Speaker 1: All right, and joining us now is Eric Peters of
Speaker 1: Eric Peters Auto dot com, autos ploral, Eric petersautos dot com.
Speaker 1: And I wanted to get Eric on because he's had
Speaker 1: He's posted several things about the election, and of course
Speaker 1: also about cars. I always love to talk about cars
Speaker 1: and transportation because that is a very important component today
Speaker 1: of freedom, and that's what they want to take away
Speaker 1: from us. Good to have you on, Eric, Thanks thank
Speaker 1: you for joining us.
Speaker 2: Oh, likewise, say thank you for having me. I'm not
Speaker 2: sure whether he be leaeved or nervous, and I'd like
Speaker 2: to show the audience something in the way of the
Speaker 2: historical remembers. You guys remember this, This.
Speaker 3: Is that's Bush plot. I see the nose. I couldn't
Speaker 3: say it was straight on. I couldn't see the like
Speaker 3: a Pinocchio thing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's a real naval aviator. But the reason that
Speaker 2: I wanted to bring him off people might repall when
Speaker 2: conservatives Republicans, not so much libertarians, but conservatives and republic
Speaker 2: and we're just ecstatic that George W. Bush beat al Gore.
Speaker 2: You know, we had saved all the danger of al Gore,
Speaker 2: and when he became the war president, he had something
Speaker 2: like a ninety plus percent approval rating and essentially was
Speaker 2: able to rule as a dictator. And he called himself
Speaker 2: essentially that I am the desire. You remember that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he got into.
Speaker 2: Great trouble because of that, and then worse trouble followed
Speaker 2: on his heels. Because I believe that it was on
Speaker 2: account of everything that George W. Bush did that we
Speaker 2: ended up with Barack Obama, which in turn gave us
Speaker 2: Trump and Biden and all the rest of it. So
Speaker 2: these things do have consequences, and I think it's important
Speaker 2: that well, you know, I'm very much relieved that the
Speaker 2: overt communists didn't win this particular selection. I'm still kind
Speaker 2: of nervous about what the Orange Man might actually do
Speaker 2: once he's inaugurated two months from now.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, I saw.
Speaker 1: You know, I've been talking about these pronouncements from a
Speaker 1: lot of Christian leaders saying, wow, you know, you just
Speaker 1: got to there's no question about you know, you can't
Speaker 1: vote for her, so you got to vote for him,
Speaker 1: that type of thing. And one guy has stood out
Speaker 1: and he has caught a lot of grief, and he
Speaker 1: said this, because you got the lesser two evils He
Speaker 1: said the presidential electure results. Having delivered us from one evil,
Speaker 1: God now tests us with another, right, and I thought
Speaker 1: that was pretty good. He's testing you, to see, because
Speaker 1: the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. And the key
Speaker 1: thing about Trump is that he puts people to sleep,
Speaker 1: and he puts a pacifire in their mouth. Everybody and
Speaker 1: this club is afraid to speak out. Just like if
Speaker 1: you were at a drag queen festival. You don't want
Speaker 1: to point out that the lady up on stage or
Speaker 1: the man up on stage isn't wearing any clothes, right,
Speaker 1: because then everybody's going to hop on you. You don't
Speaker 1: want to point out that the emperor is engaging in
Speaker 1: naked tyranny if you're part of the Maga cult, because
Speaker 1: then they're all going to hop on you as well.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, a lot of people are rightly, in my view,
Speaker 2: concerned with regard to what might happen visit to Israel
Speaker 2: and what's going on there, and you know, I share
Speaker 2: that concern. But another concern that I have, I think
Speaker 2: is more subtle, or at least it hasn't been commented
Speaker 2: on very much. I'm aware of. You know, one of
Speaker 2: the planks. I think that got Trump elected was that
Speaker 2: he's going to promise to do something about this flood
Speaker 2: of illegal aliens migrants into the country. Well, what exactly
Speaker 2: is he going to do and what are people going
Speaker 2: to be willing to accept, particularly on you know, so
Speaker 2: to speak, our side of the fence. What if he
Speaker 2: institutes a regime of your papers please, you know, and
Speaker 2: on us you know, And of course our side largely
Speaker 2: I think would probably go along with that, because, after all,
Speaker 2: we got to get it under control, you know, we
Speaker 2: got to cash all these illegal aliens and do something
Speaker 2: about them. But what may end up happening is something
Speaker 2: is done to us, and I'm very much concerned about that.
Speaker 3: Oh I agree as well.
Speaker 1: We were just talking about that earlier, had a listener
Speaker 1: who pointed that out, and I said, yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: the immigration and several of these voters, voter fraud and
Speaker 1: that type of stuff. But it'll also be you know
Speaker 1: a lot of people will jump on and say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we got porn being given the kids, so
Speaker 1: we need to have an ID to get on the
Speaker 1: internet and all this other kind of stuff, right, because
Speaker 1: they're already saying in Australia, that you got to you
Speaker 1: can't use social media. They're introducing a bill so you
Speaker 1: can't use social media if you're not sixteen years old.
Speaker 1: How they going to know that, Well, it means that
Speaker 1: everybody's got a register, right, that's obviously the situation. So
Speaker 1: if you want government to fix everything like that, you're
Speaker 1: going to have to give it total to solitary and power.
Speaker 1: And that is a very dangerous thing. And I've played
Speaker 1: the clip of Trump thing we're going to stop them
Speaker 1: by the air, by the land, by the sea, you know,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of this stuff. The technocracy would
Speaker 1: love to do this with IDs, digital IDs. And as
Speaker 1: you point out, your identity papers please right, the hallmark
Speaker 1: of an occupied to tolitarian government is to have to
Speaker 1: have identity papers to go everywhere, including internally.
Speaker 2: I don't think Trump is a stupid man. I think
Speaker 2: it's silly to suggest that he's stupid. But I do
Speaker 2: think that he can be thoughtless and reactionary and art
Speaker 2: to live sometimes in terms of the things that he advocates.
Speaker 2: You know, the classic who want example of that might be,
Speaker 2: you know, do process later, take the guns now, things
Speaker 2: like that instead of stopping for a little bit to
Speaker 2: think about it before he shoots off at the mouth
Speaker 2: or acts, and I wish that he were a little
Speaker 2: bit more reflective than thoughtful. But we'll see. You know,
Speaker 2: the die has been cast, as Caesar said before he
Speaker 2: passed the rubicon, and it's now essentially a fate, a
Speaker 2: complete We're going to see what he does, and it's
Speaker 2: going to get very interesting.
Speaker 1: I think I think we crossed the rubicon four years ago.
Speaker 1: Sure enough, that wasn't a rubicon. I don't know what is,
Speaker 1: but you know.
Speaker 2: This is this is you know, and people use the
Speaker 2: word consequential perhaps too often, but I do think this
Speaker 2: is a consequential election in that if he does not
Speaker 2: do anything, I don't think it's going to wear will
Speaker 2: So he's probably going to do something. And then the
Speaker 2: question becomes, okay, exactly what and how is that going
Speaker 2: to affect America and Americans? You know, and it may
Speaker 2: affect America and Americans in a very negative manner that
Speaker 2: they're right now completely blisfully unaware of as a bask
Speaker 2: in the orange globe.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: Well, I fully expect him to really energize the base
Speaker 1: and see them go absolutely crazy if he de escalates
Speaker 1: or ends this Ukraine war. Right, this is wearing on.
Speaker 1: Everybody is sick of that as well, sick of the money.
Speaker 1: Every Zelensky has become this comic little clown that's grifting everybody.
Speaker 1: So you know, he could end that, but I think
Speaker 1: at the same time what he would do is escalate
Speaker 1: the war with Iran because you've got Lindsay Graham and
Speaker 1: all these other people. And Lindsey Graham was saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: they got this man, I forget what he was. It's
Speaker 1: like they got seventeen trillion dollars worth of resources in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: We don't want Russia getting all that. We want it
Speaker 1: for ourselves, you know. I mean, this is like neocolonialism.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, and he's actually saying this kind.
Speaker 2: Of it's apocalyptic and dangerous. Probably this goes back a
Speaker 2: few weeks before the election to Scott River. You know,
Speaker 2: the UN the Inspector of Weapons of Mass Destruction, like
Speaker 2: I take as a very credible person, and published an
Speaker 2: interesting article about what appears to have been an underground
Speaker 2: nuclear test in Iraq. You know, there was seismic evidence
Speaker 2: that something happened out there that wasn't an earthquake, it's
Speaker 2: not yet be verified, but the possibility that they have
Speaker 2: acquired a nuclear weapons capability is something that really ought
Speaker 2: to be thought about. You know, if if Trump decides
Speaker 2: to lob bombs on them, they might swamp back a
Speaker 2: different kind of bomb and start something altogether horrible. You know,
Speaker 2: they could be absolutely cta clusing for all of us.
