Speaker 1: And thank you Scott Shannon. Thanks to all of you
Speaker 1: for being with us. Right down our toll free telephone
Speaker 1: number its eight hundred and ninety four to one, Sean
Speaker 1: if you want to join us. The President, by the way,
Speaker 1: we'll make an announcement. We already know what the announcement is.
Speaker 1: In the Oval Office today he'll make it official, and
Speaker 1: we fully expect that the Department of Defense is now
Speaker 1: going to be renamed the Department of War, which is
Speaker 1: what it used to be called. I'm sure this is
Speaker 1: outrageous now. This comes after the President indicated that he
Speaker 1: will make several alterations to defense policy. Renaming the Department
Speaker 1: of Defense is one of them. Moving forward with the
Speaker 1: Golden Dome missile defense project, which it probably like Reagan,
Speaker 1: I think you can make an argument. As successful as
Speaker 1: Reagan was as president. Remember he gave us, at the
Speaker 1: time the longest period of peacetime economic growth. He dropped
Speaker 1: the top marginal rates again battling left wing arguments, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's going to reduce revenues to the government. Never happened,
Speaker 1: and he went from seventy to twenty eight percent and
Speaker 1: ended up in an eight year period doubling the amount
Speaker 1: of money brought into the federal treasury. Unfortunately, Congress spent
Speaker 1: a dollar and thirty for every new dollar he brought in,
Speaker 1: and of course adding to the deficits. And we now
Speaker 1: see the problem culminating where it is today, and unfortunately
Speaker 1: that has to come to an end. I wish we'd
Speaker 1: get to a balanced budget amendment. I wish we'd get
Speaker 1: to line item vetos things like that, tools that a
Speaker 1: president can use. But you know, if you remember when
Speaker 1: Reagan walked away from the table with Garbachov at Reikievek,
Speaker 1: it all had to do with the issue of strategic
Speaker 1: defense that was mocked by the left, and they described
Speaker 1: it as Star Wars, and because at the time it was,
Speaker 1: you know, Star Wars was like the biggest thing out
Speaker 1: of Hollywood. And you know, then you look at the
Speaker 1: skies recently over Israel as they were being bombarded with
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles from Iran, as they've been attacked by you know,
Speaker 1: Hamas and at a Gaza in the south and his
Speaker 1: Bulah and Islamic Jihad out of Lebanon in the north,
Speaker 1: and the Uti Rebels, et cetera. What is so bizarre
Speaker 1: about it? Nobody ever really focused on it. Is when
Speaker 1: Reagan discussed this and the media legacy media mob at
Speaker 1: the time, which actually did have more influence, they mocked it,
Speaker 1: made fun of it, and then they would make these
Speaker 1: these graphics and they'd put them on television. And yet
Speaker 1: it's you watch in real time the Iron Dome and
Speaker 1: their new missile defense systems taking these these rockets out
Speaker 1: of the sky saving countless lives, and you realize, wow,
Speaker 1: a lot like the graphics that were made by a
Speaker 1: media that was making fun and mocking the odds of
Speaker 1: that technology. I would argue it probably is Reagan's greatest legacy,
Speaker 1: and I think that President Trump is right to move
Speaker 1: forward with the idea and the understanding that unfortunately evil
Speaker 1: does exist, has always existed, will always exist in the world.
Speaker 1: And you know, you create a sword, you have a shield,
Speaker 1: all right, So yeah, we should develop the next generation
Speaker 1: of weaponry that should include hypersonics, whatever AI generated weaponry
Speaker 1: we can think of. Again, I think future wars are
Speaker 1: not going to be fought on battlefields. You see it
Speaker 1: beginning to play out with Ukraine and Russia and you
Speaker 1: see the use of these drones. You saw the same
Speaker 1: thing in the Middle East. That is only the beginning
Speaker 1: of this next generation of weaponry, and we've got to
Speaker 1: be on the cutting edge of it, and we've got
Speaker 1: to stay ahead of our adversaries and our geopolitical foes
Speaker 1: if we want to, you know, defend the cause of
Speaker 1: liberty and the cause of freedom. And Reagan rightly warned
Speaker 1: that freedom has always but one generation away from extinction.
