Ghost hosts a spontaneous True Conservative Radio episode criticizing John McCain as a liberal and predicting Democratic election theft via superdelegates. He argues public education is infiltrated by Frankfurt University Marxists, advocating for vouchers over unions, while callers debate macroevolution's validity and condemn cap-and-trade legislation as depression-inducing. The broadcast concludes by defending the Iraq War against theocratic zealotry and urging local citizen organization to counter government overreach and entitlement-driven debt. [Automatically generated summary]
A Napa guy knows not to judge a man by his car's multicolor paint job or absence of modern gadgetry.
Who cares if it's technically old enough to vote and the windows are powered by the strength of your left arm?
Your monthly payment is zero and it'll stay that way.
Because with over 400,000 parts and a little Napa know-how, you can keep anything on the road.
She may not be pretty, but she's all yours.
That's Napa Know-How.
Look Talk Radio.
Good early morning to you or good late evening to you wherever you are in the United States or global region.
And thank you for tuning in with me for another spontaneous edition of True Conservative Radio.
I am your host, the man they call Ghost, and I'd like to thank you for tuning in with me if you happen to be up here in the midnight hour.
It's actually midnight here in the Central Time Zone, folks.
So tell you what, like I stated previous, True Conservative Radio has yet to maintain a set time slot because we're still trying to gather up all the emails of people that like me, people that hate me, whatever the case might be.
I'm trying to gauge a median, if you will, and figure out the appropriate time to consistently have True Conservative Radio.
And I'm sure if I don't have too many live listeners to me on this midnight hour, I'm pretty sure and understand why.
But anyway, folks, it is post-Democrat debate evening, if you will.
I mean, if you heard the Ohio debates this evening as it pertains to the Democrat side, you would have seen some little bit of mudslinging.
You know, I think that you saw a desperate Clinton, so to speak.
I still stand by my words that you cannot count the Clinton slime machine out of the race.
And we're going to discuss that a little bit intentionally this evening.
At the same time, we're also going to discuss something that is important to me, and it should be important to every American that's out there, and that's the international relations policy of America and what America's role should be in the international community.
And that's why I would like you folks, if you happen to be out there listening in, which I'm hoping it is midnight.
It's not like I'm putting one of those three or two in the morning shows.
So I challenge everybody out there who has strong opinions on the international community and America's involvement in it.
I would really appreciate your input.
We want to have some critical analysis, some sort of intensive discourse on these subject matters this evening.
And of course, we can't do that without your participation.
You can give me a call here, 646-652-4869.
But first, we're going to get the show started off with a little bit of debate talk and the Democratic race and what's going on there.
Because it's obvious, even though we had this ridiculous report come out of the New York Times alleging that John McCain was banging lobbyists with unethical ties, that has seemed to be swept under the rug like yesterday's business, like nothing ever happened.
And I don't understand why, if you're going to expose such a story that has serious implications, why there hasn't been responsible journalists, whether it be from the Slime Bag New York Times or any other journalistic outlet out there, I just don't understand why nobody got to the bottom of the story.
I mean, is it being swept under the rug for a reason?
I don't know, but it's pretty precarious.
But the bottom line is, is we have to understand something.
And we have to understand that John McCain has been anointed by the Republican Party.
And any true conservative out there that is looking for a choice in the presidential nomination or in the presidential elections for that matter can pretty much kiss it out the window.
It's unfortunate.
I know it makes me sick.
It makes me want to hit a bottle of old grandpa's cough medicine, if you folks know what I'm talking about.
Just thinking about the fact that I'm going to have to sit at home.
Well, I'm actually not going to sit at home and be voting for my representatives on the state level, congressional level, and Senate level.
And I encourage all of you to participate in those elections.
But as far as this presidential election is concerned, at this point, it's not only turning into a circus sideshow, but I just don't think that the American public understands the serious implications of this specific presidential election.
I mean, this is a very important election for everybody in America.
And we're going to discuss a little bit about what the Democrats talked about this evening as it pertains to the debates.
I mean, we had a pretty interesting debate.
It was semi-lively.
You had a bunch of, I mean, at least almost a 20-minute banter on health care and which candidates universal health care was better at the beginning of the debate.
I thought that was rather interesting, how they were trying to out-mandate each other.
I don't know if you were watching the debates this evening.
And if you did, we'd like to hear your opinion on it.
And you're more than welcome to call in at 646-652-4869.
But you notice it almost took 20 minutes to shut these people up about their health care plan and whose was better.
You know, they were all picking at each other that, well, you know what?
You know, you had Barack Hussein Obama saying, well, Hillary, you're going to mandate universal health care, and you haven't been specific on how you're going to collect these mandated funds from the American people.
And, you know, all this nonsense.
Hillary comes back.
Well, you know what, Barack?
You're mandating parents purchased health care for their children.
And if they don't, you know, they're going to have fines or some ridiculous nonsense.
It's just absolute malarkey.
More bureaucratic nonsense.
And this is what I'm talking about, folks.
We don't need more government in our faces.
I mean, that's the last thing we need is more government bundling.
I mean, look at what they've done to our education system, for Pete's sake.
It's ridiculous.
But then again, here in the debates on the left, the Democrats, that's the first thing they talked about, was whose universal health care was so much greater.
It was absolutely disgusting to see these Democrats salivating over each other on whether or not whose universal health care plan was worth two craps.
But it was interesting.
I mean, you know, they just would not stop talking about it.
And here you had the moderators, Russert and Brian Williams, trying to, you know, shut these Democrats up, trying to calm them down and say, hey, look, okay, you know, who cares?
You're both universal health care.
You both want government in America's faces.
I think you've established that.
Let's move on.
They couldn't shut them up.
20 minutes of absolute banter.
Which I know, folks, I know that everybody is a little bit worried about health care.
I mean, heck, I'm worried about health care.
Everybody's worried about health care.
But we need to talk about a real solution to this problem.
We don't need government in our faces.
I mean, look at what the government's done to you folks.
You take a look at the public education system.
Haven't you noticed that the bureaucrats in the public education system, the bureaucrats in the public education system, each year they want more and more teachers to be hired.
Want more schools to be built.
They need more and more.
And where does that money come from?
It comes from your pockets, folks.
It comes from your taxpaying dollars that you're working every day of your life to pay.
This comes right to your pocket.
And the more and more we appease these teachers, these administrators, these basic liberals that have infiltrated the bureaucratic system of public education, you have these people pulling the heartstrings of America, and they get their way each time.
Every time they get their way.
And so the American government and the American people appease these teachers and these educators.
Here, here's more money.
Here, here's more billions of our dollars.
Come on, teach our children.
And folks, I don't mean to be so seriously critical about our younger generation, even though I am.
But the bottom line is, folks, I'd like for you to go out personally and look for somebody that's either recently graduated from high school or is in a high school right now and just ask them a few questions, a few basic questions that you would consider common knowledge, common sense.
And let me tell you something, folks, you're going to be seriously disappointed at the responses that you get from these ridiculously materialistic imbeciles that we're producing out of the public education system.
It would make you sick.
And you see, this is what I'm talking about, folks.
We are throwing all kinds of government taxpaying money in public education, and it isn't producing a good product.
And what's a good product?
A product is a good, productive member of society.
You know, somebody, I mean, we want school that are going to spawn creativity, that are going to spawn critical thinking, innovation.
And it's obvious that this public education system that we're in here, it is retarding creativity.
It is retarding critical thinking.
As a matter of fact, you've got tools, mechanized methods of agitation, which have always been utilized by the left.
That's why I insist that the feminists and the liberals, the feminists and the liberals have infiltrated the bureaucracy of public education.
And that's why you have things such as political correctness being instilled on our children.
On our children.
The whole nonsense of political correctness.
Political correctness, folks.
And like I stated, I'd like for you all to keep up with my show.
I'm going to have a whole lecture on political correctness, where it derives from, and how I can prove to you folks that it is a political method of agitation utilized by Marxist and communists.
And I know most of you right now are thinking, oh, well, you know what?
You're off your rocker, ghost.
And I told the folks on the last show, if you want to do your own research, why don't you research Frankfurt University?
Research how Frankfurt University even became a university.
You know, read about the people that founded this school.
Read about the devout Marxists, because they were all devout Marxists.
I mean, the people that made this school were devout Marxists.
I don't want to get into it.
Okay, but the bottom line is political correctness, the whole feminist movement, all these methods of agitation that are basically retarding the growth of our civilization, that is corroding it from the inside out, folks, is directly correlated to Marxism and that school, Frankfurt University.
And you can read for yourself.
All right?
You can read it for yourself.
And you see, we don't need a government-funded mechanism of agitation that's going to sit over here and anesthetize our children with this communist propaganda, folks, and that's exactly what it's doing.
And if you think I'm a crackpipe, because I'm getting a lot of emails out here, specifically from these idiot teachers, and let me tell you something, if you're a teacher in the public education field and you can't be seriously critical about your own occupation, then you're an absolute blinded, anesthetized, propaganda-filled communist, and you're on the front lines of this garbage.
But like I suggested, folks, if you don't believe me, if you think I'm just some idiot office rocker, do the research for yourself.
Read up about Frankfurt University and read about how political correctness and how the feminist movement and these divisive issues that have basically imploded us from the inside out, it's directly correlated from the political Marxist theorist that created Frankfurt University.
And you can look it up, look up the theorists that created works around Marxism from this university, and you're going to see exactly what I'm talking about, and you're going to be absolutely sick to your stomach.
But anyway, I have some chatter in the chat room about, well, what kind of school system can we do?
How can we make sure our children get educated?
Well, that's a very good question.
First of all, I think we need to completely privatize education.
Not only, first of all, not only would that completely just throw all these bureaucrats that have done nothing but milk the government teeth for years and years and years, we can get them all out into the private sector and have them actually work for their money instead of being a part of some bureaucratic machinery that they can manipulate and do the absolute least amount of work for and continue to get a paycheck on an annual basis.
We need to privatize education.
Okay, that's first and foremost because it would spawn an economic boom in entrepreneurial ship.
I think that it'll create a new sector of industries around privatizing education.
Okay, we just need to privatize it all together.
Now, I do believe, unfortunately, that there needs to be some sort of government bureaucracy to oversee that every child is in a school, because every child needs to go to school.
And at the same time, I know that everybody can't afford privatized school.
I mean, obviously, we have a lot of folks out here that just can't come out the pocket for that.
So what can the government do?
Well, instead of paying, what is it, $500,000, $600,000, $700,000 a year for these supposed school board members of your local school districts, these people are getting $5,000, $6,000, $700,000 a pop, instead of paying these ridiculous principals for close to $200,000, $300,000 on average, instead of paying these teachers $60,000 to $65,000 a year on average,
School Voucher Debate00:14:41
and that doesn't include the three months that they're off of the year during the summer, you take all that money that's being spent, taxpayer money, okay, and you give most of it back to the people because it's the people's money to begin with.