Speaker 2: And I pray that Saner Commer has prevailed over this thing.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that, you know, certainly they would have
Speaker 1: to do something asymmetric. They would not be able to
Speaker 1: launch a trans continental ballistic at the United States and
Speaker 1: hit US. What they would wind up doing maybe smuggling something,
Speaker 1: you know, across the open border. And then that would
Speaker 1: be the excuse to clamp everything down. And now everybody
Speaker 1: is clamoring for complete biometric control and ID and all
Speaker 1: because we don't want to have another one of these attacks.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think something like that easily could happen.
Speaker 1: But you know, you talk about how Trump can change.
Speaker 1: Earlier in the program, as I was talking about Elon Musk,
Speaker 1: and of course I said, you're going to be coming on.
Speaker 1: I said, the first time I talked to you, we
Speaker 1: talked about Elon Musk. Is the King of chrony Capitalist.
Speaker 1: That was your article at the time. Now I guess
Speaker 1: he's going to be the president of crony capitalism. And
Speaker 1: it's just amazing to me to see this guy who's
Speaker 1: become the world's richest man put out as somebody who
Speaker 1: is going to make government eliminate government waste.
Speaker 3: He is government waste.
Speaker 2: I wonder whether Trump, now that Elon Musk is apparently
Speaker 2: his best friend, is going to do anything to end
Speaker 2: this pushing of the electric vehicles that have made Elon
Speaker 2: Muscow billionaire. Most people outside of the business don't understand
Speaker 2: that the reason in the Musk is a billionaire is
Speaker 2: because he's managed to leverage these zero emissions requirements and
Speaker 2: these carbon credits into this vast empire that's funded his
Speaker 2: electric car drift. Now, you know one thing I would
Speaker 2: like to see Trump do, and I hope that he
Speaker 2: does do this is tackles the issue of the permanent bureaucracy,
Speaker 2: the regulatory state, which is serving now as a de
Speaker 2: facto legislature. You know, they'll issue of regulation and the
Speaker 2: regulation has to be complied with, so has the force
Speaker 2: of law, and yet it's not a law and it's
Speaker 2: not constitutional. The Constitution says that Congress must write the laws.
Speaker 2: Congress has abrogated that and has given it over to
Speaker 2: this unelected regulatory apparat for a number of reasons. One
Speaker 2: they're lazy, but two, I think more importantly, they do
Speaker 2: not want to be held accountable. You know, Congressmen can say, well,
Speaker 2: it's not my fault, it's the bureaucracy. You know, the
Speaker 2: reason that you you know, you have to spend a
Speaker 2: fortune to get your homes air conditioner replaced. Now it's
Speaker 2: not because of me. You know, these bureaucrats did it,
Speaker 2: these awful bureaucrats. And of course you can't vote the
Speaker 2: bureaucrats out, so they're utterly unaccountable once they get in there. So,
Speaker 2: you know, Trump has a constitutional argument first of all,
Speaker 2: and even has a juridical one in regard to the
Speaker 2: Chevron decision, which says that, you know, the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: ruled that these these bureaucrats can't just summarily issue decrees
Speaker 2: like that that have the force of law. And then
Speaker 2: there's just the moral argument is wrong. You know, these people,
Speaker 2: why do they get to run shot over our lives?
Speaker 2: So I hope he'll do that. Unfortunately, I don't he'll
Speaker 2: do that. Everything that he has said thus far indicates
Speaker 2: that he's not so much opposed to regulations. He's just
Speaker 2: opposed to the way the regulations have been used by
Speaker 2: the other side. So in that sense, he's sort of
Speaker 2: a typical Republican and that he's not opposed to big government.
Speaker 2: He just wants big government to be used in the
Speaker 2: way that he liked the government to be used.
Speaker 1: Oh, I agree, I agree. And you know, if we
Speaker 1: go back and we look, and I've talked about this
Speaker 1: many times, you've get civil asset forfeiture for example, right,
Speaker 1: people have their property stolen, as you well know. You know,
Speaker 1: in the name of the war on drugs, they steal
Speaker 1: people's property. They call it asset forfeiture, a theft. And
Speaker 1: they don't find you guilty. First, they don't even charge
Speaker 1: you with a crime. They charge the property with the crime.
Speaker 1: So it's the US government versus nine thousand dollars cash,
Speaker 1: or the US government versus lear Jet serial numbers such
Speaker 1: and such. And they say that they don't have to
Speaker 1: follow the Constitution because they say that rules are different.
Speaker 1: They they and so they not only have to find
Speaker 1: they don't have to find you guilty. You don't have
Speaker 1: a presumption of innocence. That have to have an indictment,
Speaker 1: a trial, a finding of guilt. And they are also
Speaker 1: not required to obey the prohibition against excessive fines and
Speaker 1: punishment because they say it's a rule, not a law.
Speaker 1: So if it was done by Congress, it would be
Speaker 1: a law and they'd have to follow the Constitution. But
Speaker 1: if they create this as a rule, none of the
Speaker 1: Constitution applies. That's one of the most amazing things. And
Speaker 1: both Republicans and Democrats go along with it because you
Speaker 1: point out if things go wrong, they don't want the
Speaker 1: responsibility for it, and they can always if things go wrong,
Speaker 1: they can always blame it on that regulatory agency, and
Speaker 1: they can come in and rescue everybody and look like
Speaker 1: the good guys by putting the regulatory agency back in
Speaker 1: its place. And so that allows the implausible deniability from
Speaker 1: all this stuff. They love to abdicate their authority over
Speaker 1: to it. No, I'll give you an example of Trump
Speaker 1: doing this in his first term. The Dreamer thing, right,
Speaker 1: the idea that you had DHAKA, the Deferred Action on
Speaker 1: Childhood Rivals that was an executive order from the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: It wasn't a law coming from Congress, and so they
Speaker 1: just put this thing out as an executive order. Now
Speaker 1: Trump comes along and he says, well, I'm going to
Speaker 1: change that. I'm going to get rid of that, but
Speaker 1: I've got to ask permission from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: To do that.
Speaker 1: It's like, how do you have to ask them permission
Speaker 1: as for an executive order from the previous president?
Speaker 3: You can just do it.
Speaker 1: But he played that game and then the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: came back and said, no, you can't do it, and
Speaker 1: so he said, oh, okay, I can't do it. And
Speaker 1: so it allows these guys to escape from their campaign
Speaker 1: promises and all the rest of this stuff. And that
Speaker 1: whole regulatory rule regime is awful. And we saw it
Speaker 1: in spades when all the pandemic stuff came, didn't we.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's as greasy as it is tyrannical. They call
Speaker 2: an administrative procedure and it goes all the way down
Speaker 2: in a number of states to traffic infractions. It used
Speaker 2: to be that you'd actually have a day in court.
Speaker 2: You know, if a cop pulls you over for something, seeding,
Speaker 2: whatever it might be, you had a legal right to
Speaker 2: your day in court and to present your case to
Speaker 2: a judge and even a jury if you wanted to.
Speaker 2: In some cases, well what they did was to make
Speaker 2: it into an administrative matter and in some cases handed
Speaker 2: over into a private company.
Speaker 3: To deal with.
Speaker 2: And you had the only thing that you were allowed
Speaker 2: to do was to submit in writing, not in person.
Speaker 2: You know, your your supposed explanation and or excuse or
Speaker 2: defense or whatever it was. And that was totally performa
Speaker 2: you know, you're going to pay regardless, you know, and
Speaker 2: if you didn't pay, then they'd go after you with
Speaker 2: the credit card credit bureaus then slam your credit you know,
Speaker 2: if you didn't, if you didn't hand over the money.
Speaker 2: And it's a really solid thing, and it's just sort
Speaker 2: of leached out and pervaded the whole system. And I
Speaker 2: do think the one positive thing I think we can
Speaker 2: we can take away from this election, I do think
Speaker 2: there is an awakening going on. I think by and large,
Speaker 2: a lot of people are beginning to realize the maliciousness
Speaker 2: that just saturates the system now and how the deck
Speaker 2: is stacked. And granted, you know that Trump has has
Speaker 2: leveraged and used that, but that doesn't mean it's not,
Speaker 2: and that doesn't mean that it is going to be
Speaker 2: sated by non action. I think people are going to
Speaker 2: demand that things get better, and that is something that
Speaker 2: makes me feel good about the election results.
Speaker 1: Well, I think you know that when we're talking about
Speaker 1: the red light cameras and speed cameras and things like that,
Speaker 1: where you've got a corporation that is accusing you of
Speaker 1: something and you don't have a right to confront your accuser.
Speaker 1: Sometimes that's been overturned in Texas, and I don't know
Speaker 1: how it is in Virginia. I don't know how it
Speaker 1: is in Tennessee either, But in Texas it was in
Speaker 1: the state constitution that if you got a speeding ticket,
Speaker 1: you could demand a jury trial. And I used that
Speaker 1: demand for a couple of tickets that I got in
Speaker 1: Texas to basically negotiate away the ticket and you know,
Speaker 1: to make it disappear, and because they don't want to
Speaker 1: do a jury trial, so it's a great negotiating tool.
