All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:31:57
Need to Know News (5 January 2023) with Carl Herman and Brian Davidson
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Sgt.
Jim Fetzer in Madison, Wisconsin, joined today by Carl Harmon from San Ramon, California, and Brian Davidson from Houston, Texas.
We're here to bring you all the news you need to know.
We begin with the latest.
Putin announced no funding limits when it comes to Ukraine.
That's appropriate, since the West is going all out to dump endless buckets of money into Ukraine.
While the president of Ukraine, Zelensky, travels to the U.S.
for more assistance, Putin has promised his countries armed forces will have an unlimited supply of money.
There are no limitations.
The nation has all the government or supply in the army with everything it requires.
According to a Reuters account, he continued asking the Department of Defense to be attentive to civilian initiatives, including taking into criticism and responding promptly.
The remarks came just before Zelensky traveled to the U.S., where, of course, he begged for more money, and we gave it to them.
The White House said the president would announce a significant new package, as we know.
As the conflict drags on, the U.S.
has repeatedly offered assistance with military aid, humanitarian aid, economic aid, according to research conducted by the Kiel Institute for a Wheeled Economy.
Up to the 20th of November, we contributed about $48 billion.
22.8.
Meanwhile, and this is now a more recent report, the Polish Army orders 70,000 new Grot carbines.
Poland-based weapons manufacturer Fabryka Brony Radom has received a contract to deliver new carbines to the Polish Army.
me, 826 million Polish dollars, the equivalent of 189 million US, will provide 70,000 MSBS carbines.
The order is complete by 2026.
Now that's considerably an advance, meaning our needs are great.
We maintain our goal, 30,000 soldiers of the Polish Army.
As a leading Polish company in the defense industry, we feel responsible for equipping soldiers with the highest quality, reliable, modern equipment.
Grote Combrine has been in service with the Polish Army since 2017, developed in collaboration with the Polish Military University of Technology, selected over its gas-operated assault rifle counterpart, the HK416, to replace the aging barrel rifles used by the country since 1997.
There are classic and bullpup designs, various barrel convenience for swapping out between carbine assault rifle, sniper rifle, and underbarrel grenade launcher.
Since our first contact with Redham, the Army had received 17,000.
Here you can see the weapons and various arrangements.
Meanwhile, during the invasion, Groot is moving its capability for the Ukrainian forces.
Very good options, says the Polish Armament Agency.
Polish soldiers, professional soldiers, and territorial service appreciate them.
We also receive favorable opinions from Ukrainian soldiers.
The weapon is often used in extreme conditions.
Very, very good.
Carl, your thoughts?
Well, with the first story, with the idea of printing money in order to fund a war, is that, as somebody who was a retired AP macroeconomics teacher, they're going to pay for that via inflation, but that's fine.
If you have a priority and you want to print the money from a fiat, Currency that you control yourself if the increase of the supply of those of that money in the system will cause other prices to go up and that's completely legitimate and Americans.
I'm saying that so that Americans can bridge the gap with the inflation that we're experiencing.
Based upon the Biden administration deciding that they would go ahead and create money out of nothing in order to pay Americans to sit on their asses during COVID.
And that's why we have the record inflation.
And the real inflation, if you go back historically to the way that it was measured in the Great Depression, the real inflation rate is almost 20%.
And you can witness that yourself if you go to Shadow Stats is the name of it.
Economist John Williams at Shadow Stats.
You can take a look and see for yourself that the U.S.
government has changed the definitions of inflation twice in order to hide it.
The second story.
Those so-called assault rifles is what you need if you're serious about self-defense.
And the real purpose of the Second Amendment, which is the defense against a tyrannical government and what makes it an assault rifle and what our government wants to get keep out of the hands of Americans are a cartridge that can hold 30 plus rounds in it.
That's really what they want to get away from.
Because that's the magazine.
Yeah.
Magazine.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's what they want to keep out of our hands.
That's right.
They don't want us to be able to have firepower equal to their own.
Brian, your thoughts?
You're muted.
Sorry about that, dog was barking.
When it comes to riches, a lot of people have speculated for quite a while, and there's been numerous articles written about it, that Putin could be The world's richest man now, I don't know how the world's richest man compares to the entire Russian economy.
I imagine it's a tiny fraction of what is really taking place over there, but.
Look, it's old playbook stuff that the best way to take down your enemy is to take him down financially.
It happens down on a micro scale with people like us, and it happens on a much larger scale in terms of the way we fight our wars with other nations.
So if you can cut off the supply or cut off the ability for a country to continue making money, such as damaging an important pipeline, and you can cause internal unrest, Then you can really cause a lot of problems out there.
I'm not super familiar with Russian economics and how it all works, but I imagine that they could produce at cost just about as many weapons as they could possibly put in the hands of the men and women who are out there doing the work on the field.
In my opinion, I think Russia's got all the resources in the world to fight with us.
But the problem is it's Russia.
It's not Russia versus just the United States.
It's Russia versus the entire NATO establishment, which also includes Poland.
And having Poland have all these guns, it just comes down to a question of what is their governmental style?
How many of their people are sold out to NATO?
They are a member of NATO.
And what is being staged up?
Is America really trying to get involved?
I mean, it's not even saying that, but...
Is Poland the next front for Russia when Ukraine fails?
Is NATO going to go and use Poland because they do border Russia?
These are questions that remain to be seen.
I think it's something that's very important to watch, but the reason why Russia's fighting Ukraine could be exactly the same reason why Russia has to continue to fight Poland and even later on Finland as well.
The reports I have is that Zelensky and the Poles have entered into agreement they're going to get a section of Ukraine if they enter the war on the side of the Ukrainians, so I think the Russians are going to have no choice about dealing with Poland as well.
Very, very good points, Brian.
Five stories from this past year that prove Kevin McCarthy is not deserving of being the Speaker of the House.
Everyone wonders why this is going on and on and on.
We're into, like, our eighth round of voting.
It could go on interminably.
Kevin McCarthy is not going to be Speaker, Tucker Carlson observed.
Some true conservatives are not willing to support him.
A group of 20 have stomped him because they decided he's not conservative enough to represent a party that's just taking back the House from Nancy Pelosi.
And they are definitely right about that.
If Kevin wants to be Speaker, he's gonna have to give his colleagues something real, actual concessions.
He can start with these two things, and those have to do with not passing any omnibus Tax packages where you can't amend and the other was not sending any more money to Ukraine until we've dealt with a border crisis right here at home.
McCarthy has a strong backing of Trump.
He has an 88 percent rating in the session in Congress from the conservative Heritage Action Group.
His lifetime score from FreedomWorks is under 70 percent.
He even has strong mega support from Marjorie Taylor Greene.
So what's the problem?
McCarthy is not especially conservative.
He is, in fact, ideologically agnostic.
He's flexible, Tucker Ad.
And that flexibility has true conservatives concerned that he'll revert back to the all-too-familiar face of a false leader for the Republican message, like the Boners and the Ryans we've seen in the past.
Or revert back to McCarthy from 2012 to 2018.
When his Heritage Action Group rating was nearly indiscernible from that of Adam Kissinger.
With that, we list off five stories from the past that indicate he may be unworthy of being the speaker.
First, try to make a conservative ban from Twitter.
In a move a little different than that of Democrats in the FBI, he openly pondered the possibility of having conservatives banned from social media.
Audio surfaced in April where he was denouncing fellow Republicans, particularly Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Moe Burks, All for putting other lawmakers at risk with their comments about the 2020 election.
And if Kevin McCarthy doesn't understand the massive theft of the 2020 election, he's incompetent enough not to be speaker in any case.
Well, he's winning people in jeopardy.
He doesn't need to be doing this, McCarthy said aghast, referring to those unwilling to fight the 2020 election results as anti-Trump.
We saw what we will do at the Capitol, said McCarthy.
They can't take their Twitter accounts.
Can't they take their Twitter accounts away, too, he would later ask?
His word prompted Tucker to denounce him as a puppet of the Democrat Party.
Here's the Columbia Bugle tweeting.
