Pełna transkrypcja odcinka Fauci's Notes Reveal Shocking Truth About COVID's Origin

Spakowski. He's our legal analyst. We talked to him every week every Monday. Here Jim Hansil will join us the latest out of Iran. Nick Minok, local reporter here in Washington with an update on the fight over data centers, which continues to rage here as well as all across the country. That's all coming up in the show, but We had a blockbuster over the weekend as Senator Rand Paul released what is known as Tony Fauci's diary. Senator Paul took to social media and also traditional media and posted that my investigation and covered that Anthony Fauci kept a diary. 00:03:36 Speaker 2: Now. 00:03:36 Speaker 3: I don't know if this is literally a fifteen year old girl writing into a Hello Kitty pleather diary every night in his jammys before he goes to bed, and then he stuffs it under his pillow so his nosy little brother can't find them. It might just be a work scheduler diary. Remember those seven habits for highly successful people, Big leatherbound diaries. He used to get with a filler paper replacement every year, and you'd do all your schedules and your meetings and your goals for the day in the week, the big rocks and little rocks, you know what I'm talking about. It could be one of those. But he did share his private thoughts in this diary. And yesterday, because most of his work product has been subpoenaed and discoverable for Senate and congressional oversight, Senator Ran Paul released entries from December twenty nineteen through December twenty twenty two. You'll remember that the first cases of the COVID nineteen virus showed up in China right around December of twenty nineteen. Anthony Fauci, of course, being in the very important position that he was in and knowing his relationship with the World Health Organization as well as people on the ground in China and specifically at the Wuhan lab well, he kept a lot of notes about that virus. Noteworthy, and Paul points out January twenty six, twenty twenty, Fauci writes in his diary, now we know the market was not the source. It was the amplifier. Now that is January of twenty twenty. And the market he's talking about is the wet market, you know, the bat soup, the pangolin snacks that we were told was the real origin of this virus. A lot of observers pointed out that that Wuhan wet market happened to be, you know what, half a mile away from the Wuhan laboratory where they experimented on infectious diseases. And we know now that, of course, the United States funded a lot of those investigations and Anthony Fauci oversaw those experimentations, I should say, and Anthony Fauci oversaw those experimentations. Anthony Fauci knew January twenty six, twenty twenty. I believe this is before any American even had the virus caught the virus certainly where anyone here in America had died from the virus. But they knew that it was growing and spreading in China. They knew that it started growing and spreading in Italy, and it started growing and spreading in Italy because China allowed infected Chinese

workers to fly to Italy to work in some factories where they did some labor there in Italy. That's how it spread to America because people flew from Italy to New York. And then it spread on the West Coast because people flew from China to Seattle. Remember the very first cases were at a nursing home in the Washington area January of twenty twenty. He knew that it was not the wet market that it originated in the lab. The wet market was merely where it spread. In February February first, twenty twenty. This is as Senator Paul puts it the call that produced proximal origin. Twelve scientists, only two concluded it was naturally. Per Fauci's own notes, the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible. So they had twelve scientists talking about how the virus leaked and how it spread. Twelve scientists, only two thought that it spread naturally, according to Fauci's own notes in his own diary, the rest felt that deliberate insertion was possible. I'm sorry, I thought that we were always supposed to follow scientific consensus. Ten out of twelve sounds like consensus, doesn't it. On February third, twenty twenty, Fauci calls George Gao, head of China's CDC. This is his Chinese counterpart. Gao confirms asymptomatic people transmit the virus. Remember when you were told that you would only transmit the virus if you have symptoms. Remember, Oh, yeah, you gotta sneeze in somebody's face. Otherwise you're fine. You can test positive for the virus, but unless you have symptoms, nothing's going to happen and you're not going to be able to spread it. February third, twenty twenty, Gao Fauci's counterpart in China confirms asymptomatic people transmit. Fauci writes that Wuhan health officials did not tell him this, and he thus gave out false information, a lapse that likely allowed the outbreak to take hold. February twelfth, twenty twenty. Heylliorry, remember when Seapack was held in twenty twenty. I want to say it was maybe the last week of February, maybe first week of March, and we had some spread here in America already at that time. The President was speaking at Seapack. All eyes were on Seapack, and of course somebody ended up being a testing positive and it turned into some sort. 00:08:52 Speaker 2: Of you know, big scandal, and faupe. 00:08:55 Speaker 3: On they of course they tried to attack Conservatives, attack Trump, attack Republicans. Was a full month after what I'm telling you here. It was a full month after Fauci knew what he knew. Remember how scandals always grow when you say what did they know and when did they know it? Here's your answer on this scandal. This is what Fauci knew, and this is when he knew it. February twelve, Fauci breafs four congressional delegations in one day. Then he runs into Larry Kudlow. Larry Cudloer, at the time, by the way, was an economic advisor to the president. He worked for the Trump administration. Cudlow asked when COVID was going to crash the economy Fauci's note, quoting him, Now, I told him that we

were okay for now. 00:09:39 Speaker 2: Now. 00:09:39 Speaker 3: That was nine days after mister Gao in China had informed him that the virus could spread asymptomatically. In other words, everyone could spread this virus without even knowing they had the virus. You didn't know you had it, and you had no way of knowing that the person across from you had it. You know, it's one thing and you're in a meeting and somebody sneezes or coughs. 00:10:02 Speaker 2: You know that guy who coughs. 00:10:04 Speaker 3: You're sitting in on a plane or in a movie theater and there's someone who has a hacking cough right next to you. Or you've got a coworker who tries to be the hero and he comes into work even though he's got a cold and a fever, and he looks like hell, and he's coughing and he sneeze, and it's like, dude, stay home, don't be coming here and spreading your virus. See, those people are easy to figure out. Fauci knew on February twelfth. He had known for nine days from his counterpart in China that this thing was going to spread silently. It was going to spread from people who don't have symptoms, so no one would know who had it, and no one would know who was dangerous, who they should stay away from, and no one knew if they had it, that they should stay home. And when Larry Kudlow said, so is this going to affect our economy, Fauci said, no, We're good, everything's fine. What did Fauchi know and when did he know it? More ontone diary coming up in a moment. This is O'Connor and company. This is critically important that we don't let COVID nineteen die in Anthony Fauci's culpability. And now I guess we all understand why he got that pardon he got from Joe Biden for any crimes he may have committed. Pretty remarkable. I understand him doing that for his son. We clearly saw crimes that he had committed and others. But I know, I know the thought process was that you want to pre empt Trump from sicking the Justice Department or FBI on some innocent person and making their life a living hell by punishing them politically, by using the law and FBI and lawyers to harm them. But by saying that that can be done, you're sort of conceding the fact that it's been done in the past. In fact, you're conceding the fact that it was done specifically to Trump and the Trump administration. I know people who went and did that by over half a million dollars because they had the lawyer up over January sixth, even though they literally did nothing. If you worked in the Trump administration in the final days leading up to January sixth, you had to spend upwards to half a million dollars to defend yourself against the Justice Department, against Jack Smith, against the kangaroo court led by Liz Cheney on Capitol Hill. That's what they did, and so that's why they gave so many pardons to people like Anthony Fauci, because they knew what could be done because they had just done it. The difference here, of course, is you have devastating, devastating at the very least mismanagement or deceit and cover up. I would go so far as to say this should if it does not rise to the level of crime, federal crime at the hands of Anthony Fauci and people who empowered him and enabled him. How many times do we have to show him saying one thing to Congress under oath and another thing now reflected in his note for instance, For instance, he briefed Congress and told Congress that COVID will have ten times the mortality rate of the flu. Now, this was weeks after his own diaries said that the fatality rate would be about point two to point three percent. A point two to point three percent is actually eerily similar to what the seasonal flu mortality rate is. It fluctuates each here, it averages out between point one percent and point two percent. That's one death per thousand. Here he's saying that it's going to be ten times worse than the flu. He says on March tenth to Sean Hannity, the mortality rate for this is about two to two and a half percent. Maybe lower than that, closer to one percent. But if it's one percent that's ten times more lethal than the seasonal flu. But in his own notes he told himself it would be point two to point three percent. 00:13:55 Speaker 2: That's a lie. 00:13:57 Speaker 3: On March eleventh, under oath, the stated fatality rate of this overall is about three percent. If you count all the cases in asymptomatic infection, that probably brings the mortality rate down to about one percent, which is, say it with me, ten times more deadly than the seasonal flu. This was in March. This is before the lockdown. This is before fifteen days to slow the spread. It was stuff like this from the saintly and trusted Anthony Fauci that motivated people to say, oh, we got to do something about this. If the mortality rate is ten times worse than the flu, this is serious. But in his notes to himself, not under oath, not in front of Congress, not in front of the warm glow of television lights, he was saying it would be about point two percent. That's what he said in his journal, But over and over again he overstated that under oath, and that's why we have the lockdown. Also noteworthy, I want to revisit the fact that he paneled twelve scientists on February first, this is the call that created the myth that this thing spread nationally or naturally at the wet market. But he knew already that it didn't. 00:15:19 Speaker 2: Right. 00:15:20 Speaker 3: And then they wanted to know, well, where did the virus originate in the first place, Like, why are we seeing this really weird version of COVID nineteen. Only two thought that this occurred naturally because of people eating bats, or because of animals, you know, mixing their blood or other fluids or what have you. The other ten scientists on February first said that it was a deliberate insertion. In other words, it was part of the experimentation they were doing on this virus at the Wuhan lab. But eight days later, Fauci went on New Gingrich's podcast and he said, I've

