Ghost dismisses H1N1 as mass hysteria and attacks Sarah Palin's competence, linking her nomination to Republican hijacking. He condemns Democratic healthcare reforms and global warming treaties like Copenhagen as socialist traps designed to tax Americans. The discussion critiques hyper-Keynesianism, arguing government bailouts socialize losses while privatizing gains for corporate elites. Speakers advocate local grassroots organizing over federal mandates, reject the fair tax as a disguised entitlement scheme, and warn that shifting from equality of opportunity to outcome will inevitably lead to a collapsing fascist or communist regime. [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.
Love Talk Radio.
Well, good evening, folks.
And thank you for tuning in with me once again to another edition of True Conservative Radio.
And of course, I am your host, the man they call Ghost.
And once again, folks, I want to thank everybody for tuning in with me.
Whether you're live or in the archive, I want to say what's happening to you.
It's getting close to the Halloween time of the season.
And if you happen to have youngins out there, I strongly advise you to be careful when conducting your festivities this Halloween season.
And secondly, folks, I'd like for everyone to bookmark the blog, the official blog of the True Conservative Radio program.
And before I give you the address, I want to get things clear right off the bat.
Once again, folks, I took a lot of heat for being so critical against this mass hysteria of this H1N1 malarkey.
And as of recent developments, this past weekend, the president named the H1N1 swine flu some sort of a national emergency, which gives who the hell knows what bureaucratic arm even that much more power over your life and your choices.
But I strongly advise you to really take a good look at what's going on here with this spectacle called H1N1 swine flu that's got everyone running to their nearest health care provider in hopes of getting that magical vaccine in their veins that's going to prevent them from getting any kind of an ailment that's going to put them at risk at any point.
Folks, you're at risk every time you walk outside your door.
Okay, I mean, that's what people just don't understand.
I can't believe this mass hysteria over this H1N1 crap.
And of course, folks, I've been rather critical.
All right?
I've been rather critical of this H1N1 swine flu malarkey.
I've been rather critical about those that are in the media that are given this hysteria so much airtime and airplay that it's hyper-sensationalizing this ridiculous ordeal, to the point where the people are willingly going into health care providers getting a vaccine that they know nothing about.
Now, with that in mind, folks, I had a lot of emails from listeners that were critical of me, thinking that I was somehow being nonchalant about the H1N1 pandemic out here, folks, but it's just the freaking flu.
All right, let's calm our asses down.
I know that we live in such a pussy-pampered society that we've got to, you know, coddle people and put a pamper on them and put little, make sure to put your powder on, you know, all this malarkey.
But, folks, it's just the freaking flu.
And if you look at the numbers of supposed deaths that are related to this particular illness, it is in no way that much more higher than the average, quote-unquote, seasonal flu.
And yet, you've got all these morons out here running to health care providers like lab rats running to food pellets going in trying to take this H1N1 flu shot on top of the regular seasonal flu shot.
And folks, that was the subject matter that I blogged about on this past blog post.
And I strongly advise you to take a look at the video clip that I posted on the blog.
The blog, folks, is ghostpolitics.blogspot.com.
Once again, folks, that's ghostpolitics, all one word, no underscores, ghostpolitics.blogspot.com.
And I strongly advise you to take a look at the video clip of one of the supposed one in a million chances of side effects.
One of those one in a million cases where you could get some sort of a side effect from these flu vaccines that we know absolutely nothing about.
And I'd like for you all to just take a look at that, and I want you to ask yourselves: is this the alternative to supposedly getting stricken with this swine flu ailment?
You know, anybody who's been stricken with a regular flu knows it's no walk in the park.
I mean, you know, you're in bed for two weeks.
I mean, it literally feels like the impending danger of death is upon you.
You're sweating when it's cold.
You know, you're cold when it's hot.
You've got respiratory situations going on.
You're coughing.
It's just a mess, folks.
I mean, anybody who's had the flu knows it.
But to sit here and call national emergencies about it, to sit here and have this mass hysteria that the media is inducing is just completely irresponsible and ridiculous.
And I am not going to get a damn flu shot.
I've never gotten a damn flu shot.
It makes no sense to get a damn flu shot, in my personal opinion.
And for all you folks that are getting one, once again, I strongly advise you to go to the blog at ghostpolitics.blogspot.com and take a look at the post where I posted a video of one of those one in a million side effects of this supposed great remedy to the H1N1 swine flu to the cooties.
Criticizing Sarah Palin's Exit00:15:38
It's ridiculous.
Anyway, I didn't want to get off on a swine flu tirate there, but I strongly advise you all to please check out the blog.
Anyway, folks, there's a variety of different subject matters that we're going to talk about this evening.
So many that I hope that we have enough time within this program to get to them all.
And of course, I'd like to hear from you if you have any insight on what we're discussing this evening.
I'd like for you to give me a call at 646-652-4869.
And I think we're just going to go ahead and dive right into the first subject matter listed in the description.
And I'm talking about this Eskimo bimbo Sara Pala.
That's right, folks.
I'm talking about this, you know, old backwoods, you know, moose antler humping whatever out of Alaska that completely just dismantled not only the entire Republican Party, but has segmented the entire conservative base.
Now, I know there's going to be a lot of conservatives out there that are going to get a little butthurt about me being so critical about their fair queen, their Miss Princess, their Miss America, Sarah Palin.
But I've always been critical of her ever since the Republicans nominated John Turncoat McCain as their candidate for president this past presidential election.
And then to put an icing on the cake, they got Sarah Palin, you know, somebody who wasn't even a damn one-term, fully governor or, you know, had any kind of experience whatsoever.
I mean, you know, that aside, I mean, I'll put her experience in the back burner.
She didn't have to have experience.
She just had to be competent.
And we all heard that Katie Courick interview.
And if you haven't heard it, please go to your nearest video portal site and literally throw up a little bit in your mouth when you hear this woman stumble over her own tongue like some dim-witted, imbecilic beauty contestant trying to explain how she's going to rid the world of hunger, you know, by, you know, forcing people to go out and work in beauty shops or some crap.
And I'm not joking, folks.
It was a disgrace.
This woman, Sarah Palin was a disgrace to the Republican Party.
She was a disgrace to the conservative movement.
Now she's somehow become a mouthpiece for the conservative movement.
This is a woman who, during the last presidential campaign, which she was a vice presidential nominee in, during the Republican convention, they were endorsing King pregnancy as if it was some beautiful thing at the time.
Oh, look, Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnant.
Oh, look, it's okay.
It's a beautiful thing.
We love her.
And, you know, you had this ridiculous, the idiots that ran the McCain campaign actually propping up this bimbo daughter of hers and this class act of an idiot that she got knocked up by, some, you know, backwoods moron, and actually prop them up at the Republican convention as if they're the staple American family or something.
It was a disgrace, and it was a despicable display of supposed conservatism.
And that's why this program is no longer affiliated at any point in time ever again with the Republican Party.
And if you're one of these conservatives that are going to sit here and put this dumb bimbo, this ridiculous idiot, no political sense nor knowledgeable sense have an idiot, Sarah Palin, if you're going to put her on a pedestal, then you have no political clout with me.
You are one of these idiots that sit in front of a boob tube and wait for some talking head to tell you how to think.
You have no critical thinking, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
This was a disgrace, this Sarah Palin.
oh, look, it's Sarah Palin, oh, look, she's a...
I mean, you had these supposed pseudo-feminists out here, you know, that were on the right side of the political persuasions, you know, championing Sarah Palin's VP nomination as if it was a progress for women.
Oh, she's a woman.
It's great.
Then you had these hard legs in the Republican and Conservative Party literally playing pocket pool with themselves every time this woman was on the screen.
I mean, you look back in the archive of this show, folks, we had idiots calling up back then, you know, goo-gooing and gagan over themselves saying, well, Ghost, I don't know why you have a problem with her.
I mean, she's hot.
I'm going to vote for her because she just looks hot.
And, you know, why not?
I mean, you know, this is not how the Republican Party that I knew used to think.
I mean, the Republican Party used to be the party of ideas.
And then, you know, this past election came along.
They got hijacked by the liberals that overtook the whole damn party.
And not only has the apparatus of the Republican Party been hijacked by liberals, it's obvious that these idiots have also hijacked certain segments of the conservative ideology.
And let me tell you something, folks.
This is a true conservative radio program.
And this Sarah Palin is a disgrace.
And the reason I talk about Sarah Palin, folks, is because not only has she become the center-fold mouthpiece for the new quasi-conservative movement that's coming out nowadays, and I've also been overtly critical on the blog about her, you know, quick exit, you know, not finishing out her term as governor out there in Alaska.
And, you know, I've been overtly critical of her about a lot of things.
But, you know, once again, let's go ahead and throw some cherry on the damn ice cream Sunday.
And it comes out, according to Associated Press Reports and Reuters, that Sarah Palin was paid $1.25 million for a book deal by the time she left office.
Let me explain that to you again.
All right.
You had Sarah Palin, you know, claiming that she had to leave office and she gave us some half-ass-witted backwards excuse why she left her governorship, you know, not even fulfilling a full term out there for heaven's sake, you know, using her own superficial reasons on why to just kind of drop herself from public service, which was a complete disgrace, and I wrote about it in my blog for heaven's sake.
But now we are starting to get a little bit of a whiff on why Sarah Eskimo Bimbo Palin decided that she didn't want to dedicate herself to public service any longer because she has a $1.25 million book deal that she had signed at the time.
And this just underscores to all you people that are putting this dumb idiot, Sarah Palin, on some sort of a pedestal as if she's some sort of a conservative mouthpiece.
You are a disgrace.
And if you're one of these people that are sitting here trying to champion this woman into somehow running for president, I want you to give me a call and give me some substance on why this is some sort of a political viable option here.
646-652-4869.
I mean, you know, I wrote about in the blog when she stepped down from her governorship out there in Alaska that the reason that she was probably stepping down was because of all the nefarious investigations that were happening related to her, I don't know, tenure in office.
You know, there was a lot of internal investigations on, you know, a lot of different issues.
We don't have enough time to get into the crux of Alaska politics, nor do I give two rats' asses to get into it.
But frankly, folks, I thought that's why she was stepping down.
You know, I kind of figured that there was something monetary involved with her kind of just stepping down at ease and just kind of you know, now she's getting money to go speak in front of a bunch of hard legs all over the world.
I don't know if you are aware of this, but Sarah Palin, you know, she's getting her mug all over the place.
You know, she all she has to do is mouth off something somebody pre-wrote for her.
And, you know, you've got all these hard legs looking at her as if she's some sort of a political scientist, as if she's some sort of political genius or something, you know, equating her to like Margaret Thatcher of some sort.
I mean, it's a disgrace.
It's just an utter disgrace.
And I'm just not very happy with it.
I'm not very happy with the fact that we've got Sarah Palin, the mouthpiece now for this quasi-conservative movement that the mainstream media is giving any kind of press to.
And let me tell you something, folks.
I get thousands upon thousands of emails from true conservatives.
I'm talking about true conservatives that can see right through the Sarah Bimbo, whatever she's going on, whatever you want to call that family.
And look at Levi Johnson.
And for all you folks that don't know who Levi Johnson is, this is the moron that Sarah Palin's daughter decided, I don't know, he waved a hockey stick a certain way, or she liked how he looked in a moose skin jacket or something.
I don't know.
But she allowed this moron, Levi Johnson, to give her the high-hard one, and lo and behold, a bun was in the oven, and out came a baby.
Well, Levi Johnson, the class act that he was, and as the Republican Party tried to portray him in this convention, and you know, John McCain shook his hand in the whole nine yards.
Levi Johnson is out here, he's posing for Playgirl.
Oh, yeah, isn't that great American values there, folks?
Oh, yeah.
Levi Johnson, he's posing for Playgirl, so the whole world can see what, you know, whatever, six five and a half-inch sausage lured the Sarah Palin daughter away from the conservative lifestyle into the lap of some backwoods Alaskan, you know, platypus hunter or whatever the crap.
I don't know.
It's ridiculous.
Anyway, I think we're going to take some calls here, and hopefully, the calls I take, if you're pro Sarah Palin, please, I want some substance on the debating table, all right?
The debating table is here.
Look, right there, I want you to put some substance on the damn thing.
And if you're, you know, against Sarah Palin, you know, it is pretty much, you don't really need to say anything else.
I mean, actions speak louder than words.
And unfortunately, we live in an America that we're so stupefied.
We are so dumbed down that, you know, people can't look past the fact that she looks like, you know, look, she looks like a school teacher.
And yeah, she makes me feel funny in the pants every time I look at a talk.
It's just ridiculous.
It's really unbelievable.
Semi-Freudian.
Semi-Freudian.
And I hate Freud.
I thought Freud was a nut job.
But, you know, look at what's happening here.
It's disgusting.
It's a disgrace, even amongst the conservative wing of the political spectrum in America.
Unbelievable.
Anyway, we're going to take a call here from the 609 area code.
609, you're on the air.
Hi, can you hear me?
How's it going?
Hi.
This is Tom from New Jersey.
And I don't mean to disappoint you, but I'm actually going to support what you said.
I'm a true conservative.
I thank you very much, sir.
And, you know, I really hate what Palin is doing to the party.
And, you know, you want to see what true conservative is.
You look at what's going on now in New Jersey with the grassroots.
You know, Palin barely campaigned for anyone on behalf of the Republican Party and conservatives.
She just puts out these weasly endorsements once in a while.
You know, the only person she really campaigned for was down in Georgia, you know, which was like five days after the election.
You know, what's going on in New Jersey right now is a revolution.
I'm actually hearing about what's going on in New Jersey, sir.
I've actually kept up to date with it.
But if you're out there in the trenches, give us some insight on it.
I know that there's a governor's race out there that's being hotly contested based on grassroots organizations.
So please enlighten us.
Well, absolutely.
What's going on is, you know, we're trying to fight corrupt John Corzine, who's, you know, he's been part of the Democratic establishment for decades.
You know, he's a classic Democrat.
You know, he's in with the unions.
He's in with the trial orders.
He's in with everyone who's against our interests.
And, you know, it really aggravates me because I am a true conservative.
But it aggravates me because only now, really, is the National Republican Party paying attention to what's going on in New Jersey, only because, well, they want the narrative to be that Democrats are losing and they're going to lose in the next year's midterm elections.
And it really conflicts me because with the Republican Party nowadays, it's going to be like Terry Shaiva.
You just got to pull the plug on these people.
You've got to pull the plug and let them die.
You've got to pull the plug on.
Yeah.
Okay.
Was that some sort of a prank call?
Or did you go berserk?
Are you there, sir?
Well, I guess that was some sort of a Terry Shiva joke.
But anyway, I mean, I guess that was semi-humorous.
You get a lot of unpredictable liberal longhairs who attempt to agitate the show with prank calls.
Typically, you get these welfare cases that got their phones from the Salvation Army or something.
And they usually call up with their ghetto-fied urbanized vernacular that they learned from Ice Cube on some stupid record or something.
And they call up talking a bunch of four-letter words and a bunch of garbage.
But I appreciate that idiot out there.
I appreciate that he actually fought out, actually pretended like he gave a crap.
In essence, since his prank call there, and he hung up, we understand now that this individual is probably a liberal agitator collecting some sort of government entitlements on your dime and on my dime.
And that's why he's up here making prank calls about serious issues that we need to discuss here in the American political spectrum.
One of which I don't mean to continue on this Sarah Palin bit, but once again, folks, if you're a true conservative, we don't need this woman, this Sarah Palin, this supposed quasi-mouthpiece for the Conservative Party.
We don't need her to segment, or seem to segment the conservative wing any longer.
And that's what she's done.
In my view, she has just completely segmented the Conservative Party or the Conservative wing of the party.
Why Conservatives Need Palin Out00:03:09
And I just think that it's a disgrace.
I've been talking about it for three goddamn years.
And it seems like it's falling on deaf ears.
Every time I talk about this subject matter, and I wouldn't be surprised if that person pranked Colin was a Republican.
I get these agitators because this is what the political frame of debate is.
It's about agitation.
It's no longer about true information, not about facts any longer.
All you've got to do is say something and act convincing enough to the people that they'll say, oh, yeah, I'll believe him.
Yeah, I believe him.
It's ridiculous.
But once again, folks, before I move on to another subject matter, Sarah Palin, folks, big thumbs down.
I think she's a disgrace to America.
She's an imbecile, in my opinion.
She's an idiot.
In my view, you know, she's just probably one of the worst human specimens that could be put on the world scene to represent any other opposite perspective than what's dominant in the regime today.
It's a disgrace.
It's horrible.
I can't believe America has fell to this bowels of depth.
