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. The Jay Weber Podcast is a production
Speaker 1: of iHeartRadio Podcasts.
Speaker 2: Hello, and welcome to the jo Erra Podcast. So glad
Speaker 2: you've decided to listen today. We have all sorts of
Speaker 2: things to talk about, including whether the news media is
Speaker 2: going to tell the American people about the additional chunk
Speaker 2: of money that's going to be in their tax returns
Speaker 2: this year thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill. We'll talk
Speaker 2: about Congressman Eric Swallwell's implosion and why it was so
Speaker 2: swift and devastating. You know, the short answer is because
Speaker 2: Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and all of today's top
Speaker 2: Democrats have known he's a sexual predator and a scumbag
Speaker 2: all this time, fourteen years, and they didn't care so
Speaker 2: long as he could be a useful tool for them.
Speaker 2: We have some thoughts on home distilling and the price
Speaker 2: of stamps getting close to a dollar, and how the
Speaker 2: leftist media is going to spend the next three years
Speaker 2: trying to convince the American people that they've made a
Speaker 2: mistake in not electing Kamala Harris, and we didn't. And
Speaker 2: no matter how hard they try to polish up that turn,
Speaker 2: she's not going to be the twenty twenty eight Democrat nominee.
Speaker 2: So you can see that's a pretty good show. It's
Speaker 2: all coming up.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: This podcast is podcast number three. Now we're starting to
Speaker 2: hit a groove. I should mention that my longtime radio
Speaker 2: producer Gregory John is with me on this venture too.
Speaker 2: He agreed to produce this for me. So how are
Speaker 2: you doing today?
Speaker 4: Fine? And we're actually in the studio together.
Speaker 3: I like that.
Speaker 2: Yes, this is nice. And we've had we don't have
Speaker 2: to go into the fits and starts that we've had,
Speaker 2: the technical fits and starts we've had to try to
Speaker 2: get these podcasts together. But are you missing me in
Speaker 2: the morning?
Speaker 3: I'm missing you. Yeah, you're like you're like an old
Speaker 3: an old friend.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I can't say that I miss all the work and
Speaker 2: all the getting up early, but yes, I kind of
Speaker 2: missed the connection to the to the guys.
Speaker 4: A lot of people were saying that.
Speaker 3: On the podcast, on the Internet and Twitter and all that,
Speaker 3: saying that, yeah, it is like hearing my old friend again.
Speaker 4: Yes, the podcast. So that's I think a lot of
Speaker 4: people are showing up that way.
Speaker 2: I got to tell you, we got a very strong
Speaker 2: start to this podcast. The first two episodes have thousands
Speaker 2: of listeners to thanks so much for that. And we'll
Speaker 2: dive into content in a minute after a quick shout
Speaker 2: out to my fantastic sponsor for this podcast, Creative Wealth Management.
Speaker 2: And I'm just going to admit here we're we're skimming
Speaker 2: this ad from Friday's podcast and inserting it here because
Speaker 2: I don't have any power at home in Erin, so
Speaker 2: I actually had to come into the state. This is
Speaker 2: real radio, this is human So this is something that
Speaker 2: we need to slip in here. Go ahead, Greg, Do
Speaker 2: you have a financial planner and is he or she
Speaker 2: really meeting your needs? Have you heard of Creative Planning.
Speaker 2: They're one of the nation's largest independent wealth management firms,
Speaker 2: offering fully integrated financial and retirement planning, investment management, estate planning,
Speaker 2: tax strategies, business services, and international wealth management, all in
Speaker 2: house and coordinated through your wealth manager. Their fiduciary wealth
Speaker 2: managers are here to help you navigate every piece of
Speaker 2: your financial life. Visit Creative Planning dot com. To schedule
Speaker 2: your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot com. Your team awaits.
Speaker 1: Paid for planning and sec registered investment advisor.
Speaker 4: The speaker statements are not an endorsement of the firm.
Speaker 2: There's some proof for doing this live, I guess, or
Speaker 2: at least live to tape. Let's dive into the content.
Speaker 2: I'm going to start with this. I gotta say, this
Speaker 2: takedown of Eric Swalwell is one of the most brutal
Speaker 2: I've seen in quite some time, and there's a reason
Speaker 2: for it. The reason is it's Democrats themselves who orchestrated
Speaker 2: this lynching of one of their own. Make no mistake,
Speaker 2: what went on here is the Democrats in California and
Speaker 2: Washington d C. We're using every scummy thing about Eric
Speaker 2: Swalwell that they've always known about for the fourteen years
Speaker 2: he's been in Congress, and they used it in order
Speaker 2: to knock him out of the California governor's race. It's
Speaker 2: a desperate attempt to keep Republicans from winning the governorship
Speaker 2: out in California. And unless you know how California runs
Speaker 2: at statewide races, you can't fully appreciate what went on here.
Speaker 2: I know some of you people are aware of this,
Speaker 2: but I don't think most people are. California runs a
Speaker 2: so called jungle primary in its governor's races, in which
Speaker 2: the top two candidates to emerge out of the primary
Speaker 2: get to run off against each other. Normally that turns
Speaker 2: out to be at least one Republican and one Democrat.
Speaker 2: I think they set it up so that they were
Speaker 2: hoping they could have two Democrats running off in the
Speaker 2: general this year, though two Republicans are currently leading the
Speaker 2: primary because there are so many Democrats running. The Republicans
Speaker 2: are Steve Hilton and Chad Bianco, and they've both been
Speaker 2: pulling around fourteen percent, and they've been polling, most importantly
Speaker 2: a few points ahead of Eric Swalwell. Meanwhile, there are
Speaker 2: eight Democrats running for governor out there eight, and they're
Speaker 2: splintering the left wing vote obviously, So for weeks now
Speaker 2: the polls have shown the two Republicans are running ahead
Speaker 2: of the Democrat who's doing best, and the Democrat doing
Speaker 2: best is Eric Swalwell. This is the other big problem
Speaker 2: the Democrats in California had until they knocked him out.
Speaker 2: None of them wanted to admit it, but this is
Speaker 2: a field of terrible candidates, and Swalwell was among one
Speaker 2: of the worst, and he rose to the top. No
Speaker 2: one expected that the scummy debag Eric Swalwell was going
Speaker 2: to emerge as the top as the voter's top choice
Speaker 2: on the left. But the other most promising candidates are
Speaker 2: a woman named Katie Porter, who's genuinely an unstable lunatic
Speaker 2: who's famous for screaming at and verbally abusing her staffers
Speaker 2: and people around her. Moreover, she can't hide her inner lunatic.
Speaker 2: Her inner lunatic shines through in interviews and on social media,
Speaker 2: so she's a big risk as the top candidate. And
Speaker 2: then the other somewhat popular Democrat candidate out of the
Speaker 2: eight is Tom Steyer, the longtime billionaire climate activist. He's
Speaker 2: not exciting to anyone really either among the California voters.
Speaker 2: So by default, this scummy and useless dbag Eric Swalwell
Speaker 2: was leading the race on the Democrats side. But you
Speaker 2: see the situation. First, the Democrats need an appealing candidate
Speaker 2: atop their ticket in the November runoff with the Republican
Speaker 2: and if all the dirt on Swallwell would have come
Speaker 2: out after he had won the primary after he advanced
Speaker 2: to the general election, that would have been bad. That
Speaker 2: would just destroy his chances that there was any way
Speaker 2: for this party, or it destroyed the chances of the
Speaker 2: party leaders to rectify the situation or pivot to a
Speaker 2: different candidate. Right. So, whereas in a normal situation out
Speaker 2: there with two Republicans leading in Swalwell and seven other Democrats,
Speaker 2: in any other situation, the state and national Democrats would
Speaker 2: have simply gotten behind the most popular Democrat, well it's Swalwell.
Speaker 2: They would have worked to encourage and extort the other
Speaker 2: seven Democrats to drop out of any normal primary and
Speaker 2: then try to promote the guy who is naturally leading.
Speaker 2: The Democrats have a situation here in which the scummy,
Speaker 2: least competent, easiest to beat candidate though was actually leading.
Speaker 2: Hence Operation Destroy Eric had to occur. And this is
Speaker 2: what's gone on here. Swawall's political career has imploded because,
Speaker 2: in all sincerity, because Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and
Speaker 2: Gavin Newsom and the other top California Democrats have organized
Speaker 2: the smear campaign to take him out. Remember, Pelosi built him.
