Speaker 1: That Jay Weber Podcast is presented by Creative Planning, helping
Speaker 1: clients simplify their journey to financial wellness, one personalized plan
Speaker 1: at a time. That Jay Weber Podcast is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2: Good Day, Welcome to the j Weber Podcast. Day. We'll
Speaker 2: talk about President Trump's political enemies with getting a little smaller,
Speaker 2: how today's bullying democrats really are showing the colors of
Speaker 2: socialist dictators just infuriates them that they won't all fall
Speaker 2: behind their nonsense, even this question of who won the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election. Also some thoughts on Stephen Colbert as
Speaker 2: he's this year's Colin Kaepernick, fired because he sucked and
Speaker 2: now wanting to blame other people. And then the final
Speaker 2: segment of the show today or the podcast today is
Speaker 2: more on how the white liberals and America haters over
Speaker 2: time sanitized the histories of Native and black populations as
Speaker 2: a way to ensure the white European is an evil
Speaker 2: monster in there in their midst. All that more is
Speaker 2: coming up, but Grey Jean producer extraordinary. I just that
Speaker 2: last segment comes out of a Lewis and Clark book
Speaker 2: that I just finished reading, and it's right from their
Speaker 2: journals and their Lewis and Clark experience. Very different than
Speaker 2: what we were taught in schools over the years, and
Speaker 2: certainly very different than what the left says. Now. For example,
Speaker 2: did you know Saka Juella was pretty much useless?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: Really, Yeah, it's just a great myth has been built
Speaker 2: around her, and I think it was probably the feminists
Speaker 2: of the seventies and eighties that really wanted to promote
Speaker 2: her as the woman who led the white men west.
Speaker 2: He's dumb white men, she led them west. Turns out
Speaker 2: she was actually twelve and pregnant when she joined the expedition,
Speaker 2: and only because they really wanted the French trader who
Speaker 2: was her very older, very much older husband, to come
Speaker 2: along on the trip.
Speaker 3: Oh my gosh, after now the story comes out, I
Speaker 3: bet you.
Speaker 2: Got much more. Yeah, great tidbit. They took her along
Speaker 2: because she was Shoshone, and they thought, well, at least
Speaker 2: she'll she can tell us where the Shoshone tribe is.
Speaker 2: They got into her her alleged native land. She had
Speaker 2: no idea where she was or where they were. Just wow,
Speaker 2: Saka Juya was completely useless. So that's just a bit
Speaker 2: of a tease on that, But Greg, I want to
Speaker 2: talk about how successful business guy Kevin O'Leary has infuriated
Speaker 2: gen Zers this week. I don't know if you saw this.
Speaker 2: For those who missed it, O'Leary is he's one of
Speaker 2: the hosts of Shark Tank, very successful businessman. He's sent
Speaker 2: in a podcast. Most people waste about fifteen thousand dollars
Speaker 2: a year on stupid stuff like five dollars coffees and
Speaker 2: door dash.
Speaker 4: Stop buying coffee for five dollars and fifty cents. Can
Speaker 4: I can walk around with anybody for day and show
Speaker 4: you that they're wasting fifteen percent of their money sometimes
Speaker 4: twenty stupid stuff. You know, you go to work to
Speaker 4: spend fifteen bucks on a sandwich? What are you an idiot?
Speaker 5: It costs you ninety nine cents to make a sandget
Speaker 5: home and bring it with you, So what if you
Speaker 5: bring it with you, bring your own water if you
Speaker 5: have to, or your own drink, or bring your own coffee.
Speaker 5: Money you start to add that up every day.
Speaker 4: It's a ton of money. Most people, particularly working in
Speaker 4: metropolitan cities, that are just starting out on their job,
Speaker 4: making their first sixty thousand piss away about fifteen thousand
Speaker 4: a year on stupid stuff, and that's what they should stock.
Speaker 2: Gregory John, where's the controversy there?
Speaker 3: Oh, my gosh, I mean it's only obvious. I mean,
Speaker 3: you and I both grew up that way. I mean
Speaker 3: I can remember back when Dorothy and I first started out,
Speaker 3: we had twenty dollars left over for the weekend, so
Speaker 3: we had to stretch it out.
Speaker 2: For the next week. It's a lot of nickel taps
Speaker 2: at the bars up there, though. It's the only thing
Speaker 2: I think he gets wrong is the cost of a
Speaker 2: premium coffee right now. It's more like seven or eight
Speaker 2: bucks in the larger cities. But other than that, he
Speaker 2: speaks the truth. And obviously he said younger people first
Speaker 2: starting out, So the average gen zer's reaction to this
Speaker 2: on social media was really interesting to me. They just
Speaker 2: blasted him, of course, including Buck Sexton, which surprised me
Speaker 2: a little bit. They wanted to defend the wasteful spending
Speaker 2: of gen zers by saying, well, college is three times
Speaker 2: more expensive, mortgage rates are huge, everything costs more, as
Speaker 2: if that's an excuse for people to engage in wasteful spending,
Speaker 2: and then cry poor I think.
Speaker 3: That's all relative. I mean it was expensive for us
Speaker 3: back then. It costs a cup of coffee back then,
Speaker 3: was what sense. But when you only have twenty dollars
Speaker 3: in your bank account, it's expensive.
Speaker 2: Of course, Yes, it's all the rising cost of living.
Speaker 2: And today's generation acts they actually are more privileged than
Speaker 2: any in the previously, and they act as if if
Speaker 2: they don't get everything they want, or if they have
Speaker 2: to make a little bit of a sacrifice, it's terrible.
Speaker 2: You know, Kevin O'Leary wasn't saying life is perfect or
Speaker 2: that it's easy for young people who are just starting
Speaker 2: out if they just cut out coffee and door dash.
Speaker 2: He was actually saying the opposite. The cost of living
Speaker 2: is expensive. It's made worse by bad choices, So make
Speaker 2: good choices here. But what tickled me is here's a
Speaker 2: rich guy telling you how I got rich. Basically, make
Speaker 2: smart spending choices, don't waste money, unnecessarily create a budget.
Speaker 2: So you can either take that, whether your gen z
Speaker 2: or whether you're a little bit older, you can either
Speaker 2: take that advice and end up financially comfortable as well.
Speaker 2: You can just blast him and spit venom at him
Speaker 2: and call him stupid.
Speaker 3: Unfortunately, I think more people were just blasting him on that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but you can either get all defensive when someone
Speaker 2: points out the bad choice as you're making, or admit
Speaker 2: it and learn something and be better for it. But
Speaker 2: when it comes today's financial situation, oh learly in the
Speaker 2: gen z ers are actually both right. The cost of
Speaker 2: living is out of whack for a younger generation, I
Speaker 2: think more than for us growing up due to bad policies,
Speaker 2: policy choices over the last forty years, inflation, out of control,
Speaker 2: social service programs that only grow and grow and take
Speaker 2: more of our paycheck. That's true, but today's kids are
Speaker 2: also wasting a lot of money in really stupid ways,
Speaker 2: with streaming services and door dash and destination weddings and
Speaker 2: seven dollars coffees. So step one of dealing with higher
Speaker 2: prices should be do an honest evaluation of your spending.
Speaker 2: Are you being stupid or arrogantly unwilling to sacrifice even
Speaker 2: a little in order to save for the future. If
Speaker 2: you do it right, you'll have the ability to retire early,
Speaker 2: as I did, at least with the help of a
Speaker 2: good investment advisor. Mine's creative planning. Have you heard of
Speaker 2: Creative Planning, Greg see how I can always bring this
Speaker 2: back to our.
Speaker 3: Sponsor, the master of segues.
Speaker 2: Creative Planning is one of the nation's largest independent wealth
Speaker 2: management firms, offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management,
Speaker 2: estate planning, tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management,
Speaker 2: all in house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their
Speaker 2: fiduciary wealth managers are here to help you navigate every
Speaker 2: piece of your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot com
Speaker 2: to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot Com.
Speaker 2: Your team awaits paid for by Creative Planning and sec
Speaker 2: registered investment advisor. The speakers statements are not an endorsement
Speaker 2: of the firm. I have a longer segment on how
Speaker 2: today's activist left and white historians in general have sanitized
Speaker 2: and mythologized Native Americans, And so I'm hoping to move
Speaker 2: faster through some of the other stuff that I've found
Speaker 2: interesting over the last few days. Let's start with Thomas
Speaker 2: Massey's removal from Congress by his own constituents in Kentucky.
