Dennis Quaid joins Joe Rogan to discuss his gospel album Fallen, blending Baptist hymns with original songs, and reveals early songwriting roots tied to his 1990 cocaine rehab. They critique Hollywood’s ideological shift from 70s rebellious films like Bonnie and Clyde to today’s conformity, then dissect the July 2024 Trump assassination attempt—security lapses, missing toxicology reports, and parallels to JFK’s suspicious death. Quaid praises Reagan’s Cold War leadership but warns of AI’s threat to acting while questioning Harris’s CGI rallies and border policies enabling Venezuelan gangs like Trendy Aragua to exploit U.S. cities without consequences. The episode suggests systemic failures may mirror historical destabilization tactics, leaving democracy vulnerable unless policies reverse course. [Automatically generated summary]
Well, you know, basically I grew up in the Baptist Church, and so it's five songs that I grew up with, and it's five songs that I wrote before and during the making of the record.
It's kind of like my spiritual journey, I guess.
That's the way it turned out in the end.
My wife, she put the order together, and that's what it seems to be, kind of my journey in life.
Yeah, I wrote this song called On My Way to Heaven, and I wrote it for my mom to let her know that I was okay after I got out of rehab for cocaine in 1990. Then I wrote Fallen, which is kind of like taken from, remember that movie Thunder Road with Robert Mitchum?
It's kind of like in that vein or that kind of feel to it.
And there's this highway called the Devil's Backbone up near Bandera.
And so it's a ride with the devil.
And you wind up getting left for dead on the side of the road.
I'd spent summers up in East Texas, Jacksonville, Frankston.
I worked for a vet when I was 14, 15, and that's what I was going to do until one day we did like a house call out to this guy's farm to castrate his horse.
And the farmer didn't want to sit out there in the field and wait for him to wake up from a full anesthetic.
So they only gave him half of it and cinched his legs up like this.
And that horse stood up on two legs and it was just – man, it was horrific.
And that kind of – I think that's what changed my mind.
Yeah, but the French New Wave is what they called it, kind of more handheld, grittier, and it was the return of the anti-hero and the rebel hero, because Hollywood had lost touch with their audience.
They were making movies like Toby Tyler and these bloated musicals, which...
And so it became like the inmates had taken over the asylum.
There was really new, exciting stuff getting done, like Badlands and The Conversation, which led to The Godfather.
And that was, I think, the golden age of filmmaking.
Like I said, the inmates had taken over the asylum and it was a feeling like you could do just about anything.
And music too was really happening in Los Angeles as well.
record deals were getting signed left and right.
And it's kind of turned upside down now because of all that rebellious attitude of the '70s and everybody who did it sort of became the establishment, I think.
Well, it's also one ideology dominates, especially in Hollywood, dominates the entire business.
You know, one of the things that I said that drove me crazy about Hollywood was there's people that had differing opinions about things, but they would never speak out because it could damage their career.
That is – we went through an era where – remember, tolerance?
That was what we were trying to do, like, back in the teens, I think, in the tens, where you tolerate other groups and all that.
And that didn't last very long, and it seems like one had it over the other.
But if you ask me where this great divide really started politically, I think...
Of course, there was Watergate, but you come up to, like, when the Republicans had their contract with America, I think it was, like, 94 in the year that...
Clinton was going to be a lame duck president.
They had those midterms.
And then it started to become just along party lines where there was no – you were a traitor if you went to the other side because we had conservative – We had conservative Democrats.
We had liberal Republicans up until that point.
You know, that's what I grew up with.
And that wasn't good enough anymore.
And so it started there and, you know, then continued.
And, you know, then the Democrats really took over.
They really do it really well as far as that stuff of turning things on their head.
And I feel like today they were using the judicial system against Trump, which is really off the reservation.
And I think some of that was certainly they were emboldened by the fact they're essentially running the country without a president for the last three years.
Did you see the thing where Trump came out and said that he was going to stop taxes for tips of hospitality workers, and you wouldn't tax them on tips anymore?
Have you ever seen the difference between Democrat donors versus Republican donors?
There was a chart that someone made about the amount of people that donate to the Democratic Party versus the amount of people that donate to the Republican Party.
Because it used to be Republicans who were known as the fat cats and big oil and big business and all that would be the...