Speaker 2: Pelosi made Eric Swalwell. She if you don't know, represents
Speaker 2: San Francisco, and as does Swalwell. It's that area of California,
Speaker 2: so they're very close. And it was Pelosi who basically
Speaker 2: promoted him and put him into office in the first place,
Speaker 2: so she knows all the dirt and always has this devastating,
Speaker 2: just devastating. One of the big tells here, related to
Speaker 2: the fact that this is a Democrat hit on one
Speaker 2: of their own people, is that not a single Democrat,
Speaker 2: not a single Democrat, labeling Swallwell a disgrace and demanding
Speaker 2: he drop out of the governor's race, was also demanding
Speaker 2: that he gave up his seat and give up a
Speaker 2: seat in Congress, because a rapist pig like this shouldn't
Speaker 2: serve in Congress either. It took three or four days
Speaker 2: before Democrat leaders decided that they really couldn't save his
Speaker 2: congressional career either, and that trust me, they were trying.
Speaker 2: Top Democrat leaders never did insist he resigned from Congress. Pelosi,
Speaker 2: to my knowledge, still hasn't insisted he resigned from Congress.
Speaker 2: It was some rank and file Democrats who finally started
Speaker 2: to step up and complain. It was kind of the
Speaker 2: alien omars and the Rasheeta Telibs who started to insist
Speaker 2: if he's a pig, he should resign from Congress too.
Speaker 2: But Hakim Jeffries, this guy is the leader of the
Speaker 2: Democrats in the House. He has the power to demand
Speaker 2: an investigation into one of his members. He has the
Speaker 2: power to punish Eric Swalwell or push him out of Congress.
Speaker 2: Hakim Jeffries put out statement on social media initially saying
Speaker 2: Swalwell needs to drop out of the governor's race, but
Speaker 2: didn't say a thing, made no mention of the fact
Speaker 2: that Swawell is a sitting congressman and he Jeffries could
Speaker 2: have kicked the pig out of Congress or at least
Speaker 2: moved to investigate him. It proved again today's Democrats don't
Speaker 2: really have any actual morals or values. It's just all
Speaker 2: about what suits them at the time. If any of
Speaker 2: these Democrats actually cared about the female victims or had
Speaker 2: a working moral compass, they'd have been demanding Swawell resigned
Speaker 2: from Congress immediately and would have been calling for an
Speaker 2: immediate House investigation as well. And by the way, they
Speaker 2: would have been calling for local prosecutors to investigate Swalwell's
Speaker 2: alleged crimes while in those communities. I know the Manhattan
Speaker 2: DIA's office has actually opened an investigation based on one
Speaker 2: woman's accusations. Now, but if Eric Swallwell was really this
Speaker 2: much of a pig and he victimized this many women,
Speaker 2: and if the Democrats across the country really cared about
Speaker 2: standing up for the victims and not tolerating this behavior
Speaker 2: as they always claim, well, then Eric Swalwell should be
Speaker 2: facing three or five or ten criminal court cases by
Speaker 2: the end of this week, shouldn't he? But do you
Speaker 2: think he will? I doubt it because this is a
Speaker 2: naked political hit. And hey, you know, Hakeem Jeffreys and
Speaker 2: the Democrats might still need Swalwell's vote in the House,
Speaker 2: so we got to keep them in that seat. That
Speaker 2: is how they initially hoped to work this. There was
Speaker 2: just too much pressure in the end and he decided
Speaker 2: to resign. But do you see how scummy this all was.
Speaker 2: This is the most devastatingly effective mafia style hit that
Speaker 2: we've seen in modern top politics in quite some time.
Speaker 2: And there's a reason for it. The only motive here
Speaker 2: is to make sure two Republicans don't win the primary
Speaker 2: ensuring a Republican governor in California next And because the
Speaker 2: mainstream media members are virtually all leftists themselves, they share
Speaker 2: in this desire to manufacture who win for the Democrats
Speaker 2: out there. It's why they hopped on these allegations and
Speaker 2: relentlessly dug into them and ran with them. California's leftist
Speaker 2: newspapers have been all over this with the details over
Speaker 2: the weekend. Over the weekend Saturday, a CNN sat down
Speaker 2: with four or five of Swalwell's accusers and they gave detailed,
Speaker 2: specific accounts of the sexual abuse, harassment, even alleged rape.
Speaker 2: These were stories that anyone would have a hard time
Speaker 2: making up. I mean, from what I've heard and read,
Speaker 2: they're very believable women. Moreover, all of Washington, d C.
Speaker 2: And Sacramento, at least on the Democrat side, have known
Speaker 2: who Eric Swalwell really is forever. Over the last few days,
Speaker 2: select Democrats at all levels of government have said, oh, yeah,
Speaker 2: everyone knew Swawell was a predator. Yeah, Democrats knew, they knew,
Speaker 2: And let's specifically emphasize Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and
Speaker 2: Hakim Jeffries knew they're the leaders of the party and
Speaker 2: Pelosian shift represent California. They knew, they've known all this time.
Speaker 2: They didn't care. Swalwell was a useful idiot. And if
Speaker 2: you think that's too cynical, it's not. DC insider Jonathan
Speaker 2: Turley has a good article calling Swalwell Pelosi's monster. He says,
Speaker 2: the fact is that Swallowell was always a notorious figure
Speaker 2: in Washington who was constructed by Pelosi and others to
Speaker 2: serve their interest. As Pelosi and her other allies now
Speaker 2: seek to destroy him, they cannon escaped their hand in
Speaker 2: his creation. Turtley goes on to talk about how Swalwell
Speaker 2: was caught having an affair with a staffer of his
Speaker 2: who was a Chinese spy, the infamous Fang Fang. Remember
Speaker 2: how Pelosi, and who was Speaker at the House at
Speaker 2: the time, leapt to defend him. She was the head
Speaker 2: of the Democrat Caucus and she protected him. Pelosi blocked
Speaker 2: any inquiry into Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang. She lashed
Speaker 2: out in anyone who suggested Swalwell was a risk to
Speaker 2: the nation, etc. Pelosi refused to remove him from the
Speaker 2: House Intelligence Committee. Turley says for years, the democratic establishment
Speaker 2: of the media ignored many rumors surrounding Swalwell because he
Speaker 2: was their useful monster, someone who was an attack dog,
Speaker 2: always trained a streaming on the leash. But he says,
Speaker 2: it's now a pilon as Swalwell's formal enablers run for cover.
Speaker 2: The Irnan knee is that Swalwell's scandal will remove a
Speaker 2: candidate who is allegedly physically assaulting staffers in favor of
Speaker 2: a candidate who was verbally assaulting staffers. That's true. He's
Speaker 2: reference and Katie Porter here, who is most likely to
Speaker 2: benefit by Eric s well wells ouster, She's most likely
Speaker 2: to benefit from swall Weoll's inmplosion. But this was really
Speaker 2: a remarkable few days in the history of American politics, really,
Speaker 2: and so I thought we had to talk about it
Speaker 2: the next thing. It is my contention that one of
Speaker 2: the greatest examples of how Trump derangement syndrome makes it
Speaker 2: sufferer is completely crazy, is continuing lawsuits over the White
Speaker 2: House ballroom. Oh my god, this is silly. There's long
Speaker 2: standing historical precedent for presidents being able to alter the
Speaker 2: White House grounds as they see fit. We've been over
Speaker 2: all of this, you know, but several levels of the
Speaker 2: courts have already made this clear during the initial round
Speaker 2: of lawsuits. Trump can buy in large change that area
Speaker 2: as he wants, and not having a large enough ballroom
Speaker 2: has been a regular complaint from every modern day president
Speaker 2: for generations now, we've actually had to, at great taxpayer expense,
Speaker 2: put up a large tent or tents on the White
Speaker 2: House lawn and bring in chairs and folding tables, etc.
Speaker 2: To have larger state dinners. These dinners have had the
Speaker 2: look and feel of some summer wedding venue out in
Speaker 2: your backyard. But I stress every time the tent was
Speaker 2: rented and put up, large expenses to the taxpayers came
Speaker 2: with it. So finally President Trump decided to do something
Speaker 2: about it, and having spent his entire adult life as
Speaker 2: a developer, there's no better president to do it right.
Speaker 2: He and his team have put together a very classy
Speaker 2: and appealing model for this addition too. It's going to
Speaker 2: be quite impressive. Let's also stress this is all going
Speaker 2: to be built and paid for with private donation money.