Speaker 1: I didn't have the time where I could go do it.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm going to travel to some speed trap
Speaker 1: town in East Texas and fight this thing in a
Speaker 1: small hit. But I hung tough on it and made
Speaker 1: the go away. But that's the key thing, and you
Speaker 1: can put that in. My point is is that you
Speaker 1: can put that in at the state level, the local level,
Speaker 1: things like that, to stop red light cameras, to stop
Speaker 1: speed cameras, to have a day in court. Those are
Speaker 1: the types of things that you can do at the
Speaker 1: local level that Trump isn't necessarily going to do anything
Speaker 1: for you or the Congress. We need to start redirecting.
Speaker 1: I think everybody's focused back to the local level. I
Speaker 1: think that's where it's really important.
Speaker 2: Well, I agree, but at the same time, there is
Speaker 2: absolutely now a mandate, and it's not just Trump's. It
Speaker 2: operates in the House and the Senate. The Republicans have
Speaker 2: been handed this victory, and I think one of the
Speaker 2: things that they will hold their feet to the fire
Speaker 2: to with regard to these regulations and the regulatory opparatus
Speaker 2: that going forward, if we're going to even have to
Speaker 2: have these things, that they be subjected to a cost
Speaker 2: benefit analysis minimally with public effents before they are an
Speaker 2: accident imposed on people, so you don't have some bureaucrat
Speaker 2: in the EPA or the DOT which just summarily decrease
Speaker 2: something that's going to end up costing everybody who buys
Speaker 2: a car another five or bucks up front, and god
Speaker 2: knows how much money down the road when the thing
Speaker 2: feels on the business of some speculative, hypothesized gain that
Speaker 2: is literally like contemplating how many angels can dance on
Speaker 2: the head of a pin. You've got to show that
Speaker 2: there's going to be a meaningful and justifiable benefit before
Speaker 2: that regulation is imposed on people. I think that's an
Speaker 2: extremely reasonable and fair position to take.
Speaker 3: Oh, I agree.
Speaker 1: I think the problem that we face you and I
Speaker 1: is that there's not any corresponding organization for cars like
Speaker 1: there is for guns right. You've got the NRA, You've
Speaker 1: got Gun Owners of America, and a lot of others
Speaker 1: National Association for Gun Right. There's several of them that
Speaker 1: are out there, and they're all focused on a single issue.
Speaker 1: And you can say the same thing about the pro
Speaker 1: life issue whatever. And there's other ones that are out
Speaker 1: there as well. You could look at on the left side,
Speaker 1: you could look at marijuana prohibition and stuff normal and
Speaker 1: a bunch of others who are successful and nullifying the
Speaker 1: un I've talked about this this week. You know, even
Speaker 1: though you had you had in three conservative states, Florida,
Speaker 1: North and South Dakota, you had an issue on the
Speaker 1: ballot to legalize recreational use of marijuana, not just medical marijuana,
Speaker 1: because medical marijuana is now nullified by two thirds of
Speaker 1: the states, actually more than that, and so if that
Speaker 1: had passed in those states, you would have had more
Speaker 1: than half of the states would have nullified even recreational
Speaker 1: use of marijuana. And yet according to the War on Drugs,
Speaker 1: it is a Schedule one drug. My point being is
Speaker 1: that if we do things at the state level, we
Speaker 1: can nullify this tyranny. And if we start to and
Speaker 1: I think really the only way that we ever make
Speaker 1: any traction is if we've got an organization that is
Speaker 1: a single issue organization that's going to push on that
Speaker 1: single issue. Because the politicians are this grocery cart full
Speaker 1: of garbage, and some of the stuff in there is good,
Speaker 1: and some of the stuff in there is bad. Most
Speaker 1: of it's bad, but you can't really get anything done. Instead,
Speaker 1: if you focus a local on a specific issue and
Speaker 1: you attack it at the state level, that's what we're missing.
Speaker 3: Maybe that's what you should do.
Speaker 1: You should start an organization is going to fight against
Speaker 1: car regulations.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, there is such an organization. It already exists,
Speaker 2: and I'm affiliated with it. It's the National Motorists Association.
Speaker 1: Yes, I've interviewed them. It's been wow, but yeah, And
Speaker 1: I think they advertise on your they do.
Speaker 2: And a lot of people are not aware of the
Speaker 2: existence of the NMA. But the NME played a critical
Speaker 2: role back in the nineties and securing the repeal of
Speaker 2: what was called the NMSL, the National maxim Speed Limit
Speaker 2: Law which played the country for twenty years from seventy
Speaker 2: four to about ninety four, which required a fifty five
Speaker 2: mile an hour speed limit on the highways. You remember it,
Speaker 2: I remember it.
Speaker 3: You know, a lot of people were a Republican president.
Speaker 2: It was absolutely miserable and mean driving anywhere to such
Speaker 2: a hassle and an expense. You know, millions of people
Speaker 2: molted of millions of dollars for driving its speeds that
Speaker 2: were legal and so presumably safe before drive fifty five
Speaker 2: came along. Anyway, animated did the omens work lobby in Congress?
Speaker 2: You know, I was involved in that when I was
Speaker 2: at the Washington Times back in the nineties to get
Speaker 2: rid of the NMSL, And they are really a fantastic
Speaker 2: organization lobbying specifically on these issues that affect motorists driving,
Speaker 2: your freedom to buy the kind of car that you want,
Speaker 2: and so on. So if people are interested in that,
Speaker 2: I recommend they check out the site. It's motorists dot org.
Speaker 2: Good people. I've known them personally, I've worked with them
Speaker 2: for thirty years.
Speaker 3: Good.
Speaker 1: Yes, And that is the key thing. You have to
Speaker 1: have those kinds of single issue organizations. And for the
Speaker 1: most part, most of these things have to be done
Speaker 1: at the local level. You know, for example, the fifty
Speaker 1: five mile hour speed limit that could have been nullified
Speaker 1: at the local level's good to repeal it nationally. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's not bad thing, but I'm saying
Speaker 1: that individual states could have refused to do that, they
Speaker 1: would have lost highway funds. They were being blackmailed by money.
Speaker 1: And that's what we've got to get people to understand,
Speaker 1: is how the federal government gets around the Constitution, gets
Speaker 1: around the tenth Amendment, specifically by handing out money. That's
Speaker 1: what people can't understand about what Trump did in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: But it's the same thing that Nixon did with a
Speaker 1: fifty five million hour speed limit. If you do this
Speaker 1: fifty five million hour speed limit, I'll give you money.
Speaker 1: And so everybody gets upset with the state government or
Speaker 1: the local law enforcement or the highway patrol or whatever
Speaker 1: who is enforcing it. But it's also being driven by
Speaker 1: federal money.
Speaker 2: Well, it's even worse than that, because first they extract
Speaker 2: the money from the seas. Yeah, they take the money,
Speaker 2: and then then they say, well, the Fed say, well,
Speaker 2: we'll give you some of it back, you know, provided
Speaker 2: provided you do what we want you to do, you know,
Speaker 2: And it really it's paralyzing. So I think you're might
Speaker 2: have to go one step farther back and somehow perhaps
Speaker 2: just stop giving the money. You know that that day
Speaker 2: has got to come. We've got to stand up to
Speaker 2: that and resurrect the principle if it's not yours, you
Speaker 2: don't have a right to it from the individual. All
Speaker 2: the way on up as Tom Soillant was set, what
Speaker 2: exactly was a fair share of somebody else's money that
Speaker 2: you didn't work for.
Speaker 3: That's absolutely right. Yeah, Well, it's kind of interesting when
Speaker 3: we look at Musk.
Speaker 1: He's going to be able to exert the kind of
Speaker 1: control that all these different industries dream of and yet
Speaker 1: he doesn't even have to take a cabinet position with Trump.
Speaker 1: He can stay as CEO. Earlier in the program, eric
Speaker 1: I talked about the fact that the two of them
Speaker 1: were throwing shade at each other earlier this year, or
Speaker 1: Trump was talking about EV's and Biden and about Tesla
Speaker 1: and everything in a derogatory way. Musk was saying that
Speaker 1: Trump just needs to put on a cowboy hat or
Speaker 1: whatever and right off into the sunset. But then when
Speaker 1: Musk started, Musk perceptively realized that everything was turning in
Speaker 1: Trump's direction and started channeling money to him. Then it
Speaker 1: became a love fest, and in August Trump said, well,
Speaker 1: I have to like EV's because Elon gave me a
Speaker 1: lot of money.
Speaker 3: I mean, he just says that, he says the quiet
Speaker 3: part out loud.