Speaker 2: It's more than that, though President Trump displayed his power
Speaker 2: in all sorts of ways in Tuesday's primary. So it
Speaker 2: solidifies my explanation as to why President Trump has a
Speaker 2: stronger grip on the Republican Party in the final years
Speaker 2: of his presidency than he did in the early years
Speaker 2: of his president It's historically rare, if not unique. Trump's
Speaker 2: moving into the period in which he's supposed to be
Speaker 2: a lame duck in Washington, d c. And within his
Speaker 2: own party, and instead his control of the party has
Speaker 2: never been stronger. Thomas Massey was until recently a popular
Speaker 2: multi term incumbent House member out in Kentucky. He called
Speaker 2: himself a libertarian, but really he just spent his time
Speaker 2: in Washington opposing everything. He was a difficult jag in
Speaker 2: just about every way, and whenever the Republican caucus really
Speaker 2: needed him, he disappointed them. Massey perpetually made things more
Speaker 2: difficult for Mike Johnson and Kevin McCarthy and was proud
Speaker 2: to do so. And that's the biggest reason Donald Trump
Speaker 2: and his allies put a target on Massey's back for
Speaker 2: removal on Tuesday. Massey didn't only lose his seat in Congress,
Speaker 2: though he lost in a primary and by ten points.
Speaker 2: A lot of attention is being given to Massey's loss,
Speaker 2: of course, but fewer news outlets and fewer pundits are
Speaker 2: emphasizing this guy lost in a primary by ten points.
Speaker 2: He was a sitting house member. He went from popular
Speaker 2: incumbent to turd within his own party and within his
Speaker 2: own constituency rather quickly, and Folks, losing your primary by
Speaker 2: ten points means that it was about more than Trump.
Speaker 2: Sean Davis of The Federalist explained why Massey lost on
Speaker 2: X and I think he got it right. He said,
Speaker 2: Massey went from principal libertarian to anti Trump Epstein, obsessive
Speaker 2: and voting against Trump and leadership at every turn. Massey
Speaker 2: lost because he went from being perceived as a quirky
Speaker 2: but lovable nerd who seemed to genuinely believe everything he
Speaker 2: said to looking like a clout chasing influencer who cared
Speaker 2: more about getting TV time with Democrats than he did
Speaker 2: about representing his voters. Davis says we'll never know what
Speaker 2: caused the apparent personality change, but the drastic change was undeniable,
Speaker 2: as was the seeming lack of interest in much of
Speaker 2: anything happening in Kentucky. He says, blame Trump, blame Israel,
Speaker 2: Blame Epstein, blame the tragic death of a spouse. I
Speaker 2: don't care, but you can't just wave away Massey from
Speaker 2: twenty twenty, going face to face with the Trump machine
Speaker 2: and winning in a route, only to get smoked six
Speaker 2: years later. Massey's voters didn't really change all that much,
Speaker 2: but he did, and they noticed. I think that's right.
Speaker 2: In the end, Thomas Massey was like so many other
Speaker 2: former Republicans suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. They initially leave
Speaker 2: the party saying they just don't like Trump and won't
Speaker 2: give up their principles, But then months or years later
Speaker 2: they've given up their principles. They're sounding like radicalized Democrats.
Speaker 2: Have you checked in on Bill Crystal or Joonah Goldberg lately?
Speaker 2: They sound like liberal Democrats now on everything and at
Speaker 2: every turn. Their discipline conservatism evaporated as their Trump hatred grew.
Speaker 2: Did oh with Massey? His disciplined libertarianism, if he ever
Speaker 2: had it, evaporated as his Trump hatred grew. That's why
Speaker 2: this term derangement syndrome really is accurate. When it comes
Speaker 2: to Trump haters. They start by insisting that they aren't
Speaker 2: the one who's changing that all the rest of us
Speaker 2: in their party are changing because of Trump, and then
Speaker 2: months years later they're talking like aoc OR chairman MAO
Speaker 2: and refusing to support any Republican in any manner. But
Speaker 2: it's worth pointing out that Trump's victories on Tuesday weren't
Speaker 2: limited to taking Thomas Massey off the board. Also in Kentucky,
Speaker 2: his endorsed candidates won their primaries for both the House
Speaker 2: and the Senate. Andy Barr is a congressman who left
Speaker 2: the House to run for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat in fall,
Speaker 2: and he won his primary as a strong Trump supporter
Speaker 2: with the Trump endorsement. The guy Trump endorsed to replace
Speaker 2: Barr in the House also won his primary. His name
Speaker 2: is Ralph Alvarado, who was the first Hispanic lawmaker in
Speaker 2: that state. Meanwhile, over in Georgia, Trump's influence was also evident,
Speaker 2: as Brad Roethensberger came in third in a primary for
Speaker 2: governor in a race that he was expected to win.
Speaker 2: If Roethensberger's name sounds familiar, it's because as Georgia's Secretary
Speaker 2: of State, he defended the twenty twenty election results against
Speaker 2: Trump's accusations of cheating and turned himself into a Trump enemy.
Speaker 2: So this guy goes from a top statewide elected official
Speaker 2: in Georgia to unemployed next year because he refused to
Speaker 2: take accusations of election irregularities seriously. And some of those
Speaker 2: election irregularities in Georgia, by the way, have been proven
Speaker 2: to be real since it's taken years, but investigations into
Speaker 2: twenty twenty fraud in states like Joe Georga in California
Speaker 2: had been proven since, not that the Democrats and the
Speaker 2: Trump haters will admit it. They still don't want to
Speaker 2: look at the clear evidence that twenty twenty was a
Speaker 2: sloppy and unfair election. But the evidence does exist, and
Speaker 2: so all these Republicans learned the hard way, don't cross Trump. Now,
Speaker 2: let's be clear about how all of these men were
Speaker 2: targeted as part of a personal and political vendetta that
Speaker 2: Donald Trump had against them. They weren't necessarily targeted because
Speaker 2: removing them from their seats would make the Republican Party stronger,
Speaker 2: or it was smart in that regard. It's a mixed bag.
Speaker 2: I'm seeing and hearing all sorts of Republican insiders insisting
Speaker 2: that Trump's vendettas are making it harder for Republicans to
Speaker 2: keep seats and move their agenda. That's only the case
Speaker 2: in a few instances. The truth is nearly all of
Speaker 2: these men that Trump's influence helped kick out of office
Speaker 2: are in safe red districts that are very likely going
Speaker 2: to be won by their Republican primary replacement. And so
Speaker 2: if like Massy or Bill Cassidy, they were holding seats
Speaker 2: that could have and should have helped Republicans and Trump
Speaker 2: pass legislation in Washington, DC, but they were refusing to
Speaker 2: vote for the party or be helpful to it, any
Speaker 2: replacement is an upgrade. But if they were otherwise solid
Speaker 2: lawmakers who Trump just didn't like personally, then shoving them
Speaker 2: out could harm the party strategically. And out of all
Speaker 2: the recent wrangling and Trump influence, I can only see
Speaker 2: one clear instance in which Trump's meddling might hurt the
Speaker 2: party both numbers wise in DC and with lawmakers who
Speaker 2: are helpful to the party. I think Trump's endorsement of
Speaker 2: Bill Paxton in the Senate primary in Texas against sitting
Speaker 2: Senator John Cornyn is dumb. Cornyan has been a very
Speaker 2: good Conservative senator. He's voted along with the Trump agenda
Speaker 2: basically at every turn. He doesn't have any of the
Speaker 2: ethical problems Paxton has with Trump's targeting of John Cornyn.
Speaker 2: Who will hold that important Senate seat becomes more of
Speaker 2: a question. And I know it's Texas, but you can't
Speaker 2: automatically assume the Republican, any Republican will win in Texas.
Speaker 2: Remember Trump's moved to medal in the Georgia Senate race
Speaker 2: was based on the same thing. This is in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty two. It ended with the GOP picking a crummy
Speaker 2: crackpot in the primary, who then lost to the ridiculous
Speaker 2: Rafael Warnock in the general election. In Georgia. Right now,
Speaker 2: there is a Senate seat that should be in Republican hands,
Speaker 2: but isn't because Trump and his mega members tampered too much.