Big supporters and donors of the Republicans, and it was like those $5 and $10 donations of the Democratic Party because they're really a coalition of groups.
But then I think starting with Obama especially, it started with social media.
It really started to get into more of a corporate type of Yeah, tech oligarchy.
The tech thing's nuts because nobody anticipated that these corporations were going to have this insane amount of influence and power over people.
I've had this guy Robert Epstein on my podcast before him.
I don't know if you've ever seen his work, but he basically does statistical analysis of Google search results and what Google does to change people's opinions and how much of an effect it can have on swaying an election.
Because if you go look for Trump rally, you'll see a bunch of Kamala Harris things.
If you go and try to find something negative about Kamala, you'll find all these positive things about Kamala.
So these Quick searches, which most people do.
Most people aren't doing deep dives for hours where they're going and reading and finding other alternative sources of information.
They get their information from a Google search.
And that Google search, if you can curate it and make sure that all the positive stuff about the people that you want is up front and all the negative stuff about the people that you don't want is up front, you could shift people's opinions by 20, 30 percent.
It follows him from when he was a boy in Dixon all the way through when he said goodbye to the American people when he was diagnosed for Alzheimer's after he was president.
And it's a fight against communism, which he fought all of his life.
But the reason being was that the content in it was an attempt to sway an election.
I mean, the last time I heard, you know, Reagan was on the ballot 40 years ago was the last time.
He'll go after, make fun of you personally, or whatever.
Yeah, but he didn't prosecute Hillary.
You see, you know, it feels like a schoolyard bully or whatever.
Right, right.
But it's – he's – you know, all the things they did to Trump, I do believe when he – as far as revenge and all that stuff, that the success in the election would be his revenge.
And I really believe that if it was Biden who was You know, impeach or going to jail or whatever.
I think Trump would pardon him.
To tell you the truth, I don't think he wants anybody to see a president in jail, because that really changes our country.
Like, when he got into office, there was a lot of people that were pressing him to prosecute her, to go after her, for the email thing, for a lot of different things.
And he said, no, that'd be a terrible look.
It'd be terrible for our country.
The wife of the former president of the United States, no way.
And he didn't do it.
So all these things that people think he's going to do, well, he had the opportunity to do those things four years ago.
And they're thinking now they've done so many egregious things to him now with all the prosecutions and then the years and years of Russiagate.
It started at day one, even before he got into office.
But I wasn't – I myself – I wasn't going to vote for Trump this time around.
I was wanting them to find another candidate that would kind of calm things down a bit because I thought that's what we needed.
We needed to calm things down.
But then when they went after him with the judicial system, these like stupid charges – That's when things change for me, because then you're messing with the Constitution.
And we can't go back from that after something like that happens.
And the other thing is, people need to understand that even if you hate Trump, if you normalize weaponizing the judicial system against a political candidate, that can be used against your party too.
And if someone gets in, like Vivek Ramaswamy gets in, or if Ron DeSantis gets in, and he starts doing the same things that they did to Trump, then we have chaos.
And the fact that these people are so ideologically captured, they can't recognize the danger of doing the things that they're doing in order to win, and that you can't fix that stuff once you put it in motion.
I don't know how this is going to turn out, but if this was a show, I'd be like, holy shit, what a great show.
It's like, how is this not like a deep investigation that's on the front page of every newspaper where people are trying to figure out, was this a government conspiracy to kill the presidential candidate?
And then next thing you know, Kamala Harris has one good speech and everybody's cheering and you're like, wow.
It's just completely flip-flop.
All the talk shows, everyone's with her.
A person who just a month prior was being hidden because she would say so many dumb things and every time she had a talk openly with no script, she would blunder and fuck things up.
And the fact that no one's freaking out about the dangers of this, and the fact that this is the first time ever that someone who nobody voted for, nobody voted for in the primaries, had zero delegates, is now being the person who is at the front.
The people that have the least amount to do, the people that are willing to answer polls, the people that when you call them up, say, do you have a few minutes of my time?
They're like, well, yes, I do.
Most people say, get the fuck out of here, and they hang up the phone.
The vast majority of people don't answer polls.
So you have one point ahead of the people dumb enough to answer polls.
I think there's a certain percentage of the American people that are living in a movie.
They have no real understanding of all the mechanisms that are involved that make this world work and why it's working in the way it's working and what the dangers are of it.