Speaker 1: He was not wrong, and it's every generation's responsibility to
Speaker 1: do so. So it may very well go down, but anyway,
Speaker 1: the President will announce that in an hour and authorizing
Speaker 1: the Defense Secretary Pete haig Seth and the Pentagon and
Speaker 1: subordinate officials to use secondary titles such as Secretary of War,
Speaker 1: Department of War, Deputy Secretary of War, and official correspondence,
Speaker 1: public communications, ceremonial contacts. I'm not sure if we will
Speaker 1: cover it or not. I mean, because we kind of
Speaker 1: know everything that happened is going to happen. It just
Speaker 1: I just told you now. And we do have breaking
Speaker 1: news with John Solomon, which I'm going to get to
Speaker 1: also in a second. The President currently enjoying the highest
Speaker 1: approval rating of his presidency new Exclusive Daily Mail JL
Speaker 1: Partner's poll. It's one tenth of a point higher than
Speaker 1: Matt Towery, Robert Kahley. It's a fifth five percent approval.
Speaker 1: They had him at fifty four. You know, if you
Speaker 1: look at all of the polling companies that have never
Speaker 1: polled Donald Trump right in ten years, is approval rating
Speaker 1: is at thirty seven or thirty eight percent. No, they
Speaker 1: couldn't be more wrong. That's why I never trust them.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't talk about them. I don't trust them.
Speaker 1: They're wrong every single time. You know, the posters that
Speaker 1: get it right and have consistently got polling Trump right
Speaker 1: are Trafalgar Kahley, Insider Advantage, Matt Towery, John McLaughlin and associates.
Speaker 1: They've gotten a right, Rasmussen's gotten a right Atlas Polling. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't even know who they are, Linda, do we
Speaker 1: know who they are? Because they show up every presidential
Speaker 1: election end up being pretty accurate. But we don't even
Speaker 1: know who they are anyway. The Daily Mail has his
Speaker 1: approval rating at fifty five percent according to the latest poll,
Speaker 1: only forty five percent disapproval, which for this point in
Speaker 1: his presidency is light years ahead of any modern day president.
Speaker 1: We'll get into great specificity in details at the top
Speaker 1: of the next hour. We're going to have to kind
Speaker 1: of juggle how we handle this with the president's announcement
Speaker 1: and this new discovery, because this is massive news. Just
Speaker 1: thenews dot com founder investigative reporter and editor in chief
Speaker 1: John Solomon breaking this news. He has obtained internal memos
Speaker 1: that show and indicate the President Joe Biden likely was
Speaker 1: outsourcing clemency decisions to then Vice President Kamala Harris in
Speaker 1: the last year of his presidency. Now stop right there,
Speaker 1: that's the headline. What does that mean if true? The
Speaker 1: power of the Look, the power of pardon clemency is absolute,
Speaker 1: but it's not the vice president's power. It's enumerated. That
Speaker 1: is the president's power. Anyway, those clemency decisions, remember we
Speaker 1: had the New York Times article. The New York Times
Speaker 1: went into a great specificity in detail, how Joe Biden
Speaker 1: just set up standards and criteria for clemencies and pardons
Speaker 1: and didn't involve himself in the ultimate decisions. This could invalidate,
Speaker 1: you know, thousands of clemencies and pardons that he did
Speaker 1: at the last minute. These decisions, the piece goes on,
Speaker 1: included preemptive pardons for the Biden family members, as well
Speaker 1: as commutations for federal death row sentences. This coupled with
Speaker 1: the previous news that John Solomon broke right here on
Speaker 1: this radio program and on TV about how you know
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was even being warned by his number two
Speaker 1: at the Department of Justice they did not feel that
Speaker 1: it would be valid, and they said, so, you know,
Speaker 1: just a day and a half, two days before he
Speaker 1: left office. National Archives Record Administration told the Trump White
Speaker 1: House Council's Office, quote, we did not find specific meet
Speaker 1: notes that clearly mention or note that the President was
Speaker 1: present for any of the four clemency meetings. According to
Speaker 1: these documents, president Biden's decision memo on commuting federal death
Speaker 1: row sentences. The piece then goes on and says was
Speaker 1: unmarked and NARRA cannot find Archives Administration cannot find a
Speaker 1: version indicating Biden's approval. The documents added a draft memorandum
Speaker 1: circulated by Biden's own White House Counsel's office in February
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty four, shows that by the president's last
Speaker 1: year in office, he was increasingly relying on Vice President
Speaker 1: Harris's assessment rather than his own. In the approval process.
Speaker 1: Given the president's schedule, it can often take days or
Speaker 1: weeks for the president to review and approve the clemency package.