Speaker 2: Yeah. You know, it's interesting about Musk. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: He's cunning. He knows where his sirs lie. And I
Speaker 2: think it's important to judge him according to actions and
Speaker 2: not what he says. And I'll give you two specific examples,
Speaker 2: one of which I know you're aware of. Uh, you know,
Speaker 2: at first, when when the thug government in Brazil ordered
Speaker 2: him to suppress the posts of some politicians and people
Speaker 2: in the in the in the country that the ruling
Speaker 2: Quinta did not like. Initially, Elon publicly opposed that, but
Speaker 2: when he counted the shaples and realized he was potentially
Speaker 2: going to lose a lot of money if the thugs
Speaker 2: in Brazil shut down X in Brazil, he counts out
Speaker 2: and caved. So if he counts out and caved to
Speaker 2: the thugs in Brazil, what makes anybody think that he's
Speaker 2: not going to do the same here and he already
Speaker 2: is as you know, and I know X suppresses speech
Speaker 2: by suppressing reach, you know, unless you unless you pay
Speaker 2: musk an ongoing fee to be verified each and every month.
Speaker 2: And in addition to that, don't post anything long thankful
Speaker 2: your post is sent of the timeout room. It's very clever,
Speaker 2: you know. It's not that you can't post. Sure you
Speaker 2: can post. The problem is half the time nobody sees
Speaker 2: what he posted, which has the same effect as that.
Speaker 1: So it didn't even change anything for me when I
Speaker 1: paid the eight bucks, you know, it's like it's still
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not saying the stuff that he wants
Speaker 1: to hear. But you're absolutely right. He literally bowed and
Speaker 1: scraped to Theory Breton, the guy from the EU, saying, well,
Speaker 1: we got this DSA thing that's going to come in here,
Speaker 1: and you're going to have to obey that right, Oh.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, I'll do that, Yes, yes.
Speaker 1: And then what happened was that Theory Breton, I call
Speaker 1: him conspiracy theory. Conspiracy Theory, tried to censor speech about
Speaker 1: the within the election and in America, and that was
Speaker 1: a bridge too far for him. He jumped the shark
Speaker 1: at that point and they kicked him out. But it
Speaker 1: wasn't like Elon Musk resisted this. And yet what you
Speaker 1: see is all these all these people who is the
Speaker 1: same people who support uh Trump, that support Musk. So
Speaker 1: if any governor goes to Davos, like Brian Kemp or
Speaker 1: like Glenn Youngkin or whatever or anybody else, they rightfully
Speaker 1: or suspicious of that. And yeah, when Trump goes there
Speaker 1: and he does it just a couple of weeks before
Speaker 1: he locks the world down, they're not. They make excuses
Speaker 1: for it, and they talk about how look it he
Speaker 1: told them told them off, and he told them, you
Speaker 1: know that we're not going to be a part of this,
Speaker 1: and he stood up to these people, and so they
Speaker 1: see the same thing as you point out. They they
Speaker 1: trumpet the fact that Musk is there pushing back against Brazil,
Speaker 1: but then all of the conservative and alternative media is
Speaker 1: silent when he caves into them and does exactly This
Speaker 1: is one.
Speaker 2: This bizarre wheeling around, and it occurs on both sides
Speaker 2: of the same point. You know, You've got, uh, if
Speaker 2: he went back what a year or two ago, Musk
Speaker 2: was the hero of the left. He was the the left,
Speaker 2: you know, and then when he started to kind of
Speaker 2: come around to the Trumpian point of view, all of
Speaker 2: a sudden, the left hates him and now the right
Speaker 2: loves him, and nothing is really changed. He's the same
Speaker 2: guy and he's playing them both, you know, and it
Speaker 2: just as sounds me that people on both sides don't
Speaker 2: see that.
Speaker 1: Yes, oh yeah, absolutely true. Let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about well, you mentioned the internal passport regime. That's one
Speaker 1: of the things that we're very concerned about. And I
Speaker 1: really liked what you just put up yesterday. Don't deport,
Speaker 1: defund and tell people about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Essentially, you know, there are all these calls now that
Speaker 2: Trump has been elected, Okay, we're going to have these deportations.
Speaker 2: We're going to round up all these people who came
Speaker 2: into the country illegally, which has a very strong superficial
Speaker 2: appeal because so many people are so tired citizens. I
Speaker 2: mean of having to pay taxes that go to finance
Speaker 2: things like hotel rooms in New York City and debit
Speaker 2: cards that are filled up with thousands of dollars of
Speaker 2: the money that they had to work for. People are
Speaker 2: unders handably outraged about that. So clearly something does have
Speaker 2: to be done. But I think the most effective thing
Speaker 2: that could be done to deal with the problem of
Speaker 2: the people who are already here, as well as the
Speaker 2: people who might come here, is simply to make it
Speaker 2: unlawful for any public official to dispense or disburse any
Speaker 2: public money, any taxpayer money that will go to benefit
Speaker 2: anybody who isn't an American citizen. It's entirely reasonable. I know,
Speaker 2: if I travel to Mexico, I don't have a right
Speaker 2: to the benefits that are afforded to Mexican citizens because
Speaker 2: I'm not Mexican. I agree, you know the system. I'm
Speaker 2: not supposed to be in that country.
Speaker 1: I agree. I've said for the longest time. I said,
Speaker 1: the issue is the welfare magnet, and we've got such
Speaker 1: a big magnet that we're pulling people around.
Speaker 3: The wall, over the wall, under the wall, through the wall.
Speaker 1: If you've got a big enough welfare magnet, you're going
Speaker 1: to get people to come in. And they're going to
Speaker 1: do it. Even if you set up some kind of
Speaker 1: a slave ID system that Trump has talked about doing,
Speaker 1: Even if you set up some kind of a horrendous
Speaker 1: internal biometric ID system, you're still going to get people.
Speaker 3: To come in.
Speaker 1: If the if the financial rewards are enough, and these
Speaker 1: financial awards are unbelievable, we have provided for these people
Speaker 1: in poor countries. This is the pot of gold at
Speaker 1: the end of the rainbow. And if we don't stop that,
Speaker 1: that's that's the essence of it. And that's the one
Speaker 1: thing that they could stop very easily, but they won't
Speaker 1: do it. I absolutely agree with you. Defund it. You
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about deporting these people.
Speaker 3: Just defund it.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a humane aspect of it too. I think
Speaker 2: you know, if you say, look, if you're willing to work,
Speaker 2: and you're willing to provide for your family and meet
Speaker 2: your needs and so on. I don't really have an
Speaker 2: issue with that myself, because why I would. If somebody
Speaker 2: wants to get up on a roof and hammer shingles
Speaker 2: all day long and earn money, that's cool. I'm okay
Speaker 2: with that. That's a that's a positive contribution to our society.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't. I don't have any desire to
Speaker 2: have a guy who's up on the roof putting shingles down,
Speaker 2: round it up and thrown back across the border. So
Speaker 2: you know, you can.
Speaker 1: Put in to some detention camp or something in concentration.
Speaker 1: Can the optics? I don't think you'll ever do that
Speaker 1: because I think the optics on it are so bad.
Speaker 1: And in his second term, I think he's going to
Speaker 1: want to be remembered in a in a fond and
Speaker 1: positive way. So I don't think they will do that.
Speaker 1: But also don't think that they'll stop the welfare stuff either,
Speaker 1: And that would be the obvious thing. As you point
Speaker 1: out people who want to come across and work hard workers.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with that. Yeah, there's competition with people who
Speaker 1: are here and depressing wages. But you know, maybe what
Speaker 1: you do is something else. Maybe you organize, maybe you
Speaker 1: learn Spanish, and you organize these people, and you've got
Speaker 1: your company and you know whatever. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: different ways that we could go with that. But you know,
Speaker 1: as long as they're working, I don't have that much
Speaker 1: of a problem with it as But what I have
Speaker 1: a problem with is the welfare thing. If you're pointing out,
Speaker 1: it's bad enough to take money from a citizen and
Speaker 1: give it to another one, but it's even worse when
Speaker 1: you give it to somebody's not a citizen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, interestingly, you know, Trump made great intros
Speaker 2: with Hispanic people in the selection. Yeah, citizen, I mean,
Speaker 2: because they also are tired of this.
Speaker 3: Yes, you know.
Speaker 2: So it's not about being mean to people, which is
Speaker 2: the way it's framed and portrayed by the left. It's
Speaker 2: about not being mean to Americans, you know, constantly saddling
Speaker 2: them with bills for other people. Literally the limitless number
Speaker 2: of them. You know, nobody's ever said, Okay, we're going
Speaker 2: to have a maximum of let's say, five million people
Speaker 2: coming into the country every year. It's literally limitless, you know,
Speaker 2: according to its open borders people, which is a recipe
Speaker 2: for national suicide culturally and economically.