In a phone call reported today by New York Times, McCarthy told his friend Cheney, Liz Cheney, his close friend, he hoped the social media company would censor more conservative Republicans in Congress.
Caught on audio discussing blaming Trump for the Capitol riots.
This is terrible.
Here you have McCarthy describing Trump's actions surrounding January 6th as atrocious.
He'd later discuss options like invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump, but ultimately decided it would take too long.
I say right there, to hell with Kevin McCarthy.
Look, what the President did is atrocious and totally wrong.
Does he have any idea that Trump was asking everyone to be peaceful and well-behaved and obey the law?
What Trump did was urge protesters concerned about election integrity to take their voices peacefully and patriotically.
Ryan Nobles.
The book is out today, but Jamar New York Times and Alex Burns New York Times are still dropping audio bombs.
This time, McCarthy says, what the president did is atrocious and totally wrong.
I say, F you, McCarthy.
Meanwhile, he actively worked to oust mega-Republican Madison Cawthorne and other America First candidates.
He worked to deny a second term in office, saying he had lost my trust.
Well, I'll tell you, someone who's lost my trust is Kevin McCarthy.
Conrad had been endorsed by Trump, had accused members of using drugs and inviting him to an orgy.
The well-planned targeting by McCarthy didn't focus simply on Cawthorn.
He also sought to keep other mega-candidates out of Congress.
He and his political machine were working to systematically weed out GOP candidates.
They felt might give him trouble as House Speaker.
It was also an effort to eliminate conservatives from districts where more moderate conservatives were perceived to have a better chance of winning.
Is Michael Schur tweeting, Kevin McCarthy's allies helped sink Madison Cawthorne.
Look at how the would-be speaker's political machine works to keep the most ultra-mega out of Congress.
Said before the midterms that GOP would not impeach Biden.
Just a couple of weeks before the midterm, he declared it would not happen.
In an interview, he admitted, should the GOP win back congressional control, he would not pursue impeachment.
I think the country doesn't like impeachment used for political purposes at all, as though that were not what it were for.
If anyone ever rises to that occasion, you have to heal, see the system actually works.
He later lamented the Democrats that sought impeachment of Trump before he took office, suggested the GOP had to be better than that.
If you watch what the Dems did, they all came out and said they would impeach before Trump was even sworn in.
There wasn't a purpose for it.
If anything, that means they lowered the bar.
That's a level at which a GOP must fight back.
If Trump were president and Democrats controlled the House, do you think they'd pump the brakes on impeachment and insist the country needs to heal?
Unbelievable!
Jake Sherman knew McCarthy on investigation of House Republican take the majority.
Tom Blyne, GOP leader, is quite bearish on impeachment, meaning he's down for it.
Pretend he pulled back on aid to Ukraine.
He also announced in October Ukraine would no longer be the benefactor of a blank check.
I think people are going to be sitting in a recession.
They're not going to want to write a blank check for Ukraine.
They just won't do it.
About a week later, however, his allies were furiously backpedaling.
McCarthy wasn't saying we won't spend money.
McCarthy was saying we're going to be accountable for every dollar we spend.
It was an effort to sue the House Senior Defense Hawks, which is a super neat way to say he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Really disgusting.
Meanwhile, last night on Hannity, I was absolutely floored.
He featured Lauren Boebert, who's one of those who's resisting McCarthy, and you can see she has good reason for doing that.
And this commentary is exactly right.
Hannity is almost there, going deep state on us all.
Sean Hannity invites Lauren Boebert onto his show so she can hear him talk about what her positions are.
He continually interrupts as a deep state buffoon on the U.S.
government payroll.
Very embarrassing.
This is lengthy, but you don't want to waste a word of it.
This is extremely revealing.
Hi, time now tonight for the Hannity Hot Seat, and tonight we're joined by a Republican who opposed Kevin McCarthy's bid for Speaker on every single ballot.
That is Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, and she says negotiations with McCarthy have been ongoing since the summer, but that her demands are not being taken seriously.
Now, meanwhile, Kevin McCarthy's camp is now reportedly trying to determine Which of the 20 votes against him are because of a policy disagreement versus a personal vendetta?
Here now, with reaction, is Congresswoman Boebert.
Now, Congresswoman, let me—let me—you tweet—Townhall quoted you today, saying the president—you said complimentary things about President Trump—needs to tell Kevin McCarthy that, sir, you do not have the votes.
It's time to withdraw.
Let me turn the tables, Congresswoman.
Kevin McCarthy has 202 votes.
Your side has 20.
So, if I'm going to use your words and your methodology and your math, isn't it time for you to pack it in and your side to pack it in, considering he has over 200 and you have 20?
Sean, I understand the frustration, I promise you.
I'm not frustrated, you didn't answer my question.
And we are hearing, we are hearing from many people who are still voting with Kevin McCarthy, who are very supportive of what we're doing, and they're cheering us on.
So there are more for us than are against us, and they are waiting for Kevin to cave.
You know, the American people are certainly frustrated by I'm frustrated by you not answering a direct question.
You said to President Trump, you said earlier today, that President Trump needs to tell Kevin McCarthy, you don't have the votes.
Hold on, can I finish?
Can I finish?
You don't have the votes and it's time to withdraw.
He has 203, your side has 20.
Why is it time for him to withdraw and not you when he has so many more votes?
Well, Sean, he needs 218, and he does not have 218.
We've been trying to work this out in private, as you said, for months, but Kevin McCarthy didn't even want to listen to us until his disappointing midterms.
We all want a unified party, but this isn't chaos.
It's a functioning constitutional republic when everything is said and done.
I think Republicans will be stronger and better prepared to lead than we ever have before.
I believe that this is what our founding fathers intended and this is showing that our votes are working.
Our votes aren't just a cast to await a seat.
Congresswoman, I'd ask you not to filibuster.
Yesterday you voted and Jim Jordan was your choice.
Today it was Byron Donalds who was your choice.
Tomorrow, I don't know who you're going to vote for.
But the bottom line is you still only have 20 votes.
Let me ask you this.
Kevin McCarthy...
You're proving that 20 people don't want Kevin McCarthy at this time.
But my question to you is this.
My question to you is did you support Kevin McCarthy's commitments to America and do you not believe that he's gonna follow through on his written promises?
His commitment to America is not as strong as I would like it to be, and we have been working on the rules to change the structure of how Washington, D.C.
is run and operated.
Sean, you know more than anybody how broken this town is.
This is something that we have an opportunity to rebuild, to restructure, and it takes the right tools and the right leadership to do that.
Border security, energy independence, debt reduction, earmarks.
And when we asked him to put forward the Texas-built border plan, he refused.
And then, well, he's willing to bring back the exact plan that worked under Donald Trump.
And then he also has pledged investigations into the FBI and DOJ, the influence peddling of the Biden family, the origins of COVID and Anthony Fauci, the withdrawal from Afghanistan.
And we're going to get all of that with the right speaker.
Do you support... And it's not going to be Kevin McCarthy.
Do you support all of those agenda items he promised?
Of course I do, but I do not trust Kevin McCarthy at this point to deliver on those promises.
Especially when I go into good faith negotiations with him, and then he comes out and lies about what those conversations were.
Saying that members demanded... Okay, that's your characterization.
He's not here to answer.
So let me ask you this.
He's already apologized to one member in private because he won't apologize to him in public for spreading lies about that meeting.
Here's my question.
So you and others fought hard for a motion to vacate with only five Republicans able to trigger that motion.
Kevin McCarthy didn't want to give it to you but he did give it to you in the end.
To me that's kind of an insurance policy.
Can I finish?
But he didn't all the way.
He did not.
He gave you what you asked for, and one of the things that I've been asking people, I'm asking you tonight, who is your final choice for Speaker, and if you can't get more than, let's say, 30 votes, will you follow your own advice that you were asking Donald Trump, and withdraw?
There are certainly names that are being floated around, and hey, maybe I should nominate President Donald J. Trump tomorrow.
But Sean, I did watch your show last night, and I want to set the record straight on this motion.
No, no, no.
Listen, I want to have the motion straight on this motion to vacate because he did not give us this motion to vacate.
I'm showing there's a whole consensus of other candidates.