Speaker 1: The lawyer's memo reads, that's called the cya the way
Speaker 1: I interpret it, he previously asked the White House Council
Speaker 1: to discuss the candidates with him, although in the last
Speaker 1: round of the vice president's approval was sufficient to obtain
Speaker 1: his approval, The lawyers noted. The Trump White House concluded
Speaker 1: that the memo shows the former president was effectively outsourcing
Speaker 1: clemency decisions to Harris during the final year. And further,
Speaker 1: the review found scant contemporaneous evidence that Biden had actually
Speaker 1: attended four key clemency meetings in the waning months of
Speaker 1: his term, and turned up no record of the President's
Speaker 1: briefing books as it relates to addressing pardon's commutations or
Speaker 1: clemency's I'm telling you this is now headed for a
Speaker 1: court challenge, and I would not at all be surprised
Speaker 1: if a lot of these quote pardons commutations end up
Speaker 1: being ruled invalid. The president now and this is the
Speaker 1: speed of Trump. We saw what the President did with
Speaker 1: Venezuela and this Narco terror group and just blew them
Speaker 1: out of the water. Because these drugs are coming into
Speaker 1: our country. We saw this massive haul of materials this
Speaker 1: week that are used to make fentanyl. I don't know
Speaker 1: if most of you are a where we have discussed
Speaker 1: it in the past, but if you have the equivalent
Speaker 1: of three grains of salt, three grains of salt and
Speaker 1: it's fentanyl and not salt, that is enough to kill
Speaker 1: a three hundred pound guy, that's enough to kill anybody.
Speaker 1: And they have enough. Fentanyl has made its way into
Speaker 1: this country to kill every American citizen many times over,
Speaker 1: which is very chilling and frightening. Anyway, the US will
Speaker 1: now deploy ten F thirty five fighter jets to Puerto
Speaker 1: Rico as part of its drug cartel fight. According to sources,
Speaker 1: it's just days after the strike by US forces wiping
Speaker 1: out nearly a dozen Venezuelan narco terrorists. The F thirty
Speaker 1: five is the military's most advanced fighter in service. They're
Speaker 1: due to arrive next week. So clearly the president is
Speaker 1: now taking on another massive issue, and that is the
Speaker 1: influx of drugs into our country. One House Republican, by
Speaker 1: the way, issued subpoenas yesterday to top Democrats, top lawyers
Speaker 1: at Democratic fundraising powerhouse Act Blue, amid an ongoing probe
Speaker 1: of allegedly fraudulent donations from domestic and foreign sources in
Speaker 1: the last election cycle. This is something John Solomon has
Speaker 1: been telling me privately and writing about publicly. The New
Speaker 1: York Post picked us up and the former general council
Speaker 1: for Act Blue, an ex director and associate associate council,
Speaker 1: were both compelled to come before House investigators for depositions.
Speaker 1: And we're going to watch that case very very closely
Speaker 1: as well. Anyway, so it's going to be a pretty
Speaker 1: interesting afternoon for sure. We'll get the latest, we'll get
Speaker 1: the run down from the president. New York Post reports
Speaker 1: today that the Trumpet administration projects five trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: a reduction in costs because of their deregulation policies. That's massive. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to address this, the idiocy and the comments
Speaker 1: of people on the economy, because it's obvious they don't
Speaker 1: know much about the economy. It's kind of frustrating to
Speaker 1: be honest at times because if you look at the yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: the job numbers were not what anybody would want them
Speaker 1: to be. Today by any stretch of the imagination. Here's
Speaker 1: one little, itsy bitsy tiny weeny problem that they have,
Speaker 1: and that is, if you look at the job numbers,
Speaker 1: they're not factoring in all the government jobs that have
Speaker 1: gone away. Number one. Number two, if you think just
Speaker 1: because the President's been able to secure fifteen trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in manufacturing commitments and investment in manufacturing for pharmaceuticals, semiconductor chips,
Speaker 1: automobile bials, rare earths. If you think that that is
Speaker 1: kicked in yet, you don't understand business. You have to
Speaker 1: come up with things called blueprints and plans and architectural
Speaker 1: designs and approvals so you can build out manufacturing centers.