You take the small portion that's still available, because you still need to tax people for certain government, unfortunately, I hate to say this, but government bureaucracies to oversee these mechanisms that will make sure that not only children are getting an education, but that we can ration out maybe 2,000 to 3,000.
The average cost of private school is $3,000 a year.
You give people $3,500, $4,000 a year, and make sure that their children are in these schools.
Now, you see, the thing about privatization of schools, not only does it create a new avenue for economic interest on the American soil, but it also makes sure that everyone who invests in a school, no matter who it is, anybody can administer and come out the pocket and get a school going.
If it's a group of mothers that believe that they think that morality is going off the deep end or something, they can pull their money together.
They can recruit educators, qualified, accredited educators, and then they can teach whatever it is that they want to teach.
Or if it's a group of professors, a group of biologists, a single entrepreneur, a businessman, whoever wants to invest in education, they can do so.
And you see, the parent has the choice because at this point, the government's going to give out, what, maybe $3,000, $4,000 a year.
I mean, there's going to be people in the marketplace right now in the private school industry begging for your money.
And you're going to have the opportunity as a parent to go up to each and every school, whether it's a bedwedding liberal school, if you want to send your child to an all-gay school, if you want to send your, you know, whatever.
You couldn't even imagine the possibilities when it comes to privatization of education.
And you have to have these schools convincing you why you should trust your children with them because they will absorb a lot more information.
You know, they're going to have to sell the parent that, hey, you know Judge so-and-so, you know the manager of so-and-so, you know the congressman so-and-so, he went to this school.
And you see, as they gain their credibility as far as an educational institution, well, then that's when the whole concept of capitalism, which we live in, folks, we do live in a capitalist society, that's when the concept of capitalism comes in.
And when you see a school that's producing great products, well, then that's when the price of that school goes up.
So you may not be able just to get the $3,500 or $4,000 that the government's going to give you to pay for that school.
You might have to pay a little more because they're a proven commodity.
You see, you don't have that choice here in America.
You don't.
All you have is the garbage that's given to you in your school district.
The garbage teachers, the ridiculous bureaucracy.
And you see, folks, in the bureaucracy, the public education system, how it's set up right now, how the public education system is set up right now, there is no incentive for anybody that's working in this mechanism of public education to make sure it's running properly.
No, there's not.
Nobody cares if the damn thing runs properly or not because it's going to be there next year and the year after that and the year after that because the government's going to fund it.
Do you understand?
I mean, public education is a farce, folks, and it has been just absolutely infiltrated by liberals and feminists that are anesthesizing our children with this method of agitation called political correctness.
And you can look this up, folks.
I'm not just talking out my dairy air here.
I mean, this is not a joke.
Anyway, my point to this whole banter on public education was that we don't need government in our faces.
And the first almost 20 minutes of the Democratic debates was all about universal health care.
Now, look at how, and I just went on a maybe 10-minute banter on how public education has completely failed us.
And I just initiated a quasi-solution, if you will.
Now, there may be some quirks in it.
There may not be, but let me tell you something.
Going to be a hell of a lot better than the type of products we're producing in today's public education system.
And the point is, is we got these Democrats today in this debate talking all this garbage about universal health care, spending 20 minutes back and forth talking about whose universal health care is better.
The bottom line is, folks, is if you have government in our education system, our government is funded 100%.
And we can't produce members of society that can bring us back as far as innovation is concerned.
We can't produce good products that just can be new minds, you know, a realm of academic intelligence.
You don't really see that out here in America.
You want to know why?
Public education.
Government-funded public education.
And now you want them involved with your health.
I mean, they have dumbed you down.
The government has dumbed you down, okay, and it's made most Americans, folks.
Most Americans are imbeciles.
It takes them an hour to cook minute rice.
Most Americans will try to drown a fish.
I mean, let me tell you something.
American folks are not very bright.
But it's made that way, folks.
The public education system has dumbed down America so that we don't understand the complicated bureaucracy that is our government, the American people's government.
And this is what I'm telling you, folks.
Everybody needs to wake up and start becoming a little bit more politically, I wouldn't say politically active.
I would just say politically aware and understand that all this mechanism, all this bureaucracy, all this garbage that is our government, it's your government.
Look at the Constitution.
But you need to become politically aware of how this mechanism, this machinery, this bureaucracy that is our government works, because if you don't, this is the kind of garbage you're going to get.
It's all there is to it.
Anyway, folks, you can get back to me, 646-652-4869.
We've got a caller here, 419, you're on the air.
Hey, ghosts, this is Heather.
How's it going?
How are you doing, Heather?
I'm just here, just going off about the debates.
And of course, I went on that banter about public education, but let me tell you, I hate public education.
It's horrible.
And I hope people understand.
The two jobs that I've had in my life is one as a social worker and one as a tutor for the public education system.
And I think people, like I've told Ozone, I think I can't remember the name of his show, but Ozone, the whole.
Yeah, I told him, he was like, you know, proposing vouchers and all this stuff.
I mean, to me, vouchers are like socialism to me anyway.
Because when you look at what is wrong with the core thing that's wrong with the educational system, you have to look at the unions that are in school for teachers.
Oh, absolutely.
Absolutely.
Go ahead.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Just a really quick note.
It's like when you have a union, say that a teacher is guilty of something that is, you know, something that they probably wouldn't go to jail for, but it's something that you and I would get fired from our jobs for if we did.
It takes one year, and not only that, up to $30,000 just to get the process going to get that teacher fired.
And we have that whole year where that teacher is still teaching, and we still have stupid kids being pushed through the system because they're being taught by this stupid teacher.
It's not cost-effective, and it is so counterproductive because the union really, it just, it ruins.
It's like what it's doing to the auto system.
I mean, the auto industry.
It's really, it's not really doing what we would hope.
I mean, now we have laws in place.
We need to get rid of these unions because they're going to I mean, the public education system is really at stake at this point because you have substandard teachers teaching kids things to get them ready for college when they're not really getting ready.
So it doesn't make any sense.
Well, I disagree with you about vouchers being socialistic.
I think what we have here is that public education is more communistic.
Look, the only reason I'm suggesting vouchers is because we don't want to live in a society where most interpret the fact that education is somehow a rich commodity.
I mean, we want to still keep the understanding that we want education universal within the United States to United States citizens.
This way, with the voucher system, not only does it basically cut maybe three-quarters of the taxes needed to fund these public schools and all the administers and all these bureaucrats that milk it for all it's worth, but on top of which we'll be able to monitor who's getting these vouchers, make sure that they're attending school, making sure that they're American citizens.
You see, out here in the public education system, and this is documented, I know a whole bunch of, unfortunately, I know a whole bunch of teachers, professors, that sort of thing, because most of them are part-time business owners, and I'm a member of my Chamber of Commerce.
And you talk to these individuals, and you get abreast of what is going on here in our school systems.
And the bottom line is that there is no incentive for anyone who's in the bureaucracy to make sure that that child is being taught correctly.
And what these parents need to understand, that no matter how much they pull on the heartstrings, what I mean I'm talking about the teachers' unions and people involved in the public education system, no matter how much they pull on your heartstrings and no matter how much more millions you give them, you notice how the product, which is our children, aren't getting any better because there is no incentive.
There's nobody there to make sure that this machinery of public education is working worth two craps.
And you see, in the debate today here in the Democrats, the Democratic debate here in Ohio, you had them talking for almost the first 20 minutes about universal health care, whose universal health care was better.
And my simple point is, is if you take a look at the education system, which is funded 100% by the United States government, and take a look at the amount of products of society that they're producing, which isn't many, and take a look at how they're dealing with our children out here, you want the government to take care of your health on that matter?
Absolutely not.
And I think that what's even more scary is that they're proposing for the medical portion of it, they're proposing a Federal Reserve type committee to oversee this universal health care.
We see what the Federal Reserve has gotten is only gotten us like even worse inflation and just everything is like a big mess right now.
And just to go back to the vouchers really quickly, I'm not really I agree with the vouchers, but I think that to have the vouchers in place, you've got to get rid of the teachers' union.
Well, absolutely.
And let me tell you, by breaking up the public education system, and I know that's a very radical idea for most Americans out here, but if you privatize education and instead of paying whatever it is, like $19,000 a kid or whatever it is to send these kids to school, why don't when the average private school in America only costs about $3,000 or $3,500, if we give American families,
first of all, we cut the taxes on all this garbage that's being sent to the public schools, and on top of which, you know, the American government sends them a voucher, which is more than not just maybe three quarters less of what what the government was paying for the teachers in the public administration system.
Absolutely.
I think we need to we privatize schools, we send vouchers, the people that send out the vouchers can make sure that children are attending school.
And home school is just as good as a private school in my view.
Oh, I agree.
100%.
And I just think that we need to emphasize that.
I think that more people need to start talking to parents in general that the privatization of schools is the best thing because somebody, whoever invested in that school, has a financial interest to make sure that these damn teachers are actually teaching what they were hired to teach.
There's somebody making sure that the principal they hire makes a social environment that's conducive for learning.
You see, these idiots in public education could give to rats' asses about that.
And parents are just completely oblivious to the fact because the propaganda issued by the feminists and the liberals that have hijacked the public education system and have inserted political correctness, prohibit kids to participate in activities like tag and dodgeball and other such nonsense.
These people have pulled on the heartstrings of America, and henceforth, you have all this government money just flooding into the education system and not producing anything.
Absolutely.
I mean, I'm really, like, really disheartened so far by my time.
I don't really consider myself a Republican.
I really do consider myself a libertarian.
But, I mean, when I was growing up, that's why my dad, he was like a Reagan Democrat.
Because he was going to, we all, you know, they proposed to get rid of the Department of Education because it's just a big bureaucracy.
And now it's like we're just doubling and tripling it.
And it's like nobody's getting anywhere.
It's like, what happened to getting rid of the Department of Education?
Absolutely.
Bringing it back to the states.
I mean, I'm like really frustrated.
And I'm like, I feel like, what happened?
I mean, what took place to bring this shift to just doubling and tripling?
I don't know.
Maybe you know.
Libertarian Political Views00:14:55
I don't know what caused it to get so out of hand.
Well, you know, first of all, it was the Democrats' key issue, education.
And, you see, what's the Democrats' remedy to most things?
Well, we need to put more bureaucracy.
We need to throw more money at it.
Now, look, I'm not one to believe that we don't need bureaucracies for certain things.
But, you know, what's unfortunate about enacting bureaucracies is that the American people, the American general public, they are so dumbed down.
Of course, this goes back to public education.
They are so dumbed down by the education system, by the media, that they are not as active of participants as they should be because the bureaucratic system is so damn complicated that they, A, don't want to take the time or effort to figure it out.
And B, you know, the bottom line is the public education system, which we pay all kinds of taxpaying dollars to, didn't show them what their government was and how it was constructed and how they can participate in it.