I mean, it's just a disgrace.
And Sarah Palin, you know, why don't you do the country a favor and just be the materialistic hillbilly like those McCain aides said that you were when they described you on your shopping sprees when they vetted you as the VP nominee.
They said that you went into Nordstroms or these big-time department stores and you and your family had an utter shop and spree pig out on the Republican dime out there.
You were just bombarding the credit card with all these ridiculous little cutesy little outfits.
And oh, look at me.
I look like a school teacher.
So, you know, just stick to that.
All right there, Palin.
Stick to continuing to make money off these hard legs that like to look at you speak because they want to feel that, yeah, you're actually an attractive woman that gets me funny in the pants and you're semi-sophisticated and all that's something that's sexually appealing to me and aw.
All right, just do that.
Don't be in the political public service arena.
It's obvious from your complete abandonment of your governorship at your home state.
It just goes to show you that you're a wishy-washy character that cares about nothing but your own superficial self.
So why don't you keep your superficial self out there speaking in the private sector and shitting out books or doing it ever to prostituting your family, whatever it is that you want to do, do it out there.
Don't come back into the mechanism of government where we need true statesmen and stateswomen.
Rachel Maddow's Tax Rhetoric00:11:51
We need people that are going to efficiently run this government for the people and by the people, not for their own selfish, superficial needs.
And that's exactly what you are, Sarah Palin.
You are no better than these damn liberals out here that are just such media whores, that are just such rhetoric, that are just such garbage, and that are such ignorant pieces of trash that you have no right, Miss Palin, no right to represent yourself as a conservative because I'm a conservative, damn it.
Anyway, folks, I'm going to go ahead and move on here.
The next subject matter on the agenda, folks, Barney Frank, for all you leftists out there, I'm sure y'all are probably tickling your dingleberry-ridden poop shoots when I name the name Barney Frank.
But he finally is talking some leftist truth.
And, you know, I've got to give it to him.
You know, he is overtly blatant.
We all know about the nefarious activities in his past and who the hell knows in his present day.
But he's actually airing out a little bit of Democratic and leftist truth.
And for all you folks that missed it, because he was actually on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC.
And Rachel Maddow, folks, is that Short-headed, you know, looks like a bulldyke, or probably is a bulldyke, or who gives a crap if she's a bulldyke, but she's a, you know, a really disgusting, despicable-looking specimen to look at, unless you're one of these leftists that, you know, think that, you know, elephant turds on the Virgin Mary is art or some crap.
Anyway, Rachel Maddow had Bernie Frank on as one of her guests.
You know, how convenient, you know, leftist on leftist media.
Of course, they're going to give exclusive interviews to like-minded, supposed journalists and commentators.
But anyway, Rachel Maddow had old Bernie Frank on, and Barney Frank was there with his double chin and his little lisp and doing all that garbage.
And I really wouldn't have paid attention to it because it's, you know, obviously typical leftist liberal propaganda.
But something that caught my ear was the fact that he basically bluntly put it: I don't know how honest you could be, but Barney Frank was as honest as any leftist has been during this ridiculous damn process of liberal transition.
This is what he said, folks, and I'm paraphrasing.
He said, in comparison to paying for this health care program, this public option, universal health care, whatever it is that you want to call or classify it.
Nancy Pelosi with her plastic-ridden face came out today and called it, was it the consumer option as opposed to the public option?
She's trying to rename it, repackage it.
It's the same crap, different plate, but she's trying to repackage it up as the consumer option.
Anyway, folks, a lot of criticisms, of course, that comes with this whole idea, this whole health care reform initiative that the left is trying to initiate is the cost.
How are they going to pay for it?
It's a tremendous amount of cost involved in supplying this publicly funded health care system that the Democrats are so adamant about initiating.
And of course, folks, it wasn't but yesterday, I believe, or early today, Harry Reid initiated his own health care initiative that was completely against what was already hotly debated on.
He decided to go ahead and put out his own crap, putting back in the public option, steering away moderate Democrats and steering away all those leftist Republicans that were going to vote for something that their Democrats initiated.
Anyway, because Harry Reid is putting up this whole public option back on the table as if it's my way or the highway type of politics, Barney Frank was on Rachel Maddow, and Rachel Maddow was trying to lightly get them to talk about this particular issue so they can get leftists new talking points to spit at when these, you know,
what do you call these tea baggers or anybody else who's of the opposite persuasion of these leftists, it'll get them ready to say whatever talking point Barney Frank is about to say.
And Barney Frank, I don't think what he said was a talking point.
I thought it was pandering to the leftist hardliners out there.
I mean, I thought it was disgusting.
He was talking about a surtax.
And that's his words.
Placing a surtax on the wealthy.
And you see, folks, this is what's really unfortunate about liberalism.
I mean, they're just masters of deceit and lies and propaganda.
When, you know, individuals in the lower classes outside the middle class and the upper middle class and the lower classes are idiots in general, just dumb people, when they hear Barney Frank say that they are going to just charge a little surtax on the wealthy, that sounds very innocent.
It sounds like, oh, well, you know, it's just a little tax.
These people are the wealthiest people out here.
What's a little surtax so that we can pay for this universal health care system?
Because these idiots actually believe it's universal health care for some reason, even though it's not.
It's mandated insurance.
Read the bill, you morons.
Federally mandated insurance.
But, you know, the average idiot will hear Barney Frank and say, oh, yeah, a surtax.
Yeah.
A surtax on the wealthy.
Do you understand what this means, folks?
This means that he wants, and well, not he, he's admitting.
He's admitting that the left has to tax or raise taxes on someone to pay for this health care initiative.
Now, mind you, folks, that I know that the top 1% of the wealthiest in America take a lot of heat for whatever reason, but they take a lot of heat for a lot of reasons.
But we have to keep in mind that this sector of the population gives up 40%, you know, 40% of what they got in taxes here.
This is not, I mean, they pay 40% of everything.
I mean, you have to understand that.
It's a big chunk.
And meanwhile, the middle class and the upper middle class, I mean, we're also getting squeezed to death because, you know, we've got a bunch of losers tagging on in the entitlement systems.
They're tagging on to getting the free housing vouchers.
They're tagging on to getting the free cell phone vouchers.
They're tagging along to get the free everything.
So what I'm saying here is, folks, is that the reason I'm bringing up this Barney Frank Rachel Maddow discourse is because Barney Frank admitted that they are going to have to put a surtax on some segment.
He initiated the wealthy.
Who the hell is the wealthy?
Who the hell is the wealthy, for heaven's sake?
Are you wealthy?
Who the hell is the wealthy?
I mean, do you understand that they're going to drive anybody with any type of wealth out of America and move to somewhere else where there's free enterprise?
I mean, this is just completely wrong for America.
This is just disgusting.
It's a disgrace.
And we're just ruining our country.
We, folks, if this health care bill passes, or this health care reform bill, whatever you want to call it, if it passes, we are officially, if we're not there now already, we're already in a quasi version of it, but we will be fully in a socialist system.
If we allow this health care reform bill to continue to go and take its course with all this public option and federal mandated insurance and all these ridiculous taxes, I mean, they're already, I don't know if you folks are familiar, they want to federally mandate a tax on sodas and soft drinks.
Yeah, they want to federally tax all kinds of malarkey.
They want to federally tax your fatty foods.
Oh, yeah, they want to place taxes now on plastic surgery.
Now, that's what they want, too.
I mean, you should read about the amount of taxes that these blood-sucking, bureaucratic, leftist liberals want to inflict on the American people.
And we're allowing them to do it because they're feeding the dumbass American public the right rhetoric.
They're singing them the right songs.
They're telling them the right things.
And what are we doing?
We're here.
We're buying it.
And we are seeing the systematic destruction of the American Constitutional Republic into some sort of quasi-communist, quasi-socialist horsecrap.
And I think that everyone that's an American citizen should take responsibility for that.
I know there's a lot of American citizens that are losers in this country that are accepting it.
They want to be in serfdom.
They want to be in peasantry.
And it's a disgrace.
And Barney Frank, in this ridiculous interview with that bulldyke Rachel Maddow, he admits it.
He admits that there's going to be a surtax on the wealthy, whoever the hell the wealthy is, which even if he did put a surtax on the wealthy, they would not be able to pay for this plan.
So it's going to go in the pockets of the middle class.
If there's still some left, it's going to be in the pockets of the upper middle class.
If there's still some left after this ridiculous transition into socialism, what is everybody doing about it except accepting it?
That's what really pisses me off, man.
Everybody in here is accepting the transition into socialism.
I've been on here for three years telling you, hey, it's coming.
You know, I mean, during the presidential campaigns, I was telling you morons, hey, it's coming.
And, you know, you had the people on the left, oh, yes, we can.
I want change.
Oh, my God.
Look, it's Obama.
He's giving me a twingling into my leg and into my testicles.
And I've got to vote for him.
And these idiots on the right, I mean, they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
I mean, they were nominating John Turncoat McCain and the Sarah Bimbo Palin.
It was a ridiculous spectacle.
It was a disgrace.
Unbelievable.
So, folks, if any kind of health care initiative, any kind, because these politicians are not going to implement true reform, and true reform would entail that we just completely dismantle the insurance companies.
Tort Reform and Free Enterprise00:02:59
How about that?
If you want true reform, why don't you take the health insurance companies off of the patients?
All right?
We implement tort reform so that morons can't get rich because, you know, like that one lady we reported about it a couple of months ago, who instead of having three or four teeth removed, she had like six or seven teeth removed, and some idiot jury awarded this Nimrod $500,000 for it.
You know, I mean, she got rich, she got rich because of mistake-pulled teeth.
I mean, and I'm sure if we looked at her grill today, oh, I'm sure she's got the nice veneers, I'm sure she's got the pearly rights, I'm sure she's got a $25,000 goddamn dollar smile.
And it's just a disgrace.
But these are the initiatives that we need to take.
We need to take health insurance off of patients.
There should be no reason patients should be paying any kind of health insurance whatsoever.
There needs to be tort reform with the health insurance because there needs to be insurance on the practitioners' end because you're going to have practices.
You're going to have malpractice suits.
But there needs to be tort reform.
There needs to be limits.
And once we start doing that, that's when we start seeing a a nice good privatized uh uh health care system.
I mean, we've got technologies out here that are just dusting the shelves of manufacturers, you know, body scanners that can, you know, uh scan your body and and and show if you're going to be uh you know induced into some sort of ailment within the future.
They they can see some sort of uh precancerous growth at at such a microscopic scale on four-dimensional picture.
I mean, you know, they've got uh the ability to be able to unclog your arteries without cracking your chest cavity, for heaven's sake.
You know, they've got robotic arms that uh you know the surgeon can substitute for his actual hands to get more precision on the actual cuts of integral surgeries like tumor removal and and heart uh surgeries and and and and transplants and this sort of thing.
And we're just they're just dusting the shelves because this insurance-based health care system, it is not profitable for these doctors to buy these expensive pieces of machinery.
So we're we're just gonna add more problem to the issue, in my opinion, by sitting here and nationalizing the health care system or trying to implement some sort of a public option or whatever whatever it is that these damn Democrats are finally going to agree to and are going to sign into the law out here.
It is going to make the situation worse and it's going to transition our economy into complete socialism.
Global Warming Cash Cow00:12:47
And I don't want socialism.
I hate socialism.
I hate communism.
I mean, do you understand that this is what what our boys fought against in all the great wars that the United States was involved in?
This is what they swore to serve and protect against and now we're embracing.
I mean this should be about free enterprise for heaven's sake.
Whatever happened to that?
I mean you know idiots are out here with their hands out and they don't care where the damn money comes from.
They don't care about any kind of repercussions that this short-term monetary gain is going to do for themselves for their children or for this country.
It's just a disgrace.
Anyway, I don't want to continue to talk about Barney Frank.
I hope that you idiots in Massachusetts out there, instead of getting on your little liberal pogo stick and shoving it up your anal passage and voting for this idiot again, I hope that you have enough sense to unelect this fat lispy piece of fruity crap and get him out of office because he's a power-hungry autocrat.
He's a disgrace and he has done nothing for this country but be some humongous blowhard that has just done nothing but toot his own horn to slap his own ass and feed his own ego for heaven's sake.
Unelect this piece of crap.
That's enough of Barney Frank.
But you heard it from the horse's mouth folks.
He said that there is going to be a surtax on the wealthy to pay for the system.
And what's wrong with that?
It's just the wealthy, huh?
It's just the wealthy.
Anyway, folks, another thing I want to talk about, I want to talk about this global warming crap.
Now, I'm sick and tired of these leftist liberal idiots that are out here claiming, oh, it's global warming, and we're going to have all kinds of greenhouse gases trapped in the earth, and it's going to fry us all to dog crap, and it's going to turn our insides into liquid garbage, and the plants are going to turn into mushland and all this garbage.
The oceans are going to go over, and they're going to drown us, and then the sharks are going to eat on our festering corpses as it swims across the ocean of our landless earth, and all this global warming catastrophic crap.
I want to say first and foremost that you people are a bunch of crap.
Let's put it that way.
You people are a bunch of garbage.
There is no such thing as global warming.
Even your own little scientist admit it.
They finally understand that, hey, well, you know, we've already rode this donkey long enough.
We can't continue to get funding off of our governments based on this global warming crap, because that's what it was, folks.
In my view, this whole global warming conspiracy was a concoction of the scientific institutions of the international community.
Every scientific international institution.
Because most scientists are funded through government grants.
Sometimes they're initiated within the private sector of the United States only if it's feasibly profitable.
But typically, these big innovations and these big ridiculous tests.
And if you want to be a scientist, you know damn well about the government grant system.
And that's how scientists get paid.
They get paid by telling the government, hey, we've got to study this.
We've got to study that.
We need a $5 million grant.
We need a $2 million grant.
Well, in my opinion, I think that's exactly what global warming was about.
It was a cash cow, a cash cow that these damn scientists globally could go to their governments and talk about.
And they all knew, you know, it was like some undercover secret throughout all the scientists within the institution of science all over the globe.
They knew that, hey, look, we're just going to go along with this global warming thing.
Sounds good.
Even though we have climatic cycles and all that stuff, we're going to disregard that.
And we're going to make people believe also.
We're going to make people believe that carbon dioxide is just evil.
And it's the cause of all this garbage.
Even though nature's filter for carbon dioxide is trees, and trees eat or they take in carbon dioxide and they release out oxygen, the complete opposite of what humans do, but we're going to disregard that.
We're going to disregard that and we're not even going to talk about it.
We're just going to pretend that carbon dioxide is just a bad thing and that every human is just responsible for this great catastrophe that's going to implement itself upon humanity.
And the only way that we're going to be able to save it, the only way is if we tax you for breathing.
That's right, folks.
And let me tell you, they've already ran the cash cow dry.
They've already cashed it out.
There's no more government money that's going to global warming anymore because they all know it's a bunch of garbage.
I mean, Al Gore screwed it up for them all.
I'm sure that if you were a scientist, and I could just imagine some pimp-squeak, you know, freckle-faced, four-eyed idiot scientist, you know, sitting there watching Al Gore release that stupid, dumb idiot video of his, whatever the hell it was, about global warming, about how the willy mammoth is going to come back or whatever the hell he was talking about.
I bet you these scientists were like, God damn it, you go, how the hell can you screw up our cash cow here, you bastard?
Because, you know, Al Gore had the, you know, he had these tremendous claims that he televised on this medium of the film or his documentary, and he made a lot of strange claims.
He made a lot of miraculous claims that supposed certain idiots in the scientific institution claimed.
And the reason they claimed these certain things is because they needed more government grants so they can get some more money.
Good Lord.
But anyway, folks, now that the cash cow is running dry, you've got the political bureaucrats hopping in on this government or this global warming crap.
Oh, yeah, are you kidding me?
You've got the damn governments of all the international communities falling hook line and sinker with this ridiculous global warming malarkey.
And why are they hopping on this bandwagon?
Because it's going to implement more taxes on you.
It's going to implement more power on you.
I mean, do you understand if a scientific institution, which I think is a bunch of malarkey, by the way, I don't think that science is the end-all authority of anything, these idiots are human also.
But because science says a little something, the government uses that scientific data, whether true or not, to initiate certain legislation so that they can have some more power on you, so they can have some more control on you.
And you know, folks, I've been actually reading about how they are doing this.
And one thing they are doing, folks, and they tried to do this back in, I believe it was 2000, 2001, I believe.
And it was called the Kyoto Protocol.
And we've talked about the Kyoto Protocol many times on this program.
We've talked about how its impact if George Bush had signed that international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, it would have affected the United States in dramatic proportions.
