Speaker 1: You are now entering the stone zone. Well, Homeland Security
Speaker 1: Secretary Mark Wayne Mallin has stepped in it, and the
Speaker 1: backlash was immediate. Speaking at the National Governors Association meeting
Speaker 1: in Oklahoma City, Malin gave an interview which he sounded
Speaker 1: more like a call for comprehensive immigration reform than a
Speaker 1: forceful defense of the administration's current immigration enforcement policies.
Speaker 2: He actually complained.
Speaker 1: That the nation had not seen actual immigration reform since
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty nine, blamed politics for the decades long stalemate,
Speaker 1: and argued for more permanent solutions to address labor shortages,
Speaker 1: including changes in unemployment visa programs. But more importantly, he
Speaker 1: drew a specific distinction between those who were in the
Speaker 1: country illegally but pursuing legal status and the hoses entered
Speaker 1: and remained in the country illegally. That language lacks the
Speaker 1: unmistakable emphasis on enforcement that voters expect. Well, they elected
Speaker 1: Donald Trump president and expected him to restore border security
Speaker 1: and carry out the mass deportations the president promised in
Speaker 1: his campaign. Now this is not an isolated misstep. First
Speaker 1: of all, Mullin is an interesting guy, and the way
Speaker 1: he got to the US Senate which is where he
Speaker 1: was when Donald Trump selected him to replace former Governor
Speaker 1: Christy Nome As he had of the Department Homeland Security
Speaker 1: was very interesting in a crowded field. In twenty twenty two,
Speaker 1: Mark Wayne Mullen took a thirty second radio and television
Speaker 1: ad in which Donald Trump had endorsed him for his
Speaker 1: House seat and put it on statewide, leaving the implication
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump had endorsed him for the US Senate.
Speaker 1: The President never called him on it, nor did anyone else,
Speaker 1: and Mullin was elected to the Senate. He's cultivated this
Speaker 1: reputation and image as a tough guy, but in truth,
Speaker 1: he's never served in the un US military or in
Speaker 1: law enforcement. He was briefly an MMA fighter. This is
Speaker 1: not Mullen's first misstep. One of the major networks reported
Speaker 1: only a week ago that he has managed to ruffle
Speaker 1: feathers at the White House and irk the administration multiple
Speaker 1: times in the four months that he's been at DHS
Speaker 1: reportedly ran into trouble after pausing ICE's vehicle stops policy
Speaker 1: after fatal shootings in Texas and Maine. President Trump quickly
Speaker 1: and publicly reversed that decision because Mullen never got approval
Speaker 1: through the White House chain of command. According to a
Speaker 1: White House official that I spoke to one of the
Speaker 1: networks quoted someone is saying every cabinet secretary knows they
Speaker 1: have to come to the White House for major policy decisions.
Speaker 1: The President sees and hears and reads everything. Mullen also
Speaker 1: misspoke during a CNN interview recently when discussing a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court ruling on protected status for immigrants from Hawaii, Haiti,
Speaker 1: and Siria, saying that hundreds of thousands could apply for
Speaker 1: legal status, which they could not. This, according to the report,
Speaker 1: was annoying to some in the White House. The DHS
Speaker 1: secretary also reportedly raised concerns with his nomination of Lance
Speaker 1: Schreyer to be the new ICE Director. The former incident
Speaker 1: commander from the Oklahoma Highway Patrol is a long time
Speaker 1: crony of Mullen, but many are concerned that he lacks
Speaker 1: the proper experience for the ICE roll. One person reportedly
Speaker 1: concerned about Schroyer's Trump borders are Tom Homan. Tom Holman
Speaker 1: and others are particularly thrilled with him. At administration. Source
Speaker 1: told one of the networks the White House moved quickly
Speaker 1: to tried to smooth things over, but to his credit,
Speaker 1: Mark Wayne Mullen was in full retreat within forty eight hours,
Speaker 1: posting on his social media platform x no amnesty for
Speaker 1: illegal aliens ever, meaning that Mark Wayne got with the program.
Speaker 1: But there are some who are already saying that Mark
Speaker 1: Wayne Mullen was too interested in sucking up with two
Speaker 1: of the Democrat governors who are considered contenders in the
Speaker 1: presidential ration. Twenty eight, Mullin highlighted what he said a
Speaker 1: really good relationships with Democrat governors, including Josh Shapiro of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and Wes Moore of West Virginia, who have both
Speaker 1: consistently opposed every policy of the Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: and ICE. He's also received praise from them for his
Speaker 1: recent remarks at the Governor's Conference, who portrayed his comments
Speaker 1: as a refreshing departure from the administration's tougher immigration policy.