Speaker 2: Not a single expense related to this White House addition
Speaker 2: is going to fall onto the backs of the US taxpayer,
Speaker 2: and that's just fantastic. If Obama would have wanted a
Speaker 2: new ballroom, the same left wingers would have said, oh
Speaker 2: my god, we got to do it at any expense.
Speaker 2: Half a billion dollars, let's do it. Trump and a
Speaker 2: bunch of his rich friends can come up with two
Speaker 2: hundred and fifty three hundred million that this is going
Speaker 2: to take to build on their own fantastic. So there's
Speaker 2: no financial ding to the taxpayers here either. This is
Speaker 2: all upside. There's literally no reason to oppose this project
Speaker 2: unless you're a Trump hater, and only the most rabbit
Speaker 2: of Trump haters would sincerely, the question of whether this
Speaker 2: project was going to proceed was settled long ago. The
Speaker 2: former East Wing has been demolished, the important infrastructure work
Speaker 2: is underway. We've since learned that a significant amount of
Speaker 2: secret underground work is being done first, because they're actually
Speaker 2: creating new bunkers in emergency workspaces too. This isn't just
Speaker 2: a new ballroom, which was already a necessity. This is
Speaker 2: improving the national security of the presidency. We the people
Speaker 2: and our enemies weren't supposed to know that there was
Speaker 2: secret underground work going on, but of course, the Nitwitz
Speaker 2: who keep suing to stop this project force that information
Speaker 2: out in the public too. None of their actions are helpful,
Speaker 2: and we're at the point that there's absolutely no reason
Speaker 2: that they still need to be fighting this in court.
Speaker 2: At this point, what do you think they're going to gain?
Speaker 2: What do they think their legal win is going to
Speaker 2: be here? Do they want to force their own plans
Speaker 2: through a new ballroom or east wing onto the country.
Speaker 2: Do they want the project filled in and turf put
Speaker 2: down for a dog park instead, or do they just
Speaker 2: want to fight Trump because they just hate his f
Speaker 2: and guts. You know it's the last one, because there's
Speaker 2: no reason to keep fighting this in court. The initial
Speaker 2: round of lawsuits were over whether President Trump had the
Speaker 2: authority to do this just as this project is being done,
Speaker 2: Can he just order the project done? And the courts
Speaker 2: in that first round said yeah, he can. Then the
Speaker 2: next thing, and it's my contention that one of the
Speaker 2: greatest examples of how Trump arrangement syndrome makes it suffer
Speaker 2: as completely crazy is that we have continuing lawsuits over
Speaker 2: this White House ballroom. We're in like round number three now,
Speaker 2: and my god, this is silly. There's long standing historical
Speaker 2: precedent for presidents to be able to alter the White
Speaker 2: House crowns as they see fit. Several levels of courts
Speaker 2: have already made this clear during the initial round of lawsuits.
Speaker 2: Not having a large enough ballroom has been a regular
Speaker 2: complaint from every modern day president for generations. We've had to,
Speaker 2: at great expense, put up those tents. Then, in a
Speaker 2: second round of lawsuits, a court decided that Trump needed
Speaker 2: to get permission from the National Capital Planning Committee. All right,
Speaker 2: he did. Trump actually stacked that commission with his loyalists
Speaker 2: and guys them to officially sign off by the ballroom. Great,
Speaker 2: all right, we move forward, only to have a lower
Speaker 2: court judge decide out of the blue Trump moved ahead
Speaker 2: on lawfully he needed congressional approval, after all. It was
Speaker 2: a bogus ruling from a Trump hating judge in round
Speaker 2: number three of lawsuits, and there are a lot of
Speaker 2: those Trump hating judges around Washington, d C. But the
Speaker 2: judge put an injunction into place, obviously and stopped the work.
Speaker 2: Fast forward to last week, when a federal appeals court
Speaker 2: determined that work could continue after all. While this lower
Speaker 2: court judge's decision was appealed and hashed out, and in
Speaker 2: most instances that sort of determination from a higher court
Speaker 2: means that the lower court judge got it wrong and
Speaker 2: his silly ruling is likely to be overturned, but we
Speaker 2: don't know that for sure. None of this legal nonsense
Speaker 2: is necessary. Moreover, there's no reason for any rational person
Speaker 2: or group to still be filing or arguing lawsuits over this.
Speaker 2: It's just the Trump haters hating the fact that the
Speaker 2: President is moving ahead with this project without a bunch
Speaker 2: of outside oversight or input. Bottom line, this is a
Speaker 2: bunch of nasty bullying Karen's and Kevin's who just cannot
Speaker 2: stand it when they don't get to butt into something,
Speaker 2: when they aren't being heard on something, when they aren't
Speaker 2: asked their opinion on something, because you know they're smart
Speaker 2: and everyone needs to value their opinion. No, and by
Speaker 2: the way, this is what hacks them off most of
Speaker 2: all when it comes to this. Trump ballroom is what
Speaker 2: some people like the most about Trump. He doesn't care
Speaker 2: what they think. He doesn't have to ask Congress, he
Speaker 2: didn't have to ask the American people for funding. He
Speaker 2: gets to do what he wants to do and complete
Speaker 2: his vision without their interference or input, and that infuriates them.
Speaker 2: Well too bad. And it's that part of Donald Trump's
Speaker 2: personality that appeals to so many average people. It's the
Speaker 2: screw you don't get to bully me. I don't care
Speaker 2: what you think. That part of Trump's personality is what
Speaker 2: really appeals to all sorts of people and all sorts
Speaker 2: of us average Americans. We two are sick and tired
Speaker 2: of all of the whining and moaning and nanning, nannying
Speaker 2: and bullying from the left and from the slaves to
Speaker 2: big government. Next thing, this is interesting, Greg. You know
Speaker 2: there's an appeals court in New Orleans that just struck
Speaker 2: down a nearly one hundred and sixty year old ban
Speaker 2: on making liquor at home. Oh really, Yeah, if you
Speaker 2: think about it, you can distill. People make wine at
Speaker 2: home for fun, right, and craft beers at home for fun, right. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you could not distill at home. This law was related
Speaker 2: to moonshining and distilling liquor without government permission, and it
Speaker 2: dates back to the Reconstruction era, which is the post
Speaker 2: Civil War period. Ban was put in place by Congress
Speaker 2: way back in eighteen sixty eight as a way to
Speaker 2: make sure the federal government was collecting liquor taxes?
Speaker 4: Can we do that here in Wisconsin? Can we distill liquor?
Speaker 2: I think we can now as a result of this rule. Okay,
Speaker 2: I know that we have smaller liquor companies that have
Speaker 2: popped up in Wisconsin. Sure, yeah, yeah, but you know
Speaker 2: they can't. They weren't doing it at home obviously, like
Speaker 2: my new hobby. There you go. I was wondering about
Speaker 2: this because you're not as much of a beer guy
Speaker 2: anymore as you are a whiskey guy. Oh yeah, maybe
Speaker 2: you could make whiskey at home. But this was to
Speaker 2: make it easy for the government to collect liquor taxes.
Speaker 2: Back after the Civil War, of course, they needed to
Speaker 2: raise funding to rebuild, but it was easy to make
Speaker 2: your own liquor at home to avoid the new federal taxation.
Speaker 2: So in eighteen sixty eight, Congress banned home distilling, and
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty eight years later, the Fourth Circuit
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals has finally struck it down as the
Speaker 2: result of a lawsuit filed by the quote Hobby Distillers Association.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 2: I didn't know this existed. I have to google that,
Speaker 2: but it amounts to apparently thirteen hundred hobby distillers who've
Speaker 2: organized into activist groups, and they insist that Americans have
Speaker 2: the right to distill spirits at home, either as a
Speaker 2: hobby or for personal consumption, obviously not for sale. Congress
Speaker 2: does have the ability to ban that, but to drink
Speaker 2: yourself and to share with friends.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, hang on, they can you can grow your own pot, right,
Speaker 3: that's true in some states.
Speaker 4: Well, why can't we distill our own booths?
Speaker 2: That's that's good, true. I mean that's true as well.
Speaker 2: You can't sell pot out of your house. I don't think, no, no, but.
Speaker 4: You can grow your own pillot.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So the only thing there, you go, The only
Speaker 2: thing that is banned here now is liquor. Think about
Speaker 2: and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals just overturned it.
