C (5:33)

Well, from what I understand, it was time for someone in America to finally put an end to the Cuban Missile crisis. So if we're going to exert proper pressure on Cuba, it's time for Venezuela to fall. And what's nice about having a war on this side of the hemisphere is that we can shave on, save on the shipping costs and spend more money on the bombs. So actually we can reduce overall costs of wars while still giving more money to the arms manufacturer. So I think this is a clever play versus, you know, going back to Afghanistan, Iraq, trying to support Taiwan. I just think the military industrial complex, they had to cut some budget lines. And so keeping the next war on this side of the hemisphere means less shipping costs and more, more costs for bombs.

B (6:19)

Well, I guess it is a smarter forever war than the ones that we've been fighting in the Middle East. I don't know if that's the winning pitch exactly, but it does seem, I mean, look in terms of like, what the real motivation is here. I really don't know. I mean, I know this has been a pet project of Marco Rubio's for quite a while. He's been kind of the leading Venezuela hawk in Washington D.C. for years. And of course, Donald Trump has given him pretty extraordinary power. This was one of his worst appointments, although there's been several. But it's up there. But he's not, you know, Marco Rubio, I believe to this day is still acting as the national security adviser as well. He's basically had that role since Waltz was fired. But he's the Secretary of State and the national security adviser for, for most of this last year. And obviously Venezuela is a resource rich country and so perhaps there is that. This is, I'd imagine this is what they've sold Donald Trump on, that they can overthrow this regime and get a regime that'll be friendly to big business here and that that'll somehow be in America's interest. But of course, even in order to believe that, well, number one, just on the, the logistics of like, if you were like, oh, this is going to work out well for America, you'd have to unlearn every lesson that we should have learned over the last 25 years and really over the last 60 years of American foreign policy that actually things are complicated and the idea that you just account for one factor and think this is just like some chessboard where you move this piece out and put a new Piece in ignores, I don't know, the realities on the ground of every theater of war for the American empire over the last 50 years, and that things are much more complicated than that, and that it's not easy to predict what the reaction is going to be, and that quite possibly a more radical, violent regime could replace this one or whatever. You know, we could get bogged down in a quagmire. We could, like, just no concern for the possible costs of the thing. And then, of course, that's. You only even get to that point if you remove the obvious, which is just, like, how inexcusable it is to even think about launching a war over what. That maybe a new regime would do business with our regime. Because it damn sure ain't about this drug stuff, Rob. Like, that is just not what is motivating any of this. And so the idea that you would ever. I mean, it's. It's. You know, there's so much. Whenever. As. As I've done, you know, quite a bit of arguing with war hawks, I've done. I've done more than most people's, you know, fair share for their entire life in the last year of arguing with war hawks. And one of the things you'll notice, Rob, is that every time there's. There's a war that they're supporting, they always play on some moral cause. That's always how they sell the thing, you know, even if it's like this. Like, it's like, oh, they're drug trafficking. Like, it's like the moral cause. It's like, well, think about the people who are dying or, you know, OD deaths in America. How many families are torn apart by drugs or whatever. Obviously, you know, in the war in Ukraine, they would play on, you know, democracy and, you know, Ghost of Kiev stuff and taking a stand against the next Adolf Hitler or whatever. With Israel, they would use October 7th, you know, and. But, okay, you, like. You want to play this kind of, like, moral outrage card, but what. I mean, what could be more horrifically immoral than launching a war that you don't have to launch? Even flirting with it when nobody can sit. Nobody. You know, even the people who defend war, they'll always say the, like, war is hell thing. That's how they get out of you feeling bad for all the little babies you're killing. Well, war is hell. You know, it's like, okay, we're. Well, since that's your defense of war is that it's hell, then wouldn't it follow that it should always Be a last resort. You should only fight one when you absolutely have to. And anybody who the hell could possibly argue that we absolutely have to fight a war with Venezuela, and yet that's where we are right now. I mean, call it whatever you want to. And maybe this is just bluster. You know, the Trump administration talks all types of shit and then backs off of it and then somehow leaves some people defending incoherence of all of it. But the president, the commander in chief of the US Military has announced the entire airspace of Venezuela is closed. And you got the biggest warhawk in the Senate talking about land strikes being a real possibility here. What do you say to that? All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is in the Cloud. In the Cloud is your online cannabis dispensary. They have gummies, flower pre rolls, and more. All federally legal, thc, DEA certified, lab tested, and it is shipped discreetly. The world is crazy. The headlines might be driving you nuts, but at least now you can go check out Indecloud. They've got gummies that help you go to sleep, exotic pre rolls for the nights. You just want to mute the noise. And $70 ounces, less than a month of digital subscriptions. You don't even read. So definitely go check them out. If you're 21 or older, check out IndeCloud Co and use the promo COD for 40% off your first order plus free shipping. This is Indecloud's biggest sale of the year, and it lasts all month long because peace of mind shouldn't expire in half a day. That's indecloud co. And the promo code is problem for 40% off plus free shipping. All right, let's get back into the show.

