Speaker 1: The newest trend of unconservative young people is Nixon maxing.
Speaker 1: A recent article in The Wall Street Journal described the phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Nixon has become a popular figure in viral YouTube, Instagram
Speaker 1: and TikTok videos, where his archival footage is typically paired
Speaker 1: with rap music. The Nixon Foundation is actively pushing this content. Now,
Speaker 1: some of this hoopla is mere nostalgia, Nixon maxing, hats
Speaker 1: and Nixon geear Nixon now more than ever, items, and
Speaker 1: so on.
Speaker 2: But there's more to it than this.
Speaker 1: Nixon maxing means maxing out on Nixon, going all in
Speaker 1: on Nixon, in a sense, resurrecting Nixon from the dustment
Speaker 1: of history and making him an important and relevant figure again.
Speaker 1: Nixon has become the younger generation's uncool cool guy. The
Speaker 1: Nixon revival is a bit surprising because for the past
Speaker 1: several decades, the iconic conservative figure was Reagan. Reagan dominated
Speaker 1: the era from nineteen eighty to two thousand and eight
Speaker 1: these are my dates for the Reagan era, and Trump
Speaker 1: has dominated from twenty fifteen to now. Other figures Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford,
Speaker 1: the two Bushes have been consigned to the shadows. To
Speaker 1: the hazy background of history. Young conservatives, however, seem a
Speaker 1: bit out of sync with Reagan. They don't identify with
Speaker 1: Reagan's sunny optimism, his big sky conservatism, and so they've
Speaker 1: picked Nixon as a sort of anti Reagan. They picked
Speaker 1: the guy the left hated the most, the president they've
Speaker 1: tried to stomp on for fifty years, and that guy
Speaker 1: is now their new hero. Now I'm not a Nixon Maxer,
Speaker 1: but I think the reappraisal of Nixon is both welcome
Speaker 1: and overdue. Jade Vance recently said nice things about Nixon
Speaker 1: at the Nixon Library, comparing Nixon to Trump. To give
Speaker 1: my own take on Nixon, which comes not from a
Speaker 1: millennial or gen Z, but from someone who came to
Speaker 1: America as a teenager in the aftermath of the Nixon era.
Speaker 1: I came to America in nineteen seventy eight. Nixon had
Speaker 1: been out of office for four years, and Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: was elected in nineteen seventy six. Now, Republicans suffered a
Speaker 1: terrible wipeout in the midterm election of nineteen seventy four.
Speaker 1: This was the year Nixon resigned his office. Ford was
Speaker 1: the well meaning but clumsy successor. Nixon's failure, I have
Speaker 1: to say, gave Democrats not only the presidency, but large
Speaker 1: majorities in the House and the Senate. Yes, Nixon one
Speaker 1: forty nine states in nineteen seventy two, but he still
Speaker 1: never had the sweeping control of the government that his
Speaker 1: removal and disgrace gave the Democrats. Jimmy Carter almost destroyed
Speaker 1: the country until the American people came to their census
Speaker 1: and elected Reagan. Reagan defined a whole era as Nixon
Speaker 1: did not. Both served two terms and both one with
Speaker 1: big majority. But Reagan had a revolution and Nixon didn't.
Speaker 1: Reagan brought the top marginal tax rate down from seventy
Speaker 1: percent to twenty eight percent. Reagan won the Cold War,
Speaker 1: helped deliberate Eastern Europe, and brought down Soviet Communism itself.
Speaker 1: Now what does Nixon have.
Speaker 2: To compare to that.
Speaker 1: Well, Nixon went to China and he played an important
Speaker 1: role in breaking a potential Soviet Chinese alliance. In a way,
Speaker 1: he separated the Russian Communists from the Chinese communists. Nixon's
Speaker 1: bold move did contain Soviet expansion, but it opened a
Speaker 1: pathway to closer ties with China. And what has that
Speaker 1: brought us well a mixed bag. China was a sleepy,
Speaker 1: backward nation when Nixon went there. Since Nixon opened up China,
Speaker 1: it's become more dangerous than the Soviet Union ever was.
Speaker 1: It's now an economic and military juggernaut, basically the manufacturing
Speaker 1: hub of the world, and China's become our new rival
Speaker 1: and adversary. So the Soviet bear has been displaced by
Speaker 1: the Chinese dragon. Reagan described the Soviet Union as an
Speaker 1: evil empire. Nixon never understood the ideological dimension of Soviet totalitarianism.
Speaker 1: For him, the Russians were no different than the Prussian
Speaker 1: Empire or Napoleon. Nixon studied Klauswitz and Sunsu to learn
Speaker 1: how great powers deal with one another. Nixon was into
Speaker 1: the art of warfare because that's what statesmanship was for him,
Speaker 1: and art. He agreed with the Democrats and the need
Speaker 1: for arms control, but insisted on what he called hard
Speaker 1: headed deton He scorned Reagan's goal of rolling back the
Speaker 1: Soviet Empire itself, regarding that prospect as an ideological pipe dream, foolish, reckless,
Speaker 1: and dangerous. Now domestically, Nixon was a liberal. Not only
Speaker 1: did he lavishly fund New Deal in great society projects.
Speaker 1: He's also, in a sense, the founder of DEI. When
Speaker 1: Lyndon Johnson advocated for government sponsored affirmative action, the first
Speaker 1: significant affirmative action project on the part of the government
Speaker 1: was carried out by Nixon. He backed racial preferences for
Speaker 1: blacks in the public sector unions in Philadelphia. Nixon's program
Speaker 1: was called the Philadelphia Plan. Now, Nixon's motive was Machiavelli,
Speaker 1: and Nixon was a sneaky political operative. He knew the
Speaker 1: Philadelphia unions were dominated by working class white Democrats. He
Speaker 1: wanted to drive a wedge between the blacks and the
Speaker 1: working class whites. So this was his reason for pushing
Speaker 1: affirmative action or DEI. But hey, in the end, Nixon's
Speaker 1: maneuver backfire. The Democrats got the blacks and they kept
Speaker 1: the white working class.
Speaker 2: The joke was on Nixon.
Speaker 1: The EI became expanded and embedded in the American workforce,
Speaker 1: first in the public sector and then in the private sector.
Speaker 1: So Nixon, I'm sorry to say, had a big role
Speaker 1: in starting it. Nixon was not really a conservative. How
Speaker 1: could he be. He didn't even know what conservatism was.
Speaker 1: He was certainly a patriot and anti communist. That's why
Speaker 1: he liked Pat Buchanan so much. Buchanan, too was fiercely
Speaker 1: pro man American and anti communist. But Buchanan recounts in
Speaker 1: his autobiography how Nixon kept asking him, Pat, who are
Speaker 1: these conservatives? What did the conservatives believe? Nixon was asking
Speaker 1: as an outsider. Not only did he not regard himself
Speaker 1: as a conservative, but he viewed conservatives as some strange breed,
Speaker 1: and he had to investigate.
Speaker 2: Who they were and what they believed.
Speaker 1: For these reasons, Nixon's blindness to Soviet ideology, his welfare
Speaker 1: state liberalism, his role in affirmative action and DEI, and
Speaker 1: his manifest ignorance of conservatism, many conservatives at the time
Speaker 1: did not like Nixon. Several times did I hear the
Speaker 1: publisher of National Review, Bill Rusher say I hated Nixon
Speaker 1: until Watergate. Russia's point is that only when the left
Speaker 1: tried to destroy Nixon did conservatives rush to his defense.
Speaker 1: Given all this, I asked myself, what is the great
Speaker 1: appeal of Nixon?
Speaker 3: Now?
Speaker 1: Why do young people today find Nixon a more interesting
Speaker 1: figure than Reagan? Why do we have Nixon maxing but
Speaker 1: no Reagan maxing? Is this simply a case of the
Speaker 1: younger generation rebelling against its elders and picking its own guy?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 1: Maybe, but why him? I think a single experience I
Speaker 1: had with Nixon, the one time I met Richard Nixon,
Speaker 1: the one time I got a photo with Richard Nixon,
Speaker 1: might help to answer this question. I can't remember the
Speaker 1: year exactly, it was in the early to mid nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: I lived in Washington, d C, where I was a
Speaker 1: scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Several of my a
Speaker 1: Dartmouth buddies, about ten of us also came to d
Speaker 1: C to be part of the Reagan Revolution, and we
Speaker 1: asked ourselves who is the person we would like most
Speaker 1: to meet? We had a list, was it Reagan, Margaret Thatcher,
Speaker 1: like Valenza Gorbachev, Pope John Paul the Second. We agreed
Speaker 1: that the person we most wanted to meet not the
Speaker 1: most consequential person, but the most interesting, was Richard Nixon.
Speaker 2: But how to meet him? Well.
Speaker 1: One of our group, Greg Fasstal, a dartmucd grad who
Speaker 1: worked as an editorial writer at the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: was a Nixon admirer. Greg was brilliant, but also a
Speaker 1: little bit of an extra centric and Nixon was also eccentric.