Speaker 2: But it was a libertarian special interest group, really, the
Speaker 2: Competitive Enterprise Institute, that backed this lawsuit, and now they've
Speaker 2: won it both the district and the appeals court's levels,
Speaker 2: which is fantastic. And you know, Washington Times story says,
Speaker 2: writing for a three judge panel, the Circuit judge who
Speaker 2: wrote the decision Edith holand Jones argued that the prohibition
Speaker 2: not only failed to generate tax revenue, but also overstepped
Speaker 2: federal authority by criminalizing private activities without a clear constitutional basis.
Speaker 2: She's right, Judge Jones noted, the government's logic would theoretically
Speaker 2: allow Congress to outlaw any in home activity such as
Speaker 2: remote worker small businesses that might evade taxation. Also true,
Speaker 2: the court found the tax cod's home distilling ban goes
Speaker 2: beyond Congress's taxation powers and is not necessary and proper
Speaker 2: to carry out that function. So pretty clear ruling. And
Speaker 2: I don't see Trump's Department of Justice and Treasury pushing
Speaker 2: this further and trying to appeal to the court. Apparently
Speaker 2: after the decision, the Department of Justice and the Treasury
Speaker 2: Department lawyers who were on the losing end of this
Speaker 2: didn't have any comment afterward. Now, No, they've lost now
Speaker 2: at both the district and the appeals court level. I
Speaker 2: don't think they'll push this under Trump any way to
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court level. I doubt it, given the agreement
Speaker 2: between the lower and the appeals court judges on the issue.
Speaker 2: First of all, and it's the fact that it's Trump's
Speaker 2: White House and they're ultimately running the Justice and Treasury
Speaker 2: departments now rather than Biden or Obama. I have zero doubt,
Speaker 2: no doubt that if our federal government had lost this
Speaker 2: appeal under a bullying president on the Democrat side like
Speaker 2: Obama or Biden, Yeah, they'd just turn around and appeal
Speaker 2: to the Supreme Court. I don't see Trump's Department of
Speaker 2: Justice or Treasury Department doing this, and if they try it,
Speaker 2: I wouldn't be surprised if someone in Trump's White House
Speaker 2: quashes it. Republicans are supposed to be the party of
Speaker 2: smaller government, less taxation, fewer limits on our liberty. I
Speaker 2: assume the Trump White House would view things that way
Speaker 2: when it came up came to this archaic law. But Greg,
Speaker 2: you can go home today and start setting up your still.
Speaker 2: Start get a bag of corn on the way home,
Speaker 2: start setting up the still. There's also this I'm going
Speaker 2: to sound ancient here. I know you remember the ten
Speaker 2: cent stamp, right well? Sure, yeah, I remember the three
Speaker 2: and the five cent stamps. What is it even well?
Speaker 2: I thought it was like sixty five. It's seventy eight cents.
Speaker 2: Fir a stanp Yeah, oh man, But I am old
Speaker 2: enough to remember it took ten cents to send a letter.
Speaker 2: I had to look this up because I remember the
Speaker 2: three and five cent stamps still for sale. So when
Speaker 2: I ran across as what were stamps? What did stamps cost?
Speaker 2: When I was a kid and I thought you could
Speaker 2: mail a letter four five cents, Well you couldn't. It
Speaker 2: was actually ten. According to the Internet, mailing your average
Speaker 2: piece of mail in the nineteen seventies, which is when
Speaker 2: I would have been a young child, it costs somewhere
Speaker 2: between ten and thirteen cents. The three and five cent
Speaker 2: stamps were still around, though, in case you needed to
Speaker 2: cobble together thirteen weight.
Speaker 4: They would for the weighty right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that's when we were children born, and I
Speaker 2: was born in nineteen sixty six. I clearly remember the
Speaker 2: cost of mailing a letter when it was ten cents.
Speaker 2: I also remember the conversations when it was raised to
Speaker 2: thirteen cents. By god, this is highway robbery.
Speaker 4: All the old folks were upset.
Speaker 2: So now the cost of a postage stamp is seventy
Speaker 2: eight cents. This is according to a CNBC story that
Speaker 2: claims the Post of Service wants to boost this to
Speaker 2: eighty two cents this July.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, we normally just we use the stamps for
Speaker 3: on Christmas. When we did get the Christmas cards, and
Speaker 3: I don't individually buy them, I just buy them by
Speaker 3: the book.
Speaker 4: Was it thirty five dollars?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you don't really do the math. It's just yet,
Speaker 2: what do you need here at twenty twenty two? Yes,
Speaker 2: that's the same thing. So they're gonna want to boost
Speaker 2: that eight to eighty two cents this July. And I
Speaker 2: thought we were still paying about sixty five. So I
Speaker 2: read this and.
Speaker 4: I was shocked. What what?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Two thoughts on it. Really, First, doesn't this prove
Speaker 2: how well the so called F stamp has worked to
Speaker 2: keep the American people in the dark, yes, about how
Speaker 2: much they're paying for stamp rush Limbrov for years said
Speaker 2: the American people should have to write out a check
Speaker 2: and send in their taxes. It shouldn't come automatically out
Speaker 2: of your paycheck. You should know how much you're being
Speaker 2: stolen from, and then we'd all demand lower taxes and
Speaker 2: we'd mean it same thing here. Why did they move
Speaker 2: to the F stamp? Why did they stop taking the
Speaker 2: price off of the stamp well, because they were jacking
Speaker 2: it up so frequently. Oh yeah, it had to be
Speaker 2: at thirty thirty, thirty three to thirty five stamps for
Speaker 2: thirty five cents for a very long time. And then
Speaker 2: all of a sudden, the post office troubles got so
Speaker 2: financially bad that they just started to regularly boost it up.
Speaker 2: But the cost, I think most people in this audience
Speaker 2: probably remember, it used to be printed right in the stamp.
Speaker 2: It was right there in the corner. This is a
Speaker 2: thirty three cent stamp. But a decade or two ago,
Speaker 2: the post Office and our congressman decided it was going
Speaker 2: to be smarter to take the cost of the stamp
Speaker 2: off the front because they claim, you know, every time
Speaker 2: we increase the price, we have to burn the old,
Speaker 2: unused stamps. That was just an excuse. The reason is
Speaker 2: they wanted to make take the price off the stamp
Speaker 2: so that they get less blowback from the public as
Speaker 2: they increased prices more regularly. And it's worked brilliantly for them,
Speaker 2: hasn't it. The average Does the average American know what
Speaker 2: the cost of a postage vamp is these days?
Speaker 1: No?
Speaker 2: You or I didn't. I didn't know if I was
Speaker 2: on who wants to be a millionaire and that was
Speaker 2: the final question that would get me the million dollars,
Speaker 2: I could not have come up with seventy eight cents.
Speaker 4: I would have thought a sixty or something like that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I thought we were still in the sixties.
Speaker 2: And I just guarantee you that the most frugal among
Speaker 2: us could answer that question correctly, and only the most
Speaker 2: frugal among us. So it's seventy eight cents going to
Speaker 2: go quietly to eighty two cents in July, and the
Speaker 2: vast majority of us will never notice. The Post Office
Speaker 2: also is asking for an eight percent increase. They're calling
Speaker 2: it a fuel surcharge to be added for package delivery
Speaker 2: and express mail. And at this rate, those of us
Speaker 2: who remember the three cent stamp are also going to
Speaker 2: live long enough to see it cost a full dollar
Speaker 2: in order to send a simple piece of mail.
Speaker 4: It's just thinning out the Christmas card list.
Speaker 3: That's what I think we're going to be doing.
Speaker 2: That is, But I mean, this is quite a milestone.
Speaker 2: I think that milestone when when a postage stamp caught
Speaker 2: hits a full dollar. Yeah, it has to be probably
Speaker 2: just a year or two away is based on how
Speaker 2: often and how regularly the postal service has now started
Speaker 2: to increase the cost. And I also assume that that
Speaker 2: milestone a dollar will get national attention and will finally
Speaker 2: cause all sorts of people to move to paperless building
Speaker 2: as much as possible. You know, some of us, I'm
Speaker 2: one of them. I don't know what you and Dorothy do,
Speaker 2: but some of us would would still rather have a
Speaker 2: paper bill come in the mail and send out a check.
