Dave Smith and Robbie Bernstein dissect Colorado's attempt to ban Donald Trump via the 14th Amendment, arguing January 6th lacked insurrection elements. They critique Joe Biden's hypocrisy, predict Vivek Ramaswamy will siphon Trump's base, and mock Nikki Haley's Israel claims. The hosts also question Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s pro-Israel stance and express skepticism about Biden's stamina, suggesting a volatile election where outcomes remain uncertain due to these shifting dynamics. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Christmas, Tom, and Democracy00:02:59
Fill her up!
You are listening to the gas human.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Heart of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is the king of the caulks, Robbie the Fire, Bernstein.
What's up, brother?
It's almost Christmas time.
That doesn't mean anything to a single Jew like you, but I have family.
It means the world to me.
Are you kidding me?
It's a wonderful time of the year.
What do you do on Christmas?
Oh, it's usually a nice, quiet day of solitude and nothing, but I live for those days, Davey Smith.
No, I do.
I know you are, you are a loner, Rob.
You always have been.
But yeah.
Anyway, but for the people listening to the show, I'm sure a lot of you guys are seeing family or doing some fun stuff.
I will, this is, I think I'm right about this.
This is how crazy things are, which by the way, oh, Rob, I don't know if I got to send you a copy of Tom Woods' new book.
All right.
Dude, it's so good.
I'm almost done with it.
And it's just so good.
It's just a book all about the COVID regime and how wrong they were.
And it just takes you through the whole thing, like what we knew by this point, but how they just kept doing this.
And it's almost cathartic to read, even though it gets you angry.
You're like, yes, thank you.
I did just live through this and someone is documenting all of it.
Anyway, I'm almost done with the book.
And then I'm going to have Tom on to interview him about it.
But I wanted to read, you know what I mean?
Like I hate interviewing people about a book you haven't read yet.
So and especially with the GOAT Tom Woods, I wanted to show him the respect of having it done.
And then I got quite a reading list now because I just got Jim Bovard's new book.
And I believe Keith Knight's book is in the mail on the way to me.
So I got to read all these books and then have all these people on the show.
But anyway, the reason I said this, I actually think I'm right about this.
I believe this is the first Christmas where Fauci hasn't given some type of warning.
Because even last year, he was still saying, like, well, you know, if your family isn't vaccinated, then it really isn't safe to have Christmas with them.
This is the first Christmas where we haven't seen public health officials even pretending that there's some type of.
They were, through Christmas 2022, still trying to scare people out of just having a holiday season with their family.
I think they took all the farmer profits that they could off of the uh first mRNA thing and they're gonna have to work up some sort of a new racket for if they're trying to implement health passports or pushing it further.
Insurrection Rules and Legal Standards00:16:42
So I think that I think the COVID part of the story is over.
This was uh that.
I think you're right.
This part this was Hans Hermann Hoppe's uh in his famous book Democracy, The God That Failed.
This was one of the major arguments that he made, which accept it or reject it, but it's at least something worth thinking about.
And this is why he was saying the problems with democracy as opposed to, say, like a monarchy, is that if you have a monarch and he feels some sense of ownership of the country and he's going to leave it to his children, which is typically how monarchies worked, then there's at least an incentive for him to keep the thing going and pass off something valuable to his kids.
Whereas when you have politicians who are democratically elected for, let's say, a four or six year term, then all of the incentives are to just expropriate as much resources as you can in the shortest amount of time and kick the can down to whoever's next.
You know what I mean?
Like, so yeah, run up a debt.
Who cares?
It's not your kids' debt.
It's whoever the hell is the next sucker who's in there.
Anyway, just when you said that about like they've kind of gotten all the money they can out of that one big, you know, big pharma push, it just kind of reminds me of that.
There's definitely something to that point.
I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case that monarchy is preferable to democracy.
I see counter arguments to that as well, but there's definitely a point to that.
All right.
Anyway, before we get into the meat of today's show, one more reminder because tickets are selling fast.
This New Year's Eve, me and Robbie the Fire Bernstein, along with our brother Chris Vega, are going to be doing a live stand-up show, a live part of the problem and a meet and greet party afterward, all on New Year's Eve, right here in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
It's one ticket to the whole thing.
So it's a whole night.
Come spend your New Year's with us.
It's going to be a party.
I'm really looking forward to this.
And it's going to be great shows and great times.
Had by all.
ComicdaveSmith.com.
Go there if you'd like to get tickets and we will see you on New Year's Eve.
Okay.
So obviously, Rob, it's a huge story, unbelievable story.
You know, every time we do this show three days a week, we've done so many different, so many podcasts together.
And we always kind of start by talking about what the big thing going on right now is or what the thing that, you know, the thing that we have the most to say about topic that we think matters.
And then sometimes you have these stories where you're like, oh, this isn't just the lead in today's podcast.
This is a really big deal.
This is like a major story in the history of the United States of America.
And this one is particularly, it's an interesting feeling because it's kind of something that me and you have really been predicting for quite a while now.
And sometimes even when you kind of predict something, not that we predicted this exactly, but we predicted something like this was going to start to happen.
But it's, it's a weird feeling when you predict something and then it happens and you're still kind of shocked.
You know what I mean?
Like you still almost can't like you're like, yeah, no, I know I said this was going to happen, but I still can't believe it's actually going down.
Of course, what we're referring to is that Donald Trump has been officially, at least for now, kicked off the ballot in Colorado.
The Colorado state Supreme Court determined that Donald Trump would be kicked off the ballot invoking the 14th Amendment and saying that he is an insurrectionist and therefore is ineligible for public office.
Now, all people seem to all be pretty convinced that this is going to go to the Supreme Court.
There's a few, just my understanding, and I'm no lawyer, but I have heard some lawyers talk about this and read a few of them.
And from what I understand, the Supreme Court now, if they take up this case, it becomes a national policy.
So in other words, if the Supreme Court were to determine that he is an insurrectionist and is ineligible to be on the ballot, that wouldn't just apply to Colorado.
That would apply to all 50 ballots.
Okay.
So this is now literally the Supreme Court is going to have in their hands whether or not the frontrunner, the former president of the United States of America is allowed to be on the ballot.
That's just no matter how you feel about this story, you have to recognize this is pretty crazy.
The 14th Amendment was put into place after the Civil War to deal with, and again, however you feel about the Civil War, but it was put in place to deal with people who had just fought a war against the United States of America, who were actively trying to leave the union.
And then right after the war, they turned around and said, well, hey, if you took an oath to the Constitution and then you were part of an insurrection against the government, you're barred from holding public office.