But I'm trying to understand how you're thinking here.
But this motion to vacate, Sean, you need to understand that Kevin McCarthy did not give us my hard red line.
He fought for it.
And this is a century old, centuries, no he did not.
No, he, well I know that he made the promise.
This is a centuries old rule that was written by Thomas Jefferson and every speaker since 1837.
I know he made the promise because.
With five members, Sean, with five members.
That's right, five.
Not one member to offer the motion to vacate.
So my question is this.
He's following Nancy Pelosi's precedence.
You haven't answered my question.
So if you have.
You cannot demand more responsibility.
Yesterday you supported, yesterday you supported Jordan.
And then want less accountability, Sean.
Today you're supporting Donald.
That's not the way this works.
Donald.
We need a check and a balance on the third in line to the presidency.
Who is your final, let's have a final answer.
Who do you want to be Speaker of the House?
You know, maybe that's for the conference to decide.
We need to come together and see who it is.
Who do you want?
I'm asking who you want.
What does it look like life after Kevin?
I would like to know... We need to find somebody who can actually unify the Republican Party.
I have offered plenty of names.
I would like to know... Let some other folks start offering other alternatives at this point.
There are 203 people and you have 20.
I respect the 20 of you.
I respect all of you.
But I'm asking you, based on your awards... Thank you Sean, we respect you as well.
Let's have a final answer.
Who do you want, who will you only support to be Speaker?
It's not that hard.
I am willing to have conversations with the Republican conference to come up with a consensus candidate.
We are offering people right now, it doesn't have to be a member of the Freedom Caucus, it doesn't even have to be a solid conservative, but we have to have those tools in place.
More than half the Freedom Caucus supports McCarthy.
So you don't have, you don't even have a name, and we're now going into day three.
Because there are people who are afraid.
When you are threatened by committee chairmen to not be placed by steering members.
Let me ask a final question.
If your final, if your final candidate... If your final members do not take place on a committee, and then Kevin McCarthy affirms that, that's a scary place to be.
We are here to legislate.
We are here to get the country back on track.
I can tell.
And when you have people making threats like that, it's difficult to make that decision.
But we are going to get there.
I am fine doing this.
We're in day two.
It's okay.
The government isn't spending money sending it to Ukraine, so the American taxpayers are certainly winning.
Politically, Congresswoman, you and I agree on most things.
We don't disagree on many things.
Yes, we do, Sean.
Correct.
And I do have respect for you.
And I believe that history will show that I'm on the right side of this, Sean.
Well, you can believe in your position, but I'm using your words.
You said to President Trump, You said, well very clear, he doesn't have 218, so you need to ask him to withdraw.
If by Friday, you and your group of 20 don't have a name with 30 votes, is it time for you to withdraw?
And if not, why do you support a double standard?
Last question.
Kevin McCarthy does not have 218 votes.
Kevin McCarthy will not be speaker.
And you have 20.
I asked you a very specific question.
If by Friday, we don't have 30... Listen, when we get this right, I will not, Sean.
I will not withdraw.
Our asks were not petty of Kevin McCarthy.
They were not self-serving.
We simply were asking for commitments on what the American people want to see.
They want to see a vote on term limits.
A vote on the Texas border plan to secure the southern border.
And for crying out loud, Sean... Congresswoman, with all due respect...
We asked for a vote on a budget that actually balances.
With all due respect.
Imagine, imagine a Congress that stops spending money that we don't have.
So if you only have 30 people supporting you.
We are going to get this right and we are going to get the right speaker shot.
If you only have 30, to be clear, you will not withdraw.
30 is going to be a beautiful number to reach.
But you're telling Kevin McCarthy and the 203 people that support him to withdraw because they don't have 218.
That's what you're saying.
Look, it's obvious by tonight's motion to adjourn that Kevin McCarthy and his supporters are already getting voter fatigue, and I'm here for it.
I asked you a simple question, Congresswoman.
I feel like I'm getting an answer from a liberal.
I'm not going to support Kevin McCarthy, Sean.
Okay, so even if you only have 30 votes, you will not abide by what you told President Trump to abide by.
I got it.
I feel like we've made progress.
Look, I love President Trump.
You're not going to turn me on him.
You're not going to pit him against me.
I love you.
I love President Trump.
Not trying to pit him against you.
That's what you said to him.
And I am standing.
I have seen the broken trust.
You're the one that said it to him.
I have seen the lack of accountability.
Well, we are getting phone calls saying that we need to stop this.
Kevin does not have the votes for Speaker.
Period.
Thank you.
We need to find a consensus candidate, get this right, and get our country back on track.
Thanks so much, Sean.
Hey, Sean Hannity.
Let me say, even as we speak, they have just begun the ninth round of voting.
I think it's pretty clear Kevin McCarthy isn't going to make it.
Well, we're certainly in the right saying we've got to figure out who will be our consensus candidate.
But I was even more astonished by Hannity.
I found that completely offensive.
Carl, your thoughts?
Well, I liked what I saw from Sean because I've watched him for decades.
He was one of the chief pips for the forever wars of aggression, and he's just a corporate media tool.
Now, McCarthy is the same type of a tool, however.
He's, uh, so this is a Democrat in the central part of my state in California.
He's been a congressman since 2006.
And he hasn't had anything to say regarding any of the topics that he has an oath to support and defend.
The article went over there that some of the key points.
In California, he's been for these forced injections and forced removal from constitutional rights.
He's wearing his Ukraine handkerchief on his jacket.
This is a guy who's been a tool for censorship, is the article.
Uh, remarks upon an election fraud?
This is a guy who's a total liar pretending on impeachment.
So the impeachments of Trump were baseless.
We had a factless Russiagate, a crimeless impeachment, and then he pretends That the open border of Joe Biden, if we can believe all the information that we're told from official figures, would be for a political somehow manipulation to impeach him for that rather than national security.
So, this guy, anybody who rises up in the ranks is going to be a tool.
And since 2006, he has stood by and allowed these wars of aggression, the bankster looting, and the constant official lies.
I don't know where this theater is going to go, but that interview showing the disharmony was telling if a coalition of members of Congress among the Republicans stands to refuse McCarthy to be able to get that position.
I am entirely for it.
I would be for stronger people getting on the news in order to hit back and saying that McCarthy and be able to demonstrate the McCarthyist tool of an empire.
Brian, your thoughts?
Well, I actually watched this live last night and I was sickened by Hannity.
I I normally won't watch Hannity.
I normally won't give him two seconds of my time.
I gave up on him a long, long time ago as he bloviates about all the things he thinks he knows and understands about DC.
It's like the same mouth chattering away.
You know who he reminds me of now, and he reminded me of it last night?
Reminds me of Bill O'Reilly.
Just like Bill O'Reilly.
If you are out there, go to YouTube and find the interview with Jim Fetzer and Bill O'Reilly about 9-11, and you'll see who Bill O'Reilly really was.
He was a machine designed to support and endorse the narrative.
Another Empty-minded talking head that couldn't do any critical thinking but had very good verbal skills and very good debate skills and was able to go out there and just railroad and overrun anybody.
Now this is, Lauren Boebert, I got a lot of respect for anybody in Congress that has any principles.
What I see happening right now in there is a whole bunch of slick, spineless Weasels that are looking for committee appointments and looking for handouts and looking, how am I going to get this?
How am I going to get that?
What has Kevin McCarthy done to walk around and buy off all these different votes, convincing all these people?
Because he hasn't run any big major committees.
It's not like he's the head of the Agriculture Committee on Biotechnology or the Appropriations Committee.
on defense.
It's not like he's done anything like that.
And he's, by the way, he's just a speaker.
There's a whole bunch of other very important roles in the House.
I am horrified of the Uniparty just simply saying, oh, here's the gavel.
Let's move it to the next guy.
And then the next guy is the one sitting in Nancy Pelosi's shoes saying, hey, we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
I want the American people to have a certain modicum of debate, but at this point in time, I believe that the only person that I can identify that's qualified to be a House Speaker that would do a good job is going to be Jim Jordan.
I'm sorry, Jim may not want the job, and Jim may have endorsed McCarthy.