Speaker 1: These are not allies in the effort to enforce pederal
Speaker 1: immigration law. They're elected officials whose records have repeatedly favored
Speaker 1: expanded legal pathways, reduced enforcement, and policies that make it
Speaker 1: more difficult for ICE to perform ITTs mission. The question
Speaker 1: is not whether the Secretary should maintain professional working relationships
Speaker 1: with governors or both states and all parties. Of course
Speaker 1: you should. The concern is why appear so overly eager
Speaker 1: to seek common political ground with officials who spent years
Speaker 1: resisting immigration enforcement and challenging the work of federal agents.
Speaker 1: The Department of Home and Security exists to secure the
Speaker 1: nation's borders, protect the homeland, and enforce immigration law. Immigration
Speaker 1: and customers enforcement exists to identify, detain, and remove those
Speaker 1: who have violated that law. Publicly embracing officials who oppose
Speaker 1: those objectives sends exactly the wrong message at precisely at
Speaker 1: the wrong time. American people didn't vote for another round
Speaker 1: of bipartisan immigration negotiations or carefully calibrated reformed proposals. They
Speaker 1: voted for enforcement to terrence, and the restoration of American sovereignty.
Speaker 1: After years of unprecedented illegal immigration in which during Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's presidency, they essentially opened our border, we had no policy.
Speaker 1: The American people expected a government under Donald Trump that
Speaker 1: would faithfully execute existing law before entertaining discussions about changing it.
Speaker 1: Every public statement from the nation's top homeland security officials
Speaker 1: should reinforce that mandate, not blur it. As I said
Speaker 1: in full retreat mullin later posts on social media, no
Speaker 1: ambasty for illegals. Ever, that statement was both welcome and necessary,
Speaker 1: but was also kind of a cya statement that the
Speaker 1: need for such rapid clarification illustrates exactly the problem you see.
Speaker 1: A secretary fully alied with the president's agenda should not
Speaker 1: have to issue public corrections to raisure supporters that the
Speaker 1: administrator remains committed to enforcement first Mark Way. Mullen occupys
Speaker 1: one of the most important national security positions in the
Speaker 1: federal government. Every word he speaks carries weight, both at
Speaker 1: home and abroad. When his rhetoric appears to soften the
Speaker 1: administration's immigration agenda while earning praise from left wing politicians
Speaker 1: who have consistently opposed the DHS and ICE policies, he
Speaker 1: actually raises questions about his priorities and his directions. Some
Speaker 1: have even floated the idea that Trump should replace Mullen
Speaker 1: with hard, hard charging bulldog Bill Pochi, who is the
Speaker 1: currently the head of the Federal Housing and Finance Administration,
Speaker 1: but who recently stepped down as the acting director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence. I love this quote, picked up by the
Speaker 1: UK Daily Mail. One White House official set it takes
Speaker 1: a lot to unite the administration around a cohesive point
Speaker 1: of view. But you've got to give Mulling credit where
Speaker 1: credit is due. Everyone agrees he sucks donkey. But that
Speaker 1: was a colorful comment. Picked up by the UK Daily Mail.
Speaker 1: He is a politician and unclear whether he's really qualified
Speaker 1: for this job. The American people expect results, not mixed signals.
Speaker 1: They deserve the leadership that they voted for in the
Speaker 1: last presidential election. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden says he's broke America's
Speaker 1: favorite drug addol degenerate son of President Hunter of the President.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden contingents claim that he and his family are
Speaker 1: flat broke. I'm not sure how that could be, considering
Speaker 1: his ellequative, politically connected life, in which the House Oversight
Speaker 1: Committee proved that the Biden family, his father, his brother,
Speaker 1: his uncle pardon me, his father's brother and his uncle
Speaker 1: took in millions of dollars from China, Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: Could he really have spent the tens of million dollars
Speaker 1: that he reportedly gotten in the crooked Barisma deal? On
Speaker 1: crack cocaine alone. By the way, he never really sold
Speaker 1: his Barisma stock. He merely transferred. It doesn't seem plausible,
Speaker 1: but in a deposition involving the law firm Winston Taylor,
Speaker 1: that's the law firm of Abby Lowell Biden he had
Speaker 1: not pay the seventeen million dollars owed for representation in
Speaker 1: criminal cases, congressional investigations in civil litigations.