The idea of trying to use that today is pretty goddamn crazy.
Anyway, any thoughts you have to start this off?
Because there's a lot of different angles that we can go to this, Rob, but you decide how we're going to go here.
What do you think?
Well, before we even delve in, just the policy of being barred from the ballot seems odd to me.
Cause if I read the 14th Amendment, they should be passing a law that he's ineligible to be president.
Because from what I understand at ballots, you could write someone in and he could still win.
So this the entire, just in my OCD brain of, you know, autism, I don't even understand the ballot conversation here.
It would seem to me like you should be having a conversation that says he's ineligible to run for president.
Right.
Yeah, I get your point.
Like, I don't even understand why this is a ballot conversation.
If you're saying that if your interpretation of this is that he was involved in insurrection and a person involved in an insurrection can't run, then like, why take him off the ballot?
That seems kind of almost inconsequential.
Or, you know, but to move on to my next point, firstly, you know, I was reading the amendment yesterday and I've noticed that these amendments are written like the way you got to read like alternative side parking signs, which you might not be that familiar with, but you got to be like, all right, but it's Tuesday at 12 and am I a commercial?
Because like they list so many things that you have to decide whether or not I'm being excluded.
And these things are written in the worst where it's like all people.
Firstly, I'm just saying, if you're looking at the language, it says electors of president and then it lists various categories.
So it would seem to me to be excluding the president.
I don't know why they can't just say all people for all people in office.
There was a lower court who said that the president was excluded.
That that was also a Michigan case recently that also ruled the other way on this exact same thing.
Or I forget which state it was, but a different state ruled the other way.
But just off the bat, these things aren't written very well.
And then the unqualified terms of engaging in insurrection and then saying that what Donald Trump did was an insurrection without actually putting the guy on trial for doing an insurrection.
Yeah.
Well, we're going to get into that because that really is at the heart of the matter.
So anyway, before we do that, Joe Biden did weigh in on his take on this.
Let's go to the president of the United States, his thought on his opponent, who's crushing him in the polls right now, being removed from one of the ballots.
Well, I think so, something you're self-evident.
We saw it all whether the 14th amount of the five or let the court make that decision, but he certainly supported every insurrection.
No question about it.
None, zero.
And he seems to be doubling down on about everything.
Anyway, it's almost hard to not find charming about Joe Biden.
Like he just, he's such a weird, demented person.
And so he like first goes, I'm not going to comment on that.
And then she keeps asking and he just weirdly starts walking toward her.
And it's almost like, is he going to jump this lady?
What's going on here?
And then, of course, he does just comment on it.
After saying he won't comment on it, he just gives a comment.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor, brand new sponsor.
We're very happy to have on board.
And that is Ground News.
Look, last week we talked about one of the most viral videos of the year, which was Elon Musk's response to his advertisers at the New York Times summit.
It, of course, was covered widely by media who had a lot to say about it.
This is why I'm excited to tell you about Ground News.
This app and website combines news articles from across the world and political spectrum so you can compare coverage.
And they're sponsoring this episode.
If you look up the story on Ground News, you'll see almost 200 articles were published on it and coverage was pretty evenly split across the political spectrum.
When I looked closer at the headlines, I noticed some of the sources would emphasize his apology for his anti-Semitic tweet, while others just focused on his message to advertisers.
What I find particularly useful is that next to each source, Ground News provides a rating of how factual their reporting is based on a combination of three independent news monitoring organizations and the ownership of the source.
They even aggregate sources from Russian state-owned media, which is important, especially considering platforms remove these sources.
It's really interesting to read the news this way, where knowing where the news is coming from can influence the way they spin the story.
And this is really important for things like the Israel-Palestine war and the upcoming presidential elections.
I think what Ground News is doing is really important.
Check it out at ground.news slash Dave Smith.
This month, they're offering their biggest discount of the year, 40% off the Vantage subscription, which is what I have access to.
I highly encourage you to check it out.
Thank you to Ground News for supporting today's show.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Anyway, so that's Joe Biden's comment.
It's like, well, he's clearly an insurrectionist.
You know, he supported an insurrection.
I think that's self-evident.
So this is what they're going to say, but it gets, here's the major problem you have with this.
And it's such a major problem that it's hard to imagine the Supreme Court, especially with its current makeup, doesn't strike this down.
But anyway, we can get into a whole bunch of what that really means after this.
But look, no matter how you feel about Donald Trump, no matter how you feel about January 6th, you might want to ask yourself, since obviously the Justice Department not only despises Donald Trump, but is quite willing to prosecute Donald Trump.
I think that's self-evident.
I think it's pretty self-evident that the corporate press, by and large, hates Donald Trump and will support any prosecution of him.
And I think it's pretty obvious that there's a lot of progressive DAs who will be happy to bring charges against Donald Trump.
I think all of that is self-evident.
And you might ask yourself, why is he not being charged with insurrection?
Why is he not being charged with incitement of violence?
Why is it that none of them will bring that charge?
Which, by the way, of all of the things he has been charged for, you have to admit that it's not like they've got Donald Trump for rape or murder or assault or extortion or like something that we all kind of know as of as a crime.
These are obvious crimes.
They've got him on these novel legal theories of things that you're like, eh, documents weren't returned or this or, you know what I mean?
But incitement to violence is a pretty, that's a real crime.
Everybody knows that's a crime, right?
How come no one will bring that charge against him?
Because there is no case.
There is simply no case because the law is very clear.
And the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, not Trump's Supreme Court, previous Supreme Courts have already ruled on this, that in order for something to be incitement to violence, you have to directly call for violence.
So if I is say to Rob, I go, Rob, I want you to go punch that guy in the face and you go and punch that guy in the face.
You can be charged and I can be charged for that.
If I say, I'll give you $100,000 if you kill somebody and you do it, you can be charged for that and I can be charged for that because I explicitly called for actionable violence.
Now, if I were to say, I think it's really great that Rob punched that guy in the face, I can't be charged for that.
I'm allowed to give my opinion on violence.
I just can't incite it.
Okay.
So that's the law.
Now, there's almost two hurdles that you have to get past here.
And both of them are just ridiculous.
They're just ridiculous.
The first hurdle is that January 6th was an insurrection.
Okay.
And that's pretty tough, actually, to get past because you might just say the word insurrection because it feels like an insurrection to you.
But like there, look, there were no guns there.
I mean, there were guns there.
The cops had them.
But this was not an armed attempt.
The idea that you can say this was an attempt to overthrow the government, even if you want to say, look, they were certifying the elections and many of them went down there to try to disrupt that process.