C (12:27)

Yeah, I mean, they're clearly lying to us because they're saying that it's over the drug trade and the majority of drugs are not coming in from Venezuela, so that that's not the issue and get some jobs and people will stop doing fentanyl. So they're clearly lying to us about the cause of this war, but now they're really starting to sell it. I mean, this is an escalation that Donald Trump's shutting down the airspace. It was actually Donald Trump that made the statement of that ground strikes are a possibility, and that was Lindsey Graham selling it. There was also a New York Times article, an opinion piece today that was starting to sell the war and saying why it was a good idea, which was keeping basically China and Russia off our hemisphere and all the resources that are there. But it does seem like the war apparatus is starting to sell us on why this is a good idea. And the official narrative is over preventing fentanyl from coming into the country. But I think anyone who's not a child knows that that storyline is ridiculous.

B (13:21)

Yeah, yeah. It just. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's not on the top 15 things you would do if you actually cared about, you know, getting rid of fentanyl.

C (13:31)

And what I've been hearing from my typical war sources, Kyle Anzalone included, and I think I heard Mearsheimer talking about this, but that for some reason, this ties into Cuba, which does not make sense. I don't understand why we're concerned with Cuba. I don't understand why attacking Venezuela helps us topple Cuba. If you want to talk about the most pointless reason to be having a war, it's over Marco Rubio's Cuba concerns or personal gripes, because I don't know, his family's from there. I don't even understand the storyline. Like, I understood what you were lying to me during COVID for. I at least understood what the lie was. I don't even understand what the what over toppling Maduro to affect change in Cuba's. What's the agenda? I don't even understand it.

B (14:16)

Wait, like we. Throughout the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union and their tens of thousands of nukes pointed at the United States of America in this global emergency that will was, you know, rolling back the evils of world Communism, we survived for what, 30 years with Fidel Castro right off our coast. But you're telling me that now in a post Soviet, post Castro Cuba, we can. Like, this is an emergency of some sort. Again, it's like. It's just. It's a. It's obviously a textbook war of choice. Not a war that you have to fight, a war that you are choosing to engage. And at this point, so it's a war. You're flirting with a war out of choice. And it is just something, man, you know, like what you said before. Whatever. Look, whatever the interests of the military industrial complex, and obviously, like, they always have interests in expanding to some new theater. And obviously, whether there are concerns about Cuba or business or whatever oil, whatever it is, that's like motivating people to just think that in this moment, which, you know, is a genuinely vulnerable moment for the nation, Donald Trump's had a pretty rough go of it lately, and his. His support is down and he's got Major problems in the country. And just to think that this is what we would turn to next.

C (15:49)

It's, I, I would at least like the pitch of after Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and Russia, Ukraine and putting up five losses in a row, we're looking for an easier target and some wins on our hemisphere to get the, get the mojo back in the military industrial complex. And we're beholden to them at a certain cost level every year. So we're just trying to pick some fights that we can actually win.

B (16:12)

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, honesty does go further than lies, so. Yeah, but imagine like if they really were honest about that and how much you could just look at that and go, so that's your answer, dude. I mean, like, look, Donald Trump has, he came into this administration with a mandate or at least with several mandates, I would say. I think that Donald Trump, and don't get me wrong, when I use this term mandate, I use it kind of loosely. Like, I don't literally mean any of that. I don't, like, you know, democracy has a lot of flaws in it. But when I say that, I just mean that, like, we live in this system where we have elections and that is the general consensus is that we sit here and vote every few years and we don't go to civil war. And the majority of Americans were behind Donald Trump on securing the border, deporting illegal immigrants, ending wars, dealing with inflation, dealing with the economy. Like, there were just things where there is that, but there is just no popular mandate to say, oh, and what they're, what people really wanted out of Donald Trump was to back Israel's destruction of Gaza, bomb the Houthis in Yemen, bomb Iran, flirt with a war in Venezuela. All of this stuff is just not at all what the American people care about. And you know, for so, so much of the, the war hawks, so many of them have kind of lectured the rest of us, like, particularly the right wing war hawks. Anytime we challenge Donald Trump for any of this shit, they go, oh, well, you're just helping the Democrats. You're splitting the MAGA coalition and helping these guys. Meanwhile, what's actually going on in reality is that Donald Trump and the Trump administration is focused on one foreign conflict after another, while the Democrats are turning to socialism and winning elections, because they're at least talking about issues that American people are actually struggling with. And so while Donald Trump's gearing up to, to, you know, to start another stupid war, the Democrats are all talking about the unaffordability crisis that is largely because of the foreign policy that we have and they're winning on that. So it's just, you know, I don't know, it's hard. I mean, I guess you could use your imagination and come up with some really crazy scenario where Donald Trump launched a nuke on someone or something like that. But it's kind of within reason. It's hard to imagine that the Trump administration could be doing a worse job as we sit here a little over a year after winning this historic election.