Speaker 1: So Greg identified with Nixon, and he had several years
Speaker 1: earlier written a letter to Nixon, and Nixon at courteously replied, So,
Speaker 1: Greg was kind of our in with Nixon, But what
Speaker 1: to say to him? We came up with the idea
Speaker 1: of inviting him to address the Dartmouth Breakfast Club. Of course,
Speaker 1: there was no such thing as a Dartmouth Breakfast Club,
Speaker 1: but on the spot we started it. We made up
Speaker 1: a letterhead and Greg sent an invitation to Nixon. To
Speaker 1: our amazement, he said, yes, we had breakfast, if I
Speaker 1: recall correctly, at the hay Adams Hotel. We rented a
Speaker 1: room and had a photographer. That's how I got my
Speaker 1: photo with Nixon. He was very generous with us. After
Speaker 1: the breakfast, he gave a fifteen minute talk on foreign policy,
Speaker 1: a brief tour de horizon of current events. He took questions,
Speaker 1: and it's one of those questions and his reply that
Speaker 1: has stayed with.
Speaker 2: Me over all these years.
Speaker 1: Now, Greg, who was never shy to ask awkward questions,
Speaker 1: put this question to Nixon. How is it He asked
Speaker 1: that Reagan survived the Iran contrast, but you were forced
Speaker 1: to resign over Watergate. In both cases, the Democrats tried
Speaker 1: to impeach and destroy a Republican president.
Speaker 2: But in Reagan's case they failed. With you.
Speaker 1: They didn't impeach you, but they did get you out
Speaker 1: of office. So what did Reagan have that you didn't
Speaker 1: A bombshell of a question. Now, Nixon paused, he he scowled,
Speaker 1: a famous Nixon scowl. I could see he was annoyed.
Speaker 1: I mean, got to feel a little uncomfortable. Several people
Speaker 1: in our group gave Greg a dirty look. We were like,
Speaker 1: how could you ask that? And then Nixon replied it
Speaker 1: was one line, very nixony. And Nixon said, ah, yes,
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan. Well, at least he could say he was stupid.
Speaker 2: And there you have it.
Speaker 1: What an insight. Not so much into Reagan as into Nixon.
Speaker 1: Nixon never understood how Reagan survived, but he didn't. More broadly,
Speaker 1: he never understood how Reagan succeeded in transforming the world,
Speaker 1: and he didn't. Nixon always considered himself smarter than Reagan,
Speaker 1: and academically.
Speaker 2: Speaking, he was.
Speaker 1: Thus, Nixon concluded that Reagan's secret was his stupidity. People
Speaker 1: expected Reagan to be clueless about Iran contra. I don't
Speaker 1: know what happened, and that's how he got away with it.
Speaker 1: No one would say Nixon was stupid, and therefore Nixon
Speaker 1: couldn't claim ignorance, and that's why he was held fully
Speaker 1: accountable for all the deceptions around Watergates. So here in
Speaker 1: a nutshell, we see several of Nixon's signature qualities, which
Speaker 1: become even more clear when they are contrasted with Reagan's qualities.
Speaker 1: Reagan was fundamentally an optimist, and that optimism characterized the
Speaker 1: Reagan era and also the Reagan generation, me included that
Speaker 1: came of age in that era. Nixon was fundamentally a pessimist,
Speaker 1: as I guessed many of his contemporary millennial and gen
Speaker 1: Z admirers also are. Nixon was also paranoid, and we
Speaker 1: see this from the Watergate scandal itself. Remember, Nixon was
Speaker 1: on the verge of winning forty nine states. It was
Speaker 1: not exactly a close presidential election in nineteen seventy two.
Speaker 1: So what's the justification for organizing elaborate spying campaigns on
Speaker 1: the other side than you have to do so elaborate
Speaker 1: covers up and then you have to do elaborate cover ups,
Speaker 1: and you end up throwing away your presidency over the scandal.
Speaker 1: Nixon is no longer with us, but as paranoia surely is.
Speaker 1: In fact, we live in a paranoid epoch of Nixonian dimensions.
Speaker 1: I can see how the paranoia of our own era
Speaker 1: where it came from. It came from numerous conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: coming true. It came from previously trusted institutions, the CDC,
Speaker 1: the nihd FBI, all forfeiting their public trust. It also
Speaker 1: came from bitter disappointments in American society, the outsourcing of jobs,
Speaker 1: the march of technology that also takes away jobs, the
Speaker 1: erosion of the family and the old civic sense of community,
Speaker 1: the collapse of normal dating and courtship, the experience of
Speaker 1: censorship and political targeting, and in general, the brutishness of
Speaker 1: the left. All of this is not only fostered paranoia,
Speaker 1: but also a profound sense of victimization, since paranoia and
Speaker 1: his sense of victimization are both palpable. Even in the
Speaker 1: one incident I recounted, Nixon remained paranoid to the end.
Speaker 1: He never gave up the sense that he was shafted.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. He was right to be paranoid.
Speaker 1: Remember the saying, even paranoids have enemies. Nixon feared the
Speaker 1: Eastern establishment, even the Eastern establishment in his own party,
Speaker 1: and he was right to fear them. He hated the
Speaker 1: Ivy League people and the mainstream media, and he thought
Speaker 1: they were out to get him, as they were. Some
Speaker 1: of the most amazing material in the Nixon libraries tape
Speaker 1: recordings of Nixon talking about Jews and Ivy leaguers. He
Speaker 1: says things like, Henry, there are too many Jews on
Speaker 1: the invitation list, or Henry, I don't want to have
Speaker 1: dinner with anyone who went to the Ivy League. He
Speaker 1: hated those people, and in the end, I suppose they
Speaker 1: got him. So Nixon was justified also in regarding himself
Speaker 1: to be a victim. He was in fact ousted in
Speaker 1: a coup that goes by the name of Watergates. So
Speaker 1: I can understand to appoint young people's enthusiasm for this
Speaker 1: strange fellow who took on an all powerful establishment and
Speaker 1: the paranoid conspiratorial belief that it was secretly arrayed against him.
Speaker 1: Nixon's paranoia, his conspiracy mindedness, even his borderline craziness, have
Speaker 1: many counterparts on our social media platforms today, and in
Speaker 1: some ways what they like best about Nixon is that
Speaker 1: he lost. They destroyed his presidency and his reputation, and
Speaker 1: this confirms the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient elite that
Speaker 1: always wins in the end. Many young people today don't
Speaker 1: really see a way out. They don't see a way
Speaker 1: to win. They expect to lose, and they want to
Speaker 1: lose like Nixon, ignominiously, to be sure, but also in
Speaker 1: a way that supports and confirms the utter feelings of hopelessness.
Speaker 1: Here's the mantra of the Nixon maxers. See, we told
Speaker 1: you we were doomed, and now we are just like
Speaker 1: we said. I suppose it could be said of Nixon
Speaker 1: that he remained interesting even in defeat. He said things
Speaker 1: like you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore,
Speaker 1: which is not surprising for the bitterness, but but surprising
Speaker 1: that someone would publicly say it. He was more of
Speaker 1: a thinker than a doer. He read the nineteenth century
Speaker 1: historians as Reagan didn't. He didn't defeat the Soviet Empire
Speaker 1: as Reagan did, but he could give an analysis of
Speaker 1: Russian history in a manner that Reagan never could. Kissinger
Speaker 1: and his memoirs recounts the culmination of a brilliant negotiation
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. He was astounded by Nixon's grasp
Speaker 1: of events and his negotiating prowess, and Kissinger writes his
Speaker 1: regret was that Hey, even now, he says, Watergate is
Speaker 1: closing in on Nixon. So from Kissinger's point of view,
Speaker 1: a great thinker and strategist of a kind America rarely
Speaker 1: gets was being undone kick. Kissinger saw it almost in
Speaker 1: terms of Greek tragedy. Nixon was ultimately defeated not by
Speaker 1: his foreign adversaries, but by his Hamartia, his own tragic flaw.
Speaker 1: Nixon wanted to be a populist, and he used the
Speaker 1: campaign theme of the forgotten man in his nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: two campaign. He was quite right to stand up for
Speaker 1: the ordinary American against the hippies, the druggies, the nudists,
Speaker 1: the angry feminists, and the Black power revolutionaries. Yet while
Speaker 1: Nixon identified with the working class American, he didn't relate
Speaker 1: to him. He remained aloof an insular, a real contrast
Speaker 1: with a genuine populist like Trump. Nixon was a loyal friend,
Speaker 1: but he was also a great hater. He didn't conceal
Speaker 1: his envy of Reagan. All it took was a single
Speaker 1: question to bring it into full display. He was still
Speaker 1: the guy who walked with his two arms moving in
Speaker 1: the same direction, not swinging opposite ways like most people.
Speaker 2: He was still the.
Speaker 1: Guy who walked in the beach in his leather shoes.
Speaker 1: The philosopher Nietzsche said of the Greek tragedians that they
Speaker 1: took the crushing burden of human suffering and made it interesting.
Speaker 1: Nixon was a deeply flawed man, but he had a
Speaker 1: way of making the world and himself interesting. We never
Speaker 1: regretted our choice to have breakfast with him. He might
Speaker 1: not help us come to terms with our situation in
Speaker 1: America today or with our future, but he does help
Speaker 1: us gain a better understanding of him and perhaps also ourselves.
Speaker 1: And that's the way I see it. Here's the thing
Speaker 1: about crypto. It's here to stay. That argument is over.
Speaker 1: But think about if this is a market that never sleeps,
Speaker 1: it's moving at midnight, it's two am, three am, and
Speaker 1: while you're asleep, who's watching Because here's what nobody tells you.
Speaker 1: Most crypto platforms give you a log in, wish.
Speaker 2: You luck and call it a day. That's not investing.
Speaker 1: That's gambling with your retirement and hoping for the best.