And this is why I'm just a little upset about everything that's going on here in America.
I think that we can still make a difference.
We are the freest society in world history.
We have been given unalienable rights given to us by our forefathers.
We have one of the most brilliant documents ever written, the American Constitution.
I think that what we need to do is start worrying about issues that are going to pertain to a better America, not a better America in an international world.
Absolutely.
I mean, I really do commend you for being able to do this as much as you do because I tried it, and it's like, it's so frustrating.
It makes me want to pull my hair out and eat it.
It's like, it's so frustrating.
Because nobody really understands what's going on.
No, they don't.
And it's because it's complicated.
I mean, this bureaucracy is complicated.
I mean, I could literally go on a show and talk about ten different issues, and it's just so overwhelming.
You know, I have emails from folks that tell me it's just kind of just u unbearable to hear all these issues just brought up in one show.
And, you know, the reason there's so many issues to talk about is because nobody's talking about them in general because the general public doesn't understand the bureaucracy and the tentacles and the machinery of government.
And they don't understand they can participate in having an influence in it.
And, you know, and I stated this in the last show, that the precedent, the precedent set by the civil rights movement goes to show that if you can get the general public around a general issue or idea or cause, and if you get enough general populist support that the government will crack and they'll submit to it.
I mean, Lyndon Baines Johnson, which was a documented racist, and anybody who tries to dispute that, I challenge you to go listen to his White House recordings of his phone calls and listen to some of his rhetoric.
You can utilize whatever search engines you do to do your research, but you'll find it.
But you had Lyndon Baines Johnson sign the Civil Rights Act because the people, the people of the United States wanted him to.
Amazing.
I mean, I wish people would really stand up, but I really think that the media and the TV that we have that gives us the news that we absorb, they're avoiding a lot of issues like we've talked about before the Second Amendment thing.
It's going to be a crisis in Montana in the coming months.
And the way that they're avoiding these issues is like when they actually come to surface, it's going to make these people look like they're crazy.
You know, the people that are fighting for their Second Amendment, right?
But then it's like we all know the backstory behind it, that they actually have a valid reason to be upset.
And then we're all going to react and then we're going to be so misinformed that we're going to attack these people for being, I guess, I guess, you know, against the system, basically.
But we need to know more about what's going on around us.
I mean, I'm not really concerned about Iraq right now.
I'm wondering if I'm going to be able to keep my job, basically.
I agree.
I agree.
And it's a scary situation.
And we've talked about it many times on this show, specifically the political landscape, or excuse me, the economic landscape that no candidate is talking about, the weakening dollar and so on and so forth.
It's just so many issues to cover.
It just becomes a little discombobulating, if you will.
Absolutely.
But thanks for the time, Ghost.
I'm going to go ahead and listen to the rest of the show.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks a lot, Heather.
You have a good evening.
You too.
And, you know, folks, nobody really does talk about issues anymore that pertain to America.
You know, American issues, you know, things that really concern American folks.
And that's why I've been so critical.
You know, when this show first started off, the name of the show was called True Conservative Republican Radio.
And you've noticed that I've taken the Republican and basically thrown it out the damn window because the Republicans have completely gone against their principles.
I saw it in the primary.
You can look back in my archives, folks.
I've been consistent since day one.
I saw this coming a long time ago.
And once it start becoming not really flourishing to the public's eye blatantly, I mean, I started noticing this right from the get-go when the Republican Party was silencing true conservatives.
Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, these conservatives that have true Republican principles.
And what are true Republican principles?
Less government, less taxes, less government in our faces, less government regulation.
And when I saw the Republican Party suppressing both in media coverage and in they even kicked them out of debates at some point, I'm talking about Duncan Hunter.
I saw this purposely done by the Republican Party.
And I knew then and there that this Republican Party has been hijacked by a bunch of liberals.
So I dropped the Republican out of the show's name, folks.
And now that they have John Turncoat McCain, we obviously know where the Republicans stand at this point with their political perspective.
I've been chastised.
I've been personally insulted.
I've had slanderous lies said about me just because I will not vote against my conservative Republican or old school Republican principles and vote blindly for John McCain.
I'm just not going to do it.
Anyway, I don't want to go off on that tirade.
If you want to know my issues on that, I encourage you to check out the archive.
I wanted to move on a little bit.
We talked about the Democratic debate.
We talked about how for almost 20 minutes in the beginning of the debate, they were bickering and bantering like a bunch of old broads about whose health care or universal health care system is better.
You know, each of them were talking back and forth.
Hey, well, you're going to mandate.
No, you're going to mandate.
You're both going to mandate, you bedwetting, tree-hugging liberal pieces of garbage.
Both of you are going to mandate people that they pay for something.
How are you going to do that?
It's ridiculous.
And I don't understand why they don't talk about that.
You notice how Obama was alluding to the fact that, well, Hillary hasn't even been specific on how she's going to force everybody in America to pay for her universal health care system.
She hasn't been up forward about that.
The bottom line is that they're going to garnish your wages, folks.
That's right.
At least in Hillary's plan.
I mean, Barack Obama, he talks out both sides of his mouth.
I don't even think he knows what he's talking about, to be honest with you, when it comes to this health care garbage.
But the good part about it, I don't know if you've noticed, and then we'll move on from this ridiculous universal health care crap.
If you notice at the beginning of the debate, right off the bat, Barack Obama threw a couple of pop shots right at her about the health care situation.
All right?
And what did Hillary do?
She was on defense, man.
I mean, if you look at the debate again, and I haven't, I've only watched it once, and once is enough, believe me.
But if you watch it again, she was on defense, man.
Why do you think they were on the damn issue of universal health care for 20 minutes?
She was on defense.
She was trying to explain herself.
Because to be honest with you, folks, and we already had about a 20-minute discussion about the public education system and how completely incompetent it is.
And you want the government involved with your health?
I mean, it's already been proven.
It's already been proven that socialist health care doesn't work, folks.
I've talked to people in Canada that waited, you know, that got a damn CAT scan of their chest, found kind of a blockage in their arteries, and they were put on a three-month waiting list, four-month waiting list for a damn open heart surgery.
That's health care, huh?
That's universal health care for you.
That's exactly what you want.
You want to be in line for a damn coronary procedure.
That's great.
That's exactly what I want.
It's just ridiculous, folks.
It's just, you know, it's just garbage.
Now, do I agree that there's a health care problem?
Sure, there's a health care problem.
Can health care, insurance, health care coverage, you know, health care supplies, can everything be cheaper?
Of course it can be cheaper.
But let's be critical about why and how it can be cheaper.
And I don't want to get into that at this point, but I'm sure we will at another show.
But the bottom line is, folks, is that this garbage at the beginning of the Democratic debate about universal health care is absolute malarkey.
And then they went on.
They went on about NAFTA.
You know, old NAFTA, old Barack Obama, he's trying to bring up the old NAFTA card.
He's saying, hey, you're for NAFTA, Hillary.
Your husband wrote it.
You loved it.
You worshipped it.
You were bowing down to it.
You were doing satanic rituals to it.
The whole nine yards.
This is what Barack Obama was claiming.
And, you know, it kind of interests me.
You know, if you check out a couple of shows, they did make a couple of comments about how Barack Obama was talking against NAFTA because I don't like NAFTA.
As a matter of fact, I hate NAFTA.
It's done nothing but take United States American workers, their jobs, out of the country into communist China into Mexico.
And I don't want to get in on that, but the bottom line is, I don't agree with NAFTA.
So I thought, okay, well, Barack Obama, he's maybe talking a little bit of substance here.
I don't like NAFTA.
Maybe he'll wipe his ass with the damn thing.
And that's what I was hoping he would say.
I was hoping he'd get up there and say, you know what, Hillary?
You know what, woman?
No, I'm just joking.
He would say, you know what, Hillary?
I'm going to take NAFTA and I'm going to wipe my dairy air with it and give it to your husband in the mail.
How do you like that?
But you know what?
Barack Obama didn't do it.
He didn't do it.
He didn't do it.
He talked out both sides of his mouth, just like Hillary Rotten Clinton.
And this just goes to show you that all this change garbage, all this change nonsense, you know, talking about the change in his pocket, I don't know, okay?
But the bottom line is, he didn't say that.
Now, let me tell you what he said.
If you didn't happen to listen to the debate, I suggest after this broadcast, check it out.
Anyway, it was asked first to Hillary Clinton by Tim Russert.
Tim Russert went right for Hillary's juggler and said, hey, you know, Barack Obama, your opponent has been kind of taking pop shots at you about NAFTA.
What do you think about it?
And what did Hillary Clinton do?
Hillary Clinton said, well, you know, I really don't agree with NAFTA.
And, you know, of course, she talked out both sides of her mouth as well.
And she proposed some sort of for whatever.
I don't really care.
I mean, I don't like to hear their proposals very much, but the bottom line is that she wasn't going to scrap NAFTA.
She was going to renegotiate NAFTA.
That's what she said.
She's just going to renegotiate NAFTA into a four-part plan.
Whatever the hell that means.
That's what Hillary's response was.
And you know what?
Then the tables were turned on Barack Hussein, turban wearing Obama.
Then the tides were turned on him.
What are you going to do about NAFTA?
And what did he say?
I'm pretty much with Hillary on this.
I think that we really renegotiate.
Renegotiate, Obama?
How are you going to be critical of this Hillary Rotten Clinton on NAFTA?
I mean, you even had me looking twice after you once you started criticizing NAFTA.
Not that I wasn't going to vote for the piece of crap or anything, but I mean, I was starting to think, well, maybe this idiot's coming out of his tree and understanding, you know, maybe some of the issues that are affecting the average everyday American.
But no.
No, Barack Obama, he didn't say that, you know what?
You know what, Rustard?
I'm going to take NAFTA.
I'm going to rip it up.
I'm going to, you know, just use it to clean my dairy air.
I'm going to use it for toilet paper, and it'll be a memory in United States history.
But Obama didn't say that.
He said the exact same thing that Hillary Rotten Clinton said.
And if you think that that is somehow going to change America, you got another thing coming, folks.
Okay?
Barack Obama is only going to keep the status quo.
On the contrary, he's just going to put more government regulation, more government bureaucracy, more taxes.
And I'm not saying that John McCain's a different story either, folks, because let me tell you, I know John McCain is a liberal.
He's two issues away from being a full-blown liberal.
And the two issues are the war on terror, which I really don't know what makes him to be an expert on it, but okay, the war on terror.
And then he says, okay, folks, he says he's pro-life, which I don't believe either.
Now, this is my point, and this is why I've been criticized by so many Republicans on BTR, and not only on BTR, but in the blogosphere.
I've had blogs written about me, all this garbage.
The reason that people are so critical about me is because I'm a true conservative, folks.