Speaker 2: Since we're on politics, let's switch to the Democrats. Clear
Speaker 2: need to cheat and rig the game any way they
Speaker 2: can in order to win folks. Gavin Newsom's cryptic comment
Speaker 2: about how he and the California Democrats can ensure that
Speaker 2: two Republicans don't end up winning their jungle primary runoff
Speaker 2: should be alarming and concerning to everyone. If you're listening
Speaker 2: to this podcast, I assume you know what a jungle
Speaker 2: primary is. It's a system in which you don't have
Speaker 2: primary runoffs by party. Everyone who wants the seat just
Speaker 2: runs in one large primary. Republicans, Democrats, Green Party candidates, Socialists, independence, whatever,
Speaker 2: They're all piled into the same group, and then the
Speaker 2: top two vote getters advanced to the general election. This year,
Speaker 2: since Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass and lefty lawmakers in
Speaker 2: California have been so genuinely awful at running that state,
Speaker 2: refusing to allow people to rebuild their while f or wildfires, etc.
Speaker 2: Because Democrat governance has been so dreadful in California that
Speaker 2: it's even angered a big chunk of Democrats there this year,
Speaker 2: there's a chance that two Republicans could end up finishing
Speaker 2: in the top two in that primary. So a reporter
Speaker 2: asked Gavin Newsom what his reaction would be to that happening,
Speaker 2: and his response was, basically, it won't happen. We, meaning Democrats,
Speaker 2: have a way to rig things, so it doesn't.
Speaker 6: We all have agencies we can shape the future. I've
Speaker 6: said this before, Saul repeated, I don't anticipate this need
Speaker 6: to be the case, But there is a blank break
Speaker 6: the glass scenario, and there's many people that have a
Speaker 6: deep understanding what it would look like if Democrats were
Speaker 6: locked out, and we're going to do everything to make
Speaker 6: sure that doesn't happen.
Speaker 2: Newsom made it clear that quote behind the scenes, efforts
Speaker 2: were being made to ensure two Republicans don't finish on top. Now,
Speaker 2: come on, that's election tampering. As Ted Cruz put it,
Speaker 2: He's literally declaring war on the voters. And you might
Speaker 2: think that goes too far. It doesn't not. If Gavin
Speaker 2: Newsom and the leaders who controlled the the state are
Speaker 2: working to ensure that the voter's wishes aren't followed, what
Speaker 2: is that other than election tampering. Even a few other
Speaker 2: leftists out there in California raised an eyebrow and said
Speaker 2: it'd be nice if Newsom would tell us to what
Speaker 2: lengths he's willing to go here to ensure a Democrat wins,
Speaker 2: because that sounds illegal. And what's he talking about here,
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz said in his podcast, understand what he is
Speaker 2: saying to the voters. If you pesky voters vote Republican,
Speaker 2: he will quote break the glass and rig the results.
Speaker 2: Newsom said we have the agencies, we have the power.
Speaker 2: There are break the glass scenarios if Republicans win. Cruse said,
Speaker 2: he's literally declaring war on the voters. This is Democrats
Speaker 2: gone wild. And Gavin Newsom, Abigail Spanberger, Kamala Harris, they're
Speaker 2: all doing the same thing. They're freaking out, they're panicking,
Speaker 2: and they're saying, we got to keep changing the rules
Speaker 2: so that under no circumstances is it possible that we lose.
Speaker 2: And Cruse said, those actions are dangerous and cynical and
Speaker 2: assault on the constitution and assault on democracy. And this
Speaker 2: is where today's Democrat are. He's absolutely right, of course,
Speaker 2: and the rest of us need to push back on it.
Speaker 2: Across the political spectrum. The rest of us need to
Speaker 2: push back on this sort of talk and these sorts
Speaker 2: of actions. It's interesting to hear Ted Cruz also say
Speaker 2: this is today's Democrat party, this is where today's Democrats
Speaker 2: are now, because I've been using that phrase for a
Speaker 2: few years now as we've talked about this socialist anti
Speaker 2: America creep that's been going on in the left. Today's
Speaker 2: Democrat Party is being run by a bunch of people
Speaker 2: who now pretend to be the ones to defend democracy,
Speaker 2: and yet they're the ones who are talking constantly about
Speaker 2: destroying democracy, ignoring the constitution, ignoring the law, destroying democracy
Speaker 2: so that they can have a sort of dictatorial control
Speaker 2: over this country in which they never lose another election.
Speaker 2: It's all so dishonest and there's so much game playing,
Speaker 2: and in a way. The next topic on the stack
Speaker 2: is related the ridiculous and idiotic attempt to smear Wisconsin
Speaker 2: GOP candidate Tom Tiffany with the who won the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty question been following this, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel trots
Speaker 2: out this question out of nowhere. Again. It's nothing more
Speaker 2: than a trap question that the Democrats have been using
Speaker 2: since twenty twenty to try to frame any Republican candidate
Speaker 2: as extreme and ridiculous in anti democracy, anti and unwilling
Speaker 2: to stand up to Trump. And it doesn't matter what
Speaker 2: the Republican's answer is to the question, because the leftists
Speaker 2: and their media minions have been really good. It's just
Speaker 2: simply spinning it anyway they want to spin it. This
Speaker 2: is exactly what happened here, and that's exactly what happened
Speaker 2: here this week. Tom Tiffany was asked about word of
Speaker 2: the FBI looking into the twenty twenty election in Wisconsin
Speaker 2: and no one knows what they're looking at or how
Speaker 2: it might turn out, and Tom Tiffany gave a perfectly
Speaker 2: reasonable answer. He basically said, I don't know what they're
Speaker 2: looking into, but I'm not against them looking which led
Speaker 2: to the claims of Tom Tiffany won't admit Joe Biden
Speaker 2: won the twenty twenty election, Tom Tiffany won't say if
Speaker 2: the election was fair. Tom Tiffany won't stand up to Trump.
Speaker 2: Good grief, it's all the same old gotcha nonsense, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter one bit. No, it doesn't even matter
Speaker 2: to voters. Some of the left are really invested in
Speaker 2: this smear though, as a way to trash Republican candidates
Speaker 2: for office. They want to use it as a litmus
Speaker 2: test as to how loyal this person is to Donald
Speaker 2: Trump or how cowardly is he. He won't stand up
Speaker 2: to Trump. It's all bull crap. My advice to Tom
Speaker 2: Tiffany and every other Republican candidate would be come up
Speaker 2: with a response that shuts down the question completely. The
Speaker 2: way questions about twenty twenty should be answered is you're
Speaker 2: just looking to twist any response I give. We can
Speaker 2: all have our own opinions on the results in twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: it's six years in the past. Next question, That's how
Speaker 2: I'd answered it, and any reporter attempted to follow up
Speaker 2: would be next question, That's how I'd answered it. None
Speaker 2: of that matters anymore. Next question, and BOYD does that response?
Speaker 2: Are the leftists and the Trump haters? I know because
Speaker 2: that's the response I gave on X this week, and
Speaker 2: whoo it had the leftists wanting to argue with me.
Speaker 2: My initial post was this question has become a silly
Speaker 2: misstest for lefty activists and Trump haiters. The truth is
Speaker 2: the Democrats have never ever wanted to look into a
Speaker 2: potential fraud in any of our elections, and they try
Speaker 2: to bully everyone into silence anytime accusations or cheating or
Speaker 2: irregularities are made. They try to bully the masses into
Speaker 2: silence on any claim of election fraud. And this has
Speaker 2: been going on for many decades, so twenty twenty is
Speaker 2: just the most prominent and most recent example of it. Really,
Speaker 2: the entire country knows the twenty twenties election was sloppy
Speaker 2: and not secure. I don't care what you think of
Speaker 2: the result or who won. Everyone in this country knows
Speaker 2: that twenty twenties election was sloppy and not secure. It
Speaker 2: was a last minute mail and disaster. And so it's
Speaker 2: the ultimate test for these Democrats, who by God want
Speaker 2: to bully everyone into saying it was fair. This is
Speaker 2: an even bigger effort than trying to get everyone to say,
Speaker 2: Caitlyn Jenner is a beautiful woman. Remember that fiasco.
Speaker 3: Say it.
Speaker 2: You gotta say it, Caitlyn Jenner is a beautiful woman.
Speaker 2: Say it. This is an even bigger version of that.