Speaker 1: That's why I've partnered with block trust Ira. Block trust
Speaker 1: Ira is CRYPTOIRA built for Americans who refuse to be
Speaker 1: on the losing side of that equation. Their award winning
Speaker 1: AI engine navigates the notoriously volatile crypto markets around the clock,
Speaker 1: automatically rebalancing your portfolio.
Speaker 2: To protect your gains, limit your exposure when markets swing.
Speaker 1: No panic, no emotion, no missleep at three am. Your
Speaker 1: savings sit inside a two hundred million dollar institutional grade
Speaker 1: insurance shield, managed intelligently and secured from day one.
Speaker 2: Their AI never sleeps.
Speaker 1: It's rebalancing your portfolio around the clock, managing risk, responding
Speaker 1: to volatility, protecting what you've built, automatically, intelligently, without panic.
Speaker 1: Voted Bitcoin Magazine number one Technology platform, and that doesn't
Speaker 1: surprise me one bit. Open your CRYPTOIRA today and block
Speaker 1: trust IRA will give you up to a twenty five
Speaker 1: hundred dollars inflation shield bonus.
Speaker 2: Straight into your account.
Speaker 1: Go to deneshcrypto dot com and sign up today. They
Speaker 1: can print dollars, but they cannot print crypto. That's deneshcrypto
Speaker 1: dot com. If you are someone you love is turning
Speaker 1: sixty five soon, pay attention.
Speaker 2: The moment you hit that age, everything changes.
Speaker 1: Sure, you become eligible for Medicare, but you also become
Speaker 1: a target the junk mail, the robo calls, the fine print.
Speaker 2: It's overwhelming.
Speaker 1: This system is confusing by design, and it benefits big Insurance,
Speaker 1: not you.
Speaker 2: I just turned sixty five.
Speaker 1: I went through this and let me tell you, if
Speaker 1: you don't know what you're doing, you can wind up
Speaker 1: overpaying or losing access to the doctors you trust. That's
Speaker 1: why I work with Chapter. They're independent. They don't push
Speaker 1: one plan or another. They just help you find the
Speaker 1: one that's right for you. Chapters advises are smart, honest.
Speaker 2: And they actually care.
Speaker 1: They compare every Medicare option nationwide to make sure you
Speaker 1: don't miss a thing, and it's completely free.
Speaker 2: Chapter help me in thousands.
Speaker 1: Of my viewers and listeners save real money and a
Speaker 1: ton of stress when it comes to Medicare.
Speaker 2: So take back control.
Speaker 1: Click the link and connect with Chapter today.
Speaker 4: Please join me in welcoming Denesh de Suzan. Please join
Speaker 4: me in welcoming Destiny.
Speaker 1: Now, if you look at this Iran war and we've
Speaker 1: got to try to be adults about all this. If
Speaker 1: you get into a war and you have clear objectives,
Speaker 1: the simple truth of it is, if you then turn
Speaker 1: around and say, well, yes, we've lost seven men, or
Speaker 1: Iran fired a missile and it got through to Israel
Speaker 1: and killed two dogs, you're talking about a really powerful country.
Speaker 1: If you had to specify in advance, you would expect
Speaker 1: that there would be enormous casualties in Middle Eastern countries,
Speaker 1: in Israel, that Iran would be hitting American targets on
Speaker 1: a daily basis.
Speaker 2: This is a war.
Speaker 1: So what I'm suggesting here is that what Destiny is
Speaker 1: doing here is setting up an absurd calculus. Iran is endured,
Speaker 1: Well what alternative they have? A guy getting his ass
Speaker 1: kicked in ana fight is enduring, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: he's winning. Similarly, Iran is able to lash out here
Speaker 1: and lash out.
Speaker 2: There, which we would fully expect.
Speaker 1: They're grabbing onto their own backyard. No surprise, they're unable
Speaker 1: to maintain even control over their old network. So we've
Speaker 1: disrupted the whole Iranian system.
Speaker 2: So when you talk about.
Speaker 1: Places like Russia and China, they're like, Trump actually is
Speaker 1: willing to use force. He's willing to do it prudently,
Speaker 1: but he is willing to kick ass. And this was
Speaker 1: what makes him different from, for example, an absolute mindless
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, a giggling, idiotic Kamala Harris. So again, when
Speaker 1: you're measuring Trump, you have to measure him against the
Speaker 1: absolutely impermissible alternative. Can you imagine what America would have
Speaker 1: been like the Democrats one? Can you imagine the world
Speaker 1: we'd be living in, the rottedness of the system would continue,
Speaker 1: the censorship would be accelerated, the surveillance would be going on.
Speaker 1: There would be political targeting to a degree that we
Speaker 1: probably never imagined. Trump would probably be serving a life sentence.
Speaker 1: So this is who these people are, this is what
Speaker 1: they do, and I just Trump has liberated us from that.
Speaker 5: So it basically every single thing of senators is not true,
Speaker 5: not true. But I mean, I guess the metal meats
Speaker 5: the road. I mean here with the rubbers the road.
Speaker 5: I guess what do you think a successful end state
Speaker 5: for Iran looks like? What do you think it's going
Speaker 5: to look like for the United States to leave that
Speaker 5: conflict to emerge feeling like we were victorious, because I
Speaker 5: will tell you that when Obama was in office, supposedly
Speaker 5: inep president who didn't know what he was doing when
Speaker 5: it came to foreign policy, we had a deal on
Speaker 5: the table with inspectors in the country, and we had
Speaker 5: a pathway to some kind of normalization with Iran, where
Speaker 5: there was still intense pressure on that country. When Trump
Speaker 5: came into the first term, he tore up the JCP
Speaker 5: away with nothing to replace it with. He set off
Speaker 5: the Abraham Accords and claimed piece of the Middle East
Speaker 5: without dealing with the Palestinian issue. Biden comes in and
Speaker 5: lo and behold what happens. Every time the Palestinians are ignored,
Speaker 5: they rise up and they do an attack. It happened
Speaker 5: with the first Hintevada, It happened with a second intevada,
Speaker 5: and it happened with October seventh. Go you know, go
Speaker 5: figure big surprise. Trump comes in the next time after
Speaker 5: achieving peace in the Middle East, and then he comes
Speaker 5: in and he does peace in the Middle East again
Speaker 5: by attacking Iran.
Speaker 2: And then he's done.
Speaker 5: Pieces in the Middle East again by getting us in
Speaker 5: a war with Irun. What does the end state here
Speaker 5: look like? Because all I see is Trump making bad decisions,
Speaker 5: the bad decisions playing out and literally the most obvious
Speaker 5: manner possible, and then not knowing how we're going to
Speaker 5: come out of the bad position better than we were before,
Speaker 5: and conservative somehow trying to pretend like it was a
Speaker 5: win every single step of the way. So yes, I'll
Speaker 5: ask what is a good what is a positive resolution?
Speaker 5: Where you would you would look at our exit from
Speaker 5: Iran ago that was a really good idea that we
Speaker 5: attacked that you know, we've this.
Speaker 1: Is our second time debating and I what frustrates mean
Speaker 1: debating you is that you I think you have the
Speaker 1: wrong self conception, that you are somehow presenting fast and
Speaker 1: you will use terms like you will use terms like
Speaker 1: this is positive uh, or this is progress or so
Speaker 1: for example, you start off with an almost devotional premise,
Speaker 1: which is that Obama was trying to stop Iran from
Speaker 1: getting a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 2: My premise is the opposite.
Speaker 1: Obama was trying to help Iran to get a nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon while publicly professing the opposite to his domestic political audience.
Speaker 2: Why couldn't they do that in eight years? Then that
Speaker 2: was Obama's goal.
Speaker 5: He triggered his own side into a massive riot at
Speaker 5: the Capitol on January sixth. So I don't know what
Speaker 5: you mean when you say.
Speaker 1: They look this is like, this is like Vogue magazine
Speaker 1: saying Michelle Obama's the most beautiful woman in America.
Speaker 2: Right, everybody knows it's false.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows it's to lie or Dylan mcveahey is actually
Speaker 1: a gorgeous woman.
Speaker 5: This kind is just the same why that Donald Trump
Speaker 5: tells us when he says he loves his beautiful wife
Speaker 5: when he which she was at home.
Speaker 2: Taking care of their newborn child.
Speaker 5: I mean, we can, like, come on, Donald Trump is
Speaker 5: not a.
Speaker 1: One says that Trump hasn't been a playboy in his
Speaker 1: earlier days, but.
Speaker 2: Such a pay her for sex?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we can do a lot of this stuff
Speaker 1: is claims and counterclaims. And we will also live in
Speaker 1: a system, unfortunately, where even juries have become untrustworthy and
Speaker 1: theized environment. A case in point is the January sixth defendants.
Speaker 1: Most of those guys went before absolutely one sided juries.
Speaker 2: Eleven out of twelve Democrats.
Speaker 1: Not a jury of their peers. Again, should they have
Speaker 1: broken at the capitol. No, but where they over prosecuted,
Speaker 1: over punished. People actually took their lives over this incident,
Speaker 1: committed suicide. The Biden administration did that to them, and
Speaker 1: it did that to them. Really why because many of
Speaker 1: those people were white, male, Christian and conservative. The truth
Speaker 1: about standing is every citizen has a stake in the election,
Speaker 1: and so you would think that any citizen who brought
Speaker 1: a case on this matter, you'd buy, like, okay, let's
Speaker 1: look at it, right. There were a lot of, by
Speaker 1: the way, suggestive reasons. It's not as if this just
Speaker 1: came out of nowhere. The windows boarded up stopping five
Speaker 1: places stop the count within a few seconds of each other.