That is still light years away from attempting to overthrow the government.
It just is.
It's like saying, let's say, you know, you have these crazy like protests on college campuses all the time.
Let's say there was like a ceremony where they were, you know, like they have a new campus university president is being, you know, is taking over.
And here's the ceremony where he officially becomes president and they protest this ceremony to not let it happen.
So like, okay.
So like maybe at a later time, they have to make this guy president or maybe they're not.
But if they were to do that, you would never say if this happened at say Harvard University, it wouldn't be reasonable to say they tried to overthrow the regime at Harvard and take it for themselves.
Because there's just like, where's the next step toward that actually happening?
There's no real attempt.
This isn't a coup.
There's no real attempt at a coup here.
Remember back, what's his name?
Oh, God damn, I'm blanking on his name.
The awful mustache guy who is Trump's national security advisor.
Bolden, yes.
When he even he was like, he's like, listen, that wasn't a coup.
I've been a part of a lot of coups and that was not a coup.
And he's like, dude, I overthrow governments for a living.
And let me tell you, that ain't it.
It just wasn't.
And yes, were there, there were some, there were some like a few people got like trampled and some windows got broken and there were violent elements to january 6th.
Um now, of course also we don't exactly know what level of federal involvement there was.
There certainly were also elements of cops moving barricades and walking people around and giving guided tours.
That also happened.
All of that happened.
But to just assert that that was an insurrection especially when an amendment was written, obviously referring to a civil war, to where there was an actual war with hundreds of thousands of people dead, with with the, the South asserting that they were no longer part of the United States Of America to compare this to that is just, it's ridiculous, it's.
But even if you were to meet that threshold, even if you were to meet that threshold it, legally speaking, what what Joe Biden said there where he goes, Trump supported an insurrection.
So supporting isn't the standard.
That's not the standard.
That's not the legal standard.
Breaking the Rules for Trump00:15:29
You could, you could be like, oh, I think that's good that that happened.
That doesn't mean you're an insurrectionist.
The question would be, did he incite the insurrection?
And, legally speaking, there's just no way you can possibly get there.
Because, first off, it's not only that, Trump never explicitly told people to stop the certification of the election, or told people to enter the Capitol Building, or told anyone to commit any act of violence.
More than that, he explicitly told them to remain peaceful, and that's just it.
At that, the whole thing falls apart.
There's simply no way.
Even if you were to accept that January 6th was an insurrection, which frankly is just ridiculous.
But even if you were to accept that, Donald Trump didn't incite it.
Now, it's totally reasonable for people to say, totally reasonable to say that, look, this wouldn't have happened if Donald Trump hadn't done the things he had done and that it was reckless of him to keep saying that the election was stolen.
And then it was reckless.
for him to tell people to go protest and he should have foreseen that something here could have gone bad.
That's a fair argument, but it does not make him an insurrectionist.
It just doesn't in the same sense that like that uh like okay, if I were to tell you to go commit violence to on somebody and you did it, then fine, you could say I incited the violence.
But if I just told you Rob, I think it's a really good idea for you to go walk around a bad neighborhood and yell provocative things, and you did it.
I didn't incite violence.
You could say what I did was reckless and that I shouldn't have done it.
It was poor leadership, like.
There's lots of comments you could make about it, but there's just no way to get there.
So now you have this uh Colorado Supreme Court asserting that Donald Trump is guilty of something that he's never been charged with, and he would never even be charged with it because the key, even in a blue district, it would be laughed out.
There's no legal standard by which you could claim he's done this thing, but yet you're saying this is the thing that's going to keep him off of the ballot.
It's just, i'm sorry.
Just like all the other things, this is a naked attempt to interfere in the democratic process.
That's it.
That's all we're looking at here.
Any, uh any thoughts, rob?
Yeah, it certainly seems like they've been doing everything they can to possibly eliminate him.
Uh, this one seems like it's half baked, because I don't see the Supreme Court not throwing it out.
So I almost don't really understand uh, why they went through the process, unless maybe they actually believe that uh, the Supreme Court's gonna gonna view this.
But I think, as you put well, they seem to just jump past the um, the insurrection part and treat this as a given that he was involved in an insurrection.
And, like you said, go try that.
Like, why is this automatically the definition of the of an insurrection?
Um because, as you put it, it doesn't seem like.
And and if this is a violent insurrection?
I mean, we've said it a thousand times on the show, but did anyone who supported black lives matter, any politician who supported that?
Were they involved in a violent insurrection?
I certainly in Portland, saw them attacking federal buildings right and now this is no longer even the only instance of people invading capitol buildings.
I think there was this year.
There was an incident with uh uh, I think, both Palestinians and Transgender I I forgot the exact instance, one definitely, I remember that yeah yeah, it doesn't seem like this is the only instance of people and going into capitol buildings.
So like, give me a definition.
You know what I mean?
Is the definition of an insurrection that I speak to a crowd of people and I support the cause and then, in conjunction of what with what i'm speaking about, they enter into a capitol building.
Is that, is that the definition of insurrection?
You know what I mean.
It's just uh.
Also, you had mentioned um, the uh, um obstruction of, like an official proceeding which uh is now going.
This is another case that's going before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has three Donald Trump cases they've got whether or not he's even allowed to be uh tried at all for actions while he was president, which you would think that that would become the start, the starting point I don't know why Donald Trump, by the way, doesn't want that one going to the Supreme Court, but Jack Smith got that one expedited and you'd think that that would be the starting point is whether or not we could even try the president right then they they also have whether or not the I guess both Donald Trump and January 6th people who are currently sitting in jail for this charge, whether or not.
I guess obstruction of uh of an official proceeding is a good charge and to take a step back on that one, it apparently it exists because of Enron, but to me it's like it's almost it's not quite a thought crime but to me, like in a uh, from a justice standpoint, it has a similar problem as a thought crime, which is like, find me guilty of something if I was engaged in financial fraud, find me guilty of the financial fraud getting in the way of you.
Finding me guilty of financial fraud should not be its own crime.
The crime is the financial fraud that I engaged in.
So if you've got something on the books as loose as, like you know uh, obstruction of an official proceeding or whatever the link like I don't know, if I fart in a meeting, can I go to jail for 20 years?
Now, like you, come up with a very loose term which uh, this is how you end up with corrupt governments is you create these laws that at any point in time, you You can go into your bookshelf and go, hey, what law can I find this guy guilty from?
Oh, here's something from 1776 that we never used.
Here's something from 1830 that we wrote once.
Like, you know, you know, I mean, that's not, that's not fair.
That's not just, right.
And you just can't ignore the optics of all of this.