C (19:03)

Yep. Well, listen, I, I don't understand how they're going to defend this. Apparently. I think the polling is like 70% of the country is not looking for this war. So my guess is that they're going to try as much as possible for strategic strikes. Maybe they'll even get a victory of Maduro just stepping down and then they can put some new puppet in there and, you know, have some win for the oil resources now being available to our country. And so perhaps from, you know, maybe they actually walk away with the geopolitical win. But I think, I think what they're doing is wrong and hopefully they keep it to like an Iran situation of just some strategic strikes and then turning around and declaring victory.

B (19:45)

Yeah, yeah. Well, look, maybe, maybe something like that comes out of this. And look, I mean, like Donald Trump and I think, I mean, look, there's a lot of factors and it's hard to know exactly what causes everything, but Donald Trump, obviously, after launching the 12 Day War, he turned around and de. Escalated the thing when he had the opportunity. He's done this a few times in his first term and in this last year. And maybe he will do something like that again or maybe as you speculated, maybe like something kind of works out where they can claim it's a victory and this doesn't lead to a full scale war. I'm hoping that's the case. But once again, like Iran, there's just no reason to even be in this situation. There's no need to even be flirting with it. But I will also say that I think one of the things that we have that's kind of a hedge against another catastrophic war, and I think this happened in, in Iran too, is that there's, there is, like you said, there is just no popular support for this. And at least the way I've always seen it, you at least need some popular support at the beginning of the thing. I mean, typically speaking, wars grow more and more unpopular as the costs get higher and higher, you know, and then that's, you know, typically how it is. Everybody's kind of hoorah, let's go get the bad guys. And then caskets start coming back. And then people start feeling a little bit differently about it. But even just at the beginning of these wars, there's been no, there is no war propaganda campaign that's been laid down. Like, I guess I'm just old enough to remember, as crazy as this sounds, there were like, little old ladies in this country that were afraid of Saddam Hussein. There were people who believed that he was, had weapons of mass destruction and was in on 9, 11. And like real Americans believed that. No one really believed that about Iran. No one believed that some type of attack was imminent. And how, how could they, Mark Levin was going to convince you that because they were enriching uranium up to 60% while they were negotiating with us, that what, there was an imminent attack coming? It's just too ridiculous. Nobody actually thought that. And so there wasn't really popular support, even amongst Donald Trump's base. In fact, this is what the late Charlie Kirk was talking about. Even amongst your base, sir. Nobody wants to see a regime change, war. And likewise with Venezuela, it's the same thing. I mean, they're not even, they don't even have a 60% enrichment type of argument to make here. They're not even, you know, it's like the, oh, they're, they're trafficking drugs. And that's a real tough pretext for a war. You know what I mean? Like, yeah, there's a lot of other things you could do short of launching a war of aggression over something like that. And so I do think that it's quite possible that that also plays into, you know, a feeling of trepidation on the part of the administration to actually launch a real war. Because, you know, they have to know Donald Trump has to know that he's taking his, you know, to actually launch a real deal war, like a ground invasion or something like that. He is, he's playing Russian roulette with his political relevancy, with all of his political support. I mean, this is the type of thing that Trump risks dropping 20 points in his approval rating over. And I think he knows that. I also think that the, you know, his, his spectacular failure on this Epstein thing makes him want to change the topic to any other conversation. And it is quite often the case that presidents try to use foreign policy as a distraction from domestic failures. Maybe there's a little bit of that going on, but again, then it just seems like this is a game of chicken. You know, you actually can't go through with this, you know, that's not going to please anyone. So we will see, we will see where this all goes. None of it looks very good as of right now, Rob. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Monetary Metals, an amazing company run by amazing, liberty loving people and they have really revolutionized the precious metal space. Many of us have owned precious metals for years and we do that for various reasons because it's a hedge against inflation and it's a tangible asset. And you know, but there's a better way to do it. And the better way is not just to own physical gold that just sits in your house collecting dust. It's not to have your gold professionally stored and pay exorbitant fees to have it stored. The best way is to own gold and silver. That works for you, generating more ounces of gold and silver. And the way to do that is to check out monetary metals. Check them out@monical-metals.com they've been paying interest in gold and silver in additional ounces of gold and silver for years. And it's really change the entire system. You can, you can actually opt out of the Federal Reserve System now. You can opt out of money entirely. You can opt out of fiat currency and into real money like gold and silver. Check them out@metanical-metals.com all right, let's get back into the show.

C (24:58)

Agreed.