Speaker 2: Think about this.
Speaker 1: Supposedly each state is conducting their own count, and yet
Speaker 1: they all stop the count at the same time.
Speaker 2: And to this day, you don't know and I don't know,
Speaker 2: and he doesn't know who gave the order. That's none
Speaker 2: of the well who gave the order.
Speaker 1: The idea that all the states stopped counting the same
Speaker 1: They all stopped counting within a few seconds of each other.
Speaker 2: They literally not okay, literally none of this is true.
Speaker 5: But okay, there's a reason why you guys can't point
Speaker 5: to any court documents, any filings, anything that demonstrates the
Speaker 5: truthfulness of anything. It's why the guy the only guys
Speaker 5: that defend this idea are the crazy my pillow dude
Speaker 5: who sells pillows for fourteen dollars in eighty eight cents.
Speaker 2: On his website. Mike Lindell. Yeah, we can watch the video.
Speaker 5: We can watch There's hours of footage of Sidney Powell
Speaker 5: lying to people, lying to these committees that are listening
Speaker 5: to them talk about all the fake votes. We can
Speaker 5: see the State Farm arena footage where she says, we
Speaker 5: don't know where the boxes came from. They who were
Speaker 5: literally counting them, they put them under the table and
Speaker 5: then they brought them back out. The full video footage exists.
Speaker 5: There's a reason why they can't even make standing on
Speaker 5: these cases.
Speaker 3: You are right.
Speaker 2: There were a lot of people that.
Speaker 5: Would have had standing to bring these types of cases,
Speaker 5: but none of the cases had good merits, and the
Speaker 5: judges knew that people like you, who's who had nice
Speaker 5: interactions with Trump, would be doing propaganda form. Even the
Speaker 5: ones that were thrown out on standing, the judges addressed
Speaker 5: the merits of those cases. If you'd read a single
Speaker 5: one of those decisions, you would have actually seen that
Speaker 5: they had the ability to make all of this evidence public.
Speaker 5: Sidney Palgulni, where is it? Where is all of the investigation?
Speaker 5: Whereas all of the public evidence for all of the
Speaker 5: Tina Peters people they had digging through these machines in
Speaker 5: the background. Notice that there is not a scintilla a
Speaker 5: positive evidence that there was a single vote that was
Speaker 5: actually changed or rigged or anything that proper happened anywhere.
Speaker 5: Why did they lose on every single court case, even
Speaker 5: when there were judges that looking over this that were
Speaker 5: Trump nominated, Trump appointed judges.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the judges were scared to get into it.
Speaker 1: Hold on, because they judge by and large is in
Speaker 1: the judicial lane and they don't want a second guest
Speaker 1: an election process. It's too complicated. They've never done it before.
Speaker 2: Let me forget hold on, what do you talk?
Speaker 1: Let me let me give you the big picture here
Speaker 1: that I think will convince reasonable people that something fishy
Speaker 1: happened in a big way. I'm not talking about ten
Speaker 1: guys from a nursing home. So Obama got sixty five
Speaker 1: million votes in two thousand and eight, he got between
Speaker 1: sixty five and sixty eight million votes. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight and twenty twelve, his two elections, Hillary got
Speaker 1: about the same number of votes, about sixty five million votes.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris, years later, with.
Speaker 1: A demographic shift in the country, got close to seventy
Speaker 1: five million votes. Now Joe Biden in the middle, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Joe what's my middle name? Biden gets eighty one million votes.
Speaker 1: Eighty one million votes, which means that fifteen million more
Speaker 1: votes than Obama mysteriously showed up for Biden and promptly
Speaker 1: six million of them at a minimum vanished even after
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. So Biden, the guy who can't
Speaker 1: raise one hundred dollars to build his library because everybody
Speaker 1: basically considers him to be a vegetable and a pawn.
Speaker 1: This Biden is evidently the most popular figure in US history,
Speaker 1: surpassing Obama.
Speaker 2: Have every other Democrat how many to.
Speaker 4: Give our speakers a huge round of applause for a
Speaker 4: spectacular start to the day.
Speaker 2: It's amazing, Thank you guys so much.
Speaker 4: Are Christians morally obligated to support the Jews in Israel?
Speaker 2: I'm excited for this one.
Speaker 4: Pleasejoin me and welcoming Danesh de Suza.
Speaker 2: Andrew Wilson.
Speaker 1: We're talking as Christians, so I'm assuming that the premise
Speaker 1: of debate is that we are Christians, were Catholics, were Protestants,
Speaker 1: were in the mainstream of the Christian tradition. My own
Speaker 1: work in apologetics has taken the C. S. Lewis kind
Speaker 1: of mere Christianity approach. I'll be using generally that in
Speaker 1: this debate. By way of background, I come from a
Speaker 1: very old Catholic family in India. It goes back about
Speaker 1: four hundred years. My grandfather's brother was the Cardinal of Pakistan.
Speaker 1: So I'm deeply rooted in the Catholic tradition, the Catholic
Speaker 1: intellectual tradition. I've studied it, I've written a lot about it,
Speaker 1: and I've debated it against unrually leading atheists, people at
Speaker 1: Christopher Hitchins and others. Now, Israel is not my topic,
Speaker 1: and by that I mean, in a career spanning thirty
Speaker 1: five years, I haven't written about it. I barely mentioned it.
Speaker 1: I'm not known as a Zionist. I don't identify with Zionism,
Speaker 1: which was a secular socialist movement of the nineteenth century.
Speaker 1: I have no particular stake in Israel as a country.
Speaker 1: I'm America first, all the way, and so keep those
Speaker 1: things in mind as we have this debate. If you're
Speaker 1: looking for me to sort of channel Ben Shapiro or
Speaker 1: Mark Levin, that's really not going to be happening here.
Speaker 1: I'm not a professional Israel advocate in any sense of
Speaker 1: the term. I discovered Israel really two or three years
Speaker 1: ago when I visited for the first time, and I
Speaker 1: found it interesting in two ways. The first one simply
Speaker 1: that we live at a time when cities have become
Speaker 1: really homogenized these days. You know, there's no point going
Speaker 1: to Zurich and Copenhagen, it's.
Speaker 2: All kind of one thing. Israel is not like that.
Speaker 1: In Israel, you're very conscious that you're in the land
Speaker 1: of the Bible. That is a very important feeling for Christians.
Speaker 1: You get the sense that this is your spiritual homeland.
Speaker 1: And by spiritual homeland, what I mean is that our
Speaker 1: faith is not some kind of abstraction that is delivered
Speaker 1: in the sky. It could have been God could could
Speaker 1: have put the Ten Commandments.
Speaker 2: He could have, you know, put it on the moon.
Speaker 2: But he didn't do that.
Speaker 1: Our Bible, our history, our Christianity is historical. It's rooted
Speaker 1: in real people and real events and real places. It
Speaker 1: took place somewhere in the world, and that somewhere.
Speaker 2: Happens to be Israel.
Speaker 1: That's worth remembering and worth noting. Also discovered in the
Speaker 1: course of now for visits to Israel the thing that
Speaker 1: really interests me, and that is biblical archaeology. And biblical
Speaker 1: archaeology has the definitive effect of authenticating and corroborating the
Speaker 1: people and events in the Bible. We can go into
Speaker 1: it a little bit later. I will give you the
Speaker 1: most shocking examples of this, but it is a massive
Speaker 1: refutation of the skepticism and atheism of the nineteenth century,
Speaker 1: which basically said that the Bible was written hundreds of
Speaker 1: years later and most of it was kind of made up.
Speaker 1: Biblical archaeology shows us that the Bible is talking about
Speaker 1: real people and true events. You can debate the miracles,
Speaker 1: you can debate the theology, but that these things are real,
Speaker 1: these people are real, the events are real has been
Speaker 1: authenticated down to the most excruciating detail. That's very important
Speaker 1: because it also happens to establish the presence of the
Speaker 1: Jews and their ancestral homeland, and in a way, to me,
Speaker 1: the fundamental question that we're discussing today. When I say
Speaker 1: morally obligated, what I really mean is what's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do? Now, saying what the right thing to
Speaker 1: do doesn't solve the problem of should we give money
Speaker 1: to Israel or how much money should we give to Israel?
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 1: Supporting Israel herely here basically means having a certain recognition
Speaker 1: of a kind of spiritual and historical kinship or line
Speaker 1: of continuity established by the way in the Bible. And
Speaker 1: don't think of the Old Testament as Jewish. The New
Speaker 1: Testament is just as Jewish as the Old. Both are
Speaker 1: describing Jewish communities, and Christianity came right out of that.
Speaker 1: In fact, the first Christians were Jews.
Speaker 2: They were Jews who followed the Messiah.
Speaker 1: I think historically we could say with great accuracy they
Speaker 1: were the very first Judaeo Christians. The apostles were Judaeo Christians.
Speaker 1: And now, to me, the core of this question is
Speaker 1: whose land is it? Thirty seconds thirty seconds, I was
Speaker 1: just getting I was just getting warmed.
Speaker 2: This is my introduction guys. All right, let me just
Speaker 2: put it this way.
Speaker 1: There are three ways to get a country. First, you
Speaker 1: were there first, that's the ancestral claim. Number two, you
Speaker 1: got the country by some kind of negotiation or treaty.
Speaker 1: Or number three, you got the lined because you captured it.
Speaker 1: Every single country on the map in the world now
Speaker 1: has gotten its claim based on one of these three ways.