Speaker 1: Number one. Number two, you factor in the president giving
Speaker 1: us the largest tax cut in history, including one hundred
Speaker 1: percent bonus appreciation for manufacturers that will incentivize them to
Speaker 1: move as quickly as possible to spend the fifteen trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: Then you factor in the economy and the impact that
Speaker 1: energy dominance will have, including the one trillion and committed
Speaker 1: monies in the European Union trade deal. They're not going
Speaker 1: to buy their energy from Vladimir Putin anymore. They're going
Speaker 1: to buy it from America, as will other countries. And
Speaker 1: I don't know why some people think you can just
Speaker 1: snap your fingers and wow, this is the greatest economy
Speaker 1: we've ever had in history. No, it hasn't proved dramatically actually,
Speaker 1: frankly surprisingly You know a lot of people have contacted
Speaker 1: me about the hearings yesterday with RFK Junior and a
Speaker 1: lot of frustration because of Republicans that were on the
Speaker 1: committee and not coming to the defense of RFK Junior.
Speaker 1: More Knowing RFK now as well as I do, I've
Speaker 1: spent a significant amount of time with him and doctor Oz,
Speaker 1: having pretty deep in the paint conversations about health, wellness,
Speaker 1: nutrition and fitness. And RFK Junior and mem and Oz
Speaker 1: are really into both of them, I mean in a
Speaker 1: major way. And there is conventional institutionalist mindsets in DC
Speaker 1: that never want a question the status quo. It's the
Speaker 1: antithesis of Donald Trump. He questions everything. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump sees a problem and he deals with it.
Speaker 1: That that is not your average politician. I doubt most
Speaker 1: of you, up until yesterday knew that the average child
Speaker 1: has seventy six jabs before the by the time they
Speaker 1: reach eighteen years of age. I'm sure most of you
Speaker 1: are now pretty familiar, especially if you listen to this
Speaker 1: show that you will promised things by the government about
Speaker 1: the COVID JAB that never turned out to be true.
Speaker 1: We were lied to, and there's a lot of information
Speaker 1: that and a lot of anecdotal evidence of prima facia case.
Speaker 1: I would argue that all these people were very well
Speaker 1: aware that this came from the Wuhan Virology Lab, and
Speaker 1: it was very evident from the onset based on text messages,
Speaker 1: emails back and forth between NIAH members. They were scared
Speaker 1: to death and writing each other deep, you know, late
Speaker 1: into the night about whether or not it was their
Speaker 1: money that was funding the research that created coronavirus. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's an institutionalist mindset, and there was a systematic effort
Speaker 1: to prevent you from knowing the truth. This whole wet
Speaker 1: market argument. You know that, well, it probably came from
Speaker 1: bats at a wet market, because in China they have
Speaker 1: these wet markets with exotic animals and people eat them,
Speaker 1: and that's likely where this came from. When they knew,
Speaker 1: damn well, that wasn't where it came from. They knew
Speaker 1: coronavirus research took place at the Wuhan Virology Lab. They
Speaker 1: knew the gain of function research also took place there.
Speaker 1: They were very very aware of it. And the NIH
Speaker 1: also was aware that they gave monies to the Eco
Speaker 1: Health Alliance that helped fund the Wuhan Virology Lab. Hate
Speaker 1: to tell you in case you don't know, but American
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollar went to pay to create the coronavirus which
Speaker 1: led to this worldwide pandemic and every horrible negative thing
Speaker 1: associated with it, and it was all preventable. And you
Speaker 1: have doctor Fauci back in what twenty twelve it said
Speaker 1: even if gain of function you know, research led to
Speaker 1: a worldwide pandemic, he's still in favor of it. How
Speaker 1: he ever got in that position is beyond any understanding
Speaker 1: I have. So incomes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And he's
Speaker 1: throwing out statistics about infant mortality rates that are higher
Speaker 1: or that life expectancy is lower. Are talking about chemicals
Speaker 1: in our food products or hormones in our meat products,
Speaker 1: and you know, make America healthy again lifestyle. And it
Speaker 1: didn't matter how many times he said during this hearing
Speaker 1: yesterday that He's not taking away people's options or availability
Speaker 1: for vaccinations. He's just trying to inform people so that
Speaker 1: they can make good decisions. You know, he mentioned hepatitis
Speaker 1: A hepatitis B, for example, and how young babies are
Speaker 1: given the vaccinations for these two things in particular, and
Speaker 1: yet it only impacts one out of every seven million
Speaker 1: children born. Is it really necessary? And maybe it is
Speaker 1: necessary in your mind, maybe you want all seventy six
Speaker 1: vaccinations for your kids. I mean, the information I've been getting,
Speaker 1: you know, on a regular basis, from both OZ and
Speaker 1: RFK JUNR, It's made me rethink a lot of how
Speaker 1: I live, eat, et cetera. Jillian Michaels, who again is
Speaker 1: in the health wellness, fitness nutrition space, I mean, nearly
Speaker 1: rip my head off because of my use of nicotine.