heard these conspiracy theories, and like all conspiracy theories, they're just conspiracy theories. But the vast majority of his scientists said that it was probably inserted specifically at the lab. But if you said something like that, for the next couple of years, you were banned on social media or maybe even investigated by the federal government. We'll keep focusing on this and hopefully find out what can be done about Anthony Fochi Fauci As the story develops. Whether you're preparing for exams, juggling family and career, or you're just looking to stay sharp as you age, Think Factor is what you need. 00:16:44 Speaker 2: It'll help. 00:16:45 Speaker 3: Think Factor is created by the same company that makes Relief Factor. Think Factors supports sharper focus, stronger recall, and clearer thinking. It's a natural way to give your brain the daily nutrients it needs for memory, attention, and even vibrant vision. I take think Factor every day and I I've noticed the difference. I want you to stay focused during demanding tasks and keep your memories strong, and I want you to maintain mental energy for whatever is ahead. That's why I Think Factor is for you. Call eight hundred four Relief or visit relief Factor dot com to order think Factor eight hundred four Relief or go to relief Factor dot Com. Your first bottle just nineteen dollars and ninety five cents. Think Factor, Think Clearer performed better daily. We've done an update on the Socialists, as speaker Mike Johnson says, and I'm going to use this line over and over again. The barbarians are inside the gate, Democrats have welcomed them in. We're going to tell you the latest wars between Democrats and their socialists and the big tent were told they're creating over there, and there's a lot of Democrats who are not ready. They're finally starting to speak out. We'll show it to you. And also the Democrats socialists, the people who actually run their party, the people who are in charge of these lunatics, they're proud of their positions. A viral clip on Fox News this weekend is basically going to be the basis of hopefully a whole lot of ads from the Republicans coming up this election season. We'll show you that clip and play it for you in just a moment. I do want to give you an update though, on our final few days now for our Food for the Poor campaign. In the last few weeks now, we've been sharing a lot about how your donations for the poor go to help the poorest of the poor, people who are starving children mostly, and there's good news that hundreds of men and women just like you have already donated to our effort and it's providing thousands of starving kids throughout the Caribbean and Latin America with two nutritious meals a day for the rest of the year, actually for an entire year until next summer. And you're also giving their villages access to clean drinking water. It's all been made possible because of listeners just like you and well one of our all time favorite callers, Sarah. She's a sixteen year old who wanted to share with us why she donated to Food for the Poor. 00:19:00 Speaker 4: I just wanted to say, I really admire your work with Food for the Poor. Each year, and I'm sixteen years old. I live at home, so I don't really make a whole lot of money, but I have an envelope that I keep on my nightstand, and each time I do get some money, I put a little bit away throughout the year, maybe like a dollar or two, and it's for food for the poor. And so this year I saved up eighty dollars to give. And I'm not saying any of this to brag. I just wanted to encourage your listeners. You probably make more money than I do, and so if you can just spare a little bit that that would be good bye. 00:19:34 Speaker 3: I don't take that as a boast at all. Sarah sixteen years old. Maybe this is something you can do with your kids, or your grandchildren or your god children. You know, why don't you front the eighty dollars right now and then for the rest of the year you can teach them about well, about people in poverty, and about how we, through our generous donations, through the grace of God, we can actually help those children. It's kind of what we're called to do, isn't it. So just do what Sarah did. Go to dot com, click on that give food banner at the very top of the page, and that eighty dollars feeds two starving children nutritious meals twice a day for an entire year. Just text my name if you want to text, text my name Larry to fifty one five fifty five or go to larioshow dot com. Thank you for that, all right, Back to Shannon Breem, who hosts Fox News Sunday. This is the co chair of the Democrat Socialists of America DSA. They're the party, and it is a political party who has decided that instead of actually going through the tough work of creating a campaign infrastructure and a funding infrastructure and having to work on getting your party eligible and approved with signatures and all that stuff that's required to get a political party to be viable in this country. Basically, they have decided to become a parasite on the Democratic Party, and the Democrats have welcomed them in. It's one of those things. I was like, Oh, yeah, parasite, come out in up on board everybody. Tim Kain, the Senator from Virginia, over the weekend, when confronted with some of the odious Unamerican, unconstitutional, anti constitutional, anti American positions that the DSA said stands for, Tim Kaine said, absolutely. We're a big tent party. And I understand big tent parties. 00:21:19 Speaker 2: I do. 00:21:20 Speaker 3: It's a thing you want to be a big ten party. Republicans are a big tent party. But it's a funny thing. We don't invite people into our tent who are on the record saying that they want to burn down the tent. We kind of draw the line there. Oh and it was remarkable to hear Tim Kaine talk about how all views are welcome in his party. Try being a pro life Democrat. The tent is big enough for the radical Marxists. But if you

think that life begins at conception, and that baby has a right to life and shouldn't be killed before it's born. You're not welcome. Your views are not welcome in that big tent. If you think that immigration laws should be enforced, if you don't think that the enforcement agency should be abolished, I'm pretty sure you're not welcome either. But Tim Kaine should know better because Tim Kaine, when he started his political career in Virginia many decades ago, he called himself a pro life Democrat. 00:22:20 Speaker 2: Yeah, check the record. Then by the. 00:22:24 Speaker 3: Time he was Hillary Clinton's running mate, he was in favor not just to legalized abortion across the board, right up until birth, but he was advocating that you pay for it with your tax dollars, even if you're morally an ethically opposed to abortion. It's quite a journey Tim Kaine was on. But I guess that's what that big tent does. So here is Megan Romer. Bengan Romer is the co chairman of the Democrats Socialists of America. Democrats Socialists of America. They put Democrat in their name to fool people. Oh, they're just Democrats. They're just a little more left than Democrats. No, no, no, no, they are their political party, and we've been talking about this for weeks because they're on record with their platform about what they stand for and what they intend to do eventually when they get into power. So here she is with Shannon Bream, and God bless Shannon Bream for doing this, because she made it very clear to everyone exactly who these people are. Go ahead and take a listen. 00:23:21 Speaker 5: So we're going to put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform, and I want to ask you just give me sort of a true false on these. Abolish the Senate, true, okay, replace the Presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them. 00:23:36 Speaker 2: Yep. Abolish ice. 00:23:39 Speaker 5: Absolutely, abolish borders, and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally. 00:23:46 Speaker 2: As a long term plan. Yep. 00:23:48 Speaker 5: Defund the Pentagon. Absolutely, abolish prisons, at least in large part. 00:23:56 Speaker 6: Yeah. 00:23:57 Speaker 2: Again, as part of a long term program. Yeah. 00:24:01 Speaker 3: Over educated white woman, by the way, in case you needed to know, if you didn't see the video, advanced degrees, I'm sure that's Megan. She's excited about it. She's enthusiastic about it. Abolish the Senate, Abolished the pentagon, abolished the presidency, abolish prisons. As one political observer noted, this isn't the big tent, it's anarchy. Why can't Democrats call out the DSA. By the way, that political observer is Democrat Senator John Fetterman. 00:24:32 Speaker 2: He gets it. 00:24:33 Speaker 3: He's the only one so far that actually holds an office who is bold enough to say, what the hell, what the heck are we doing here? Guys, this is not a and anybody who you know, Everyone made a big deal about Rama Manuel Rama Manuel wrote a op ed

in the Wall Street Journal that everyone is saying, oh, look, he's calling out the DSA. He's calling out Bernie Sanders. Read the article. He does call out DSA, but not because of the positions they hold. He's not saying, wait, this isn't the Democratic Party. We celebrate capitalism, we celebrate the free market. We're not totalitarian, we're not Marxists. We don't want to upend the constitution. 00:25:10 Speaker 7: No. 00:25:10 Speaker 3: Rammanuel doesn't say anything like that in his op ed. His complaint is that these people, because they're saying all this out loud, these people are going to keep them from winning. His big gripe is that it's keeping them from winning the elections and gaining power. He would rather they pretend. He would rather they act like his old friend and boss, Barack Obama. There's a lot of viral clips going around with Barack Obama talking about how we have to enforce our borders, we have to deport illegal immigrants, you know, and all of a sudden people are looking at it. This is when he was a senator in twenty ten, and people are saying, look at Barack Obama, he was right wing. These are career No, no, no, don't fall into that trap. Barack Obama didn't believe what he was saying. He was ying, he was lying when he ran for president in two thousand and eight. Did I say it was twenty ten when he was a senator. 00:26:09 Speaker 2: I meant. I meant two thousand and six. 00:26:12 Speaker 3: When he was running for president in two thousand and eight, he claimed that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman and that there shouldn't be any same sex marriage. Within four years, he had completely reversed that position, acted like he'd always believed it. And if you believe what he claimed he believed four years ago, you were a hateful bigot. 00:26:34 Speaker 2: Do we really think he. 00:26:35 Speaker 3: Changed his position or has he put it evolved on same sex marriage. 00:26:38 Speaker 2: Of course he didn't. 00:26:40 Speaker 3: He lied, And that's what Rob Emmanuel is suggesting these socialists do. Listen, we know who you are, we know what you stand for. Keep it under your hat. We don't need you say in all this stuff out loud. You're going to mess things up for all of us. And boy lord howdy, I sure hope they mess it up for everyone. Here's Tim Kaine. As I mentioned, Tim Kaine was asked about all of those policies. Tim Kaine I was told he's one of the moderate ones. Like I said, when he ran for governor of Virginia all those many years ago, he claimed he was still pro life. 00:27:13 Speaker 2: Here's Tim Kaine today. 00:27:16 Speaker 5: The Atlantic, though, has this headline saying the DSA is a parasite. They add, if the Democrats want to root out the party within their party, they will need to stop indulging the DSA's constant, passive, aggressive attempts to undermine them. This would require prohibiting DSA members from joining their party and throwing out the DSA members already honeycombed within it. Do you

think they have a space within your party? 00:27:42 Speaker 8: I do think the Democratic Party has always been known and mostly this is good. Sometimes it's not as a big ten. And so I don't think that somebody says I'm a DSA candidate, I don't think you should use that to throw them out. Why would you do that. Candidates have to rise and fall on their own merits, and so you know, whether you're a DSA member or a third way Democrat or you know, I just call myself a small D Democrat, people have to put their platform before voters and try to be responsive to voters, and voters get to judge them. But to have a litmus test that if somebody says, hey, I'm a DSA member, you know they can't be part of the party. 00:28:18 Speaker 3: I strongly disagreete with them. But they're clearly not a part of the Democrat Party. In fact, they run against Democrats, they defeat Democrats, and mostly they defeat Democrats who are longtime incumbents. See, they're doing this very surgically and very strategically. They're not winning in swing districts. They're not winning in districts where Republicans sometimes when you know the purple districts, the districts where you need to actually have good candidates if you're going to take over the majority in the House. If Democrats win the majority in the House from Republicans, they're going to have to do it by defeating Republicans, obviously, and they need to do it in districts that have historically elected Republicans. The Socialists are staying away from those districts. The main victims of the Socialists right now are longtime multi term Democrats. Andrew Cuomo was patient ex against Zoram Mumdani. He got defeated in his own parties primary. Remember, So they're winning in districts that are deep deep blue, that have long time incumbent Democrats, they're defeating them. So far, seven have advanced to the general election. There's eleven more vying in primaries still to be had. Oh and up in Maine, they got rid of grand Platner and elected Troy Jackson over the weekend, not that the people have Maine had anything to say about it. And Troy Jackson is running in the same way. He's grand Platner without the tattoo and sadly for Democrats, without the charm. Also, Francesca Hong is leading in the polls in Wisconsin to be the governor Wisconsin. Wisconsin is a swingy swing state, and she's about to ascend to represent the Democrats. And the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard. They're fine with it because they just want to win. I've got more on this Bernie Sanders under fire as well, and a little bit that you need to know about where this election is headed in just a second. But first I do want to tell you about my friend's over at relief Factor, because Relief Factor has been a godsend for me. I told you I woke up in May inexplicably and I don't even know what brought it on, but I had excruciating sciatica from my lower back all the way down to my right foot. At one point I couldn't even get up and walk around it