B (25:00)

All right, if you have any questions, throw them in the chat. I'll, I'll start looking through Natalie. If you see any, you could go ahead and throw them in the, in our chat there. Okay, here we got one. Dave, thoughts on Utah judge putting a gag order on around 3,000 people in the Charlie Kirk shooting case. I, you know, I don't know much about the details of that. I did see that, I saw an article about that. Well, I don't know. What can I say? Let's just say that's not exactly going to earn you a lot of confidence amongst the people. You know, one of the, one of the things, one of the dynamics that's been made very clear in the, the wake of, of the Charlie Kirk assassination is that, and look, I mean, I guess this is, this is a dynamic that's true with almost every issue we talk about is that we are in a place now where nobody trusts any of the institutions and when, look, I don't know why the judge gag ordered all these people, but it does at least make like it's very understandable while why a regular Person would go, oh, that's because they're covering shit up. And I think that when, at this point, certainly this is where I am. It's where I've been for a long time. I think most people are like this. Nobody trusts a word that Pam Bondi or Cash Patel or Dan Bongino or Donald Trump for that matter says about any of this shit. And so there is like zero confidence that if this was a conspiracy, any of you guys wouldn't just go along with it. And I don't know, that's. That's the reality of the world we live in. You know, I don't know if you remember this robbery. There was one time on Piers Morgan I was on a panel. There's like a. Maybe a year and a half ago or something. I think the topic was over Tommy Robinson. I just don't know that much about Tommy Robinson. I know very little about him. So I was like fighting with the panel over other stuff. But then when that topic came up, I was kind of just sitting back and at one point, Pierce was arguing with Tim Pool. And Pierce was like, well, Tommy Robinson did this and he did that and he's this awful guy. And then at one point Tim just goes, you know what, Pierce, I don't believe you. And he goes, I don't believe any of you. Like, yeah, I've seen all these reports in the London media that Tommy Robinson's this bad guy. I don't care. I don't believe any of you. All I know is that he was talking about these grooming gangs and all you guys were saying, he's a liar. And he turned out to be right. Like, there, there is just this. I remember listening to that and like on one hand I was like, well, it's kind of a cop out because Tim's not really making an argument. But then on the other hand, you're like, there he is. Kind of. It is reasonable for him to just say, my starting point is I don't trust any of you guys. And I think more and more that's where the American people are. And this is, by the way, at least from what I've heard, you know, and I don't exactly know, but this is what I've always heard. The way people describe the way communist cultures work toward the end, like, that just. It was just basically that like everybody, every citizen in the Soviet Union had already figured out that whatever's coming from Prabda is complete bullshit. Like, this is just all bullshit. No one actually believe. Everyone pretends to in Public, because those governments were a little more naked, authoritarian and scary in some ways. So people pretended to in public. I've heard the same about Communist China. At a certain point, people are just like, we know the government's full of shit, and that's kind of where America is today, Rob. At least that's what it seems like to me.

C (28:42)

I. I remember having seen this on Twitter, and I did not dig into it. The. The short on the Charlie Kirk shooting is things that we've already said, which is, this official story does not make sense, and you can speculate from there. But I. It just sounds shocking to me because that sounds like such a suppression of free speech that if you were witness to an event, you can get a gag order that you're not allowed to speak about what you saw. I don't know. That sounds like a pretty big violation of free speech to me. I don't really understand.

B (29:13)

Yeah, I don't understand how that wouldn't be struck down. And, you know, honestly, like, I don't know. I know this was a topic of the question, but I saw one article about this. I want to just look up real quick here if there's more to it than I'm missing. Yeah, I guess they're saying could impact thousands. I don't understand how the hell they're using this.

C (29:35)

I thought gag. Firstly, I. I just think gag orders are typically, from what I understand, this is just not my expertise. But sometimes, like, if you take a plea agreement from the government, then they'll put a gag order on you that you're not allowed to talk about the case, which, by the way, that is such utter corruption that essentially, if you agree to the government doing you dirty, but won't, like, just think about it. If the Justice Department or our judicial system actually served justice, wouldn't they want to broadcast it? Wouldn't they want everyone to know that you were punished for something that you did? That's the entire point of dolling out punishment is that, one, you were punished, and two, it scares other people into knowing, oh, there's a system, there's a just legal system above us, that if I behave immorally, it's going to punish me. So you would think that if. If the government was punishing you for something, they would want to broadcast that as far and wide as possible. Why are they giving a gag order other than that they want to keep secret the way that they punished you, which sounds like they don't actually stand by what they're doing. So I think, typically speaking, gag Orders are just in reference to. Oh, I've never done a case.