Like, I, you know, it's like people might want to get like very pedantic to try to find some type of defense.
But the bottom line is that the way a justice system, if it's behaving in anything close to a legitimate matter, is you would think it would be something like, particularly when you're talking about the frontrunner for president of the United States of America, the former president of the United States of America, that it would be something like, look, we don't want to interfere in this election,
but there is this blatant crime and we just don't have the option of not prosecuting for it.
Like, look, this is, this is black and white.
Clearly there's a crime committed here.
And when you have to get into any of these like ancient statutes or never before invoked novel legal theories or anything like that, it's just going to come off as what it is.
Blatantly, you're trying to get this guy out of there because you're not confident you can beat him in an election.
That's just the reality of it.
Novel legal theories, you might as well say, yeah, we're testing some bullshit.
Yeah.
That's literally what you're saying.
Hey, no one's ever tried this before, but we've got unlimited resources and we're trying to get this guy out of the game.
So why not?
Right.
And it's just clear that it's not as if you're saying, look, we have this statute and he clearly broke it and we have no option but to prosecute.
You're saying, maybe if I twist this statute around and combine it with this other one and interpret it in this way, then maybe we have a case that we could get him on.
That's it's just so obvious.
That's what's going on here.
And it doesn't require you to like be a Trump supporter or a Trump hater.
It just requires you to live in reality to see that that's what's happening.
But then it leads to some other questions, which are like, look, as far as I'm concerned, there has been a very clear signal sent, a very clear signal sent from the most powerful institutions in this country that Donald Trump will not be allowed to be president again.
That's the way I'm reading this.
And they're basically trying right now to go, what's the least damaging to ourselves way of doing this?
And they're throwing a lot of different things at the wall.
And like you said, I think this Colorado thing is going to fail.
But I think the signal's already been sent that this guy will not be allowed to be president again.
And I think that's the next step that people are going to have to grapple with.
Go ahead.
Well, you know, it's so rich the way they yell that we can't allow him to become president because he's going to go after his political enemies.
That essentially the way that the system was always played was you understood you don't go after previous administrations because if you do, at some point, you might lose your power and they'll come after you.
And then you start playing by totally new rules of political power, which is the way dictatorships are run, which is you come into power and you got to execute a whole lot of people so that there's no one else who can possibly claim the throne.
And so that's kind of a losing game.
And so in American politics, you didn't go after previous administrations for their crimes because you understood then I'm putting a crosshairs on myself that when I leave and I'm not holding the political power, they're going to come after me.
Donald Trump was such an enemy of the system that the system went, we're going to break this norm and we're going to go after him.
It's almost shocking that once they broke that norm, they haven't been able to walk away with much bigger wins because you would need the guy out.
So they're possibly going to seize his buildings in New York City.
That's still on the table.
They crashed his party in Mar-a-Lago.
They've, you know, they're saying that there's potential jail time for January 6th.
Now they're pulling him off.
But the point is, they've said it.
They said, we can't let this guy back into office because then he's going to turn this thing around and come back at us.
But now when you're witnessing all of these half-assed attempts that don't seem to be working, don't seem to be winning, you wonder what cards do they have up their sleeves?
Are they planning on rigging another election?
Not to say that they rigged the last one as like, I don't know.
And I don't, they certainly didn't seem to provide good evidence that they did.
But it's like, I'm just saying, it's like, what tricks do they have up their sleeves?
Because just from like simple game theory of going after previous administrations, you would think that they would have to make sure that they were in like a no-lose situation here.
And this all seems like half-assed stuff that's not sticking.
And not just that, that look, I mean, there was already polling data that showed President Trump's poll numbers have gone up.
And this is happening like every single time.
And so they're in this kind of, we're in this escalation where they try to take Trump out.
He gets more popular.
They try to take him out.
He gets more popular.
And then you're left in a situation where the guy who is now, in many ways, because of this attempt to take them out, is now the clear favorite to be the next president of the United States of America.
Like if you just let the vote happen, it seems pretty overwhelming that Trump's going to be reelected.
And so now it's just getting worse and worse and worse because if you do take this guy out, it's becoming more and more clear that you've thwarted the will of the people.
And again, as you said, this is from the people who claim that the most important thing is democracy.
That democracy is on the ballot this year.
And if Trump wins, it's not democracy anymore.
And all we care about is protecting democracy.
And therefore, we can't just have an election because this guy might win.
It's all like the, it's all this self-contradicting, you know, nonsense, but it's, it's pretty insane to watch it all play out.
And look, if the reality is, as I suspect it is, that they're going to win.
You know, I'm just saying if you had, if I had to bet on the deep state or I had to bet on democracy, I'm betting on the deep state.
Like that's, that's who tends to win that, that game.
And so let's just say hypothetically, they are able to take Trump out.
Man, what the hell does that look like?
That's a really big question that we all need to be thinking about.
I think they might not be able to do it.
I think what all of this has been is just racking up pressure to try and pressure him out and go, hey, here's the cost of if you're running.
And he's just had the balls to stay with it, stay in there and go, I'm going for it.
And I think it's kind of the, there's like these intangibles.
Like, for example, I believe that, you know, and you'll agree with me, every person in America owning a gun or having the ability to own a gun, I do think it keeps the government in check because, you know, there's a little bit of a cap on how tyrannical they can get before, hey, everyone's got a gun.
And so, you know, that kind of is like part of like the algorithm and equation of our relationship with government.
And I've said this before.
It's a little bit like they test the airwaves with us and then they'll change their story once they see how the market reacts.
I think that even like some like the diehard of all diehard liberals, some of them just see Trump as this thing that's so evil that it's like a parasite of the system.
And so we need to suspend democracy to remove Donald Trump.
In order to save democracy.
In order to save democracy.
He's the parasite of when we thought out democracy, we didn't realize that there could be a Donald Trump.
And that's like the thing that will corrupt the entire system.
So once we remove that parasite, we can go back to having democracy and they don't care if you break the rules for it.
Other people realize if we're breaking the rules for this, then we don't have a democracy.
And I think that that's objectionable to enough people that if they do something that's like that they can't sell as being actually a part of like the process or a fair, in some ways fair.
I don't, I think 70%, if I throw a number on it, 70% of the country will oppose it.
And just one last thing.
I call that it's the racist old lady problem.
Every time they beat up on Donald Trump in ways that's not fair, I think he earns support the same way that like if I saw a bunch of people harassing an old lady in the street, I don't care what that, I'm like, don't harass that old lady.
And then if you stopped harassing the old lady and she started screaming, it's the damn blacks in my town.