was so bad. So I started taking relief Factor and even upped my doses. I took more of it I should have every day, but thank god I did, because it helped. It helped get me back to where I am right now, which is training for a marathon. Now I'm not alone. We hear these stories all the time, whether it's everyday aches and pain's soreness, cramps in your hands or in your joints, or whether it's something drastic like I had. Relief Factor can help and your first three weeks just seventeen dollars and seventy six cents go to eight hundred four relief or relieffactor dot com. Yeah, here it is clip four here Barack Obama two thousand and six when he was Senator Obama. This clip has made the rounds over the weekend because people are looking at as say look how conservative. Even Barack Obaba had this to say about immigration. You can take a listen. We're not gonna put the whole thing go ahead. 00:31:33 Speaker 9: The American people are a welcoming and generous people. Those who enter our country legally and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law. And because we live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders, we cannot allow people to pour into the US undetected, undocumented, and unchecked. 00:31:57 Speaker 2: Yeah, hey, he goes ma. 00:31:58 Speaker 3: I got to talk about robust security and dealing with those who are in the country illegally, etc. 00:32:04 Speaker 2: Et cetera, et cetera. 00:32:05 Speaker 3: And people would be mistaken to say, look, look, you see how they've changed. They didn't. Let's just be clear. And I've said this before. Even sadly some Republicans who said that back in the day were saying it just to sort of check a box on a form when they run for higher office. But they never intended that the laws be enforced. Otherwise, why are they screaming right now that those laws that they claimed they supported are now suddenly being enforced. No, he didn't actually believe that he was lying. That's what the socialists and the Marxists who got into the tent before, in the good old days, that's what they would do. They would lie, and then once they got into office, they did everything they possibly could do. Now, to be fair, I don't know if Obama wants to do away with the Senate, but he has said that he wants. 00:32:48 Speaker 2: To do away with electoral college. 00:32:50 Speaker 3: I believe he's called it unconstitutioned or not unconstitutional, but undemocratic and a vestige of slavery, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. He lied, and that's I think what Ram Emmanuel and other Democrats would rather these Marxists do. 00:33:06 Speaker 2: But they feel empowered. 00:33:08 Speaker 3: Now here's Bernie Sanders, their leader asked about this on Face the Nation yesterday. 00:33:16 Speaker 10: There is, as you know, though, concern within democratic circles that these inner party primary fights are draining resources and sort of you know, pulling away from what should be a unified message. Ram Emmanuel wrote in The Wall Street Journal the Bernie Rose could spoil Democrats mid terms. He said, the DSA and others are saddling the party with nominees who, as he put it, wildly in popular positions, will protect Republicans from having to pay the price of Donald Trump's corruption. Said it was the socialists who led the charge to defund the police, open borders, abolished prisons. He's saying those are losing messages that are going to hurt the party overall. 00:33:58 Speaker 2: Yeah, le Mattie. 00:33:58 Speaker 3: Also for a second that do you heard that? 00:34:02 Speaker 2: That's the admission right there. 00:34:03 Speaker 3: Oh see, Ram Emmanuel thinks that it's bad and wrong to defund the police and etcetera, etcetera. No, no, no, you just heard Margaret Brennan repeat it. He says that's a losing message. He's not criticizing the message other than it's going to keep us from winning the election. Always remember that, Abigail Spamberger, the so called moderate governor of Virginia. She got a lot of attention, and she got to wear this, you know, pretend costume that she's a moderate because after one of the midterm elections where they didn't do as well as they wanted, she criticized the aocs and the squad by talking about defunding the police and all the Marxist garbage that they're doing. But not because she's against those ideas, not because hey we're Democrats. We're not Marxist. Hey we're Democrats. We believe in the free market. Hey we're you know, we want Nancy Pelosi to be able to make millions on the stock market. 00:34:56 Speaker 2: What are you doing here? No, no, no. 00:34:58 Speaker 3: The criticism is always, this is going to hurt our election prospects. This is not a winning message, which is very different than saying this is fundamentally wrong and un American. Okay, but here's Bernie Sanders' response to rama Manuel, and it really does tell you exactly where the Democrats are. Everyone's telling how the Democrats are gonna havever red wave or blue wave. The Democrats are going to roll. Democrats are poised, they're in perfect position. No, the Democrats are in disarray right now. King Jeffries is trying desperately to keep them all together, but they're already feuding within themselves. Here's Bernie Sanders. You tell me if this sounds like a party that's in a winning position, go ahead. 00:35:38 Speaker 7: That is what Rama Manuel is saying, who no doubt has the support of millions of working class people. Look, this is an argument, no. 00:35:50 Speaker 2: Debate. 00:35:51 Speaker 7: There is a strong division within the Democratic Party. You have an establishment like Rama Manual who are dependent on billionaire campaign contributors that want to maintain the status quo. Then you'll have a progressive movement, which, by the way, what is getting these guys there? 00:36:07 Speaker 2: Forces We are. 00:36:08 Speaker 7: Winning all over this Country's toddly Mundani in New York City, is in New Jersey, it's at Ohio, it's in Colorado. People

are sick and piet are the RAWMA Manuals and the Democratic establishment and the Republican establishment. They are asking simple questions, Margaret, why in Guard's name that's right? 00:36:26 Speaker 3: And then he goes on dispute as Marxism. But see the anger in the ire and the victories right now are coming at the expense of Democrats, not Republicans. 00:36:34 Speaker 2: We'll see what happens in November. 00:36:35 Speaker 3: By the way, the establishment is also quietly, low key fighting back against the radicals. They announced their primary schedule for the twenty twenty eight presidential cycle, and for the first time ever, the number one state is South Carolina. Now a lot of people are looking in this through a racial lens, saying, oh, that's going to boost the black vote. And by the way, I told you last week, the black vote has come out against Abdul l sa Ed Michigan. There is a divide between black voters in the Democrat Party and these Marxists. We'll get into Vada a little later too, because there's a remarkable statement from a longtime black Democrat in the suburbs of Detroit. But yes, so it is sort of a boost to James Clyburn and the South Carolina predominantly black Democrat voting base there, but it's also a SmackDown to the Socialists. Second place is Nevada. Third place is New Hampshire. That's going to be the schedule. Well, Nevada and New Hampshire are interesting because they're both states that Bernie Sanders won and those parties have been dominated by the Bernie Sanders wing. This is the establishment fighting back. It's amazing, and this is our flagship station, WMAL in Washington, d C her Coast to coast Now o'connoring company also streamed live video stream anywhere you get your video streaming Roku, Samsung TV, Amazon Fire, Amazon Prime, get the Salem News Channel and watch the show. You can see how handsome Hans von Spakohski is who joins us in just thirty seconds. Also, we get an update on the conflict in Iran with Jim Hansen coming up in thirty minutes, and in the next hour we'll get the latest out of the data center wars happening in northern Virginia with Nick Minok of WJLA ABC seven. 00:38:19 Speaker 2: That and a whole lot more coming up. 00:38:21 Speaker 3: But as I mentioned, Hans Van Subkowski's senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom. He's a veteran of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, specifically the Voting Rights Division. He's an election law expert, and he's the perfect man to have right now on this program today. Hans, good morning, thanks for joining us. 00:38:38 Speaker 6: Well, sure, thanks for having me on. 00:38:41 Speaker 3: I thought of you immediately when I heard this story coming out of New Jersey because it's got Hans von Spagoski written all over it. First of all, the word from the governor is that people were registered to vote when they went to the Motor Vehicles Agency in New Jersey, and five hundred of them were told at least affirmed that they were not citizens, but also said they wanted to register to vote. And then the governor says that a software error didn't catch that and allowed all of those people to be registered even if they said they weren't citizens. Now, I know what a fan you are of Motor Voter and the DMV being involved in this process anyway, But why don't you dissect what the governor said here and what sticks out to you. 00:39:31 Speaker 11: Well, let's mention that she had to admit four hundred people. Four hundred those people voted, although she tried to downplay that as if it wasn't any big deal. I can tell you that I was in a meeting with state legislators last week down in Florida, including folks from New Jersey, and they were saying they have local elections there are decided by a handful of votes all the time. Look, the software company who's been doing this work for New Jersey for decades, said this was not a software problem. This was a problem inside the New Jersey DMV. And the key thing here is if anybody thinks this is the extent of the problem. Look, these are people who admit it said I'm not a US citizen. How many aliens lied on the forum and said I am a US citizen and are still registered to vote and voting in nursing. We don't know the answer to that question, yep. 00:40:32 Speaker 3: And simply asking someone to prove that they're a citizen when they check that box would alleviate this problem. That's what the Save Act would do, or the provisions that are currently sitting at the Senate. Hans I made the comparison last week. But you tell me if I'm wrong. If I file my taxes using TurboTax or any other software that's out there and there's some error or mistake in my tax return, when the IRS comes knocking, they're not going to buy the software glitch argument. I can say, listen, turbotext did this, they screwed up. IRS isn't going to care. So even if you take their argument that this is a software glitch, which it's not, doesn't somebody have to be responsible for this Somewhere along the line laws were broken. 00:41:15 Speaker 11: Oh no, there's no question of that. And you know, a typical of New Jersey and Frankly the governor. You know, she was talking all about transparency at her news conference where she had to admit all this happen, but now she's refusing to actually provide any information to the Department of Justice about this. And I would remind folks that not only is the Department of Justice charged under federal law with enforcing the list maintenance provisions of federal law, which require clean, accurate voter roles, but it's a or a vote if you're an alien. 00:41:56 Speaker 3: So deal, all right, we're having trouble with Hans. His audio is dropping, so if we can reset that connection, that would be fantastic. And once we reset, we'll follow up with him because I think what he's saying there is it's illegal for non citizens to vote. I believe it's also illegal for non citizens to register to vote. So these people should go to jail, they should

face consequences. And if they're in the country legally and they register to vote, even registered to vote, they should face deportation and Hans is right. New Jersey shouldn't get any kind of credit for being transparent or open and forthcoming and putting this out there if they then refuse to hand over the evidence to the federal authorities, who can then prosecute these people for breaking our laws. Democrats are always grand standing saying, oh, we don't need the Save Act, and we don't need voter ID and we don't need to go through our voter roles to see if non citizens are registered because it's already against the law. We don't need any new laws. We've already got the laws. But here we know sixty six hundred people have viol that law and they're trying to protect them. You can't stand there and tell me we don't need any new laws to protect non citizens from registering to vote and then at the same time not help in participating convicting those people who just broke that law. That you're hanging your hat on Hans's back with us. If they register to vote, these people broke the law, they should be able to they should face criminal charges. 00:43:27 Speaker 11: Right, Well, I agree, but look, the other big problem here is New Jersey is one of the blue states that refuses to actually verify citizenship. They have the ability now to access the Department of Homeland Securities database. It's called the safe system, and a lot of red states are actually checking that system. Florida, for example, New Jersey refuses to do that. So again, if an alien basically lies on the form and says yes, I am a US citizen, they'll register them to vote. And anybody thinks that's kind of things not happening, I'd remind them of the illegal alien who ended up being a school superintendent in Iowa, right, who was registered to vote in Maryland because he said I'm a US citizen. 00:44:17 Speaker 3: Yeah, And that the only way you can go back and check that because none of these databases. You would think you could take the voter roll database and cross check it against DHS, Immigration, naturalization. No, none of those systems overlap, none of them talk to each other. The only way to really prevent this from happening is to do exactly what Save suggests, which is proved citizenship when you register. 00:44:41 Speaker 12: Right, yeah, right, anybody go ahead. Well, I was just gonna say, anybody who thinks, oh, that's just too much to ask, you should ask him do you have a job, because if you do when your employer hired you, you had to prove your citizenship. 00:45:01 Speaker 11: That's federal law right now. 00:45:03 Speaker 2: That's right. 00:45:04 Speaker 3: That's the I nine form, and it's been in place since the late eighties early nineties. The other interesting thing here is that we're looking at a showdown in the Senate. Two of the provisions of the Save America Act have now been embedded into the reconciliation package. It's tied to funding for the states to