B (30:39)

I've never, never seen a gag order like this. Yeah, and I don't think there's been one. I think this is type of gag order that's ever been issued before. And, you know, I've always found it because, like, we've, you know, we've talked about different gag orders, like in the Trump case and January 6th defendants and stuff like that. And it always seems to be just like an egregious violation of, of free speech that any that a government can tell you you can't talk anymore about something just seems always to be an outrage. And it's used a lot of times where it's real fucked up in a way where like, you know, you can't defend yourself in the court of public opinion now, but everyone else can still attack you and malign you or whatever. But yeah, to just say that people who were there can't talk. I don't understand how that could possibly hold up, but I guess we will see. Dave, have you heard about what Massey said about the January 6th pipe bombs? I have heard a bit of it. I shared a podcast where he was, he was talking about this stuff. Although I got to, I got to do a little bit more research on all the pipe bomb stuff myself. But yeah, I think it's, you know, look, January 6th, I guess to me, the thing that I find interesting is that, and I've said this before, but 20, the year of 2020, and the people should, if you haven't already, you absolutely should read the Time magazine piece, which was like, well, it was like the plot to save the election or something like that. Rob, see if you can find that. Natalie, if you just look up the plot to save the election time. But there was a piece that they wrote in the open about kind of like all the things that they did to interfere in the election. And none of this was about like, you know, voting machines or anything like that. It was all the stuff that was done out in the open. But the entire year of 2020, and I'm counting January 6th, is like the end of 2020, although technically it was 2021, but the, the entire year had. It was. There were eerie similarities to like color coded revolutions and how those are run from like, overhauling of how votes were cast to riots in the streets to all types of like, media coverage and then, you know, all types of censorship and obviously there were lockdowns and all just like the craziness that was. That happened to be Donald Trump's reelection year, you know, the craziness of 2020. And like, again, even just going through that article, like the way that the NGO money was pouring into the street protests, bailing the violent rioters out of jail so that they could be back out on the street the next night to riot more. And then it culminates in January 6th, where there's this very shady riot with all types of. Yeah, the plot to overturn the election. Oh, no, no, no, that's the PBS documentary. I'm talking about the. Here, the Time magazine. Let me see. It's the Secret camp, the Secret History of the Shadow campaign that saved the 2020 election is the name of the Time magazine piece and it's really, really worth, worth reading. But anyway, January 6th, which then ends up being used by the media in the way that we all witnessed it, right? Worse than Pearl harbor, worse than 9, 11, the reason to impeach Donald Trump, the reason why we can never support him again, the excuse to turn the, the, the war on terrorism in domestically and to fight this. You know, everything that we covered for all those years, the more you learn about it, it's just like, has a very manufactured feeling, you know, like, and, and so I'm not claiming to have like all the details of exactly what the conspiracy theory was, but it is, there is almost like an intelligent design type argument. Like, you know, the intelligent design argument, Rob, Loosely. It's like there's essentially like there are certain things that due to their nature, you can deduce that they were designed by an intelligent creator. So, like, for example, like, let's say you had never seen, like you had never meant. Well, yes, they make the argument toward God. But I'm just saying, taking just the basics of the Intelligent design argument, the argument would be like, if you were out in the woods and you found a rock, you could be like, okay, this is a rock. It's like organic or whatever. Okay, not necessarily intelligently designed. But if you were out in the woods and you found like a watch, even if you had never seen a watch before in your life, or you came from a village that had never produced watches, so you didn't know, you could deduce immediately from finding that that it was, had an, an intelligent designer, like, that somebody created this because it's just too, it's too complicated and layered and detailed for this to have just been like a natural. So anyway, their argument is that that's also true for DNA and brain waves and your central nervous system and things like that. But Whether or not that's. I'm just making the argument that when you zoom out and you look at all of the things of 2020, you can almost make some type of, like, intelligent design argument where you're like, yo, this is like clearly somewhat being crafted. And the pipe bombs on January 6th are like this big missing link to that that kind of got buried, like, it was reported on by the corporate media, but then kind of got buried and compartmentalized. And you were supposed to just take the lesson out of this that like, oh, these Trump supporters are so awful that they'll attack democracy or something like that. So I think it's, I think it's great that Thomas Massie is, is reintroducing that topic, particularly now, because it also kind of demonstrates how much nobody else is talking about that. Like, what the fuck, Rob? Donald Trump is in the White House and he has this new regime at the Justice Department, and they were supposed to be real badasses, right? And you know, any of them going after any of this stuff, it's a.

C (37:11)

Little bit like how he didn't want to speculate on who tried to assassinate him.

B (37:16)

Right?

C (37:17)

He seems to be in line. If you want to be conspiratorial about who was trying to assassinate him, he seems to be in line with the deep state of. There's certain topics I'm not that interested in looking into.