Speaker 2: Now know Abbey Lole.
Speaker 1: He was unsuccessful in his defense a former New York
Speaker 1: Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno, who was later cleared in
Speaker 1: a subsequent appeal trial. He was also unsuccessful in saving
Speaker 1: the career of New Jersey Senator Bob torres Sally. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling, however, that Hunter Biden is going to
Speaker 1: stiff Abbey Lowell. He testified that he owns nothing valuable
Speaker 1: beyond his paintings. They're real doozies. He says he has
Speaker 1: no stocks, no bonds, no savings, no car or no phone.
Speaker 1: He also insists that his entire family has no money,
Speaker 1: though the article that I read notes to Joe and
Speaker 1: Joe Biden see book deals. While the former president collects
Speaker 1: more than four hundred thousand dollars annually in government pensions.
Speaker 1: You also have to wonder what happened to the nearly
Speaker 1: one million dollars that the Chinese government fundled to Joe
Speaker 1: Biden through the University of Pennsylvania. Throughout his presidents his
Speaker 1: father's presidency, Hunter Biden reported he lived in mansions and
Speaker 1: luxury hotels, supported by wealthy Democrat donors and friends. They
Speaker 1: say he accumulated millions through alleged influence pedaling and questionable
Speaker 1: form of dealings, including threatening message to a Chinese businessman
Speaker 1: invoking his father's president's connections. His artwork attracted buyers while
Speaker 1: Joe was still in office, but those sales to appear
Speaker 1: to have dried up. Turns out Hunter was not an
Speaker 1: artistic savant, and those art payments were instead part of
Speaker 1: an obvious money laundering and influence pedaling schemes. I raised
Speaker 1: this only because days ago he was right back to it,
Speaker 1: claiming that his laptop, as we now have confirmed, was
Speaker 1: not real and that Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, and
Speaker 1: Roger Stone somehow got screenshots and falsified his laptop. The
Speaker 1: laptop is absolutely real, and it's shocking if you'd like
Speaker 1: to see those shocking and records, you can go to
Speaker 1: Marcopolo dot org. Marcopolo dot Org. I think Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: has the money, but he now presents himself as a
Speaker 1: pendulist victim of debt generated by defending his degenerate conduct.
Speaker 1: He's likely hiding money somewhere, hoping he dishonestly can stiffest credits.
Speaker 1: Once a low life, always a low life. Thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us today in the Stone Zone. I'm Roger Stone.
Speaker 1: We have addressed the question of Secretary of Housing and
Speaker 1: Apartment Secretary of Homeland Security, who, as I say, stepped in.
Speaker 1: And when we come back, I want to talk about
Speaker 1: Catherine Herridge. I think she's one of the finest investigative
Speaker 1: journalists of our generation, and I think she's being harassed.
Speaker 1: We'll be talking about that on the other side. Zone,
Speaker 1: don't go away, Welcome back into the Stone Zone. If
Speaker 1: I didn't make it clear in the last segment anything,
Speaker 1: I know. Everything I know about Hunter Biden's laptop I
Speaker 1: read in the New York Post through the great reporting
Speaker 1: of Miranda Divine. In other words, I never had or
Speaker 1: saw Hunter Biden's laptop contents until I read about it
Speaker 1: in the post and any claim by Hunter Biden to
Speaker 1: the contrary's false. At one point, is lawyers sent me
Speaker 1: a threatening letter telling me I should preserve all of
Speaker 1: my records. That would be easy because that would be
Speaker 1: no records whatsoever. This guy really is pathetic. By the way,
Speaker 1: now he was talking about running for vice president. I
Speaker 1: kind of liked that idea, the Kamala Harris Hunter Biden ticket.
Speaker 1: We should be so lucky. The coordinated censorship campaign by
Speaker 1: the fake news media regarding doctor Anthony Fauci's newly released
Speaker 1: diary entries demonstrates why independent media or people or networks
Speaker 1: like the Red Apple Network are growing in strength. A
Speaker 1: Media Research Center analysis found scant or almost non existent
Speaker 1: coverage across ABC, CBS, NBC, Apple News, Google News, and MSN.