Speaker 2: The Democrats and Trumpeter want to insist that there is
Speaker 2: one truth here, one reality here. There can only be
Speaker 2: one belief on the twenty twenty election. It was free
Speaker 2: and fair and perfectly run, and Joe Biden won eighty
Speaker 2: million votes, even though the most popular and celebrated president
Speaker 2: of the era, Barack Obama, only got seventy two million votes.
Speaker 2: Nothing odd about it. Damn it. Say it. That was
Speaker 2: a fair election and Joe Biden won big say it.
Speaker 3: Say it.
Speaker 2: Sorry, but no, as long as we still have the
Speaker 2: freedom of speech and the freedom to hold our own
Speaker 2: opinions in this country. They're never going to get half
Speaker 2: of the country to say that, because, regardless of who won,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty was not a fair well run election. Bottom line,
Speaker 2: we all know it. The Democrats controlling the states that
Speaker 2: they were used COVID as an excuse to toss out
Speaker 2: virtually all of their election laws that year and moved
Speaker 2: to mass mail in voting, which is sloppy and unsecure.
Speaker 2: They invented drop boxes that could be stuffed by any
Speaker 2: anonymous actor. They invented vote in the park where ballots
Speaker 2: could just be handled like Christmas cards, etc. Then we
Speaker 2: were all supposed to trust the result, a result, by
Speaker 2: the way, that was patently ridiculous, doddering, dementied old Joe
Speaker 2: Biden won the presidency while only campaigning from his basement
Speaker 2: via zoom call, and by nearly ten million more votes
Speaker 2: than the most popular presidents ever had won the presidency.
Speaker 2: Come on, complete bull crap, And I've said, since you
Speaker 2: will never convince me that that was a fair and
Speaker 2: accurate election, I'll go to my deathbed believing that there
Speaker 2: was no way Joe Biden fairly got sixty million votes?
Speaker 2: Did he win? Did Trump win? I don't know, but
Speaker 2: when this came up on X I made it clear,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying Donald Trump really won. I'm not even
Speaker 2: saying Donald Trump really won Wisconsin in twenty twenty. The
Speaker 2: Wisconsin results have been looked at by several different credible
Speaker 2: groups and people, and the overall result in Wisconsin that year,
Speaker 2: with Biden beating Trump by about twenty one thousand votes,
Speaker 2: does seem believable. That's the result of just about every
Speaker 2: presidential election in Wisconsin throughout my entire lifetime. The Democrat
Speaker 2: normally wins by twenty or thirty thousand votes. But what
Speaker 2: I am saying, and we'll always say, is twenty twenty
Speaker 2: was not a fair and accurate election, and I think
Speaker 2: anyone with any intellectual honesty would say the same. Twenty
Speaker 2: twenty was not an honest or well run election period.
Speaker 2: And years later the Democrats and Trump haters forget that.
Speaker 2: In the midst of that election, they on their side
Speaker 2: were saying the same thing. They were certain that quote
Speaker 2: Trump was going to steal the election. People forget that
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty a lot of average Democrats were as
Speaker 2: alarmed and worried about the sloppy nature of that COVID
Speaker 2: era of voting, as we were on the right, then
Speaker 2: Biden won, so oh it was fair, it was above board.
Speaker 2: And they've been clinging to that ridiculous position since because
Speaker 2: their guy won. Suddenly there were no questions about the
Speaker 2: validity of the twenty twenty election, and everyone's got to
Speaker 2: take it as gospel. Joe Biden won. History's got to
Speaker 2: insist Joe Biden won and everything was fair, and anyone
Speaker 2: who disagrees as a traitorous cuck, because the truth is
Speaker 2: it was fair and wonderful. Come on, No, that's not
Speaker 2: the truth. That's one version of events many years later,
Speaker 2: and so this is a trap question. Liberal calumnist Dan
Speaker 2: Schaeffer responded to a post on x by insisting this
Speaker 2: was an important question. No, this is an important question.
Speaker 2: It shows whether Tom Tiffany will respect the will of
Speaker 2: the people. In twenty twenty eight, he said, quote Tiffany
Speaker 2: is showing that he would fail basic tests of American democracy.
Speaker 2: Schaeffer said, good lord, what nonsense. I couldn't help but
Speaker 2: respond by posting, this is not an important question. It's
Speaker 2: just not. It's six years and two elections in the
Speaker 2: rearview mirror, and people can disagree on things like this, Folks,
Speaker 2: people are going to disagree on the validity of the
Speaker 2: twenty twenty election forever, just like they still disagree on
Speaker 2: the validity of the twenty twenty election. This is not
Speaker 2: an important question, certainly not for twenty twenty six or
Speaker 2: twenty eight. It's meant to be a trap or a
Speaker 2: gotcha question from activists pretending to be journalists. Moreover, the
Speaker 2: reason why the accomplices in the media and the activist
Speaker 2: left keep bringing it up is, I swear to you
Speaker 2: the people controlling today's political left really are many dictators.
Speaker 2: It drives them baddy, just battie that they can't bully
Speaker 2: everyone into line on things. And it's not just this question.
Speaker 2: It's driving today's left and top Democrats insane that they
Speaker 2: cannot get their way on everything, they cannot bully the
Speaker 2: American people into agreeing with them on all things. This
Speaker 2: is just one example. And so if you want to
Speaker 2: hint as to what sort of country America would really
Speaker 2: turn into if the people controlling today's Democrat party would
Speaker 2: be put in charge, this is a hint. They're socialists
Speaker 2: and America haters who would destroy the republic and ignore democracy,
Speaker 2: and by God insists that you thank them for doing it.
Speaker 2: These really are some of the worst instincts of communist
Speaker 2: dictators of the last century that we're seeing. By God,
Speaker 2: you are going to bend to our will and thank
Speaker 2: us as we f you and destroy your life. Say it,
Speaker 2: your dear leader is wonderful. Say it. Say it. You
Speaker 2: got to say say it. Joe Biden won a fair election.
Speaker 2: Say it. Sorry, not me, Ever, I have a shorter
Speaker 2: segment here so I can have a longer one debunking
Speaker 2: the myths that have grown up around Native Americans. But
Speaker 2: last night was Stephen Colbert's final late show on CBS
Speaker 2: AH and it ends one of the biggest campaigns to
Speaker 2: gaslight the American people since the forty nine Ers cut
Speaker 2: Colin Kaepernick because he sucked, and he and his fans
Speaker 2: turned it into a racial thing and a political thing.
Speaker 1: Folks.
Speaker 2: Stephen Colbert's show was canceled by CBS executives because his
Speaker 2: ratings sucked and his show was costing CBS tens of
Speaker 2: millions of dollars in losses every year. That's why Stephen
Speaker 2: Colbert was canceled. CBS execs repeatedly said it He's not
Speaker 2: being canceled over content or because of Trump, but Colbert's
Speaker 2: reaction to being canceled and his fans reaction to it,
Speaker 2: the public perception of it, was something entirely different. People
Speaker 2: on both sides of the political aisle insisted that he
Speaker 2: was being canceled because of Trump. Those on the right
Speaker 2: insist that his ratings tank because he stopped being funny
Speaker 2: and turned his show into a leftist rant every night,
Speaker 2: and there is clear truth to that. But those in
Speaker 2: the left insist he was canceled because Trump bullied CBS
Speaker 2: executives into canceling him, which is patently false. Now Trump
Speaker 2: is happy Colbert got canceled, there's no mistake on that.
Speaker 2: Knowing Trump, he might even take credit for it moving forward.
Speaker 2: But CBS executives have made it clear all along Colbert
Speaker 2: was canceled due to low ratings and a loss of profits,
Speaker 2: And as someone who spent his entire life in broadcast
Speaker 2: and knowing the inner workings of broadcast, this is clearly
Speaker 2: the truth. Trust me. If Colbert's show had been making
Speaker 2: money for CBS over the last three or five or
Speaker 2: ten years, he would still be on the air. And
Speaker 2: the fact that he turned his show into a lefty
Speaker 2: echo chamber. Wouldn't matter. CBS wants the revenue period. Doesn't
Speaker 2: matter what the content is if the revenue is there.