Critiquing Farrakhan00:06:20
I'm not going to bow down and just relinquish my principles because I want to stay loyal to a party that is transitioning itself to replicate the other party that I've hated all my life.
I'm just not going to do it.
You can try, you can do whatever you want, but the volume line is no.
All right?
I have no, I will not vote for McCain.
I'm not voting for anybody on the left.
So, you know, when it comes down to my vote, I'm just going to leave that blank.
I'll vote for Mickey Mouse.
I'll write my vote in, Mickey Mouse or some garbage like that.
I'm serious, folks.
I'm not joking.
I mean, what for?
I mean, I don't want to be on record, folks.
I don't want my vote to be on record for being responsible for the quasi-communist socialist transition that the United States is about to partake in.
I don't want to be a part of it.
You can all be a part of it.
You can all bow down.
You can be, you know, bowing down to pictures of Karl Marx, whatever the case might be.
It's ridiculous.
Absolutely, utterly sickening to me.
Anyway, folks, go ahead and hook me up with a call here, 646-652-4869.
We're talking about the Democratic debates and the absolute malarkey that they were spewing out of their hole.
It's absolutely ridiculous.
And basically, folks, I mean, they're not talking.
And I'm not just talking about the left.
I'm talking about the right, too, folks.
I'm talking about Republicans, too.
Nobody is talking about the issues that affect America.
They don't care about America, American problems.
They don't care that the American economy is about to collapse.
They don't care about the fact that we have this humongous debt that is devaluing our American currency.
It's devaluing our American currency so bad that we've got high-end retail stores in New York City that won't accept American money.
They won't accept American money.
No, they'll accept Euros now, Euro dollars.
It's ridiculous, folks, and nobody's talking about this.
None of these presidential candidates are talking about this nonsense.
Nobody cares.
And you see, what's unfortunate is that we have a completely incompetent, ridiculous education, public education system that has dumbed down America.
Most of America, like I said, it'll take them an hour to cook minute rice.
They'll drown a fish.
They'll try to drown a fish.
I mean, it's just ridiculous on the bowels of lack of education that we have basically become.
It's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous, folks.
646-652-4869 is the number to call.
Anyway, we're going to move on here.
I just wanted to make that point abundantly clear that Barack Hussein Obama, for all you folks that are hopping on the NAFTA bandwagon because he's critical of it, he's not going to do a damn thing about it.
He's not going to do a damn thing about it.
I mean, he admitted it today.
What an absolute buffoonery.
This man has basically utilized this NAFTA issue for the past two weeks, and this moron basically said the exact same thing that Hillary Clinton said.
What an absolute buffoonery and imbecile.
Are you kidding me, Barack Hussein Obama?
And then they talk about the turban.
Then they talk about the old turban, and you kind of bypass that issue.
You didn't really say much about the old turban.
You know, Barack Hussein Obama with the turban?
That's a pretty precarious situation considering that we're at war against a battle of ideology that kind of utilizes the same symbolism as that turbine there.
Just don't understand it, folks.
That's kind of a kind of a damning piece of evidence there.
Pretty damning piece of evidence.
And one more thing, and then we're going to move on to Americans' foreign policy and what America's role should be in the international community.
But one more thing about the Democratic debates, okay?
Democratic debates ended with, well, it didn't end with this, but towards the end, they started talking about Barack Hussein Obama being embraced and endorsed by Louis Farrakhan.
And I found it kind of funny that, you know, Barack Hussein Obama, it took him a pretty hard, you know, tug to have him reject that endorsement.
I don't know if y'all watched the debates tonight, but he didn't really reject the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan until basically Hillary Clinton put him on the spot and he had to do it.
And I thought that was very precarious as well, folks.
And I suggest that if you haven't watched the Democratic debates, I suggest you take a look at that piece of footage right there and take a look at him kind of backtracking, trying to not reject, not reject old Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of him.
I thought that was kind of weird, folks.
I don't know what that's about.
And, of course, they brought up his Church of Trinity and his pasture, how him and Louis Farrakhan go on, you know, Louis Farrakhan and Barack Hussein Obama's pastor go on vacations to Libya and kick it with Qaddafi.
And, of course, old Barack Hussein Obama, he kind of stumbled over his own tongue on that garbage, too.
But I don't know.
Let me know what you think about it.
646-652-4869.
I think we got a caller here.
Hello, you're on the air.
Hi, can you hear me?
Yeah, I can hear you.
Okay, it's just a few seconds delay because I'm calling through the internet.
But I wanted to know what exactly is your definition of a true conservative?
Religious vs Moral Ethics00:04:17
Does that mean is it mainly like economics or is it more religion?
What exactly classifies you as a true conservative?
Well, I don't ever say anything religious.
I mean, I understand that we have different spheres of consciousness in this country.
It was written to us in the Constitution.
We have separate spheres of consciousness.
I understand that I'm religious in one sphere of consciousness, but I understand a rule of law and the mechanism of maintaining social order, which is the United States Constitution and the government that was instilled in that document.
And that's how I view the social rule of law.
I abide by those laws.
Everyone should.
This is the one of the greatest documents ever given to man.
And I think that a conservative is someone who still believes in family, someone who believes that what's going on nowadays, which are the social ills of society, like women going out, having five, six, seven different kids from five or six, seven different fathers.
They think that is a wrong activity and it shouldn't be acceptable.
You know, people, conservatives think that, you know, people that have five, six, seven, eight different divorces and change divorces like dirty underwear, that's not acceptable.
I mean, we're pro-life.
I mean, of course, we are economic conservatives as well, which I fall under.
I mean, I think that we need to be economically conservative.
So the bottom line is that, I mean, it encompasses all those facets, whether it's social conservatism, economic conservatism, it's all around.
It's the same movement.
Is it possible to broaden your base and like if what's most important to you, say, is getting NASDAR under control or getting that educational system under control, whatever, healthcare under control, would it be better for you to have a little bit more of a, and I'm not trying to change your point of view, but maybe have a more open mind to certain things like a person's sexuality or a right to choose like a pro-choice,
even though it seems like it's a more religious issue.
And even if it's not a religious issue, it wouldn't really affect your life if it wasn't.
Well, you know, I mean, with all due respect, and I'm assuming by that comment you are pro-choice.
I cannot live with the fact that their lives being just murdered before they even have the concept of life itself.
Now, you see, if you and I were to die tomorrow, you know, it's not necessarily the purest form of murder.
We're just robbed of life not lived.
Now, if you take a baby and aborted fetus, I mean, that's the purest form of murder.
I mean, that fetus had no opportunity to witness not one iota of life itself.
I mean, it didn't get to be exposed to the world and understand the world.
And whatever time that that human being was taken from the earth, at least they lived that life and they were taking the life that lived.
What about people who end up having children that they can't financially support or later on regret having?
What if it was a circumstance where the father or something like that wasn't very active in the person's life and they figured that would be the best choice?
Well, I think that there should be an element of personal responsibility, and this is where conservative, social conservatives come in.
I remember a time when there was a social moral ethos that wasn't based on any type of religious principles.
It was just a social moral etho principle.
And I remember a time that it was shunned.
You were absolutely outcasted if you had a child out of wedlock.
You were called a Jezebel or a moron if you got divorced, man or female.
I mean, you know, these were the type of moral ethos boundaries that kept society.
I mean, of course, we always had our Portions of society that were immoral, and whether it was due to poverty, environmental conditions, whatever the case might be, you're always going to have those societies.
Feminine Rights Discussion00:15:21
But right now, I mean, that was a minority back then.
Right now, we have single-parent families that are now the majority of America.
We now have abortions being done on a consistent basis, basically on pure sexual perversion.
And I credit liberalism and I credit the feminist movement specifically.
I'm not talking about the suffrage movement in the 1900s that accorded the woman the right to vote, accorded the woman the right to work.
Those women were patriots, and let me tell you, that was long overdue.
I'm talking about the feminist movement that has basically utilized the whole concept of gender and basically flipped it around and made it a mechanism of agitation.
Let me give you an example.
The whole concept of feminism, as I supposedly was supposed to know it, is equal rights, correct?
Yes.
Okay, so you have equal rights for females, and I'm all for that.
But it's not equal.
On the contrary, the feminist movement has done more to make such a gender-imbalanced society that not only do we have a society that embraces female domination, but we also have a society that's embracing this, you know, I call it, I don't know if you're going to take offense to this, but I call it the pussification of the American male.
And you can attribute this all to the feminist and liberal movement that have infiltrated the apparatus of public education and that is basically dumbing down our children and that are making and you can take a look at it just from a mere observational standpoint.
Take a look at American Idol today that everybody looks at on a consistent bed.
Take a look at the males that are competing for American Idol.
This is what I'm talking about out here.
I mean, you know, most of them look, just with all due respect to those that are feminine featured, they look very fruity.
And you see, I remember when, you know, this looked was kind of a minority.
And, you know, that's great.
You know, you're always going to have your minorities, but all this is becoming the majority.
And I'd like your comment on that.
Do you think that it's somehow some sort of social evolution that, you know, we're – Like a metrosexual male or something, whatever?
What?
Whatever it's called, it's just utterly ridiculous.
What do you mean by that?
Like someone that's clean, someone that's in shape?
What exactly are you saying, a male that wears makeup?
What are you saying?
Well, if you have, I guess you've been so anesthesized with the propaganda via the media, the public education, and everything else that you probably don't understand what I'm talking about.
But I mean, I remember when, you know, when a man was a man, you were just a man.
You didn't try to have the feminine features and your physical attributes, you know, the feminine vernacular out here.
You know, you have a lot of males out here, you know, talking like George Michael in a men's bathroom.
I mean, it's just ridiculous out here, and I think that that needs to stop.
And that's what the conservative movement is all about.
I mean, this doesn't need – we're going down a wrong path here.
And if you take a look at Greece right before it fell, and if you take a look at Rome right before it fell, you take a look at both of those empires, look at the social landscapes of them, and you compare it to what we're living in now.
It's very eerily similar.
So are you also saying that homosexuals don't deserve equal rights?
Well, I mean, i I don't I don't understand w what equal rights.
I mean they're able to to do whatever they want to do.
Well, as far as uh the same type of benefits like uh sharing health insurance, the same type of dual partnership taxes, the same uh few benefits that you would get uh as a married couple.
Well, no on two premises.
First of all, no, because uh I believe in the sanctity of marriage.
And secondly, no, because I don't want to create even a more bureaucratic system for these blood-sucking lawyers that are basically going to capitalize on such a procedure.
And I just refuse to do it on both of those instances.
I mean, if look, I'm not trying to be the bedroom police, okay?
And neither are conservatives.
I mean, I know we have some extremists, believe me.
But, I mean, if two people want to, you know, have whatever they want to do, you know, in their bedroom, they can do that.
And they should have the right to do that.
That's America.
But you shouldn't have any type of special rights because you're a special group of people.
