Exposing Media Bias, Debating Gun Legislation, and Tackling Misinformation

Ever wondered what's behind the scenes when a journalist is ousted for their views? While Elsa's out, Clay is pulling back the curtain on the dismissal of Ronna McDaniel from NBC and the clash over journalistic integrity. It's a deep dive into the power play of network giants and the battle for a diverse media landscape that's as gripping as it is crucial for our democracy. And when it comes to gun rights, you bet we're unpacking the latest on legislation and the Second Amendment - no holds barred.

Amidst a nation divided on firearm ownership, this episode doesn't shy away from the tough conversations. From the proposed assault weapons ban to the complexities surrounding red flag laws, Clay is peeling back every layer. And speaking of action, or lack thereof, Vice President Harris's role in gun violence prevention gets put under the microscope. 
As we wrap up, we're not just talking guns and politics. Clay steers us through the maze of infrastructure woes and the fine line between prosecution and persecution, all while debunking the spread of misinformation - especially on social media. The spotlight's on Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs' recent ordeal to illustrate the wildfire that is online speculation. So buckle up for a journey through the pressing issues of our times, and remember, Elsa and I are eagerly awaiting your return to our dynamic duo's banter next week.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:04

Hey, good evening folks. Clay Noe, back here flying solo once again for a second week in a row. Baby watch for Elsa Still no baby. She's been down there for a couple weeks now trying to be grandma for the third time over and no luck. I think tomorrow may be the day. We've been saying that for a couple weeks now. But tomorrow may be the day and then we'll have her back in full next week. That's the day. We've been saying that for a couple weeks now. But tomorrow may be the day and then we'll have her back in full next week. That's the hope. So thanks for being here with me alone this week and I got a great show for you, a couple of good, deep, solid topics tonight. So we'll get started right after this.

Speaker 1: 0:39

All right, starting off tonight, we've got the Rona McDaniel issue that's going on right now. For those of you that don't know, rona McDaniel was the recently resigned and departed RNC chair, so you've got a heavy hitter from the Republican National Convention, from the party, and you know she was truthfully liked and respected by a lot of people. Most folks were not happy when she departed, but she moved on to greener pastures, if that's what you want to call it, and one of the first places she got hired by was NBC, nbc Studios, and she was going to be their probably overreaching conservative pundit. They don't have many, if any at all, uh, so I have a feeling she was going to do a lot of duty across really probably multiple shows. Um, that was announced, uh, five days ago, um, and today she has been fired. She's been, she's been hasn't even been on the area, uh, but has been fired, um, and it's due to specific.

Speaker 1: 2:03

There was a lot of backlash, some of it from NBC viewers, but a lot of it from NBC personalities and staff. So this is journalism today, and the two big names that come up when you hear about her firing and about the backlash of her hiring, which in turn led to her firing, are Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough from Morning Joe on MSNBC. So these are not people that Rona McDaniel was going to directly compete with. There was going to be no loss to them or their ratings. They just didn't want her on the network because she's a conservative. That's it. That's the whole premise.

Speaker 1: 2:53

So they want the echo chamber to continue. They don't want any opposing viewpoints. They certainly don't want any opposing viewpoints with any kind of educated voice, uh, and, and anybody with any sort of um, you know, um, I guess reputation, or or you know at least someone who has an earned reputation or respected reputation, uh, to counter anything, any of the messaging that that they want brought across on their shows. So you've got Rachel Maddow, who truthfully is. You could probably throw journalism out the window and just call it sensationalism, because that's all she does. If you go back and watch her, especially during COVID, she was one of the beat the drum, fear Nick, keep everybody in their houses. All of the messaging, all of the scared everybody who was trying to put the fear mongering out in the world. She was front of the crowd, top of the list, she was definitely on board with all of it, definitely the deliverer of all of those messages.

Speaker 1: 4:13

She has zero journalism credibility for me, because that's not what she does. She is definitely bought and paid for. She's liberal, the party, whatever the party needs, whatever the message is from the current, you know, liberal world. That's what she's offering, that's what she's pushing forward. Joe Scarborough is the same way. Morning Joe, you know, is pure echo chamber. That's all it is and it is just another show to bring the message across of. You know, hey, this is what the president, this is what the administration, this is what the party wants you to know, this is what they want you to hear, this is what they want you to believe. So this is the message we are going to deliver. Now.