implement any procedures that might be needed for the voter ID and the photo ID provision, as well as the citizenship provision. What do you make of how this is going to work its way through the Senate. Mike Lee and Rick Scott have already said that they don't give consent for a recess until this is done on a roll call basis. John Thune seems to be sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. 00:45:50 Speaker 2: Does he have a way out? 00:45:54 Speaker 11: Well, they need to convince Lisa Murkowski to change her mind. You know, she had a pinion piece in the Wall Street Journal trying to excuse her defiance this issue and her saying she's not going to vote for the stayment. Almost all the claims that she made in that op edd were wrong. She made all kinds of claims that it would keep people from voting in Alaska that just aren't correct, and clearly she's misreading the statute. So part of the issue here is convincing her that she's wrong on this issue and getting her to vote the right way. 00:46:33 Speaker 3: What's the next shoot to drop? Though in this New Jersey story you suspect others. I mean, I'd love California to show up because of sixty six hundred in New Jersey, and I think it's bigger than that. It's got to be in the six figures. 00:46:45 Speaker 2: If not more. 00:46:46 Speaker 3: In California, I would think, don't they do automatic voter registration there? 00:46:50 Speaker 6: They do. 00:46:51 Speaker 11: They do automatic voter registration, and they expect the voter after they've become registered to contact officials say oh, you shouldn't have registered me because I'm not eligible. But not only do they do automatic voter registration for driver's licenses, but keep in mind they provide drivers licenses to aliens who are in the country illegally, So I have no doubt the numbers, as you say, in California are huge of aliens, both legal and illegal. 00:47:21 Speaker 2: Who are registered to vote real faster. 00:47:24 Speaker 3: Hans, there's this what they're calling a rogue Clinton judge Patty Sadis, who is defying the Supreme Court. Supreme Court said the president can lift temporary protective status for those in the country legally, and now this judge is stepping in the way. That's pretty unworthodox. Can the Supreme Court punish her? 00:47:45 Speaker 11: Well, what they ought to do is immediately overrule her, and quite frankly, they need to refer her for I think disciplinary proceedings in her circuit Court of Appeals. 00:47:59 Speaker 3: It's just open defiance of a Supreme Court decision. It's like it's upending Marbury versus Madison. 00:48:04 Speaker 2: Basically, yeah, it is. 00:48:07 Speaker 11: But she's not the only one. We have all these judges across the country, mostly Biden appointees, some Obama and others who've been defined the Supreme Court for the past year and a half on all kinds of issues. 00:48:20 Speaker 3: Hans, always great to talk to you. Thanks for bringing the heat. I always appreciate it. Have a good one. 00:48:25 Speaker 11: Thanks for having me. 00:48:27 Speaker 3: That's Hans von Spakowski, boys and girls, and he knows his election law. He of course the senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom had a little bit more on the Save Act and an extraordinary claim that it is partisan coming up. 00:48:39 Speaker 2: In a moment. 00:48:41 Speaker 3: Yeah, and here's what I don't understand about the Save America Act. You know, when they were grandstanding a couple of months ago, when John Thune was out there saying, I support the Save America Act. John Cornyn, John Cornyan desperately trying to keep his seat in the Senate, fighting off the opposition of Ken Paxton. He had like one hundred million dollars that he spent trying to keep his seat and he's still lost in the runoff. But you'll remember he said, oh, I'm all in for the Save Act. I'm all in for the Save America Act. He wrote an OpEd in the New York Post. They proceeded and actually use his influence to actually push it through and get it done. 00:49:18 Speaker 2: But he said he was in support of it. 00:49:21 Speaker 3: Well, I looked and I saw that the Save America Act proposed by Senator Mike Lee had forty nine co sponsors. That plus Senator Lee brings it to fifty. That's fifty Republicans in the Senate. A couple of months ago, who said that they would support this, So fifty is all you need with a reconciliation bill because the Vice President then breaks the tie. So they have the votes, or at least they had the votes. I mean, maybe they had some of these Republicans who said they would co sponsor the bill knowing that it wouldn't reach the sixty vote threshold for a filibuster. So it was, you know, it was a no brainer for them to say they sponsored it, but knowing that it wasn't going to go anywhere. So they get credit for being in favor of it. But then they go back to their state and say, well, I did what I could, but we've got that darn philibuster. 00:50:21 Speaker 2: Well they don't have that excuse this time. 00:50:24 Speaker 3: They don't have that excuse this time, and so I'm very confused as to why this wouldn't go through. Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, those were the three Republicans who did not co sponsor this bill, but the rest of them are all on board. That gets them fifty. So what's the problem? Good question. So here's one of those co sponsors, John Kennedy, who by the way, has been very defensive of John Thune. He's friends with John Thune. They're all friends with John Thoon. Funny thing about a friendship. You know, a friend who doesn't actually do what you need him to do when you really need him, it's not really a friend. He's sort of exploiting your friendship. And it looks like some Republicans' patients is wearing thin. 00:51:15 Speaker 13: Now. 00:51:15 Speaker 3: John Kennedy is a gentleman, a Southern gentleman at that from Louisiana, so he's not going to be too abrasive in his criticism of his friend. But here take a listen.

First, take note of Margaret Brennan's Face the Nation question, which. 00:51:27 Speaker 2: Is just a hoot. 00:51:29 Speaker 3: We'll comment on the question first, and then you'll hear John Kennedy's answer. 00:51:32 Speaker 10: Go ahead, you wanted to move forward on what the House just started the process on. That would be a party line That would be a party line vote, that would be Republicans, jammin. And this playing through and the Save Act, as you know, or even some version of it, is highly partisan, highly controversial. Bigger picture, isn't it going to hurt faith in our election process? If a Republican only policy to change how elections are run is rammed through one hundred js. 00:52:03 Speaker 2: Oh my god, I got applause there. 00:52:04 Speaker 3: First of all, Oh, it's highly partisan, highly partisan because only Republicans have voted for it. Well, eighty percent of the American people support this, seventy five percent of Democrats support this. So it's only elected officials who call themselves Democrats who were opposing this thing. Number one. But number two, trying to remember, wasn't there a law pass that only had Democrat votes that completely upended critical systems in this country? 00:52:31 Speaker 1: Oh? 00:52:31 Speaker 3: Yeah, your health insurance? The Affordable Care Act got How did Margaret Brenham put it rammed through by only Democrat votes? That was celebrated as groundbreaking and historic and I believe Joe Biden called it a BF and deal, and it completely ruined our healthcare delivery systems in this country. Everyone who's now screaming and complaining, every Democrat like Bernie Sanders, who's screaming about how were the originals country in the world. People are dying and can't get health insurance. Thank Obama, Thank Democrats, Thank the Affordable Care Act. But of course that was always the plan. They wanted to destroy what was left so that they could then build and replace a national health care system like Canada and England. But that that was rammed through Margaret Brennan and it's not wasn't nearly as unpopular or popular excuse me, as citizenship requirements and a photo ID. But here's John Kennedy's answer. It's very instructive. Take a listen. 00:53:29 Speaker 10: Is that from the election. 00:53:32 Speaker 14: No, in my opinion, for both sides to have credibility in the elections. In our elections, we need to do two things and only two things. 00:53:41 Speaker 2: Number one, you have. 00:53:42 Speaker 14: To prove you are you who you say you were in order to register to vote and to vote. And number two, however you decide to vote, that's up to the states. We need to go back to having an election day, not an election month. We've got to know the results of them that night or shortly thereafter if it's come. 00:54:03 Speaker 3: Kennedy went on to say that he thinks they have the votes and his good friend John Thune should get it done. Watch that space this week. It's going to be really good. John Kennedy is always on the top of his game. Though you know why, I suspect he might be taking think factor. You can tell who's taking think Factor and who isn't Because as fast as life moves, you want to stay sharp, focused and clear headed, and it's not always easy. And that's why the same company that brings your Belief Factor is developed think Factor. It's made to help you think clearer, perform better daily, and it's a powerful blend of nutrients that unlockmental clarity and precision, nurture your memory, and boost your attention. You know, I lost my father last year, and he suffered from dementia for the last five. 00:54:48 Speaker 2: Or more years of his life. 00:54:49 Speaker 3: Actually, so I've been keenly looking at wanting to stay sharp and keep my memory supercharged. I love Think Factor. That's what it does for me, and it'll do the same for you. Your first bottle nineteen ninet. Just call eight hundred and four Relief or go to relief Factor dot com. There's always something in the news to talk to Jim Hanson about, and today, more than ever, that box has checked because we're learning that the President was talked out of expanding a wider military strike against Iran over the weekend. A lot of conflicting stories out there about concern over the replenishment of our armaments and our supplies. President still continues to believe, as he's put it a couple of weeks ago, that there isn't the stomach with the American people to support a protracted conflict with Iran, certainly not an occupation force. So where do things stand now? Oil prices have begun to fall. Over the weekend. They had gone up to I believe ninety or so dollars per barrel, nowhere near what we were told was going to happen, which was two hundred dollars a barrel when the war began. I think the highest it got was one hundred and twenty. And should we even be concerned about the wider economic factors when you're dealing with an existential threat like the Iranian regime? But there are those who would say that the president should just declare victory. Now we've set them back decades and let's just get back to the business of the United States of America, all right, So let's make sense of it all. Jim Hansen, president of Security Studies Group, and of course a veteran of the United States Army Special Forces. 00:56:21 Speaker 2: Morning, Jim, always going to talk to you, my friend. Good to be with you, Larry. 00:56:26 Speaker 3: So am I missing anything here. That's sort of where we stand right now. And you saw the stories. How real do you think it is? That part of the reason why the President didn't expand our military strikes against Iran was because we didn't have the capability of replenishing our own supplies in our armaments. 00:56:45 Speaker 1: I think there is a very small piece of it that is related to that, But overall, if we wanted to take them on, we could take them on in a way that made that irrelevant. 00:56:56 Speaker 6: So that's not the big reason.