Speaker 2: This is just the truth when it comes to radio
Speaker 2: and TV. It's one of the reasons that liberal political
Speaker 2: talk shows haven't worked. They'd be on the air if
Speaker 2: they could bring in the revenue. Broadcast companies care about
Speaker 2: the revenue period, and good evidence of that can be
Speaker 2: seen on Paramount Plus. Currently they're heavily CBS products and
Speaker 2: CBS reruns. Watch any show. During the woke era, CBS
Speaker 2: shows went woke in a big way, that's clear, and
Speaker 2: CBS aired them and collected any profit they made. Now
Speaker 2: that the woke era is waning, CBS executives have shifted
Speaker 2: to a more pro America, pro law enforcement batch of
Speaker 2: shows like Yellowstone spinoffs. It's all about the profit. If
Speaker 2: Colbert had been profitable, he'd still be on regardless of
Speaker 2: content period. But the guy has lost forty percent of
Speaker 2: his audience since twenty eighteen, and he's been costing CBS
Speaker 2: thirty or forty million dollars every year in losses since
Speaker 2: when shows are supposed to be profitable, So CBS needed
Speaker 2: to keep him. Even the horrid Jake Tapper over at
Speaker 2: CNN has been admitting to his audience Colbert was not
Speaker 2: canceled because of Trump. There's no evidence that Trump demanded
Speaker 2: Colbert before fired or his show canceled, Tapper admitted, and
Speaker 2: then he of course went on to try to convince
Speaker 2: his audience that Trump really might have been behind this.
Speaker 2: Though meanwhile, NBC incorrectly reported that Colbert was fired because
Speaker 2: one of Paramount's hot shots, David Ellison, is a prominent
Speaker 2: Trump supporter. That's flatly wrong. David Ellison is not a
Speaker 2: Trump supporter, prominent or otherwise. In twenty twenty four, Ellison
Speaker 2: donated nearly a million dollars to the Joe Biden Victory Fund.
Speaker 2: In fact, it's the largest corporate contribution that Ellison has
Speaker 2: ever made to a political candidates. So, if David Ellison
Speaker 2: is a big Trump supporter, he had a weird way
Speaker 2: of showing it in twenty twenty four when he gave
Speaker 2: Joe and Cammy a million dollars to defeat Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: There is zero evidence that Colbert's cancelation had anything to
Speaker 2: do with anything other than profit. Still, if Colbert managed
Speaker 2: to make his show unprofitable by choosing to appeal to
Speaker 2: only half of the country. That's on him, and he
Speaker 2: clearly did. As Stephen Colbert's content got more and more political,
Speaker 2: he lost more and more viewers. Colbert lost forty percent
Speaker 2: of his audience between twenty twenty eight and now that's
Speaker 2: not just due to streaming, that's due to intentional audience choice.
Speaker 2: David Harsani is a great columnist. He says Stephen Colbert
Speaker 2: became the sort of pompous partisan jackass that he started
Speaker 2: out mocking. That's correct. Colbert turned his show into a
Speaker 2: nightly centerpiece for the American left and only ever had
Speaker 2: liberal politicians on it, and the fact that he, as
Speaker 2: a late night comedy host, felt the need to have
Speaker 2: a bunch of politicians on his show at all is
Speaker 2: a good hint at where he decided he was going
Speaker 2: to take the show. But ninety nine percent of his
Speaker 2: guests were leftists, and the few Republicans he did have
Speaker 2: on were failed duds like Adam Kinsinger AND's Liz Cheney
Speaker 2: who were brought on to trash Trump and Republicans who
Speaker 2: in Middle America getting ready for bed wants to watch
Speaker 2: that not many of us as it turned out. The
Speaker 2: truth is the entire late night talk show model is
Speaker 2: dead because the economics of it don't work. Jimmy Kimmel,
Speaker 2: Jimmy Fallon, they're losing as much money as Colbert's show did,
Speaker 2: and it's just that ABC and NBC, the executives haven't
Speaker 2: made a decision on what to do next. Their shows
Speaker 2: are also not long for this world, and is due
Speaker 2: to the economics of the industry, at least as much
Speaker 2: as their choices as hosts to turn off half of
Speaker 2: the country's viewers by going leftist. Those choices clearly played
Speaker 2: a part in their demise. But no, Trump didn't get
Speaker 2: Colbert fired. Colbert got Colbert fired. His SUCKI ratings got
Speaker 2: him fired. Period. I did several radio shows over the
Speaker 2: course of a forty year career in radio, and they
Speaker 2: each had varying levels of success, But the entire time
Speaker 2: I had a basic agreement with management. If my show
Speaker 2: is getting ratings and making profits and you're satisfied with that,
Speaker 2: I'm employed. If my ratings tank or the advertising drives up,
Speaker 2: you'll fire me. That's the broadcast business, and Colbert, Fallon
Speaker 2: and Kimmel aren't special or exempt from those business forces
Speaker 2: just because they're famous lefties, speaking of excuse making failures
Speaker 2: that the left won't acknowledge. According to al Gore and
Speaker 2: his global warming alarmists, were living in the year of
Speaker 2: our extinction once again. If we had anything resembling an
Speaker 2: honest media, this would be a national news story and
Speaker 2: a much bigger deal. Twenty twenty six was supposed to
Speaker 2: be the year of global extinction if al Gore was
Speaker 2: going to get his prediction right in twenty sixteen. And
Speaker 2: this is simply one of dozens of climate predictions that
Speaker 2: al Gore and his activists have gotten wrong over the decades.
Speaker 2: Of course, but we should at least stop and note
Speaker 2: each one that they get wrong, because it's the only
Speaker 2: way to end this climate change nonsense completely. This myth
Speaker 2: was nearly dead about a decade ago until the global
Speaker 2: socialists decided that they could co opt it and use
Speaker 2: it as a way to control the masses and push
Speaker 2: socialist legislation. It's a powerful thing to say, we all
Speaker 2: have to come together and you have to agree to
Speaker 2: do what we want you to do to save the planet.
Speaker 2: So then all of suddenly every left wing and cook
Speaker 2: fringe organization was finding a way to tie their effort
Speaker 2: to climate change, and it got new life. I used
Speaker 2: to explain to my radio listeners that the power of
Speaker 2: the climate change movement is really that it's a useful
Speaker 2: umbrella under which every left wing, fringe alarmist, Greens, and
Speaker 2: crackpot group could huddle to get attention to their cause.
Speaker 2: That's why it still exists decades later, and even though
Speaker 2: every prediction that al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists
Speaker 2: have ever made has been wrong. There will be more
Speaker 2: and stronger hurricanes, Nope, wrong. There will be more in
Speaker 2: stronger tornadoes. Nope. There will be no polar caps by
Speaker 2: two thousand and five. Wrong, there will be no polar
Speaker 2: caps by twenty twenty.
Speaker 3: Wrong.
Speaker 2: Your grandchildren aren't going to know what snow looks like.
Speaker 3: Wrong.
Speaker 2: Polar bears will be gone, nope, Caribou will be gone, nope,
Speaker 2: Glaciers will be gone, Nope. You'd think that, by pure
Speaker 2: dumb luck, Gore and the activist groups would have gotten
Speaker 2: at least a few of those right. Nope, every single
Speaker 2: one of them wrong, every single prediction wrong. But ifew
Speaker 2: conservative outlets made it known this week that we've passed
Speaker 2: another milestone Back in twenty sixteen, Al Gore insisted there
Speaker 2: would be no more human life on the planet in
Speaker 2: ten years, and here we are in twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: still thriving. In his book in nineteen eighty two, Gore
Speaker 2: predicted that the population of Florida would be cut in
Speaker 2: half by now because people would need to flee from
Speaker 2: the rising sea levels. Nope, Florida's population has nearly doubled
Speaker 2: since he wrote that book. And we can laugh and
Speaker 2: scoff at all of this, but there have been terrible
Speaker 2: consequences to Gore's lies and this fraudulent climate change movement.
Speaker 2: David Strom is correct when he writes, if you measure
Speaker 2: success by the influence one has in the world, one
Speaker 2: has to call Gore a major success. His hysteria has
Speaker 2: changed the course of history, although in much the same
Speaker 2: way that visionaries like Margaret Sanger and Paul Erlich have
Speaker 2: changed history for the worse. Strom continues, there are two
Speaker 2: generations or more that are substantially smaller and less mentally
Speaker 2: healthy because of climate change hysteria. He says, I personally
Speaker 2: know quite a few younger people who declined to have
Speaker 2: children or limited themselves to one to save Mother Earth
Speaker 2: or prevent them from having to live through the apocalypse.