I go, that, I don't know why the lady turned into Mark Norman.
But anyways, you go, you got to, you got to go get that old lady, right?
So that's the problem with Donald Trump.
He's unlikable for a lot of reasons.
But if you're turning him into the victim, he's going to earn mass support.
Yeah, no, I think that's right.
And I think that Donald Trump's energy was always that people hate these corrupt institutions.
And so whatever his flaws are, the more that he can make the story, it's me versus the deep state, the better off he is.
And now they are insisting that this is the story.
There's no other way to look at it now.
And so now, you know, that I think, yes, that benefits Trump.
All right, guys, let's take a moment to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is yokratom.com, home of the $60 kilo.
Listen, if you are over the age of 21 and if you enjoy Kratom, make sure to go get your Kratom from yokratom.com.
They've got the best quality stuff.
It's all lab tested and it's delivered right to your door.
So it's very convenient and it's the best price you're going to find anywhere, $60 for a kilo.
They've been a huge sponsor of this show and this entire network, a longtime sponsor for us, one of, if not the most loyal.
So if you enjoy Kratom, make sure to go get your Kratom from yokratom.com, home of the $60 kilo.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy00:15:24
I wanted to talk a little bit about the response to this so far.
So Vivek Ramaswamy, who really has turned out to be, in my opinion, a shrewd political candidate.
So he had a long tweet about or ex post about this.
I wanted to read it.
So Vivek Ramaswamy said, this is what an actual attack on democracy looks like.
In an un-American, unconstitutional, and unprecedented decision, a cabal of Democratic judges are barring Trump from the ballot in Colorado.
Having tried every trick in the book to eliminate President Trump from running in this election, the bipartisan establishment is now deploying a new tactic to bar him from ever holding office again, the 14th Amendment.
I pledge to withdraw from the Colorado GOP primary unless Trump is allowed to be on the state's ballot.
And I demand that Ron DeSantis, Chris Christie, and Nikki Haley do the same immediately, or else they are tacitly endorsing this illegal maneuver, which will have disastrous consequences for our country.
Today's decision is the latest election interference tactic to silence political opponents and swing the election for whatever puppet the Democrats put up this time by depriving Americans of the right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
The 14th Amendment was part of the Reconstruction Amendments that were ratified following the Civil War.
It was passed to prohibit former Confederate military and political leaders from holding high federal or state office.
These men had clearly taken part in a rebellion against the United States, the Civil War.
That makes it all the more absurd that a left-wing group in Colorado is asking a federal court to disqualify the 45th president on the same grounds, equating his speech to rebellion against the United States.
And there's another legal problem.
Trump is not a former office of the United States.
Excuse me.
Trump is not a former officer of the United States as that term is used in the Constitution, meaning Section 3 does not apply.
As the Supreme Court explained in Free Enterprise Fund versus Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2010, an officer of the United States is someone appointed by the president to aid him in his duties and article 2 under Article 2, Section 2.
The term does not apply to elected officials and certainly not to the president himself.
The framers of the 14th Amendment would be appalled to see this narrow provision intended to bar former U.S. officials who switched to the Confederacy from seeking public office being weaponized by a sitting president and his political allies to prevent a former president from seeking re-election.
Our country is becoming unrecognizable to our founding fathers.
So that was Vivek Ramaswamy's tweet.
It has 5.9 million views as of right now.
I thought not only is he largely correct in what he's saying there, but I just thought this was really brilliant political strategy.
Because now he look what Vivek's been doing this whole time.
He's as this, the idea of whether Trump will be able to run or not hangs in the balance.
And look, fair enough, Rob, I get your point.
Maybe you're right.
And I shouldn't be betting on the deep state in this solution.
Maybe he'll be able to be able to survive this, but at least it's in doubt.
It's in doubt.
There's a question as to whether they'll be able to get him off of there.
And if they do, then the question becomes, where does all of Donald Trump's support go?
Because basically that's the only chance for anyone else to be the Republican nominee.
I think we can all agree on that at this point.
There's no chance if Trump's on the ballot, he does not win the nomination.
The Republican voters have been overwhelmingly clear in this.
The only question is if he is removed from the equation somehow, where does his support go?
And Vivek has positioned himself to be the most attractive candidate to all of Trump's supporters.
He's also positioned himself to be Trump's favorite in the group.
If you're picking a cabinet appointment, maybe vice president, that's not a bad place to be.
The only guy who's not really fighting with Donald Trump.
Now, Vivek has now, even though this, you could argue it's kind of a silly thing to pull yourself off the ballot too.
Like, how exactly does that make sense as a counter to all of this?
But now he's said, I'm pulling myself off the ballot.
And he's demanding DeSantis and Chris Christie and what's her name?
Nikki Haley.
Nikki Haley.
They're sitting around, but they're like, yeah, but we're part of the deep state.
That was the whole plot.
If we get a wall, then one of us can actually win.
But what Vivek's done here, which is really brilliant, is that no matter what they do now, they seem like they're not as appalled as he is because they're not going to take themselves off the ballot.
So it seems like he's the one who really objected.
And now he can accuse them of tacitly supporting what they're doing.
I just thought this was a really smart strategy by Vivek.
So anyway, that's his response to it.
DeSantis was asked about it recently and he was like, no, I won't be pulling myself off the ballot.
That just gives in to the woke left.
And so I have to keep myself on the ballot.
Because of course, those guys are hoping that if Trump is removed, that they have a shot at being the nominee.
But I got to tell you, I think Vivek Ramaswamy has positioned himself to be the only one who can really carry Trump's America first type voters.
I just don't think the rest of them have sold that.
Actually what they?
They stand for?
Um, they're they're giving tired old Neocon talking points really threw a wrench into the deep state's plan of putting up three of the exact same thing you want, the fat one, the young one or the lady one?
Which one of the people who all who agree with us on everything would you like up there?
Um, speaking of?
So, Nikki Haley has been getting a lot of uh, a lot of um, big meetings, big donors, things like that um, and it is.
It is quite funny to watch how these people it's basically like, and and this is one of the things that's that's very interesting, especially in the Republican Party it's true, to some degree in the Democratic Party too, but not as much and that there is this enormous chasm between what donors and the deep state wants versus what your voting block wants.
And you can see where people like Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy, flawed as they both may be they are auditioning for voters.
Every time you hear him speak, every time you see Vivek at a debate or or any type of interview or anything like that, he's talking to voters.
He's trying to win over the people who vote.
Nikki Haley and Chris Christie and to a lesser extent, but not that much lesser.