00:56:57 Speaker 1: I think what's going on, And you see a little bit of this in something that I don't think got enough attention was the deal with the Saudis about giving them nukes. President Trump started his administration by going to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Cutter and he went there because he wanted them on board in case something had to happen with Iran. He also went to talk with them about Gaza and the Israelis. And he's got a larger plan, a grand strategy for the region that involves a rapprochement between the Gulf States and Israel, more of the Abraham Accords, and then also them policing their own neighborhood, and I think that is a bigger piece of this than anybody notices. Iran's biggest mistake was attacking all the Gulf states in this and solidifying them against him and their alliance with us. That's where this is going, and I think you're seeing that in action. 00:57:53 Speaker 3: Let's talk about that Saudi nuke deal. Then it was announced that we would be aiding them in a development of a villion nuclear program for nuclear energy, that rather than them refine their own uranium and develop the program, that they would work with us and with our experts here in the United States, and that it would not in any way be able to be developed into a weapons program. Do you trust that process? And for that matter, do we trust the Saudis? 00:58:21 Speaker 1: The Saudis are more of an ally than not, and I think we don't trust anybody at this point. You know, I think there's no trust, but verify there's absolutely don't trust and verify everything. So the point of having them work with us to do it is if you have our companies building it, our people inside the operation, then you don't have the option, like we do in Iran, of them doing malign activities in the middle of what could potentially be, you know, claim to be a civilian program. So that's a piece of it. And you look at that, and you've got the Hooti's acting up, which is the Saudi's biggest problem. If they close the straight on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula, we got a big problem. And so right now both of them are slightly degraded. President Trump doesn't want to have to fight a major war to do that, but his long term plan is to degrade the Iranian regime to the point where it's not relevant as a major threat. And I think at this point everybody's looking at it and saying the world and especially the region would be a better place without the Islamic Republic of Iran. 00:59:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, but how do you achieve that? Is the well more than sixty four million dollar question. 00:59:30 Speaker 2: We're talking billions. 00:59:31 Speaker 3: On that one this week. So I'm leading to a big question for you, Jim Hanson, and you're the man who can answer the big questions. This week, it's announced that the UK and the United States will be sitting for a strategy session on the Gulf of the Strait of Hormuz. Specifically, basically, this is meant to project

that we plan on being there and we plan on keeping the Strait of Horror Moves open. It is international waters. By the way, Iran has absolutely no business controlling it, policing it, and certainly not charging tolls. So what do you think is on the table here with our navy and the United Kingdom's navy in terms of short term or even long term presence there in the Strait? 01:00:17 Speaker 1: I think, you know, I'm not going to downgrade the UK to unimportant in the military perspective, but they're a much bigger force as far as an ally saying. We agree with the United States that Iran has none of the rights you just mentioned. They don't get to do, you know, anything in the Strait of Horror Moves other than get out of the way. And I think once you get the Brits on board, you've got a better chance of the rest of the Euros coming along. And they're the ones who need the oil more than we do. You know, we're not taking that oil to our refineries at this point, although some of it when it was closed. We want them and the people who live there to be the ones dealing with this. They want the oil, they want the trade they want the things going on take some responsibility for it. And I think that falls along with the President's attitude toward NATO. You know, NATO should be taking care of Europe. The United States is not in Europe, so we're not in the Gulf. The Gulf States and Turkey and other people who have power in the region should be using that to keep it safe, keep it secure, and keep it prosperous with trade flowing. And I think all of those that's what President Trump's endgame is is he wants the region to take care of itself and trade and all those things to flow. 01:01:33 Speaker 3: All right, Jim Hanson, This leads us to the big question, and then we'll move on to some other issues facing our military. It seems like the President has sort of three schools of thought that are advising him right now, and I want you to insert yourself into this process and advise the president. One school of thought is increase the military strikes, finish the job, and just pummel them, even if that means use of ground forces in certain special operations like carg Island, etc. 01:02:00 Speaker 2: That's number one. 01:02:01 Speaker 3: Basically, stick it to them and increase the military strikes and go all out Number two, as I mentioned, is declare victory. You've done enough. You've already hammered them. You've taken down multiple layers of their leadership. You've taken out their navy, you've taken out their air force, you've taken out a huge part of their missile manufacturing. It's going to take them decades to get back. You're fine, declare victory, bring them all back home. And number three is sort of a stalemate. It's sort of a trench warfare, but instead of a trench, it's a straight where we're going to keep our presence there. We're going to be there to smack them if necessary, and we're going to make sure the strait stays open. Where do you and please, if I'm missing anything, tell me what option four is. But what do you think the president should do? 01:02:47 Speaker 11: Option one? 01:02:48 Speaker 1: Smashing them, you know, crushing everything they have, turn it into smoldering rubble, and then making the rubble bounce is an option. 01:02:55 Speaker 6: But what comes after that is the problem. 01:02:57 Speaker 1: You know, we don't have a plan to and we don't want to be involved in a regime change we force and then installing a new government. 01:03:08 Speaker 3: Jim, there are people who are going to talk back to their radio right now. Who hear you say that and say, we don't care, that's not our problem. They deserve to get hammered, they deserve to be destroyed, and it's up to them to figure out what gets built after that. 01:03:21 Speaker 1: Yeah, that doesn't help with the millions of people and all the munitions and things that will still be there, and the insurgency and the fact that those people will cause trouble for. 01:03:31 Speaker 6: The straight of horm moves and everything else. 01:03:32 Speaker 1: So it doesn't actually solve the problem, and it does nothing about the nukes. Number two kind of the Joe Kent solution is declare victory and leave. That does nothing either. You know that that doesn't we we don't have a long term solution. President Trump has made the point that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We need a definitive answer to that. So you get to option three, where we stay there long enough to hit them to the point that either this regime makes a deal that we can enforce you know that we're comfortable with being able to enforce, or we start a longer term program to degrade it and to create a situation inside the country where the people of Iran can make a choice to have a new government, you know, and whether we aid that covertly, whether we aid it overtly by saying things, We're not going to go in and topple the regime and install a puppet. 01:04:28 Speaker 6: That would be the worst case scenario. 01:04:29 Speaker 1: But we can say we think the Islamic Republic has reached its expiration date and maybe they should hold a national referendum and get the Euros in the UN and the rest of these transnational organizations to agree that nothing good will happen while the Islamic regime is still in power. 01:04:47 Speaker 3: Jim Hanson is our guest. Jim, while we've got you, take a look at this video. Take a listen to it. This is a senior director at the Pentagon who thought he was on a date with James o'ki didn't recognize that it was James o'keef. The next time I see James, I gotta tell him how well he plays as a gay man. I'm sure he's very proud of that. Here here's the video. Take a listen to what happened. 01:05:13 Speaker 15: A Pentagon director of business Operations admits to me, while disguised with nothing but a mustache, that he is sticking around to quote Undoe Trump administration policies after Trump leaves office. 01:05:25 Speaker 16: I mean,

there's a lot of things that they tried could do at the very at the beginning, they've still not rolled out because you have certain folks in certain positions who can still roll base behavior a lot of. 01:05:38 Speaker 2: Times where challenges my moral What are some things you get. 01:05:42 Speaker 17: Undo, I would not up for a service her service. 01:05:45 Speaker 11: I don't think there should be one for career service. 01:05:48 Speaker 16: I was converted to schedule policy. 01:05:52 Speaker 2: Hopefully that's the first thing that. 01:05:53 Speaker 17: Gets done because I don't like it, because I'm natively impacted by it. 01:05:58 Speaker 3: That's the director of Business Operation for the Navy acting the Secretary of the Navy. Hunk how has suspended this person and now he's announced that he's no longer employed by the Department of the Navy. But I guess when we see this chim, the question is how many of this guy is there? How much of this is going on right now at the Pentagon, and how much of what the President and the Secretary we're trying to do is being stopped by bureaucrats like this. 01:06:23 Speaker 6: Whole lot of it. 01:06:24 Speaker 1: I mean, the problem with it is whether you call it the deep state or the permanent bureaucracy. Every government agency below the political level, which is the top several layers, the people who actually move the levers of power in those organizations is dominated by Democrats. And then even more so, there are a lot of leftist activists who, especially over the past ten years or so, have done that. You know, what I don't understand is if you are a gay man at a government agency, did you not get the memo that the guy with the mustache asking you out on a date and grinder is not one of the beast boys from the sabotage video. 01:07:02 Speaker 6: It's James o'keef. Pay attention, fellas. 01:07:06 Speaker 3: It's embarrassed it listen, it's it's funny, but it also I mean, you're raising the fact that, I mean, you think that smart people with some self awareness and some common sense are actually running things and in charge as something as important as the Department of War. But then you find out that these mid level bureaucrats could be deep state, could just be dumbstate. But either way, I mean, they're kind of in mission critical jobs here, Jim, and they're acting against us and acting foolishly. That's a problem. 01:07:36 Speaker 1: Oh, it's a huge problem and it has been, you know, I mean, aside from the like you said, the friction and the active opposition to what's going on, just the pure incompetence of the bureaucracy who are rarely held to account. 01:07:49 Speaker 6: I will say that I. 01:07:50 Speaker 3: Forget the incompetence. We got to leave it there. Jim Hanson Security Studies Group, you're the best. To talk to you later. Ready in a moment to wrap up of the White House correspondence to dinner that took place on Friday without much fanfare, this of course, after the assassination attempt against the president the last time everybody got together in May. We'll show you a little bit of the humor and the jokes which fell flat. Not because the jokes weren't funny. I mean, I think they were pretty good from the president, but you also have to understand the audience that you're telling jokes too, and that audience was not going to laugh some of the jokes. 01:08:26 Speaker 2: That he put forward. We'll show you a little bit of that. 01:08:28 Speaker 3: But even more so the offensive, absolutely unbearable awards they gave themselves to openly insult the president. That was the real scandal at the White House Correspondence dinner. We'll get to that coming up in just sixty seconds, but I do want to give you a quick update on the final few days of the Food for Food for the Poor campaign. I want to share the good news that hundreds of men and women across the country have already donated to our effort, and that means thousands of starving kids throughout the Caribbean and Latin America will get two nutritious meals a day for the next year. That's what eighty dollars does, as well as giving villages access to clean drinking water. Take a listen to Sarah, sixteen years old, who tells you exactly what this means to her and how she's doing her part. 01:09:17 Speaker 4: I just wanted to say I really admire your work with Food for the Poor. Each year, and I'm sixteen years old. I live at home, so I don't really make a whole lot of money, but I have an envelope that I keep on my nightstand and each time I do get some money, I put a little bit away throughout the year, maybe like a dollar or two, and it's for Food for the Poor. And so this year I saved up eighty dollars to give. And I'm not saying any of this to brag. I just wanted to encourage your listeners. You probably make more money than I do, and so if you can just spare a little bit that that would be good bye. 01:09:53 Speaker 3: That's right. Bless you, Sarah, and thank you for that. She put away about a buck fifty a week and that got her to eighty dollars and that's meals for two starving children for an entire year. Maybe this is something you can do with your children, your grandchildren, your godchildren. It's a wonderful way to teach them about charity, the charity that we're called to participate in for those who are the least of ours. Let's get together and finish strong this final week. Go to Larryoshow dot com. Larryoshow dot com and click on the banner at the top of the page it's Larryoshow dot com and do what you can to help food for the poor. 01:10:29 Speaker 2: Thank you for that. 01:10:31 Speaker 3: Right on Friday, they had the White House Correspondent's Dinner. This was, of course, to replace the event that they were supposed to have in May that got disrupted by an assassination attempt. They have the dinner at the Waldorff for Story, which is the former Trump hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue. It's just about two blocks from the White House. And well, there were