Speaker 1: The argument I'm going to make is that Israel succeeds
Speaker 1: on all three ways.
Speaker 2: It checks all the boxes. Even America doesn't.
Speaker 1: The American Indians were here first, we might have conquered them,
Speaker 1: taken the land from them, So we got it by conquest.
Speaker 1: They got it by original inhabitancy. And there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of an argument over here, but I'm going to
Speaker 1: argue that the Jews were there, it's their land. Number Two,
Speaker 1: they got it by treaty, was given to them by
Speaker 1: the United Nations. They accepted it, the Palestinians rejected it.
Speaker 1: And three they got it by not just by conquest.
Speaker 1: They fought three defensive wars against massive coalitions of Islamic
Speaker 1: forces that are into essentially global colonization. The Muslims are
Speaker 1: the real colonizers, and so whichever box you choose, Israel succeeds,
Speaker 1: and therefore supporting Israel isn't just sort of the biblical
Speaker 1: thing to do, it's the right thing to do.
Speaker 6: Big round of applause for to Nash, real quick, great opening,
Speaker 6: but that's not going to save him. I want for
Speaker 6: everybody to remember that the topic of this debate is
Speaker 6: if Christians have a moral obligation to support Jews in Israel.
Speaker 6: He didn't give us one. It is obvious to me that,
Speaker 6: since the answer is clearly no uh oh, that Danesh
Speaker 6: likely gave no reason, which means I predicted you wouldn't
Speaker 6: give us one. I will begin by expressing to you
Speaker 6: the audience that when discussing normative claims are in this
Speaker 6: place moral claims, you need to demonstrate why the moral
Speaker 6: obligation is there. Danesh's view comes down to a whole
Speaker 6: bunch of really stupid propositions that actually make no sense.
Speaker 6: Note I'm not calling Danesh stupid, He's far from it.
Speaker 6: But even intelligent people can believe stupid propositions and often
Speaker 6: do logical proposition one.
Speaker 3: Christians need to support.
Speaker 6: A Jewish state of Israel because their ethics and Christian
Speaker 6: ethics overlap.
Speaker 3: This is something which Danesh has said multiple times.
Speaker 6: The reason this is a stupid proposition is because the
Speaker 6: modern state of Israel is a secular state. This date
Speaker 6: supports abortion and most of the public supports it. They
Speaker 6: have pregnancy termination boards which grant ninety nine percent of
Speaker 6: applications abortions up to twenty four weeks and beyond. They
Speaker 6: support gay marriage, and while not marrying gays themselves as
Speaker 6: there is no civil marriage authority, they recognize all out
Speaker 6: of country gay marriages as valid and all gay cohabitation
Speaker 6: has identical social and financial rights.
Speaker 3: Let that sync in.
Speaker 6: They are extremely pro transgender in their public healthcare system
Speaker 6: provides generously for trans surgery and voice mod training. According
Speaker 6: sorry about that one second here. According to their own polling,
Speaker 6: the Israeli Institute for Gender and LGBTQ Studies has supported
Speaker 6: seventy five percent or more for homosexual acceptance, advocacy and
Speaker 6: gender care, which includes ninety percent from secular Jews and
Speaker 6: even over fifty percent from the religious Orthodox Jews. Now
Speaker 6: I can keep going, women in the military, IVF programs,
Speaker 6: national health care, prostitution, pornography. These are libtards, essentially who
Speaker 6: live in Israel that Denesh wants us to support a
Speaker 6: whole nation of them. Christian ethics here in the USA
Speaker 6: determines that we resist these things in our own nations.
Speaker 6: Why would we support other nations which codify these things as.
Speaker 3: Law anymore than we would sharia law.
Speaker 6: I don't want millions upon millions or billions of my
Speaker 6: dollars to be used to support a system which allows
Speaker 6: for these forms of degeneracy when we were busy combating
Speaker 6: them in our own backyard.
Speaker 3: Why would Christians support that?
Speaker 1: Now?
Speaker 6: Dnesh can argue the USA is plagued with similar problems,
Speaker 6: and that's true, and Christians here oppose our own governmental
Speaker 6: national apparatus and strongly attempt to legislate against these forms
Speaker 6: of policy. We do the opposite of funding it, except
Speaker 6: through force of tax proposition to Densh believes that the
Speaker 6: Christians have a stake in Israel because it's the holiest
Speaker 6: of holies and the holiest Christian sites are there. I
Speaker 6: grant this is true, but that doesn't give us much
Speaker 6: reason to keep the population they're Jewish. If Christians in
Speaker 6: the West truly want access to the holy sites, then
Speaker 6: why not just demand Israel, who is our protectorate take
Speaker 6: a certain amount of Christians per year. I think one
Speaker 6: hundred thousand or more should do the trick. The USA
Speaker 6: has no cut cap on Jews immigrating here. Why not
Speaker 6: just demand they allow Christian immigration with no cap there,
Speaker 6: or we cut off all military funding and support and
Speaker 6: that's that. Then we get the Holy sites. He argues
Speaker 6: that Israeli's guard these things better than Muslims. I can
Speaker 6: see that's true, But I'm certain millions of Christian immigrants
Speaker 6: could protect them just fine. Not sure why there needs
Speaker 6: to be a Jewish state to do this, or why
Speaker 6: we have a moral obligation to keep it Jewish at all.
Speaker 6: Proposition three danesh Offen sites the biblical principle of those
Speaker 6: who bless Israel will be blessed. That's Genesis twelve three.
Speaker 6: Does a modern state of Israel seem very blessed to you?
Speaker 6: If He took every Jew in Israel and put them
Speaker 6: in Germany in the year twenty twenty six, they would
Speaker 6: be safer than they are in Israel. How's that for irony?
Speaker 6: Is God blessing their abortions, their homosexuality and prostitution advocacy,
Speaker 6: the rejection of the Messiah doesn't seem like it to me.
Speaker 6: If that's what a god blessed nation looks like, then
Speaker 6: I would be very wary of the blessings of that God,
Speaker 6: because he sure seems like he isn't very fond of
Speaker 6: them at moment.
Speaker 3: Proposition four.
Speaker 6: Do Christians have an obligation to support religious Jews naming
Speaker 6: a Messiah considering that that Messiah figure will certainly be
Speaker 6: false and anti christ This is obviously no. Don't know
Speaker 6: about Dunesha over here, but the proposition of naming false
Speaker 6: Messiah and Christians supporting that by funding the religious, more
Speaker 6: conservative section of Jewish population claiming its moral seems insane
Speaker 6: to me.
Speaker 3: Proposition five.
Speaker 6: Are secular Jews blessed or non religious Jews blessed by
Speaker 6: the same genesis packaged dness or passage? In other words,
Speaker 6: if I bless atheist Jews and all their liberal policies,
Speaker 6: while I in turn be blessed with magic Jew blood,
Speaker 6: do I need to fight and die on their behalf
Speaker 6: of this blessing? Is it just a mind state like
Speaker 6: I just kind of cheer them on? Does it require
Speaker 6: action on my part? What are my actual obligations here
Speaker 6: as a Christian? What's the normative framework to receive said
Speaker 6: blessing from my support of atheist Jews, I say the opposite.
Speaker 6: As a Christian's my duty to resist and oppose the
Speaker 6: radical as atheist and secutor Jewish agenda of Israel until
Speaker 6: he conformed to my ethical model. I would like and
Speaker 6: would do in all cases. I would demand this if
Speaker 6: every nation pull all financial and military support and deal
Speaker 6: with them only as a limited capacity as they could
Speaker 6: be dealt with. I am not in the business of
Speaker 6: funding abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, female empowerment. Christians must resist these
Speaker 6: propositions and demand if Israel wants our aid, they need
Speaker 6: to conform to the standards and normative ethics of the
Speaker 6: very Christians they endlessly demand help from.
Speaker 3: Let us play pretend.
Speaker 6: Okay, tomorrow all of these Islamic nations right around Israel
Speaker 6: unite and they crush it, and they wipe Israel out
Speaker 6: in a single day. Let's just say, in this hypothetical, okay,
Speaker 6: what happens then to the United States? What happens to
Speaker 6: the United States?
Speaker 1: What happens to the United States now is that you
Speaker 1: will have created what Islam is long dreamed of, which
Speaker 1: is a restoration of that we haven't had in a slade.
Speaker 6: I give a shit about the Islamic Caliphate, though, why
Speaker 6: do I care the the Islamic Caliphate.
Speaker 1: Uh, the Islamic Caliphate is all over Texas. It is
Speaker 1: not only taken.
Speaker 6: That's though. We can fix immigration, whether or not you
Speaker 6: have a Jewish state or not.
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, many of these Muslims have been
Speaker 1: here for decades. This project has been going on. Uh,
Speaker 1: Muslims came to Detroit.
Speaker 2: And then I have to do any Israel.
Speaker 1: The anti semitism of Henry Ford where he said I
Speaker 1: want to bring a bunch of Muslims over here on topic.
Speaker 3: Israel's gone now in this hypothetical, in a single day.
Speaker 3: They just steamroll it.
Speaker 6: They take all the land, right, Okay, they are reforming
Speaker 6: a caliphate.
Speaker 3: Let's even say.
Speaker 2: And you're like, who cares?
Speaker 6: Yeah, when I go down into my toolbox to grab
Speaker 6: the ranch to wrench on my fucking car, I care
Speaker 6: about this?
Speaker 3: Why?