Who knows why?
Who knows what position he would have given for that endorsement?
I don't understand the whole thing.
But I can tell you this, I am sick and tired of the RINOs and the Democrats working together to undermine the patriots.
And that's us.
I think those are wonderful comments, and your parallel with O'Reilly was spot on, Brian, spot on.
I really like that.
I think you got it right.
Meanwhile, Trump calls Elon Musk a hero, as we have been here.
In his first interview following the publication of Twitter files, Trump called Musk a hero.
He's happy Musk bought Twitter.
The explosive Twitter files are being made public, showing the FBI use Twitter as though it were a subsidiary to censor Americans and suppress vital information like the Hunter laptop.
Channel Iron of OAN asked Trump what grade he'd give Musk if he were to grade his takeover of Twitter.
Trump said he didn't know because he thought the price was very high, but he hoped he would be successful.
He said it was great that he's releasing this stuff because he's showing what a corrupt country we're living in.
Ryan noted Musk put out a poll asking the public if he should step down and abide by the poll result, and it appears he's hunting for a new Twitter CEO.
Did Trump have any advice?
He theorized Musk wanted to step down.
He thought that was a good way to step down, just lose a poll and say, I'm out of here.
He said, you need someone who has a lot of different hats.
That's not an easy thing to find in that world.
You need technology, politics, everything, business sense, good business sense.
He'd be interested to see who that is.
But he thinks he probably wants to step down.
He continued, It was great that he released, and from what I hear, the things he's got are even more damning than what's already been seen in 7 and 5 and 6.
It's even more damning.
It's supposed to be incredible.
It's a very important part of his legacy, I'll tell you that.
Would he characterize Musk as a hero in that regard?
Trump said, yeah, I say he is a hero.
I think that it's a big part of his legacy.
I think it's more important than other things he's done.
It is very important.
He's showing our country was off the rails and still is.
We'll see whether or not this helps fix it.
But the Republicans have to get a lot tougher.
Carl, your thoughts.
The Twitter files so far have demonstrated that Twitter was captured the same as corporate media in order to pimp and to push the narratives of this illegal, lying, looting, rogue state empire.
Now, the emperor's new clothes... so he is a hero if he continues.
And he will be a hero if he continues to stand on the side of We The People until we break this Emperor's New Clothes condition.
We have this lying, looting empire who the entire rest of the world sees as the most dangerous nation.
The Americans don't see it yet, but if he continues, if Musk continues to work with the Twitter files, I think we are going to get some sort of a breakthrough.
And even if we don't, we're going to get some sort of a breakthrough, like an economic collapse or something happening with Ukraine or some false flag or some nuclear event scare.
We just want things to sort out so that the people are left with the truth and with justice.
Very good, Brian.
Oh, I do applaud Musk for what he's done so far, but I can already feel that momentary flash in the pan on Twitter of being able to see things fading away and fading away quickly.
Look, we've got things that have Begun to expose themselves and the good news is down at the senior centers and down in the gyms and at the family reunions people are beginning to talk about what they're beginning to see and understand that it's men like us and people in our community that are actually on track for understanding what's really happening in this world, but
For instance, when my father was in town, we spent hours talking about the different things.
He had no idea of what was going on.
And I do credit Twitter for what it's done.
I can tell you though, and I've always believed that Twitter was subsidized by some nefarious Mind-controlling agency, which turns out that happens to be true because I never buy anything off their ads.
How can the business model make sense?
Are you really telling me that all that money that they're spending to buy votes and send political campaigns and suppress all this?
I always knew it was subsidized by either an A non-profit organization that's supported by government money or by the government directly.
It turns out that our minds are worth a tremendous amount of money to them.
They will spend a small fortune to keep us in the dark and prevent us from seeing the light.
And that's why Twitter exists.
If you think Facebook is any different, you're wrong.
Facebook is exactly the same way.
You know, they don't create that much revenue based on people purchasing ads on Facebook.
They create that much revenue from the nonprofit organizations and the think tanks and the eight entities and the agencies that are given massive sums of money to control our minds.
So I do appreciate Musk's position.
I don't trust him.
I think he's in bed with Klaus Schwab and the rest of the World Economic Forum and all the other bad guys.
I think he's going to be doing this transhumanist agenda.
And I think he's going to be the guy that leads us into a robotic mind control future.
But In the meantime, I have appreciated having a nice Twitter, and therefore I applaud him and I hope it lasts.
I think that's a very balanced assessment.
I like that.
Meanwhile, I recently administered Damar Hamlin's GOMID booster on 12-26.
And as a medical professional, I can assure the public he masked all screens with flying colors.
I'm in contact with the UCMC staff and will provide any assistance to them.
Confirmation the guy was vaxxed.
I believe he died right there on the field.
We're getting reports now that he's got neurological activity, that he's coming out of it, but I predict he'll have a relapse, and clearly it had nothing to do with a vax, but he will be dead, and not in a position to say anything contrary.
Meanwhile, Before we go further, comment on what you think's going on here, because it's obvious they're making a desperate effort to disconnect his collapse on the field from anything to do with the Vax, even though the owner of the bills had been boasting recently how he required everyone to be Vax.
Carl, your thoughts?
Well, I'll find the best documentation that I've seen, which is about 1,500 professional athletes collapsing and many of those dying, many of those associated with soccer.
So, if people want to make that argument that this particular case, whatever the details is with this particular case, You have the background of an unprecedented number of athletes keeling over.
We can also attach that to the documentation through VAERS and other reporting agencies that that is to be expected.
And what are we looking at for the data?
Roughly 7% will suffer some sort of a severe A fact from the vaccine.
So we shall see what moves, what happens moving forward.
And also I would be very interested if this gentleman pulls through from the hospital of what the protocol was to treat him.
I wonder if they did something that would attempt to either remove blood clots or lessen them, because that would be a tell that they knew that there was a problem with blood clots associated with what happened with this gentleman.
I agree completely, Brian.
My favorite scene from the movie The Naked Gun is when he's standing in front of the burning building.
Dumpster fire that's happening behind him and he's saying nothing to see here move on folks There was 22 million people watching Monday night football Now that's just about the biggest audience you can get next to the Super Bowl and some other events and I can tell you that the Blackrock executives the same people that own Pfizer
The BlackRock executives have their fingers crossed that this doesn't happen again and that they can continue to tell America that, hey, everything's going to be okay.
It's all okay.
But I can tell you for a fact that down at the gym, everybody's talking about this.
Everybody's seen it.
And everybody is going Oh my God, is it real?
Were those conspiracy theorists right?
And that's a great step in the right direction.
Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.
And what a perfect prelude for our next story.
To it, Collapsing Conspiracy Cover-Ups by Ron Unz from unz.com, a wonderful journal.
The 1963 assassination of JFK possibly ranks as the single most famous event of the 20th century.
For nearly 64 years there have been widespread suspicions he died at the hands of a conspiracy, as did his brother Robert.
Though these conspiracy theories have been ignored or dismissed, they've inspired hundreds or thousands of books and films, widely believed by large portions of the American public.
The loss of faith in our institutions has been dramatic.
Our government still has not released all its official records on JFK, even after six decades of cover-up, but it may be starting to collapse.
Tucker has the most popular cable news show, late last week he aired a segment Where he declared the JFK assassination had been the work of a conspiracy with our own CIA heavily involved.
His nightly audience is over 3 mil.
Just one copy of his YouTube video has been watched 1.4 million times.
So these shocking claims from a major media outlet have now reached millions of ordinary Americans.
Probably more than anything else in the 30 years since Oliver Stone's Oscar-winning film, JFK, was in the theaters.
Robert Kennedy Jr.
is a prominent public figure, best-selling author, nephew of the same president, son of his murdered brother.
Praise Tucker's show is the most courageous newscast in 60 years.
The CIA's murder of my uncle was a successful coup d'etat from which our democracy has never recovered, he tweeted.
These incendiary remarks were retweeted more than 33,000 times with over 5 million views, so perhaps after more than two generations, the propaganda bubble may be finally starting to collapse.
My own writings have received a burst of renewed attention.