Speaker 1: Nearly rip my head off because I don't eat you know,
Speaker 1: grass fed organic beef. And she asked me, well why not?
Speaker 1: And I she didn't like my answer. Did I tell
Speaker 1: you the answer? Ever, Linda? I said, well, I don't
Speaker 1: like the smell of it. When do you take it
Speaker 1: out of the package? And she didn't like that. I
Speaker 1: didn't eat enough fish. Now I eat more fish. Than
Speaker 1: I have before. Especially I love little netclams. I'm obsessed
Speaker 1: with them. I like shrimp. I do like lobster too.
Speaker 1: I'm not a big, you know, wild caught salmon guy.
Speaker 1: But it's okay. I can, I can get through it.
Speaker 1: But you know, but they're so you know, deeply invested
Speaker 1: in all of this, and they know so much about it.
Speaker 1: But if you are an institutionalist, and you have an
Speaker 1: institutional mindset, then it's very hard for you to hear
Speaker 1: something different. It didn't matter that RFK repeatedly said he's
Speaker 1: not gonna take your choice away. It didn't It didn't
Speaker 1: matter anyway. I understand people's frustration, even with Republicans on that.
Speaker 1: I think we've got to rethink everything. You know, It's
Speaker 1: sort of like the President comes up with an idea
Speaker 1: like Alligator Alcatraz and that detention site can stay open
Speaker 1: after a federal appeals court ruled. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: happening time in and time out. Now we have, you know,
Speaker 1: federal court judges, activist judges. You know, remember Democrats often
Speaker 1: go judge shopping, and they're frustrated that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is ruling time after time after time. That what they're
Speaker 1: doing is unconstitutional because it is unconstitutional, and they're taking
Speaker 1: on roles that they shouldn't take on. It's insane the
Speaker 1: times we're living in. Looking a little bit ahead to
Speaker 1: the midterm elections, President Trump is now talking about a
Speaker 1: mid term election convention. I think it's a great idea, again,
Speaker 1: thinking out of the box, and he's calling for a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six pre midterm convention, which will energize and
Speaker 1: frankly reinforce. I mean, he's moving so fast that it's
Speaker 1: kind of hard for people to keep up. And heading
Speaker 1: into the fall next year, having you know, fresh in
Speaker 1: your mind all of the things that they've accomplished, I
Speaker 1: think would be a good thing anyway, with the GOP victories.
Speaker 1: If he's if we don't hold onto the House and Senate,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be one impeachment after impeachment after impeachment, you know,
Speaker 1: and you know it's it's gonna be very very hard. Now.
Speaker 1: Democrats have never been in a more chaotic state as
Speaker 1: they are right now. I mean, we're watching New York
Speaker 1: for example. It's interesting because I saw that Andrew Cmo
Speaker 1: was huddling with Al Sharpton in an apparent bid for
Speaker 1: an endorsement. Okay, maybe he gets the endorsement. Maybe not.
Speaker 1: The New York Post Today on their cover has Trump
Speaker 1: to New York City drop out, kind of a playoff
Speaker 1: words of a very famous post cover forward to New
Speaker 1: York City drop dead. Uh, he's saying, tells GOP donor
Speaker 1: and he's talking about John Casta. Mattids, who owns a
Speaker 1: big grocery store Tade in New York City, doesn't like
Speaker 1: the idea obviously obviously of Marxist COMMI, Mom, Donnie, you know,
Speaker 1: having government run stores, which is insane. But anyway, the
Speaker 1: plan is, and it says his top he's telling a
Speaker 1: top GOP donor that you know that he has a
Speaker 1: plan to stop Mom Donnie. Have a plan to stop
Speaker 1: Mom Donnie by Wednesday or I'm gonna step in. I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't think there's any stopping Mom Donnie. Linda,
Speaker 1: you know you occasionally are in New York City. You know,
Speaker 1: Ethan is is there every day, Katie is there every day,
Speaker 1: Jason is there most days too. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: see any stopping it. But the plan is, you know,
Speaker 1: somehow offer a job to Eric Adams to bow out
Speaker 1: somehow persuade Curtis Lee would a bow out. I know
Speaker 1: Curtis Sliwa. Curtis Lee was not getting out. He's now
Speaker 1: pulling it around twenty percent, and he thinks he'll do
Speaker 1: better if the other people leave, and I don't see
Speaker 1: him doing it. He Charles Gasparino in his column in
Speaker 1: The New York Post today, kind of confirms that you
Speaker 1: know no spells noo Charlie Sliwa sending a message to
Speaker 1: Charlie Gasperino, I now have four million of matching funds.