Speaker 2: And in my case, it's just a better way to
Speaker 2: keep track of what's in my bank accounts, what bills
Speaker 2: have actually been paid. So I still fight going paperless
Speaker 2: where I can, but it's going to cost five do
Speaker 2: If it's going to cost five to ten dollars a
Speaker 2: month just to send out the checks, it's a pretty
Speaker 2: good sign. Yeah, Yeah, it's time it's time to go paperless. Moreover,
Speaker 2: I haven't told you about this. Aside from the forever
Speaker 2: word sing financial crisis that the post office is in,
Speaker 2: there also seems to be more fraud occurring within and
Speaker 2: surrounding the mail system. About three weeks ago, my bank
Speaker 2: alerted me to a fraudulent check. Someone had intercepted one
Speaker 2: of my checks in the mail and then tried to
Speaker 2: scrub it blank before filling it in to themselves and
Speaker 2: forging my signature to cash it.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 2: And luckily this gal was not a master criminal and
Speaker 2: a bank caught it. They could tell And if thank
Speaker 2: heavn the bank caught it, or I would have been
Speaker 2: out about two thousand dollars just stolen out of my checket.
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And it sounds like in this instance it was
Speaker 2: a scumming employee at the credit card company who was
Speaker 2: sifting through the company mail and see what's easy one
Speaker 2: to do, right, so she was she went stealing that way.
Speaker 2: This was not the credit card company, It was a
Speaker 2: it wasn't a criminal postal carrier. But I mean, this
Speaker 2: did have me thinking, maybe it is time to just
Speaker 2: go paperless if the scammers are focusing on the paper
Speaker 2: mail in this manner, and apparently they are. In ballots
Speaker 2: member that that story this week. Absolutely more of the
Speaker 2: Jwebber podcast after this. Hey, who's going to tell the
Speaker 2: country that the average tax refund this year is a
Speaker 2: whopping twenty four percent higher than it was the year before.
Speaker 2: That's a solid stat The tax relief included in the
Speaker 2: Big Beautiful Bill is making a very real, big beautiful
Speaker 2: difference on our taxes this year? But does anyone know it?
Speaker 2: If the accomplished media outlets refuse to report on it,
Speaker 2: Will the average American know that their refund is larger
Speaker 2: than it would normally be? And why? I highly doubt it.
Speaker 2: People don't pay that close attention. The average person has
Speaker 2: no clue as to what they should get back or
Speaker 2: how much they would normally get back as compared to
Speaker 2: the refund they'll get back this year. It's important because
Speaker 2: it's another significant promise. It's being kept by Trump and
Speaker 2: the Republicans, and they'll get no credit for it because
Speaker 2: the left wing news outlets will refuse to report on this.
Speaker 2: You watch so far, there's a virtual blackout on this story.
Speaker 2: We'll see if it gets any mainstream coverage as we
Speaker 2: hit official tax Day this week Pril fifteenth, but I
Speaker 2: doubt it will. This is the first chance Americans have
Speaker 2: to see the effects of the no tax on tips
Speaker 2: or overtime provisions that were in the Big Beautiful Bill,
Speaker 2: or the new tax breaks for seniors on Social Security,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Those new tax breaks kick in this filing period.
Speaker 2: The Trump White House says they expect the biggest tax
Speaker 2: refund season ever based on these new rules. They're saying
Speaker 2: that the average refund will increase by about one thousand
Speaker 2: dollars this year. At least that might be puffery. The
Speaker 2: final totals aren't in yet. Of course, the IRS has
Speaker 2: just scratched the surface on most refunds, so this will change.
Speaker 2: But so far, the latest IRS data claims that the
Speaker 2: quote average refund is about thirty five hundred dollars this year,
Speaker 2: which is up from thirty two hundred last year. And
Speaker 2: it's news like this that makes me furious. We have
Speaker 2: an activist news media now which is really just a
Speaker 2: leftist propaganda machine. For most of our modern history here
Speaker 2: in America, this would be a legitimate and interesting news
Speaker 2: story that most media outlets would have run. Okay, interesting tidbit.
Speaker 2: It's a nice reminder that the big beautiful B Bill
Speaker 2: was passed by Congress and signed by Trump. Promises were
Speaker 2: made within it. Are the American people seeing the benefits
Speaker 2: of the bill? In years past, that would have been
Speaker 2: a very appropriate, legitimate and reasonable news story for every
Speaker 2: news outlet in America. But now with today's so called
Speaker 2: news media, having given up all pretense of fairness and
Speaker 2: more accurately, having given up their long standing core mission,
Speaker 2: which was to be fair and unbiased, now their activist
Speaker 2: propagandas for the left, there's no way the pro left
Speaker 2: news media is going to run this story or alert
Speaker 2: the American people to the fact that the President and
Speaker 2: the Republican Congress have done a good thing here. You
Speaker 2: simply will not see tax savings related to this big,
Speaker 2: beautiful bill reported on or discussed. Because it would be
Speaker 2: a win for Trump. It would be proof Republicans and
Speaker 2: Donald Trump saved you money and a significant chunk of
Speaker 2: money with their tax reform. You're not going to see
Speaker 2: this reported in any of the traditional corporate mainstream news outlets.
Speaker 2: Trust me. Next item, I'm happy to see President promised
Speaker 2: to preemptively pardon all of his close advisers and administration
Speaker 2: officials when they leave office in twenty twenty nine. Now
Speaker 2: I'm happy to see it because this is just yet
Speaker 2: another thing that the Democrats have started. And if this
Speaker 2: is now going to be the new standard for the
Speaker 2: left for Democrat administrations, it should be for Republican administrations too.
Speaker 2: I also want to be clear, just in terms of
Speaker 2: wanting clean, transparent, responsible government. This is a terrible thing.
Speaker 2: Trust me. This is a sort of news that is
Speaker 2: going to have constitutional scholars and purists writing long columns
Speaker 2: on social media and blasting Trump again for doing something terrible,
Speaker 2: et cetera. Yeah, put it this way. I can already
Speaker 2: hear Rick Esenberg and Dan Lennington and the guys at
Speaker 2: the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty clacking away on
Speaker 2: their keyboards on this one. It is a terrible thing
Speaker 2: to erase any chance of lawbreaking amongst the most powerful
Speaker 2: people in any administration being held accountable and prosecuted for
Speaker 2: their crimes. And yeah, it's a terrible thing that the
Speaker 2: preemptive pardon itself even works to discourage any investigation of
Speaker 2: possible wrongdoing in the future administration. Why investigate and spend
Speaker 2: all sorts of time and energy and money on it
Speaker 2: if this person's going to get a pass anyway. So,
Speaker 2: as a common sense, profounding, father's pro first principal sort
Speaker 2: of guy, I shouldn't be happy to hear Trump saying
Speaker 2: this about his preemptive pardons. But I am, and I
Speaker 2: am because this is yet another terrible and awful thing
Speaker 2: that the Democrats are fine with and if it protects
Speaker 2: their scumming actors and their political party, they're good with it.
Speaker 2: So they're going to keep doing this, even as they
Speaker 2: make every effort to launch investigations and attacks on every
Speaker 2: Republican administration possible, to the point that if Donald Trump
Speaker 2: didn't protect his own people by issuing these preemptive pardons
Speaker 2: as he leaves office, he'll be one of the dumbest
Speaker 2: presidents and dumbest people ever. We know that today's rabid
Speaker 2: leftists are going to keep going after President Trump and
Speaker 2: everyone who dares to be involved in the Trump administration. Right,
Speaker 2: this isn't up for debate. If Donald Trump leaves an
Speaker 2: avenue open for Democrats to bully and smear and destroy
Speaker 2: his people post presidency, the Democrats and their rabbit activist
Speaker 2: class are going to take that opening. So just to
Speaker 2: be a good boss and protect his own people, Trump
Speaker 2: needs to take this avenue and issue those blanket pardons
Speaker 2: as he leaves flat out. It's the no brainer decision
Speaker 2: given the realities of Washington, d C. And modern day
Speaker 2: left wing politics. This shouldn't even be a tough decision
Speaker 2: for Trump as the end of his term nears and
Speaker 2: it sounds like he's already made up his mind. The
Speaker 2: other day he said to a crowd, I'll pardon everyone
Speaker 2: who's come within two hundred feet of the oval. One
Speaker 2: report says several aids say Trump raises the pardons so
Speaker 2: regularly that some of his advisers now laugh about it.