And that's exactly what the liberal agenda and the feminist agenda and everything else that's related in communist theory.
That's what they want.
How is it special rights versus equal rights?
If someone chooses to be in a relationship with someone of the same sex, how is that special benefit if that's the person you choose?
The same as if the heterosexual man chooses a particular woman.
What's the difference?
Well, because, you know, women and men, you know, can procreate and have families and that sort of thing.
Then that comes down to religion.
So it is based a lot on religion.
Absolutely not.
Well, you want to have a debate on the social Darwin end?
Well, I will.
Let's go back to the early man.
Okay.
Are you familiar with Darwinism?
Because I will outschool you in Darwinism, too.
I know you think that you're a smart liberal trying to corner me with talking points, but I know my stuff.
I know substance.
Let me tell you something about the first humans, okay?
The Neanderthal.
The Neanderthal, which supposedly came out from the ape, whatever, you know, if you want to believe that, that's your bag.
But the first Neanderthal was the first humanoid that actually had conscience, according to the geologists and the anthropologists that dug up the first Neanderthal.
They were the first civilization that actually buried their dead, or if you want to call it a civilization, they were the first humanoid civilization that buried their dead as opposed to eating them.
And on the contrary, that's when they understood the whole concept of procreation.
So as a result, what was the foundation of the first man, according to Darwin?
Well, this is my idea.
With a little bit of balance, say you're not for pro-choice, you're for pro-life.
So there might be kids being born that not everyone wants to take care of.
Not everyone has that responsible, you know, is not that responsible.
Then you have people who can't procreate.
So maybe these people can get involved and adopt, and they won't have to go to China or Africa or something like that.
They can actually care for kids in America.
I know you're probably against welfare and all that type of stuff because it eats up taxes and the system.
I'm not against.
Look, let me tell you something about welfare, first of all.
Welfare is ridiculous.
It's a balance.
But I believe in workfare.
I believe that, hey, if you're in hard times, particularly now, we're in a bad economic situation that none of the candidates for president are talking about.
We have a devalued dollar, so on and so forth, things that I've talked about on many shows.
I agree that sometimes people need help.
But the bottom line is I don't believe in lifelong entitlements.
I believe in workfare.
You get a little bit of money to get back on your feet, and then you're gone from the system.
We don't hear from you again.
No, I mean, that's fine.
No one's disagreeing with that.
I'm just saying maybe this can get rid of some of the problems that already exist.
I don't understand what you mean.
What I was saying is for someone who doesn't want a person to have options as far as whether or not they abort a child, if all the people decided to have the children and there were too many children for these people to care for because they don't want all these kids.
And you can say, okay, don't have sex or don't wear condoms and this and that.
No, You see, you're not.
With all due respect, ma'am, with all due respect, you're already giving me the liberal argument that, well, no, no, you can say all this and that, but they're still going to do it anyway.
No, they're not.
And let me tell you why they're doing it now.
Because first of all, we have a public education system that has been flooded with feminists and liberals that are handing out condoms to kids when they're in fifth grade.
You have this liberal media that is embracing such a social just jungle of just ridiculous ills of society and embracing it.
I mean, you look at the start.
When did this generation develop?
When did this society become about?
When did what society come about?
When all these, what are you talking about?
What generation are the kids getting condoms in fifth grade or whatever?
It's happening now.
It's happening right now as we speak.
Did it happen 30 years ago, 40 years ago?
Well, yeah, it happened around that time, maybe about 30 years ago, sure.
So are you saying that the same generation that was more conservative, that raised the kids that were a part of the baby boom, are the ones that are responsible for the free love generation?
Well, you see, you see, this is what, with all due respect, ma'am, this is what liberals like to do.
We're talking about one issue.
Hold on, just a second.
You know, I've battled you in like three or four different issues already, and with all due respect, I've put you in submission on the debating table.
And the only defense mechanism that a liberal has is trying to play cafeteria history.
I don't believe you put me in submission.
Ma'am, you're picking and choosing what you're picking and choosing moments in history that will make your side of the debate credible.
You're not saying that your arguments aren't, it doesn't add up.
You're saying, okay, if we could go back to the good old times when things were like this and that, well, the good old times, not everything was perfect.
There were a lot of issues that went on at that time.
There's always going to be issues.
So you're picking and choosing what thing is better, what thing is worse, instead of saying, okay, well, let's go and say, okay, maybe health care is an issue that affects all of us.
Maybe the dollar is something that affects all of us.
Oh, hold on.
We have another caller here.
Maybe they have something to chime in about.
734, you're on the air.
Hey, I already love your show to consummate radio.
And I just wanted to.
All right, go ahead, ma'am.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
You know, it sounds like a prank caller.
I mean, if you want to have this debate, ma'am, I mean, let's stick to the issues here.
Okay?
I mean, let's stick to the issues.
I mean, the bottom line is, ma'am, is that right now, I mean, if you think that, and I'm assuming that you're a liberal based on the rhetoric that you're spouting on.
You're wrong about that.
When I was younger, I I grew up watching Washington Lombard, even though my mom used to be a Black Panther and my dad is Puerto Rican, and my godmother who named me was blonde-haired, blue eyes.
So I I have a very diverse background.
Okay, but but uh what I'm saying to you is the bottom line is if you have uh a certain issue you want to talk about, let's talk about it.
But once I corner you in that issue, don't start saying, well, what about the 60s and what about what about these people and that people?
Let's stick to the issue.
You say, okay, the liberals are saying this and that.
Well, the reason it's because of this is because of that.
And I say, well, no, that's not something that you can say to justify the means.
If we're living in a generation where people are having sex, then maybe you can say, okay, well, you know, the parents need to be more responsible because they shouldn't have the kids watching television or certain movies or this and that.
Well, how did you do that?
Well, you need probably more people at home.
How did you do that?
Well, maybe you can't have everyone working all the time to make ends meet.
How do you do that?
It's a lot of other issues that's involved.
During a generation that you're talking about, maybe you had someone that stayed at home the whole time while you had another person that worked all the time.
So you see, you're making an economic point as it pertains to the family.
And that's why I'm saying, how can you be extremely conservative?
And how can you only be on one end when really there has to be a middle ground?
Because it's not, this is what I believe.
I believe there's a balance.
If you have the conservatives, you have the liberals, and hopefully you have a larger in-between because it's the two that balance each other out.
I disagree, ma'am.
I disagree.
And with that, I'm going to have to just end the call there because there's no substance going on, ma'am.
I mean, you know, you folks, I don't know if you heard it.
I mean, I cornered this lady on three or four different issues.
And what she's doing here, and this is the typical method of agitation and of debate of most liberals, playing cafeteria history.
You know, I mean, I basically shot this woman down on three or four different issues, and what is she doing?
She just goes on to the next one, goes on to the next one.
I mean, the bottom line is, is that these liberals are happy with the fact that you've got five, six different kids per woman from five or six different fathers.
They're happy with this.
They're calling this evolution.
And let me tell you, and right when I was giving her the debate of Darwinism, because I was going to debate her on her own principles, because most of these liberals believe in Darwinism.
And let me tell you, I've read the whole damn thing.
I'm pretty educated, folks.
I've got a college degree.
I know I may sound a little southern Texan, but let me tell you, I will make these people into mental midgets.
And the bottom line is, is once I started saying, look, let's talk about the American family, because she was saying, well, you shouldn't be for the American family.
You should be for pro-choice.
And we should have a million abortions a day.
And whatever else rhetoric she was saying.
And when I was saying to her, if we want to debate on your terms, let's talk about Darwinism.
Let's talk about the original man.
Let's talk about what the first civilization that basically was the most humanoid or human-esque type civilization, according to Darwin's theory, the geologic record, and everything that we've accumulated through anthropology, there's evidence that shows that the foundation of the first society, of this first small society, was family, family, and language.
Darwinism and Evolution00:14:24
Those were the two foundations.
All right?
Those are the two foundations right there.
Family and language.
I mean, it was family that motivated people back then and in just early man to go out and hunt animals two, three, four times their size for the sake of the same thing that most families do today, folks.
They did it to house, to clothe, and to feed their family.
And you see, you've got these liberals over here, and in this last caller, an obvious attempt by these liberals to try to justify the social ills that have become the social norms here in America.
I mean, they boil it down to social evolution when, and let me tell you, I'd like to debate her again, although she wouldn't want to debate the issues because she doesn't know about the crap that she's advocating.
But if you want to talk about social evolution, there's no such thing as social evolution.
As a matter of fact, Darwin himself, I mean, he wrote many times he was critical to all those that tried to utilize his piece on natural selection and try to reverse it into some sort of social theory.
Even he said it.
So for you to sit here and say that the decimation of the American family and the Western families, put it that way, the social norm of women having five or six different kids from five or six different fathers, you know, they're trying to say that this is the norm.
This is social evolution.
There's no such thing as social evolution as your own homeboy, your own Charles Darwin said that he didn't write natural selection based on any kind of social principle.
So don't try to say that the decimation of the American family, the decimation of social principles, of moral ethos, is somehow social evolution.
Anything social related to evolution is a moot point.
So don't sit over here and try to talk all kinds of garbage.
You can't do it.
You just can't do it.
You notice once I started giving her a schooling session on evolution, she started stumbling over her own tongue like Al Gore trying to explain how he invented the damn internet.
I'll tell you this right now.
And I'm looking at my chat room.
I've got a few people in here saying that, oh, you know, he's a damn redneck.
Listening to him makes me sick.
Well, you're listening to me there, Tommy boy.
Some idiot named Tommy Boy, fat guy in a little coat, huh?
The bottom line is, folks, that you can hate me, you can like me, it really doesn't matter.
I want you to discuss these issues, folks.
All right, discuss them.
I mean, that's the whole concept of our government, okay?
I mean, we can change our government.
This is our government.
This is the people's government.
It's just unfortunate that we have such a flooding of absolute ignorance out here.
I mean, the stench of it makes you want to puke up.
And you can attribute it directly to the public education system, the government-funded public education system, because they don't teach our civilization, the United States citizens.
They don't teach them how to be critical.
You understand?
They don't understand critical thinking out here.
They retard creativity.
They retard cognitive reasoning.
And that's the bottom line, folks.
We need something else.
We just need something else.
Anyway, we got another caller here from the 516.
What's going on?
How you doing, ghost?
This is the Ozone.
How you doing, Ozone?
Pretty good.
I'm listening to you about the evolution and how family goes in with evolution.
I think it is evolution.
You know, what happens in evolution if a species becomes so successful, they grow in every single direction.
And even the ones that are growing in the wrong direction continue to grow until the environment cuts them out of the picture.
So basically, there is an evolution, but it's not the good kind.
It's basically we're so successful that these people they don't need the family because there's so much used to be a time that you didn't leave your family because life was hard.
You had to get what you needed to survive for the day.
There's no time to look around and start leaving your kids.