Speaker 1: 4:55

I know there were others. I know there were others at NBC, msnbc, all the affiliates. I know that there was some backlash from viewers. I get it. I know that there was some backlash from viewers, I get it, you know. But NBC does have an obligation as a news source, trying to be a legitimate source of non-biased, non-partisan, quality news.

Speaker 1: 5:31

To who better to offer a conservative counter viewpoint on any of these shows, on any of their normal viewing? Why wouldn't you have Rona McDaniel in your bullpen? Well, because she offers an opposing viewpoint, and that's not what they want. That's not modern journalism. I use that term very, very loosely right? They're nothing more than pundits. They're. They're listen, I'm not a journalist, I, elsa's not a journalist. We're pundits, right? We? This is what we do. We offer our opinion, we offer our viewpoint, we offer a differing viewpoint. Ok, msnbc, nbc, when you talk about news and delivering news and news networks, it's not supposed to be punditry and those that are pundits and readily acknowledge that they're pundits, fine, you can have that on those networks and even have dedicated shows on those networks. But you can't call yourself a journalist and then absolutely put the hammer down on an opposing viewpoint to make sure it doesn't even get exposed on the same network as you, probably not even on your show.

Speaker 1: 6:40

So Rachel Maddow, if she had any respect for herself as a journalist at all, never would have opened her mouth about this. If she had any belief in her own ability as a journalist to deliver a message that she believes in, something that she believes to be true and factual and that is defensible, not only would she have not pushed to have Rona McDaniel off the network, she would have invited her on her show, she would have brought her on and went, point counterpoint. If she was smart if she was smart, rachel Maddow oh, by the way, if she's smart and she had the ability, clearly doesn't, um she would have made it a weekly segment. If she had any brains whatsoever, she would have dedicated a 10 minute. Teta, tet, you know, with Rona McDaniel, pick a topic every week, 10 minutes, two of them go at it. They spent 10 minutes yelling at each other. Rona McDaniel walks away. Rachel Maddow's got the other 50 minutes. Like that's free money, that's free viewership. Every week You're drawing in conservative viewers even for a 10-minute argument every week. But she doesn't have the ability, she doesn't have the faith in her own capability.

Speaker 1: 8:05

And so what she wanted was Rona McDaniel gone, not just not on her show, not on the same network umbrella, I mean, she's on MSNBC. Rona McDaniel, I think, was going to be more. You know nightly news or you know mainstream media NBC, pebc, peacock, you know big channel kind of stuff. Maybe not, maybe. She bumped into msnbc on occasion, but maddo didn't even want her to do that, didn't want her around, neither joe scarborough, because they can't manage it.

Speaker 1: 8:40

Uh, they're not quality journalists. They gave up on journalism a long time ago. Truthfully, they take whatever's handed to them. You know the script that's put in front of them and you know I won't say they're Ron Burgundy, but it's pretty damn close. You know they don't.

Speaker 1: 9:00

You know they try and offer a viewpoint and they try and offering themselves as a news source. But you know the news that they're delivering. It's not non-biased, it's very, very biased. And you know Rachel Maddow is as much a pundit as she is anything else. And again, if that's who you're going to be, then be that person. Be a pundit going to be, then be that person, be a pundit. And oh, by the way, if you're a pundit, you can always bring people on too to to offer an opposing viewpoint.

Speaker 1: 9:31

Um, you know, there's a difference between someone who offers opposing viewpoints Cause I get them too on social media Uh, I, I get them. You know, I'll post something. Um, somebody that offer an opposing viewpoint, you know, I'll post something. Somebody on offer an opposing viewpoint and I and I, truthfully, I have. There's been a handful of people actually, who are personal friends of mine over the years that I have literally cut away and blocked, and it's not because I don't value their opinion, it's the way that they deliver their opinion and and the way that they don't provide any new content. All they do is sit around and wait for me to post something and then offer a counterpoint. Nothing, original, nothing. They're just there to argue. That's not productive, but that's not.

Speaker 1: 10:17

You know, rona McDaniel was there to offer an educated, informed counter opinion to 99% of what's going on on NBC and MSNBC. That's what they hired her for, but their big names didn't like it. So they fired her Five days. Five days, I don't even think she got on the air. I mean, that's really, really shameful that they are that bothered by an opposing viewpoint or that afraid of an opposing viewpoint or that afraid of having to defend their own position that they know against somebody who's a pretty, pretty frigging smart lady they may not be able to do. So what was their recourse? Get rid of her, fire her. If you don't fire her, I'm leaving. That was the threat from the big names Get rid of her. We don't want her here. If you don't get rid of her, it's me or her.