Speaker 1: After Senator Rayin Paul's office release the embarrassing and legally
Speaker 1: problematic diary records, I had a Fauci's senate testimony. The
Speaker 1: diary's address Fauci's obsession with his media celebrity, his private
Speaker 1: doubts that COVID nineteen originated in a wet market, his
Speaker 1: thinking about school closures. He specifically said publicly that he
Speaker 1: never advocated the closing in any schools. His diary, for example,
Speaker 1: showed others as well as the comments regarding the lability theory,
Speaker 1: as well as coordination with prominent journalists, control the narrative
Speaker 1: and suppressed the truth about the pandemic's real origins. Yet
Speaker 1: the Media Research Center only found ten major stories on
Speaker 1: major news apps, and to combine twenty seven minutes of
Speaker 1: network broadcast coverage, we covered more than that right here
Speaker 1: in the Stone Zone. Much of the attention arrived on
Speaker 1: the hearing day, reducing the diary disclosures to background material,
Speaker 1: while the coverage emphasized the hearings partsying conflict. Now, I
Speaker 1: am not among those who criticizes Fauci for asserting his
Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment rights. However, in a court of law, he
Speaker 1: would not have been able to assert his Fifth Amendment
Speaker 1: rights because he has a preemptive presidential pardon for the
Speaker 1: period in which he was being questioned about. So, in
Speaker 1: other words, in court, he would have had been compelled
Speaker 1: to testify or face contempt charges in this particular case. However,
Speaker 1: to be absolutely clear, asserting one's Fifth Amendment right is not,
Speaker 1: despite what Senator Josh always said, is not proof of guilt.
Speaker 1: I myself pled the fifth before the January sixth Committee
Speaker 1: because I knew it was a witch hun I knew
Speaker 1: it was an illegally constituted committee. I knew that they
Speaker 1: had coached witnesses to lie, particularly about me and my
Speaker 1: friend General Flynn, that they had used fabricated AI generated
Speaker 1: videos and audios. And I had extensive experience in the
Speaker 1: way democrats twist in actuous misstatements that are immaterial and
Speaker 1: have no underlying crime to be process crimes. So I'm
Speaker 1: not surprised that Fauchi took the fifth. Where I think
Speaker 1: israel liability lies are the difference between his public statements
Speaker 1: and what's in the diary, and of course the media
Speaker 1: covered that almost not at all. I guess if I
Speaker 1: were the Attorney General of the United States, who's clearly
Speaker 1: at this point Piers going to be Todd Blanche now
Speaker 1: that the two senators who are holding up his nomination
Speaker 1: seem to have folded, I would pursue the false statements
Speaker 1: charges where he's testified before the Senate saying that the
Speaker 1: weaponization of the COVID nineteen vaccination, the gain of function
Speaker 1: that you and I paid for, did not come from
Speaker 1: the Wuhan, Chinese lab That's a simple crime, much more
Speaker 1: simpler to prosecute than crimes against humanity. Fauci's lawyers would
Speaker 1: immediately respond that he can't be prosecuted because he has
Speaker 1: a preemptive pardon. The Justice Department could argue that pardon
Speaker 1: is invalid because it was signed by Autopen, and the
Speaker 1: Autopen would be before the courts for adjudication in terms
Speaker 1: of whether an autopen signature that Joe Biden clearly knows
Speaker 1: nothing whatsoever about provides the legal protection that people like
Speaker 1: doctor Fauci claim it did. I'm Roger Stone will gripe
Speaker 1: back when we come back on talking about Katherine Herridge.
Speaker 1: I think she's the greatest investigative journalist of the day.
Speaker 2: Don't go away.
Speaker 1: Catherine Herridge is one of the finest investigative journalists of
Speaker 1: her generation. An Emmy Award winning reporter with the decades
Speaker 1: of experience covering terrorism, intelligence, national security, and law enforcement.
Speaker 1: She built her reputation in the old fashioned way by
Speaker 1: cultivating sources, verifying facts, and publishing stories that powerful people
Speaker 1: often wish had never seen the light of day. Whether
Speaker 1: she was at ABC News, Fox News, or CBS News
Speaker 1: Heriage earned the respect of colleagues and government officials alike
Speaker 1: because she was meticulous, fearless, loyal, honest, courageous, and relentless
Speaker 1: in pursuing the truth. Those very qualities have now made
Speaker 1: her the target of a legal campaign so evil and
Speaker 1: so vindictive that it should alarm every American who still
Speaker 1: believes in a free press. See Catherine Herridge's legal ordeal
Speaker 1: began in twenty seventeen in an investigation she purported on
Speaker 1: while at Fox News, concerning Yan paying Chen, a Chinese
Speaker 1: American scientist whose Virginia institution had received Department of Defense
Speaker 1: now called the Department of War funding, while also attracting
Speaker 1: FBI counterintelligence scrutiny over alleged ties to China's People's Liberation Army.