And a lot of idiots within the international community actually signed the Kyoto Protocol.
And as a result, that's why they transitioned into socialism that much more quickly because, well, if you look at all the cap and trades and all the supposed regulations, some quasi-international regulations of global warming out here, you look at all the taxes on industry, private industry, the individual because they just happen to be born and breathing.
I mean, you just take a look at it.
It was just a socialistic joke.
But luckily, George W. Bush did not sign the Kyoto Treaty in 2001.
And all the European countries that did, in my opinion, I think they suffered because of it.
I think they suffered greatly.
But now we have a liberal regime that's in power today that is completely okay with resorting to European socialism.
I mean, they're more than okay with it.
They're embracing.
I mean, they're having a circle jerk about it, for heaven's sake.
And you take a look at what they are initiating now, because what's happening, folks, that Kyoto Treaty in 2001, it's about to expire.
All right?
It's about to expire here on December 7th.
And guess what?
Before it expires, there's going to be an international global consortium in Denmark, in Copenhagen, about global warming and about how the international community should do certain some odd things and all these countries should do this and that.
And they are going to call this the Copenhagen Treaty.
Barack Obama is supposed to take part in this climate conference in Copenhagen and it's going to be, he's expected to speak, excuse me, in December 7th of this year.
And I think that what's going to happen here, folks, is the complete dismantling of the Constitution with the signing of this Copenhagen Treaty.
Now, let me explain what's happening here.
The United States, and I'm just going to basically give you the gist of what this supposed initiation into this global warming consortium, this international global warming consortium, we're going to sign this ridiculous Copenhagen treaty protocol, whatever they want to call it.
And we are actually, I'm talking about the American people are actually going to be taxed to death.
And why are we going to be taxed to death?
We're going to be taxed to death by this international consortium created by the Copenhagen Protocol.
And they're going to take all those international taxes based upon our CO2 emissions and our coal emissions and all our gases and all the energy and all this crap.
They're going to calculate this all up and they're going to make us pay a large international carbon tax, if you will.
And this carbon tax is supposed to help initiate industrial growth within the third world nations.
Now, kid you not, folks, I strongly advise you to start looking into what the hell is happening in this Copenhagen climate conference crap.
We're basically handing over America to some international consortium, you know, in favor of taxing us for not only breathing, but taxing us for everything that we consume that is going to leave a carbon footprint.
Oh, you use a lot of computers.
Oh, we're going to have to tax you half to death for that.
Subsidies for Big Farms Not Small00:12:53
Oh, are you a little fat ass, huh?
You're a little fat in the ass?
Oh, we're going to have to tax you for being fat in the ass because you have a bigger carbon footprint.
Oh, you have a big car?
Oh, yeah, we're going to have to tax your ass.
This is exactly what it's about.
And I want to hear what you have to say about it.
I mean, you know, most of America is just playing with their damn pecker shafts instead of going out there getting angry.
I want to hear what you have to say about it.
646-652-4869.
We got a caller here from the 740 Area Code.
You're on the air.
Hey, how you doing, Ghost?
This is Tony in Ohio.
How's it going, Tony?
Pretty good, man.
I was listening to the show and joining it once again.
Agreeing with you once again.
So I called in.
You were talking earlier about the healthcare thing, and you were talking about how the liberals want to tax junk foods and sugary drinks and stuff like that.
Absolutely.
My whole theory with that is that this is the problem with that whole thing to me.
They say that they're doing it because sodas and sugary stuff that's bad for you, which I think we all know to some extent it's bad for you, but so what?
So's caffeine in big amounts.
We you know, people drink coffee, you know what I mean?
Yeah.
And seem to handle it just fine.
Their whole point is that not only will it cut the health care bill down overall, which I'm doubtful of, but secondly, that this is because the good foods and the good juices like orange juice and apple juice and grape juice are too expensive.
Well, my whole thing is if they're too expensive, then quit paying farmers in citrus areas like Florida and California.
Government subsidies, government farmer subsidies.
Yeah, to not grow those fruits, and then that makes the juices higher prices.
Now, the farmers love that because they're getting paid not to grow food on one hand, and on the other hand, it keeps the prices higher on the food that they do sell.
But on the flip side, what that does is make orange juice twice as expensive as Pepsi and Coke, you know, and that's the problem.
The problem is not that we don't tax one thing enough or don't subsidize the other enough.
The point is if we didn't subsidize any of it, the juice would come down in price.
Yeah, that might make a few farmers mad, but it's mostly corporate farms anyway.
We have to actually just go ahead and keep it real about that.
Yeah, you know, and that's one thing I was just about to bring up is that the whole reason why we have this entitlement system to the American farmer is because there's still enough demographic amongst them to somehow lobby the congressmen and the senators in office to allocate certain entitlements to them because of the idea that the family farmer needs to be saved in America.
But you're completely right.
Most of it, it's corporate collective, or collective, wrong word there, but corporate cultivation and mass production.
And basically, if we were to lift these entitlements from these small farmers, basically we would just transition the whole idea, if it's not already there presently, completely in the corporate farmers' hands.
And of course, the small farmer will say, well, we still need the small farmer out there to initiate some sort of traditional idealism with the historical cultural value or something.
But in my opinion, I'm completely with you.
I mean, you know, this entitlement system that we give to these farmers do create scarcity amongst the supposed healthy drinks and fruits and other agricultural, supposed good, healthy foods that these Democrats are trying to push.
And you're completely right.
I don't understand how they can sit here and claim that they want people to eat more healthy and they think that this is going to somehow cut costs in the health care end.
But if you really look at it, it's just trying to play on class warfare, in my opinion, because it taxes those that obviously are going to go out and they're going to get the inexpensive drinks because of cost value.
Well, now those costs are going to go up because of the taxes.
So that's going to cost people supply and demand factor.
Well, since I'm going to pay so much for this soda water or this fruit juice, I might as well go get the real thing, orange juice or carrot juice or whatever, whatever healthy juices are on the market, which is going to run up supply and demand on those things, which is going to cause the damn price of those things to go higher.
So this is ridiculous economics that the damn liber regime is putting ourselves through.
But in my opinion, it's just a complete transition into socialism, and I don't want to have nothing to do with it.
I mean, you can tell by the class warfare initiations that they're trying to do.
I mean, just what we're talking about here with the taxes on sodas and juices.
I mean, that is class warfare at its finest.
Oh, it's going to attack the poor more than anybody.
You're absolutely correct.
It's going to act as a regressive tax because mostly poor people buy the cheapest thing they can get.
And when the cheapest thing they can get is now just as expensive as the most expensive thing, it does nothing but hurt them.
It doesn't help them.
I mean, obviously taking away the subsidies and evening the playing field is the real way to help them.
But this all goes back to FDR.
I mean, he had the government burn certain amount of acreage of certain amount of crops because he didn't want the prices to go out of control.
He was trying to price fix.
And we keep up these policies today in the form of subsidies because instead of just keep letting the farmers do all that work and then burning their crops, they said, well, look, we'll just pay you not to grow on a certain amount of acreage.
And it just is left over.
And it's the same thing when you relate it to other parts of our system.
There's a lot of subsidies that go to like, you know, big farms.
And I'm not against small farmers.
Like you were saying, like, it might dry up the small farmers.
To a certain degree, I think that's true.
But to another degree, it's not.
I have a brother who runs a small farm in Orchard.
And he does pretty well.
I mean, like, you know, not rich or anything.
But, like, he's always telling me that he goes to his town meetings and stuff.
And the people that get doled out that money are in, like, Flynn with the council or the trustees or the, you know, the county commissioner or whoever.
It's not really the small farmer that needs help that gets that stuff.
It's the bureaucrat.
It's the bureaucrat.
It's the people who are getting favorites.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it.
You know what I mean?
We just need to give nobody subsidies.
And if you can make it in a free market, you can make it.
If you can't, you can't.
He's making it, and he's not getting any subsidies.
You know what I mean?
I agree.
I think that it would probably put some competition within the small market.
I think that the small farmers could come together as some sort of a, I wouldn't say a collective presence, but more like a chamber of commerce presence.
It represents businesses within local communities.
If they come together and actually initiate ad campaigns to the consumer and say, hey, buy small farms, small farms, we care about our products more.
They're more hand labor intensive, those sorts of things.
They could be able to corner a more upscale market, possibly a more affluent market.
They could charge for their products even that much more and be able to not only sustain small farmers, but be able to prosper small farmers.
But once again, we're back to the entitlement system that's not only plaguing the poor in America, not only plaguing Wall Street currently in America, but it's always been, like you suggested, ever since FDR and his closet communist ass came into office during World War II and initiated all these New Deal and all this ridiculous nonsense that is basically nothing more than a small transition into socialist communism.
Now we're seeing the complete fulfillment of it with initiations like publicly funded health care, the takeover of the banks, the takeover of the auto industries.
And who the hell else knows what they're going to take over, what they're going to tax.
And I don't like all this damn government power.
I don't like how they're funding themselves off of our backs.
I think it's a disgrace.
Let me give you my take on the whole transition thing that you're talking about because I have a funny take on it and some people disagree with me and that's okay if you do and stuff.
I just have a funny point of view on it.
To me, what they're doing is hyper Keynesianism.
It's like Keynesianism was like a soft word.
So is you've probably heard the words mixed economy a lot.
Everybody hears that stuff and it's just soft words for third way economics.
And third way economics is it seeks to combine capitalism and either communism or socialism depending on who you're talking to, if they believe in authoritarianism or not.
And what it does basically is s seek to subsidize the riches the rich riches losses, the rich people's losses, when they screw up with our tax dollars from the middle class and the poor, and yet privatize the gains, which is exactly what Mussolini did in Italy.
And what many Americans at the time were all proud of, like it was something good.
But hyper Keynesianism, I think, that we're in now, I kind of made that up.
I'm just calling it that.
I just made that up on the fly.
But it that is kind of what it is.
It's like Keynesianism on steroids.
It's like we're I don't think we're moving towards socialism.
I think we're moving towards fascism.
And I think that they're not going to r move towards socialism because they already had their chance.
Their biggest chance to move us into a socialist nation was the bailouts.
Instead of bailing out the banks the first time with the Bush bailout, I think it was $700 billion or something like that.
When they first did the first bailout, they didn't move in a socialist direction.
The socialist direction would have been bail out the homeowner, buy their mortgages and give the banks the same $700 billion, and it gives them their needed liquidity so that they don't collapse, and everybody has their home paid off.
Now, that would have been socialism, because you bail out the poor.
You don't bail out your mortal enemy, the rich, when you're a socialist or a communist.
And when they did the stimulus package, I thought, well, maybe they'll go in a more socialist direction now because they've got the more socialist-leaning party in, you know.
But Obama went again, and he bailed out the big bankers.
And that's exactly what Mussolini did.
And it's the same things that my great-grandparents told me about, these nightmares in economics that they were dealing with when they came to this country and why they left, because they saw what was going to happen.
And it's happening all over again.
They're on this hyper-Keynesian Keynesian route to try to prop up every bad decision a rich person makes, but God forbid they do anything for a poor person like cut taxes or like we were talking about get rid of subsidies.
You know, that's an interesting analysis, but the only thing I disagree with it being fascism is that fascism continued to have the crux of the means of production in private enterprise.
So when we're seeing the gobbling up of GM, we're seeing the gobbling up of the insurance companies and mortgage companies, I mean, you know, by the government, we're seeing a systematic transition, you know, technically into some quasi-socialist communist idealism.
Yes, it is quasi- And fascism, on the other hand, allows private enterprise to keep the means of production.
But the thing about fascism is that the head of state or whoever the head power is actually dictates what is going to be produced as opposed to the state actually conducting the production itself and actually making the the decisions on what is to be produced.
It's the idea that private enterprise continues to prosper.
That's why the fascist nations like you just suggested, Mussolini, Hitler, and the other fascist nations, Spain also, these were prosperous economies during their time.
It was because they their means of productions within private enterprise.
The only difference, what made it fascism, was the fact that the head of state or the government apparatus was the one dictating what was being produced.
I have agreed with you.
I have to agree with you, but I said I have to agree with you, but I think that you can affect it by more than just dictates.
And I think that the Federal Reserve, to a large degree, the way it handles its business behind the scenes and with the interest rates, it does kind of dictate what direction our economy goes in and who is doing what and who's investing in what and what directions our economy, you know, like we went from a consumption, I mean from a production economy to a consumption economy without any supposed coercion, but they coerced us through the super low interest rates, the malinvestment,
and then the subsidies into certain arenas of technology and so forth.
Lobbying Must Be Outlawed00:05:48
That really, like ethanol, was a complete waste of money and time.
They could have let the free market pan it out and they'd have figured that out a lot cheaper.
Well, you know, I agree with you there, but once again, we live in a country that was made for the people and by the people.
And when individuals are completely okay with their current materialistic and revenue generating situation, politics and liberty and freedom become third party.
It becomes not even a I mean, you know, you know, these people of a 20% came out and that was a good turnout this last election, 25%, something like that.
It's ridiculous.
Yeah, it is.
But you see, this is why our government was not coerced, but was basically puppeteered by these corporate monsters that you speak of, was because they were the ones that were politically active.
And we, on the other hand, the American people, were consumed with consumption.
That's part of it.
You're right, Ghost.
I agree with you, man.
But also don't discount that when those big companies are given the right to monetary - I think we both agree that monetary lobbying probably should be outlawed, but when you give them that right, it's not like one man, one vote anymore.
It's those who have more dollars have more votes, and that's how the lobbying system works.
So even if we all voted at this point, I'm not even sure they would stop, because I don't think there's any accountability.
No, I completely disagree, man.
And the reason I say that is because we have historical precedent that this system can still work if the government, or excuse me, if the people were well informed about the government and about a certain issue that was going to impinge on certain liberties or civil liberties or certain freedoms, if they really, really were informed about them.
And one of the precedents was the Civil Rights Act during the 1960s, late 1960s.
It was signed into law by historical racist Lyndon Baines Johnson.
And the reason he had to sign it into law, and the reason it was initiated, because at the time, the country had finally had enough of bigotry and racism and the inequalities that were happening to those that were minorities.
And that's something that I'm completely for.
And you see, the government cracked under the pressure, but what's unfortunate is we're never going to get that kind of camaraderie around an issue once again.
And that's what I try to initiate every time I conduct these broadcasts.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I think it has to do with an informed populace because the reason I said that I thought it wouldn't matter is because they're not informed.
You know what I mean?
We have 50% high school dropouts, and that's why I'm so afraid that even if 100% of the populace voted, that they would just vote the way the parties wanted them to vote.
You know what I mean?
They would convince them with TV commercials and infomercials and whatever else they're doing nowadays.
I see my president on TV more than I do my newscasters.
I agree.
But once again, I mean, we're in the day and age of the internet.
And I understand about high school dropouts and about, you know, there's a lot of losers in America.
I've been overtly critical of the public education system, how it's dumbed down America.
But once again, you know, i this was a government made for the people and by the people.
And if we're just going to sit back and allow this to just transpire without us getting some kind of substance from somebody.
I mean, the opposition to the leftist regime at this current time is the T T Party or the T bag, whatever they're called.
And they have absolutely no substance backing up the foundations of their debates.
I mean, they're at their crashing town hall health care meetings with these politicians claiming they want to keep their health insurance when the health insurance itself is a contradiction within the whole system.
So there is no substance going on in America.
And I think that this is why I conduct broadcasts like this in hope of sparking synapses in brains of folks that need to understand that they have to participate.
They got to dedicate an hour a day into going on this great innovation called the Internet to inform themselves, give themselves different perspectives, read periodicals that are from different localities, different countries.
You know, there should be no reason why we are so dumbed down.
And this is why, unfortunately, if this all transpires and if America goes down as another socialist country and all the capitalists leave and go to the next capitalist honeybee or a honeypot, if you will, it's going to be of no fault but to the American people, in my opinion.
That's why I always say the American public sucks.
And I talk a lot of garbage about the American public because it's our fault.
It is our fault to a large degree.
I'm not going to discount the fact that if we wouldn't have had a lot more participation and a lot less apathy, even if we didn't have the full participation, at least a lot less apathy so that ideas were getting bounced off each other as opposed to throughout my life, dude, I've had a lot of friends, and a lot of my friends, when I talk to them about stuff we're talking about, will shut me down right away.
Like, I don't even want to hear about that.
What does it have to do with my life?
Oh, yeah, of course.
I hear it every day.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
No, it's okay.
They get mad at me, and I just hate that.
We do need to wake people up to stuff, and people do need to get their synapses going and fire in and reading stuff.
And be open-minded, like you were saying.
Go to different news sources, and don't just listen to the sides you agree with.