There's so many people that are only fed by the mainstream media, which is completely corporate controlled.
Well, I think what happened was I don't think in 2016 they ever anticipated that Trump was going to win.
All the projections were that Hillary was going to win by a landslide.
That was all the polls.
That was all the things he saw on television.
And then when Trump started winning on television, You could see it in the look of the faces of the pundits, the people that were on TV that were calling the election.
They were baffled.
They couldn't believe it.
And then when it was over, there's that famous video of the lady with the sock hat and the glasses in the street on her knees going, no!
It would just be us, because Sherwood, there weren't many people around.
I love the guy.
And when he came out like that, I was really happy for him, to tell you the truth, because to have to carry that around, what you feel inside, that's really important.
But that doesn't mean that the entire nation has to...
Flip over and change to accommodate that.
Yes, there could be a mall for you.
In fact, our system already accommodates everybody.
I'll call you whatever your name you want to be called.
I don't care at all.
But if you want to compete athletically, we're going to pretend that the shape of the hips, the density of the bones, size of the lungs, size of the heart, the ability to react quicker, all these different advantages that we know exist.
Well, they can't debate, because if you debate about it, then the facts...
Outweigh their ideology.
You look at the biological facts of this stuff, it outweighs the ideology.
And then you look at the transitioning children.
I mean, have you ever seen these interviews where people go up to people and they say, do you think that a child of 12 years old is old enough to get a tattoo?
No, no, no, no, no.
Do you think they're old enough to know their gender?
In a way, maybe later they look back and realize that they were that way when, you know, they were either gay or from, you know, a place of hindsight in a way.
But to let someone who...
You know, under at least 18, really, I mean, even in 18, how much do we really know ourselves back then?
Or is it that this is some sort of a fucking mind virus and these people are being influenced by the positive reaction they get from saying that they're LBGTQ2 plus AI, whatever the fuck it is now.
It's like there's a social contagion going on and there's an aspect of that that's real.
How do you think we get back to being able to have an exchange of ideas and not just try to put the other one in jail or try to dismiss them from society?
It sounds ridiculous, but I think the only way is to do what we're doing right now and to continue talking about it as reasonable people and have people listen to it and it shapes people's opinions and things.
They go, yeah, they're making sense.
It is reasonable.
And to pretend that these psychological conditions, there's a psychological condition called autogonophilia, where men get sexually aroused dressing up as women.
But they're usually attracted to women.
So now these men are pretending that they're lesbians.
So they're calling themselves lesbians.
And they're getting on lesbian apps.
And lesbians are fucked now.
Because now there's these men that are pretending to be lesbian that are occupying these lesbian apps.
And if you don't want to date them, then you're transphobic and they'll attack you.
And it's like, holy shit.
These are the people that were perverts in the past.
And now all of a sudden they're part of a protected class.
It's very strange.
It's very strange and it's not good and it's not sustainable.
And I don't know when people are going to fully recognize the harm that they've done to all these children that they've had mastectomies and forced these fucking drugs on that killed their body's ability to produce testosterone and They try to say that they're reversible.
There's not there's no fucking reversing damaging someone's puberty That's not true.
If you put puberty blockers in a boy, that is not reversible.
It's not true.
Not only is it not true, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that shows that there's significant danger to taking those drugs.
There's blood clots and strokes and all sorts of other...
And then there's the fact that...
It's not natural.
None of it's natural, right?
Even injecting them with estrogen, like, so they could be their true self.
If you're your fucking true self, chemicals are not involved, it's not injecting chemicals are not involved in maintaining your true self.
That's nonsense.
And it's a crazy sort of a leap, a mental leap that you have to have to make that.
I mean, I look back at the 60s and, you know, we've always been kind of a nation, at least in this century, of experiments that go on as a society as a whole.
You know, you had the flower children back then and that whole counterculture relationship.
First to control the bottom line of the money, but then the more people that you get have kind of acquiesced control over, the more your bottom line is going to go on, and then it's about power.
There's no laws in place to keep it in check, which is why Google is allowed to curate the search results and why they're allowed to censor conservative voices on social media.
One of the things we found out, like, thank God for Elon Musk, because if Elon Musk had not bought Twitter, we would not have known the extent of the government's meddling into information distribution.
We wouldn't have known.
They were literally trying to get them to ban legitimate news stories, and they were successful with the Hunter Byron laptop story.