Speaker 1: Chen was never charged with a crime, but later sued
Speaker 1: the federal government, claiming the officials had improperly leaked information
Speaker 1: about the investigation. When years of litigation failed to identify
Speaker 1: the alleged government source, the lawyers then turned their attention
Speaker 1: to Herodge herself, demanding that the reporter reveal the confidential
Speaker 1: sources who had entrusted her with the information. She refused,
Speaker 1: honoring the most fundamental obligation of any serious investigative journalists.
Speaker 1: That refusal has come at a financially debilitating personal cost,
Speaker 1: which I learned about when Herodge herself described it publicly
Speaker 1: on her social media page on x. Rather than accept
Speaker 1: the principle that reporters must be able to protect confidential sources,
Speaker 1: the courts have attempted to force Catherine Herridge into submission
Speaker 1: through finding punishment. She's been held in civil contempt in
Speaker 1: order to pay eight hundred dollars a day, every single day,
Speaker 1: until she agrees to betray the people who place their
Speaker 1: trust in her and expected confidentiality when they spoke as
Speaker 1: a confidential source. Imagine that for a moment. Do you
Speaker 1: have eight hundred dollars a day?
Speaker 2: I don't. Now.
Speaker 1: There are efforts to increase those penalties dramatically to five
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a day, while preventing outside organizations from helping
Speaker 1: pay them. The strategy here is as transparent as as reprehensible.
Speaker 1: If they cannot force her to surrender voluntarily, they intend
Speaker 1: to bankrupt her into compliance. That's not justice, it's persecution.
Speaker 1: It's difficult to escape the conclusion that some people will
Speaker 1: not be satisfied until Catherine Arige has been financially destroyed
Speaker 1: and is living in abject poverty, which is what these
Speaker 1: fines are designed to do to her. The objective is
Speaker 1: not simply to collect the file's objectives to make an
Speaker 1: example of Katherine Ergey. They seek to inflict such overwhelming
Speaker 1: economic and emotional pressure that no journalists will ever dare
Speaker 1: to promise confidentiality to a government source. They actually appear
Speaker 1: determined to hound her until she has nothing left, as
Speaker 1: they will not rest until she's reduced to living in
Speaker 1: the gutter and aiding garbage for the unforgivable offense of
Speaker 1: keeping her word and protecting her sources. This is nothing
Speaker 1: less than an assault on investigative journalism itself. If Frank
Speaker 1: short Handy is right, journalism is dead. Confidential sources are
Speaker 1: not some modern invention or legal loophole. They are the
Speaker 1: lifeblood of accountability reporting. Without confidential sources, there would be
Speaker 1: no Pentagon papers. There would have been no Watergate, there
Speaker 1: would be no whistleblowers exposing corruption inside the intelligence agencies.
Speaker 1: There would be no federal law enforcement sources or national
Speaker 1: security establishment. Corruption could go unabated because there would be
Speaker 1: no whistleblowers. Every major scandal involving government's conduct has depended
Speaker 1: upon brave individuals willing to step forward and speak only
Speaker 1: because they believed a journalist would protect their identity. Destroy
Speaker 1: that trust and you completely destroy investigative journalism. Now, Catherine
Speaker 1: Herridge's reporting has consistently focused on subjects many establishment journalists
Speaker 1: either ignored or dismissed. Included terrorism, foreign intelligence operations, Chinese espionage,
Speaker 1: and government accountability. These are precise to the areas where
Speaker 1: confidential sources are actually indispensable. Every intelligence officer, every law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer, every government official contemplating exposing wrongdoing is now
Speaker 1: watching Catherine Herriage's case unfold. The message they're receiving could
Speaker 1: not be clear. If you speak to a reporter, the
Speaker 1: government may pursue that reporter relentlessly until your identity is exposed.
Speaker 1: That chilling effects is exactly what may be this case
Speaker 1: so dangerous yet so important. The victim is not merely
Speaker 1: Catherine Herridge. The victim is every future whistleblower who may
Speaker 1: now decide that speaking the truth simply carries too gray
Speaker 1: of a personal risk. What makes the silence of much
Speaker 1: of the corporate media, especially shameful as the fact that
Speaker 1: the principal of state transcends politics. Whether a journalist works
Speaker 1: for Fox News, CBS News, The New York Times, or
Speaker 1: an independent outlet is beside the point. Really, either journalists
Speaker 1: have the ability to protect confidential sources or they do not.