Because you were talking about earlier, and we talked about it before, with getting rid of insurance companies.
I completely agree with you.
And that's something that a leftist, if you said that to somebody on the left and didn't identify yourself as a conservative right off, they would think you were on their side.
They'd be like, oh, yeah, that's a great idea.
That's exactly what we need to do.
And then you go on to explain.
And, you know, you'll get so far in the conversation, they'll figure out, well, he's coming from a different angle.
But by then, you've done hooked them in.
Then they're already like, well, yeah, but he's getting rid of insurance companies.
Private Plastic Surgery vs Health Care00:04:32
So why would I be against it?
I do it all the time on these talk shows.
I call in the liberal shows and talk to them, and they're not against our ideas about free market health care as long as the insurance companies aren't in charge of it.
One side wants insurance companies to be in charge.
Why, I don't know.
And the other side wants government to be in charge.
Why, I don't know.
Nobody is talking besides you, I, and a few other people on, you know, shows like this and places on the internet talking about hospital-run health care and free market health care.
You know, go back to FDR again.
Why do we have our benefits through our employers?
Why don't we afford our own?
Because they had pay scale cutoffs.
You couldn't pay somebody above a certain amount.
So they had to give you benefits to try to draw you in.
It was a way around the law.
Well, now we have these benefits, which are part of our compensation package, and we're getting bad service.
Why have an employer-based system?
Just let them compensate you that in cash, and you can go out and buy your own in a free market.
Exactly.
Or, you know, you don't.
Don't buy your own.
I mean, you know, just have private industry have their own practices all over America.
I mean, I don't understand why we have to go out and insist that we have to buy some sort of insurance package.
I mean, I don't understand why individuals are out here so insistent about health insurance when we have a model, a privatized model in plastic surgery.
The whole cosmetic surgery industry is privatized, although they're starting to get a little bit of that insurance money because of the reconstruction surgery post breast cancer and those types of ailments.
Right.
But for the most part, it's all privatized.
And I keep telling people that in the 80s you had bimbos out here suckering idiots for $25,000 to get themselves a new breast implantation or augmentation.
And now that procedure, because of supply and demand and because of all the doctors that learned how to do that procedure and have done it and all the people that have gotten it, it's down to about two grand, two, five.
I mean, in some of these markets, they're out here advertising $2,500 breast augmentation.
Of course, you have to have all the money up front if you're going to have to finance it.
Well, it's going to be three or four, but if you have to repo those.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry.
I was joking.
I said it's hard to repo those.
Well, sure, but it's still, you know, right now, currently, the doctor would have to go into bad debt with that patient that failed to pay in on their finances of that procedure.
But if we had something similar to student loan in procedures that required life or death surgery, like we had these emergency, we could still have these emergency surgery areas where individuals can be picked up by ambulances and taken to these areas and just kind of on the fly medicine.
I mean, there's nothing more brilliant than somebody who's a real emergency room in the trenches doctor out there.
And there's nothing wrong with higher deductibles either.
We need to have some higher deductibles.
That'll help control costs, too.
You're right.
I mean, I agree with you completely, but I just want to add that in there, too, because it's part of the same you know, the flip side of the same coin.
You know what I mean?
Of course.
And if we allow the private sector to take its course, everything will come down in price.
More technologies will be built to make things a lot easier for the practitioner.
I don't know if you've heard about these heart surgery robotic armed apparatuses that the surgeon can now look towards through camera as opposed to cracking open the chest cavity and actually depending on his trembling arm to cut the proper valve and to cut the proper whatever it entails in heart surgery.
It's all done through computers and robotics and it's more precise and there's less liability on the doctor's end.
But those machines cost $50 million or something of that nature.
And there's no way a surgeon is going to be able to buy that for his private practice and be able to make up the expense for that large product and to be able to sufficiently run it with profiting.
I just don't understand why we aren't privatizing not only the health industry, but the education industry also.
Voucher Systems for Schools00:02:54
You talk about lots of dropouts and a lot of morons walking the street.
Believe me, I'm running into them every time I go to the damn store.
I mean, these people are morons.
They're idiots.
They lack common sense.
And it's our public education system.
And out here in Texas, it's $32,000 a year to send one child to one of these apparatuses, one of these schools.
That's right.
And it's way too expensive.
And it only gets more expensive because the government's involved.
I mean, like, you're totally right.
If you turn it all right, like, even if you if you if you have the liberals and then, you know, because obviously you've got to put legislation through, they're not going to want to just get rid of the public education system.
So you have to do some kind of transitional system to pamper them and let them know it's going to be okay.
This actually will work.
I don't know if you agree with me, but I'm all for a voucher system where parents can choose to take their kids to whatever schools they want.
They don't have to keep their kids in failing schools, and they don't have to necessarily put them in school right in their neighborhood.
Say you work in a suburb or you work in the inner city and you live in a suburb, whatever the case may be, and you have a school that you like that's near your job and that's convenient for you because that's kind of how it worked in my hometown for a little while when they had vouchers.
And it was great.
The schools that sucked were falling apart.
They were losing students every day, just like you would lose customers in a free market.
And then on the flip side, incentive pay for the teachers.
No more paying teachers that suck, the same thing you pay teachers that are good.
If you're a good teacher, you get paid great.
If you're a bad teacher, then you can just lose your job and find another career because you're not cut out for it.
And that's the bottom line.
Free market, man.
If we have a free market in education, the prices will come down, the costs will come down, and the graduate levels will go so far up.
The IQs will go up on the IQ tests, whatever measurement you want to use, your standardized tests, whatever.
All those are meaningless when you don't have a free market inside.
Because what we have now is a stagnant market.
We have teachers getting paid uniformly the same, and you have parents that have no control over where their children go to school.
They have to go where the bus takes them, and that's bad business.
And anything that the government is involved in is just ridiculous.
It falls apart.
It costs more, less results.
And I don't understand why we're moving into a transition where we want more of this malarkey.
We want more government.
We want government taking over our health care and that sort of thing.
And once again, Tony, this is why sometimes I have to blame the American people.
And this is why all people can do is send threatening emails to me saying they're going to kill me or something instead of actually going out there and directing their negative energies at those that are actually selling them out.
That's how stupid our society is actually becoming here.
And this is why I conduct these broadcasts, insulting people.
I hope the individuals that I insult, you know, feel lower than a leprechaun's nutsack, frankly.
Because they should feel low.
Ellis Island Loyalty Standards00:04:06
Because this is ridiculous.
We were supposed to be the country that was supposed to supersede all of old Europe.
You know, all that old-aged garbage, that monarch feudalistic crap.
We don't want to have nothing to do with that.
We didn't want to have nothing to do with that.
We created our own thing.
And now we're selling out to Europe's idea of what a utopian statehood would be like.
That's right.
It is what we're doing.
It's a disgrace.
And I don't understand why not more American people are being pissed off about this.
I'm starting to believe that maybe we need to legally import more, and I'm not talking about these illegal immigrants that show no loyalty to this country.
I'm talking about legal immigrants that want to be in this country, that are in this country, that have come to this country, and they're owners of businesses.
They're entrepreneurs.
They don't even know how to master the language.
And yet these guys are at Chamber of Commerce meetings trying to hobnob with the rest of us out here.
I mean, it's impressive.
It shows what America used to be.
Now there is a big theory about that, Ghost, that during the times of very high legal immigration in this country, as opposed to the open border illegal immigration we have, a lot of people will say, oh, there's no difference between the two on the economy because the people are still coming in, law or no law.
But when we had the legal influx of immigration, the big waves from Europe.
Yeah, turn of the 20th century, Day.
What's it?
Ellis Island, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
Ellis Island and New Orleans, where everybody was coming in, and those were the two main ports, and you either came in through New Orleans, you came in through Ellis Island.
Most people came in through Ellis Island.
My ancestors did.
But when they all came in, there's a theory about that, and I might be butchering the name of it, but I think it's called free market of labor theory or something like that, where they're saying that all these legal immigrants, because they wanted to come here, this was like an asylum for them.
They were dying to do anything.
I'll dig a ditch for a dollar.
I don't care.
I just want to be in this country and not where I came from.
That created this huge market for employers.
And kind of like the illegal immigration does now, where they get cheap labor, except on the other hand, these people weren't hiding from anybody.
So they paid their taxes.
Exactly.
They paid their taxes and they conducted themselves like a proud American citizen.
So they went out and they actually voted.
They actually cared about who the hell was representing them out there in Congress and the Senate.
And you're absolutely right.
I mean, you look at the transition of the Ellis Island legal immigration.
And that's what I keep telling these idiots who try to say that, oh, we're a nation of immigrants.
Well, the reason we're a nation of immigrants, we're a nation of legal documented immigrants.
We documented everybody.
Everybody's got documentation.
Now, what is it, 50 million people nowadays aren't documented, and yet they can go out and get a damn driver's license and a bank account and a home mortgage loan.
We used to be an asylum nation, but not in the terms that they use now, where everybody thinks asylum now means that you just got to say, oh, throw your hands up.
All the illegals that are here, now you're legal.
That's not asylum.
An asylum nation, what we were back then, was the last bastion of safety and prosperity that you could come to if you had to run.
If you had to run from a tyrant, we were who you ran to because you knew you could come here and there'd be no tyrants.
I couldn't have said it any better.
Go ahead.
But, I mean, that's just not the case anymore.
Go ahead, man.
No, I mean, it isn't the case anymore.
I don't know what the case is at this point.
And I can't believe that this is the America that I'm living in.
I mean, sometimes, you know, I seem to be pretty mellow today.
I've been trying to use some of this Eastern meditation techniques to try to even me out a little bit.
But usually I get so upset that I'm breaking stuff in my little room that I conduct this broadcast in.
And I start screaming because I can't believe that I'm living in this America.
I mean, this was a really quick transition from what we knew of as traditional American free market capitalism to what we know of now.
Federal Reserve and Corporate Monopolies00:09:23
And you know what really makes me sick, and I've talked about this before, but I think it should deserve some more repeating is the baby boomer generation that preluded all this crap.
I mean, it is their fault that we're in this current situation.
And what really makes me sick is that they took advantage of the complete and utter capitalist system of a free market system.
And now these are the same individuals trying to push this socialist idea, which never left their minds from the old Woodstock days.
And now they're trying to implement it on their children, on their grandchildren, on regular American citizens that don't want to have anything to do with this Karl Marx crap.
I don't belittle what you're saying, Ghost, about blaming the actual people and even in particular certain generations.
I mean, I'm part of a generation, Generation X, and it's not really one to be proud of for what its reputation is thus far.
But I mean, like, at the same time, I take a long back view from things, and I try to look at it from far away.
And what I noticed is the biggest reason this country is falling apart is when we went from the value of our dollar being what it was at 100% in 1913 to 4% of what, you know, now it's 4%.
It's worth four pennies of the dollar it was.
And what has that done to us?
And I look at the 1950s when my grandparents had a 10-year mortgage and paid it off and had two cars in a garage and only grandpa worked and grandma stayed at home.
Not to say that that's, I'm not sexist or anything, not to say that I would say that.
It worked.
We're not a Texas, but it worked.
Right.
And then now, you know, instead of having a 10-year mortgage, you get a 30-year mortgage.
Now I hear people talking about 40-year mortgages.
They've got you, because your money is so inflated that now one income doesn't pay for two cars, a garage, a house, and a ten-year mortgage.
Now, that only pays for half of that.
And now your wife has to work, because if she don't work, then you can't make the bills.
And sooner or later, we're going to get to the point where two incomes ain't going to be enough because they just keep inflating the money so bad that we can't keep up.
It never is going to keep up.
Our pay raises will never go up with inflation.
It can't happen fast enough.
Yeah, and I do agree with that.
But once again, that goes back to the whole subject matter again.
The people.
I mean, the baby boomers, and the reason I say this is because this was the last real politically active generation that made an impact on not only America, but for their own well-being.
If you look at the rate of wages in comparison to corporate profits, it was pretty reasonable.
And, you know, I know that a lot of people are critical of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.
But if you look at the steady growth of wages from that point on forward up until the 1970s, it was some great industrial growth.
You know, the wages were growing as a whole, as a whole society.
I agree with it.
And it was up until the 1970s when these baby boomers decided that they were too busy doing a little dance, making a little love, and getting down tonight, that they stopped keeping their eye on the ball when it came to the wages in comparison to productivity, or in comparison to profits, corporate profits.
And it was that lasadaisical approach that has ruined this country.
If you look at the model, or if you look at it on any kind of a chart, you're going to see steady progress from 1913 up until about 75, 76.
And then from 1975, 76, it's just stayed stagnant ever since then.
It has not moved since 1976.
Why is that?
Because the people have taken their eye off the ball.
That's another thing about free enterprise system is that those individuals that are worthy of careers open to talent, that's what makes the capitalist system, is careers open to talent.
They have to make sure amongst themselves that they are going to be paid appropriate wages.
And if it takes, you know, I'm not trying to be pro-union here, but if it takes some sort of a guild or some sort of a white-collar camaraderie amongst whatever it is, whatever skill it is, I mean, they had to take it amongst themselves within the private sector, not using the damn state or any kind of government to say, hey, look, we want wages to be appropriate to the profits.
Well, that didn't happen.
Right.
You're talking about non-corrupt unions, which would be like small confederated unions, not these large national government, you know, government-aided and government-controlling bodies.
You know what I mean?
And also, those would be under right to assemble as opposed to right to rip off the taxpayer.
Exactly.
And it's also to maintain the integrity of the trade and maintain integrity of the actual idea of the career open to talent, whatever it is in general.
But they didn't do that.
Oh, go ahead.
No, I was going to say, and as a result, from 1976 on, a lot of technology and the innovation of the computer and a lot of this technological innovation cut the damn employment industry in half, literally, from about 1976 to the present day.
And as a result of that, also, we had women going back to work because the wage scale was not keeping up to date with inflation.
So, as a result, you have all these factors coming into play within the 70s and that sort of thing, and nobody did anything about it.
And in the 80s, of course, we all knew about the people that bailed, you know, got large sums of cash in the 80s when these damn baby boomers decided to become corporate moguls and Wall Street executives and that sort of thing.
And the American worker lost its footing when it compared to its wages of previous times.
And we stagnated at those 76 levels.
Meanwhile, profits shot up 4,000%.
Yep.
All right.
4,000% because of the productivity of what was being delved out after the technological revolution.
Once the computer came into effect, it just completely cut the industry in half.
The employment industry got cut in half.
The women went back to work.
And this is why we're in the predicament we're in.
You're talking about how the dollar isn't worth diddly.
Well, the dollar isn't worth diddly because the government keeps spending it.
And the government keeps asking for more of it.
I know a lot of people want to blame the Federal Reserve, but I mean, it's a dual cooperative entity.
It takes the government, which are supposed to be men and women talking for the people.
It takes them going out and asking for all this money to pay for these ridiculous initiatives that haven't really benefited America one bit.
And it's those go ahead.
I'm sorry, buddy.
No, go ahead.
Okay.
I was just going to say, I agree with you, man.
I'm not like some people take the Federal Reserve to the point where it's a conspiracy theory.
You know what I mean?
Exactly.
I'm not like that at all.
The only thing I say about, you know, like you, I agree with what you're saying.
The only thing I would argue is that whether the federal government had control of our banking system or not, we would have still had that growth in productivity during those periods, especially when you're talking about following World War I and II, because a lot of people go, oh, the war brought us out of the Depression.
No, not really.
The fact that we didn't personally, but all of our competitors, especially when we bombed the crap out of Germany, that was the last competitor left.
All the competitors' industrial bases were completely destroyed.
There was nobody else.
So we had a monopoly on industry for quite a while between the latter 30s to the 80s.
Well, yeah, you could argue to the 80s.
You really could, yes.
Absolutely.
I mean, that's when the whole baby boomers, when they became corporate moguls, they started putting all the big campaign contributions into Washington and sending the means of production outside the United States.
I mean, because we were completely top dog of all in the 80s.
I mean, there was nobody that could compete with us except for China, or excuse me, Japan was fledgling.
And then they ended up being a true competitor.
But that was supposed to be good.
That was supposed to be a good thing.
And the corporations that were built here in America, the multinational corporations, they lobbied the Washington power-hungry autocrats into sending the means of production outside the United States.
And on top of which, they gave them tax credits to do it.
And the reason they said that this was such a good idea was because if we were to utilize the dominance of America to industrialize the entire world, that this would be a great international consumption hole, and the markets would be never-ending and all this other nonsense.
But meanwhile, the United States has been bankrolling this entire economic endeavor.
Ron Paul Treaties and Dominance00:15:03
And which I don't really mind.