B (37:30)

Yeah, well, it is, it is something that they're, they're getting to the bottom of. None of them. You know, it's not like, okay, so we got some pretty obvious, like, large scale corrupt scams. And obviously, like, January 6th is a huge one. Like, to what extent was January 6th an inside job? Because it certainly was to some extent. Okay, are we getting to the. But like, look, it's good that Donald Trump came in and pardoned the January Sixers four years later after he could have pardoned them, let, you know, let them all get, you know, tortured, many of them for years, but ultimately did come back and pardon them. But okay, like, we got the Jeffrey Epstein story. The Trump administration did everything they could to cover it up. Probably still is actively trying to cover it up. Russiagate, the Director of National Intelligence says we have the proof that Obama committed treason. We've sent it to the Justice Department. Anyone making moves on that? Nope. They came at Comey in some fucking weak, unprofessional way and just got that thrown out. Nobody else is. Maybe we get Bolton over a mishandling of classified information or something like that. Like, okay, that's what we got. And so I don't know. Epstein, Russiagate, January 6th. Where you at? Dan Bongino. Cash Patel. I mean, I know there's a guy who threw a sandwich at a cop and I'm sure we're throwing the book at him. I know we brought Chauncey Billups down. Any of this? No. And who do we have? We got Thomas Massie. And I will say there is something. You know, there is. There, there is a real service that Thomas Massie and Rand Paul too, that they do for, for our camp where if nothing else, we at least have, like, we at least have the only guys telling the truth happen to be the most libertarian members of Congress. Well, at least, at least we have that going for us. But really, who that, who else. Who else is even talking about this? Very few people like a handful of podcasters and Thomas Massie. All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is crowd health. I've been talking about crowd health for many years. I think it's a great company and it's a great alternative to the broken health insurance system. And they just recently launched the Black Swan membership. It's the health care alternative for people who want autonomy over their care, their costs, and their lifestyle. They just need a little help with the Black Swan events that happen in life. Well, now for just $95 a month, you get access to a team of health bill negotiators, low cost prescriptions, lab testing tools and a database of low cost, high quality doctors vetted by crowd health. You stay in control without insurance and their networks dictating your care. And what if something major happens? You pay the first 15,000 and the crowd steps up to help fund the rest. It feels like the options that used to be available before Obamacare came in and deemed them all illegal to help you. Of course it's illegal to get that care that you want. But now for just $95 a month, you can get the Black Swan membership. But it gets even better if you use the promo code POTP. It's only $80 for the first three months. Go check them out at JoinCrowdHealth.com and remember, the promo code is POTP. Crowd health is not insurance. Or opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win. All right, let's get back into the.

C (40:59)

Show just for the record. And it's just because I'm always up to date on sandwich news. Sandwich guy got let off the hook. But part of the. Yep, totally. You know, the Jury sided against the prosecutors and decided that the cop who was wearing a bulletproof vest wasn't actually physically threatened by the Subway sandwich that hit him in the chest. And by the way, on some level.

B (41:26)

Though, that's a waste of a sandwich. Rob, I know you don't like the Subway garbage.

C (41:30)

Subway's a garbage sandwich, so that might be the best use of a Subway sandwich. Don't throw sandwiches at cops. I'm not advocating for throwing sandwiches at cops, but I'm saying taking a Subway sandwich and throwing it against an inanimate object is a better usage of a Subway sandwich than actually consuming it.

B (41:46)

Subway is pretty awful.

C (41:47)

Yeah. Also the cot, like, listen, you can't throw sandwiches at cops. But the guy was, like, being a drunk idiot and shouting at them while they were walking down the street. Shame, shame, shame. And then they came back to talk to the guy because the cops are like, you're not allowed to yell at us in the street. And it's like, I guess you kind are.

B (42:03)

Yeah.

C (42:04)

And then. But in other sandwich news, part of what Thomas Massie was going off about in that podcast, and I listened to it late at night, so I don't remember all the details, but there was some incident of two cops that did not respond to the initial report of the January 6th pipe bombing placement because they were eating some sandwiches in their car and decided to attend to finishing those sandwiches first.

B (42:26)

Yeah. Well, there you go. Look at that sandwich corner.

C (42:29)

Let's make it a segment on the show.

B (42:31)

Now, just so you know, it wasn't the same sandwich that that kid threw. That was years later. Okay, so don't. Because I know you think the puzzle pieces all fit together there. They caught the sandwich. They were eating it. But no, no, no, you're. You're connecting dots here that shouldn't be connected here. Let's play, by the way.

C (42:46)

And there was that Blaze storyline that used gate analysis and basically is speculating that the person who placed the January six pipe bombs is a CIA security guard and that he basically works at the CIA, I guess as a security guard for the campus over there or whatever.

B (43:08)

Yeah, yeah. Well, it does make you wonder, right as Mike Johnson comments about what's a threat to our political order. You know, it's like, oh, yeah, that's the issue. Telling the truth might be a threat to the political order. Rob, as you might find out that this country ain't at all what they pretend it is. Here, let's play. There's wanted to play this video from cnn, which I saw this video is going viral on Twitter this morning. I guess it really is something that they're the, at cnn, they're still talking about Nick Fuentes on Tucker Carlson. Like, it's just, it's, by the way, just because Charlottesville. Yeah, well, it's. But again, it's the best example of the thing we always talk about where again, the people who are of the system who are all doing good, you know, a bunch of 1 percenters who really kind of like the establishment, they all sit around and they think Charlottesville is the worst thing that's ever happened. Or they think Nick Fuentes being on Tucker Carlson shows the worst thing that's ever happened because, you know, they're like, it's like a host who makes $1.5 million a year and a bunch of people who make 6 to 800 grand a year sitting around and talking and like, price inflation really ain't that big of a deal to them. But anyway, I don't know, I just, I guess I was blown away by just how stupid CNN still is. I haven't checked in on them in, in quite a while. But just that, like, it's amazing how much dumber the conversations that are happening on. On there are than anything happening. Anyway, let's, let's play a little bit of this clip. It's Stephen Miller's wife arguing with one of the talk show hosts and some other panelists about Nick Fuentes on Tucker Carlson here. Let's check it out.