Speaker 1: Once that principle is compromised, every newsroom becomes vulnerable, every
Speaker 1: investigative reporter becomes a potential target. Catherine Herridge could end
Speaker 1: this ordeal tomorrow by simply surrendering the identities of the
Speaker 1: people who trusted her and spare herself these mounting legal
Speaker 1: bills and crushing daily finds. Instead, she's chosen honor over
Speaker 1: convenions and professional ethics over personal comfort. She refused to
Speaker 1: break her word despite extraordinary pressure designed to make that
Speaker 1: promise impossible to keep. That is courage, that is sacrificed.
Speaker 1: That is principal. History has repeatedly vindicated those who refuse
Speaker 1: to abandon principle when the cost became unbearable. Catherine Herridge
Speaker 1: is not merely defending herself. She's defending one of the
Speaker 1: cornerstones of a free society. If those determined to financially
Speaker 1: crush or succeed, they will not simply silence one courageous journalist.
Speaker 1: They will actually intimidate an entire generation of reporters and whistleblowers.
Speaker 1: Every American who values the First Amendment should recognize exactly
Speaker 1: what's happening here. Catherine Herrids is paying an extraordinary personal
Speaker 1: price to preserve a principle, but it protects all of us.
Speaker 1: She deserves our gratitude, our admiration, and her unwavering support,
Speaker 1: not a legal campaign calculated to bankrupt and destroy Earth.
Speaker 1: Reading about this case, I felt strongly about talking about
Speaker 1: it in the Stone Zone today, and I'm happy that
Speaker 1: I did, speaking of those in the media who are contemptible.
Speaker 1: CNN reporter Dana Bash was recently humbled and humiliated during
Speaker 1: an encounter with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Junior. During
Speaker 1: a contentious interview, Bash pressed Kennedy to urge parents to
Speaker 1: vaccinate children against measles. Kennedy was happy to do so,
Speaker 1: navigating easily out of Bashe's pathetic gotcha attempt. The dispute
Speaker 1: then shifted to covid era policy, with Kennedy arguing that
Speaker 1: Lockdown's inflicted enormous danger, damaged to the country and that
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump had pushed Anthony Fauci to reopen the country.
Speaker 1: Bash accused Kennedy of encouraging vaccine hesitancy. Kenn responded that
Speaker 1: her response was not to eliminate hesitancy, but to tell
Speaker 1: Americans the truth that distinction is analytically important. I believe
Speaker 1: public confidence canp be restored by demanding deference. It depends
Speaker 1: on transparent evidence, open debate, and accountability when the authorities
Speaker 1: are wrong. Particularly when Bash cited numerous big farmer backed studies,
Speaker 1: Kennedy accused her of repeating conclusions without being prepared to
Speaker 1: debate the underlying science. He then argued that Fauci misled
Speaker 1: the public about masks, distancing natural immunity, vaccine transmission, and
Speaker 1: COVID's origins, while media outlets punish people who questioned experts,
Speaker 1: with those assertions now being unassailably true. Kennedy, who has
Speaker 1: without question my favorite cabinet officer, strongest point was broader
Speaker 1: than any single medical claim. Expertise is not self validating,
Speaker 1: and journalism fails when it substitutes credentials and consensus slogans
Speaker 1: for scrutiny. Even correct recommendations become less persuasive. When delivered
Speaker 1: through coercion, or when past errors are dismissed or ignored.
Speaker 1: This is where the establishment has such massive credibility problems.
Speaker 1: It isn't because of conspiracy theories. It's because they have
Speaker 1: repeatedly failed.
Speaker 2: Us.
Speaker 1: Bash disingenually framed Kennedy's skepticism as dangerous messaging. Kennedy countered,
Speaker 1: the suppressing questions is more dangerous because it destroys institutional credibility.
Speaker 1: Until they remedy their ways, more people will question vaccinations
Speaker 1: and other drugs produced by big farmer in the hopes
Speaker 1: of reclaiming their health from corporate monoliths. Meanwhile, in the
Speaker 1: Texas Senate race, which all eyes are on Texas US
Speaker 1: Senate Canada, James Tallerico cynically representing progressive policy as Christian doctrine,
Speaker 1: exploring the example of Christ to selling government run healthcare agenda.