I think that it could possibly work.
But the problem is, is that America is now going to be the new third world freaking country.
Right.
We took two steps backwards so the world could take one step forward.
Absolutely.
And nobody else is talking about that also.
I mean, I was just alluding to earlier in the program this December 7th visit by Obama in Copenhagen.
Supposedly, they're trying to initiate this Copenhagen protocol to replace the Kyoto protocol, which will inevitably cap and trade the hell out of America to the point where we'll even bank not that we've already bankrolled everybody else, but we're going to bankroll the third world, the gutter third world of the international community with these cap and trade taxes for all these supposed CO2 emissions,
which is going to have a horrible effect on our economy because it's going to tax us for breathing, tax us for using big cars, tax us for all this malarkey in exchange for this idea of preventing global warming.
I think it's very dangerous what's happening here.
And the only people that seem to be talking about it is me and maybe a few other people, maybe a few other people in the blogosphere.
I've actually came across your broadcast.
I know you've been talking about some of these things.
But what the hell's going on with this country?
I'll tell you what, cap and trade is the same thing as what Nixon did to healthcare when he created the HMO system.
It's a propped-up market.
They're going to give, of all people, I think it's Goldman Sachs, that they get the, I could be mistaken, it might be Lehman Brothers, but it's one of the two failed companies on Wall Street that have nothing to do with pollution, know nothing about the industry at all.
But they're going to get the right to issue these little tickets.
And these tickets tell you how much you can pollute.
And everybody gets one if you're a business owner, and then the bigger businesses get more.
And you can buy more, but you have to buy them from the other businesses.
And then we're going to slowly over time give out less and less tickets because supposedly by default that will reduce pollution.
But my whole thing is that's a ridiculous concept because it's the same thing it did with the HMO system when you put in a propped-up system.
What they're going to do is sell these things.
This company is going to get rich off of basically being the czar over this default fake market.
And the small companies will be the ones that suffer.
Small business will have their ticket and they will either sell it to a larger company and produce nothing and therefore go out of business other than just by basically being a part of a middleman process, or they'll go ahead and produce but not be able to afford another ticket as where the big companies will.
And what this is going to do is put all these small companies out of business either by default by selling their ticket or by keeping it and not being able to buy more, while big companies continue to buy up the tickets from the small companies that are willing to sell and continuing to pollute.
And what we have, if you really take a look at it and break it down to who our biggest polluters are and put all these poisons in the air, and I'm not talking about carbon because that's the least poison I'm worried about.
You know what I mean?
If you can even call that a poison, you know, right, you know, but we've got all these thousands of poisons and they're addressing carbon of all things, like one of the most prevalent things in our atmosphere.
But anyway, when they do this, when they do it, it doesn't affect the top 50% of polluters, which are like maybe a handful of companies.
The big names are a part of them.
And it doesn't affect them until they get to these standards 10 and 20 years later.
Meanwhile, they put the squeeze on every small businessman until they squeeze them all out of the market, and all that's left is the monopolized big favored companies that were favored by the propped-up market controllers, whoever they might be.
You know, I mean, you couldn't have put it any plainer, any simpler than that.
And that's the way it's been going, and that's the way it's going to continue to go, because we've been so anesthesized with consumption.
And that's what basically made us stagnant in keeping our eye on the ball when it comes to wages in comparison to profits.
You know, it's these ideas that we need to keep ourselves up to date with is the problem.
I think that's just the system is just so complicated and so complex that just like you were alluding to earlier, when you attempt to have these types of debates with people, they just don't want to even hear it.
You know, they want to continue to live in their consumption-filled lives.
And it's just malarkey.
I mean, we need somebody to take some action.
We need people to take action.
And I'm not saying take action in the sense of, you know, oh, we're going to go out and revolution this and that.
This system still works.
I mean, this is still a great system.
The unfortunate part about it is that the individuals puppeteering this system and the individuals that are taking part in this system are the ones that are getting all the profits from this system.
And the reason they're participating in it and going to the $50,000 a meal dinners and all this other malarkey is so that they can influence the apparatus of power.
Now, where does that leave us?
Just like you said, you alluded to also that what difference does it make?
One vote doesn't count.
The problem is that nobody wants to organize, organize based on issues, organize based on political perspectives, organize based on international relations, whatever issue it is.
And be able to just go out and try to you know we got the internet.
You can get email addresses.
You can get phone numbers.
You can get you can have meetings within your community, whatever it takes.
But it has to get local and it has to get grassroots.
And if it doesn't, you're going to continue to have this.
You're going to continue to have the individuals who are out there contributing to the campaigns of these individuals in power.
And meanwhile, the mass public that should be involved in the political process barely shows up at 20% at the ballot box.
Yeah, I have to agree with you.
I was like proud of myself in a way because for a lot of my life, because I'm not that old.
I'm only like 30 years old.
So I early on was apathetic.
I really didn't care.
I was one of those people.
I didn't give a crap.
And then as I got older, I started realizing.
And when I turned 18, I voted right away.
It's not like I didn't vote.
I just I really didn't know what was going on.
I wasn't very aware and I mostly didn't vote on everything because I just wasn't aware of the issues.
I didn't pay attention to it.
And I was really proud of myself and everybody else that was surrounded with the Ron Paul thing when he was running in the primaries because I couldn't believe it sitting there watching that ticker when we all donated to that money bomb and it was like, dude, he's breaking the records.
Like regular people, not an industry.
Like usually when these kind of records are broken, it's when somebody like the president or Obama or whatever goes to these dinners and it's $15,000 a plate and this is that corporate crap where the corporations have more votes than we do because they're voting with their dollars and not everybody has an even amount of dollars.
But for once, it seemed like we were able to like, for one day anyway, beat him.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, certainly.
You know what I mean?
I actually commented about that.
I wasn't a big Ron Paul fan.
Maybe I should have been in retrospect.
But the only reason I wasn't was because of a lot of his international relations policies and that sort of thing.
I understand that he I hate to use a Republican term, the cut and run international relations policy is not something I agree with because we have a lot of interest, vested interest in blood and treasure all across the international community.
And just to just kind of take it all back and just kind of become and I'm not against isolationist ideology either.
I mean, I'm not completely against that, but the way he was talking about it just kind of becoming the equivalent of some third rate country amidst all this international uh dominance out here, because you're having some major international dominance, I think, that's going to be implemented with the Chinese.
The Russians are going to come back into power.
You got other individual countries trying to become nuclear power so they can initiate their agendas.
So I think it's a necessity, given the fact that we as the American people invested a lot of money and lives into a lot of the bases and a lot of the areas we are in the international community.
I just don't think it's appropriate, given Ron Paul's stance, of just kind of getting those people out of here and bringing them back to the United States.
But that in mind, I did agree with him on most of his domestic policies as it relates to domestic politics.
And you're completely right about his fundraising capabilities, that there was enough people backing him up as far as individuals were concerned, that they were able to fund his campaign with mass amounts of income so he can go out and advertise his cause.
That's why you were able to see Ron Paul in the Republican debates, even though they tried their damnedest to try to take him out of it.
Yeah, Box really left him out that one time.
Yeah, and the only reason that they had to let him own was because he was a legitimate candidate based on his political capital.
Right, the fundraising.
Because it wasn't his polling that was doing it for him, that's for sure.
We could never really get the American people to catch on as far as voting in the primaries for him.
But I mean, I can agree with you about foreign policy to a certain degree.
I'm a non-interventionist, but I think to a certain degree, Ron Paul somewhat is an isolationist, which I'm against.
Isolationism is non-interventionism combined with a kind of a racist policy.
Like nationalist.
Nationalism.
It does.
It becomes nationalist, yeah, because what you do is you have a racist immigration policy and you have protectionism for an economics policy, which we don't want to do that because we know that's a disaster.
Then the rest of the world just does the same thing.
You know what I mean?
Absolutely.
And it becomes a stagnant economy because that's what we had after the 1900 or right before the 1900s.
We had worn out the market of America.
I mean, you couldn't build any more markets out here.
That's when these industrialists started looking internationally as far as markets were concerned and other markets that were untapped, so to speak, and started investing into a lot of markets.
Mexico, for instance, even though Mexico didn't take to it very well.
I'm with you long term, too, on the outsourcing of jobs.
Like that's not necessarily a bad thing through some of these treaties.
I just think that the treaties aren't free trade because they're not fair trade.
If they kind of incorporated safety standards as to what products had to be shipped back into the United States for sale and so on and so forth, I think you'd see a lot more level playing field and we'd have real free trade.
You know what I mean?
Yeah, well, we're bankrolling.
Our lives and our taxpaying dollars are bankrolling this international economic endeavor, which I'm not completely against, but it's starting to look a little communist to me, you know?
Right, right.
And I don't really appreciate that.
I don't mind international free trade.
I think that would be great.
I mean, just imagine there won't be billionaires.
It'll be trillionaires.
And who the hell knows?
Zillionai.
I mean, you know, just imagine developing a product or service that is just completely global, you know, that everybody has to have.
I mean, who the hell knows what the possibilities are when it comes to free markets in international terms?
There's nothing wrong if you're a corporate owner and you want to find lower page paid labor and you can do so through a free trade contract or treaty.
The only problem in lies is when these treaties, like they do now, they don't have anything in there for workers' rights.
And I know that seems like a leftist idea, but it it works on the rightist behalf because on our on our behalf as people trying to run a business in this country, you know, and your competitor moves overseas and he was one of your major, if if only competitors, because a lot of your competitors in business up till recently were mainly American companies.
I mean, international companies didn't have the same level of productivity we did in most regions, and then they started dumping the steel into the steel industry and so on and so forth and slowly weeding us out.
But a lot of this is done because the same guy who owned that company in America went over to China and paid somebody 20 cents an hour with no safety standards.
He might even have child labor.
You know what I mean?
And this is I completely agree with you.
I mean, you know, if you don't know what to do.
If you do this, if you don't do that, you might have to pay them people two bucks an hour.
It's still less than what it was in America, but it's sure a big difference when you're thinking about moving a company overseas.
You know what I mean?
I mean, you know, that you can compare what's happening to China when you're talking about semi-safety standards and a certain level of humanity when it comes to production.
You're talking about India, for instance.
The average Indians, because they're getting all of our customer service and all our telemarketing jobs out there, they're working for $250 a month.
But $250 a month based on their economy goes a hell of a lot farther than $1,500 a month does out here in America.
Right.
And I completely agree with you that the free market, if it was done right, and if you look at these international trade agreements, which are just completely imbalanced, which has us paying for everything on any country that we've invested in, the American taxpayer is paying for everything when it comes to industrial growth in whatever country that we happen to have vested interest in.
And I think that's crap, and I think that you're absolutely right.
I mean, we have to have some fair and balanced trade agreements so that we can level the playing field out here and not have slave labor in some countries.
Meanwhile, we have labor that has human rights.
At least I wouldn't say a leftist perspective of human rights, but at least not having people working in hazardous conditions and like they are in China.
You've got the Chinese government producing all these manufactured goods and allowing the industrial runoff to go right into the damn stream of the rivers and the drinking water.
And then the pollutants are going all in the air.
And yet we're the ones that America's the bad guy, right?
Yeah, there's got to be a standard that is held for workers all over the world because I mean, either way, you're going to have a default standard.
And right now, the default standard is treat your workers like crap.
Now, either we have to conform to that to compete, or they're going to have to conform to our ideal.
And I would rather them conform to us than us go backwards in time to the 1850s through 90s when we had major upheaval in society and communism really got a foothold in this country because people were getting treated like such crap that they felt they had to turn to it.
Yeah, well, you know, that that could be argued once again, you know, on whether or not people were really being treated like crap.
I mean, you know, we could debate intellectually on that.
Infrastructure Funding and Communism00:16:00
You know, when it comes to the Russian Revolution, if you're talking about the first communist revolution, I just met here in the United States.
I was talking about like the union movement early on.
Oh, I see.
Yeah, the the leftist fervor.
Well, yeah, the the leftist fervor, you're exactly right.
Uh you know, was at the turn of the 20th century.
You know, you had a lot of different political philosophies trying to vouch for power going as far as committing uh political acts of violence at the time.
The hay market martyrs, the you know, the these leftist anarchist groups and around bombing people.
You're right.
The reason they were doing that is, you're right, in the factories at the time, it wasn't uncommon to see somebody dead on the floor there after being a part of some industrial textile of some sort.
I don't think children maimed or anything else horrible you can think of.
Exactly right.
So I understand what you're saying on that aspect.
I thought you were talking about the international communist upheaval.
If you want my personal opinion.
Yeah, I agree with you.
Go ahead, because I'm going to agree with this.
Go for it.
No, I was saying, if you want my personal opinion about the communist upheaval throughout the 20th century, it was the fact that we had the whole reason that communism got spurred in Russia and China and Cuba and Vietnam was the fact that you had foreign investment,
which was basically from the West, coming into these countries, building up factories and trying to transition these individual countries from a peasant-based patronage society into an industrial society that has metropolis-based urban areas as opposed to vast rural lands of little allotments of peasantry lots, if you will.
And the thing about it was that the peasant lifestyle, it's a very simplistic life.
I'd like to compare it.
It's even lower than slavery because there is no need for a peasant other than to have them on an estate of land because that's why we had estates, individuals who owned large portions of land in the feudalist system or in other systems that were in comparison to feudalist systems,
other peasantry systems, they would basically pay the estate owner whatever they could in goods or in plowing the land or in some sort of service.
And in exchange, the estate owner allowed some sort of safety.
The estate owner allowed some sort of sustenance, barely sustenance.
And if the estate owner decided to sell the land or the estate, the peasants went with the land.
So it wasn't uncommon for a peasant owner or a peasant to have a new lord, if you will, or a new estate owner.
Meanwhile, slavery, on the other hand, which I'm not condoning by any means, but slavery, on the other hand, when a slave owner sold his land or her land, or his land, excuse me, I don't know why I said her, he didn't leave the slaves on there with the land.
He took the slaves with him because they were a commodity.
They were important.
And my point, you know, this whole discourse was that it was a hard transition for a peasantry that didn't understand the idealism of factory and textile work at the time during the Russian revolutions and the Chinese revolutions.
And because they didn't really appreciate being in the assembly line, they didn't appreciate working eight, ten hours a day and doing these types of necessary things to prosper industrious growth, that they looked upon industry as some sort of a bad thing, as if it was somehow taking control of them and throwing them in complete oppression.
And in my opinion, you had these communists at the time, like Lenin and Mao, that catered to the demographic of the peasantry or the simple, the lower echelons of those societies.
And kind of infuriated and agitated these masses into believing that if they were to somehow rise up against the Foreign invaders is what they would call anybody who was a foreign investor in the infrastructure of any country, that they were somehow going to be the owners of all the land and you were no longer going to be dictated on when to work.
They weren't really used to factory type work.
I mean, you know, there's somebody overlooking at you, making sure that you're doing your job.
You know, you can't just stand around.
I mean, it's a very different lifestyle for the peasantry.
And in my opinion, that's what caused the communist upheaval in all the communist revolutions throughout the international community, is that these damn peasants, they didn't want to go work.
I mean, I hate to say it.
They didn't want to go work.
I'd agree with you in most cases.
I think Cambodia would probably be a shiny example that was the other way because those people were actually the military came in in the middle of the night and evacuated whole cities, millions of people, and forced them into the countryside to be farmers.
And they all basically starved to death because of lack of farming skill, first of all, and second of all, because there just wasn't enough food to go around.
And it was hilarious because when you look at the production per hectacre, or I can't say the word, it's how you measure acreage, and they say hect, whatever that is.
It's a Greek word that means something, like hectagon.
I get you.
Well, the hecta acre, whatever that is, I'm mispronouncing, the production went down like 45% when they left from the free market activity that you were talking about from foreign investment into this fully forced, communized, completely agrarian, no city at all society.
They had ghost town metropolises, like whole cities completely abandoned with nobody in them and nobody allowed in them with guards around the perimeter to make sure nobody went back to the city.
And that was the one example where it wasn't actually lazy farm people that were not used to it.
It was the other way around.
They liked it in that country, but because of one dictator and a military, which, by the way, we were funding at the time, we were helping fund Pol Pot, and Pol Pot took the country over.
And it was crazy.
You know, like two or three million Cambodians died because of that.
Yeah, no, I completely agree.
But what separates that argument for the pro-communist argument is that during Mao Cedong's tenure as the supreme leader, and as Lenin and Stalin's tenure as supreme leaders of their heads of state or whatever you want to call them,
dictatorship, that the amount of industrial growth, what it took European countries two, three, four hundred years to develop, they were able to develop within a very short time span, within four, five, six decades.