Speaker 2: But it follows Joe Biden's sweeping and preemptive end of
Speaker 2: term pardons to multiple top officials and family members. They
Speaker 2: say that included, of course, his son Hunter and doctor
Speaker 2: Anthony Fauci. Yep, the Democrats started this. It was their
Speaker 2: party that once again broke the long standing norms and
Speaker 2: decided to a nakedly scummy thing. They set the precedent,
Speaker 2: so don't be surprised when Trump follows it, simply to
Speaker 2: ensure that both sides are playing by the same rules.
Speaker 2: Democrats shouldn't be able to break every norm in every
Speaker 2: law or rule when they're in charge and then turn
Speaker 2: around and use those same laws and rules to invent
Speaker 2: smear campaigns against members of Republican administrations to ruin them. No,
Speaker 2: and this is worth noting. As hard as the Democrats
Speaker 2: came after Trump and his team members after term one
Speaker 2: and then included two bogus impeachments, and as hard as
Speaker 2: the Democrats went after anyone associated with Trump and term one,
Speaker 2: Donald Trump did not issue a bunch of pardons as
Speaker 2: he left office, certainly didn't issue any blanket preemptive pardons.
Speaker 2: He probably should have done so in certain instances, but
Speaker 2: he didn't. Now, this scummy I'm protecting every scumbag in
Speaker 2: my administration from prosecution thing came from Joe Biden and
Speaker 2: his fellow Democrats cheered as he did it. They can't
Speaker 2: turn around and pretend Donald Trump is doing something shocking
Speaker 2: and precedent setting and terrible.
Speaker 4: Now no.
Speaker 2: Next item. The relentless and mindless Trump bashing really into
Speaker 2: Iran continues this despite the fact that anyone with a brain,
Speaker 2: and anyone who has followed a law and knows anything
Speaker 2: about the Iranian regime knows they weren't going to agree
Speaker 2: to a peace deal. The big headlines are the negotiations
Speaker 2: fell apart. Well, of course they did. They did because
Speaker 2: those remaining Iranian leaders have no interest in cooperating with
Speaker 2: the West. They have no interest in peace with the West.
Speaker 2: They can't be trusted to live up to an agreement anyway.
Speaker 2: The most likely outcome here is that the bombing is
Speaker 2: going to have to continue until Iran's leaders can finally
Speaker 2: be cowed into agreeing to turn over their thousand barrels
Speaker 2: of enriched uranium to a UN team of experts. They'll
Speaker 2: never agree to turn it over directly to America, and
Speaker 2: at the very least they'll try to save face by
Speaker 2: turning that over to some nebulous UN team with Russians
Speaker 2: and Chicoms involved. That's probably how we get that enriched
Speaker 2: uranium out of Iran's hands, if we do. And by
Speaker 2: the way, the leftists and the Trump haters are trying
Speaker 2: to have it both ways on this one too.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: In this era, they want to blast Trump and celebrate
Speaker 2: the fact that Iran still has enriched uranium, and Trump
Speaker 2: and Bebe's bombing hasn't led to them giving it up.
Speaker 2: But in the Obama era, if you remember these Verry saying,
Speaker 2: people were telling us that President Obama and John Kerrey
Speaker 2: had ended Iran's nuclear program and had them giving up
Speaker 2: any enriched uranium. These dolts on the left cannot say
Speaker 2: Obama ended Iran's nuclear program and got them to turn
Speaker 2: over their uranium without the need for war, which is
Speaker 2: what they're saying on social media, and they're saying that
Speaker 2: in one breath and then giggling over Trump's failure to
Speaker 2: get the uranium back. Well, you can't do that without
Speaker 2: ever explaining why and how Iran still has enriched uranium.
Speaker 2: If Obama and Kerrie ended this, they told us that
Speaker 2: Obama and his team, in their brilliance, had ended Iran's
Speaker 2: nuclear program without having to resort to force. You hear
Speaker 2: that sort of nonsense daily and daily since this started
Speaker 2: on social media. Folks, today's events are proof that Obama
Speaker 2: and his team didn't do diddley. Ever since the bogus
Speaker 2: Obama Cary agreement was put in place, most of us
Speaker 2: on the right have said, and by the way, most
Speaker 2: of the international monitors have said, it's a farce of
Speaker 2: an agreement that Iran never intended to live up to. First,
Speaker 2: it would have only delayed Ron's nuclear program by a
Speaker 2: few years. And second, as weak as Obama's agreement was,
Speaker 2: the Malla is never intended to live up to it anyway,
Speaker 2: international inspectors said at the time, and they still say
Speaker 2: to this day. Iran's Mulla's never stopped working on their
Speaker 2: nuclear or their rocket programs. Ever, not in the years
Speaker 2: that Obama and John Kerrey spent negotiating the agreement, not
Speaker 2: after the agreement was done, Not if the agreement was
Speaker 2: allegedly in place, Not after Obama left office and Trump
Speaker 2: took over, Not after Trump left office and Biden took over.
Speaker 2: The global community knows Iran just kept running its rocket
Speaker 2: in nuclear programs the entire time. The Obama Carey nuclear
Speaker 2: accord was a complete farce beginning to end. Just a farce.
Speaker 2: But I have no doubt that the Trump team gives
Speaker 2: us our best chance at finding a way for Iran
Speaker 2: to give up those nuclear materials. It's going to take
Speaker 2: some level of additional military action, most likely. Trump has
Speaker 2: now closed the Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormones.
Speaker 2: That too, was just grossly reported all sorts of misleading
Speaker 2: headlines and reports. Donald Trump didn't move to close the
Speaker 2: Strait of Hormuz to ship traffic. He moved to close
Speaker 2: Iran's ports in the Strait of Hormuz. The rest of
Speaker 2: the shipping lanes will be open, but it's going to
Speaker 2: take some level of additional military action here, most likely,
Speaker 2: and Trump isn't going to give up on this or
Speaker 2: pretend he did something like Obama did. Meanwhile, the New
Speaker 2: York Times itself is reporting that one reason Iran hasn't
Speaker 2: reopened the Strait of Hormuz more fully is that they
Speaker 2: can't remember where they place some of the mines that
Speaker 2: they peppered around the waters there. Good grief, you know,
Speaker 2: some people think that they didn't actually mine the straits,
Speaker 2: they were just pretending they put mines in the water. Well,
Speaker 2: now Trump and the American team have to figure this out.
Speaker 2: This has the US military going into the strait now
Speaker 2: with mine sweeping ships in an effort to have us,
Speaker 2: the US yet again step up and do the work.
Speaker 2: As Trump put it on th truth Social, We're now
Speaker 2: starting the process of clearing out the Strait of Hormuz
Speaker 2: as a favor to countries all over the world, including China, Japan,
Speaker 2: South Korea, France, Germany, and many others, he said. Incredibly,
Speaker 2: they don't have the courage or the will to do
Speaker 2: the work themselves. Very interestingly, however, empty oil carrying ships
Speaker 2: from many nations are heading to the United States of
Speaker 2: America to load up with oil, he said untruth Social.
Speaker 2: The first part of that, obviously is meant to make
Speaker 2: it clear that even though the oil that America uses
Speaker 2: doesn't need to come through the Strait of hormuves, it's
Speaker 2: the US and our military who are once again stepping
Speaker 2: up to help the global community get their oil more cheaply.
Speaker 2: The second part of his is a reference to how
Speaker 2: much more American oil is being sold as a way
Speaker 2: to make up for the shortages coming out of the
Speaker 2: Persian Gulf. This is Trump, the perpetual business man, pointing
Speaker 2: out that America and America's oil industry is profiting from
Speaker 2: Iran's little stunt here, and he's right. By weaponizing the
Speaker 2: Strait of Hormuz as a strategy, Iran's malas are only
Speaker 2: pushing an even greater shift toward Western oil, aren't they.
Speaker 2: They don't seem to see this yet, nor do the
Speaker 2: pundits and the Trump haters who just want to claim
Speaker 2: America is on the losing end of every city situation.
Speaker 2: But with the trouble in Ukraine, we've seen all sorts
Speaker 2: of countries shift away from Russian oil and natural gas
Speaker 2: and start buying it from America, which has harmed the
Speaker 2: Russian economy greatly. Right well, now we have ironzmull As
Speaker 2: thinking that they're being smart by forcing their new batch
Speaker 2: of countries into shifting their purchasing agreements over to American
Speaker 2: producers too. How exactly is this harming America or the
Speaker 2: West long term? It's not. The most likely outcome here
Speaker 2: is that if the Persian Gulf sales remain choked off
Speaker 2: like this for any amount of time, it's going to
Speaker 2: have more and more buyers shifting over to purchasing from
Speaker 2: American and Western produced oil and natural gas companies because
Speaker 2: it's just a more stable and a more reliable way
Speaker 2: to do it, and they're going to stay there long term.
