
Speaker 2: with immigration issues properly. They're deporting people. We don't do that.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to send in the National Guard. I'm
Speaker 2: going to send in the eighty second Airborne into Miami
Speaker 2: or Fort Lauderdale and start to you know, take over
Speaker 2: policing powers. Like that's crazy, dangerous. So you take all
Speaker 2: of that, and then you add on to it the
Speaker 2: fact that Palenteer was used as a backdoor conduit in DOGE,
Speaker 2: the Department of Governmental Efficiency, where Palenteer was essentially taking
Speaker 2: all of your data from all of the federal departments
Speaker 2: and putting it into their databases, and then it was
Speaker 2: just being you to expedite processing and understanding and just
Speaker 2: make the government were more efficient. Sure it was or
Speaker 2: it was being used to create a spying framework that
Speaker 2: they could then utilize to profit and ultimately just destroy
Speaker 2: your liberties. All I'm saying is that if all of
Speaker 2: this shit was happening under anybody other than Trump, everybody
Speaker 2: in America would be like, what the fuck is happening?
Speaker 2: But instead people are loving it, at least a lot
Speaker 2: of people are, And I just really want to encourage
Speaker 2: people to think these things through long term. This is
Speaker 2: the reason our constitution was structured the way it was.
Speaker 2: This is the reason that they tried to make things
Speaker 2: like this impossible, and they are quickly becoming less and
Speaker 2: less impossible, and really, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: is only worth the paper it's written on. It comes
Speaker 2: down to what you are willing to accept, and what
Speaker 2: I'm encouraging in you is to not accept this. This
Speaker 2: is not good. If you enjoy this episode, please do
Speaker 2: with the like button, subscribe, and share it around. I
Speaker 2: really do appreciate you guys. Thank you for letting me
Speaker 2: take a week off, and I hope you enjoyed it.