I mean, the kids are going to die.
So you're of the persuasion, Ozone, that social evolution or you're of the persuasion that social evolution, not natural selection, as Charles Darwin stated it.
You're of the persuasion that social evolution exists.
I believe in the definition of evolution in the dictionary, which says that over time, those that succeed will survive, and those that don't will not.
And there's constant change.
And we'll shift based on evolution.
I believe in evolution by the definition in the dictionary.
Based on what Dorwin says, doesn't really make much difference to me.
I mean, it's not like I go by Dorwin to explain to me.
It's clear to me.
So, I mean, are you I don't understand.
I mean, you know, how these liberals want to teach Darwin in school, and they are doing it currently.
They're teaching it out of Darwin's own works of evolution by natural selection.
And, you know, his times on the U.S. Beagle, or not the U.S. Beagle, but the Beagle, whatever the hell it was called.
That stupid little boat he went into the Galapagos and South America and all that crap.
Well, I don't know what I'm a little confused because to me it's clear that everything evolves.
Everything, you know, individuals don't evolve, but groups evolve.
That's an abstract statement, Ozone.
You know, when it comes to technical sciences, you know, and specifically evolution, you know, I mean, it encompassed more of an observational assessment of the accumulated facts based on anthropology, geologic records, so on and so forth.
So, I mean, the only I mean, evolution, and it depends on how you use it.
Of course, evolution could mean two or three different things.
It could mean a kind of a kind of an analogy type of phrase, like, you know, I evolved into a better man, that sort of thing.
But if you're going to pertain evolution as Darwin suggests by natural selection, that's what's universally known as the theory of evolution.
Well, natural selection happens.
I mean, it just happens.
If you take a group of ten dogs, ten mixed random dogs, and all of a sudden there's an ice age comes, and you come back in a few generations, the only ones that will survive will be, will have thick hair.
And then, let's say, all the animals that all their food supply is deep in the ground, and they'll all have long noses and teeth that can eat those animals because the other ones disappear.
And in the competition, all you have to do is be better than the others, and you're going to get the meat.
And basically, if you come back in a few generations, you're going to see a different looking animal.
And it's going to continue to change, and it can happen in a few hundred years.
An entire species can change.
Individuals don't change.
Individuals never change.
Okay, now you see, if you believe in natural selection, okay, let me go ahead and counter that argument with the fact that we are not the natural selection of species.
And at the same time, there is no link between us and the Neanderthal, which the supposed Homo sapiens evolved from.
There is no geologic link to that.
So that's what completely discredits evolution as a theory for humanity.
I mean, there's a link.
That's not true.
There's a link.
98% of the DNA of a chimpanzee is the same as a human.
98%.
I mean, I can say there's no link to Neanderthals.
So monkeys have conscience to understand things on a philosophical level.
I don't know maybe on a philosophical level, but they can understand, go in the tree when the lion comes.
I mean, it's not like just instinct and they're running blind.
They understand.
They better freaking get out of the way.
So, Ozone, this kind of disappoints me, man, because, you know, I mean, how can you equate the creativity, the critical knowledge, the intelligence of the human race down to a damn monkey?
I'm not saying that they're as intelligent as us.
Obviously, they're not.
Language is a key thing.
I mean, but when you understand competition, look, this is how competition works.
You can have, let's say you have a group that has an average of five children per couple.
And then you have another group next to them that has six individuals, six offspring per couple.
If you go down 30 generations, just because they have one more than the other, the group that has six babies per couple is going to be 99% of the population in a few thousand years just simply because they have one more than the other.
So there's an intense competition.
So basically, once the intelligence began to become important in evolution, it quickly, even any slight advantage, pushes the entire population to be offspring of that, of the more intelligent.
So it's really pushing.
And once we separate from them, we really went a long distance.
But, you know, a chimpanzee knows to put a stick into a hole to get the ants.
My dog, I mean, is unbelievable, knows so many words.
Yeah, but you see, Ozone, once again, you know, you're not taking into consideration the biological hidden factors in certain issues.
For instance, you know, us as humans, we're born into this world not knowing a damn thing.
And you're trying to relate us to organisms that basically are born biologically with preconceived notions and know what to do to survive.
You take into consideration the spider.
How does the spider know how to weave a web?
How does it even know what to do?
How does it know how to design its own home, its own area to captivate its prey and eat it?
How does he know how to eat its prey?
You see, there's very hidden answers that evolution doesn't, or there's hidden questions that evolution doesn't answer, Ozone.
And you're trying to simplify that based on general principles of sociology as far as the social ramifications of everything is concerned.
You see, you're trying to relate social evolution, which doesn't exist, into some sort of evolution as explained by Charles Darwin in natural selection.
So, I mean, the bottom line is, man, is that we are, as far as human beings, we definitely, if you want to call evolution something in essence of we coming from the monkeys, I mean, I just don't believe it.
I'm sorry.
Look, I understand that people have an issue with it, but let me tell you, animals evolved, and then we also evolved.
We went in a completely different direction with intelligence, and we evolved.
No individual, but the whole group slowly, slowly, we evolved.
I mean, and you know, I don't want to bring people down.
Basically, I don't kill an animal.
I don't kill an insect.
I mean, when I have little cups with scotch tape in it, if I see a spider, I catch it with the scotch tape, and I take him outside.
Because you can't deny that you can't, we don't know.
Look at every animal.
They look exactly like us.
A lion doesn't have four legs.
It has two legs and two arms.
It just walks under two arms.
You're not taking a consideration, Ozone, that we have something in us as human beings that makes us completely superior to those beings that are in the jungle that are three, four, five times our size, and we're able to dominate this whole globe based on our whole conscience.
And you see, you're not taking into consideration.
Nobody that is involved or tries to explain evolution talks about our conscience, where it comes from, how it evolves, our moral principles.
I mean, things of that nature.
And you see, the lion, the monkey, the gorilla, you can name the animals.
None of them have the capability or the proof of the capability of doing such a thing.
I think you're wrong.
I think that they do.
I think they do.
I mean, you see stories about these kids that are raised without any human contact.
They can talk.
They can think.
Even after 10 years old, they find them.
They can't even teach him anything.
Because our society and our civilization is based on the constant learning from the previous generation and much more important than in any other species.
Okay, okay.
Now, you see what you just said there, that we are basically taking information that has been handed down to us from other generations.
That is not evolution.
That is just learning something that has already been learned and learning on top of that because you were alive longer than the last guy.
That has nothing to do with evolution.
You see, that's what completely discredits the whole concept of social evolution.
What I mean by social evolution is what these liberals are trying to equate, the decimation of the American family, that are trying to equate women out here having seven, eight different kids from seven or eight different fathers.
They're trying to equate seven or eight different divorces.
They're trying to equate all the social ills that are turned into the social norms as social evolution.
And I have here made that point absolutely moot because social evolution doesn't exist.
Evolution by natural selection as the laws of the jungle are concerned.
Of course, maybe there is some geological and anthropology facts that there has been species that kind of look like species that exist today, but that have evolved, so to speak, to the environment naturally through thousands of years.
But you have to understand, Ozone, that we are human beings with conscience.
We have the ability to learn.
We have the ability to control the sciences.
Debating Macroevolution00:05:55
We have the ability to understand mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, the whole nine yards.
So you take into consideration that we as human beings can manipulate evolution at this point because of our scientific technology.
You can no longer utilize the theory of evolution to justify anything in our present day and age.
And that's why I just spit on the theory of evolution because it simplifies humanity.
And humanity is a complex spiritual entity that no one can explain by saying that we came from some damn monkey or a lizard or a fish man or whatever it is.
Look, all morality evolved.
I mean, it's just clear.
Look, animals, a mother takes care of her baby.
A group protects the people in its group.
Even the freaking little meerkads.
They all protect each other.
If one of them is in a problem, they all go and will try to scare the snake away.
If one of them is in trouble, they look for their young altogether.
Hold on, hold on, Ozone.
We got somebody else on the line here.
Let's see what they have to say.
Hello, you're on the air.
Yeah, hello.
How are you doing?
I'm doing fine.
You can call me Greg.
How are you doing, Greg?
I'm doing just fine.
You've got to separate this conversation into three things.
I love hearing from people who clearly never went beyond science class in high school about describing the theory of evolution.
It's three parts, microevolution, natural selection, and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens.
We know it happens.
Features change.
Features change in people.
Absolutely.
The Japanese are four or five inches taller than they were just 20 years ago.
I mean, you take a look at the South Koreans and the North Koreans.
I think they're about five inches taller, and they were from the same country.
Right.
So Darwin proved in the lab over and over again microevolution that he could cross-breed different plants and get the attributes that he was looking for.
That's called microevolution.
Natural selection is generally stated in outside of biology classes, survival of the fittest.
Those that evolve in a micro sense in a way that fits the environment that becomes better survive at a higher rate.
In the early days of humanity, and in fact, you'll find this in different species of other primates in the world today, those that evolve females with wider hips take over.
Why?
Because the mothers have more children because they don't die during childbirth at the rate that the ones that have narrower hips do.
End of story.
I mean, it's a scientifically provable fact.
Macroevolution is not proved.
It's not disproved because it can never be disproved.
It was written in such a way that you can never actually disprove it because there's no test out there that I say if this doesn't happen when we do that, then it's not true.
But it's also never been proven.
It may or may not be true.
I really don't care.
I'm a religious Christian and it doesn't bother my religion at all.
If it turns out to be true, if we did evolve from AIDS, so what?
I can still believe God caused it to happen.
The Bible isn't a science.
You would think, and you sound pretty scientifically inclined, if you will, you would think, though, by geological digs, anthropology searches, you would think that we would have been able to find the missing link, just as we've been able to find the links from other such creatures that eventually evolved through natural selection into the current animals we see today.
We haven't been able to.
There have been no links at any level, and the longer we continue to have thousands of people around the world searching for those links and not finding them, the greater the statistical improbability that it's true.
We're talking about the missing link of man, of course, right?
We're talking about the missing link of any species.
What about the link of 98% DNA compatibility with a chimpanzee?
What about that link?
98%.
It's a building block of three proteins.
How many different combinations can you put them in?
98% is identical.
There are only three base proteins.
You do know that, don't you?
All of DNA is composed of three base proteins.
So all DNA are the same?
Yeah, oh, absolutely.
The base components of every piece of DNA and every plant, animal, and creature that's alive on this earth are the same.
There are only three of them.
They combine together to form DNA strands, which combine together to form chromosomes.
Okay.
Ninety- So, how many- I give you a set of Legos that only has three different parts.
I got a square one, a short rectangular one, and a long rectangular one.
How many different buildings can I build with those three blocks?
Lots and lots.
But the ones that are cool and useful that people come and look at and go, wow, that really is kind of neat.
We'll have a lot of similarities.
Well, I've doors and windows, or there'll be airplanes.