American Pravda, The JFK Assassinate, Part 1.
Again, The JFK Assassinate, Part 2.
Anne Frank, Sir Anne Soren and A.H., How the CIA Invented Conspiracy Theories, among them.
Until a dozen years ago, I hadn't questioned the official narrative of JFK.
None of my own work has been original.
I merely read existing books and articles and drawn my own conclusions.
My purest coincidence and other massive cover may also be collapsing.
The global COVID pandemic has been among the most important events of the last hundred years, probably only rivaled by the two world wars and the Great Depression.
More than 18 million have already died, including over a million Americans.
Beginning in April of 2020, I published a long series arguing there's overwhelming evidence the COVID outbreak was the result of an American bio-warfare attack on China and Iran.
But given the importance of the issue, I've been disappointed so few others have come forward with similar suspicions.
Since the early days of 2020, there's been a lot of discussion on almost all other aspects.
Only an infinitesimal sliver has touched on knowledge of American anticipation of possible complicity.
That may be starting to change.
Earlier this month, the Daily Spectic Published an excellent article that independently raised some of the same issues, focusing on the secret DIA report produced in November 2019 that seemingly implied foreknowledge of the Wuhan outbreak.
How did U.S.
intel spot the virus in Wuhan weeks before China?
This piece was later republished by Infowars of the Brownstone Institute, bringing it wider attention.
Meanwhile, Toby Young, a prominent British intellectual who founded the Webazine, tweeted it out to his 24,000 followers.
Toby Young.
How suspicious should we be that U.S.
intelligence handlers picked up on what they deemed a dangerous novel virus in China at a time when there's no evidence China had picked it up or was concerned?
The Brownstone also asking similar questions.
Its editor, Jeffrey Tucker, published a somewhat related article noting the suspicious timing of America's 2019 crimson contagion simulation.
That eight-month federal-state exercise been run by Robert Kaldak, our country's chief bio-warfare advocate, aimed at preparing ourselves against infection from any dangerous respiratory virus that might hypothetically arise in China.
Wow!
The author declared the most intriguing element he'd ever encountered in his years throughout COVID and repeatedly tweeted it out to his 137 followers.
Over the last couple of years, many members are reading and citing each other's work.
They are taking a position on the epidemic completely contrary to those of the political establishment, focused on issues like questioning the potential dangers of the virus, the efficacy and advisability of the public health measure taken, face masking, lockdown, social distancing, as well as the highly controversial COVID vax.
I haven't been personally involved.
My own views have been closer to the mainstream.
But some of the leading members may now be starting to focus on the origins of the epidemic.
Millions and tens of millions ultimately drew their COVID information, what might be called the alt-COVID community.
And if those websites began to carefully consider that issue, I think the world could soon change in dramatic ways.
From the start, I've argued the evidence suggested American foreknowledge and involvement was so strong that if it were to gain a reasonable measure of attention, it would become unstoppable.
Our citizenry began to suspect over a million died from the blowback of a failed biowarfare attack by rogue elements of our own government.
If we understood that, the political consequences would be incalculable, quite possibly leading to the fall of America's ruling regime.
My own COVID biowarfare articles total well over 100,000 words.
Some of the most striking evidence can be summarized in a few paragraphs.
For example, in 2017, Robert Keldlack, who since the 90s has been one of America's leading biowarfare advocates, the following year in 2018, a mysterious viral epidemic in China's poultry industry, 2019, pork, From the earliest days, leading Trump officials regarded China as America's foremost geopolitical adversary, orchestrating a policy of confrontation.
Then from January to August of 2019, his department ran the Crimson Contagion simulation exercise Involving the hypothetical outbreak of a dangerous respiratory viral disease in China that spreads into the U.S., participants focusing on how to control it.
Keith, this guy, is one of our foremost biowarfare experts, emphasized the unique efficacy of bioweapons as far back as the 1990s.
And we commend him for his considerable prescience in having organized a major viral epidemic exercise in 2019, so similar to what actually began just a few months later.
With leading Trump officials enamored of biowarfare, fiercely hostile to China, running large-scale 2019 simulations, It seems entirely unreasonable to completely disregard the possibility that such extremely reckless plans may have been privately discussed and eventually implemented, though probably without presidential authorization.
But with the horrific consequences to our own later governmental inaction being obvious, elements in our own intel agencies have sought to demonstrate they were not the ones asleep at the switch.
An ABC News story, for example, cited four separate government sources that, as far back as late November, a special medical intel unit within the DIA produced a warning that an out-of-control disease was occurring in Wuhan.
Distributed the document throughout the government.
After the story aired, a Pentagon spokesman denied the existence of the report, while various others refused to comment.
But Israeli television mentioned that American Intel had indeed shared such a report on the Wuhan disease outbreak with its NATO and Israeli allies.
It therefore appears elements of the Defense Intelligence Agency were aware of the deadly viral outbreak in Wuhan more than a month before any officials of the Chinese government itself.
Unless our intel agencies have pioneered the technology of precognition, I think this may have happened for the same reason that arsonists have the earliest knowledge of future fires.
Consider the implications.
Across the entire world, the only political elites who have suffered any significant human loss have been those of Iran, who died at an early stage.
Thus, we have America assassinating Iran's top military commander on January 2nd.
Just a few weeks later, a large portion of the Iranian rural elite become infected by a mysterious and deadly new virus.
Could any rational individual regard this as mere coincidence?
The Iranians were well aware of the facts.
Their top political and military leaders accused America of an illegal biowarfare attack, the former president even filing an official protest with the U.N.
While they were widely reported in the Iranian press, they were completely ignored by the American media.
From April 2020 onward, my articles have attracted substantial readership.
Even more encouraging has been the viewership of several podcast interviews, which have now broken 2.4 million views on RomPol.
Carl, your thoughts?
First, with the story with the crack of the JFK, we have Dr. Fetzer here as the leading researcher to explain, document, and prove that, in fact, that was a leading false flag in American history as a 38-year teacher, which included a lot of courses in U.S.
history.
Carl B. Herman Blocks bought any of these shows.
Go down and you can get my take about what I found most effective of communicating the facts of the assassination of JFK and RFK and MLK to high school students.
If we wanted to put a magnitude figure of how many conspiracies were that vast at the scale of JFK and COVID, I'd say about a hundred.
And I would recommend the website, wanttoknow.info, run by former State Department official Fred Burks, is the best go-to place to get the most reliable information on the most number of those topics.
And as a history teacher, pretty much all hundred of those, they're all true.
As somebody who is interested, because you're watching the show, in having an upgrade from this rogue state empirical lies to having truth and justice, my recommendation is take at least three of these conspiracies that you feel most curious and strongly about and be able to point to the documentation so that you can stand authentically For the arrests of these monsters at the top.
Importantly, the burden of proof to demand arrest is not for anybody to know the truth, but just to demonstrate that the official story is a lie.
Because we can't have liars at the top, and that's probably a really good sign that they're involved.
They're actually, they are committing a crime of being, for example, with JFK, this is an accomplice after the fact in order to protect the killers.
Now, that story with COVID was an awesome story to continue to add to the damning data that this was indeed a bio weapon.
And with that, it's always important to know that we already have sufficient evidence to demand the arrest of people at the top.
If you want the resources that I found best, I created an essay, My Best Shot, and I also linked to several of the leading medical doctors who were challenging and have already refuted the official story.
And where this is all leading to, our side is the Great Awakening, which is simple truth and justice.
And the other side is to go ahead and push us into the Great Reset, where they can do that if they can hold us together.
If they can't, then they're going to try to push us into Civil War 2.0 and then take what they can now and then see what they can get of everything else later.
Very good, Brian.
Well, when it comes to conspiracy theory, it's a challenging thing because people have to break through the idea that they've believed a lie for a long time.
Once they can break through that idea and shed that personal feeling that they were smarter, so smart that they wouldn't have believed a lie and humble themselves, then they can start to do research.
But the problem comes up with us as conspiracy theorists is that we try to pour too much on too fast to people who aren't quite ready.
People have to determine for themselves That it's real.
So I like to give people something that they can chew on.