Speaker 2: Why not stay because this is a more stable and
Speaker 2: reliable way to fulfill your energy needs. My point is,
Speaker 2: even as Trump haters on both sides whine about how
Speaker 2: terrible it is that Iran still controls the straight of hormones, etc.
Speaker 2: The fact that they do is harming them and helping us.
Speaker 2: The Trump haters just can't see it, or they refuse to.
Speaker 2: At this point in the war, two problems remain related
Speaker 2: to that strait. The first is that the Iranian military
Speaker 2: apparently cannot remember where they've laid some of the mines
Speaker 2: that they've been using to control traffic through there. And
Speaker 2: then second, our military has sunk every major ship in
Speaker 2: the Iranian army, but there's still a bunch of smaller,
Speaker 2: nimble speed boats that the Iranians are using to menace
Speaker 2: some of the traffic on the water. These evil dopes
Speaker 2: can still intimidate commercial captains and shoot rockets at ships
Speaker 2: from those smaller boats, and they could still collish problems
Speaker 2: that way, And so Pete Hegseth and the Trump Pentagon
Speaker 2: are going to have to come up with a plan
Speaker 2: to blow them out of the water every time they emerge, too.
Speaker 2: And because the Mullas are still in charge of Iran,
Speaker 2: we on our side are going to have to get
Speaker 2: to a point at which any remaining Iranian military cannot
Speaker 2: menace boats on the open water. Trump's White House claims
Speaker 2: they've eliminated Iran's ability to shoot ballistic missiles at anyone
Speaker 2: or produce any more ballistic missiles. Great, but they need
Speaker 2: to find a way to eliminate Iran's ability to launch
Speaker 2: shoulder held rockets or use heavier weaponry against commercial ships
Speaker 2: from those small boats. That is the challenge now. But
Speaker 2: of course the peace talks broke down. Iran's leaders were
Speaker 2: never serious about them, and they owe their very existence
Speaker 2: to combating the West, fighting the Great Satan, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Vice President Vance said it on Sunday, Iran won't even
Speaker 2: agree to not pursue nuclear weapons. I mean, all this
Speaker 2: could be cleared up if the leaders of Iran simply
Speaker 2: vowed they were done trying to get the nuclear bomb,
Speaker 2: just give up your nuclear materials and program and move on.
Speaker 2: Sounds like an easy concession at this point, but the
Speaker 2: Mullahs will not do it. They just have to fight
Speaker 2: the Great Satan. It's why they exist. This, meanwhile, is
Speaker 2: the main goal of the US military effort, isn't it.
Speaker 2: So President Trump isn't going to agree to anything short
Speaker 2: of that, at least not this early in the negotiations.
Speaker 2: He's done a good thing here now moving to block
Speaker 2: traffic out of the Iranian ports. That ratchets up the
Speaker 2: pressure on Iran. They can't sell the oil, get it
Speaker 2: to market. It also ratchets up the pressure on the
Speaker 2: Chinese because they apparently get like eighty percent of their
Speaker 2: oil through that strait of horror moves. So we'll see
Speaker 2: how they react. But President Trump clearly wants Iran to
Speaker 2: give up their uranium without more fighting, if possible. But
Speaker 2: he's not going to agree to a deal that doesn't
Speaker 2: include that uranium period. And so that's where we are
Speaker 2: now on the Iran question. I love how the leftist
Speaker 2: media is back to promoting Kamala Harris as an exciting
Speaker 2: twenty twenty eight contender. My god, it's a replay of
Speaker 2: their never ending attempt to force Hillary Clinton onto us.
Speaker 2: Over the years, this left wing news media spent two decades,
Speaker 2: at least two decades being the hype men for Hillary.
Speaker 2: It was twenty years of glowing personality profiles and gushing
Speaker 2: praise about how smart and wonderful and capable she is,
Speaker 2: and the bulk of the American people never bought it.
Speaker 2: Now those same accomplished media members are trying to do
Speaker 2: the same with Kamala, and in an era in which
Speaker 2: they no longer feel like they need to pretend they're
Speaker 2: unbiased either. So it's really bad.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: At least back in the Clinton Bush and Obama eras,
Speaker 2: the people running these news outlets felt like they had
Speaker 2: to hide their bias and at least try to be
Speaker 2: sort of fair or sound sort of fair. That's no
Speaker 2: longer the case. These major news outlets are all open
Speaker 2: cheerleaders for the left.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: If you doubt that, look at the complete hysteria and
Speaker 2: implosion currently underway at CBS News because corporate execs dared
Speaker 2: to hire Bari Weese to run the news operation. Weese
Speaker 2: isn't even close to being a conservative. She's a left
Speaker 2: winger herself, and their beef with her is that we
Speaker 2: Se decided that as a liberal, she's also still interested
Speaker 2: in a more balanced news product or more balanced coverage.
Speaker 2: CBS News employees are in a full mutiny against her
Speaker 2: because she wants them to be fair. But here we are,
Speaker 2: three years away from the next election and about a
Speaker 2: year away from any real candidate declarations on anyone who
Speaker 2: wants to run, and these news outlets are back to
Speaker 2: focusing on Kamala Harris. They're starting the effort early to
Speaker 2: try to make her palatable to the American people again,
Speaker 2: And I say again, but the truth is, Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: was never appealing to the American people. And I was
Speaker 2: one of the first to point it out out back
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty when Cammi ran for the first time.
Speaker 2: I said, this woman is an incompetent fraud, and she
Speaker 2: thinks that because she's black, she can get the nomination.
Speaker 2: Or you know, she's fooling someone that had black listeners
Speaker 2: to my radio show calling in and emailing and telling me,
Speaker 2: oh no, no, we don't like her either. The black community
Speaker 2: hates her because she's passing herself off as an African
Speaker 2: American who's lived our shared experience, and she hasn't. Kamala
Speaker 2: grew up rich with an accomplished Indian mother and a
Speaker 2: Jamaican father. She has no idea what it means to
Speaker 2: be black in America. My callers were right. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: Kamala only polled at about seven percent among South Carolina's
Speaker 2: black voters, and she had to drop out before the
Speaker 2: voting started in the primary in Iowa. The country, including
Speaker 2: America's black voters, knew she was a fraud in twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: So what's changed. Well, you know, despite her unpopularity, Joe
Speaker 2: Biden chose her to be his running mate solely do
Speaker 2: on skin color. He'd promised the racist on the left
Speaker 2: that he would choose a black woman as veep, and
Speaker 2: he did so. Yes, Kamala has served as vice president
Speaker 2: for four years now, and she was a bad one.
Speaker 2: And during that time, Kamala Harris has been even more
Speaker 2: fully exposed as the lightweight and pretender that she is.
Speaker 2: This is just not a smart woman. During that four years,
Speaker 2: it became apparent that Kamala Harris only pretends to know things,
Speaker 2: and moreover, she refuses to do the harder work of
Speaker 2: actually learning the material and turning herself into a competent,
Speaker 2: learned individual. Kamala Harris is now famous for not reading
Speaker 2: the notes she's been given to prep for an event,
Speaker 2: or even before she speaks to a crowd. She's now
Speaker 2: famous for rambling, drawn out incoherent sentences and an attempt
Speaker 2: to sound smart. If anything, Americans are going to be
Speaker 2: even less interested in Kamala in twenty twenty eight. It's
Speaker 2: clear that she and her minions in the media think
Speaker 2: there's going to be a hunger for Cami in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight. They clearly believe the American people are going
Speaker 2: to know that they made a mistake by not electing
Speaker 2: her in twenty twenty four. And that's simply not going
Speaker 2: to be the case. You know, just because people think
Speaker 2: Trump is awful, we made a mistake doesn't mean they'll
Speaker 2: think they made a mistake in rejecting Kamala. And to
Speaker 2: be clear, I don't think Trump is awful. I am
Speaker 2: very impressed with his second term. I think Trump is great.