Uh, Ron De Santis, they are not talking to voters, they are talking to donors, and you can see that in everything they say, that they're oh, they're trying to audition then, and so you watch this thing, and this is what Nikki Haley is in The business of doing now is just constantly signaling to all of the powerful special interests that hey i'll, i'll be good for your business.
Like I will totally go along, i'll say anything, i'll degrade myself and humiliate myself in public.
If that'll get you a new war, don't worry about me.
I you, you sent me this video.
Uh Rob, this is uh, Nikki Haley.
Uh, at a town hall the other day.
Pretty incredible, let's play that.
Remember when I told you Putin hit rock bottom Hamas, invaded Israel and did all that brutality on october 7th.
October 7th is Putin's birthday.
Who's the happiest person in the world right now Putin why?
Because the?
U.s and the West took all their eyes off of Ukraine and what'd we do?
Started looking at Israel.
Did Putin call Netanyahu?
Nope, not for 10 days.
You know who?
He did call Hamas.
They came the next day and they held hands and said they were friends.
We now know the Russian intelligence is what helped Homas know how to get through that barrier.
See the connection.
If we supported Ukraine and supported Israel, that's only five percent of our defense vote.
Well, there you go.
I mean I, I really couldn't, Couldn't even believe she went with this thing that October 7th.
You know, whose birthday that is?
Vladimir Putin's.
How do you feel now?
I mean, she really should have, like, she was Charlie Day with the blackboard behind her, like smoking the cigarette.
It's all yeah, Lincoln, none of these people exist.
I mean, that is just on, like, it's literally on the level of like, I don't know.
Like, Vladimir Putin didn't call Netanyahu for 10 days.
Do you know what half of 10 is?
Five.
You know what one more than that is?
Six.
You know what three sixes in a row are?
The devil.
So what do you think's going on here?
Connect the dots, people.
Obviously, just to be clear.
I heard on Tuesday that this person ate lunch and on Wednesday, that person ate lunch.
You know, who likes lunch?
Hitler, famous for liking lunch.
Look, there has been absolutely zero evidence that has shown any Russian involvement with October 7th.
But hey, who the fuck cares about that, right?
We got a war to sell, baby.
I don't know.
Mention a whole bunch of things.
It literally reminds me of the neocons push for war in Iraq.
It's just like, I don't know, man.
Just say the things that get people scared and emotional.
Just throw them out there.
Doesn't matter.
9-11.
Bombs.
Mushroom cloud.
WMDs.
You ready?
Ready to fight a war now?
That's it.
That's all you got to do.
Yeah.
It's like, I think what South Park was making fun of Family Guy and they had the manatees that were just like pushing the storyline.
This is like her speech writers.
Just give me five random pieces of information.
Cheese on a board with a knife.
We need another war.
All right.
Well, you ever like cut cheese on a board and you didn't have a good knife?
And yeah, well, that's what they're trying to do to us.
We better bomb them.
It's really just unbelievable.
So that's, but, but this goes to the point that I'm making.
And I don't think this is crazy.
I heard a few people gave me like a little bit of pushback on social media after a few episodes ago when I was talking about how I think the fake Ramaswamy has positioned himself to get all of Trump's support.
I say all of them.
I'm exaggerating a little bit, but the lion's share.
And, you know, people were saying, well, you're just assuming it's going to go to Trump.
It could quite possibly go to DeSantis.
It could go to Nikki Haley.
But I'm just saying, I don't think, I don't think someone talking like this is going to get the support of Trump voters.
I don't see that happening.
And even DeSantis, I think, is in a much weaker position because he's not taking like a firm America first anti-establishment position.
He's trying to have his cake and eat it too.
He's trying to like be like, yeah, I'm kind of against, I'm against the woke left, but in a way that donors will still find palatable.
And I just think Vivek Ramaswamy is the only one right now.
He's the only Republican who is taking these positions that are going to be attractive to Trump voters.
And he's pissing everybody off and he's seen as always fighting with everybody.
And he's positioned himself as like the outsider candidate who's there in the mix.
And if Trump is removed, I think he becomes the favorite.
That's who I'd put my money on.
Now, that being said, obviously, as I mentioned before, short of Trump being removed, Donald Trump is going to be the nominee.
And, you know, in some ways, they've assured that that's the case if they don't remove him.
You know, there is a people have a conspiracy theory that basically like this is the Pied Piper strategy that they know that this is going to increase Donald Trump's support level.
And that's why they're doing it because they actually want Trump in a general election and that they, you know, they think Biden can beat him because he already beat him once.
So that's what they want to do.
I just don't buy that.
Now, in defense of that conspiracy theory, we do know that this is what they did in 2016, that Hillary Clinton's campaign was urging MSNBC and CNN to cover Trump constantly because they wanted to run against him because they thought he was the weakest candidate.
But I mean, that blew up in their face.
And the idea that they would try that again seems so crazy to me.
Again, they did do it once.
So I guess I could understand where people assume they're doing it again.
I just think this is way too dangerous this time.
It's totally different.
I mean, for one, Hillary Clinton was beating Trump in all of the polls.
Trump is beating Biden in all of the polls right now.
So wouldn't they wouldn't like, I can't imagine they would be that stupid that they'd think we should actually get this guy.
I just don't buy that they think Donald Trump is a weaker candidate nationally than Nikki Haley or someone like that is.
I just, I have a tough time buying that.
Vivic against Biden would be hilarious.
I don't think, by the way, I don't think Biden's making it all the way to the race.
I think at some point they're going to pull the news and swap out, but we'll see how that plays out.
But I remember I read, what was his book?
Man, I just had it on the top of my tongue, but I read that years ago.
I saw an op-ed in the Woke Inc.
I saw an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
And that's when ESG scores weren't as widely reported on and he was really taking it on.
And I remember thinking like, man, this guy's like woke cryptonite because he's not white and he's really just getting to the heart of this thing.
But if Biden was forced to run against a minority who's leading the Republican Party and then he's the old white guy that needs to be replaced representing whiteness, man, would that be rich?
Yeah, that, yeah, that would, that really would be something.
And look, it's not outside of the realm of possibilities, but I do tend to, I still, look, this is a really tough year to predict.
I think probably the easiest prediction is that this is going to be a wild year.
This is going to be really wild.
And it'll be fun for us to talk about.
Well, we got a lot of content.
You know, we don't have to worry about that over the next year.
But the truth is that it's, you know, sometimes it's hard to analyze these storms when you're in the middle of them.
But if you zoom out a little bit, the truth is that this country has been radically changed over the last three years.
A Wild Year Ahead00:02:05
And I think the safest prediction is that it's going to be radically changed again, you know, some more over this next year.