Speaker 1: Okay? Why why would you care? The same thing happened
Speaker 1: to Alaska.
Speaker 3: Because those are my countrymen.
Speaker 2: Oh, those are your countrymen.
Speaker 1: But you still can go to your toolbox and you
Speaker 1: can work in your garage and if Alaska is off
Speaker 1: the mat.
Speaker 6: That would have drafts matter, that would have drastic direct
Speaker 6: repercussions upon me. If it was the case that one
Speaker 6: of the states of the country that I live in
Speaker 6: was steamrolled by Islam. On the other hand, I think
Speaker 6: that there would be far less drastic and direct consequences.
Speaker 6: Weren't the case that, let's just say, Israel steamrolled by Islam.
Speaker 6: What I want to know, specifically, if it was, what
Speaker 6: the hell does the mechanic in the garage down the street,
Speaker 6: what does that do to him?
Speaker 3: Specifically?
Speaker 1: What well in your view of the world, if it
Speaker 1: is outside the geographic border of America, that boy has
Speaker 1: to do with it.
Speaker 6: I want you to answer the question I ask instead
Speaker 6: of the office games.
Speaker 2: The world is a much more.
Speaker 3: The world's a dangerous place, a dangerous neighborhood.
Speaker 2: In the world. I know it doesn't matter.
Speaker 3: But that's all rhetoric.
Speaker 6: Answer the question I asked Forget the rhetoric, give me
Speaker 6: the logic. Let's pretend, seriously, pretend game out the hypothetical
Speaker 6: with me. Israel's destroying a single day by its Islamic neighbors. Okay,
Speaker 6: that's what happens. It's gone let's just say, how the
Speaker 6: hell does that negatively affect the United States? What is
Speaker 6: it going to do to the average citizen here if
Speaker 6: that happens, even if Muslims are getting super upany and
Speaker 6: want their caliphate, what.
Speaker 1: Does it do?
Speaker 2: Let's play it out.
Speaker 1: Okay, So number one, the let's assume that a juggernaut
Speaker 1: launched out of let's say Iran and Qatar takes Israel.
Speaker 3: Huh.
Speaker 2: And not only that, but now all the other.
Speaker 1: Gulf kingdoms are intimidated, and so they submit to a
Speaker 1: single unified force. Let's just call it the United States
Speaker 1: of Islam. Okay, And that's the whole Middle East.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: It is fantastically rich, it has nuclear weapons, and it
Speaker 1: has a suicidal and genocidal ideology that says, we love death,
Speaker 1: we don't like life. These guys right are now going
Speaker 1: to start bankrolling the Islamic project in America to a
Speaker 1: degree that you can hardly imagine. So we are now
Speaker 1: talking about the fact, and let's let's just game it out.
Speaker 1: You want to game it out, let's game it out.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 1: Every politician in Texas, by and large, if you if
Speaker 1: you want to get their attention, just write them a
Speaker 1: check for ten thousand dollars and they will call you
Speaker 1: within a week, within a week to hear you out.
Speaker 2: And what's on your mind?
Speaker 1: Now, imagine an Islamic regime, two billion people in the world,
Speaker 1: with almost infinite resources, offering every US congressman one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars in.
Speaker 2: Their pack if they vote on the side of Islam.
Speaker 1: What percentage of Democrats do you think would say no,
Speaker 1: I would submit, it's about one or two percent. What
Speaker 1: percentage of Republicans would say no, I submit, it's about
Speaker 1: ten percent.
Speaker 2: Isson in law included.
Speaker 1: Okay, but what we're basically talking about is a buyout
Speaker 1: of the United States of America inc.
Speaker 2: This is on the table.
Speaker 1: The Muslims say they're gonna do it, they are doing it.
Speaker 2: Would stands you started out.
Speaker 7: All that stands in the way of of all of
Speaker 7: the Muslim world uniting, even though there's nukes there now,
Speaker 7: even though they have a shared value to destroy Israel.
Speaker 6: Now is ten million Jews that are sitting. That's the
Speaker 6: stupidest thing that I ever heard.
Speaker 2: Here's actually well.
Speaker 3: At all, game it.
Speaker 6: Out a different way. They destroy Israel in a single day.
Speaker 6: Isn't it equally possible that they open up relations with
Speaker 6: the United States and the rest of the West because
Speaker 6: they want to enter into massive trade agreements, because it
Speaker 6: is the case that they want their own people groups
Speaker 6: to thrive, because it is the case that they are
Speaker 6: geographically landlocked away from Europe for the most part, and
Speaker 6: definitely the United States.
Speaker 3: Oh, isn't it the case that we could then get
Speaker 3: oil for cheaper.
Speaker 6: Isn't it then the case that there's all sorts of
Speaker 6: trade agreements we could have that we no longer have
Speaker 6: to sanction them on because we don't have to have
Speaker 6: this protectorate there. That's equally logically possible. The problem that
Speaker 6: you have here, I'm not saying that this should happen.
Speaker 6: I'm pointing out in analogy that you are making the
Speaker 6: determinative kind of quality here that ten million Jews are
Speaker 6: stopping this nightmare scenario, and it's absurd.
Speaker 3: That's not what's actually going on. What's actually going on.
Speaker 6: Is the United States military is what's stopping that nightmare scenario,
Speaker 6: not ten million Jews in the United States. And if
Speaker 6: we had mass migration of Christians to that region for
Speaker 6: their own holy land, for them to have their own
Speaker 6: holy relics, for them to have the Holy Land back
Speaker 6: to them, that region would be infinitely safer than it
Speaker 6: is right this second.
Speaker 1: So I think here we've reached the point where the
Speaker 1: core naivete of your position, which is that the Muslims
Speaker 1: are just like the rest of us, comes to the forefront.
Speaker 1: When the Barbary pirates were menacing American ships and Jeffersons
Speaker 1: and ambassadors, Jefferson's question to the ambassadors was, go talk
Speaker 1: to the ambassador in Tripoli and ask them what is
Speaker 1: their beef with America. They've been fighting with Europe for
Speaker 1: a long time. We haven't done anything to them. Why
Speaker 1: are they doing this to us? And the ambassador abdal
Speaker 1: Rahman replied, he goes, it has nothing to do with you.
Speaker 1: We are doing this because it asks us to do it.
Speaker 1: In the Quran, you are an infidel and our job
Speaker 1: is to fight, defeat and destroy the infidels. This is
Speaker 1: in the Quran. It is the actual constitution of the
Speaker 1: world of Islam. So when you say these are guys
Speaker 1: who want coffee shops and tall buildings and Trump Tower
Speaker 1: and high tech. Yes, but I would say, and here's
Speaker 1: where you would say that the Muslims who want those
Speaker 1: things are actually the Muslims least attentive to the Quran.
Speaker 1: These are the Muslims who are actually less Islamic, mulim,
Speaker 1: less in bread. The true Muslims see all of America
Speaker 1: as the house of war. So the idea that you suggest,
Speaker 1: which is the ge they're going to be we're landlocked,
Speaker 1: we need to make some trade deals is a complete
Speaker 1: misunderstanding of the nature of Islam.
Speaker 2: And this is part of the reason I just want
Speaker 2: necessary acts.
Speaker 6: I want to make sure the naivete is on my
Speaker 6: part that you believe the only thing stopping this future
Speaker 6: is ten million Jews who are in that region.
Speaker 3: No, I just want to make sure that that is.
Speaker 2: The natural position. I'm not saying.
Speaker 1: Look, you asked, you gave me a hypothetical, and you said,
Speaker 1: if Israel is obliterated. The scenario I'm describing doesn't require
Speaker 1: the obliteration of Israel. It simply requires the complete mobilization
Speaker 1: of those countries. I think what Trump is doing is
Speaker 1: he's playing a game in which he's trying to set
Speaker 1: one Muslim off against another.
Speaker 2: He's like, listen, let me see.
Speaker 3: This, that's actually perfect.
Speaker 6: So that if it is the case, Denesh, that this
Speaker 6: does not require the obliteration of Israel for Muslims to
Speaker 6: do this right this second. If they do begin acting
Speaker 6: this way, and I agree with you that they likely will,
Speaker 6: then I could see how Christians would have an obligation
Speaker 6: to intervene, especially in our own interests, because now they're
Speaker 6: coming here to kill us.
Speaker 3: Great, we would need to do something about that.
Speaker 6: But you see how you carefully took Israel out of
Speaker 6: that equation and ten million juser out of that equation.
Speaker 6: What's the obligation morally that we have to go help
Speaker 6: them right this second when you just made the claim
Speaker 6: that without them there or with them there, this can
Speaker 6: still happen even without their obliteration.
Speaker 1: Well, let's extend out the same analogy to see why
Speaker 1: what I'm saying makes total sense.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's envision a.
Speaker 1: Scenario where it's not Israel that is overrun, but Australia, Canada,
Speaker 1: Great Britain, France and Germany are overrun by the Muslims.
Speaker 3: With their immigration policy.
Speaker 1: That's right, with their immigration policy, but not just immigration
Speaker 1: po massively supported by terrorist infiltration money coming out of
Speaker 1: Qatar and other is out of.
Speaker 6: The terrorist infiltrate without the mass migration, Dinash.
Speaker 2: No, many of them already in the country.
Speaker 3: Because of mass migration, because.
Speaker 2: Of original mass migration.
Speaker 3: Yes, what we've done, Okay, that's a suicidal empathy.