I give them some false flags.
I show them some basic ones.
Nice and easy stuff.
Before I start getting into the stuff like this, which is the big conspiracy charts and the next thing you know.
You're the guy with the strings all over the room, and you're the guy saying, this is the world economic forum, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this,
America is starting to open their mind to the idea of conspiracy theory.
And the problem with that is that absolutely every institution that we have is now being exposed as an institution that had some component of it that knew about it.
And so the entire structural system, the entire trust based system, money, jaw, everything begins to fade in those minds.
So those people that are at the top and this this one here is.
How it works, how election officials and government actors coordinate with platforms to silence speech.
This was put together by the self-expressed genius Shiva Ayyadiri back in 2021 when he lost his Senate campaign and then he sought to sue because the government was basically Blocking his ability to run for Congress.
And so this stuff comes out while he's in, uh, while he's in court.
And they just, everybody says, ah, it's too much to chew on.
We can't handle it.
You got to go.
You're out.
So I guess fundamentally, after listening to an article from the UNS review, which is sort of Advanced senior level stuff, not exactly your starting point for most conspiracy theorists.
I guess my point is, in the real world, We make a change one person at a time, and one person can only handle so much.
So give them something easy to chew on like Sandy Hook, or easy to chew on like Uvalde, or easy like Sutherland Springs.
Give them some place to start to go and see for themselves, and help move them along one step at a time.
Because if you start to bust out with the Flat Earth and the NASA and the In the space, you're going to lose them really fast, and you're going to be worthless in terms of your ability to contribute to the American conversation.
Wonderful advice, Carl.
Sure.
So, there's... I was trying to find the site.
I didn't do it.
I'll put it in the show notes.
There's this guy named Dylan, who is known as the map maker.
Brian, have you seen, or Jimmy, have you seen his maps?
No, no, no.
Tell me more.
So he's got, imagine a poster size of just notebook style writing and creating the most intricate math and connections that you can imagine.
And it's all legitimate.
I'll put it into the show notes.
You'll be amazed at this guy's skill.
I'm going to pause this just a sec.
I want to share something with you.
Hang on.
I want to share this with you guys.
This is The world, according to Jim Fetzer.
Let me get it down here.
Yeah, get it to show this.
Yeah, a little higher.
I want to share it with you a little higher.
Right.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Can we?
Let's see.
How do we do this?
Stop sharing.
We get the feel.
We get the feel for it.
I see all the boxes and all the circles and all the lines.
You can see it.
It's just wonderful.
Move it to your right a little bit.
Yeah, there you go.
The trouble is I'm not seeing it on the screen, so I think the audience may not.
We can get it focused for you.
Okay, move it up a little bit.
Up a little bit more and then see if we can get it to.
According to Professor Jim Fetzer.
Yes.
Yes, Jim, you are Charlie Kelly from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, losing your mind because you've just discovered your first conspiracy.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
There it is.
There it is for everyone.
I love this so much.
I had to buy it from the guy.
He was in Superior across the aerial lift bridge from Duluth, and he actually added a couple extra boxes.
I love the one down here, that little thingy on the dollar bill.
I mean, it was hilarious.
I'll tell you what, every line on that.
Meanwhile, I love that.
My wife loves that one.
It's wonderful.
It's wonderful.
Yeah.
Okay.
Meanwhile, this is very disturbing, of course, but you're not going to find this at all surprising.
Hello, my name is Dr. Christiane Northrup.
I am a board-certified OBGYN and former assistant clinical professor of OBGYN and the author of three New York Times bestselling books on women's health.
My profession and many of my colleagues are getting thousands and thousands of reports about miscarriages, heavy bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, even vaginal bleeding in six-month-old baby girls who have either been vaccinated with this shot or been around those who have been vaccinated.
I am very, very concerned about the number of deaths that have been associated with this COVID vaccine, and I would urge you to please Do whatever you can to stop this injection agenda until we know more.
Otherwise, I fear that we are facing an entire generation of people who will no longer be able to have children.
Thank you.
And that, of course, is the whole idea, to have a generation that cannot have children.
Carl?
Yeah, that points into many of the agendas, such as having these artificial wombs.
They want a loveless work race.
They want a servant class that is programmable to be the highest servants.
We are human resources to them, and that is all.
And this only ends when we can get up to the burden of proof to demand arrests for these obvious crimes of these psychopaths.
Very good, Brian.
Well, if you're new to conspiracy theory, depopulation, in my opinion, is very, very real.
They do not like to compete with all these minds of independent thinkers.
They want sheep.
They want people dumbed down, following the rules, and incapable of rising up against them.
I'm sorry, but this is about power, and these people are psychopaths.
They're not exactly your critically thinking individuals.
They're psychopaths made by the psychopathic fathers that they've had, and the psychopathic fathers before them.
They have to have power.
They have to hold onto power.
And if that means that people die, so be it.
Yep.
In fact, that's the whole idea.
A whole lot of people are supposed to die.
Meanwhile, this story had eluded me, but I think we see here enough to put it together.
Brazilian authorities will revive fraud case against George Santos.
Although he once admitted to using a stolen checkbook in Brazil, he now asserts he is not a criminal here or in Brazil.
A 2008 court case had been suspended because Brazilian law enforcement could not find Mr. Santos.
When Representative-elect George Santos takes his seat in Congress on Tuesday—except none of the new members are taking their seats Tuesday, Wednesday, or even Thursday because we have yet to elect a Speaker of the House—he will do so under the shadow of active investigation by federal and local prosecutors into potential criminal activity during his two congressional campaigns.
But an older criminal case may be more pressing.
Brazilian law enforcement intends to revive fraud charges against him and will seek his formal response.
The matter, stemming from an incident in 2008 regarding a stolen checkbook, had been suspended for the better part of a decade because the police were unable to find it.
A spokesman for the Rio de Janeiro Prosecutor's Office said, with Mr. Santos' whereabouts now identified, a formal request will be made to the U.S.
DOJ to notify him of the charges as a necessary step after which the case will proceed with or without him.
A criminal case in Brazil was first disclosed in a New York Times report about discrepancy in his resume and questions about his financial dealings.
Just a month before his 20th birthday, he entered a small clothing store in the Brazilian city of Niteroi, outside of Rio.
He spent nearly $700 using a stolen checkbook under a false name.
He admitted the fraud to the shop owner in 2009, writing in a popular social media website in Brazil, I know I screwed up, but I want to pay.
In 2010, he and his mother told the cops he had stolen the checkbook of a man his mother once worked for and used it to make the fraudulent purchases.
A judge approved the charge in September of 2011, ordered him to respond.
By October, however, he was already in the U.S.
and working at Dish Network in College Point, Queens.
Despite his early confession, he's denied any criminal involvement, more recently telling the New York Post, I'm not a criminal here, not here or in Brazil or any jurisdiction in the world.
Joe Murray, a lawyer for him, said, I'm in the process of engaging local council to address the alleged complaint against my client.
Santos' swearing-in Tuesday, now postponed, as a representative of New York's 3rd Congressional District, was already set to take place amid a cloud of scrutiny.
Last week, irregularities in campaign spending emerged, including $40,000 on flights and payment for rent linked to an address where he's reported to be staying, a possible violation on ban on using campaign funds for personal expenses.
He also lied about graduating from college, misled voters about having worked for Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, acknowledged owing thousands of dollars in unpaid rent, withdrew his claim he owned multiple properties, The next step for Brazilian authorities is to file a petition requesting that he respond to the charges.
A judge would then share the request, known as a rogatory letter, with a federal justice minister in Brazil who would share it with the U.S.
DOJ.
Neither the DOJ nor Brazilian authorities can compel him to respond at this point, but he must be officially notified for the case to proceed.
A criminal conviction, even for a felony, is not on its own sufficient to disqualify him from holding office.
The last time a member was removed from office for breaking the law was 2002, when James A. Traficant Jr.
was removed from the House after being convicted on felony racketeering and corruption charges.
If Mr. Santos does not present a defense in the Brazilian case, he will be tried in absentia if found guilty.
Mr. Santos could receive up to five years in prison, plus a fine.