Speaker 1: Yes you heard me right. Speaking at a church in DeSoto, Texas,
Speaker 1: Tallarico argued that America should finish the work of President
Speaker 1: Obama declaring healthcare a human right rather than a privilege.
Speaker 1: He pointed to Jesus healing miracles and Matthew twenty five
Speaker 1: his evidence as Christians should support his plan, which includes
Speaker 1: allowing Americans to buy into Medicare through a non public
Speaker 1: public option, expanding drug price negotiations, and capping out of
Speaker 1: pocket costs. But the argument does more than advocate policy.
Speaker 1: It recasts a political program that would essentially give the
Speaker 1: government the policy and the power to play God as
Speaker 1: a religious obligation, implying that Christians who reject government funded
Speaker 1: health care are resisting Christ's example. This is a familiar
Speaker 1: tactic among fire left politicians. They borrow the moral authority
Speaker 1: of Christianity while redefining its teachings to serve their partisan agenda,
Speaker 1: which is vehemently anti American and anti freedom. Tall Ico
Speaker 1: previously offended his abortion position by claiming that the Virgin
Speaker 1: Mary's consent supporting creation through consent, describing himself as a
Speaker 1: Christian who hates Christianity, arguing that God is non binary,
Speaker 1: claiming that there are six by logical sexs, and citing
Speaker 1: the agnostic Gospel of Thomas while.
Speaker 2: Speaking at a church.
Speaker 1: It's pretty clear that tallar rico Its interpretative of christian
Speaker 1: is far different than the average American or mine. Tall
Speaker 1: Rico shamelessly turns Jesus personal ministry of healing into a
Speaker 1: mandate for the government to take over your private life.
Speaker 1: I don't expect the people of Texas to go for
Speaker 1: this vegan who praises radical Islam but still claims to
Speaker 1: be a Christian. They have the people of Texas traditional values.
Speaker 1: They don't want to be lectured by someone who clearly
Speaker 1: looks down on them with contempt. I believe tall Rico
Speaker 1: will be crushed in this year's midterm elections by the
Speaker 1: Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who won his primary after
Speaker 1: being endorsed by President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, comes news that
Speaker 1: the two Senators Tom Tillis and John Corney from Texas
Speaker 1: who were holding up the nomination of the acting Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Todd Blanche to be Attorney Generalized States, finally folded. Blanche
Speaker 1: has now said dozens of times on the record that
Speaker 1: the weaponization fund that had been proposed for those who
Speaker 1: were indeed the victory's of weaponization is no longer being planned.
Speaker 1: The two senators extracted that in writing and appears the opposition.
Speaker 2: Has folded.
Speaker 1: This compromise is put together by Senator Chuck Grassley, the
Speaker 1: oldest and I think longest serving member of the US
Speaker 1: Senate today, showing that in your nineties you can still
Speaker 1: do good public works. I think Todd Blanche is going
Speaker 1: to do a great job, largely because he has given
Speaker 1: substantial resources to the prosecutor in South Florida, including the
Speaker 1: appointment of Joe Di Genova, a former US attorney to
Speaker 1: look into the Russian collusion oaks, the greatest single dirty
Speaker 1: trick and abuse of power in American political or legal street.
Speaker 1: So good news on the Senate confirmation of Todd Blanche
Speaker 1: to be Attorney General of the United States. When we
Speaker 1: come back and we talk about the way California is
Speaker 1: actually subsidizing junkies. Their new harm reduction experiments crossed from
Speaker 1: misguided compassion and taxpayer funded and enablement of bums, low
Speaker 1: lives and junkies. I'm Roger Stone. You're listening to the
Speaker 1: Stone Zone. Don't go away, because well we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Stone Zone. As I said, California
Speaker 1: is now actually subsidizing junkies. California's harm reduction experiment has
Speaker 1: crossed from misguided compassion into the taxpayer funded enablement of bums,
Speaker 1: low lives, and junkies. Governor Gavin Newsom's administrations supporting programs
Speaker 1: that are funded in tasks for distributing syringes, glass pipes,
Speaker 1: and containers used to repair injectable drugs. At Los Angeles
Speaker 1: County's skid Row Area, investigators reportedly obtained drug testing strips, needles,
Speaker 1: and crack or meth pipes without identification, screening, or any
Speaker 1: other requirement to enter treatment. Workers told visitors they can
Speaker 1: use drugs just outside the facility without interference unless they overdosed.