Right, yeah.
And what communists don't seem to understand is that, yeah, okay, they were able to facilitate, you know, heavy inducements or heavy allotments of industrial growth based on this communist idea.
What they're failing to, you know, enlighten people about, which you are semi-enlightening people about about this Cambodia situation, is that it was the foreign investment into the infrastructure of the country that allowed them to have that state-funded industrial growth.
What I mean is that when the foreign investors came in and built the roads and they built the factories and they built the means of production, they built, these are the individuals that built all this stuff.
Old Mao Cetong and his ridiculous way of governing, old dumbass Stalin and Lenin and his ridiculous ridiculous ways of governing, were still able to maneuver industrial growth based upon the infrastructure that was already set for them.
Unlike Paul Pott, who basically didn't really have infrastructure and all the money that the United States gave him, he just put in his pocket, more or less.
He did.
He did.
And and that's why, you know, it was such a horrible situation when it came to the communist transition of uh Cambodia because there was no developed infrastructure within that country, and that's why people starved to death and died, and it was just a it was a disgrace.
His own military, he because he was pocketing the money, nobody ever knows what happened, all that money, he was pocketing so much of it that in fact his military couldn't even use bullets to execute millions of people.
They had to use pickaxes.
Unbelievable.
That's how bad they were doing that economically when they went to this idiot system of completely returning to agrarian society.
It's just sick.
It's ridiculous.
And this is the system that America wants to transition into.
This is the system.
This is the idea, this whole collective thinking that, you know, somehow it's going to be some uh great utopia.
And what's motivating these leftists is Maoism.
I'm telling you, Maoism is the leftist circle jerk of substance.
You know, I mean, for lack of a better term, they believe that Maoism and his way of implementing communist strategy was the perfect communist model.
You know, from the time Mao came into power until about 1967, the economy of China grew on average 15% each year, which is unheard of in world history.
But once again, if you look at the infrastructure that was pre-built for China, and you go back to the opium wars for that, you go back to the mid-1800s, there was open-door policies with China between the French, the Europeans, and then the Americans.
So there was a lot of infrastructure already built for the communists.
And for them to sit here and use this as their great model for a great utopian society makes me sick.
And yet no intellectual talks about this crap.
I hear these dumbass intellectuals discrediting communism based on its idea of regulating classes and class struggle and all this other nonsense.
But nobody talks about the successes of communism being based on the back of capitalist investment.
Right.
Disgusting.
You can't do anything if you don't have a mode of production, and the modes of production were largely in place industrially, or at least, like you said, infrastructurally, where you're talking about roads for transportation of goods and services.
Railways.
Right.
Railways were big.
Yeah, back then that was the big thing, really.
You brought up a good thing that you said opium.
I'm glad you brought that up because that's something I I was watching on TV earlier today and that pissed me off.
They said that $500 million a year are being funneled out of the opium fields in Afghanistan to help fight against us in the w war on terror.
And meanwhile, we're paying Turkey out of tax dollars to grow opium for our pharmaceutical companies.
And it's like, why don't we just kill two birds with one stone over there?
We could have a billion dollar swing in funding.
Instead of them getting the 500 million, we could get it.
That takes it away from them plus gives it to us.
That's a billion dollar swing in a war.
That's pretty big to a force like in that country because a billion dollars to them is a lot of money.
It might not be a lot of money to our military, but to them, that's a ton of cash.
And any funding you can dry up for them guys is good.
And it just seems to me if we've got some other country, some Muslim country, by the way, that's growing our opium for us on a contract, why don't we just stop paying them?
I mean, it'd be even bigger than a billion dollars because you're talking a billion just in Afghanistan.
That doesn't count whatever we're paying the Turkish people to grow our opium for our pharmaceutical companies.
And, you know, I agree with you, and I'm going to get to that in just a second.
We're about to end with a live broadcast.
If you don't mind, Tony, I'd like to you to stick around a couple of minutes.
We've been bringing up a lot of issues about things that individuals should be thinking about.
But once again to the live broadcasters, I want to our listeners, I want to thank you for tuning in.
Don't forget to bookmark the blog at bla uh ghostpolitics.blogspot.com.
And uh this is going to have to be for the archivers, which is the crux of my uh listening audience.
So I want to thank the live listeners for listening.
Long live the conservative movement and death to feminism, of course.
And we're off.
So anyway, Tony, let me explain why we're giving Turkey all this money in it to grow opium in exchange for the revenue that we're giving them.
Because first of all, Turkey they really don't want to be our friends per se.
And the only reason that they want to be our friends is because they appreciate the industrial investment that the Westerners have put in their country to make them kind of a modern Muslim country, so to speak.
They've kind of made that transition into modernity rather easily based upon our investment.
But to be completely honest, their demographic of people are semi-Islamic fanaticism, if you will.
I mean, that's why you started having bombings in Turkey was a couple of years back on a consistent basis, because there is a section of the population that is lured by this Islamic fanaticism.
And to be completely honest, I wouldn't doubt if the Turkish government would, without the backing of these investments that America has into Turkey, would completely fall to the Islamic fanaticism.
As a matter of fact, I mean, they're highly criticized by Islamic fanatics as being a puppet of the West.
So diplomatically, you can understand why these people are doing what you just suggested.
They're paying Turkey as opposed to we're in Afghanistan.
Why don't we employ these damn poppy farmers and that sort of thing, which is completely feasible.
But then you have to look at the aspect of, well, propping up Turkey as a true model of modernity within the Muslim world is also a lot more damning of substance than providing with all due respect,
backwoods, mountainous peasants in Afghanistan, which they can't even organize themselves to like each other within a certain province, let alone a whole country, to allow them to produce this government-funded opium for pharmaceutical purposes.
So that's my response to that.
That's why, you know.
I would say, like, I understand what you're saying, like, paying farmers and stuff.
And I'm not suggesting we, like, throw farmers off their land in Afghanistan either.
But to a certain extent, like, if it's land that is being controlled by the Taliban, like, literally, like, you know, they have, you know, set up an area where they, you know, control it not by so much force, but by corroboration of the locals.
The locals agree with the Taliban who like the Taliban.
When you go in there, just take the damn land.
You know what I mean?
I'm not saying you keep it permanently, but, you know, because I don't want to occupy the country forever.
But I mean, if this is how they fund our enemy, and that's how they get money to get stuff to kill us, you know, it just seems to me like you would try to just take even if you're going to keep doing whatever you're doing in Turkey for whatever reason, I won't even, you know, that's neither here nor there, kind of.
It's just kind of there with their funding.
You have to get rid of their funding.
Promoting Democracy Not Warlords00:15:40
Now, we thought at first that bombing the fields would do it, but that doesn't work because they do that they they d they burn those fields every year anyway.
It's how you grow opium.
You have to burn the fields every year.
You raise them is what it's called.
And then they replenish the fertilization of the land, yeah.
Yeah, so I mean, like, you know, we figured out that didn't work.
So the only thing other alternative we have is either what we're doing now, which is just let them have the money to fight us with, or we could, as much as we can, hold it, or like you said, you know, get in cooper.
You're not even talking about subsidizing these farmers or controlling them, just letting them operate in a safe, free market by making their fields okay and safe for them to be in.
And they might just want to sell it to us.
You know what I mean?
Anyway, they're going to want to sell it to somebody, so what do they care who buys it?
Well, the contradiction with that, based on our premise of why we're here in Afghanistan, is the fact that warlords would control these poppy fields.
And we're not trying to, remember, we went into Afghanistan to promote democracy, not to prop up warlordism and a consortium of warlords that are able to comprise a certain demographic because they're related to half of them and they'll fight to the death because of it.
We don't know that we're there to promote democracy, though, are we?
I guess that's what they're telling us now, but that ain't why we went there to begin with.
Well, of course not.
I mean, you know, the initial.
We've got kicked ass and left.
You know what I mean?
We went there because of the reactionary situation to 9-11.
And because Osama bin Laden was technically, according to all reports, in the region of Afghanistan.
But now that we have been there for eight years, according to the previous administration and according to this administration, the level of progress, the level of when we can say mission accomplished, is when a legitimate democracy is in power.
And of course, we talked about earlier in a couple of shows that we talked about the Ahmed Karzai Abdullah Abdullah elections and about how the UN is looking upon this ridiculous election that we spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding of our tax dollars, how it was a fraud, and now they have to redo the whole damn thing.
And it's just a disgrace.
And we look responsible because we funded it, which is totally not the case.
You know what I mean?
I mean, we not only look responsible, I mean, we look responsible for a lot of things.
And now the Taliban, the reason that they're becoming to implement themselves as a strongfoot in the country is because they look as you see, these are individuals that are still in really low peasantry mindsets.
I wouldn't even call them peasantry mindset.
I would say they're peasants, but their mindset is even far back than that.
And I'm not trying to insult the people.
No, you're not.
They're living in another century.
There's no doubt about that.
Yeah, and so they're willing to exchange whatever it is that they thought they were going to have in rights, the right to take off their burqa or shave their beard or whatever it is that they thought they had once the Americans took over.
They're willing to exchange that for security, which the Taliban always had during its rule, even though they were authoritarian savages and literally just segmented a whole population of their country, which is the women, and put them in these beekeepers and billy club them in the middle of the street just because they show off a little foot or they look at the wrong man or whatever it is.
I mean, they execute women if they get raped out there.
And this is becoming acceptable and accepted because these people that are in this country that have taken the brunt end of all this war within the past eight years are willing to exchange their freedom for security.
And this is the problem that America faces not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq.
And I think it's horrible that we've invested a lot of money and a lot of troops and a lot of lives.
And it doesn't look like we're going to get a feasible outcome when it comes to the democratic process implemented in both those countries.
My whole thing is, why do we have putting democracy in place as a goal?
Like, to me, like, all right, look, Bush had really good relations with the Taliban.
We were down at Crawford hanging out with them and stuff before September 11th.
When they refused to give us bin Laden, that was where they screwed up.
So when we went in, we should have annihilated the government, not make it a goal to annihilate everybody a part of the Taliban because it was widespread.
There's people that just live and work and aren't politically active that considered themselves Taliban.
And we know that the Taliban is a Pakistani-based force originally.
It is now domesticated because it's been generations or a generation or whatever of people that have domestically been recruited.
But the ISI largely funds them still, and we fund Pakistan.
So we're kind of like defeating ourselves there, too.
And with us going into either one of these countries, okay, put the weapon of mass destruction thing aside.
We go into Iraq.
We're in there.
We should have blew up their entire government.
We should have, you know, went after Al-Qaeda if they were present.
And then we should have left.
And these types of things are usually done quickly.
Like when he had that mission accomplished banner, that basically was when we had toppled the Taliban government and destroyed their ability to make a truly military-style war against us.
Now, of course, they have the paramilitary guerrilla style that they're used to, and they did revert back to that quite quickly because, I mean, what did they have?
I mean, like, what, you know, what kind of weaponry do they have?
They didn't have like an air force like we're used to dealing with.
You know what I mean?
So it wasn't hard for them to revert back to what they were doing maybe 20 years ago or 15 years ago or 10 years ago or whatever.
So, I mean, like, to me, we should just go in these countries, kick ass, and leave and say, hey, I know we're leaving you a mess, but you people didn't rise up out of tyranny and take your freedom, and you let these assholes run your country, and they, you know, did whatever they did to us to make us come over here.
It was self-defense at any, you know, of some degree.
And it's your fault in essence.
So we're not going to rebuild your country.
We're not going to force you into democracy because we know from experience that if we force you into it, it's not going to work right.
It's going to be fake.
People have to take their own freedom.
They can't be handed it.
I agree.
If they are, it doesn't work.
No, I agree with the fact that a people has to take it upon themselves to demand freedom or give themselves a definition of what freedom is.
But once again, we have a system of government that allows individuals, ideologues, you know, whoever to come into power and to initiate their ideology of political philosophy.
And at the time, George W. Bush and the individuals that were within his that are within his administration, they believed that the thing to do was to initiate this democratization by force ideal building.
Which is completely neoconservative.
It is.
It's Woodrow Wilson's foreign policy, and he was a liberal Democrat.
We all know that.
And it wasn't that horrible of a president.
But the point is, it's a liberal ideal.
And you're right.
Those neocons, they're half a liberal.
If you want to be realistic.
Oh, yeah.
I've said that many times as far as the international relations is concerned.
But I do agree that we have to promote, I wouldn't say democracy per se, but free trade.
And then, you know, hope that they initiate democracy or democratization of some sort.
Sure, by example and let them do it voluntarily or less voluntary through revolution.
But regardless, we just, like you said, trade with countries.
I like the founders' idea about that.
Just be friends with everybody, no entangling alliances, and we'll trade with everybody.
We don't care how you treat your own people, as long as you're not outwardly violent.
We'll buy your stuff if we need it, and we'll sell you ours if you want it.
Well, you know, the bad part about that is if you if you f fail to neglect the the inhumane injustices that are happening within certain countries, it leaves y you know us vulnerable to being strict.
I'm not saying ignore it.
I like the face of America we had back then.
The founders weren't afraid to stand in front of a tyrant and be somewhat disrespectful to them and to their title and to the whole idea of title.
But at the same time, we were respectful in in terms of the best interests of the country financially.
Like, they knew we needed to trade with Europe, but they de certainly didn't want to take sides in the war.
You know what I mean?
So it it's a I don't know.
It's it's a hard thing to achieve.
Let's put it like that.
It's definitely a hard thing to achieve, but I don't think that it's as complicated as what these liberals and the individuals that are taking control of our apparatus of government have made it out to be.
It's just that the American people in general have taken their eye off the ball.
They're not politically active.
And when individuals aren't politically active in a democratic society, in a society where we vote and have a say about who our leaders are, we just allow whoever's voting to make sure who our leaders are.
And those that are voting are basically voting on emotional-based issues and not necessarily on the whole spectrum of the political ramifications of this person's election or this person's influence or this person's ideas.
And as a result, this is why we have the situation that we're in today.
And I think that we're in some precarious times as American people.
And this is why I'm such a critical person of these conspiracy theorists, these Alex Joneses.
I'm critical of these teabaggers.
I'm critical of leftists.
I'm critical of everyone right now because there is no substance on any of these debates.
I mean, you know, it's not that complicated.
It's a battle of ideas.
It's always been a battle of ideas.
If you look back at contemporary revolutionary history, it's always been a battle of ideas.
If you look at the English Revolution, the English Revolution had a lot to do with the idea that the aristocrats, the nobility, they didn't want the church to be monopolized by the crown anymore.
Because at the time, Henry VIII, he had basically wanted to get a divorce.
And so he basically took away the credibility or the authority away from the church at the time and gave the nobles all the church land.
I mean, there was a lot of church holdings that Henry VIII at the time gave away to the nobles.
Oh, yeah, he had a lot of incentive to do it because he was broke at the time.
Yeah, exactly.
And, you know, here you had Charles I trying to initiate this idea again and trying to take away land from the nobles to put back in church hands and that sort of thing.
And this is what caused the revolution.
And then that's when the idealism of what to do after this system that they've known for so long, how is it going to be segmented?
Is it going to be parliamentary rule over the crown?
Is it going to be the church over the crown?
I mean, this is where these ideas come into play.
And this is why I say that instead of sitting here and saying that you don't have a say in it, you don't have any kind of say-so in this America, that no vote counts.
I mean, maybe you're right.
Maybe your vote and your little region, your community, won't count.
But the reason it doesn't count is because you're not out there kicking ass and taking names and trying to organize these people into identifying with your perspective.
And the only way that your perspective can be feasibly relayed to the American people is if it doesn't have any contradictions.
Go ahead.
I'm sorry, Ghost.
I was just going to ask you, you sound like you read a lot on political ideology, philosophy, and economics and stuff, and I do as well.
Would that be the case?
Yeah, of course.
There's two really good books if you get a chance.
I mean, it's not something I'm like, you know, giving you a reading list.
But I'm sure you may have even read these books.
I don't know.
There are two female authors, and one's on the left, and very far left, and one's on the kind of far right.
And they both kind of came to the same conclusion what I was talking about earlier with America moving toward fascism as opposed to socialism or communism.
And I'm not saying I'm correct, obviously.
I mean, I respect your opinion completely.
But the two books, the one is Disaster Capitalism or it's called Shock Doctrine, is what it's called.
It's about disaster capitalism.
I think that might even be the subtitle.
And it's by Naomi Klein, I believe.
And then Naomi Wolf is the other female author.
And I believe the name of her book, I might have the two authors' names reversed, but they're both it's either Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolfe or Naomi Wolfe and Naomi Klein.
The end of that, the second book on the right is called End of America.