Speaker 2: Strom says climate change has been the ten pole issue
Speaker 2: for the Revolution for decades. Every problem is either caused
Speaker 2: by or exacerbated by climate change, and the solution to
Speaker 2: every problem is limited growth, higher taxes, and socialism. If
Speaker 2: climate alarmists were right, we would already be dead many
Speaker 2: times over. Yet the failure of predictions to meet reality
Speaker 2: have never had an impact on the propaganda. The dates
Speaker 2: of our imminent destruction just get moved back. Strom concludes
Speaker 2: the trust the science folks have managed to transfer trillions
Speaker 2: of dollars into their own pockets over the past few decades,
Speaker 2: and our lobbying to get trillions more per year to
Speaker 2: transform our societies into poorer, more controlled places. No matter
Speaker 2: how absurd it may seem, the propaganda works. Once people
Speaker 2: are induced into a panic, their capacity to think evaperates.
Speaker 2: Emotional appeals work. I agree with that completely. It is
Speaker 2: a dirty shame how effective this misinformation and alarmism has
Speaker 2: been on generations of our children. And as much as
Speaker 2: we'd like to say the fever has finally broken on
Speaker 2: this nonsense, we still can't say that the socialists and
Speaker 2: climate activists are still going to keep trying to use
Speaker 2: this and then revive a all the next time leftists
Speaker 2: are back in charge of America in Europe. It's good
Speaker 2: to see the climate idiocy fever finally break, but that
Speaker 2: doesn't mean we're past this nonsense yet, and we won't
Speaker 2: be until today's leftists have no more use for the lie.
Speaker 2: We won't until they lose their convenient umbrella. This podcast
Speaker 2: is still only a few weeks old, and the most
Speaker 2: popular segment so far by far is one that I
Speaker 2: did early on about how the American left has worked
Speaker 2: hard over decades to sanitize and bastardize our history in
Speaker 2: order to make white settlers the villains in the story
Speaker 2: of America. It's infuriating, but it's now an article of
Speaker 2: faith on the left that white colonization was bad and
Speaker 2: every ill or evil that exists in America or globally
Speaker 2: for that matter, is the fault to the white person.
Speaker 2: In their new retelling of American history, all white men
Speaker 2: were evil and terrible, and in the instance of the
Speaker 2: recent podcast I'm referencing, all Native American tribes were wonderful
Speaker 2: and peaceful. By today's telling, Indians respected every rock and
Speaker 2: tree and leaf and animal and fellow human in the
Speaker 2: forest until white men arrived here. The old cliche about
Speaker 2: how if we don't remember our history, were bound to
Speaker 2: repeat it comes to mind here, but for our purposes today.
Speaker 2: My point is more about how if we don't remember
Speaker 2: and teach our history, it's bound to be lost to
Speaker 2: time and or corrupted by others for their own purposes.
Speaker 2: Such is the case here when it comes to the
Speaker 2: history of Native Americans and the conquering of the country
Speaker 2: by white settlers. My point in the first podcast was
Speaker 2: the left's sanitized version of history is not at all accurate.
Speaker 2: Podcast one was me debunking the stolen lands nonsense. We
Speaker 2: constantly hear we are not existing on stolen lands. Two
Speaker 2: sides fought over it in the European side one in
Speaker 2: this instance. But it's not like wars over territory were
Speaker 2: anything unique at the time or are unique to the
Speaker 2: human experience. Moreover, the white settlers didn't start all of
Speaker 2: the violence against the Natives, nor did the whites wipe
Speaker 2: out the Indians in some sort of lopsided affair. This
Speaker 2: was a century or more of changing landscapes, confusing in
Speaker 2: complex conflicts, and it isn't easily summed up in a
Speaker 2: few political slogans. In the sixteen, seventeen and eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 2: Some native tribes were friendly, some were allies, others were
Speaker 2: unfriendly and warlike. There were numerous tribes and all sorts
Speaker 2: of different situations up and down the East Coast and
Speaker 2: west into the Appalachians, where whites and Native Americans were
Speaker 2: coming into contact. The ultimate conquering of the country comes
Speaker 2: with all sorts of twists and turns and complications, often
Speaker 2: related to the fact that there were also the British,
Speaker 2: the French, and the Spanish in the mix. At that time,
Speaker 2: they and their governments were roaming around the continent claiming
Speaker 2: territories for themselves, trying to protect their trade routes on
Speaker 2: fur and silver and gold and other minerals other natural resources.
Speaker 2: They were recruiting the local Indian tribes into their fights
Speaker 2: with other Europeans and settlers. This is all very complicated
Speaker 2: and detailed stuff. When the colonies broke off from the British,
Speaker 2: the Indian tribes in the untamed South whi's now Georgia
Speaker 2: and Florida and west of the Appalachians and what's now
Speaker 2: Kentucky and Tennessee. Those Indian tribes had to pick a side,
Speaker 2: and most sided with the British because they wanted to
Speaker 2: fight colonial expansion. So after the wars, was the US
Speaker 2: government supposed to just ignore that fact and pretend as
Speaker 2: if all of those tribes weren't just trying to kill
Speaker 2: them fighting side by side with the Brits. And that's
Speaker 2: not to mention all of the individual clashes between the
Speaker 2: settlers and the Indian tribes. As white expansion moved westward
Speaker 2: during the Revolutionary War. In the War of eighteen twelve,
Speaker 2: you had tribes fighting alongside and against the British, the French,
Speaker 2: and colonial Americans occasionally to Spanish. Each had their own
Speaker 2: motivations and interests, obviously, but one basic truth is that
Speaker 2: the Native American tribes were not wonderful and peaceful and
Speaker 2: operating on a higher plane of consciousness or a higher
Speaker 2: plane of human behavior than the Europeans were until whites
Speaker 2: got here. That is complete nonsense. They also weren't savages.
Speaker 2: The Native Americans of the sixteen seventeen and eighteen hundreds
Speaker 2: were simply as much human beings of the era as
Speaker 2: anyone else. The Native tribes warred against each other before
Speaker 2: the settlers were ever here, and they did wonderful and
Speaker 2: they did terrible things two and for each other before
Speaker 2: the settlers were ever here. They had alliances with each
Speaker 2: other before whites were ever here, and those changed often
Speaker 2: depending on the situation. When Lewis and Clark asked one
Speaker 2: chief which surrounding tribes he was at war with and
Speaker 2: which were friendly, the chief said it changes, but as
Speaker 2: near as he could figure in the moment, his tribe
Speaker 2: was at war with about twenty surrounding tribes and villages,
Speaker 2: and was at peace with about eight of them. That
Speaker 2: was the reality for that Plains Indian tribe. Around eighteen
Speaker 2: hundred tribes stole from each other. They went to war
Speaker 2: with each other. They took women and children of other
Speaker 2: tribes as slaves and property. They raped and killed entire
Speaker 2: villages if they could eliminate arrival. This is the real
Speaker 2: American history, not the sanitized and politicized nonsense of the
Speaker 2: twenty first century. Last weekend, I read maybe the du
Speaker 2: one must thing that I've ever seen posted on social
Speaker 2: media some left wing influencer, a white female Karen An
Speaker 2: influencer of the sort that's just ruining this country posted quote,
Speaker 2: rape did not exist among Native nations prior to white contact,
Speaker 2: And then to make her point, because she was so
Speaker 2: adamant about this, she said it again, quote, I repeat,
Speaker 2: rape did not exist among Native nations prior to white contact.
Speaker 2: That's the most idiotic claim expressed on social media since
Speaker 2: the invention of social media. Of course, rape existed among
Speaker 2: the Native American tribes before the white men got here.
Speaker 2: Of course it did. Rape has existed throughout all of
Speaker 2: human history, going back to the caveman. I'm sure ever
Speaker 2: since the dawn of time, some members of the male
Speaker 2: species have been forcing themselves onto the female of the
Speaker 2: species or the juveniles of the species sexually. But certainly
Speaker 2: when it comes to the history of Native American tribes, rape,
Speaker 2: the taking of women and forcing of themselves onto women occurred.