Speaker 6: But that has nothing at all to do if if
Speaker 6: we have good border policy, and we have good immigration
Speaker 6: policy locking Islam out of the United States and Western world,
Speaker 6: which I would love to see, right, this problem goes away,
Speaker 6: regardless of regardless of US helping Israel or not.
Speaker 1: Number one, many of them already here. Number two. The
Speaker 1: hold on the Muslim Brotherhood has made it really clear
Speaker 1: in its memoranda that we don't actually want to focus
Speaker 1: on bin Loaden types with long.
Speaker 2: Beards and white robes.
Speaker 3: On the womb.
Speaker 1: We want American born kids, wo, dude, and American warn
Speaker 1: converts to take the vanguard. We mean Islamic lawyers born
Speaker 1: in America. So unless you have some plan for getting
Speaker 1: out thirty million Muslims who are legal and US citizens,
Speaker 1: by the way, you're talking nonsense, guys. I want to
Speaker 1: announce I have a new book coming out in the fall.
Speaker 1: I'm very excited about. It's called The Stones Cry Out
Speaker 1: subtitle Biblical Archaeology, Prophecy and the Last Days. The book
Speaker 1: outlines the greatest discoveries in Biblical archaeology that affirm the Bible,
Speaker 1: confirm the presence of the Jews and the Holy Land,
Speaker 1: and also support the twin foundations of Western civilization, which
Speaker 1: are Athens and Jerusalem.
Speaker 2: Stones.
Speaker 1: Cry Out has rave reviews from archaeologists, from leading pastors,
Speaker 1: and from prominent commentators of The book, published by Charisma Books,
Speaker 1: is available now for pre orders on Amazon. So I'm
Speaker 1: calling on you early birds to order your copies now.
Speaker 1: You'll be the first to get it when it's out. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm now on substack. It's kind of full circle for me.
Speaker 1: I started out as a journalist writing articles for National Review,
Speaker 1: the American Spectator, the Washington Post, lots of places. After
Speaker 1: my stint in the Reagan Whitehouse, I pivoted to writing books.
Speaker 2: And that was way back in nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1: So I've been mainly known as an author and of
Speaker 1: course later as a filmmaker. But my first job journalist,
Speaker 1: and now I'm getting back to that. On substack, you'll
Speaker 1: get original articles on commentary, groundbreaking investigations, exclusive access to
Speaker 1: film clips and show clips.
Speaker 2: And guess what, it's free. So check it out.
Speaker 1: Go to Denesh DESUSA dot substack dot com. Jonathan Rose
Speaker 1: was born in London moved to the United States in
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety seven. Has had a long career working for
Speaker 1: companies like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Prudential Securities. He's
Speaker 1: currently the co founder and CEO of block Trust IRA
Speaker 1: also known as block Trust. This is a company that
Speaker 1: uses the latest cutting edge AI to drive investment strategies
Speaker 1: for accounts that are in iras or in tax protected iras.
Speaker 1: And Jonathan, We're going to talk a little bit about
Speaker 1: about crypto and bitcoin, but I want to begin at
Speaker 1: the sort of bitcoin for dummies level by asking you
Speaker 1: if someone were to say, I, you know, I hear
Speaker 1: about cryptocurrency and I sometimes hear that bitcoin is is
Speaker 1: an asset? What is bitcoin? And crypto? Are these assets?
Speaker 1: Are these currencies? How would you describe the category that
Speaker 1: we are dealing with here?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's a great, great question, you know when you
Speaker 8: took me down memory lane there telling the audience, you
Speaker 8: know with London Metal exchangeable can standing bill into kind
Speaker 8: of brings back great memories to me and being in
Speaker 8: the financial realm. How I kind of answer this question
Speaker 8: is watching the evolution of everything. I used to work
Speaker 8: on a trading stock market floor wearing a jacket, people screaming,
Speaker 8: tickets flying everywhere, and then really the birth of the
Speaker 8: Internet and communications being sped up and maybe not running
Speaker 8: across the trading pit floor and communicating online with treaders,
Speaker 8: and as things became quicker and quicker. This was the
Speaker 8: advancement of technology, and technology was able to make better
Speaker 8: decisions quicker, which ultimately led to these companies I worked
Speaker 8: for to make more money for the bottom line. You know,
Speaker 8: when I was first introduced to crypto currency, which is
Speaker 8: really a peer to peer system to change information much faster.
Speaker 8: As intriguing as it was, I think there was kind
Speaker 8: of a pushback on technology back then. And when people
Speaker 8: were telling me that cryptocurrency assets like bitcoin are going
Speaker 8: to become the future of money and the future of
Speaker 8: holding an asset class, which I guess you could call
Speaker 8: it an asset and look at it as real money,
Speaker 8: I always wanted guilty hands up. I was one of
Speaker 8: those people, Nah, you absolutely crazy digital money that you
Speaker 8: can't see, you can't touch, and this is going to
Speaker 8: be the future and replace different asset classes. So I
Speaker 8: Dinesh was one of those naysayers. I was one of
Speaker 8: those naysayers that this is a fad, this isn't going
Speaker 8: to last. And lo and behold, you know, Hindsight's twenty twenty.
Speaker 8: I began to listen to a lot of my peers,
Speaker 8: you know a lot of very wealthy billionaires and people
Speaker 8: that were running billion dollar books and were telling me
Speaker 8: and educating me on why assets like bitcoin is the
Speaker 8: future of money, and it is an asset class, and
Speaker 8: it is a store value, and it is real money,
Speaker 8: especially with the limited supply, the twenty one million tokens
Speaker 8: that can ever be minted. So in twenty and fourteen,
Speaker 8: I was reintroduced twenty fifteen, reintroduced to bitcoin again. I
Speaker 8: think it was a round about maybe five thousand dollars
Speaker 8: a token back then. I bought some, I sold some. Again.
Speaker 8: I was looking at it and thinking, is it going
Speaker 8: to have this staying power that everyone keeps telling me
Speaker 8: it's going to have. I was still not one hundred
Speaker 8: percent sold. But then when I started watching the institutions
Speaker 8: begin to buy, because remember there's a big difference between
Speaker 8: people like you and I on the retail level waking
Speaker 8: up in the morning drinking their coffee, you know, reading
Speaker 8: their paper, versus big institutions with billions of dollars in
Speaker 8: slush fund money, siphoning that money off and start secretly
Speaker 8: buying it. When I started seeing that, that's when I
Speaker 8: started really paying attention because I followed the institutional money.
Speaker 8: And then when I saw that the big, biggestitutions were
Speaker 8: buying back in and then President Trump was making his
Speaker 8: pitch per se on his campaign trial to realize that, Hey,
Speaker 8: I also believe in crypto. I believe in bitcoin. It's
Speaker 8: going to be the future of money, and we want
Speaker 8: to make America the US crypto capital of the world.
Speaker 8: So I think the Trump family believe it as an
Speaker 8: asset class as money. And with anything that's new, there's
Speaker 8: always going to be a little bit of skepticism. But
Speaker 8: that's where I say, you know, people like you, you're
Speaker 8: champion for information, for knowledge and laying it out in
Speaker 8: very simple terms, and I'm a big proponent for that
Speaker 8: for people to kind of pick up these books, speak
Speaker 8: to people and get an education on why every day
Speaker 8: when you're up hopefully drinking your coffee, reading the news,
Speaker 8: you're hearing bitcoin, bitcoin institutions buying clarity acts being passed.
Speaker 8: You know, President Trump mining bitcoin, you know bitcoin being
Speaker 8: added to the US Treasury. You know, why do we
Speaker 8: keep hearing about this word bitcoin every single And it's
Speaker 8: simply because it's a new asset class that's emerged that
Speaker 8: will eventually maybe not replace money, but it will be
Speaker 8: a store of value where funds get siphoned to. Because
Speaker 8: as we look at the US dollar thirty nine trillion
Speaker 8: dollars in debt and drowning, the monetary supply is under
Speaker 8: extreme pressure. Once those cracks deepen and widen, we're going
Speaker 8: to see more and more money shift into the cryptocurrency landscape,
Speaker 8: particularly assets like bitcoin, which is considered an asset class
Speaker 8: in real money. And this is the time we're in
Speaker 8: this golden age, so to speak of why people need
Speaker 8: to get a strong understanding and education and find out
Speaker 8: why they want to add bitcoin to their portfolio right now.
Speaker 8: So kind of a long winded answer, but it's been
Speaker 8: an interesting journey for me for the past, you know,
Speaker 8: twenty years after leaving Wall Street and seeing how bitcoin
Speaker 8: adoption has come about, and seeing what the future of
Speaker 8: money looks like. And I think people need to not
Speaker 8: be like an ostrich and very the head and the said,
Speaker 8: but really pay attention and start understanding this monetary reset
Speaker 8: that's going to be upon us shortly, and why it's
Speaker 8: important to shift some assets into an asset like bitcoin.
Speaker 1: You know, I know that in previous years some of
Speaker 1: these big investment houses have been skeptical of bitcoin and crypto,
Speaker 1: and quite honestly, I think the main reason for it
Speaker 1: is that they, you know, in a way, they saw
Speaker 1: that they couldn't make as much money off of this
Speaker 1: asset class as they could. If you're buying and selling shares,
Speaker 1: you obviously need their brokers to carry it out.
Speaker 2: And so but recently I saw.