And the front of it eerily looks like the common sense pamphlet that Thomas Paine circulated before the revolution.
Yeah, and that was a true revolutionary right there that had his revolutionary priorities straight.
Unfortunately, he was so radical that he was banished from the country for a minute.
And we don't have a statue to that guy anywhere in this whole country.
Nowhere.
No statue to that guy.
No memorial, no nothing.
And he was one of the main provocateurs of the revolution.
I mean, that common sense pamphlet was basically what sold all the Tories and all the individuals that wanted to stay remaining loyal to the crown and the feudalistic system.
That's what basically convinced them not to.
I mean, not the majority of them, because believe it or not, the forefathers weren't the majority.
Right.
It was split really bad in this country as to whether they were going to separate or if they were going to stay under the crown.
And it's pretty unbelievable what has happened thus far.
And the thing about Thomas Paine is that he was a true individualist.
He was the true essence of an individualist, which is what the foundation of this country was supposed to be based upon.
But now, you know, we've just slowly but surely gone into the collective.
And I don't think there's any way out.
I mean, the only way out is if you really have true I'd hate to consider myself a radical, but according to idiots that are in the blogosphere and on YouTube, I'm an underground conservative.
I'm a radical because I want to go back to the way it was.
I don't want collectivism.
It's not appropriate.
It's not only stagnating the level of creativity and the level of critical thinking that's already neglected in our society, but it also maintains a certain level of throwing back throwing ourselves back into feudalism to a certain extent.
It's just a bad economic model no matter what happens to go toward a like okay because I can I can side with liberals on a lot of issues but it's not because I'm liberal in any way it's Because their ideology is so Swiss cheese with holes in it that they're conservative on issues and don't even realize it in the classical liberal sense, you know, as in classical liberalism.
Certainly.
Ruining the Economy with Collectivism00:02:33
And they don't even realize it.
And like, I think, like, I don't know, what you're saying is absolutely right, man.
We can't go back to the collective because the collective is a failed economics.
Yes, maybe there is some stuff on the left that has some good points and it's mostly philosophical and ideological.
But when you get into the actual economics of it, it's horrible because what they seek to do is to decapitalize labor.
They want to take away the profit incentives because they claim it's inhumane.
And their whole goal is supposedly to have a more humane system of production where people enjoy their work and all this crap.
The whole problem with a system like that is people always are going to do their minimum.
They assume that we're taught and then brainwashed into believing in the profit motives.
What they don't realize is that it's ingrained in human psychology.
It's part of us.
It's who we are.
It's part of survival.
It's how you survive.
And it's not that we somehow have been brainwashed into believing profit is right.
It is that it is right.
It's the natural course of things.
And when you seek to, you know, to not do that, all you do is monetize time.
You take time, and no, you don't actually get money in exchange for your time.
But what you get is your time.
So you'll seek to do the least productively and ruin the economy.
Everybody will, collectively ruin the economy, because they'll all do the least to get what they are getting allotted to them equally.
Because in that kind of system, everybody gets equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.
An individualist wants equality of opportunity.
They have no problem with entertaining ideas on the left, so-called left, when it comes to equality, when it comes to opportunity.
But when you're talking about equality of outcome, you're talking about socialism and communism, and it's failed.
You monetize time.
You make time worth more to people than actually producing.
Whereas in the system we have now, a more natural, nature-based system, obviously you want to spend your free time making money or making something, turning your labor into a couch or a bed or a set of curtains or a television or a PlayStation or whatever it is that you like, your car, your house.
You turn your labor into things through this method of capitalizing it.
Through their method, it's completely the opposite.
You would seek to just sit at home because that's your best way to spend your time.
Exactly.
I mean, you wouldn't be able to save up and go on that exotic trip to Vegas or go out to all this nonsense.
Citizen Income vs Social Security00:15:36
I mean, I know that Europeans are traveling, but that's all they do.
I mean, I've talked to Europeans.
They work their tails off and they're paying all these ridiculous taxes.
And these poor European, well, screw the poor Europeans, but these Europeans are paying $10 a gallon of gas out here.
Oh, I know.
It's ridiculous.
And this is what we're transitioning into.
And all these people work for is to go out of the country maybe twice a year.
That's the highlight of the European life.
And if they're not doing that, you know, they want to make, I don't know if you've observed some of these socialist lifestyles like the French, for instance.
I mean, oh, these channels on the television said they love to talk about how the French life is so laxadaisical and they only have to work like five, six hours a day.
And they get a two-hour lunch where the whole town just shuts down and all gathers around and drinks wine and eats cheese and eat nice little hors d'oeuvres and food.
It's just such a communal and and happy-go-lucky.
Let's just kind of hold hands and sing kumbaya type of idealism.
But if you look at what the French have produced and what they've done, they can't even keep track of their own government, for heaven's sake.
They're being overtaken by Muslims right from underneath their noses.
I mean, you know, to the point where and I'm not, you know, saying anything against Muslims, but it seems to me that wherever they begin to migrate and become the majority in, they tend to implement their theocracy as opposed to their freedom.
So that's my observation when it comes to that.
And it's it's obvious.
I mean, two or three years ago you had riots in the street.
As a matter of fact, you're still having occasional riots in the street in France.
Even though this is supposed to be the perfect utopia of socialistic idealism, you have these Muslims protesting in the street, and they don't know what the hell to do about it.
What scares me about moving toward these systems they have in Europe, man, is the systems they have in the Scandinavian areas, which is they have citizen income.
I don't know if they have that in France.
It's the only reason I'm saying this because they might have it there.
I don't know.
And citizen income basically means that everybody gets up to the poverty level on a check.
And that scares me because in this country we're having a lot of outrage about high taxes and about the tax system and that's good.
And it might actually lead to tax reform.
But I'm afraid we're going to end up in a system that changes the wording but does the same thing as they do there.
And a lot of people are talking about going over to this fair tax.
And the fair tax, yeah, it's a great idea, partly.
I mean, like 90% of it.
And it's easily fixed.
It looks good on paper, but it's got that citizen income.
It just calls it a prebate instead.
They call it a prebate system.
Instead of a rebate, you get a prebate at the beginning of the month, no matter what your income, up to the poverty level.
That way, if you're in poverty, you don't actually pay any tax.
Well, that's a citizen income system.
Why would you have a massive entitlement system when you could just issue people cards like they say in the book that they would have cards, you know, like debit cards, and use the card, but instead just issue the card to the people that have to pay the tax or the other way around, issue it to the people that don't.
You know, either way, work the rate into the card for the individual income of the family instead of saying we're going to give you a prebate up to poverty and then you'll pay your sales tax like everybody else and that way you won't be taxed at all.
Well, that's totally redundant and it just creates a massive entitlement system where people get dependent on the system.
If you just have their rate built into the card, it would be the same thing except without the bureaucrat in between getting a paycheck.
So it actually saves us money.
The reason they don't want to advertise it like that is because the fair tax likes to advertise itself as a flat rate.
But it's not a flat rate if some people don't pay tax.
If it's really a flat rate, then why do you have a subsidy up to poverty?
It's not truly flat.
Once you incorporate that subsidy into it, you realize that people at poverty pay 0%.
People below poverty are actually still getting welfare.
And people slightly above poverty are paying enough to put them into poverty.
Yeah, and it's really ridiculous.
Not just the flat tax, but all the supposed tax initiatives that are alternative to what we have now.
And I'm not a big fan of what we have now either.
Me either.
I just think that if we allocated the taxes appropriately, and I'm not a big fan of taxes in general, but I mean, I understand that the mechanism of government needs some sort of way of sustaining itself, but not a way of profiting off the tax system to give them more power over the people.
But the thing about the tax system is that there's so much money to go around.
These bureaucrats know it.
And they're able to just allocate these big large sums of money for whatever pork barrel project they want in some amendment somewhere.
And as a result, this is why these taxes continuously have to raise up because there's no more money available after all these amendments.
And that's why you have a tax on cigarettes and on alcohol and a sales tax.
And you've got property taxes.
And if you go fishing, you've got to go pay a damn permit to get a fishing license.
That's another tax.
And you've got to just get taxes every single way.
We're the most taxed civilization on the face of the planet.
And yet you've got this socialist regime, this liberal regime in power trying to tell us that we need to pay more.
And to be completely honest with you, Tony, I don't think that America is going to survive much longer.
I mean, I know that there's some people starting to wake up, so to speak, but I don't think that they're going to wake up enough to be able to make a true impact to stop what's happening right here in America.
We're already in quasi-socialist communism as it is.
Once this health care initiative pulls through in whatever form, then we're in full-fledged socialism and we can just forget about the free enterprise system.
Even if you are a small business owner, don't expect to be somebody who is fiscally responsible, who puts so many some odd dollars away in your business account and gives yourself a salary, however you allocate your books.
But don't ever expect to be able to save so much money so you can reinvest it into growing your business at any type of rate that is feasible within the old American system.
Because nowadays, you're going to be taxed to death if you save your money.
You're going to be taxed to death if you initiate investment into whatever, whether it's stocks, whether it's real estate, whether it's business ventures, whether it's whatever.
You're going to be taxed to death.
I mean, the top 1%, once again, I told the audience earlier that they pay 40% of the taxes.
Under these plans that the Democrats are trying to initiate, they want to push it to 60.
Our systems are not built around, for whatever reason, I mean, like, obviously, I'm not talking about the Constitution, but I'm talking about the ulterior crap that they do with all these pork projects and everything you're talking about.
They're not built with the idea in mind of we're going to build this to do a specific purpose, but we're going to consider the factor of government dependency.
They never work that into their ideology.
Like, that should be one of the first things you should look at and say, okay, is it constitutional, obviously?
You know, there's a few questions you should ask yourself on a checklist as a congressman.
But then once you get down the list a little bit, one of the questions should be, should we design this so that it doesn't create more government dependency?
Because the first generation we enacted isn't going to be a problem.
It's going to be when people are born into this system and get used to it.
And that's where we're at now with all the entitlements.
People need Social Security for several reasons, but it's gotten to the point where now it's expected.
Now, it is your retirement.
When people talk about it, they say, oh, take away my retirement.
And it's ridiculous.
I mean, I hate the whole Social Security debate.
I hate all these government-funded debates about I'm entitled to this, I'm entitled to that.
With the Social Security debate, you're not entitled to anything.
You were paying for your mother and father to have Social Security.
Right.
It's a complete Ponzi scheme.
Yeah, and you're expecting your generation, Generation X, the baby boomers are expecting you guys and everybody below you guys to pay for their Social Security when these are the individuals that screwed you in the process.
I mean, you say you're 30 years old.
I'm sure it's, I mean, you don't sound like a dumb individual.
You sound like a very intelligent person.
But I'm sure it's probably kind of hard for you to become a corporate mogul out here in America today, isn't it?
I mean, you can't go out you you can't go out and you know get some damn job and become you know a two hundred fifty thousand dollar a year man uh you know after about five years' worth of working like these idiots in the baby boomer generation were so used to.
I mean they had all the jobs in the world during their tenure of you know running this country.
I mean I remember twenty years ago you could be a computer salesman and so you know and be rich off of being a s computer salesman.
Rich.
I mean you could be well whatever you deem rich.
You know rich is according to the statistics is over two hundred fifty thousand a year.
Right top ten percent incomes.
So I mean you know you know you had individuals that spent the seventies and the eighties and in the early nineties selling computers at about seven percent ten percent commission rates and these price points were you know very good.
I mean, you know, computers have always been high priced.
You know, three thousand, four thousand, two thousand, depending on what kind of computer system it is.
And where's that job now?
Oh, that's right, it's at BEST BUY.
It's at some sixteen year old little pimple faced prick trying to, you know, sell you a damn.
You know, HP or Toshiba laptop at about eight bucks an hour.
Right, I mean, this is what is unfortunate and it's you know.
Look, I'm an old man here.
I mean, I'm unfortunately related to this damn baby boomer generation.
But I can't sit here and watch the baby boomers just give.
I mean, their whole generation, their entire freaking lives were dedicated to them being indulgent, self-righteous pieces of just selfish idiots.
I mean, and I can't allow any longer these morons to continue to do this without enlightening some of the generations that are going to have to pay for these morons, this little pig out session.
I can't allow them to continue to do it.
That's why, you know, I know there's a lot of baby boomers that hate me and I lose.
I lose ratings because of it, but I really don't give a crap.
It's it's, it's what's right is right.
I mean, you know, these baby boomers screwed your generation and and the generations previous.
And on top of screwing you based on the means of production getting removed from the United States into communist China and Taiwan and South America, on top of the lack of production and the lack of economic opportunity in America in this service industry-based economy,
on top of the fact that you had these same baby boomer parents drilling it in their kid's head that they had to go to college and, you know, they listen to old mom and dad and they get themselves in debt about 75.
thousand dollars going to college and then when they get out in the workforce there's no jobs out here that pay worth of crap.
You know, I mean, you don't, you're wrong.
I mean yeah, if you pay your dues.
You know the old paying your dues thing still is in effect, but you know the job market is so unsecure and so unsettling that even if you pay your dues, I mean who the hell knows if it's going to be There in the end when you pay it?
Right.
So I feel sorry for these damn young children out here and these kids and the Generation X and all you guys out there because unfortunately y'all are a victim of liberalism and the baby boomers.
Well, at fault too.
Don't discount the fact that we're responsible for our own generation as well.
And I put it on my generation too because we're a bunch of MTV heads that grew up watching whatever came out of that box and believed it was true.
And some of us are waking up.
And it's cool because in a way I feel like there's at least a little hope for my generation because so many of us lean libertarian whether we even know what that word means or not.
You know what I mean?
And that's kind of good for the cause.
You know what I mean?
But other than the fact that they kind of unknowingly lean that way just generationally, there's not a lot of hope because they're not much different than the baby boomers.
They're gimme, gimme, gimme.
It's all mine, mine, mine.
And, you know, like you were talking about Social Security, they believe that it is their retirement, even though they just started working 12 years ago or whatever.
They're never going to see it, unfortunately.
No, we're not.
It's gone.
And it's a Ponzi scheme.
And it could have never worked out.
The only way that people can save for their own retirement, and I'm not against helping out seniors who are completely destitute and all that, that's all good and fine.
I'm not against helping people out.
But when you do it in a free market most of the time, a lot of it gets done by charity.
I mean, I'm not saying it would completely cover it, but at least you would have a lot of it taken care of.
Well, if you had a responsible government that gave appropriate tax breaks to those that would initiate these big, large, generous gifts of philanthropy to nonprofit organizations.
I honestly believe that nonprofit organizations could solve the problems that these entitlements that are being produced by our tax dollars aren't solving.
And the other part of it is, too, and this is a big important part, is when I was talking about inflation earlier about how the dollar is only worth 4 cents.
I mean, if you were a person that worked, and I'm sure you were, between, say, 1950 to 1990, let's say you worked 40 years and you made $60,000 a year, you paid $20,000 in taxes, you had to live on $20,000 and you saved $20,000 a year times 40 years, that's $800,000.
Well, you need $1.2 million to retire in the nowadays world.
Well, at least my generation will.
It probably don't quite need that much.
$800,000 might cover your retirement.
But that's with no inflation.
Obviously, even if you used gold as a standard, which I'm not saying that would work, but even if you use gold as a standard, you're going to get a 2% inflation because we pull about 2% of gold out annually out of the ground, and that adds to the amount of gold in circulation, therefore inflates it.
So at a very limited 2% inflation rate, which is not at all what you face during that time period, you would still have lost 80% of the value of that $800,000.
And that's what kills people trying to save their retirement.
I've tried to look at ways people could save, and I found that under $70,000 a year, it's very difficult for you to work 25 years and save your own retirement because of inflation being at 8% and 10% on an annual average.
Stock Market Bonuses and Enron00:14:46
I was looking at my lifespan when I did it.
So I mean, looking at the past lifespan, you might have had lower inflation at some periods, higher inflation at others, but where did it average out?
It probably averaged out well above 2%, and you probably lost well over 80% of the value in the money you saved.
Now, had you invested that in maybe precious metals, it would have been a different story.
But that is part of the government's job, too.
If they're going to fucking get involved, I mean, sorry to cuss.
If they're going to get in trouble, I'm going to get in trouble for cousins.
That's why I said trouble.
If you're going to get involved in these things, then you have to do it with the head that says, I want to make this program designed around not having government dependency.
Therefore, all these accounts that are in this so-called quote-unquote trust fund should be kept in precious metals or commodities or some kind of material thing that holds its value when we know that we're not holding our value with our money.
You know what I mean?
So you want to limit.
You've got to limit the inflation.
And the government didn't do that.