Speaker 1: 11:19

You know they're paying Rachel Maddow a lot of money, a lot of money, and I'm sure there's a nice golden parachute separation clause in her contract. If I remember right, she took like a year off and there was a whole bunch of failed attempts to fill her time slot, because it was cheaper to just let her take the year off and fail than it was to get rid of her and bring somebody else in. So you know, bad negotiation by NBC. They gave her all this power and now you know what do you expect. She's going to use it, but she doesn't like it. She doesn't like Rona McDaniels, she doesn't like having her around, she doesn't like that opposing, educated, informed viewpoint. So fire her. I don't like her. Get rid of her. Right, it's very, very. You know sixth grade gym class. Um, you know that mean girl over there. Get rid of her.

Speaker 1: 12:08

Let's start a rumor, let's make her look bad. Whatever it is, it's very childish, definitely not professional and it sure as shit is not journalism. Uh, good, journalists can, can, you know, hold their own in an arena with somebody else on an opposing viewpoint. Rona McDaniel was supposed to be that opposing viewpoint and instead of going toe-to-toe with her Joe Scarborough or Rachel Maddow their solution was get rid of her, just get rid of her. I don't even want to deal with her, don't want to see her, don't want to hear her. Get rid of her.

Speaker 1: 12:39

So that's where our media is at folks. And you wonder why that our media is at folks, and you wonder why that's the most blatant display of one sided, single party. You know? Um, lack of, uh, fair and balanced journalism I've seen in a long time. And listen, all the networks are guilty of it, don't get me wrong. Um, you know all of them. Okay, fox is not immune either. I know we've got probably a pretty heavy Fox base of listeners and viewers, but the reality is Fox shows their side too, but every one of those networks there's very few we've talked about this before very few quality journalists out there. But this is blatant. This is the most blatant thing I've seen in a while. And NBC caved. They, you know NBC caved. They did weak sauce, just caved and let it go. They fired her.

Speaker 1: 13:30

I hope Rona McDaniel gets a huge settlement out of this huge settlement, um, and and I hope another one of the liberal networks turns around and picks her up Um, I, whoever CNN, headline news, abc, whatever, I don't care Um, I think it'd be hilarious, uh, if she got both the money and another gig, which I'm sure she probably will. Um, if NBC saw enough energy offer a contract in the first place, somebody else will see the same. So good luck to her. I hope she, I hope she comes out of this Well. I'm sure she will. Uh, shame on Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough at very weak. I'm sure she will. Shame on Rachel Maddow and Joe Scarborough Very weak. As journalists, you really need to take a good solid look in the mirror and decide who you are and what you're going to be, because journalism ain't it Not if you're afraid of this? So we'll see what happens with Rona. We'll see where she ends up. We'll see if NBC makes another failed effort to bring on a even a semi conservative voice and we'll see what the reaction is If they try that, that mess again, as long as you know Rachel Maddow and and and Joe Scarborough around and they have the voice they have, so we'll see what happens.

Speaker 1: 14:44

Moving on Next, next topic, uh, is something that you know, elsa, and I don't cover. We, we hit on the fringes, um, you know, we there, we've said this before there's a couple of uh, uh issues in the United States that are absolute dividers, um, 100%, and there are um abortion and gun laws. Second amendment those two things you can draw a line. People are definitely one side or the other, um, and they're two sensitive topics for a lot of very good reasons, um, and there's no clear alignment, in my opinion, uh, on where people will fall in these things. I've met people that you know, you would assume, are super conservative and are pro-choice, and I've met people who are super liberal, who are definitely pro-Second Amendment. So it's not a clear, cut and dry thing. But what we're seeing now and really in the very recent past few weeks, so there's a constant right.