Speaker 1: Oh I agree said for the longest time that we're
Speaker 1: not going to have an American dream of owning a home,
Speaker 1: which you pretty much don't have now because of regulatory
Speaker 1: costs and everything. We're not going to have that as
Speaker 1: long as we've got the dreamers because they can come
Speaker 1: here and get a free education and many other benefits,
Speaker 1: and they will continue to keep coming and it'll be
Speaker 1: funded with property taxes. So you're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to afford a home, or you're not going to
Speaker 1: be able to afford much of a rental place either,
Speaker 1: because the property taxes are embedded in that. People just
Speaker 1: don't seem to think about the real cost of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I would pay money to keep my kids out of
Speaker 1: the government school Oh yeah, but think got me for
Speaker 1: financial reasons?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: That I think is you get to the root of
Speaker 2: it and pull it out of the ground and destroy it.
Speaker 2: And you're right, you know this whole idea of having
Speaker 2: government schools. Parents ought to be the ones that are
Speaker 2: responsible directly, and that's not a burden. That's a good
Speaker 2: thing because you have control over your kids' education. If
Speaker 2: you're hiring a tutor or a teacher, you're the one
Speaker 2: who's paying the bill. And if you discover that the
Speaker 2: person that you hire to teach your kids is incompetent
Speaker 2: or in any other way, somebody that you don't want
Speaker 2: to be teaching your kids, and you can fire them.
Speaker 2: What happens when the kid is in the government school.
Speaker 2: How much power do you have over what your kid
Speaker 2: is being taught and by whom? And the answer is
Speaker 2: absolutely none. You're paying through the nose and property tax
Speaker 2: and the kids aren't even being educated.
Speaker 3: That's right.
Speaker 1: And in New Jersey they just came up with a
Speaker 1: law that you know, anybody else would go to jail.
Speaker 1: But if you show seeing material to a minor, that's
Speaker 1: fine as long as you're teacher. Right, here's some obscene
Speaker 1: if I hire a tutor, tutor is showing obscene material
Speaker 1: to my child and saying don't tell your parents. That
Speaker 1: person is going to go to jail or worse if
Speaker 1: you catch them. But you know what the government schools says. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's why I talked about this earlier this week. I said,
Speaker 1: I'm going to call them from here on out instead
Speaker 1: of public schools, I'm going to call them pubic schools
Speaker 1: because it seems to be they're interested, and they're not
Speaker 1: interested in reading, writing, and arithmetic. They're interested in sexualization
Speaker 1: of children. And that's really what they have focused on.
Speaker 1: It's insane that we have to pay for this as well.
Speaker 2: It's not insane from their point of view, you know,
Speaker 2: by stupidizing kids, by rendering them cognitive cripples, making them
Speaker 2: illiterate and enumerate, and then also warping them with all
Speaker 2: of the supprise, what do you end up with? Will
Speaker 2: you end up with these screeching, emotionally incontinent, blue haired
Speaker 2: people who are exactly what Lennon referred to when he
Speaker 2: called them useful idiots.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's right, useful because they.
Speaker 2: Are very vulnerable. You know, they're not able to think clearly.
Speaker 2: They feel and they react and they rerupt and they
Speaker 2: stamp their feets, and they're exactly the kind of flodder
Speaker 2: that you need if you want to create an authoritarian police.
Speaker 3: See, yeah, that's right. Yeah.
Speaker 1: You have a good article about the roots of Marxism,
Speaker 1: the neighborliness of communists, and you've got all these different
Speaker 1: planks of the Karl Marx, of different goals that he
Speaker 1: wanted to have, you know, of course, one of them
Speaker 1: was compulsory state education paid for by taxes and that
Speaker 1: type of thing. But all these different things that are
Speaker 1: part of it, that is what they have been able
Speaker 1: to impose upon us. I've talked to shi Van Fleet,
Speaker 1: who grew up in China. She knows what a struggle
Speaker 1: session is. She says, all of this stuff about being
Speaker 1: you know, anti racism and all the rest of the stuff,
Speaker 1: she said, that's just a struggle session with a different name.
Speaker 3: All this woke stuff.
Speaker 1: It's the same tactics that they've been using for the
Speaker 1: longest time and the same goals that they have been
Speaker 1: using for the longest time.
Speaker 2: Well, they've gotten a little bit more clever though. You know,
Speaker 2: if you read if you read Marx, and even if
Speaker 2: you read Lenin, they were rather honest and open about
Speaker 2: what they intended to do. You know, Lenin spoke of
Speaker 2: imposing terror and using terror to foment his political ends,
Speaker 2: and Marx was very direct. If you read the Communist
Speaker 2: Manifesto and read the planks of the Communist Manifesto, and
Speaker 2: it's appalling to anybody who's not out of their minds
Speaker 2: when they hear and read this stuff. So they don't
Speaker 2: generally talk about that stuff anymore. They put it in
Speaker 2: this sort of sitting around the campfire, holding hands kumbayah
Speaker 2: kind of language. You know, we're neighborly. Waltz used that
Speaker 2: in the campaign. Neighborly. I mean, it's an inversion of
Speaker 2: reality and it's a psychological technique. You know. They want
Speaker 2: you to think of it in terms of like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm just going to go over to my neighbor's house
Speaker 2: and ask him whether I can borrow something. You know,
Speaker 2: but you're not being asked. You're having a bayonet shoved
Speaker 2: in your back and you're being made to hand it over.
Speaker 2: And it's not your neighbor per se who's doing it.
Speaker 2: It's some government thug. You know. That's the kind of
Speaker 2: neighborliness that they that they need. And it's so much
Speaker 2: of this verbiage. You know, they won't just say hand
Speaker 2: over your money. They'll say, we're asking you to pay
Speaker 2: your fair shipso asking if you can't say no without repercussions.
Speaker 2: You're not being asked, you're being.
Speaker 3: Told that's right, that's right. And that's one of the
Speaker 3: things that we see.
Speaker 1: You know, you talk about how they used to be
Speaker 1: more upfront about it, and it was really Antonio Gramsey,
Speaker 1: the founder of the Italian Communist Party, who said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't want to have a we want to be
Speaker 1: upfront about this, we don't want to have a violent revolution.
Speaker 1: Let's do it by marching through the institutions. And that
Speaker 1: was where Pete Boutiguay's dad spent his entire career as
Speaker 1: a college professor at Notre Dame, studying the life work
Speaker 1: of Antonio Gramsey in order to march through the institutions.
Speaker 1: And then he sends Pete Boutigue to Harvard, where he
Speaker 1: studied under a guy who loved the Italian Communists so much,
Speaker 1: Saco and Benzetti, that he changed his name to Sacvan Berkovich.
Speaker 1: And everything that he wrote was saying, America based on
Speaker 1: the principles of the Pilgrims and Puritanism. And that's the
Speaker 1: problem for all of the you know, everything that we
Speaker 1: have in society is all based on that, and we've
Speaker 1: got to eliminate that. And that's really where all of
Speaker 1: the democrats are coming from now, by taking over the
Speaker 1: institutions very subtly, and they have taken them all over.
Speaker 1: And so that's why I think, you know, if we
Speaker 1: don't realize that the institutions have been taken over, like
Speaker 1: the schools especially that is the most obvious case, the schools,
Speaker 1: the media, entertainment. We don't realize that those things have
Speaker 1: been taken over. You know, voting for our president in
Speaker 1: Washington is completely meaningless.
Speaker 2: Yep. Yeah, they did piece by piece, and they began
Speaker 2: with the government school system, you know, the frank School,
Speaker 2: going all the way back to the twenties and the
Speaker 2: thirties and infiltrating. That had consequences because what they did
Speaker 2: was they were able to mold the minds of the
Speaker 2: next generation. And those people ended up going into the
Speaker 2: corporations and into the media and into law, and it propagates.
Speaker 2: And that's why now all of a sudden we find
Speaker 2: ourselves dealing with a company like, you know, Anheuser Bush,
Speaker 2: you know, having Dylan mulvaney as their mascot.
Speaker 3: How did that happen?
Speaker 2: Such a thing would have been inconceivable thirty years ago,
Speaker 2: because the people who are running a major corporation like that,
Speaker 2: they would have regarded that as sick and alien, you know,
Speaker 2: whatever their greed headed interests, they wouldn't have done that.
Speaker 2: But now this rising generation woke people. You know, I
Speaker 2: disagree with Elon Musk about a lot of things, but
Speaker 2: he refers to this woke mind virus, and he's absolutely correct,
Speaker 2: and it's sort of the latest strain or variant of Marxism.
Speaker 2: It's just the same thing repackaged.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, of course, the people who are taking over the
Speaker 1: corporations and everything have been trained in all this in
Speaker 1: the schools, but they're also having a lot of economic
Speaker 1: pressure put on them by Black Rock and these other
Speaker 1: corporations to do that very thing. And if they're publicly
Speaker 1: traded corporations, they have a great deal of leverage over
Speaker 1: them if you do what they know. If they like
Speaker 1: your company, you can it's basically a license to print money.