Speaker 2: But even if more Americans than ever think that they
Speaker 2: made a mistake in voting for Donald Trump, it doesn't
Speaker 2: mean they're going to think they made a mistake in
Speaker 2: not voting for Kamala. Those are two different things. Trump
Speaker 2: could have disappointed us, but Kamala can still be an
Speaker 2: idiot who should never hold office again. Correct, And so
Speaker 2: I stand by my prediction that Kamala Harris will not
Speaker 2: be the Democrats twenty twenty eight nominee, and I'm more
Speaker 2: certain than of it than ever. Kamala is having another
Speaker 2: little moment again, and it had Frank Lunz, the polster, saying,
Speaker 2: you know, Kamala Harris has led ten of the last
Speaker 2: fifteen polls taken on who the Democrat nominee should be
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty eight. Okay, And those results are honest
Speaker 2: to god, people, because the average American can't name anyone
Speaker 2: else on the Democrat side of the aisle who might
Speaker 2: be running for president in twenty eight off the top
Speaker 2: of their heads when the pollster calls. I used to
Speaker 2: explain this routinely on my radio show. This happens in
Speaker 2: the early polls, and it's why they're useless. There is
Speaker 2: a deep political ignorance in this country, and can be
Speaker 2: on both sides of the aisle, but there's a deep
Speaker 2: political ignorance in this country. And at this point, most
Speaker 2: people have at least heard of Kamala. After all, she
Speaker 2: was on the ticket last time, so she's the Democrat
Speaker 2: who they can name. When the pollsters ask then this question,
Speaker 2: the respondents give Kamala's name. That's all that's going on here.
Speaker 2: It's like if I asked you which cotton swab brand
Speaker 2: you prefer, your answer would be what Q tip because
Speaker 2: you can't name a single or the company that makes
Speaker 2: cotton swabs.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 2: That's how most Americans are when it comes to naming
Speaker 2: candidates or naming the Supreme Court justices, etc. You've all
Speaker 2: seen the jay walking segments on Leno's old show. You've
Speaker 2: all seen the man in the street interviews on social
Speaker 2: media where people are asked about politics just off the cuff.
Speaker 2: Nearly all of them sound like idiots because so few
Speaker 2: of them actually follow politics. So who should be the
Speaker 2: Democrat nominee in twenty twenty eight? Kamala Newsom. Last week
Speaker 2: we had this a poll from the Center Square that
Speaker 2: found Harris remains the potential frontrunner for the twenty twenty
Speaker 2: eight presidential race. They say thirty one percent of Democrats
Speaker 2: and left leaning independence said they would vote for Harris
Speaker 2: if the Democrat presidential primary were held today. Eighteen percent
Speaker 2: say they were unsure, while another sixteen percent say they
Speaker 2: would support California Governor Gavin Newsom. Ooh, Kamala's so popular. No,
Speaker 2: not really, most people could name Kamala as a Democrat
Speaker 2: who might run for president. I would ask you to
Speaker 2: notice that I don't know came in second. I don't
Speaker 2: know came in second. That means that nearly two in
Speaker 2: ten respondents couldn't even name a single Democrat contender off
Speaker 2: the top of their heads other than Kamala and coming
Speaker 2: in third. About one in ten could name Gavin Newsom.
Speaker 4: That's it.
Speaker 2: That's a test of people's political knowledge more than it
Speaker 2: is an interesting twenty twenty eight poll. It's not. It's
Speaker 2: what any political insider would expect to see at this point.
Speaker 2: But Oh, Kamala appeared in an Al Sharpton race fest,
Speaker 2: and Oh the crowd loved her, did they? This was
Speaker 2: Reverend Al Shopton's National Action Network Convention, which is an
Speaker 2: annual gathering of black civic leaders, activists, and voters in
Speaker 2: New York. A piece says it serves as the first
Speaker 2: major informal audition for potential twenty twenty eight Democratic candidates
Speaker 2: to pitch themselves for one of the party's most powerful constituencies.
Speaker 2: They say Former Vice President Kamala Harris packed to the
Speaker 2: hall to capacity and was met with multiple standing ovations
Speaker 2: and chance encouraging her to run again. Listen, she said,
Speaker 2: I might, I'm thinking about it. In fact, I've got
Speaker 2: the cut here, But if you heard it, it was
Speaker 2: a long, drawn out, stumbly tortured Kamala Harris. This was
Speaker 2: a three minute response that exposed again what a pretender
Speaker 2: she really is.
Speaker 5: Listen, I'm I'm I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking about it,
Speaker 5: but let me say this. Let me let me say this.
Speaker 5: I am thinking about it, but let me let me
Speaker 5: also say this. Look, I I served for four years
Speaker 5: being a heart beat away from the presidency of the
Speaker 5: United States. I spent countless hours in my West wing office,
Speaker 5: footsteps away from the Oval office. I spent countless hours
Speaker 5: in the Oval office in the situation room. I know
Speaker 5: what the job is and I know what it requires.
Speaker 2: And she rambled down like that for another two minutes
Speaker 2: and actually said nothing. The accomplice press really really had
Speaker 2: to clean up the quote in order to run these
Speaker 2: stories about how O Kamala might run. Kamala's appearance at
Speaker 2: the Sharpton event was as embarrassing as any other Kamala appearance.
Speaker 2: She sits there and pretends to know what she's talking about,
Speaker 2: and she stretches, and she hems, and she rolls that
Speaker 2: right hand of hers in the air as her brain overheats,
Speaker 2: and what comes out is the most incoherent crap imaginable,
Speaker 2: only to have the crowd kind of applaud and pretend
Speaker 2: they understand her. In fact, anyone who saw this larger
Speaker 2: event and saw more of her could hear very light
Speaker 2: and confused smatterings of applause at times that some people
Speaker 2: in the crowd thought might be an applause line, or
Speaker 2: thought maybe I should clap here. We she stopped talking,
Speaker 2: and I didn't really understand that but I'm supposed to
Speaker 2: clap here, right. I have another perfect example of Kamala
Speaker 2: Harris for you. She's simply asked about how she would
Speaker 2: combat inflation.
Speaker 3: Else, are you going to do to fix this problem
Speaker 3: with inflation?
Speaker 5: Thank you? Well, let's start with this. Prices have gone up,
Speaker 5: and families and individuals are dealing with the realities of
Speaker 5: that bread costs more, that gas costs more, and we
Speaker 5: have to understand what that means. That's about the cost
Speaker 5: of living going up. That's about having to stress and
Speaker 5: stretch limited resources. That's about a source of stress for
Speaker 5: families that is not only economic, but is on a
Speaker 5: daily level, something that is a heavy weight to carry.
Speaker 5: So it is something that we take very seriously from
Speaker 5: the history of this issue in the United States that
Speaker 5: when you see these prices go up, it has a
Speaker 5: direct impact on the quality of life for all people
Speaker 5: in our country. So it's a big issue and we
Speaker 5: take it seriously and it is a priority.
Speaker 2: There for now, an idiot might think she actually said
Speaker 2: something there, but especially if you watch the video, it's
Speaker 2: apparent you can hear the gears start to slowly turn
Speaker 2: after she's asked the question, and then she scrambles for
Speaker 2: an answer, and she tells you what you already know.
Speaker 2: She's telling you the obvious and presenting it to you
Speaker 2: as though you're a first grader. But I think that
Speaker 2: she is going through her own mental catalog there and
Speaker 2: telling you what she knows about any given topic, and
Speaker 2: it's not much. So she talks to you like a
Speaker 2: third grader. She rambles for over a minute, and she
Speaker 2: never does answer the question. Classic Kamala Harris. She's more
Speaker 2: of an airhead idiot than ever. And if the voters
Speaker 2: of the Democrat Party really can't see it in twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight, God help us all. But they can see it,
Speaker 2: which is why they rejected her. In twenty twenty and
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four. The two easiest predictions in the world
Speaker 2: to make are Kamala Harris will not be the twenty
Speaker 2: twenty eight Democrat nominee, and the leftist media are going
Speaker 2: to spend the next three years relentlessly trying to convince
Speaker 2: the American people that she should be. But if Hillary
Speaker 2: Clinton was a tird that they never could polish up
Speaker 2: to look appealing to us, Kamala Harris is even a
Speaker 2: bigger pile of dung and there is zero chance her
Speaker 2: fans in the media will be any more successful selling
Speaker 2: her than they did selling Hillary.
Speaker 1: The Jay Webber Podcast is a production of iHeartRadio podcasts,
Speaker 1: produced and engineered by Gregory John. The Jay Webber 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.