Speaker 2: Of course it did, and it's documented. Guess that the
Speaker 2: defenders of this Karen could come up with on social
Speaker 2: media was to claim, well, rape didn't exist because women
Speaker 2: and children were just property to be taken and abused
Speaker 2: whenever men wanted. So technically she's correct. No, she's not correct.
Speaker 2: Those women and children were being raped, They were being
Speaker 2: taken sexually, against their will, and it's foolish to argue semantics. Moreover,
Speaker 2: White Karen's inference here is clear. She clearly meant to
Speaker 2: say rape didn't exist on this continent, so the native
Speaker 2: tribes didn't even have a word for it until the
Speaker 2: white men came and started raping the natives. What a
Speaker 2: load of crap. Of course, Indians were raping other Indians
Speaker 2: before European settlers arrived on the continent, and it was
Speaker 2: no doubt being done routinely. But that's an example of
Speaker 2: how much today's left wants to lie and sanitize the
Speaker 2: human existence of all black and brown peoples until they
Speaker 2: came into contact with the white men, and the reason
Speaker 2: to do what is clear, to vilify the white men
Speaker 2: every way they can and raise the other ethnicities and
Speaker 2: races any way they can. The same sorts of myths
Speaker 2: exists surrounding Africans before they came into contact with white
Speaker 2: men on that continent. Sorry, but taking and holding slaves
Speaker 2: was a huge and routine part of the human experience
Speaker 2: on the continent of Africa among those tribes too. Black
Speaker 2: tribes held slaves from other black tribes, and it was
Speaker 2: routine in the Middle East among the Arab and Egyptian nations,
Speaker 2: as well as the Inca and other tribes in South America. Sadly,
Speaker 2: holding other human beings against their will and making them
Speaker 2: serve you is something that more powerful humans have been
Speaker 2: doing to the weaker ones since the dawn of time,
Speaker 2: and since social structures began. Slavery thrived globally and for
Speaker 2: thousands of years before any European settler put them on
Speaker 2: a plantation down south. And I'm not saying it's a
Speaker 2: good thing or that we shouldn't find it a disgusting
Speaker 2: part of our past. But let's not pretend that slavery
Speaker 2: or rape or treating other fellow human beings poorly is
Speaker 2: a uniquely American or uniquely European, or uniquely white thing.
Speaker 2: That's just silly. Since that first podcast, I've read a
Speaker 2: biography on Lewis and Clark, and it's simply entitled Lewis
Speaker 2: and Clark. It's by John Bakliss. It's an older work
Speaker 2: based on Lewis and Clark's actual journals, as well as
Speaker 2: interviews and research done from those men who were on
Speaker 2: the trip and kept their own journals. The Indian tribes
Speaker 2: and their tribal histories, how they remembered the expedition and
Speaker 2: handed down the stories over the generations. This is the
Speaker 2: men at the moment capturing in their journals and in
Speaker 2: the newspapers and personal correspondents of the day what was
Speaker 2: going on. This includes correspondence between President Thomas Jefferson and
Speaker 2: Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The author seemed to do
Speaker 2: very careful research and was good at giving different versions
Speaker 2: of the same event if they existed. But I'll emphasize
Speaker 2: the bio takes heavily from Lewis and Clark's own experiences
Speaker 2: and journals, and those from the men who they took
Speaker 2: along on the expedition that kept journals. They had first
Speaker 2: hand contact with the Native American tribes of the time
Speaker 2: and would know what they were like. Wouldn't they certainly
Speaker 2: better than us in this modern era. This expedition started
Speaker 2: in Saint Louis and it followed the Missouri River to
Speaker 2: the northwest as far as it w was go into
Speaker 2: the Rocky Mountains. Then they fouled the Columbia River down
Speaker 2: the other side of the Rockies into modern day Oregon.
Speaker 2: In the Pacific Coast. They met numerous tribes along the way,
Speaker 2: and yes, taking slaves and stealing and warring were all
Speaker 2: parts of those ingreened cultures well before they had ever
Speaker 2: met the White Man, or Lewis and Clark. It's a
Speaker 2: fascinating reed, and it described how through the Great Plains
Speaker 2: the wildlife was so abundant that they had no problem
Speaker 2: feeding the entire expedition. They could hunt buffalo and elk,
Speaker 2: and deer and bear and squirrels and ducks and geese
Speaker 2: and swans. The wildlife was so abundant at the time,
Speaker 2: it's amazing. Then they got into the rockies and the
Speaker 2: higher elevations, and the hunting was so scarce that they
Speaker 2: ate a lot of dog and salmon. In fact, both
Speaker 2: Lewis and Clark initially hated dog, even when the rest
Speaker 2: of the guys with them were fine with it. Most
Speaker 2: of the people they took along were veteran trappers and
Speaker 2: mountain men, they were quite fine and familiar with eating dog.
Speaker 2: In fact, they swore that dog was a superior meat
Speaker 2: to even buffalo, elk, or horror, they seemed to have
Speaker 2: so much energy afterward after eating it. Horse was supposed
Speaker 2: to be kind of the quality meat at the time
Speaker 2: if you were sick or malnourished, No, no, no, these
Speaker 2: men set its dog by far great vitality. After eating
Speaker 2: dog well, William Clark never did get used to the taste,
Speaker 2: but Meriwether Lewis apparently came to like it. He became
Speaker 2: a fan of having dog for dinner. But as for
Speaker 2: the Native Americans they met, most of them welcomed them in,
Speaker 2: because by eighteen oh four and eighteen oh five, nearly
Speaker 2: all of these tribes had had contact with white men
Speaker 2: and knew them to have great tools and gifts for trade,
Speaker 2: iron axes and muskets and blue beads and grinding mills.
Speaker 2: Lewis and Clark weren't the first Europeans to travel out west,
Speaker 2: not by a long shot. They were just the first
Speaker 2: one sent on an official capacity by an American president
Speaker 2: to map the land and catalog the plants and the animals. French,
Speaker 2: British and Spanish trappers and traders had been wandering those
Speaker 2: vast wildernesses in today's US and Canada since the sixteen
Speaker 2: hundreds and trading with the Indians along the way, so
Speaker 2: it's not like Lewis and Clark were rowing up on
Speaker 2: tribes and making first contact. These Indians were familiar with
Speaker 2: European trappers and traders, at the very least familiar with them.
Speaker 2: So Lewis and Clark found most tribes to be friendly
Speaker 2: and helpful and wanting to trade. They became good friends
Speaker 2: with several of the chiefs that they met along the way,
Speaker 2: but not all of them were friendly or wonderful. The
Speaker 2: Sioux were notoriously to be avoided, along with certain other tribes,
Speaker 2: according to Lewis and Clark. But even the friendly Indians
Speaker 2: could turn on you, obviously, depending on the situation. Sometimes
Speaker 2: it was just a miscommunication, but there were always squabbles
Speaker 2: between people and chiefs and settlers. Obviously. Also, the friendly
Speaker 2: tribes had bad individuals among them who wanted to ambush
Speaker 2: and rob or kill foreigners traveling through their land. A
Speaker 2: few chiefs made it clear to Lewis and Clark, I
Speaker 2: can't really control the hot headed young men in my tribes,
Speaker 2: so you know, watch out for them. And yes, these
Speaker 2: tribes had defined lands borders, if you will. There were
Speaker 2: defined parts of the plains and the woods and the
Speaker 2: mountains that they considered theirs, and so wars with the
Speaker 2: nearby tribes were frequent, and frequently led to problems between
Speaker 2: the tribes and sometimes the expedition. Some of their native
Speaker 2: guides would patently refuse to go any further along a
Speaker 2: river or along a route because they were now entering
Speaker 2: into a violent tribe's territory. They knew if they got
Speaker 2: caught there, they'd be killed. But as for peaceful natives
Speaker 2: who never fought amongst themselves or their neighbors, and who
Speaker 2: valued every rock and tree and animal until the white
Speaker 2: men corrupted them, that's all a load of crap. The
Speaker 2: truth has been sanitized and sanitized and sanitized, and ironically,
Speaker 2: it's been sanitized largely by white liberal men and women
Speaker 2: and white historians. The true story of these tribes, and
Speaker 2: the true story of America is far more fun, exciting,
Speaker 2: and interesting. It's why I said Ken Burns or nat
Speaker 2: Geo should do a series on the true history of
Speaker 2: Americans Indian tribes. These tribes cannot have great warriors like
Speaker 2: Geronimo and Sitting Bull if they never went to war.