Speaker 1: But if they don't like your company, they can pretty
Speaker 1: much drive you out of business. And so they're more
Speaker 1: beholden to the Black Rocks than they are to the customers.
Speaker 1: And so everything is turned upside down with this stuff.
Speaker 2: This ESG stuff that almost nobody knew about until about
Speaker 2: a year or sogo. It is what drove Akio Toyota
Speaker 2: out of the leadership role at Toyota, notwithstanding that he
Speaker 2: is the grandson of the founder of the company. Because
Speaker 2: the people on the board reeled that kind of power
Speaker 2: and that they were very interested in pushing this ESG agenda.
Speaker 2: You know, in the case of Toyota, particularly with regard
Speaker 2: to this electric vehicle thing, Akio Toyota was opposed to it.
Speaker 2: You know, he was one of the few big wig
Speaker 2: people within the car business who said, more than a
Speaker 2: year ago, this is a bad idea. This is going
Speaker 2: to cause massive dislocation even bankruptcy across the industry. You know,
Speaker 2: this is not going to work. Well, we shouldn't do this,
Speaker 2: you know, and having the audacity to say that, and
Speaker 2: for not toing line and going along, he was summarily
Speaker 2: removed and they installed a more appliable person in his place.
Speaker 1: And of course Toyota has understood that, you know that
Speaker 1: this is unworkable, it's an un solution, and so they
Speaker 1: put their engineers into oh, let's try something else. It's
Speaker 1: you know, maybe try fuel cells or something. It's like, no, no,
Speaker 1: it's got to be tied to the electric grid, because
Speaker 1: that's going to be our control grid. You know, no
Speaker 1: other solutions are going to be allowed. That's a real tell.
Speaker 1: Just like the vaccine thing was, well, we got a
Speaker 1: problem here. Okay, I'll believe your problem. I believe that
Speaker 1: we've got some kind of mysterious COVID virus out there.
Speaker 1: But how about if we try this or try that. No, no,
Speaker 1: you can't try that. You're only going to have this solution,
Speaker 1: and that's it. That's another tell that it's a there's
Speaker 1: not a real problem.
Speaker 2: You know. It's it's really sad to be as somebody
Speaker 2: who has a great emotional attachment to cars and loves
Speaker 2: the industry to see the damage that has been caused,
Speaker 2: particularly to Toyota. You know, Toyota has had, and deservedly so,
Speaker 2: a reputation for building outstanding vehicles for years and outstandingly
Speaker 2: durable and long lived engines for years. That's been shattered.
Speaker 2: Just recently, they had to recall more than one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand of their new turbo hybrid V six engines that
Speaker 2: have replaced V eight in the Toyota Tundra pickup because
Speaker 2: the thing had a catastrophic problem that resulted in catastrophic failure.
Speaker 2: So can you imagine what that has done to Toyota's reputation.
Speaker 2: Imagine if you bought a brand new sixty thousand dollars
Speaker 2: Tundra brand new and within a month the engine total
Speaker 2: failure and you have to have the engine replaced. You know,
Speaker 2: it's egregious.
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh yeah, Yeah, they're.
Speaker 2: Having problems with the new Tacoma. You know, the Tacoma
Speaker 2: was one of the best vehicles in that class of vehicle,
Speaker 2: mid sized pickup truck. They got rid of the V six,
Speaker 2: this bulletproof you know, that's a three hundred thousand mile engine.
Speaker 2: They got rid of it in favor of a turbo
Speaker 2: hybrid four cylinder engine, and they're having all sorts of
Speaker 2: problems with the things.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, there's the market demand for this. The market
Speaker 2: didn't say we don't want a V six, we don't
Speaker 2: want a V eight. We crave tiny turbocharge four cylinder
Speaker 2: engines with hybrid systems attached to them. There's absolutely nothing
Speaker 2: driving this other than the pressure to comply with the
Speaker 2: regulatory regime.
Speaker 3: That's right, and this has been building for a very
Speaker 3: long time.
Speaker 1: You go back and you look at the Toyota Highlux.
Speaker 1: You know, it's legendary. You've got to top gear guys.
Speaker 1: You know, the little Toyota Highlux that they tried everything
Speaker 1: they could to kill it and they finally I think
Speaker 1: they put it in salt water and left it or
Speaker 1: something like that, and then they hung it from the
Speaker 1: ceiling of the of the set there. But it was
Speaker 1: legendary in terms of its ability to keep going. But
Speaker 1: because it had I think it was it was a
Speaker 1: diesel engine or something like that, they wouldn't let that
Speaker 1: come into the US because of the EPA.
Speaker 3: The EPA.
Speaker 2: Yes, And now this year twenty twenty four or Twitter
Speaker 2: brought out a stript down version of the Highlux called
Speaker 2: the Champ and it has a gas engine and it
Speaker 2: doesn't pollute. Nothing's polluted since the nineties. If you want
Speaker 2: to get into that topic, but you can't have it
Speaker 2: and get how much a Highlux costs in over markets?
Speaker 2: How much thirteen bucks to start? What?
Speaker 3: That's crazy?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean if people are interested, I've got a
Speaker 2: couple of articles on the site about that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's designed to be configurable. It's basically the cab and
Speaker 2: then the back where the bed would be is whatever
Speaker 2: you want it to be. Toyota has apartnered with a
Speaker 2: number of aftermarket suppliers. So if you want to make
Speaker 2: it into a Jitney bus, if you want to make
Speaker 2: it into a food truck, or if you just want
Speaker 2: a conventional bed on the back of it, well, you
Speaker 2: can specify what you want. It's got all the predal
Speaker 2: detachment points. It's modular, so it's designed to be able
Speaker 2: to do all of those different things really easily and
Speaker 2: really inexpensively. The point is it's a thirteen thousand dollars truck.
Speaker 2: You know, you looked at the price of a new truck,
Speaker 2: and this essentially what we're allowed to buy. I mean,
Speaker 2: the least expensive of them are thirty thousand dollars in up.
Speaker 1: Yes, And it's not just the cars, it's the homes,
Speaker 1: it's the appliances, it's everything that we've got, and they
Speaker 1: are trying to strangle us with every one of these things.
Speaker 1: I was talking about the Taiwan Semiconductor and Manufacturing Corporation TSMC,
Speaker 1: that's got this big thing that they're bringing into Phoenix,
Speaker 1: this big factory town that they're bringing in. One of
Speaker 1: the things that we're talking about was the fact that
Speaker 1: housing in the United States is four to five times
Speaker 1: the cost of housing in Taiwan. Why is that they
Speaker 1: don't have nice houses there? Well, actually they do, it's
Speaker 1: just arbitrary you know, regulations on about everything that raises
Speaker 1: the cost, and they're doing that to everything that we
Speaker 1: have to make us artificially poor, to rob us, and.
Speaker 2: They're specifically targeting the rising generation of young people. I
Speaker 2: can't across some situate. It's astounding. I don't know whether
Speaker 2: you saw this, but guess what the average age of
Speaker 2: a first time home buyer is in the United States
Speaker 2: as of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I saw that. It was. I was fifty
Speaker 3: something or something like that.
Speaker 2: Fifty four. Yeah, for people who are past the agia
Speaker 2: which most people start raising families, you know, And what
Speaker 2: are you supposed to do if you're twenty four to
Speaker 2: twenty five, you know, and you want to get your
Speaker 2: first house. It's impossible. The average cost of a new
Speaker 2: single family house in this country I think is about
Speaker 2: four hundred and twenty thousand bucks, which means you've got
Speaker 2: to come up with ten percent cash on that. I mean,
Speaker 2: how many people in their twenties are ever going to
Speaker 2: be able to do that? So what they're doing, and
Speaker 2: I think this is part of the maliciousness that I
Speaker 2: like to talk about. Don't like to talk about it,
Speaker 2: but it's important thing to talk about is to alienate
Speaker 2: the young, to antagonize and annoy the young, and make
Speaker 2: them feel that they haven't got a shot, they haven't
Speaker 2: got a chance, there's no hope that the government will
Speaker 2: help you. We've got the answer. You know, Harris did
Speaker 2: this during the campaign. She tried to bribe the young
Speaker 2: people and said, well, we'll give you twenty five thousand
Speaker 2: dollars in assistance, you know, to get your to get
Speaker 2: your first first home. Well, what would really help. One
Speaker 2: thing that would help is getting rid of these zoning requirements.