some jokes, some better than others. I mean, even the President during the monologue sort of made a joke about how he was bombing, and the reason that he was bombing was because as funny as the jokes are, if you're telling jokes to an audience that isn't going to be receptive to your humor, especially your well your style of humor, they're not going to laugh. He did a great job for a roast, he really did. But these people are humorless and they're in no mood to be roasted. The only people that they will laugh at as the butt of any jokes are not themselves or their friends. No, they'll only laugh at you and me. They'll laugh at Trump, they'll laugh at Republicans, they'll laugh at conservatives. I remember Wanda Sykes when Barack Obama was president. Wanda Sykes was the comedian and she made a joke about rush Limbaugh. She said, rush Limbaugh hopes the country fails under Obama. Well, I hope his kidneys fail and Barack Obama laughed. See that was a comedian quote unquote joking that she wanted Rush Limbaugh to die, and that was funny. People say that the President was in poor taste when he jokingly said Kaitlyn Collins looked like Dylan mulvaney, the famous trans lunatic who endorsed bud Light. It probably was in poor taste, and generally speaking, I try not to make fun of women's appearance. 01:12:17 Speaker 2: Try. 01:12:20 Speaker 3: But on the upside, Donald Trump didn't wish Kitlyn Collins would die in excruciating death at the hands of liver failure. 01:12:29 Speaker 2: There is that. 01:12:31 Speaker 3: Meanwhile, the really offensive developments at the White House correspondence dinner actually was the awards they gave out. Think about this. The President is sitting right there as your honored guest, and they gave award after award after award to reporters who were reporting fake stories about the president. Tyler Pager of the New York Times won the Integrity and News Reporting Award. This was because of the Trump Zelensky Oval Office meeting that took place. Trump's demand for two hundred and thirty million dollars from his own Justice Department, A reportedly contentious phone call with Indian Prime Minister Mody, final negotiations with Venezuelan leader Nicholas Maduro before his capture. This apparently all focused on Trump controversies in this presidency. Also awarded Andrew Harnick Getty Images a photo of President Trump's standing while nearby an attendee from the pharmaceutical industry had collapsed. That fake story where it looked like Trump didn't care about the person who had collapsed in the Oval office. Of course the picture was deceptive, but he won an award for photojournalism. It goes on and on, the Catherine Gramm Award for Courage and Accountability. Eight Wall Street General reporters reporting on Jeffrey Epstein and the story about that birthday letter that we're told Donald Trump drew freehand and put into a birthday book. The story was bogus and really didn't tell anything if you think about it, even if it was factual, They won an award. It goes on and on and on, and you wonder why Donald Trump had some tough things to say about these people. The real solution here stopped participating in their love fest. They don't like you, and they never will if you take supplements like I do. You want to make sure two things are at play here with those supplements. You want to make sure that it works obviously, and you want to make sure you can trust it. And relief Factor is right there on both of those conditions. Meredith is in charge of checking out all of these supplements that she has me take, and she looks at all of the active ingredients at relief Factor and said, oh, yeah, this is some good stuff. She's not the only one. Doug took relief Factor for nearly a year before convincing his wife, a special needs teacher, to try it. Now, she had been needing assistance to move through the long hallway at school. Now not anymore. She's back on her feet every day. She never had to leave the job that she loves, and those special needs children are benefiting as well. I want you to try Relief Factor if you've got nagging aches and pains, if you've got trouble getting around. Your first three week quick start is just seventeen dollars and seventy six cents called eight hundred four relief or relief Factor dot com. We're plowing into our third hour here on WMALR flagship station in Washington, DC. Good morning, it's o'connoring company. Great to talk with you coast to coast here on this Monday in the Relief Factor studio. Coming up in thirty minutes, an interesting conversation with Matthew Taylor, who was a profile of him in The New York Times last week. He's an artist, he's a filmmaker, and he's now a senior advisor for the National Endowment for the Humanities, and according to The New York Times, he's helping Trump reshape Washington through art and through film, and we'll talk to him about that and what that really looks like and whether the culture is hopping on board or other conservative artists and filmmakers are actually getting an opportunity to have an influence on our nation, on our political conversations, on our daily existence, because culture and art kind of important, I would say, So that'll be fun. Matthew Taylor coming up in just thirty minutes. Also, we're going to tackle something that's been a problem in this town for quite some time, and it's really become an issue in the last couple of decades, specifically at the World War II Memorial, the proper etiquette on a hot summer day when you go to a war memorial and your children want to go run and swim in the water. The reflecting pool meant to allow you to reflect. It's every year an issue here in Washington, and it's getting worse and worse. We're going to talk about that coming up in just a bit, but right now we're joined by a friend of the program in one of our faves, Nick Minak. He's an Emmy Award winning reporter for ABC seven WLA here in Washington, and you cover a lot of stories that matter

to our listeners, Nick, including the data centers, and it sort of took a new level last week with the President chiming in basically saying that local politicians need to get a lot better about selling the benefits of these data centers because the Chinese government they're funding opposition to these projects. Thanks for joining us. Does you're reporting back that up? Is there a concerted effort from China that is influencing the opposition of the data centers? 01:17:36 Speaker 2: Yeah? 01:17:36 Speaker 17: So you asked as my reporting back up the president's claim, and the answers, No, I've sat in a number of Virginia residents' homes, their kitchens, talking to them about data centers the transmission lines that come with them, and they tell me they don't know anybody in China or a foreign government. They are local residents who genuinely do not want a local data center right next to their home and their county, their city, or transmission line going. 01:18:07 Speaker 2: Through their backyard. 01:18:09 Speaker 3: Yeah, it is possible that they are experiencing their own discomfort and suspicion of these data centers, and then through social media, they're also being influenced or supported or or amplified by propaganda efforts. I do see certain social media accounts that are really against these data centers, and they all seem to be on the same page. I always get suspicious when I see that, when they're using the same language on Facebook or x you know. 01:18:38 Speaker 17: Well, when it comes to social media, I see some of these groups and they're run by local people, people who I know and have reported on, who don't want these data centers. They go to the local board of supervisors meeting not because they saw a social media post, but because they're doing the research themselves, and so that indicates to me this is a grassrooms it's local effort, you know. In Prince William County. I was chatting with someone who's been in the fight for over a decade. Twelve years ago. She was telling me, look like no one was paying attention to the data center fight twelve years ago, and they were just a local group of people who were pushing back at the Board of Supervisors meeting. Fast forward to today, they've been able to scare away the largest data center development in the world because of their grassroots effort. You know they've been you look at Gallup. They put out a poll recently this year that showed seven and ten Americans opposed data centers in their local community. What I can speak for is who I chat with and interview in Virginia, which is I would say ground zero of this data center fight right now, this debate, and the locals just don't want them, not because they saw some social media posts that may or may not be funded by China, but because they're doing the research themselves. 01:19:57 Speaker 3: Yeah, they're also experiencing and they don't need anyone from aing to tell them that they're getting really weird noises on an ongoing

twenty four to seven basis from these data centers. I know you focused on one major center like eighteen acres worth in Sterling, and Sterling, just to everybody knows, is is very suburban. 01:20:14 Speaker 2: It's not. 01:20:14 Speaker 3: You know a lot of times you think of these data centers and oftentimes you'd be right thinking of it, you know, in a very rural area where you know, homes and farms are spread out. 01:20:23 Speaker 2: That's not Sterling. 01:20:24 Speaker 3: And you tell me, residents that are living right near this data center, they're hearing a lot of sounds, including just sort of this low hum all the time. Did you pick up on that sound when you were out there reporting? 01:20:34 Speaker 17: I did, And it's known as one of the noisiest data center complexes in Louding County, which has more than two hundred data centers right now, one hundred and more in the pipeline. And I did hear it. But what was interesting is the locals were telling me on the day that I visited, which was last week, last Thursday, it was the quietest it had ever been. W Well, it just so happened that Louding County Phyllis Randall was going to be there that day and you know, totoring it with residents, and so I don't know if the data center quieted down on themselves, or if the chair asked them to do so. I don't know that, but that's what local residents were saying. It's like kind of interesting. It's been here for over a year. It's the most silent it's ever been. Maybe because our county leader will be here, who knows. But yeah, there are concerns about noise, There are concerns about environmental impacts. There are major concerns about will this increase my electricity bill? Because we've reported a lot on the transmission lines that have to be built in order to power this data center surge, because they consume so much power. Where do you think that infrastructure build out? How is that paid for? Oftentimes it is put on and directly on your electricity bill. So those are some of the concerns now. A lot of the locals I chat with they aren't necessarily one hundred percent anti data center, no data centers at all. They just want them to be put in a place that makes sense. Does it make sense to put it right next to a home? 01:22:09 Speaker 2: Yeah? 01:22:10 Speaker 3: Yeah, A lot of people will say this is a nimby situation, not in my backyard. We love data centers, we just don't want in our backyard. But I think that's accurate. They literally don't want it in their backyard. They'd be fine with it in some other very remote area and try to come up with a solution there. And I feel like that's where there's an opportunity here for elected officials, as the President said, to make the case not just because this is important technologically and for our competitiveness with other countries who are leaping ahead in AI that is critically important for our national security, but also the revenue generator and there is money that is connected. They some better than others in certain jurisdictions, but an elected official could find the sweet spot. They just need to do some extra effort and actually talk to these residents who are opposing them. 01:22:59 Speaker 12: Right. 01:23:00 Speaker 17: And look, I think the President's administration sees himself as the as pro business, the biggest pro business administration ever, and I think that's what was behind their announcement last week, is they want to be a leader in this industry, have the investment in the United States, not elsewhere. What was interesting about the President's announcement too, is they want to open up federal land to facilitate the build out of transmission lines. Right, and the infrastructure needed to support data centers, which might help in some situations like in Louden County, there's a transmission line called Golden to Mars that Dominion Energy wants to build, and that is a transmission line that would literally go through loud And County residents backyards and it's a big one. It's a five hundred kilobolt line. So there's a proposal now on the table from Congressman to ha Supremadium to reroute that on federal land, and the Congressman said that Noah and federal agencies have been open to that, probably because the President is saying, hey, let's open up federal land, let's facilitate this, let's lessen the impact on homeowners to facilitate this industry. But there might be some political risk, I think for the President's party with this big push for AI data centers, because, like I said, Gallup polled American seven out of ten Americans opposed data centers. And could that have consequences for the President's party in the midterm, especially in places like Virginia or Georgia or Utah that are. 01:24:34 Speaker 3: Seeing in Iowa, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania now one hundred percent agree. It's one of the reasons why we focus on it because this has the feel to me like some of those Maha issues that people didn't really see on the radar in the twenty twenty four election, and it really made a difference in a lot of these swing areas, and this one is as well. 01:24:52 Speaker 2: I think. 01:24:54 Speaker 3: Nick Minnock always enjoyed talking to you, very real fast that you did mention loud In County and the chair Phyllis, there's more to that story there. It appears, based on your reporting that there was some sort of coordination with data center proponents to help give her a little bit of political cover at a recent supervisor meeting. That's the kind of thing we're seeing all over the place with some of these politicians. 01:25:14 Speaker 17: Sure so, Phyllis Randall of the Laudon County chair has been accused by homeowners of stacking her data center town hall in favor of the data center industry. When a lot of homeowners arrived and they arrived early, there were no seats inside the board meeting, none available, and they looked around the room and they saw data center proponents with their shirts on front.