But other legitimate conservative perspectives and points of view and people that were legitimate doctors and scientists that had questions about the way we're handling the pandemic.
That's what's crazy, that vaccines and pharmaceutical drug companies became a democratic, liberal perspective in supporting that, like these corporations that have the biggest criminal fines in the history of medicine.
It's all these companies, these pharmaceutical drug companies for doing things that were illegal.
They were fined billions of dollars.
And people still wholesale bought everything they said and if you disagreed, you were some sort of a fringe conspiracy theorist who was a danger to everyone around you.
I know a little bit about that because from when my twins were overdosed when they were 12 days old with heparin.
In a hospital, they turned their blood to the consistency of water.
And they were off the measurable scale, in fact, for coagulation of their blood for more than 48 hours.
And it was the scariest moment of our lives.
But really about what I learned about, we did not sue the hospital.
It was a human error in that.
But it was the drug company also which was kind of liable in that the The 10-milligram unit, the 10-unit bottle that the kids were supposed to get was light blue, and the adult was dark blue, and that was 10,000.
So they got 10,000 three times.
It was horrific.
But after that, I testified before Congress in the Oversight Committee there about what had happened.
And as far as the drug companies, it's impossible to sue.
Drug companies, just about.
It's very difficult to get them to change anything.
They're all located, for the most part, in Illinois, and they have that system wrapped up.
But everybody at the FDA, I won't say everybody, but there are so many people at the FDA in positions that are either former employees of drug companies or Future employees of drug companies.
What's bizarre to me is that even with all the evidence of these people dropping dead, the people that are around the people dropping dead are in denial about it.
Because they all advocated for a very specific thing, and when that very specific thing may be causing a bunch of deaths, they don't want to take credit for it.
They don't want to be in trouble for it.
They don't want to be beholden to their To this idea that they had the pharmaceutical drug companies are telling you the truth, and that this is the only way out of this, and if you didn't do it, we're all gonna die, and everybody went into this with this terrible fear, and because they stated that early, now they're committed to it, and they're defending it because it's a part of themselves.
Their ideas are a part of themselves.
If you look at what insurance companies are dealing with now, with excess deaths, That's some of the best data that we have, is excess mortality.
And the excess mortality is extraordinary.
At any other time in history, if there was a thing that was rolled out where all of a sudden everybody's taking it and all of a sudden you have this amazing increase in excess deaths.
And cancers that are what they're calling turbo cancer.
And if you listen to Peter McCullough, he explains how this could be causing that, that the mRNA vaccines could be causing these turbo cancers.
Yeah, because it actually changes our molecular structure down to, you know, the chromosomes in the DNA. It's a man-made thing, which is affecting our body in a bad way.
Yeah, and it's killing people that took it, that were advocating for it, that were tech people.
There's tech people that are dropping dead left and right, and they're still on this bandwagon, and they're still letting the CDC saying, you should vaccinate anyone under 12. Like, what the fuck are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
This is insane.
It was never dangerous for kids.
My kids got it, and they were over it in a couple of days.
We were working in a basement, and we had, like, 50 extras, you know, and it was just, oh, of course it did.
Just about everybody got it.
But I had it bad.
I was lucky it hit me in the guts instead of the lungs.
And I had 104 temperature for a couple of nights.
But, you know, I was over it in a couple of weeks.
And then, you know, getting the vaccine, I did have kind of a reaction to that, like a little mini version.
But I've noticed that when I get a cold now, it's harder to get over.
Everything is a little bit harder to get over now.
And I don't think it's just me.
I have friends.
We talk about it and the same thing is going on.
Coming from China and all that, what could have happened is it could have been an exchange, a real exchange of how It had really happened and what the process was of how it happened to make sure that it doesn't happen again or during the research of the vaccine to put that out where it could have helped there as well.
It just winds up being, you know, everybody lines up on the side of ideology.
That's one of the things that's so interesting because we have more access to information now than we've ever had in all of human history, and yet people are more divided by ideology than they are by facts than any other time in history.
About who is dangerous, and they're going to have to get another Republican, and they're just, you know...
But, uh...
Yeah, I've been reading this unspoken – I've forgotten the author's name – but it was endorsed by RFK Jr. about the assassination of his uncle, the president, John Kennedy.
And it takes every piece of information that is known and Puts it in a book and tells a story from it.