Speaker 1: The money's flowing in. I've raised more in the last
Speaker 1: two quarters than Andrew Cuomo and Adams combined, and that
Speaker 1: might might be a lane for him. I don't know.
Speaker 1: If I had to put my money down, unfortunately, I
Speaker 1: would put it on Mamdani if I if you were
Speaker 1: asking me straight up, even odds, who I think is
Speaker 1: gonna win. I don't think the polls are that far off.
Speaker 1: I've got to get Matt Towery, Robert Cahelly, John McLaughlan
Speaker 1: and others. Rasmusen to get in the field and find
Speaker 1: out what they have to say. But it's really that bad,
Speaker 1: and I I here's something else we found out, which
Speaker 1: is pretty interesting. Since twenty twenty one New Yorkers. New
Speaker 1: Yorkers have been rightly puzzled by what's called on point
Speaker 1: n YC. Now, I don't think there's anything that you
Speaker 1: can rightly call a safe injection site, but liberals like
Speaker 1: safe injection sites. If you are shooting fentanyl heroin, if
Speaker 1: you're using needles to shoot up every day and you're
Speaker 1: a drug addict, you there's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: safe injection site. You're slowly committing suicide. In this case,
Speaker 1: you're doing it with you know, supervision and the approval
Speaker 1: basically or a tacit approval of the government to do it.
Speaker 1: But it's where hardcore drug addicts shoot up and they
Speaker 1: get you know, some testing and supervision, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But we now found out and this is what the research.
Speaker 1: Howard Hussack wrote about this in his column today that
Speaker 1: the President Joe Biden and the Federal Substance Abuse Mental
Speaker 1: Health Administration quietly awarded a program for safe injection sites
Speaker 1: for New York City of two million dollars. Why are
Speaker 1: taxpayers contributing to the death and demise? An article too
Speaker 1: about Mamdani and it was an agenda long list of
Speaker 1: pledges made by Mamdani and other Democratic socialists. The agenda
Speaker 1: for that they put forward radical proposals the full elimination
Speaker 1: of cash, bell taking the state's disastrous bail reform even
Speaker 1: further outright decriminalization of drug possession and prostitution, eliminating mandatory
Speaker 1: minimum sentences, retroactively lowering all maximum sentences, fighting construction of
Speaker 1: the Borough based jails meant to replace these soon to
Speaker 1: be closed Rikers Island, which I think they're not going
Speaker 1: to end up closing as a means of cutting the
Speaker 1: prison population by a third. It spells out in this
Speaker 1: document that Mumdanni signed onto a deep commitment to destroying
Speaker 1: the state's incarceration program that exacerbates interpersonal violence and communal harm,
Speaker 1: and does so in the strongest possible language. Instead of
Speaker 1: consigning people to the violence of incarceration, the agenda says,
Speaker 1: in closing, we can create space for them to heal
Speaker 1: and to thrive, defund dismantle no bail, and reimagine the
Speaker 1: police and send in the social workers. This is madness.
Speaker 1: Is a part of me that says, you know what,
Speaker 1: let the left win. Let them win. Because if this
Speaker 1: is the left, then let the world see how crazy
Speaker 1: they've gotten. Let them understand how crazy they are, because
Speaker 1: it's insanity. Out in California, a full time podcaster, full
Speaker 1: time trumpeter, full time tweety bird, Governor Gavin Newsom as
Speaker 1: his agricultural equity advisors finalizing recommendations for the state to
Speaker 1: redistribute farmland to quote non white Californians and Native American
Speaker 1: tribes through land transfers and financial assistance programs that exclusively
Speaker 1: benefit racial minorities. Well, does that mean they're going to
Speaker 1: confiscate people's farmland? I mean, if only Gavin. Gavin wants
Speaker 1: to fight with everybody, But now that we were asking
Speaker 1: him tough questions, Gavin's gone eerily silent. I wonder why