D (44:55)

Really, it's about whether someone like Tucker Carlson, who is a very powerful force in the conservative movement, you have people.

E (45:03)

On your show all the time who my husband and myself. How is that any different from Tucker Carlson going on? It's not.

D (45:13)

He's actually, he's anti Semitic admirer. Nick Fuentes is actually a hit, but.

B (45:18)

He literally is not a good.

D (45:18)

That is a different.

E (45:20)

You have Jennifer Welch on your show very often and you've never pushed back, as she called my health, my, my husband a white nationalist.

D (45:26)

Hold on.

E (45:26)

That is no different than Nick Fuentes going on Tucker Carlson. So it's not and you should admit it.

D (45:30)

Well, hold on, wait, hold on. How is it anything similar? It's not remotely similar at all. Nick Fuentes sits around and says that he likes Hitler. How is that similar?

C (45:40)

What does she have to do with it?

D (45:42)

She has nothing, but literally nothing. Scott. Katie is the person who just said to me that it is comparable to say that Nick Fuentes, who is literally a neo Nazi, is the same as somebody, a liberal who has an opinion who is not a neo Nazi.

E (46:00)

They are not a hateful opinion. How do you want. Excuse me, let's go back to him one more time. Nick went to espouse an opinion on Tucker folks show and he didn't push back. The same way you didn't push back when someone called someone in my family.

D (46:11)

Hold on a second, hold on a second. If, if someone comes on this show and says I love Hitler and I admire what he did, they would never, first of all, I would never invite them on the show and they would never be invited back. So those two things are.

E (46:25)

Jennifer, it's the same thing.

D (46:26)

They are not the same thing. Do you believe that Jennifer Welch has a right, Rob?

B (46:34)

I mean, if you're not understanding the arguments that anyone's making there, I just want you to know you're right. Don't feel like, don't feel like, hey, maybe something's going on and I'm a little confused and I'm missing what's exactly happened. Nope, none of them are. I mean, all I got out of this was that I just, I feel bad for Stephen Miller. I don't know what. But regardless of any of this, she's. See, the thing is she's so bad at this Stephen Miller's wife, that is that all she can go to is making it about herself and coming up with an example of where, I don't know, I guess this woman, you know, like, I guess some guest called, said some mean things about Stephen Miller and so she's like, see, that's the same as having Nick Fuentes. That. Which is like, this is the dumbest way to even make this argument. But of course the argument is right there, Rob. If Stephen Miller's lady could just get out of crazy chick mode and like actually connect the dots. But she's. Again, the problem is that that Steven Jennings guy over there, who, he's the, he's the based CNN conservative or whatever. But it's always like, it's like, it's always like the same dynamic as like Ben Shapiro debating like a 19 year old trans activist. Like, yeah, he looks all right on those panels, but who's he actually, Rob? He's a George W. Bush Republican. Okay, and who's she actually? She's Stephen Miller's wife. So she's totally married to this administration. He's totally married to the regime in general. And so none of them can just make the obvious point, which is that, yes, you're worse than Nick Fuentes. Like, that's, this is the thing that like all of Them, because again, look, this is like the Noam Chomsky, right? Anyone who would be that honest won't be there to begin with. Think about this, right? I, I worked for this company, right? Like, I was, I was a, I guess not an employee, but I was a contractor of Turner. I was at this building, right? I was a contributor on se cup show. And now I've gotten bigger than anybody on CNN at this point, and yet I'm not going. I'm not in that building anymore, right? Because they just don't keep people like me around. And so, like, that's, There's a reason why there's. It's not just me. There's probably 200 different political commentators who are, have big podcasts who would make this same point, who would just devastate them. Like, what do you mean? Oh, Nick. Oh, who is CNN head on? Let's go through the list. Let's go through the list, Rob. Okay, you give me, you give me the problematic people that Tucker Carlson has had on. You could give me Nick Fuentes five times, all your Darrell Coopers and me and whoever else the people are now. Who has CNN had on? Oh, yes, everyone who sold the lockdowns, everyone who sold the terror wars, everyone who sold the financial crash of 2008. You got like, Rob, it's just the arguments just make themselves. You guys are so much worse than him, and yet they've. The only thing they can hold on to is like, but he's a Nazi and we're not Nazis, therefore he's bad. How pathetic. The, the role of, like modern journalism couldn't be summed up better than this woman, this woman who has never had an interesting thing to say ever once. There is never. There has never been a time where anyone on that panel but this woman who hosts the show. There's never been a time where she said something, Rob. And you went. You could tell she's really read deeply on this subject and thought a lot about it. That was a compelling point. She's never once done that ever. Was a big story that she's broke. No. But what does she do? She sits there to race to let you know that anyone who had those views would never have been invited on this show. And if they were on this show, they wouldn't be invited back. What's the point of that? What's the point of giving you that information, Rob, what are you to deduce from that? Well, it's very simple. She's a good person. That's what they're. It is unbelievable how many journalists are just in the business of telling you that they're a good person like that. That is something that should, if you are trying to be a journalist and be good at your job, that is, that should be like the rule number one is you never make the story that. Than these other people because like, what is that? And, and then again also, by the way, isn't what's so laughable about all of this is like imagine you. Oh, what are you saying? You wouldn't have Nick Fuentes on your show. Who cares? I, I'm sure he wouldn't do your show at this point because it's just like a waste of his time. So anyway, I don't know. I just thought this was an interesting moment going. But it's like, you do see like the same way through all of wokeism, through the rise of Donald Trump. January 6th was a great example of this. But there's, it's like time and time and time again, they can't adjust to the fact that like, your sensitive liberal values are just not important to people. The fact that you found this thing to be like, it's always what animates the people in the corporate media the most is when there was something that we found undignified that really hurts my sensibilities about who we are as a people. Like. But it's always just symbolic nonsense. Tucker had a conversation with Nick Fuentes or, you know, like someone. Donald Trump said, grab him by the pussy once in a private recording. It's just like they're. They're animated by a story that gets their panties in a bunch and allows them to tell you I'm a good person and that person is not. That's really what they're in the business of. Any thoughts, Rob?