01:25:37 Speaker 2: Row and. 01:25:40 Speaker 17: They apparently got there much earlier, so this wouldn't be the first time. If that's true, this wouldn't be the first time that share for Lis Randall has done something like that. Yeah, when we covered her taxpayer funded, lavish international travel to Ghana, Uruguay in other places, that upset a lot of people in the county. 01:26:01 Speaker 2: It's the oldest trick of the book, Nick. 01:26:03 Speaker 3: We saw at the school board meetings too, and when they couldn't control the school board meetings and they just shut down public participation completely and turned off the cameras as well. Amazing loudon County will keep you busy the rest of your career. 01:26:15 Speaker 2: If you want, Nick, always good to talk to you. Thank you, sir. This is o'codder and company board a cup coming up. 01:26:22 Speaker 3: You can't win the culture Wars by surrendering, obviously, and we can't surrender in the culture wars. 01:26:29 Speaker 2: We can't walk away and say. 01:26:30 Speaker 3: Oh yeah, and the Left they make movies, they do TV, they make music, they do everything in the pop culture. 01:26:36 Speaker 2: We're not going to play in that field anymore. 01:26:38 Speaker 3: We're just gonna take our ball and run home and just watch movies and TV shows from the fifties. 01:26:43 Speaker 2: We can't do that. We just can't. We can't. 01:26:47 Speaker 3: And coming up a guest who understands that is part of the conversation about how we push back and how we actually have our voice in our culture. 01:26:55 Speaker 2: Matthew Taylor. 01:26:56 Speaker 3: The New York Times just called him the filmmaker helping Trump reshape Washington, and I would argue America. So that conversation coming up in a little bit, but I do want to focus on a story this kind of evergreen here in Washington, sadly because it comes up almost every summer when we witness tourists, usually international tourists, who come and visit Washington, DC on a hot summer day in July. They see a reflecting pool that is part of a war memorial, specifically the big pool there at the World War Two Memorial, and they decide they're going to treat it like a freaking swimming pool. It's disrespectful and it caught the eye of this Instagram influencer Angela Rose put together this video that went a little viral. Here, take a listen and then we'll discuss it. 01:27:46 Speaker 13: So, yeah, so that woman splashing her feet in the water, well everyone is this is like a disgraceful because it says honor our veterans, right, it says like, don't go in the water, and that kid is literally going in the water and you can see that, like people are just walking in the pool. 01:28:03 Speaker 10: See the water that kid just flew. 01:28:05 Speaker 13: Yeah, and then as those ones over there are chasing the ducks. 01:28:10 Speaker 1: Yeah, like this should be a place of like calmness, you know, yep, it should. 01:28:16 Speaker 3: And she has a point and it got a lot of attention and a lot of responses. Now, the rules at these reflecting pools are that you are allowed to take off your shoes and cool your feet in the fountains, which, by the way, I don't think we should let that happen either, to tell you the truth, I think it's disgusting, and I think that is disrespectful too. I disrespectful as that is to stick your feet in. But it specifically says on the signs do not walk in the water, do not swim in the water, do not play in the water. And yet we see it all the time all over the place, and specifically at war memorials like the World War two memorial. It's incredibly disrespectful to those who served. 01:28:58 Speaker 2: I'll tell you. 01:28:59 Speaker 3: I do remember soveral years ago, I took phone calls on this issue on this program, and one Korean War veteran called in and respectfully, obviously incredibly respectfully disagreed. He said, listen, you know, I fought in the war, and when we're over there, we're thinking, you know, we're fighting so kids can have a great time in the summer, so that they can play, so that they can enjoy themselves, so they can love freedom in America. So it's not disrespectful. That's why we fought. And listen, I take that to heart. I take that to heart as a guy who was a veteran of a bloody war where we lost I think what fifty thousand in the Korean War or over and I'm sure he lost some of his friends there, and in his mind, if he thinks it's okay, that's okay. But here's my issue. If just one parent or wife or child of a veteran who lost their life in any of these wars find it offensive, they win, okay, Sorry, wishes should be respected beyond anyone else's. And also, it's just decorum, it's just polite. It's hot summer day. There's loads of places in the Greater Washington area where you can go to a water park, you can go back to your hotel. Most hotels in the Greater Washington area have swimming pools. You need to show some discipline with your kids and tell them no, we don't do that, and allow it to be a teachable moment why you don't do that. That's at the very least a bare minimum. Also, these war memorials are supposed to be a relatively solemn and reflective atmosphere. You're supposed to soak in the fact that so many gave their lives for our country and for the freedom, freedom of a lot of these countries that I see represented by these international tourists. There's one part of the World War Two memorial that has gold stars across a fountain. Each gold star, if I remember the numbers right, represents like forty four hundred Americans who died, you know, representing gold star families. We couldn't have a gold star for everyone who lost their lives, if I remember right, that's the math, forty four headed. I mean, it's incredible, And that's right there, right next to where these kids and adults are sticking their smelly dirty feet and jumping in, chasing ducks and splashing each other like they're at a chuck e cheese. It's wrong and we got to do better, and

it's something that we should police ourselves. In fact, we should be able to go up to people and say stop doing that, be better. We should, whether we will or not. Who knows life moves fast. Staying sharp, focused and clear headed isn't always easy, and that's why the same company that brings a relief factor is developed something new. It's called think Factor. Think Factor is made to help you think clearer, perform better daily. It's a powerful blend of nutrients that unlock mental clarity and precision, nurture your memory, and boost your With think Factor, brain power and performance finally meet for lasting daily results. Supercharge your memory and mental sharpness. Your brain is your most valuable asset, powering your creativity, focus and daily performance. And if you're feeling mentally foggy or not recalling things as quickly as you used to, think Factor could be just what you need to reclaim your cognitive edge. My only complaint about think Factor, and I've been taking it for almost two months now. It's right here at my desk. My only complaint is that I can no longer use my failing memory as an excuse for not doing what Meredith asked me to do around the house or pick up something at the store, like oh, I'm sorry, I forgot She's like, no, you didn't. You take think Factor now. Your first bottle is nineteen ninety five called eight hundred and four Relief or go to relieffactor dot com. I think there's no doubt that President Trump is leaving his mark on Washington, d C. In every possible way, and one way includes what the city looks like. Are monuments, the restoration of monuments that had been left in decline for god knows what reason over the course of the many decades, but also a beautification project that erects new statues, new monuments, and well, frankly, a new look for Washington, DC, celebrating our heroic past, something that Washington had done for every decade since its existence. The capital city is supposed to be a monument to who we are as Americans, who we have been, where we came from, and it's meant to inspire who we can be. And you do that through art. You do that through architecture. It's the best storytelling you'll ever see. And we've known this in Western civilization for millennia. So why did it stop in Washington, or for that matter, why if we did see a monument, was it frankly ugly and uninspiring. Well, all that has changed now thanks to the President's vision and thanks to the team that he's put together to specifically focus on this. And I was really taken by an article in The New York Times about Matthew Taylor. The New York Times calls Matthew tais Taylor, a filmmaker and artist helping Trump reshape Washington. And they're not wrong about that. He is a real artist, and he's done great work his entire career. Now as a senior advisor to the National Endowment for the Humanities, he's doing some incredible work for our country, a country that he loves dearly, and he joins us now. Matthew Taylor, it's great to talk with you. It's been a while. 01:34:23 Speaker 18: Yes, it has great to be here, Larry, thank you appreciate it. 01:34:26 Speaker 3: So you must be well, First of all, you must have been a little wary, suspicious, and frankly reticent to know that The New York Times was going to profile you, considering the source, but I think that you must be pretty pleased with a lot of what they got right here with regard to who you are and what your role is in this administration. 01:34:48 Speaker 18: Absolutely, I mean, anytime you get a text message from a New York Times reporter, you know, it sends us shiver up your spine. But honestly, I think the article is reflective of the work that the president is doing, especially as a local Washingtonian myself, you know, to beautify, to clean up, to make safer the city, and so it highlights, you know, the Freedom Plaza project that I had the great honor to work on. And I think, you know, whether it's put in a posit or a negative light, I'm glad it's put in the light at all. So, you know, my my I tip my hat to the New York Times for for amplifying that message of beautifying, beautification and restoration of this beautiful city. 01:35:29 Speaker 3: What what happened in Washington? You just said, you're you basically are a local here. You've you've lived in the area for quite some time, and you've seen the decline too. Was it deliberate? Was it just priorities. What why did Washington go so far down the road of neglect with regard to the culture and the important monuments that make this city what it is. 01:35:51 Speaker 18: Well, I think, you know, this has been happening to our urban cores for decades. You know, obviously, I think the greatest turnaround story in in America is the saving of New York City. Not all cities got to go through that restoration, but it really shows that policies from the top and working with the different inner city agencies can make real change. If you think about how New York City was turned around and has done, you know, a little under under eight years. And so I think DC had just been in decline for so long. The the the state of the parks, they were dirty, the state of the city was just in disrepair. And we also had an insanely high crime crime rate for a city of only a couple hundred thousand people. And so I think under this this presidency, there's been a real effort. 01:36:40 Speaker 2: You know, of course, you. 01:36:40 Speaker 18: Know, the President is a New Yorker and went and lived through those eras, and he's brought some of that that kind of aggression to getting rid of these these places. Even David Chappelle had to admit that that the city looks nicer. 01:36:54 Speaker 2: You know. 01:36:55 Speaker 18: So I think that that these policies have been fairly bad, and and we've had a year and a half, almost two years of a complete turnaround. It can be done. It can be done fast. That's what's amazing about it. 01:37:07 Speaker 3: I feel like there might be

another element here, if I can draw it out of you. You talked about the work that you did at Freedom Plaza, the twenty one statues. They're telling the American story and celebrating heroes. My suspicion, especially having worked in the entertainment business and with artists, is that it's hard to find artists to tell a heroic story about America because sadly, coming out of a lot of the institutions that nurture artists, right now, there isn't a whole lot of celebration of America. I don't think that they really do love our story and our past the way that you do. 01:37:42 Speaker 18: Yeah, it's really disappointing. I mean, you know, you look at the Hollywood. Obviously you have a movie like Top Gun. It was so heroic, I mean, it exploded. You know, people are actually really want these things. They want hero stories. I mean, that is the American story. I mean, the great thing about about our entertainment typically and historically it's about good versus evil and when when the good guy wins, the bad guy gets has come up. As you know, that is that is like America. And so I think that there is a deconstruction of what it means to be American. And you need to use the culture to do the deconstruction. 01:38:19 Speaker 6: You need to show. 01:38:21 Speaker 18: America in a bad light. You need to do it in the institutions. You need to do it in entertainment, you need to do it in social media. And yeah, the institutions. You know, I went to art school and I have a background in art history and art theory and sculpture, you know. But it was a different era in the end of the nineties, you know, I was when I was in school, nine to eleven had happened, and you saw real patriotism rise up in that era. We don't have that right now. And I think that, you know, it would be nice, it'd be nice of our institutions would actually push forward the good guys to win. You know, they question who are the good guys? I mean you know, and so so, but they turn a blind eye to death and destruction that comes about when you institute some of these policies that we see in other places, you know. And so there's no there's if you don't have any good guys, then there's no protection for people, you know. And so the people who protect the people are the good guys. So yeah, it's a deconstruction. It's very sad. And the deconstruction of monuments and the destruction of public spaces as part of that, as part of how you take a dismantle America and dismantle our history. 01:39:22 Speaker 3: How permanent is this direction that you've been able to work with the president on. I know that this is a priority for the president. He talks about it all the time. A lot of this is his vision. How permanent is it? Is there a concern that a new administration could come in and take these statues down and refocus the priorities for Washington, d C. And telling America's story and celebrating our culture. 01:39:47 Speaker 18: Yes, Look, it's like Ronald Reagan says, there're always one generation