They said, no, just keep your money in the Social Security account, which will just be cash, and it'll sit there and inflate away, like, you know, no investment whatsoever.
And on top of it, we'll keep stealing from it.
Whenever we need money, we'll just pull out of there and borrow against it, never even think about paying it back.
And that's what screwed the people in this country to the point where now we are dependent if you make below a certain income.
And like the mean income, the halfway point is like I think in 2008 was 44,000.
So half the country absolutely cannot save for its own retirement in 25 years.
They just can't do it in 25 years of working.
So it's like it's a gamed system because they get inflated out of their savings and the government didn't do anything to fail safe against it when they did socialize the damn retirement system.
You're absolutely right in that synopsis there.
And what's really unfortunate is that the reason that the inflation got so precarious is because of the government spending.
Right.
Ever since the 80s.
I think that's what you said, right, to the 80s?
Yes.
Yes.
And ever since the 80s, and I had talked about that earlier, about how the level of wages rose with inflation.
As a matter of fact, it rose with inflation quite in a pendulum affair to the point where you could readjust the wages to the inflation.
So you could actually have enough, like you suggested, to save so many some odd dollars aside and be able to save that money and it'll actually be worth at least maybe a little bit more than half than what it was 20 years ago.
But unfortunately, because of government spending, and just like you said, and those are great numbers that you just put up, most people, the average median, I believe, was $44,000, you said, in America?
Yeah, in 2008, I think fiscal year 2008, the mean income, which is right at the halfway point of the average, obviously would be when you add them all together and then you divide by the number that you have, which that wouldn't be a very accurate summation of the average American income because some make billions, therefore that number is really, really high.
But the mean income, which is like where half of us fall below and half of us fall above, that was $44,000.
And, you know, you compare that to the level of inflation and compare that also to the level of inflation that's going to happen within the next 10 years because of all the spending that we're doing now.
Oh, God.
You're absolutely right that it's going to be damn near impossible, at least for anybody in America, to save for their own retirement without them somehow being a damn financial guru.
Right.
You'd have to be a damn genius on Wall Street, basically, which is just legalized gambling.
And that's another thing.
They conned us into believing that we should save for our retirement via investing all our money in the stock market.
The only reason we had to do that is because you couldn't just save it in an account because of inflation.
If you could have saved it, you'd still have it.
But instead, you put it in the stock market and it's a big roulette wheel.
And it's legalized gambling.
That's exactly what it is.
And you gamble on the future of a company, whether you think they're going to be successful or not.
Now, you can have an educated guess, and that's great.
Some people are more educated guessers than others.
But nonetheless, it's a big scam because the damn thing always collapses.
It always does.
And the people that make all the money are the ones that go, oh, about to collapse.
Pull the money out.
Let it collapse.
All right.
Now I'll buy back in.
And they did that during the Great Depression, and they're doing it again.
I agree.
I mean, you know, and what's really unfortunate, though, is that this game of the stock market is supposed to be based on transparency.
Right.
And the reason people lost their ass on the stock market was because of the, first of all, the 90s boom and the hypersensationalism that the media was putting on these tech stocks.
Then, once the tech stocks and the bubble bursted and that sort of thing, people were still lured to the stock market based on PE ratios and projected earnings.
Then we find out that these damn corporations are cooking the books, so to speak, and maneuvering monies.
I mean, you know, the Enron scandal showed me, you know, how a damn corporation can literally be milked out of all of its wealth based upon a handful of assholes that are at the top of the damn pyramid of the corporate hierarchy.
And basically, I mean, that's what makes it a gamble, is when you have supposed FCC, FTC, all these supposed regulators that are supposed to prohibit this kind of activity from happening so that investors don't lose these humongous investments.
I mean, in essence, it is a gamble.
But you need competent CEOs and competent executives to run the company properly and have the vested interest.
I know this sounds like some kind of corporatist idealism or a corporatist oath, but they have to understand that the corporation should be at the forefront of their thought processes.
But instead, it's the big bonuses that they're going to give themselves and how to maneuver profitability, even if it's fake profitability, so that they can show stockholders, hey, look at this number.
And because I made this number during my tenure, I'm going to give myself a $25 million bonus or $50 million bonus.
When in actuality, all they did was either cut corners by, if you're a corporate retail sector, I mean, I'm hearing about all this in the corporate retail sector.
They're cutting commissions off people that rely on commission-based income.
They're lowering the costs of hourly wages.
They're eliminating certain departments and certain managerial heads of certain areas of a department and all these little bureaucratic little jobs that used to be there.
They're trying to cut these corners or they're issuing what would be an in-house affair to third parties so that they could save money.
What Enron did, which was unbelievable, they would actually take loans out on the company from some financial institution and put it in the damn company bank account and claim that it was profit.
So when you have this type of garbage going on and you're supposed to have regulatory government, and I believe in regulatory government, not over-regulatory, but an overseeing regulatory system that prohibits this type of malarkey from happening.
And it didn't happen.
The only regulation we need, I think you'll agree with this, is the only regulation we're supposed to have constitutionally.
Uphold contract laws, which is to say stop fraud.
And that's what that company and all these companies are doing.
And most of the ones that are still running right now that we gave bailouts to.
I mean, like you said, they're cutting all these corners.
They look for short-term profits, especially the CEO so he can get his big bonus.
And he finds ways to juice the stock up, even though it may have long-term bad effects for the company, just so he can juice up his bonus level.
And you get a group of guys at the top that right now in America, the other day I'm watching the television and they're saying, oh, they continue to get record profits.
This year again, broke the record for the most corporate bonuses handed out to corporate CEOs and the higher echelon of the different companies at AIG and all these different.
That Lehman Brothers, yeah.
I mean, and they're doing what Enron did.
The only difference is they're taking, not only, they're not taking money from a private institution on the loan of a company, they're taking right out of the taxpayer system and putting it into the company account and counting it as profit.
That's how they're contractually getting around those loopholes.
And that's why there is no legal basis on them being held accountable for those big bonuses.
That's why the government can claim that they want to cut CEO pays by 90%, but that doesn't make one bit of difference because the damage is done.
They already paid themselves off on the American taxpayer dime.
Meanwhile, and I said this on another show, that justified the leftism.
They justified the leftism of, well, you see, look at what these corporate CEOs did.
They went out and they gave themselves big bonuses.
That's why we have to limit people how much they earn in a corporation.
That's why we have to limit this idealism.
There's just too much greed.
Meanwhile, these idiots have robbed the bank and are dragging the money out of the joint.
And we are failing to understand what exactly is happening here.
And then when you try to tell somebody, just like you said, they'll shake their head and they'll be like, I don't want to talk about it.
We've got to get it through our head as Americans that every dollar that we are in deficit or a single dollar in deficit or a single dollar of national debt is a dollar toward enslaving our kids.
That's what we're doing.
We're saying to our kids, you don't deserve lower taxes than we have.
You deserve higher taxes.
Because we're not going to be able to afford to pay off the mistakes our generations have made.
We're just going to put it on you.
Even though you might not be born yet, your children's children might not be born yet.
But when you're born, you're going to face higher tax rates than we did because not only are we giving you our debts, but you have to run your own government and your generation.
So good luck with that, kid.
I mean, there's a guy I listen to on Blog Talk Radio sometimes.
He's probably the first show I ever listened to, and he's a great libertarian host, and he talks about economics all the time.
He's a businessman.
He owns his own business.
It's, oh, forgive me if I forget the name of the show.
His name is Joe Cristiano.
Liberty Talk Radio is the name of the show.
He's on like two days a week, just for an hour, I think, once, and then a half hour the other time.
But Joe, you know, he makes it plain.
It's free drinks today.
Put it on the kids' tab.
Exactly right.
That's what we're doing.
That's what we're doing, and nobody's giving two rats' asses about it.
That's why I'm so critical of the baby boomer generation because they have had everything handed to them.
I talk to these kids.
I mean, I'm a business owner myself, and I have a few ventures that where I employ younger gentlemen, younger individuals who are within the demographic range of anywhere from 25 to about 35.
And they tell me this thing with exactly what you're telling me.
They tell me firsthand what's going on here in America.
The discrepancies.
Yeah, I don't know.
What the hell are you going to do?
Keep talking about it.
That's what we've got to do, man, because bouncing off ideas off each other is the best thing we can do, really.
I mean, other than getting involved locally, which I was talking to another host on Blog Talk Radio in a personal call.
I won't say who because it was a personal call, but he's convincing me to go to the local Republican meetings for the town and the township and the county and stuff because not so much to even say anything, just to be there and then listen.
And then after I've listened for a while, then start asking questions and ask the questions in a leading way so that You can let them know what your ideas are in the question, you know, and just bouncing ideas off each other is the best thing I think probably we can do besides just getting involved locally because ideas can't be stopped.
You know what I mean?
Like me or you just talking right now won't make a big difference.
But when people listen to your archives, ghost, they're going to listen and they're going to go, Wow, I like that idea, and it'll stick in their head, and they'll say it to somebody at work, and then it just keeps going, and it just keeps going and going, and the truth can't be stopped.
Like, no armies of the world could combine to stop an idea whose time has come.
And I believe in that quote.
I believe in that quote also, but it also takes a well-informed public that understands these type of complicated ideals.
And unfortunately, because of our publicly funded education system that took out critical thinking, completely took out critical thinking and emphasized spitback knowledge is what I like to call it.
We have a whole populace of people that I'm starting to begin to believe that can't comprehend what exactly you and I have been discussing.
And I really appreciate this conversation, by the way, because there's not that many people out there that you can have discussions about this, and it's serious and it's intense.
And like you say, you bounce ideas off of one another, and that's how you get things going within the realm of debate in the political spectrum.
And I think that America itself, I think America needs to take it upon itself to be as local as possible.
I know with the web and the internet, you know, the Internet, it kind of brings the world a lot closer.
It brings the national scene that much closer.
But I think that we need to start getting intense in our local communities.
And I completely agree that I wouldn't necessarily go to the Republican meetings or anything of that nature because they're still going to abide by the garbage that the talking heads up top are going to say is the idealism of Republicanism.
But I think that community organization, I hate to sound like a damn Barack Obama campaign ad here, but community organization is a big deal.
I mean, it's what drove the leftists into power.
And the reason it drove them into power is because they exploited the supposed poverty-stricken in America.
They exploited them.
Organizing Communities Against Autocrats00:04:30
I can't disagree with you, brother, man, because I swear that's like reading my mind.
We can't think that it's necessary to not get together collectively to fight collectivism.
You know what I mean?
Like, that's exactly what you're saying.
And it's not necessarily a collective thinking in the sense of the leftist idealism.
It's a collectivism in the sense of understanding that we have to group our consciousness together so that we can facilitate a true government for the people and by the people.
And we're not going to agree all the time.
Right.
But it's the disagreements.
I'm not talking about dumbass, idiotic talking point disagreements.
I'm talking about legitimate, substance-filled, historical precedent-having debates that you're right.
If we were two positions that are obstinate of one another, we're not going to change each other's minds.
But the third parties that are listening in, the third parties that are actually observing, are actually going to take bits and pieces from it.
Because if they were really strong or if they really felt something about either issue being discussed, they'd be on either side instead of observing.
They'd be one of the actors in the debate.
So I think that it's very important that we have strongly, hotly contested discussions and debates and use the blogosphere, use blog talk, radio, use the YouTube, use as many mediums as possible to try to get as local as possible.
The more local you get, the more you can influence your community in general.
Once you can influence your community, you can get that community to influence another community within the state.
And once you comprise these communities together within the state, well, then that's when you can not only dictate the governance of the state, but dictate the federal governance of the state by electing individuals that have the state's the state's rights in mind and not giving authority to a complete and utter control of our lives by a federal system.
Oh, I got to thank a liberal, by the way.
I got to thank Dennis Kucinich because I voted for him before I moved anyway.
I voted for him quite a few times because he was the mayor of the town I'm from years and years ago.
And I think the guy's an honest constitutionalist.
I just think he just liberally kind of interprets it sometimes.
But most of the time I'm in agreement with the guy in his action, you know, what he wants to do as opposed to why he wants to do it.
But I got to thank that guy because if it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the opt-out amendment.
He actually thought of states' rights and said, wait a minute, if we don't like this health care plan, we should be able to opt out.
Now, he wants a single payer, but that's neither here nor there because he ain't going to get it in a conservative state like Ohio.
But the whole point is that he didn't care whether he got it or not.
He just knew that it was a state's right and that everybody, every state should be able to opt out of this damn plan.
And he got it in there.
That amendment got passed and it's in there now.
So even if we get this stupid health care plan passed, if we can convince our local state people to not want it, we can opt out of it and have our own.
Exactly.
And that's where getting local is critical.
I mean, you know, and it seems stupid and it seems semi-juvenile when you say that, you know, and it seems kind of corny, you know, when you say, oh, we got to go get local.
We got to go community organized.
But that's serious stuff.
I mean, if you just have three people that are serious about this and they go out and start knocking on people's doors and start talking to people, and of course you're going to have to take a lot of doors in the face and a lot of people cursing because they think that their political philosophy is superior to yours.
But sooner or later, when you knock on those doors and you go to these events or you go to the park or you go to any kind of social public arena and you start gathering people's information and you don't have to gather anything interpersonal, just a phone number and an email address.
And you start informing these people about certain issues, certain things, try to organize certain rallies against certain issues, whatever the case might be, and actually make the people a force again instead of having these power-hungry autocrats and these business people bypass us as if we're just peasantry.
And I I'd like to consider myself within the upper middle class and the middle class arenas because I've always lived that lifestyle and I want to continue to live that lifestyle.
Middle Class Lifestyle Choices00:02:35
And if if my children end up becoming rich, wealthy people because of it, well then that's fine.
If not, I'd like for them to have the opportunity to continue to live in the upper middle class, middle class lifestyle.
But without the bourgeoisie is what Marx liked to call the upper middle class and the middle class, without the bourgeoisie, you've got communism.
Communism.
And that's exactly what his point was, and that's exactly what we're witnessing.
And as we continue to see unemployment rise, and as we continue to see the working person unemployed and having to go into a job market, not only competing with other unemployed people, but with immigrants, you're going to see a communist system within the next, you know, four, five, ten years.
Who the hell knows?
The best thing about all of this is that we're alive during this period of time, which I know that sounds bad because of all the horrible stuff that's going on, but it really is like a really cool time to be alive because these kinds of upheavals that I think like, you know, like you're saying, we're going to move toward, you know, I call it fascist, you call it communist, whichever we get to, or maybe it's the same thing.
You know what I mean?
More or less, you know, it's just a matter of the wording of it.
Whenever we get to that, in my mind, I know that it's going to fall apart because the more it grows, the more control government tries to have over the individual, it ultimately collapses.
It cannot last.
And everybody's like, oh, man, then you're happy about the collapse of the country?
I'm like, well, no, because a country to me isn't just a land or a government.
The people, the individuals, my neighbors, that's America.
And we're not going anywhere.
And we're not going to change our minds about anything.
Like, I mean, you know, we might wake people up to certain things, but Americans as a whole are a, you ain't going to tell me nothing society.
You know, that's pretty much how we are.
Even the liberals are like, hey, man, lay off the pot, dude.
You know what I mean?
Stuff like that.
So I'm not saying that I'm not against.
I'm conservative and I'm for legalization of.
Yeah, certainly.
I've discussed that many times also.
Yeah, but I'm just saying, like, you know, at heart, we're just, we don't want to be told what to do unless we're the ones telling somebody else what to do.
I think that's why liberalism, you know, the statism of liberalism does appeal to so many lefties because they like to tell other people what to do.
So do neocons.
So they use government for the very evil thing that they say that they don't want other people to do.
Certainly, it's been the consistent contradiction with all the people that have taken power in whatever geopolitical land that they control.
It's unbelievable.
We're not going anywhere, though.
We're like, all right, I don't mean to say like we're like because that would be going too far, but I want to loosely reference this in like kind of a metaphor.
Chased From One Spot to Next00:00:48
When you look at the Jews, they were chased out of every land in the world.
They were chased from one spot to the next.
They were relocated and massacred and genocided and everything.
And they're still there, and they still have a culture.
And they're not only over there now because we set up Israel and stuff, and they fought for it.
Buy a smartphone with GoPhone and get one free when you activate required lines of service and both devices on a qualifying rate plan with a $45 refill.
ATT, mobilizing your world.
Offer ends May 31st, 2016.
Valid on select phones at ATT company-owned stores, which require a new line of service on purchased phones, and participating authorized retail stores, which require new lines of service on vote.
Both phones require a minimum $45 per month rate plan and $45 refill at time of sale in the same transaction.