Speaker 1: The campus also provides food, laundry, medical services, dog daycare, meditation,
Speaker 1: cart parking, and entertainment for the junkies. Even though they're
Speaker 1: provided with all of these lavish taxpayer funded amenities, there
Speaker 1: are still open drug use disorder and dealers fighting over
Speaker 1: guests and customers nearby. The financial structure makes the policy
Speaker 1: even more absurd. The campus reportedly receives twenty six million
Speaker 1: dollars annually in local, state, and federal funding, while participating
Speaker 1: nonprofits have experienced major revenue growth. Turns out that exploiting
Speaker 1: the idiocy of liberals is big successful business. Taxpayers are
Speaker 1: not merely financing emergency care or pathways to sobriety, which
Speaker 1: would be understandable. Rather, they are underwriting the tools and
Speaker 1: surroundings that make addiction easier and less prosecutable. Liberals claim
Speaker 1: harm reduction can lead units towards treatment, but the facts
Speaker 1: are shown this is simply not the case. A system
Speaker 1: requires no enforcement mandates for treatment, sobriety, identification or meaningful
Speaker 1: interventionury moves the very incentives needed for recovery. The practical
Speaker 1: effect here is hell on earth. The practical effect is
Speaker 1: human suffering and misery. Real compassion would prioritize detoxification, secure treatment,
Speaker 1: mental health care, and sustain recovery. Handing vulnerable people the
Speaker 1: equipment needed to consume lethal drugs with our public tax
Speaker 1: money sustains the operation improves. It has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with mercy. We are subsidizing addiction, enriching service providers, destabilizing neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: and turning the taxpayers into an illegal drug pusher. These
Speaker 1: are under Gavinusum abominable policies, and Newsom should be ashamed
Speaker 1: of himself for what he is willing to do for
Speaker 1: the purposes of political pandering. Heading into twenty twenty eight,
Speaker 1: and here's no surprise, Foreign to Democrats have made wealth
Speaker 1: confiscation an official party position, showing how policies once confined
Speaker 1: to the socialist fringe now dominate the Democrat mainstream. Politico
Speaker 1: reported that the California Democratic Party endorses Proposition forty and
Speaker 1: have ever bound initiative imposing at one time five percent
Speaker 1: tax on residents worth at least one billion. Left wing
Speaker 1: supporters of the wealth tax say could raise roughly one
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars, primarily to offset health care funding reductions.
Speaker 1: The proposed tax accumulated wealth rather than ordinary annual income.
Speaker 1: This reflects a distinctly Marxist premise. Private fortunes are treated
Speaker 1: as public resources available for seizure whenever politicians declaring social
Speaker 1: need when the government spends itself into oblivion, just come
Speaker 1: in and devastate wealth, rather being forced to rate itself
Speaker 1: in This is very contradictory. The principle that America is
Speaker 1: founded on success was never meant to be something for
Speaker 1: the government to punish. Even Governor Gavin Newsom and other
Speaker 1: prominent Democrats. Several laboralizations have opposed the measure, warning about
Speaker 1: its obviously calamitous economic consequences, Yet the state party's executive
Speaker 1: board cided with the initiatives. Socialists, fire left organizers, and
Speaker 1: issued its endorsement of Proposition forty. The radical left is
Speaker 1: no longer merely pressuring Democratic leaders from outside. It's actually
Speaker 1: winning official party approval for direct wealth taxation, despite resistance
Speaker 1: from the party's own establishment figures. Today's democratic mainstream increasingly
Speaker 1: accepts classicor politics selective confiscation of wealth, health, and government
Speaker 1: claims on privately accumulated assets. What socialists once demanded through
Speaker 1: protest slogans, California Democrats now endorse through their party machinery
Speaker 1: and may soon ask the voters to impose through law
Speaker 1: the nightmareage taken hold in so many other countries. It
Speaker 1: was going to come to our shores, and only President
Speaker 1: Trump and the Republicans can't stop it. So thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us today in the Stone Zone. We covered
Speaker 1: a lot of territory. I wanted to get to the
Speaker 1: fact that Cuba was experiencing these extraordinary blackouts, but I
Speaker 1: ran out of time, so we'll save that for tomorrow.
Speaker 1: So until tomorrow, God bless you and godspeed, come into
Speaker 1: the Stone Zone when everyone to hear the inside skinny
Speaker 1: out American politics. We'll be back tomorrow