away from you know, despotism essentially, you know, And I think I think that that any That's why it's important for people to vote, important for people to to acknowledge the presence of these things, to visit them. It becomes more difficult to deconstruct these things when the public is involved. That's the beauty of a public space. You know. We obviously see people demonstrate and do things all the time for every all sorts of different causes across across both book parties. But I think that you know, people can rise up and they can they can visit these places. They can they can write their Congress where they can vote. They can do these things to protect their This is their spaces. These are public spaces. These are are your spaces public you know, so protect them and engage with them and be vocal about them. 01:40:36 Speaker 3: We're speaking with Matthew Taylor. He's an artist, a filmmaker, and currently the senior advisor for the National Endowment for the Humanities and as recently profiled on The New York Times as sort of spearheading or being the point man in a lot of the president's beautification and renewal of Washington, DC. You're going to be heading back to the private sector. Are you going to go back to the film business? Have you decided Matthew, what your next projects after you do your service for the federal government is going to be? 01:41:05 Speaker 18: You know, I have a number of film ideas that I want to do, and some new art projects, and you know, I have an album coming out at some point in time, and so I I have a variety of art projects. 01:41:15 Speaker 2: And you want your egot, don't you. You you're going for the. 01:41:18 Speaker 18: Eat you get all the exactly. Yeah, you know, some writing projects. I do a lot of different projects across the board. So you know, I'm always working on things, you know, whether I'm doing this job or not. 01:41:28 Speaker 3: You know, I feel like you and you've been involved in some documentary projects as well, And I feel like when conservatives go into filmmaking, their instinct is documentary and I get that and I appreciate it, by the way, because I think we've made some great documentaries Matt Walsh with What Is a Woman and some of these other ones. But storytelling is really still where it's at, isn't it. I mean, we we we need to have an impact in storytelling in fiction and being able to capture the imagination. You mentioned Top Gun and Top Gun Maverick. That's where we actually make a lasting difference. Do you see pathways and opportunities for young artists who who don't hate America to be able to actually express themselves creatively and actually get projects off the ground. 01:42:14 Speaker 2: Oh? 01:42:15 Speaker 18: Absolutely. I think that we've had a surge of new alternative views which are actually just traditional views pop up in Hollywood. I mean everything from Angel Pictures to the Wonder Project. I know a lot of these people who are who are making these obviously young Washington you know, out for I think now performed as Star Wars, yeah, you know, and so so Yeah, there's there is a there's absolutely a surge and they and they change. I'm a big fan of democratization of technology. That is how I got into filmmaking, you know, because because Apple made filmmaking affordable and Sony did. We're in a new era where this is it's becoming more affordable, easier to get into. There's more platforms, there's more things to engage with. What we really need for or for for the resurgence is we need new IP. I mean that's really what Hollywood has. I mean, Hollywood has Spider Man and has Star Wars. This is IP. We need to be creative and start building new IP I think the last major major IP that came new IP was like John Wick, you know. So I would love to see creative, young, creative people who are heroic in Love America start coming up with just new ideas and new characters and new things. Don't We don't need to constantly do remakes and reboots and all these other things we need. 01:43:29 Speaker 6: We need new IP. 01:43:30 Speaker 18: And I encourage everybody watching this, you know, start coming up, start drawing comic books, do all these things be creative and there's a place for it now. And that's really exciting for me. 01:43:40 Speaker 2: Yeah. 01:43:41 Speaker 3: I would say Jack Carr with the Terminalist series actually might fall into that category. That's that's some new stuff. I'm trying to get Kurt Schlickter's stuff on film as well. 01:43:49 Speaker 2: I think it would help real fast in our final moments. 01:43:52 Speaker 3: Whenever I talk about this too with Young America's foundation or turning point in other groups, I always get high school and college kids coming up and saying, I want to be in the arts, but I want to be in entertainment, but my parents they object to it. Is that what did your when you went to your dad and said I want to be an artist? 01:44:08 Speaker 2: Did he did? He try to this. Yeah, exactly, we all have that conversation. 01:44:12 Speaker 3: How did that go? And how important is it for parents? They got to stop complaining that it's only liberals in Hollywood if they're not letting their conservative kids get into the arts one hundred percent. 01:44:23 Speaker 18: My mother was a fashion photographer, my dad was a painter, and they said, go be a doctor, don't be like us. Actually so, but I didn't listen to them because I'm an artist. But yeah, they should. We should encourage our young people to be creative. Culture is critical, you know, movies are critical. That's what people do. That's what they do. They do with their free time is this. They don't do politics. They entertain themselves. And we should be there in that, in that, in that you know, messaging stream, entertaining people and you know, celebrating days. 01:44:51 Speaker 3: Matthew Taylor, great stuff, congratulations on everything, and thank you for what you're doing to Washington d C. For Washington d

C. I really appreciate it. Keep your eye on, Matthew Taylor. There's more to come there. Thanks brother, I appreciate it. 01:45:04 Speaker 8: All. 01:45:04 Speaker 3: Right, coming up, we are going to give you a quick update on where things are. One hundred days out from the midterm elections. What is the state of this race where the candidates, what are they saying, and how are Republicans poised to win those critical districts needed to keep the gavel in Mike Johnson's hands. It comes down to money, and they're looking good right now. If that's what this is all about. We'll get into it next coming up in about a minute. I'm going to give you the state of the midterm election race right now. Where do Republicans and Democrats stand as we head toward the last primaries, especially that critical Michigan Senate primary the Democrats are facing. Who gets to hit the buzzsaw that is Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee. We'll get into it coming up in just a minute, but I do want to say that this is now the final few days of my Food for the Poor campaign. I want to share the good news that hundreds of men, women just like you have already donated to our efforts that are going to provide thousands of starving kids throughout the Caribbean and Latin America with two nutritious meals a day for the next year and help give their villages access to clean drinking water. I take a listen to Sarah. She's just sixteen years old, but she's an inspiration. And how she donated to Food for the Poor. 01:46:22 Speaker 4: I just wanted to say, I really admire your work with Food for the poor. Each year, and I'm sixteen years old. I live at home, so I don't really make a whole lot of money, but I have an envelope that I keep on my nightstand and each time I do get some money, put a little bit away throughout the year, maybe like a dollar or two, and it's for food for the poor. And so this year I saved up eighty dollars to give. And I'm not saying any of this to brag. I just wanted to encourage your listeners to probably make more money than I do, and so if you can just spare a little bit that that would be good bye. 01:46:57 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's amazing. 01:46:58 Speaker 3: She set aside a little over a fifty a week that totaled eighty dollars for the year, and that feeds two starving children nutritious meals twice a day for an entire year. Maybe you can do this with your children or grandchildren and it'll be a incredible lesson. 01:47:13 Speaker 2: For them. 01:47:13 Speaker 3: All you have to do is go to Larryoshow dot com click on the gift food banner. It's incredible where your donation goes and how good food for the poor is in making sure that the money goes straight to those who are most in need. If you can, you can also text my name Larry to fifty one to five fifty five and then you'll get a link to donate. Just a few days left on this campaign, and I really appreciate your generosity. All Right, we're about one hundred days out from the midterm elections, and

I've been telling you all year long as you hear about a blue wave, it's not going to be a blue wave. In fact, I think Republicans not only can keep the gabble in Mike Johnson's hands, I think they can grow their majority in the House. But a few things have to happen here. I told you back in January when they were saying that Democrats were going to win by twenty five seats in the House. I told you then that there's a couple of missing factors here. First of all, y'all are looking at generic nationwide Democrat Republican preference polls and that might tell you something, but it doesn't tell you how the actual race goes in the districts involved. 01:48:15 Speaker 2: Number one. 01:48:16 Speaker 3: Number two, you got to wait until you see who the Democrats are going to nominate, because candidates matter, and I promise you they're not nominating generic Democrats. They're nominating lunatics. In fact, even if they're not nominating a Marxist in the district that might be on the bubble, well, Republicans can very easily tie the Democrat running in that district to the lunatic in Manhattan or San Francisco or Los Angeles and say, yeah, this person won't disavow the Marxists who want to undo this country. And I do mean undo this country. On Shannon Breems Fox News Sunday, this is clip one. Take a listen to the co chair of the Democrat Socialists. She affirms exactly what we've been telling you about what these radicals who are not calling themselves Democrats intend to do. 01:49:03 Speaker 5: So we're going to put up on the screen a few of the things that are part of your platform, and I want to ask you just give me sort of a true false. 01:49:08 Speaker 2: On these Abolish the Senate. 01:49:12 Speaker 5: True Okay, replace the Presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them. 01:49:18 Speaker 2: Yep. 01:49:19 Speaker 5: Abolish ice, Absolutely, abolish borders, and give amnesty to anyone currently in the US illegally. 01:49:28 Speaker 2: As a long term plan. 01:49:30 Speaker 3: Yep. 01:49:30 Speaker 5: Defund the Pentagon. Absolutely, abolish prisons, at least in large part. 01:49:39 Speaker 2: Yeah. Again, as part of a long term program. 01:49:41 Speaker 14: Yeah. 01:49:43 Speaker 2: See. 01:49:43 Speaker 3: The moderate reasonable Democrat running in a swing district right now is going to try to distance themselves from that agenda. But the fact of the matter is those Marxists who are running as Democrats socialists who get into the House of Representatives, they're the swing voters, the ones who will hold Hakeem Jeffreys ransom. There are about eighteen districts right now, according to Axios and the Cook Political Report, that are true toss up races, and with leaners going Republican or Democrat way. Of those eighteen, Republicans need to win about five or six of them to retain the majority. That's doable, especially considering the fact that they are a wash with cash right now. Republicans are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in the coffers. Democrats are nearly in the hole right now with regard to the soft money that they're holding on to. Certain candidates are doing okay, but not the parties themselves. And in fact, the chairman of the Democratic Party, Ken Martin, is currently under fire. A New York Times article just detailed about how broken the Democrats are. That's the New York Times description, including an HR complaint against him for slamming a phone on the desk of one of his employees. You want to know how bad things are, look at Michigan, where Abdul al Sayid, one of these radicals, is now losing in the primary to Haley Stevens, who he has said is propped up by eight pack and corporations. Will take a listen to this school board member in Farmington, Michigan. She speaks with for most Democrats in the state right now. 01:51:19 Speaker 18: Oh yeah, So we're here with Angie Smith and you're from Farmington. 01:51:23 Speaker 19: Hi, I'm Angie Smith. I'm from Farmington Public Schools, top book inner from Harmington Public School Board and on the board eleven years. I am supporting Hailey Stevens because she's that candidate. We need someone that can represent all of us, not. 01:51:38 Speaker 6: Just one race, but all races. 01:51:41 Speaker 19: Haley has done great work in Farmington and in Farmington Hills. 01:51:46 Speaker 2: She knows what she's your doing. 01:51:48 Speaker 19: And any time you can go to a Democratic convention and be booed and walk from behind a podium and stand there while you're being booed and things thrown at you, that's. 01:52:00 Speaker 3: On to say, don't be a Democrat and celebrating your victory by speaking Arabic and playing Arab music. She's African American. By the way, this is the divide of Michigan right now and it's reaching a fevered pitch. More on that as this week develops. I do want to tell you about my favorite supplement right now, Relief Factor. It's my favorite supplement because Relief Factor got me back on my feet again and training for a marathon. And I could barely walk a couple of months ago. My saiatica was just that bad. I'm not the only one. Chris spent years doing physical work and he had sore feet. He started taking Relief Factor and then he ran a half marathon. You see a pattern developing here. Listen, if you've got everyday aches and pains, if you've got serious discomfort or even like I had debilitating inflammation that caused you to take the sidelines. You've got to try relief Factor. Your three week quick start is only seventeen seventy six. Call eight hundred four relief or go to relief factor dot com, relieffactor dot com