Speaker 1: Fidelity has made a big investment in crypto and in bitcoin,
Speaker 1: and I think you mentioned that there's a tightening up
Speaker 1: of the regulatory infrastructure. So while the bitcoin world may
Speaker 1: have looked like the wild West, you know, twenty ten
Speaker 1: to twenty fifteen, it's now become mainstream. And of course,
Speaker 1: as we go into an increasingly digital world, isn't it
Speaker 1: obvious that digital currencies are going to be the way
Speaker 1: in which transactions take place? Are you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about block trust, Ira, because it seems to me that,
Speaker 1: like your company is kind of a marriage of recognizing
Speaker 1: the power of bitcoin and crypto but marrying it to
Speaker 1: the technology of artificial intelligence and explain why that can
Speaker 1: be really helpful to someone who's looking for sort of
Speaker 1: looking for some smart people to manage their money even
Speaker 1: while they sleep.
Speaker 8: Yeah, good question, and I kind of reference what you
Speaker 8: said that you know where we're now seeing Fidelity purchase bitcoin,
Speaker 8: we are seeing Morgan Stanley, We're seeing black Rock develop
Speaker 8: even these ets strategies for bitcoin. And in fact, if
Speaker 8: you look at these big institutions now, the most profitable
Speaker 8: asset class, these big institutions like Blackbrook, the most profitable
Speaker 8: etf is bitcoin. So, like you said, if you can't
Speaker 8: beat them, then join them, because they now trying to
Speaker 8: find out ways on how to monetize the cryptocurrency landscape
Speaker 8: because they've been missing out for many years. But this
Speaker 8: is where the problem really arises. Because let's say you
Speaker 8: speak to Fidelity or you're speaking to your neighbor and
Speaker 8: you're like, Hey, you know, I'm hearing bitcoins a good investments.
Speaker 8: I want to buy some Where do I go? And
Speaker 8: you could be buyed online at Fidelity, you could go
Speaker 8: to Coinbase, you could go to Kraken and then this
Speaker 8: is where the problem starts, because they're giving you essentially
Speaker 8: a platform, and the platform fancy word for platform is
Speaker 8: like you buy yourself DIY, go and figure it out,
Speaker 8: and you can try and buy some crypto over here.
Speaker 8: And this is where people are left kind of scratching
Speaker 8: their head because they're like, well, this is complicated. I
Speaker 8: don't even understand how to do this. So at block Trust,
Speaker 8: what we do is we specialize in helping people first
Speaker 8: and foremost on board safely, securely, even with an IRA
Speaker 8: or four one K, because the government lets you do that.
Speaker 8: You can roll over a retirement account tax and penalty free,
Speaker 8: and you could buy digital currencies with it, such as bitcoin,
Speaker 8: the theory of even XRP. We have over sixty different cryptocurrencies.
Speaker 8: But now this is really the main distinguishing factor between
Speaker 8: block Trust and everybody else out there. So everybody else
Speaker 8: out there kind of gives you a cockpit. We give
Speaker 8: you a pilot, so we are here to talk to
Speaker 8: you on board. You that you know you're calling a
Speaker 8: phone number, you're not ending up overseas somewhere. You're actually
Speaker 8: speaking to someone that has knowledge about the cryptocurrency market
Speaker 8: that can walk you through a to z on how
Speaker 8: to purchase this. So so number one, you're not alone.
Speaker 8: Number two, you know, we take security very seriously, so
Speaker 8: military greed, encryption, two hundred million dollars worth of insurance
Speaker 8: when people are buying, So we want to make sure
Speaker 8: people feel safe and secure. And when you buy a cryptocurrency.
Speaker 8: The big maybe conundrum that people kind of talk about
Speaker 8: is the volatility with crypto. Right, we know it's inherently volatile.
Speaker 8: So all you can do up until we came around
Speaker 8: was what we call the buy and hold strategy. So
Speaker 8: buy and hold strategy may work wonders for I don't know,
Speaker 8: precious metals, which I also own. You know, you buy
Speaker 8: a piece of silver, you throw it in the safe
Speaker 8: and you forget about it, buy and hold. But why
Speaker 8: doesn't that work for cryptocurrency. Well, because it's a market
Speaker 8: that doesn't sleep. It's a market that doesn't have an
Speaker 8: opening bell, it doesn't have a closing bell, so it's
Speaker 8: always on twenty four to seven. So the question then arises,
Speaker 8: who's watching your portfolio at three am? If there's attack
Speaker 8: in the Middle East, if there's fiscal policy change in Japan,
Speaker 8: if there's a currency debasement. So we use very sophisticated AI,
Speaker 8: which we've had for the past seven years that was
Speaker 8: voted number one trading strategy by Bitcoin Magazine. And what
Speaker 8: this AI is doing and it's the good kind at Dineshkase.
Speaker 8: Sometimes ALI can also have a negative perspective on it,
Speaker 8: but our AI is crunching data and they say data
Speaker 8: is the new oil. And when you're looking at a
Speaker 8: market that doesn't sleep, we have to quantify millions and
Speaker 8: millions of data points. So we're looking at on chain metrics,
Speaker 8: who's buying, who's selling, We're looking at investor sentiment, who's talking,
Speaker 8: who's tweeting about bitcoin? And multiple different languages around the globe.
Speaker 8: We're looking at priced technical analysis, trading charts, we're looking
Speaker 8: at macroeconomic data, which is probably the key indicator right now,
Speaker 8: especially with what's going on within Iran and the oil supply.
Speaker 8: And we're quantifying these data points and the data is
Speaker 8: telling us, hey, get out of the market. Volatility is
Speaker 8: going to hit us. So we move our clients out
Speaker 8: of the market and they sit in cash. They can
Speaker 8: access their money anytime, there's no lock up period, and
Speaker 8: then when the time's right to buy again, we'll get
Speaker 8: these green signals and then we'll be able to buy
Speaker 8: back in for our clients. So what doing is we're
Speaker 8: mitigating that draw down that we see with crypto, the
Speaker 8: draw down. We've seen it go stray high, but people
Speaker 8: weren't able to lock in their profits at the right time.
Speaker 8: So what if there was a way where this volatility
Speaker 8: is like being at a beach with your family and
Speaker 8: a lifeguard and he's blowing the whistle. Don't go in
Speaker 8: the ocean. There's a riptide. Everyone needs to stay out.
Speaker 8: So we're able to do that. We do this very successfully.
Speaker 8: Twenty twenty five was a very bad year for bitcoin.
Speaker 8: If you would have held it from January to December,
Speaker 8: you would have been down negative six and a half percent.
Speaker 8: But with our technology, we were up twenty seven percent.
Speaker 8: So that's something I like to brag about. And how
Speaker 8: we're able to do that is recognizing times in the
Speaker 8: market where you need to be buying and selling out
Speaker 8: buying and selling, and maybe we'll do that three or
Speaker 8: four times a month, depending on the volatility. So we
Speaker 8: look at now volatility as our friend. It's not a
Speaker 8: magic crystal ball in Nasha. We're not right one hundred
Speaker 8: percent of the time, but we are right more than
Speaker 8: we are wrong, and then this is how we beat
Speaker 8: the buy and hold strategy. So a buy and hold
Speaker 8: strategy may work wonders for many different asset classes out there,
Speaker 8: such as precious metals, but a buy and hold for
Speaker 8: an asset class that doesn't sleep because there's no opening
Speaker 8: bell or closing bell, you want to have a watchdog.
Speaker 8: You want to have someone watching this twenty four to
Speaker 8: seven even while you sleep, so you can make the
Speaker 8: right decisions at the right time from saving you tens
Speaker 8: of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of dollars worth of
Speaker 8: potential gains or losses just by using this very sophisticated
Speaker 8: AI which I will add one last thing that was
Speaker 8: only reserved and available for hedge funds, elite institutional investors
Speaker 8: that were using our technology, and I was able to
Speaker 8: bring this technology down to the retail level, so people
Speaker 8: like you and I, just retail investors as well who
Speaker 8: have iras and four to one ks can take advantage
Speaker 8: of this. Because people want to invest and they want
Speaker 8: to invest in crypto, but to not use our type
Speaker 8: of technology is actually irresponsible. It will be irresponsible not
Speaker 8: to use this type of technology right now. And people
Speaker 8: who are looking at crypto they may be on the
Speaker 8: right track, but they're on the wrong train because now
Speaker 8: we have these sophisticated tools that are going to mitigate
Speaker 8: risk and maximize returns. And this is exactly why block
Speaker 8: trust is probably the fastest growing crypto platform in America today.
Speaker 1: The company is block trust IRA. I've been talking to
Speaker 1: Jonathan Rose, the CEO. Jonathan, thank you very much, Thank you, Denesh.
Speaker 1: We work our entire life sacrificing and saving for a
Speaker 1: comfortable retirement, to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren.
Speaker 1: Right but then you see the reckless spending in Washington,
Speaker 1: you see the inflation that's eating away at your hard
Speaker 1: earned savings. It's infuriating. That's why I don't just sit
Speaker 1: back and watch. I take action to help protect my family.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm recommending you learn about how gold and
Speaker 1: silver can help you protect and diversify your savings.
Speaker 2: And the best place to start, in.
Speaker 1: My humble opinion, is with a free gold and silver
Speaker 1: kit from my trusted partners at gold Co. Gold Co
Speaker 1: is who I trust. They've helped tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: Americans place over three billion dollars in gold and silver,
Speaker 1: and because they're a trusted partner of this show, you
Speaker 1: could qualify for up to ten percent and free silver
Speaker 1: just for getting started. Gold Co is the real deal,
Speaker 1: so go ahead head over to dineshgold dot com. That's
Speaker 1: dineshgold dot com.