And it was our government, I think, that killed Kennedy.
And through the CIA, the dark forces within our government.
The only conclusion you can draw is it's got to be something like that.
Only I can't understand why the CIA would want us out of Afghanistan that way or why All the other stuff is going on, but I guess, again, that's for control.
This guy, Norman Ohler, he wrote about drugs during the Third Reich and about how they experimented with LSD on concentration camp prisoners and all the stuff that they were giving Hitler while he was in the middle and all the stuff they were giving the Nazis.
But that they took that knowledge from the Nazis and they started applying it.
And then they started using some of those drugs and using these MKUltra experiments.
And the idea that they stopped that and they don't do that now.
What happened with this kid?
Did they do an autopsy?
Did they find there's any chemicals in this kid's body?
We don't know.
We haven't heard a fucking peep.
We have not heard a single press conference.
The first thing that I would have done, but besides like try to figure out how the fuck this kid was on the roof for 30 minutes without anybody doing anything, How he got a rifle there, how he got a ladder there, how the snipers didn't shoot him, how they didn't go up there and take him out before this happened.
It's nuts because I would have wanted to know what that kid was on.
I guarantee there was some sort of psychotropic medicine involved.
There was something involved.
I do not think, if you're going to, let's assume that someone trained him, told him how to do this.
Let's assume this wasn't a young 20-year-old kid with very sophisticated detonators and remote controls and all these different things that we know that he possessed.
It would have no idea what happened and they probably would have memory hold it all the exact same way they did it now and then they would have said the country has to heal and move on.
You could do it, and then you would need to go to a range and sight it in.
The problem with a scope would be that if things were getting jostled around and knocked around, if you bang the scope on something, it can get moved just a fraction of a millimeter to the left or to the right, and then your zero point at whatever he's got it zeroed at, if it's 100 yards or 150 yards, it's going to be off.
Well, wouldn't we know that this kid had Google search how to use explosive devices and figured out how to get the detonators, figured out how to wire it, how he learned?
You know, it hasn't always been like this, the way you and I are talking.
And it's been a very, very long time since it seems that common sense prevailed in the end in this country.
Yeah.
I so want it back.
I'm not even talking about having everything go the way I want it to go.
To get back to a time when whoever was in the White House and at least we were a people that could at least agree 70% of the time And I think we are a people that agree 70% of the time as a whole.
Well, there's also the complete erosion of faith in the intelligence agencies.
If it turns out that the CIA did kill JFK, or that they were involved in the killing of JFK, and it could be proven, which is what Tucker Carlson's been saying.
If that is the truth, that would be...
I mean it would throw the whole country into a tailspin.
We wouldn't know what the fuck to do because if you really found out that in 1963 they organized an assassination on the president, pulled it off, killed him, lied to the public, published this bullshit Warren Commission report.
Tried to pass off this nonsense of the magic bullet.
John Foster Dulles, who ran the CIA, you know, they had been – they just pulled off one a month before with Diem in South Vietnam where he was assassinated.
And Kennedy was shot, and then the Warren Report...
And so then that guy becomes the head of the Warren Commission Report, and then Gerald Ford...
Also on the Warren Commission Report, then takes over when Nixon gets kicked out of office.
And then you find out through – I mean, Tucker Carlson explained it to us that the whole Nixon thing was essentially an FBI-CIA op to get Nixon out of office.
And Nixon was apparently, like, very interested in finding out who had shot JFK. Yeah.
The CIA was very – in fact, that's kind of where it started, along with the Bay of Pigs.
Which Kennedy inherited.
That was an operation going on.
But the Cuban Missile Crisis was another one.
Kennedy having actually a secret dialogue with Khrushchev that was going on that I guess today they would call collusion.
I don't know.
But they were making great progress in that.
But Vietnam – he had gotten the Russians to agree to make Laos a neutral country in that – And we had American GIs even before it was an actual war, which it never was, but getting killed over there.
And Kennedy was wanting to do the same thing with Vietnam, have it be a neutral country, and was making progress with Khrushchev.
In a way towards that, but the CIA's involvement over there, they, you know, they openly and were the Joint Chiefs in meetings.
Kennedy had lost control of the Joint Chiefs and decisions that were being made there.
They were totally going against him and I believe too that it was the CIA that took him out because of their agenda and the mood that was in the country.