It doesn't prove anything.
Links between similarities in DNA do not prove evolution, period.
That's ridiculous.
Listen, 98% compatibility.
And then you go down the line to every other species, and you see the ones that are closer all have more similar DNA, and the ones that are further away have less similar DNA.
That's because the DNA strands result in characteristics in the creature that you're looking at.
The Slippery Slope Argument00:06:45
It is causal in the other direction, dude.
Then why is a dolphin have more DNA with a hippo than with a fish?
Even though they look the same and the same characteristic.
We classify them both as mammals because they have physical characteristics that are similar.
Where do those characteristics come from?
They come from the DNA.
Right, they're similar because they evolve from each other.
No, there's no proof of that.
That may be true.
I'm not saying it's not.
Look, hippos.
No responsible scientists would say that is not true.
Let me just make a point.
No responsible scientists would say that what you're giving as evidence is actually evidence that it is true either.
So you see, well, my point is that I don't mean to I didn't mean to have this huge discourse on evolution, but my point was that you had somebody call in previous, you know, trying to justify what's happening in America.
And what I mean what's happening, I'm talking about, you know, the media embracing and society embracing people having four or five different children from four or five different partners, four or five different divorces.
I mean, we're seeing a social slippery slope that could be compared to the civilizations of like Greece or of Rome right before they fell.
You could take a look at their social landscape and it looks a lot like what we're seeing here.
And I think that, you know, to equate the social ills becoming the social norm into social evolution as it pertains on the social realm of sociology, it's a moot point because Charles Darwin himself didn't write evolution, natural selection on the theory of sociality.
And that's that was my point.
There is a similarity in that societies do change over time just like people do change.
And the reason that we don't see natural selection taking place in the US and in Europe is because we're not allowing it to happen.
If we got rid of welfare and government control, we would see the microcosms within individual societies that are doing these very bad behaviors disappear the way we see dog breeds that like to run in front of cars disappear.
But we don't let them actually get hit by the car.
Well, I disagree with that because, I mean, that's what Marx kind of argued, you know, dialectic materialism.
He believes.
No, it's actually, what I'm arguing is exactly the opposite of what Mark's argued.
Okay.
I'm arguing for individual responsibility.
So you're like a classical libertarian.
Or classic conservative in this respect, but I would like to see the federal government only do those things that the federal government is actually tasked with, which really is the only things that they can do better than local governments or local communities.
Well, yeah, I can agree to that.
So, you know, states' rights.
Well, federalism is part of it, but the other thing is you have people who get into bad situations that they didn't ask for, that you couldn't see coming.
They lose their job.
Their whole industry goes away.
So they're on hard times, but they're good guys and they've been productive members of the local community for a long time.
The local community will take care of those people, whether government's involved or not.
Well, I mean, take care of those people until FDR.
Well, I mean, I was just about to make that point.
I mean, don't you remember the post-warrings, the Depression?
I mean, it was pretty much laissez-fier economics at that point.
And, you know, Hoover basically.
It's screwed the economy and changed it.
Well, at the same time, I mean, I can agree to that.
I mean, you know, they kind of, but they did pass legislation that was more favorable to deregulation, the complete opposite of what FDR did.
And FDR probably was, you know, what Reagan was to the Republicans.
I mean, this man just completely revolutionized government and government's role in society and in business and in everybody's life.
Now, I mean, the only argument that I'm posing to you is that you suggested that local communities will help out those that are in need.
But that wasn't the case, unfortunately, back post-warrings after the Great Depression, that sort of thing.
As a matter of fact, well, I would argue that the Great Depression was in large part caused by government intervention.
Part of it was the natural disaster that happened on the plains.
The breadbasket went poof.
Right.
Yeah.
And that there wasn't, there's no way around that.
I mean, there was nothing government could do to avoid that problem.
But the reaction to it with instead of pushing these programs down into communities and finding ways to help communities help themselves, but instead nationalizing, leads us to where we are today.
And when people talk about the debt, the debt's nothing.
I mean, it's really nothing.
The problem isn't the debt.
We've got the same problem that France and Sweden and all these European countries have.
We have this totally unfunded, unsaved-for commitment to give people who are now retiring money.
And, of course, those debt.
And those people are obviously outnumbering the young people at this point.
So, you know, that's also hurting.
And at the same time, I think that we have such an entitlement generation at this point.
And I'm a conservative.
And I just have to say, I disagree with George W. Bush with this stimulus package.
I mean, this is a slippery slope down to socialism.
That's why I basically renounced the Republican Party this particular election because I am personally seeing a transition from what we knew of as America, the Constitution, you know, of the American dream, people being born into nothing and be able to craton themselves into something, is going to be withered away into oblivion here in this presidential election unless conservatives and folks that have true old school Republican principles get together and elect congressmen,
Socialism and Stimulus00:07:12
senators, state representatives that oblige themselves to the true Republican and conservative principles.
If we don't do something as far as an organization of people, we're just going to see the withering away of the United States Constitution.
We're going to see more government in our faces on both sides at this point.
Because John McCain, based on his legislation, based on his abuse of power, he is going to put more government in our faces.
He's already going to raise taxes on us.
You're going to put a gas tax on us.
On top of which, you've got a conservative.
It's the worst idea that's coming along.
We will throw this country into a depression if this cap and trade thing goes through.
Believe me, I know.
It's making me sick, man.
It's making me sick.
I will repeat for you.
I wish I was smart enough to come up with it.
First place I heard it was on Hugh Hewitt's show.
I'll give you seven reasons why you've got to vote for John McCain.
All right.
The war.
Yeah.
Ozone's been begging me to vote for McCain as well.
The war is one, and six judges who are all liberal who are 68 and older.
That's not true.
Five and one, I think.
If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, after she steals it, and I'm one of the people who think she will, by hook or by crook, come up with a way to steal this out from.
Hey, I've been saying that since day one.
I'm glad somebody else agrees with me.
Everybody thinks that Barack Obama's been anointed.
I don't doubt this Clinton slime machine.
Oh, the Democratic rules are such that she can legally steal this thing.
I mean, forget the Michigan and Florida thing, which I think is changing the rules after the vote's been cast, which is what they tried to do in Florida.
But they're going to do it in Florida and Michigan again, and she will try and find a way to get those things seated.
They'll wrench every arm and come up with every picture with little boys they can come up with to get people that are on the DMC to get those states reinstated.
And then the DNC rules not only have like one out of five delegates as a superdelegate, and in a horse race, that's huge.
Of course.
They don't even, they're elected delegates.
These guys that have been, quote-unquote, promised to Obama in a primary or a yeah, they can change their vote.
That's what this is what I've been telling these idiots out here, and they don't believe me.
I mean, I broadcast every day.
I got people telling me that Barack Obama's a shoe-in.
I'm voting for him because he has nice teeth.
All this garbage.
It's just not going to work.
People are underestimating the Clinton slime machine.
I'm telling you, and I've said it in previous shows, and people can look back in the archive.
I've stated it that these people are not in it to lose.
And I just keep an eye on them very closely because they're not.
And they could really, people, when I have talked to Democratic friends, quite liberal younger people in their 20s who are still in the infatuation with the perfect world can be created zone that I was in when I was that age.
I get a lot of, oh, no, they'll never do that because it will cause riots and separation in the Democratic Party.
And I'm going, have you people been paying attention to who these two people are?
They care about nothing but power.
Yeah, it's unfortunate.
And Ozone, you've been kind of quiet.
You want to chime in, man?
Yeah, well, basically, I think the Democrats don't care about the substance of what either Obama or Hillary say because all they really care is that they're going to take money from the rich and give them services, health care, whatever it is, give them subsidies.
These voters want the rich to pay, and that's what they know they're going to get with Obama and Hillary.
And that's why they don't even want to think about details.
It's too much work.
They're socialists.
I would argue they're Marxists.
No, they are Marxist.
Believe me, they are.
I mean, in this whole garbage of political correctness, this whole garbage of feminism, it's all Marxist in nature.
I encourage everyone to look up Frankfurt University, how it came to be a university, who these people that professed at this university were.
Read a little bit into their Marxist principles and their Marxist works that they wrote, and you're going to see that all the garbage that we're seeing when it comes to political correctness, racial divisions, gender relations, all this that we're seeing here right now in this day and age was written at Frankfurt University about 60, 70 years ago.
And I would go back to where you started the show, which was a really good rant and then a pretty decent discussion with a couple of people.
The vouchers fall into part of why I think it's Marxist and that the Democrats have been wholly owned by A, the trial lawyers, and B, the educators, the NEA, the unions.
Our public schools are now about making sure that we have permanent jobs for teachers.
They're not about teaching kids.
No, they really don't care.
And that's what I keep telling folks out there that have their heartstrings pulled by these union teachers, these administrators of this bureaucracy that is public education.
That's what I keep telling them is that they could care less if their kid is either flipping burgers or on the corner street in a puddle of their own blood and pee with a cheap bottle of hooch.
They could care less.
And people need to understand that whatever happens to your kid from one year to the next, that teacher knows that they're going to continue to have a job.
They're going to continue to get paid.
On the contrary, they get tenure pay for each year that they're there.
It depends on the district.
Sometimes they get $1,000.
Sometimes they get $2,000, $2,500 a year each year that they're there at that district.
And I don't see good products in society being produced by this public education system because it's been infiltrated by liberals and feminists.
Now, everybody that tries to say, well, how can that be, Ghost, how can all the public education system be infiltrated by liberals and feminists?
Well, because that's the root of liberal and feminism, you moron.
Them being paid by the state, paid by the government.
That's the whole concept of liberalism.
They want everything given to them from their house, their car, their job, their wife, their goldfish.
They want everything given to them.
And people need to understand that.
I just don't understand why people don't.
The government is controlling the education system, and they want to spend more on colleges, too.
It's mostly 90% liberal professors.
And the government wants to make laws that say every child gets a college education by liberals paid for by the government.
We need to completely remove the public education system.
It's clear.
I think just the base, if we tell people the math, like private schools charge $10,000 or whatever, but they only spend $3,500 a year per student per year.
The public schools, on average, spend $9,000 per student per year, and they have drop-out rates of 50%, 60% sometimes.
America as Superpower00:04:10
Yeah, well, you know, and this is what I keep telling people out there, and I think we lost our caller here.
Well, it's okay.
I think Mail Geek, who it was.
How you doing, Mail Geek?
Thank you for your input.
If you want, you can call in here.
But it looks like we're winding down anyway.
It's about 15 minutes in the program.
You know, I was supposed to be talking about international relations, but then we came into a great debate.
No, I think we got him back here.
Hold on just one second.
Hello, are you there?
Yeah, I'm here.
Skype just dropped me for whatever reason.
Oh, okay.
Well, glad to have you back with us.
We have about 15 minutes left in the program, and I know I stated I wanted to talk about international relations and America's involvement in it.