Speaker 2: You know, in most places in this country, you can't
Speaker 2: put up a modest sized single family home anymore that
Speaker 2: would be affordable to a first time buyer. You have
Speaker 2: to put up some gigantic McMansion because the zoning laws
Speaker 2: specify that the house that you put here has to
Speaker 2: be essentially similar to the one that's next door and
Speaker 2: the one that's on the other side. That's why you
Speaker 2: see all these cookie cutter neighborhoods with all essentially the
Speaker 2: same houses everywhere.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and it goes to the appliances. Look at all
Speaker 1: the appliants said, ooh, you got to you can't have
Speaker 1: a gas appliance. So you can't have this, or that
Speaker 1: you've got to have this electric appliance, and we're going
Speaker 1: to dictate h and everything that you can have and
Speaker 1: how it's going to operate. And of course we've seen
Speaker 1: this type of thing as well in the UK. I
Speaker 1: remember a few years ago they were talking about how
Speaker 1: the prices of houses had rapidly gone up very quickly
Speaker 1: in the UK and priced the younger people out of
Speaker 1: the market completely. And now it's come here. And what
Speaker 1: typically happens is they kind of use the UK as
Speaker 1: a test bad and then it goes from the UK,
Speaker 1: goes to California, and then it goes to the rest
Speaker 1: of America. And so that's really kind of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing with a lot of this stuff. Now they've run
Speaker 1: this game, they know how to manipulate it, so we
Speaker 1: can't afford anything. Electricity costs in the UK right now
Speaker 1: are four to five times the cost of electricity in America,
Speaker 1: and we're about to have an explosion. And all that
Speaker 1: is they're going to build these offshore windmill farms off
Speaker 1: the coast of Long Island. They're going to the profits
Speaker 1: that these European companies that are making this wind farm
Speaker 1: are going to make Their profits are going to be
Speaker 1: somewhere in fifty dollars per megawatt hour. WHOSTL profit is
Speaker 1: going to be something like fifty dollars. But the entire
Speaker 1: cost today off of the existing power structure is in
Speaker 1: the thirties and so just their profits alone are going
Speaker 1: to be that much. It's going to be four or
Speaker 1: five times the cost of what people on Long Island
Speaker 1: are paying right now for electricity, if not more. And
Speaker 1: so this is the way that they are. You know,
Speaker 1: we're going to require that you do this. And by
Speaker 1: the way, speaking of California, you just put up an
Speaker 1: article about helmet laws. But did you see and I
Speaker 1: want to talk about that, but did you see that
Speaker 1: Newsom has now put up a requirement for electric bikes.
Speaker 1: They're going to have to have like fifty percent by
Speaker 1: twenty thirty or something like that.
Speaker 3: Cycles.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, motorcycles. Yeah, they're gonna have to have electric motorcycles.
Speaker 1: And it's got to be like fifty percent by such
Speaker 1: and such a date, and then after that it's going
Speaker 1: to be eventually it's got to be one hundred percent
Speaker 1: electric motorcycles.
Speaker 2: That will get absolutely nowhere. And the reason for that is.
Speaker 2: It's one thing to try to push that on car buyers,
Speaker 2: because a lot of car buyers are they view the
Speaker 2: car as a necessary appliance, you know, they're not necessarily
Speaker 2: enthusiast people like you and I are who have an
Speaker 2: emotional attachment to driving into cars. They just want to
Speaker 2: get from A to B. So you might be able,
Speaker 2: assuming cosses in an issue, to persuade them to drive
Speaker 2: an electric car. Maybe people who ride motorcycles, and I'm one,
Speaker 2: want to ride a motorcycle. They don't want to ride
Speaker 2: something that looks like a motorcycle but isn't one, you know,
Speaker 2: And that's that's what we're talking about here. Something that
Speaker 2: doesn't have an engine, that doesn't have a transmission because
Speaker 2: it's electric. You know, it's just a direct drive, so
Speaker 2: you don't chef anything. Just sit on this thing. It's
Speaker 2: a scooter. It's a fast scooter, but that's what a
Speaker 2: scooter is. It's not going to work. They're not going
Speaker 2: to be able to sell that to people. Now, they
Speaker 2: can try to legislate old motorcycles off the road, and
Speaker 2: I have no doubt they're going to try to do
Speaker 2: that probably, and they will do the same with cars,
Speaker 2: but they're never going to succeed. It's going to put
Speaker 2: companies like Harley Davidson out of business. And Harley Davidson
Speaker 2: is already almost out of business precisely because they've got
Speaker 2: this German CEO who's a big time woke DEI guy
Speaker 2: and who has completely alienated people from most people from
Speaker 2: wanting to buy Harley Davidson motorcycle.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm, yeah, oh yeah, absolutely. Talk about the helmet laws, well, Ben,
Speaker 1: because that's been You've got an article that says why
Speaker 1: helmet laws are silly and tyrannical.
Speaker 2: Well, they're silly in the first place because they're arbitrary.
Speaker 2: You know, we're told I'm told that I have to
Speaker 2: wear a helmet in order to be able to legally
Speaker 2: ride my motorcycle. But I'm able to wear flip flops,
Speaker 2: I'm able to wear shorts and a T shirt if
Speaker 2: I want to, so I guess my head will look
Speaker 2: good in my coffin. I mean, if their argument is
Speaker 2: you know that the thing is about safety, well it
Speaker 2: doesn't make any sense. That's not really a rational position
Speaker 2: to take. And as far as the tyrannical stuff, I
Speaker 2: think it sort of explains itself. It's nobody else's business
Speaker 2: what risks I choose to assume. Of course, the predicate
Speaker 2: is this socialist argument that, well, if you get into
Speaker 2: an accident, society will be made to pay the costs.
Speaker 2: But that presumes that society. You know, that we have
Speaker 2: this socialist system in which what I choose to do
Speaker 2: somehow imposes an obligation on you and other people to
Speaker 2: be responsible for it. And that's outrageous. You know, if
Speaker 2: I choose to ride a motorcycle and flip flops and
Speaker 2: a short and shorts and without a helmet and I wreck,
Speaker 2: well that's on me, you know, morally, and it should
Speaker 2: be legally. It's nobody else's responsibility that I do those things,
Speaker 2: just the same as Look, I choose to go to
Speaker 2: the gym and work out and run because you know,
Speaker 2: I want to try to keep myself in good shape
Speaker 2: and not die prematurely. But I don't think people who
Speaker 2: are overweight and who don't exercise should be fined. I mean,
Speaker 2: we want to have cops walking down the street and
Speaker 2: if they notice you've got a big gut, they roll
Speaker 2: up to you and give you a ticket for posing
Speaker 2: costs on society. You can make exactly the same argument.
Speaker 3: It could happen.
Speaker 1: You know, they've got religious police in Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Speaker 1: so we could.
Speaker 3: Have obesity police. Why not.
Speaker 1: There'd be a source of revenue for them. You know,
Speaker 1: you point out if you question why we should have
Speaker 1: to have a license, ask yourself why George Washington did
Speaker 1: not need a license to operate his horse on the
Speaker 1: public right away?
Speaker 3: And so yeah, exactly that.
Speaker 2: You know, there's another interest, there's another argument that is interesting.
Speaker 2: And again I speak as somebody who's been riding for decades,
Speaker 2: so I feel I have some standing to say this.
Speaker 2: And you know, Dawn and I when we go out
Speaker 2: riding oftentimes we do we do a freedom right and
Speaker 2: we take our helmets off on the back roads. And
Speaker 2: I am always amazed by how much my peripheral vision
Speaker 2: increases when I don't have the stupid helmet on. When
Speaker 2: I have helmet on, i'm sort of blinkered. I can
Speaker 2: see what's ahead of me, but in order to see
Speaker 2: what's on either side of me, I have to rotate
Speaker 2: my head left or right in order to be able
Speaker 2: to see it. Whereas I can look straight ahead and
Speaker 2: have a panoramic view of the road ahead. Also, I
Speaker 2: can hear things much better because my ears aren't stuffed
Speaker 2: up by the helmet. And finally, unless you spend a
Speaker 2: lot of money on an extremely expensive, lightweight helmet, you know,
Speaker 2: your typical moderately priced helmet, which will cost about one
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty bucks or so. You wear that thing
Speaker 2: for an hour and your neck will start to hurt because,
Speaker 2: believe it or not, that slight amount of weight that
Speaker 2: you have added to your head strings your neck, and
Speaker 2: when your neck is strained and your shoulders are stiff,
Speaker 2: not in as good a position to be a competent
Speaker 2: and safe rider, because that's distracted as you would be
Speaker 2: if you're in full command of all your senses. So
Speaker 2: you can make a very persuasive argument in my view,
Speaker 2: that the actual effect of helmets is less safe than
Speaker 2: the hypothetical benefit of wearing the helmet.
Speaker 1: That's right, And I've known people have motorcycle riders. I'm
Speaker 1: not a motorcycle rider myself, but the who said that
Speaker 1: some of these helmets they can add weight, and if
Speaker 1: you don't have something to keep it from going quick
Speaker 1: and snap your neck. If you get into a bad
Speaker 1: accent too, it can increase the chances of that happening.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Sure. And you know, at the end of the day,
Speaker 2: the thing I guess I object to the most is
Speaker 2: this obnoxious, busy body condescending parents of adults. You know,
Speaker 2: I'm a grown man. I can make my own decisions.