C (52:51)

What I like about this CNN goes Jerry Springer piece, which basically just sounds like dumb and dumber of the. You can't triple stamp a double stamp. You can't triple stamp a double stamp. Lloyd. Lloyd. That's like the, the female equivalent of that conversation is that Stephen Miller, that ball Jew with a tick, has a real hot ride or die, bitch. While I cannot deal with that energy at home because I'm sure when she's not fighting with other people on your behalf, she's fighting with you on whatever is going on in the house. That's a, that's a lady with a lot of spark that likes to fight. And I guess the extent that you can put her on CNN to go back you up instead of having to argue with you at Home is a win.

B (53:30)

But, oh, you're sending her out on a lot of, A lot of tv.

C (53:34)

A lot of returns. Yeah, good for Stephen Miller. That's a, that's a good poll for that guy.

B (53:44)

Yeah, well, that's the thing about a Jew like Stephen Miller. You know, you got to get political power. That's the way. But it is. You know, another thing that just kind of jumps out at me about this is that, I don't know, I guess there's just the, the segment itself. Like, obviously we just played a little bit of a clip, but who the hell can take any more of that? But it is, it's so dumb. I mean, like, this is just one of the things that, you know, it's almost like, I think sometimes we can, we can almost overthink these things ourself. Like, just like, look at the baseline here. This conversation is really stupid. Okay? And let's just be honest here. Nick Fuentes is not stupid. Like, however you may feel about Nick or his show or whatever, it ain't dumb. That's for sure. It's like wildly offensive. It's very sarcastic. There's a lot of fucking humor that a lot of people wouldn't find appropriate. But the kid is not dumb and this conversation is fucking stupid. And like, part of the reason why he's lapping you guys is because people can just see through this bullshit. It's all, it's all so low IQ and so ego driven. Like, even her point, the way they're going back and forth, her argument is, you had someone who attacked my husband and that's every bit as bad as somebody having a conversation with Nick Fuentes. And then her argument is, I'm such a good person that I wouldn't have that conversation with Nick. Like, what is this? This is stupid. Self centered slop. Just nonsense. Just like a waste of everybody's time. And that is something that I think is like, I don't know, I, I like the conversation being not that like even. No matter what the conversation is, I want a version of it that isn't this fucking stupid. We do, we do have to wrap up on that a few minutes early. But this was a special show and we will be back on on Monday with a brand new episode. Rob, last word. Plug your shows. And then we got to get out of here.

C (55:49)

Everyone go check out the run your mouth podcast just did a long episode. We delve deep into the Venezuela stuff with Kyle Anzalone. Go check that out. I'm home now, so I'm cranking out a lot more episodes. So go check out Run youn Mouth. And then, of course, you go to robbernstein, comedy.com. click the links, check the dates. And I've got Sam Tripoli closing out New Year's in Jersey and three dates out in Denver, Colorado.

B (56:12)

Hell, yeah. All right, guys, catch you next time. Peace.