What's your two guys' take on America's role in the international community?
Ozone, you've been kind of quiet.
I'll let you go first, and then Mail.
You're talking about trade policy?
No, not trade policy.
I'm just talking about policy in general.
I mean, what should America's role be in the international community in general?
We don't do any business.
All free countries, first of all, we need to come together and make the United Nations only of the free world.
And then we need to not do business with any government that is not freely elected by its own people.
And we have to actively do whatever we can, including going in to free any people that are not being that live in countries where the government is not controlled by the people.
Of course, we can't do it all at once, but I think these dictatorships, they'll never be free.
It's like looking at the Pharaoh of Egypt and saying, oh, probably in a few years they're going to make democracy.
Or in 20, it's not going to happen ever because they live under a thumb of the dictator.
And the free world has to be active in spreading freedom.
Okay, Mayo?
That would be wonderful if the world could actually work that way.
I mean, in large part, I agree with you.
We have to stop doing large amounts of business with people who are oppressing their people.
But the global economy just doesn't work that way.
And if you want to understand why we could never really make it just work that way with even the force of the U.S., the biggest economic and military power in the history of the world, look at Venezuela.
They had free elections.
And the people, again, voted in a fascist dictator who came on all populist.
And we're going to do for the people and we're going to turn this into the people.
And then the whole place is now going to pot.
And he's lost all of his popularity just like Castro did, just like Mussolini did, just like all the previous fascist dictators.
And we've got a good 40% of this country right now that's considering and probably will vote for a socialist for president.
It's a cycle, and I think we have to weigh.
Can you not do business with China?
No, I don't think you cannot do business with China.
I think you have to do business with China.
I think you have to do it in a way that hopefully gets them moving at least down an open economic path, even if their politics isn't open, because they've opened up to that now.
But the world isn't give people democracy and they'll throw it away.
People have to, at some level, earn it and keep it and fight for it within their own country.
Well, I'm of the persuasion that America's role in the international community was one of that of a superpower, because we are a superpower and that sort of thing.
I just think that with the tragedies of September 11th and the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan, what we're fighting, or at least we were fighting until this election, we were fighting a war against ideology to stop the spread of such theocratic senselessness.
Historical Democracy Movements00:11:29
For instance, the whole reason why you had individuals, specifically from tyrannical dictatorships that utilize the theocratic zealousy of Islam, since birth to most of these populaces that are being dominated by tyrants, they are indoctrinated with, you know, if you kill yourself to kill the infidels, which are, you know, westernized people at this point, westernized countries at this point,
that you're going to have some sort of religious significance in the afterlife.
And I think that the whole reason why we were in Iraq and Afghanistan was to attempt to facilitate a democracy out in this part of the world and make these people understand that you can operate on different spheres of consciousness.
And that's what I was relating to with the liberal female that called prior.
You know, I mean, sure, I'm a Christian, but that's my spiritual sphere of consciousness.
It doesn't dictate how I you know, how I act in public or in my country because there's a certain rule of law.
There's a social order that keeps us all entwined to being civilized.
And you have to separate those spheres of consciousness and the people, basically the majority of those folks that are remnants of the Ottoman Empire and all that nonsense.
And it's basically you can relate it to the Treaty of Versailles and Britain's mess, but we don't want to get into that historical garbage.
But the bottom line is that you've got a lot of religious zealousy and it's being utilized by tyrants in this region to subjugate people and to make those people that are subjugated with such mental dominion into going out and participating in such heinous acts in the name of religion, in the name of afterlife significance.
And I think that's why we were in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now at this point, if we elect John McCain as Republican Party, not only is he going to extend the war into other parts of the international community, but he's going to take away the very supposed democracy theory that he's trying to spread across the international community.
He's going to put more government in the homeland of the United States.
He's going to put more government regulation, raise taxes.
And at the same time, he's going to extend the war in the name of democracy.
I think that's complete hypocrisy, and that's not what the Republicans were about, and that's why I've renounced the Republican Party, man.
Ghost, I've got to take a couple exceptions.
First of all, I don't think you're going to see McCain raise taxes.
Not in the current economic situation that we're in.
In other economic situations, I think you do it in a heartbeat.
But I don't think that in facing a slow-growing or stagnant economy, that McCain actually is dumb enough to raise taxes.
And I think he's the one thing that I think he said that's the smartest is I got to get good advisors on economics.
Yeah, he needs it.
Believe me.
Playing the Reagan card.
I'm smart enough to know what I don't know, and I'm going to have people around me smarter than me.
Yeah, absolutely.
Ozone?
Yeah, well, economics definitely, the thing we need to do is cut taxes, period.
Hopefully McCain will figure that out.
But about the international relations, when he was talking about Venezuela and Chavez, yeah, the people voted him in, but they didn't give him, they gave him, they didn't take away the term limits, and they can vote again.
It's still a democracy, and democracies can make mistakes.
Even us, just like France voted for Sarkozy.
Also with China and economic freedom, you know, if they're not a free people, you know, economic freedom is the key to power because that's what's going to bring you production and power.
So giving them, you know, they now see the key to power without having to give up actual political power and giving freedom to the people.
That's dangerous, I think.
And also with the Muslims, 99% of the Muslims are oppressed.
We have to remember that.
That's why in Muslim countries, 99.9% are Muslim, and you don't see anyone else because they were either killed or they fled.
But, you know, the dictators and the radicals, those are the ones that once they're free, then we can see what the Muslims want.
And they'll want freedom and peace.
Just like in Europe, had wars for centuries, just like they say about the Muslim area.
Europe had wars for centuries until America came in.
Wherever America went, that's what is democracy.
America goes in, occupies for a few years and leaves, and the waste is democracy everywhere it goes.
Well, I'm going to have to leave it at that because I'm about out of time and I just wanted to close out the show.
I'll go ahead and leave y'all.
Let y'all have a minute to respond.
Go ahead.
No, every place America has gone, the only thing we've ever asked for is a little bit of dirt to bury our dead.
I mean, there's no doubting if you look at historical record and you look at it objectively that America has not been an oppressive nation that's pushed our particular values on other people, but in fact saved the rest of the world from tragedy and left leaving behind only some gravestones of dead heroes.
But you can't solve all problems with economics, but you can solve some.
I don't think that the Chinese government can hold their communist political hold on the people once they see what economic prosperity looks like forever.
It will take a long time.
It's a big country and it's been oppressed for a very long time.
But the thing that I take most events to is if you really believe that Chavez is going to give up power because he isn't elected in the next election, you haven't studied history.
He now has the military in his pocket.
He's going to have to be taken out.
He won't step down just because he lost that vote to extend his ability to rerun for president.
Won't happen.
That's why education is so important because every hundred years the entire planet changes population and if the education of the liberal propaganda and all this socialism propaganda is aggressively being pushed on children, every generation will have these problems.
So education is key.
That's why you need to read Voucher Wars.
It's a really great book by a lawyer who's been in the thick of it, fighting the teachers' unions for vouchers across the United States.
It's a first-hand perspective of that little war that's going on in our courts.
And if we get inner-city kids educated, their lives will get better.
And we're going to have to leave it at that.
I want to thank both of y'all for calling in.
Do y'all want to plug anything?
I'm good.
Thanks, ghost.
I'll talk to you soon.
Thanks a lot, Ozone.
How about you, man?
Do you want to plug a show or anything?
Yeah, I'd like to plug the people who died 15 years ago and the people who died on 9-11 and the warriors that have died in our name.
Thank you for that.
Definitely good sentiments there.
And we're just going to have to leave it at that.
We only got four minutes left, folks, and I just wanted to close down the show by saying that we need to start talking about things as American folks, okay?
That's how our government works.
The only way that we're going to have the mechanism of government listen to the people is if the people organize themselves.
Whether you're on the right, whether you're on the left, what you folks need to understand is that you need to take an issue.
You need to take an idea.
You need to take a viewpoint.
And you've got to figure out what's that most important idea, that most important viewpoint that really burns you, that motivates you.
You need to figure out what it is and go out and try to find some sort of organization or group that thinks like you do.
And if there isn't one, go out and make one.
And what you need to do is organize yourself district by district, town by town, and try to organize people, try to get people involved.
And all they need to do to get involved is their name and their address and their phone number.
And they're involved.
That's all there is to it, folks.
And let me tell you, once you've accumulated enough people that believe in your idea, in your viewpoint on any political or social subject matter, if you accumulate enough people in this democracy, you and your group will be able to have enough political clout to start gaining some recognition from some local politicians, then some state politicians, then federal politicians.
This is how our democracy works, folks.
We live in the freest society ever erected in mankind, folks.
I mean, if you don't believe me, you're going to believe all this malarkey about, oh, we live in some totalitarian garbage, all this leftist garbage or conspiracy theorist garbage.
If you need empirical evidence to figure out how free we are, just take a look at the civil rights movement.
The civil rights movement, folks, is empirical evidence that we live in a free society.
We had community leaders, individuals that stood up against what they felt and what most civilized people felt was wrong.
And you know what?
Through domestic unrest, such things as civil peace movements, marches, media exposure, acknowledgement by certain politicians, they were able to get the Civil Rights Act passed.
And guess who signed it into office?
A historical documented racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, signed in the Civil Rights Act.
Now, why did he do that?
Why did this historically documented racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, signed in the Civil Rights Act?
Why did he do it?
Because the people wanted it, folks.
And y'all should read about the Civil Rights Act.
Y'all should read about other movements that have impacted American government.
Because you can do it, folks.
It's the people's government.
It's our government.
It's your government.
Don't just sit on your ass.
Okay?
And if you are sitting on your ass, shoveling food down your hole like a damn garbage disposal, the least you could do is pick up some reading material to make yourself more intellectually endowed.
You need to understand that this bureaucracy that is our government, all the tentacles, all the machinery that is our government, it's your government.
And I think everyone in here needs to understand that and needs to go out and participate.
All right?
Anyway, folks, I wanted to thank everybody for tuning in with me this late evening, midnight hour.
I encourage everybody to check out the archives, and you can get back to those at www.blogtalkradio.com slash ghost.
That's G-H-O-S-T.
And email me up.
Tell me when I should have this show, True Conservative Radio.
And I thank you very much for tuning in with me.
Long live the conservative movement and death to feminism.
Samsung Galaxy S7 Review00:00:30
Oye, is that the new Samsung Galaxy S7?
Yeah, I got it for zero down on AT&T Next.
Plus, it takes amazing pictures.
Oops, don't worry.
It's a water-resistant Samsung Galaxy S7.
You can get the new Samsung Galaxy S7 for zero down on AT&T Next, too.
AT&T, mobilizing your world.
Requires well-qualified credit installment agreement and service.
Balance due of service canceled.
Taxes activation or upgrade.
Another fees, charges, and restrictions apply.
Water resistant up to five feet for up to 30 minutes.