If I had to guess right now, I don't think Joe Biden is the nominee.
I just don't, I don't see him having this next year in him.
It is unbelievable.
In 2015, when he first started running for president, we were saying then that it's just very hard.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
In 2019, when he first started running for president, we were saying then that it was very hard to envision this guy having the stamina to go all the way in this election.
And then, of course, COVID hit and he was able to essentially not have to campaign.
But man, if you look, and this is the thing, if you look at in 2019, if you remember, Rob, at the end of when we were still doing shows in the studio in New York City, we'd be doing a lot of stuff on the Democratic primary when it was Bernie Sanders running against Joe Biden.
And this was late 2019, early 2020.
And back then, we were saying, look at Biden from just a few years ago to now and how much he's lost in his cognitive ability.
It was very obvious.
But this is, he's so much worse now.
If you go back and you look at some of those early debate performances, it's very difficult to imagine Joe Biden doing as well now as he did in late 2019.
He has declined significantly since then.
And it's just hard to imagine that he's going to have this in him over the next year.
And it's even harder to imagine that he could actually be president for another four years.
So my guess is they're going to get somebody else in there for him.
I would have thought it would have happened by now, to be honest.
So it's getting pretty late in the game, but it could still be done.
Grow Wealth with Monetary Metals00:02:03
And of course, it seems like with these charges against Hunter Biden, that you can kind of see the forms coming together.
This might be the beginning of a pathway toward Joe Biden's off-ramp and somebody else coming in.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is monetary metals.
Would you like to start earning a yield in gold paid in gold?
Of course you do.
The feds can't mess with that.
And that's why I want to tell you about monetary metals.
Monetary metals is offering a real solution to the inflation issue and the constant currency debasement by paying interest rates on gold paid in gold.
They are revolutionizing the finance space by letting you opt out of the dollar interest rates completely.
Now you can opt out of the Fed system completely by having your gold earn income denominated in ounces every month.
The interest rates from monetary metals are all denominated in gold and aren't affected by the actions of the Federal Reserve.
While owning gold has protected your wealth until monetary metals, there's never been a way to grow it.
Now with monetary metals, you can grow your wealth in ounces every month and see your wealth compound in an interest rate that's set in a free market by gold owners and gold borrowers.
Monetary metals lets you get on a sound money standard and makes it profitable to decrease your exposure to the actions of the Federal Reserve.
This means no more worrying about dollar interest rate swings or how much the dollar loses value over time.
Now you can get on your own personal gold standard and end the Fed's grip on your savings one ounce of gold at a time.
Would you rather earn 5% on dollars or 5% on gold?
If the answer is obvious, then head over to monetary-metals.com to see how you can start earning a yield on gold paid in gold.
Check them out, monetary-metals.com slash P-O-T-P.
That's what you want to check out.
Monetary-metals.com slash P-O-T-P.
All right, let's get back into the show.
They also have cleared the hurdle of RFK running in the Democratic Party.
Sound Money and Personal Gold Standard00:12:01
So it's not as if now, if someone else comes in, they now have to face off against Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
It will be interesting to see, though, if RFK Jr. manages to somehow get ballot access, who he takes more votes from in the general election and that the disenfranchised vote or the anti-system vote might find RFK more attractive or that,
you know, that when they were trying to say it's the racist that got Donald Trump in office and it turned out mostly to be the educated, college educated females that were the big voting block that pushed.
I mean, the core of Donald Trump's voting block was, you know, I think working people, but the big one that made like the big difference in the two elections was that female vote.
So it'd be interesting to see if RFK Jr. manages to just take enough from the Republican nomination to let Biden get back in.
It's possible.
It's hard to see how it's, it's hard to know exactly how it's going to play out.
He's been, it seems like since he stopped going for the Democratic Party, he's not getting nearly as much press coverage, which might just be he's doing less podcasts.
And also might just be that when he's talking about Israel and these topics, that he doesn't seem to have his finger on the pulse in terms of what the populist opinion might actually like, that he's just losing some ground.
Yeah.
Well, it's also, it's bad for if you're running as an anti-establishment candidate, it's bad when you start sounding just like the establishment.
Now, that doesn't in itself mean you're wrong about the issue.
I mean, he is wrong about this issue, but that aside, it's just not good for the energy of your campaign when you're saying the exact same thing that everybody in the political, you know, ruling class is saying.
And especially as that becomes the big topic.
So when you were, when the big topic was COVID and it was a reform on COVID, but when all of a sudden the big thing is the money that we're spending on foreign wars and you're coming in favor of one of the big ones.
So then the thing that is that's on everyone's mind, you're now, you're now the same.
And it's wild the way it's almost like, you know, like in those in like Bank Heist movies when they'll have like the like the red lasers that are the alarm system.
You know what I'm talking about?
And you got to like walk around and not touch the alarms and like you're in this crazy environment where you're like, oh, dude, if I hit this, this whole thing goes off and everybody's going to freak out.
And then it's almost like the establishment is able to just like turn that off.
And you're just like, oh, this is just, we can move freely around now.
We can't.
And with that comes this, this other component where it doesn't, it doesn't carry the same energy with it that it, that it used to.
So like opposing the vaccine now doesn't really have the same energy that opposing the vaccine two years ago had.
Cause just those red lasers have been turned off.
You're kind of allowed to.
This is the biggest proof of that.
Huh?
DeSantis is the biggest proof of that.
He was the most right or the best on that one.
And it doesn't, it doesn't earn him any points because he comments wrongly on everything else.
And I mean, I like to think it, you know, like I know in our, in our world, I hear a lot of people, I get this all the time.
And it means a lot to me, but that where people will be like, I found your show in 2020 and you and Rob kept me sane through the lockdowns.
And I think there was a real thing about this, like through the COVID regime, where people like were the whole country went insane.
And if you just heard someone talking like in a sane way and you hadn't gone insane yet, there was a very like, thank you.
Yes, I appreciate it.
And I do think that like we I think we got a lot of street cred from being so goddamn right about things during COVID.
And I'm proud of our proud of our track record.
And I appreciate that we have that.
But it is still kind of like, even with that, you got to, you got to move on to what the new important thing is and be really good on that one too.
You got to kind of keep doing it.
Otherwise, it doesn't build up.
And so, yeah, like, look, right.
Like you said, DeSantis kind of proves that.
Like, it's like, okay, that's, that was great.
You were really great then, but we got six new crises.
And so we really got to focus on these ones now.
And RFK being against the vaccine, being against the war in Ukraine, these things don't have the same amount of energy anymore.
Now, I still give him a lot of credit for being great on those things.