Carl, your thoughts?
Well, this is a curious case.
So we have a 34-year-old Kid who may be controlled by blackmail may be similar to AOC as a kid.
They just want to show that they have some diversity with age and it's not all the old corrupt old people.
But wow.
How did this guy slide through?
And I'd like to know the details of how this guy was able to be elected in New York, claiming to have worked for Goldman Sachs.
In order to get elected to Congress, you need a lot of money to buy the propaganda to do so.
And most of that money is going to come from the RNC and the constituents.
Somebody looked, somebody knew, somebody passed it by in leadership and knew that this guy was dirty, but they got him anyway.
Now, in the bigger picture of Congress is that anybody who rises to power, there's blackmail on these guys.
And that young congressman who I think was just elected to one term, and I forget his name, he was particularly Attacking of McCarthy, saying that Kevin McCarthy has risen to that leader of power.
He had witnessed this guy at parties engaging with very young women.
I don't know what the story is, but it is good to open people's eyes to the possibility of these people are complete frauds, such as, you know, claiming that you're not born from Kenya, or claiming that your wife, the First Lady, is a woman.
That level of outrageous lies.
Good, good.
Brian?
Look no further than Pizzagate if you want a conspiracy related to this sort of stuff.
Why didn't this guy just join the pedo club?
Then he would have been forgiven for everything that he's ever done under the sun since he was... I mean, he'd have been forgiven for the time he peeked through that neighbor's window when he was six years old to see the naked girl.
I mean, it's ridiculous.
I get it.
That this is pretty bad that he told some lies and that he stole some money.
But really, have you come to expect any higher level of morality from our politicians?
There's a few of them out there that I think are probably not compromised, but it's generally been my position that you don't get a job like that unless you can be compromised.
So this is probably just another hit organization that was sent out to try to change the balance of power and give a black eye to some Republicans.
Look, I imagine that there's some things that have happened among these people that are much, much worse than this.
And if you really study the Pizzagate conspiracy, or even go back to the Franklin affair, you'll find out that things like this, and even worse things, have been going on within these hallowed halls of justice and Congress since the beginning of time.
I guess at the end of the day, I would want to see somebody do a perp walk, but when was the last time we saw somebody get kicked out for lack of morals among congressmen and politicians?
Seems to me like it's a qualification to be there rather than something that keeps you out.
Yeah, this guy must be a Democrat, because notice it never mentions his party, and this is from Reader Supported News, which is a vehemently left-wing.
So he must be a Democrat, which is why... No, he's not.
He's a Republican.
He was instrumental in helping swing the power in the House, and now all of a sudden we get this tragic piece of dirt from a 2008 dirty check out of Brazil?
Deep you gotta dig to come up with a fake check in Brazil in 2008.
These people are dedicated, man.
Dedication there.
If you ever run for Congress, you better believe that they're gonna find that time that you stole the french fries from McDonald's.
They're gonna find it.
Yeah, the Libs are trying to position this guy in order to get the Democrats to have a majority in the House.
And again, I was at the gym, the TV just happened to be on for Fox News, and I don't know if it was handy or not, but in the program they were demonizing this guy.
Trying to set the stage for his removal.
So it would really be convenient if they had a Democratic control of the House, but that's part of the idea of finding a guy they can out.
Indeed, indeed.
Very good, very good.
Excellent from you both.
Meanwhile, Louisiana to require a government ID to access pornography.
Wow!
The enthusiasm for watching porn is going to drop dramatically in Louisiana.
I've been told, by the way, that half of the internet use is devoted to watching porn.
An official Louisiana state app called LA Wallet that holds the user's official driver's license will be used to determine who can and cannot view porn on the internet.
While porn is definitely harmful to children and adults, it's a slippery slope to require a government ID to view any type of online content.
Plus, it's incredibly naive to think that all involved will voluntarily discard identifying information after access is granted.
Louisiana has passed a law requiring legitimate age verification for websites that contain 33.3% or more pornographic material.
HB 142, introduced by Representative Lori Schlegel, a Republican, signed into law by Governor John Bel Edwards, a Democrat, dictates websites that meet that threshold must require an online government ID age verification.
Porn is destroying our children and they're getting unlimited access to it on the internet.
So if the porn companies aren't going to be responsible, I think we need to go ahead and hold them accountable," said Schlegel, a professional counselor and certified sex addiction therapist who treats this with porn and sex addiction.
According to Schlegel, depression, erectile dysfunction, fatigue, lack of motivation are all directly linked to pornography.
The Louisiana Republican seeks to protect children from such outcomes.
It's tied to some of the biggest societal ills of human trafficking and sexual assault, she added.
In my own practice, the young we've ever seen is an eight-year-old.
Here's Brad Wilcox tweeting this.
It's possible.
Look at Louisiana.
According to Fox 8 Pornography website, we'll be able to find other ways to ask for age verification, though they will not be allowed to retain the information.
It doesn't identify your date of birth, doesn't identify who you are, where you live, what part of the state you're in, any info from your device or your actual ID, says Sarah Kelly, a project manager with software design at Invok.
It just returns an age to say yes, old enough to be allowed.
It'll be up to a porn website to set their own age verification process.
Someone could sue on behalf of their child.
They can sue if children are getting access to porn.
So it'd be up to the user to sue the company for not verifying the age first.
How about that?
Carl, your thoughts?
Well, this is an insight into... So, one level is just First Amendment control and that big brother and big sister want to control everything.
Now, the statement that porn is harmful, well, okay, then we should actually be comprehensively accurate about that, and that all the official...
Comprehensive narratives regarding sex, those are what's harmful.
And if you take a look at what human beings as inanimalistic bodies about what we're naturally attracted to, and it doesn't take much motivation to have a human being be interested in sex,
Let's just say these three and all I want to do is point out that our controllers have taken those three areas just as three as an example to pervert it and to make the options available to respond as harmful and damaging and then To have narratives come in that blame human beings because they want us afraid, ashamed, and self-loathing.
If we were to actually have an honest conversation, and there are people who do it, I don't know what's going on with it, but for people to be empowered with the facts for, in this case, their sexual experience and expression, I think that that would be as big of a breakthrough if we were to get the actual understanding of what we use for food so that that isn't poisonous.
We would have a very powerful sexual self-expression as well.
If we win!
Brian, your thoughts?
Well, I remember my wife's mother telling me a story about how when she was a child, about 16 or 17, just a young lady, that she was riding along in the car with her dad, and the song, I Want to Hold Your Hand by the Beatles came on.
and he turned and he gave her a very square and solemn look and turned off the radio and he said, that song is indicative of a depraved society.
So we've gone from a Puritan, Christian-based society, moral-based society that tried to protect and defend the...
That which is pure and that which is good about our children and about us, and we've allowed it such disgracefully, so disgracefully, to run rampant that now we're talking to our six and seven-year-old children about trans sex and sicknesses on that level.
I hope we can swing back around to at least find A more appropriate balance than wide open porn on any phone and any computer and any electronic device that's out there.
But at the end of the day, it's not about restricting what you can see.
Because even as a kid, I was still able to sneak that Playboy magazine out the grocery store and take it up to the tree fort with all my buddies so we could see it.
The problem has been with humanity since the beginning of time.
And by the way, that might be what disqualifies me for the Senate because I just admitted it.
The problem is that we need to be teaching our young ones self-control and why to be self-controlled.
I remember seeing a Twitter post just the other day where some young man was complaining that he was on a dating app and The girl that he was trying to get a date with asked if he watched porn and he's like, heck yeah, I watch porn.
And she was like, and she ghosted him and he couldn't figure it out.
And it was like, why didn't she ghost me?
I thought we were a good fit.
Everything was good.
And finally, so he found her on another platform and another platform.
And finally she responded to him and she said, you have no self-control.
If you, if you're willing to do porn, the level that you indicated, you've got no self-control.
Now, The Democrats aren't going to like the idea of ID because think about it.
Do you need ID to vote?
I mean, right now you do, but the Democrats sure don't like it.
All I'm trying to say is I agree that there ought to be some level of restriction, but what is a heck of a lot more important is teaching our young ones to back off.