Speaker 2: And you know that not every Indian ship was wise
Speaker 2: and wonderful. Tell their stories. The taking of scalps was
Speaker 2: a real thing. Beheading or violently treating the corpses of
Speaker 2: your enemy was a real thing. So tell the true
Speaker 2: story of the tribes. It's far more interesting and far richer.
Speaker 2: Here's another interesting example from this book. Boy, have we
Speaker 2: as white Americans sanitized and rewritten the truth on Sakajawea.
Speaker 2: She's the Shoshone girl who quote led Lewis and Clark west.
Speaker 2: The modern day myth portrays her as a beautiful twenty
Speaker 2: five year old woman. She's standing on the front of
Speaker 2: the canoe pointing westward because she knew the way, not
Speaker 2: these pathetic white men. Folks. Sakajueya didn't lead Diddley. The
Speaker 2: truth is she didn't even really know Diddley. The truth
Speaker 2: is Sakajuiya was twelve when the expedition was being put
Speaker 2: together in eighteen oh four. In eighteen oh five, Sakaguya
Speaker 2: was twelve years old and pregnant. She only went along
Speaker 2: on the trip because Lewis and Clark hired the scumbag
Speaker 2: French trader who kept her as a wife. They decided
Speaker 2: to let her go along because she'd been stolen from
Speaker 2: the Shoshone tribe and so she knew a few native languages.
Speaker 2: But they really only took her along because they wanted
Speaker 2: this French trapper as an interpreter, and he wanted her along.
Speaker 2: This trapper, by the way, is a great example of
Speaker 2: how complicated men and our histories are. Even by Lewis
Speaker 2: and Clark's accounts, this trapper was a dirt bag, not
Speaker 2: particularly trustworthy. He liked to pray on young girls, etc.
Speaker 2: But hey, he could be useful, so they promised to
Speaker 2: pay him upon their return, and they took him along
Speaker 2: as an interpreter. He knew several native languages. Saka Juella
Speaker 2: was a twelve year old girl who quickly had a
Speaker 2: baby and was mostly just an added burden now. Both
Speaker 2: Lewis and Clark liked her, and they came to love
Speaker 2: the baby. In fact, Lewis paid to educate him later
Speaker 2: in life, and both men basically treated the kid like
Speaker 2: a son. But not only was Saka Juwea not particularly helpful,
Speaker 2: she turned out to be nearly useless once they really
Speaker 2: needed her. Once they got further up the Missouri River
Speaker 2: and moved into that Shoshone country, her native country, they
Speaker 2: thought she'd help them find the Shashi tribes, who were
Speaker 2: notoriously timid because the other tribes around them were so violent,
Speaker 2: but she was clueless. Okay, time for the payoff. Saki Ouji,
Speaker 2: come up here to the front of the boat and
Speaker 2: show us where we can find your tribe. Clueless. She
Speaker 2: was completely clueless. After all, she'd been kidnapped from those
Speaker 2: lands as a nine or a ten year old girl. Right,
Speaker 2: she had no idea where she was or where the
Speaker 2: tribes might be found. Aside from recognizing a few landmarks,
Speaker 2: Sakagueia didn't know Diddley Now. On the way back, she
Speaker 2: helped Clark navigate a short stretch of the river because
Speaker 2: she remembered landmark, and Clark deemed her helpful. But that
Speaker 2: was about it, and both men spoke highly of her.
Speaker 2: The guys on the expedition liked her and took care
Speaker 2: of and protected the baby, But Sakaguia was not an
Speaker 2: important part of that expedition, much less the wily native
Speaker 2: who led the men west. That's all Bolonei. It's legend
Speaker 2: that grew up around her over time, and that modern
Speaker 2: day feminists have really co opted in the name of
Speaker 2: women's rights over the last several decades. Her important contribution
Speaker 2: to the country is myth. Another truth that's well cataloged
Speaker 2: by the expedition members. Is how Native American women and
Speaker 2: girls were treated. They were property to be hoored out.
Speaker 2: And I put it bluntly to get your attention, but
Speaker 2: that's the underlying truth. Again. You need to step back
Speaker 2: and understand the traditions of those Native American tribes were
Speaker 2: very different than any European tradition, and so any comment
Speaker 2: on the morality of this is probably jaundice and unfair now,
Speaker 2: but Lewis and Clark and their men were quite surprised
Speaker 2: to see that every tribe except one came with the
Speaker 2: immediate offer to share the women, including the chiefs wives
Speaker 2: and daughters. I mean, that was the highest honor to
Speaker 2: be given the chief's wife or daughter. Having a chief
Speaker 2: gift his wife or daughter to a traveler was simply
Speaker 2: good manners. Here, she's yours for the night, or she's
Speaker 2: yours for the duration of your stay. That happened too,
Speaker 2: and neither Lewis or Clark admitted to taking advantage of
Speaker 2: the offer, but all the other men did. The expedition
Speaker 2: slept its way up and down the Missourian Colleglorado rivers,
Speaker 2: being offered Indian women wherever they stopped. And that's just
Speaker 2: the truth of the matter, right from every bit of
Speaker 2: documentation we have about the expedition, from their own journals.
Speaker 2: Another truth, most of the women in those villages were
Speaker 2: fascinated by white men and the one black man who
Speaker 2: was along. And so if we're relying on Lewis and
Speaker 2: Clark's perception anyway, they didn't really seem to mind the
Speaker 2: sexual trading. Often it was the women and girls of
Speaker 2: a tribe who were rushing to surround them first when
Speaker 2: the canoe pulled up, apparently, and when it came to
Speaker 2: the black man. And again I'm just relaying history here.
Speaker 2: The one black man along was a slave of William Clark's.
Speaker 2: He was the only slave along, and his name was York,
Speaker 2: and man was he popular. First, He was an oddity
Speaker 2: to people who had never seen a black man before.
Speaker 2: So Lewis and Clark used as an icebreaker as much
Speaker 2: as anything. He was an icebreaker along with other Western
Speaker 2: curiosities they'd brought along. York sounds like a pretty amiable fellow.
Speaker 2: He'd perform feats of strength, etc. And he would put
Speaker 2: up with a bunch of natives at every stop, licking
Speaker 2: their thumbs and trying to rub the black off. Yeah
Speaker 2: they did. After all, those Native tribes often painted themselves
Speaker 2: in different ways, right, so their first take on a
Speaker 2: black man was he's painted. But the women loved York,
Speaker 2: and York loved the Native American women to the extent
Speaker 2: that one hundred years later, several tribes along that route
Speaker 2: had little, kinky haired, darker children running around again. Their terminology.
Speaker 2: York's lineage in those tribes could be traced at least
Speaker 2: through the late eighteen eighties just by sight, without even
Speaker 2: DNA testing. This is all part of the true story
Speaker 2: of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Some of it might
Speaker 2: be uncomfortable for our average woke American or lefty Karen
Speaker 2: to hear now, but it's the truth. It's the written
Speaker 2: history of the country by those who lived it. And
Speaker 2: I don't say any of this to poop on legends
Speaker 2: or destroy myths. I say it to help explain how
Speaker 2: much history has been lost and changed over time, and
Speaker 2: to say what a shame that is. And this is
Speaker 2: just a few examples. If you go back to the
Speaker 2: actual source material of the Lewis and Clark expedition, you
Speaker 2: realize just how much of that wonderful and interesting history
Speaker 2: has been lost. How much of that story isn't being
Speaker 2: told to new generations of Americans, And worse, you find
Speaker 2: out how much of it has been hidden because it
Speaker 2: hasn't fit the country's political narratives over time, and sadly,
Speaker 2: it has led to at least a few new generations
Speaker 2: of Americans who are now genuinely ignorant of nearly all
Speaker 2: US history, and so when they hear stupid propaganda from
Speaker 2: the left, they believe it. Rape didn't exist in America
Speaker 2: until the white man came.
Speaker 1: A shut up.
Speaker 2: No one's really that dumb, are they.
Speaker 1: The Jay Webber Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio podcasts,
Speaker 1: produced and engineered by Gregory John. The Jay Weber Podcast
Speaker 1: is presented by Creative Planning, helping clients simplify their journey
Speaker 1: to financial wellness, one personalized plan at a time. Listen
Speaker 1: to all of Jay Weber's podcasts available on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts.
Speaker 4: M