And even the fact that we know now for a fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag, which is what got us into Vietnam in the first place, and that no one went to jail for that.
When Johnson came in, I don't think Johnson had Was involved in the assassination of Kennedy.
But when Johnson did come in, you know, he had a different kind of bend on that and said, you guys will get your war right after, you know, the election, is what he told the Joint Chiefs, because they really wanted it.
And, you know, lo and behold, after he was elected, the Gulf of Tonkin incident happens.
It was created by Truman, and they were supposed to act as foreign agents in other countries.
And they were basically given, you know, like James Bond, license to kill and also the license to lie before Congress.
They were given to keep things secret as they could.
And Truman came to, like, not even a year after he had created it, He came to regret it that he'd even created that office because it turns into a government within a government that has its fingers in every pie, especially the military.
It's a dangerous place.
Kennedy himself wanted to get rid of the CIA, in fact.
Later after 9-11, we just really gave them the keys to the kingdom because you're allowed in the homeland to do the same thing.
Go to what we were told about with Iraq before we went in there and the weapons of mass destruction and the like, which everybody believed, no matter what side you were on.
There was about a 90% chance that it was going to happen, especially during the 60s, and then again with the Carter administration and to Reagan, because We'd appease them.
We'd given away so much, and they were building their military up.
And it really was like a chess game.
But there was a hawk, a pro-war survivability after a— Nuclear attack was a big topic.
Yeah, like Curtis LeMay, you know, one of the Joint Chiefs, you know, who was a big admiral during World War II and ran the Pacific campaign, basically.
But, you know, he was saying, well, you know, we could survive this.
You know, 50 million people, yes, would be killed, but we will survive.
And it is possible in an alternative universe with different circumstances that we could have evolved into a community.
And it's possible, I think, in the future.
If big tech and these ideologies don't get a hold of us, we can communicate as individuals and realize that Most of our differences are bullshit, and most of what's going on is the battle of control over resources.
And if, instead, human beings had the ability to communicate with each other and have real, true access to information and know exactly what's going on, and be able to relay what their concerns and needs are, most people just want to be happy.
And doing this as a joint venture, there would have to be relinquishing of secrets because it's military.
That's why, of course, it...
They wouldn't allow that to happen.
But once you start doing that and having that shared technology without keeping secrets from each other, that's where people and nations do come together.
Because we don't mistrust each other because we're armed.
Well, now there's the same conversation that's going on right now with AI. Because AI weaponry and the ability to have weapons that don't rely at all on human interaction.
No people making decisions or pressing buttons.
Completely powered by AI. If that happens, this is a very, very dangerous situation.
This is the height of tech right because you have tech people that are Communicating about things to Congress where the people that are asking the questions really have no understanding of what these guys are doing or what what's really possible and what's capable and yeah, there's There's problems because they lose information, like information gets stolen, and they're dealing with that right now.
They think that China has access to the top-level AI that we're producing right now.
Nuclear bombs, you know, and that because it took a while to develop over time and now things come along so quickly and, you know, the more we know, the more we can know.
So is the reluctance that people have to allow, like, the resistance against this Reagan film, do you think it's resistance about conservatism in general, or is it the idea that you're going to change people's perceptions about history?
Because there's a lot of people, again, that have this very peripheral, low-information view of who Reagan was, and so they want to have this negative spin on Reagan in history because he's a conservative.
I think, you know, Reagan was a great president and I think it gets perceived and compared to Trump, you know, because there are comparisons to Trump and the things that you get down to policy.
There's a really good comparison to Trump, and maybe they see this as influencing an election by that comparison or whatever.
You know, it's a free society.
It's about ideas we're able to express and we're able to, like, make up your own mind about it rather than deciding for people about what it was.
And the Reagan movie is not about ideology at all.
I mean, Reagan was a Democrat for 40 years, until the last 40 years of his life, or 35, he was a Republican.
And it's about the Cold War and about his fight against communism and you know we won the Cold War under Reagan and it was before that appeasement had been practiced in this Jimmy Carter, God bless him, he did really well with the Egyptians and Israel in making peace in the Middle East.
He was great about that.
He wasn't so great with the Iran hostage thing.
You remember the foiled, disastrous rescue attempt back then.
It seemed like everything failed.
But with the Soviets, he had appeased it like You know, gave away the B-1 bomber.