Speaker 2: I don't need somebody else trying to hold my hand
Speaker 2: like a good little boy or a bad little boy
Speaker 2: and telling me what I'm allowed to do and what
Speaker 2: I'm not allowed to do. We should be living in
Speaker 2: a free country where adults are free to make cost
Speaker 2: benefit choices, risk reward analysis and be held accountable for
Speaker 2: that absolutely, but be left free to make those decisions
Speaker 2: for themselves.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and we also had all the people out
Speaker 1: there demanding masks, and remember what they said.
Speaker 3: And I'm just like, are you kidding me? That's your argument?
Speaker 1: Said, Well, we can tell you to wear a mask
Speaker 1: because we tell you to wear seat belts. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you to wear motorcycle helmets and all the rest
Speaker 1: of the stuff. I said, Oh, okay, so my seat
Speaker 1: belt protects you, my helmet protects you, and that's why
Speaker 1: I have to wear it. What claim do you have
Speaker 1: on that? And of course my mask doesn't protect you
Speaker 1: either if you've been told that you've believed a lie here.
Speaker 1: But that was the kind of insanity. It's like, well
Speaker 1: we can, and it didn't have anything to do with
Speaker 1: whether any of the stuff was safe or affected.
Speaker 3: They just had to do.
Speaker 1: Well, I've got the authority to tell you that you've
Speaker 1: got to wear a helmet. I've got the authority to
Speaker 1: tell you got to wear a seat belt, so I
Speaker 1: can tell you that you've got to wear a mask.
Speaker 2: But you know, they actually did have a point, and
Speaker 2: that if you accept the idea of the principle that
Speaker 2: it's legitimate for the government to tell you that you
Speaker 2: have to have a car with a seat belt and
Speaker 2: then you have to wear a seatbelt, well doesn't everything
Speaker 2: else follow, You know, it has to be rejected at
Speaker 2: the root. You know, it's not a government's business to
Speaker 2: tell you that you have to buy a car with
Speaker 2: a seatbelt or wear one. And if you go down
Speaker 2: that road, then well, yeah, the government doesn't have any
Speaker 2: business telling you you have to wear a mask or
Speaker 2: a helmet or get a jab from some pharmaceutical company either.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I remember my dad started talking about the license that
Speaker 1: George Washington didn't even have. My dad started driving a
Speaker 1: car when he was eight years old because back then
Speaker 1: there weren't that many cars, and a lot of it
Speaker 1: was off road stuff because they didn't have a lot
Speaker 1: of roads. And if you could find somebody that was
Speaker 1: willing to turn their car over to you, that's the
Speaker 1: key thing, right, If they could trust you with a
Speaker 1: car not to wreck it, you could drive it. And
Speaker 1: in my generation, I started driving motor boats because we
Speaker 1: lived in Florida. I was driving motor boats when I
Speaker 1: was eight, and then when we went to Virginia to
Speaker 1: cover a story, at one point we wanted to rent
Speaker 1: a boat and so we could get a better angle
Speaker 1: at what we were shooting. And I was able to
Speaker 1: do it because of my age. They had a grandfather
Speaker 1: clause there, and this is actually even before I became
Speaker 1: a grandfather, but I was old enough they were calling
Speaker 1: me a grandfather because they knew that people our age
Speaker 1: had been driving boats for a long time, and we're
Speaker 1: going to put up with this licensing stuff, right, So
Speaker 1: they put that requirement on the younger people to get
Speaker 1: them in line. But they said, well, if you're over
Speaker 1: a certain age, you don't need to have a license
Speaker 1: to drive a boat. It's that crazy stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, the really incredible thing is that even doesn't even
Speaker 2: have anything to do with confidence as far as that's right.
Speaker 2: It's purely a government issued ID and it's another obedience
Speaker 2: training session, that's all it is. You know, a pilot
Speaker 2: at least who gets a license to fly a private
Speaker 2: airplane or a commercial airplane actually has to demonstrate that
Speaker 2: he's got the competence to fly the airplane. Nobody has
Speaker 2: to demonstrate any particular competence to get a driver's license.
Speaker 2: So the whole thing is absurd.
Speaker 3: Absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Talk about Clarkson, Jeremy Clarkson, you got an article there.
Speaker 1: He's had an interesting life after cars are no more interesting.
Speaker 1: So now he's doing pubs and he did a farm
Speaker 1: and all the rest of this stuff. Right, But his
Speaker 1: comment about cars, what did he say?
Speaker 2: Well, he used an expletive, which we all know he's right.
Speaker 2: You know, Clarkson is one of the old guys, the
Speaker 2: old guard guys, and you know I admired him when
Speaker 2: I was coming up, and also guys like Brocky, so
Speaker 2: you might remember from the cannonball around those Yes, and
Speaker 2: that was back in the days when car journalists actually
Speaker 2: liked cars. You know, it seems like most of the
Speaker 2: ones that are doing car journalism today actively dislike cars.
Speaker 2: You know, they surely everything that makes cars unpleasant and
Speaker 2: unwanted by people who actually do like cars. You know,
Speaker 2: Clarkson was a gear head and an enthusiast, and so
Speaker 2: that clicked and resonated with you know, guys like me
Speaker 2: when I was coming up, who loved cars. You know,
Speaker 2: He's what he meant by the exclutive was that they're
Speaker 2: all just these homogeneous appliances now that try to parent you,
Speaker 2: that try to data mine you, correct you, and anybody
Speaker 2: who enjoys driving will hate these things. And he's absolutely right.
Speaker 2: And me is an active journalist who reve used cars.
Speaker 2: You can't believe how difficult it is for me sometimes
Speaker 2: to sit down and come up with something positive to
Speaker 2: say about these new cars, or at least I should
Speaker 2: phrase it differently, something different, like what makes this appliance
Speaker 2: different than that appliance? Well, let's see, this appliance has
Speaker 2: a nine inch LCD touchscreen and this one over here
Speaker 2: has a twelve inch touchscreen.
Speaker 1: That's right, you said, for the longest time that just
Speaker 1: turned into mobile cell phones, that you're right inside of
Speaker 1: and Rowan Atkinson played mister Bean a lot of other
Speaker 1: things Blackadder. He's an engineer by trade and became an actor.
Speaker 1: But and he's got these very expensive cars and he's
Speaker 1: had them for a long time, and years ago he said,
Speaker 1: you don't really drive these cars.
Speaker 3: You manage them correct.
Speaker 1: And that's really one of the things that you're talking
Speaker 1: about when you go back in the article, you talk
Speaker 1: about when you're in high school and how you know
Speaker 1: the cars were had their own idiosyncrasies, their own failures,
Speaker 1: leaking roofs and rusty you know, floor pans and all
Speaker 1: the rest of this stuff. But it was fun and
Speaker 1: I had the same kind of experience. We all had
Speaker 1: that experience. You know, we could get a cheap car
Speaker 1: and it was a lot of fun even with all
Speaker 1: those flaws.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this brings up something I wrote about a few
Speaker 2: days ago. You know, Volkswagen has acquired the Rice to
Speaker 2: these Scout name the O International Scout, remember that. Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: and bringing that thing back now as another battery powered
Speaker 2: device that's exorbitantly expensive and YadA, YadA, YadA. But in
Speaker 2: researching the article, I came across some interesting comments by
Speaker 2: the guy who's in charge of this operation, and he
Speaker 2: had the audacity, i think, to refer to this thing
Speaker 2: as a connection machine. Now there's nothing at all in
Speaker 2: this thing that connects you to anything except sensors and actuators.
Speaker 2: You know, they tried to make the interior look like
Speaker 2: the old Scout in that it has levers and so on,
Speaker 2: but those levers don't connect anything. You know, in the
Speaker 2: old International Scout, you had a mechanical lever that connected
Speaker 2: to the four wheel drive and the transfer case, and
Speaker 2: you know you maybe had to get out a manually
Speaker 2: locked put That was connection rolling down a window. That's
Speaker 2: physical mechanical connection. Now you sit inside your rolling app
Speaker 2: and you know, you tap a screen and you push
Speaker 2: a button and the computer then you know, registers whatever
Speaker 2: the data input is and then it decides to do something.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 2: It is the antithesis of being connected in my opinion.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, you're wired and that's it.
Speaker 1: You know, numbing. It's a real numbing experience. Absolutely is
Speaker 1: always great to talk to you. Thank you so much, Eric,
Speaker 1: Eric petersautos dot com always about liberty and about mobility.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, and everyone, have a great weekend
Speaker 1: and hopefully we will see you next week.
Speaker 4: And The David Knight Show is a critical thinking super spreader.
Speaker 4: If you've been exposed to logic by listening to The
Speaker 4: David Night Show, please do your part and try not
Speaker 4: to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about
Speaker 4: the show causes this dangerous information to spread. Father people
Speaker 4: have to trust me, I mean, trust the science. Wear
Speaker 4: you mask, take your vaccine, don't ask questions.
Speaker 3: Using free speech to free minds. It's the David Knight Show.