Remember they used to say it'll make you go blind?
That came from the Puritans.
The etymology of that phrase comes from the Puritans who believed that it would make you go spiritually blind to be that selfish.
Spiritually blind.
You wouldn't be able to see out because you're always looking in.
The cure for introspection is looking out at others and empathizing and being about other people.
When you just become so selfish that you're just all self-absorbed, you become a nasty, immoral, disgusting creature.
Wonderful, Carl.
Yeah, go.
We're born into these human bodies without a manual, and what we're told is controlled by the people who hate us and want us weak and servile and cold and dead.
So, just as an educator, I'm excited for the possibility of what truth, the type of human being that will exist if we win, just 50 years from now.
And if we actually understood about how to, as Brian is talking about, the appropriate level of discipline with this and with everything that has to do with owning a physical body, we're going to be exponentially greater than this shell that we have now.
At least I hope that that's true.
Good, good, good.
Great comments from you both.
Meanwhile, We want to hear from you.
Send fan mail, pro or con, to LiveNeedToKnowAtGmail.com.
LiveNeedToKnowAtGmail.com.
Here we have a couple of comments.
I'm afraid the opening article is not well-reasoned.
I don't dispute that the American plan to launch a massive nuclear strike against the USSR in the 1940s existed.
In fact, I recall the incredibly brilliant but brutal General Curtis LeMay was strongly in support of it and carrying it out.
This is an article about the history of the U.S.
planning an attack against the Soviet Union, 66 cities, using 204 atomic bombs in 1945.
I do dispute the suggestion made here that the plan was crazy or made no sense.
The USA had an advantage over the USSR in possession of nukes.
The assumption was this advantage would be lost due to Soviet nuclear development.
A standoff between two nuclear superpowers might mean the end of the world.
Therefore, better for one nuclear superpower to destroy the other currently non-nuclear superpower while the small window of opportunity existed.
The plan is rational.
The reason not to implement it is the result of a different calculation of risk, not due to the plan being irrational, nor particularly immoral, as the author seems to imply.
Why take exception to this?
Of course, mutually assured destruction arose because both sides knew that if one were to attack the other, the retaliation would be devastating to them both.
The author next makes a claim that is highly implausible.
He says, Had the U.S.
decided not to develop nuclear weapons for use against the Soviet Union, the nuclear arms race would not have taken place.
But the theoretical work had been done, the technology was possible, therefore, even if the U.S.
had not developed nukes, there is no guarantee the U.S.S.R.
would not have also developed them.
Furthermore, the technology did not exist at that time to guarantee that secret nuclear developments would be detected.
Therefore, the U.S.
would be rationally constrained to develop nukes based only on that probability.
This is an elementary prisoner's dilemma situation.
Here we have an additional comment.
Day 2 of the GOP rebellion without any actual cause that I know of continued Wednesday with Republicans failing on Bounds 4, 5, and 6 to secure a majority of votes of those present and voting for any candidate for House Speaker.
The Democrat nominee on every ballot, their new leader, Hakeem Jeffries, continued to be the top vote getter in every round, receiving 212 votes on each ballot.
On the GOP side, their leader, Kevin McCarthy, received just 201 on each of Wednesday's three ballots, down one vote from the third vote yesterday, still well shy of the 218 needed.
A new trick today from the Republican rebels was nominating African-American second-term backbencher Byron Donalds of Florida to be Speaker, even though, or perhaps because, he pled guilty to federal bribery charges back in 2000 in a scheme to defraud a bank.
A bit on brand for today's GOP, but otherwise perfect for the job.
There are a few tiny nuances in the slightest movement away from McCarthy and told the Gates-Bober-led rebel group of 20 in the afternoon's three rounds of voting.
We'll see what, if anything, happens when they reconvene for an evening session 8 p.m.
Wednesday night.
They just reconvened.
The GOP moved to adjourn until Thursday at noon, won that chaotic vote by the barest of margins.
Now, this is from Brad Friedman, who's an extreme left winger, but often you can get a very perceptive Delineation of problems afoot politically from the opposite side, who spends all their time searching for them and publishing about them.
Meanwhile, final thoughts.
Carl, yours.
Well, the commenter, Retsudo Yagyu, with that, to compare it to the prisoner's dilemma, I'll give him that.
Because in the prisoner's dilemma, you're talking about two people who have committed a crime and get caught and they have to decide if they're when they're separated, if they're going to rat each other out, which points to the usual criminal instruction, is do not cooperate with the officials.
But to cap that analogy, I don't think very many people outside of psychopaths will agree that the idea of a preemptive nuclear strike on Russia, he claimed that that is not particularly immoral.
So, Retz, you do agree I want to give him a test, because the last show he commented that the Federal Reserve System was not particularly immoral either, and so just a test.
You know, hey, you see at least some of these crimes that they should be arrested for, the assassination of JFK, election fraud, wars of aggression, something like that, right?
Because then, you certainly would not want anybody of those psychopathic criminals to have the power to nuke anybody.
They should be arrested and removed.
So, here we are in January 2023.
And again, we have the two outcomes.
The Great Awakening, which is all we're standing for, is just truth, justice, that's what we need.
Or the Great Reset, which is going to be that these lies are going to defeat the truth.
And those of us watching this show, we're resolute that we will accept the truth, only the truth, and nothing more of these lies.
We will, I think Jim said it a couple of times ago, quoting Patrick Henry, give me liberty or give me death, because this is absolutely true.
Who would accept the depravity of the system that we have?
Right, and of course, what you say about the prisoner's dilemma, if neither of them confess, they may both go free.
But if one confesses, then he for sure will go free and his partner will be punished.
So what do you do in that situation, Brian?
I don't have many final thoughts for today.
I think I've probably said enough, but I'm excited about some of the direction that we're going in terms of the truth and the truth getting out there with Twitter and some other platforms.
I still think people need to be dedicated to their craft and read more.
Particularly, I would suggest try a gospel if you've never read one.
It's actually some of the best literature ever created by mankind, and I think it's well worth taking a morning to sit down and read 20-22 chapters of a book that's that historical to try to figure out what it really is trying to say.
Wow, marvelous!
Carl, Brian, you're both just terrific.
I just love it all.
And obviously, Carl, the immorality of wiping out millions of people.
I mean, what could be more obvious than that's grossly wrong and inhumane and a violation of human rights?
Disgusting.
The fundamental principle of which is mutual respect.
You must respect every other person and their entitlement to their beliefs and activities as long as they do not inflict harm on anyone else.
And what the liberals have done is have broadened the notion of harm from physical harm or financial harm to emotional or sensitivity harm.
If you offend, if you hurt their feelings, that's supposed to be harmful.
So you're supposed to say nothing that hurts anyone's feelings, which means basically you say nothing, because anything you say could hurt someone's feelings, for God's sake.
I thought this business with Hannity was extremely disturbing.
I've long ranked Tucker first, Laura second, Hannity third, in terms of their excellence at political commentary and representation of something close to the political truth.
But Hannity here, in my opinion, just compromised himself.
I no longer have any respect for the guy who is completely appalled watching this take place, talking over Laura Baubert, basically giving her his opinions about her position and not allowing her to explain it.
Kevin McCarthy, after we reviewed the bidding, was obviously objectionable.
He's not a real Republican.
He is in name only.
He's a rhino like Mitch McConnell, whose wife, by the way, has just accused Donald Trump of racism.
And why Trump should be supportive of Kez McCarthy is by itself disturbing to me.
Kennedy didn't seem to understand what Laura Boebert meant when she said she might nominate Donald Trump.
It actually turns out, according to the rules of the House, you can have a non-member of the House serve as Speaker of the House.
Donald Trump wouldn't be a bad choice, all things considered.
On the other hand, you'd find there's probably a group of 20 rhinos who would oppose him just as fervently as these 20 megas are opposing Kevin McCarthy.
We're therefore in a real dilemma of its own in the House of Representatives today, and the vote goes on.
We shall see.
Meanwhile, spend as much time as you can with friends and family, people you love and care for.
We do not know how much time we have left.
▲
Export Selection