He gave away a lot of things without getting anything in return from the Soviets as far as reducing the threat of war.
And they took that, of course, as weakness and started to really build up their military and their missile strength to an unprecedented level.
Americans were There's a lot about America that it's kind of sweet in a way that, you know, the kumbaya thing, you know, why can't we be friends and just, you know, humanity.
That's the good-hearted, fantastic thing about America.
But that's not the way the world works.
We're all a product of the way that we grew up.
Basically growing up in this country with relative safety and we have, you know, a nation that has had laws that, you know, form of law and you do things the right way and the wrong way of what you consider.
But, you know, can you imagine what it was like for Saddam to grow up in Iraq?
Or Chi, or Putin, and the way they grew up, that makes them the way they are, and the Russian people had grown up the same way.
So you start to get a sense of how the rest of the world doesn't operate on the same rules that we are.
They actually have a more realistic way of looking at things the way man has actually been from the tribal stage on.
You know, you got the water, and we want the water.
We don't want to share it.
We want it ours.
Because you'll piss in it, and it'll destroy it.
So we want it for ourselves.
But Reagan came along, and he had the idea to bankrupt them, to make them spin.
Star Wars...
He came out with Star Wars.
He really got that name from the movie, the whole Star Wars thing, which is now the Patriot defense system over in Israel.
It didn't exist at that time.
It was decades away from it.
But he made the Russians think at least 10% that it might be real.
Reagan even offered to share it with them in exchange for, let's take our missiles down to zero.
You know, I got mad at him in Iceland when I thought he was acting like an old codger because they came up and said, we're offering you this, you know, half the missiles or this or that.
And he said, no, because they wanted us to get rid of Star Wars, which didn't exist.
I said, well, you know, you have to get rid of Star Wars.
And if we'd done that, the Soviets would have just gone on their merry way and been doing what they would have had been doing.
But Reagan said no.
And the Soviet Union came toppling down, but it was great progress that he made, and it took a cold warrior.
Hard-assed cold warrior to be able to negotiate with them.
And then, you know, in the research, he was an actor and we both have sunny dispositions too, I think, naturally.
But I don't think...one of the things about Reagan is I don't think he ever got to where he wanted to get as an actor.
I think was one of the disappointments for him.
And, you know, his career was going towards at the end when he married Jane Wyman.
You know, who won an Academy Award, like, the next year.
And I think his self-esteem was actually pretty low at that point because he was looking for a purpose in his life that he never found until he got the...
Ran for and was elected vice president of the Screen Actors Guild, and then president of the Screen Actors Guild.
And that's not a job that anybody as an actor you aspire to be, right?
I was – gosh, it was – what is the name of that – the boy band thing that's a dirty – It's a documentary about the guy, Peterson, I think, that started the boy bands, NSYNC, and they had a documentary on him.
You know, I think, of course, it takes away extras, you know, ability to earn a living, but it also means that you can make like a $4 billion movie instead of a $40 billion movie, you know, and get smaller movies and more people have access to making movies.
Do you think that expressing your conservative viewpoints and doing this film on Reagan, do you think this ultimately has the potential to hurt your career?
There was a time that I was kind of concerned to kind of like speak my mind or speak up.
But in this – really in the last couple of years that I feel it's really important that we do – all of us speak up.
In this election, everybody has got to choose a side and we have to – In order to have this exchange of ideas and dialogue, we have to speak up.
And so, like I said, what I was doing, Reagan, there was a story that came out that I was taking money from the CDC, $400,000.
The Trump administration had arranged so I could do a commercial for the vaccine that was coming out, none of which was true.
But, you know, it's like my son even called me like freaking out, you know, because it was like I was going to get canceled over this stuff because I was taking, I guess, taxpayer money from the CDC, you know, making money off this.
But that and I remember when Trump – when COVID first started, I think it was Politico that I did a phone conversation with because I was involved with this podcast company that we were – That we were promoting.
And it just happened to be COVID. And the guy asked me what I thought about the way Trump was handling the COVID. And I said, well, at least he's there every day.
He's there every day trying to do something.
And I think when it comes to things like this, we need to get behind our president as a whole to come together to fight this thing, just like Franklin Roosevelt getting behind during World War – at the start of World War II in order to – well, anyway, that became that I was a right-wing Trumpster and that supposedly in danger of getting canceled over that.