And I think that shouldn't be taken away from him.
But the problem is when the war in Gaza pops up now, and now we have this new thing, which is the most important thing, and he is so bad on it.
He's so bad on the most important thing right now that it just at least for me personally, it just it made me kind of lose all interest in in his campaign because, you know, it's not as if like RFK ain't Ron Paul.
And of course, he never was.
And I always knew that about him.
And there's a litany of issues that he's just really not good on.
And many of them has a very troubling past on.
And.
he's gotten a little bit better on them in the last couple years.
But I it's also never really been explained to me, like where the conversion was.
It's just kind of like oh, he doesn't talk like that anymore and now he talks like this.
But I I was willing to kind of or not willing I was I was excited about him running at the beginning because he did represent this repudiation of the Coveted regime and this repudiation of Biden's Ukraine policy and those were like the two of the biggest issues you know like and and so it was kind of like, hey look, he's really good on on war, he's really good on Covid, he's really good on the corruption of the deep state,
he's kind of good on the most important issues and sure there's a bunch of other issues that he's not so good on.
But hey, you know look, short of another Ron Paul coming around I don't know who's great on every issue right, and even when he first went on his uh like I apologize to Israel, let me give a hand job to every rabbi I can find tour I was kind of willing to roll my eyes and look the other way at that because it was like well, all right, I guess he doesn't want to step in that hornet's nest.
You know what I mean and and it's a pretty big hornet's nest to step in.
So I understand that.
Look, I tended to to feel the same way about Vivek when he was.
You know he was basically taking the non-interventionist policy but then saying, but Israel's right about everything and they're great and we totally love Israel.
I can kind of at least like, cut him some slack and go.
I don't know, he's in a different game than i'm in.
I'm in the game of just trying to tell the truth.
He's in the game of trying to get elected and get something done.
I, I get where.
Maybe he just doesn't want to step in this hornet's nest.
He's like, look, i'm already in five hornet's nests, let me just avoid this one.
I'm committing to the correct policy, which is we shouldn't be involved.
But then i'm going to say I cheer on Israel because they have a right to defend themselves, whatever.
But with with RFK, once october 7th happened, and he immediately not only said we side with uh, with Israel, not only said that we're on their side, committed us taxpayer dollars to going toward them and committed to that Israel must launch an aggressive offensive war and we must support them every step of the way, and since then has been living up to that.
For me it was just like you know and whatever.
It wasn't like upsetting or nothing like i'm used to politicians being disappointments, but it was just like, yeah, that's it.
Okay, my interest is kind of done.
I think i'd be happy to have him back on the show, but uh, I it would.
We'd have to, we'd have to talk about Israel, uh.
I think uh Trump might have a real winning hand.
Uh, with the Israel thing.
Trump is, generally speaking, very good at saying absolutely nothing other than I'll fix it.
I'll get it done in three minutes.
Don't you worry.
Kind of being on all sides of every issue.
Yeah, just put me back in charge.
Don't ask.
I'll have to get it done.
Don't worry about it.
Safe and effective.
He's good at that, Salva.
Just don't worry.
Don't ask any questions.
I'm not getting into any of the details.
Just trust me, it's going to work.
I think on the Israel one, he's got a winning hand that no one seems to want to play, which is I support the Jewish people.
I support the state of Israel.
I support that they need to defend themselves.
You know what the problem is?
It's that Netanyahu guy.
And once I get in here and I tell you what the problem with that Netanyahu guy is and the strategic blunders that he put into place that ruined his country's security, I will be happy to work with the next administration in Israel and I will bring peace from the Middle East.
No one seems to want to throw Netanyahu under the bus.
Trump seems to be happy to do so because I forgot you'll have to remind me.
Yeah, because when did Netanyahu do him dirty?
I don't remember.
It's not like you could argue Netanyahu didn't really do him dirty, but it was Trump gave everything to Netanyahu, you know, everything.
He just did whatever Israel wanted.
And, you know, moving the embassy to Jerusalem, that was a really big deal to the Netanyahu government.
Like that meant a lot.
That was America recognizing that Jerusalem is Israel's and it will never be going back to Palestine.
You know, like that was a significant move.
And there was a lot of stuff like that.
And of course, just did everything, completely followed the Netanyahu doctrine, which was essentially what all the Abraham Accords were about was following.
So Yitzhak Rabin, who was the prime minister of Israel in the 90s, who famously came over and shook Yasser Arafat's hand with Bill Clinton and all that, his at least stated strategy,
and he wasn't actually as good at this as he kind of pretended to or got credit for it, but regardless, was he was basically like, look, we're never going to be able to make peace with the rest of the Arab world unless we make peace with the Palestinians and we offer them their own state.
So we got to work out a two-state solution so that we can make peace with the broader Arab world and that way Israel can be secure.
Netanyahu came in and he was like, no, listen, here's the strategy.
We're going to make peace with the rest of the Arab world so that we never have to give the Palestinians their own state.
So we remove the threat from us and then we can just dominate them forever.
And that's the Americans deprived them.
Yes.
Yes.
That's essentially what the Abraham Accords were, was how much U.S. taxpayer dollar do you guys need in order to sell out the Palestinians and just look the other way.
And in fact, one could argue, I would argue, that October 7th was in many ways, at least partially the result of the Abraham Accords, because it's, you know, you're removing the last shred of hope from these people and that makes people dangerous.
Regardless of that, what Netanyahu did was, and I can't remember the exact date, but it was really shortly after the election.
And it was after the, like, it was after the election when Donald Trump was still contesting the election and before any of the stuff had been thrown out of courts or anything like that, when it was still at least like Donald Trump, you know, Donald Trump was pretending that he really had a strategy to contest the election and Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Joe Biden on winning.
And I remember being like, wow, look at that.
Even give him everything you want and you still got thrown under the bus immediately.
So I would not be surprised if there are some harsh feelings on Donald Trump.
As we know, Donald Trump tends to remember a thing like that.
Netanyahu Moves After Election00:00:33
All right.
Look, we got to wrap up the show there.
Thank you guys very much for listening.
Please come on out to see us on New Year's Eve, comicdave Smith.com, right here in East Rutherford.
Just a skip and a jump away from New York City.
Come on out.
Going to be a great show.
ComicdaveSmith.com.
RobbieTheFire.com for all his solo days.
Check out my end of the year thing.
Oh, yeah.
Rob's end of year spectacular is up now.
Where can people watch that?
Robbie the Fire, all one word on YouTube.
It's up in four parts and also a Run Your Mouth podcast, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at 11 a.m. Hell yeah.