And then I also gave a speech about Reagan to the group in Florida after we'd made the movie, and I think there were two people that were January 6th.
People just happened to be there.
And by association, you know, that was going to be—my agents called me, like, freaking out over that.
They were like, it was going to be canceled.
They're just, like, being told to, you know, just be quiet and let things go by, you know?
I do cringe sometimes at stuff, but I know where he is at the bottom of it, that he really does care about the American people, and he really...
He loves this country and he's really smart, really smart.
And he knows how to deal with foreign policy-wise, which is a huge thing with me because it could It has an effect on everything else in our culture, our economy, just the way we feel inside.
And I think he's best for that.
I'd like to see him focus more on the issues and be very disciplined about doing that because when he goes off that They love that.
Any chance that he can make it personal, they love that.
I also think that he gets sucked into some things that I think are traps.
I think one of the traps that's been set recently is the use of computer-generated imagery with Kamala Harris's campaign.
I think he got sucked into a trap.
Because he made a post about how the crowds that were at the airport to meet her were fake.
That it was CGI. And a lot of people thought that they were CGI. And there was a lot of people tweeting about it that it was CGI. And I was looking at it, and I was like, this is interesting because it's so obvious.
Why would they do that?
Well, one of the ways they would do that is to put out fake images or put out the idea that there were fake images so that he makes this post.
Because they're so used to, like, Biden doing a rally, and you never see the size of the crowd, and you can feel that there's nobody there, and there's tepid applause, and you hear individual hands clapping.
And so all the people that, you know, they got volunteers and they...
Yeah, they're going all in.
Supposedly, unless they really abscond the Republican agenda, which it seems like she's trying to do.
You know, Clinton did that, actually, in 1994. He was going to be a lame duck president.
He was going down.
And his response was in the State of Union's address, he said, the age of welfare is over.
And he basically took over the Republican agenda, and we had like six years of just incredible – the economy was amazing.
It was a force.
And she started with – Kamala now is taking over the whole no tax on tips, trying to take that over, trying to say that she's Never was the border czar.
From day one, she's going to do something about it.
I think there's like, what, four or five months left in the administration right now?
I mean, it seems the obvious thing would be for the old idea that that's for voters, that people coming into this country are naturally Democrats, but that's not really true.
You know, I have so many Latino friends, and the people that came here the right way, they can't stand what's going on, because they really can't.
And they have a tendency to really kind of get families and church and stuff to become conservative and believe in the American dream.
And so that's not true.
I mean, the only other thing would be the power, I guess.
And you definitely have less Republican votes, I guess they think, with that.
And you create chaos, which is kind of another kind of Soviet tactic.
If you want to foment revolution, that's what you do, create chaos.
And then if you want to come here from Europe, like say if you're a mathematician or something like that, or even a friend of mine from Estonia, he's a comedian.
So you get to live in this country illegally subsidized for years, and you would assume that those people are going to vote for the people that did that for them.
I mean, there should be a path and that's one of the things that made America so interesting because it's a melting pot of all these ambitious people that came here from a place that sucked and they carved out a life.
Because Colorado is incredibly liberal and that area is incredibly liberal.
So see if you can find that story on the Venezuelan gangs taking over the apartment building in Colorado.
I was watching a news piece on it today where they were expressing this real confusion and frustration that there was nothing that they could be doing about this.
And that they have different doors have X's on them.
The red X's are when people have been evacuated from the apartment.
Special Task Force investigating Venezuelan gangs alleged ties to Aurora.
Aurora City Council officials say that apartment complex on Gnome Street is closing to decode violations, but some council members allege there's more to the story.
So this is what I've been reading.
What I've been reading is that these Venezuelan gangs have occupied this thing.
The gang known as Trendy Aragua started out as a prison gang in Venezuela, has expanded throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Last month, the Biden administration designated the gang as a transnational criminal organization, accusing it of engaging in human smuggling and trafficking, gender-based violence, money laundering, and illicit drug trafficking.
Aurora Police Department, in partnership with the Raven Task Force, has assigned four detectives to a special task force that includes additional local, state, and federal partners to investigate the violent crime impacting our migrant community, said Aurora PD spokesperson late Thursday.
And if they're all flooding in through the border and these are the type of people that are flooding in, those guys aren't coming over legally, the Venezuelan gang members.