Speaker 1: 15:47

This administration has been talking about an assault weapons ban since the election. Ok, now we can go down the line, we can go through the vocabulary. You know people have a problem with the term assault weapon because it doesn't mean anything. You know what is an assault weapon, define it and all this other thing. And assault is a verb and I don't get hung up on that stuff. It is a to me personally. It's a phrase in common use and you know it's kind of like Scrabble. People use it all the time. You know, if you tell me what you know, if you use the word assault weapon, I'm pretty sure I know what you're talking about. And generally referred to as most of the AR. You know AR-15 platforms or something that looks like an AR-15 or something that looks like an AK-47. Those are about 95% of what people are referring to when they say assault weapons Civilian version, of course, referring to when they say assault weapons, civilian version, of course.

Speaker 1: 16:50

But the administration has been talking about an assault weapons ban and a high capacity magazine ban since the election, since last election and that's not going away. They've been pushing for that and they push for it legally. They push for it in all sorts of illegal ways. When I say illegal like non-procedurally. You know the ATF does things outside of its bounds and has been put in check a couple of times by multiple levels of appeals, court and Supreme Court laws. They like to think that they do, but they don't make laws. And when they start restricting Second Amendment rights by directives and determinations and other things, they're essentially trying to alter the law which they don't have the authority to do. Regardless, that's one of the ways that the administration is trying to fight against assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Now, recently we also had a federal judge who determined that it is okay for illegal immigrants to purchase a gun in the United States.

Speaker 1: 17:58

Now I will tell you I'm a gun owner and I purchased my fair share that every time that you go, when you go for that federal background check that is required whenever you buy from a licensed gun dealer. For people who believe that you can just walk into a Walmart and buy a gun, turn around and walk out, you know, with no background check or whatever. That's not true. That doesn't happen. You buy from any licensed gun dealer. Okay, and you follow the law it's supposed to be followed. You have to fill out and request a federal background check. Happens for everybody. Okay, and it doesn't matter. If I buy a gun today, I got to go and apply for it for the background check. If I go back 48 hours later to buy another gun, got to do it again, got to. And oh, by the way, if they put in the background check, it's only good for so many hours for you to actually purchase the gun before they've got to do it again, because things happen right. You can commit a crime within X amount of hours. So there are checks and balances in place.

Speaker 1: 19:02

Regardless, there are a number of questions you have to fill out on that background check and most of them fall in section 11 of the form. There's a number of questions Are you currently evading the law? Do you use drugs? Do you have mental health issues? Have you ever been incarcerated? There's a bunch of things on there. 11k right. Question 11K is are you in the United States illegally? If you check yes to that, it's an automatic, automatic denial not allowed to purchase a firearm.

Speaker 1: 19:41

That's on the federal background check form from the ATF, okay, the federal government and the ATF, who everybody likes to say, you know, whoever the anti-gun side keeps saying is you know, they, they, they should be, they get to set up whatever they want. Just like I said, the ATF doesn't set up the laws, but they do have a lot of power in who gets to purchase weapons and what type, right. And then that flows into law and the background check is part of that. But this federal judge just determined that that is no longer relevant. That specific question is no longer relevant. Well, if you're here illegally, it doesn't matter, you should still be able to own a gun. Well, if you're here illegally, it doesn't matter, you should still be able to own a gun. So what differentiates that?

Speaker 1: 20:28

Felony Cause, it's a felony no-transcript right. If you are currently pending charges or on the run from the law, which I think is like 11A. If you're here illegally, it's the same thing. You are currently on the run from the law. If you're here illegally, you are currently on the run from the law. So you've got to check. Yes, to that too.

Speaker 1: 20:58

Regardless, this federal judge determined that we have a check in place that, whether people like it or not, is followed for every gun purchase from every licensed gun dealer in the United States. Right, we all fill out the form, it all goes through the national database, we all get checked out and that question, right there the judge determined, is irrelevant. So now what that federal judge has done whether, if I remember correctly, it was a woman, whether she likes it or not she has now put that entire form under scrutiny. She has now put that entire form under scrutiny Because the entire 2A community Second Amendment supporting community turns around and says, well, why is that okay? Why is that okay If they can do it, why can't I do it? Just because I was a felon before, why can't I still own a gun? I wasn't a violent criminal. Blah, blah, blah blah.

Speaker 1: 22:20

President Harris, who is the gun czar we talked about her being the border czar last week the gun czar who heads up the Office of Gun Violence Prevention Again, another tag that they threw on her that she hasn't done anything with. Another tag that they threw on her that she hasn't done anything with she was at, I think, stoneman High School side of a previous school shooting which is always a tragedy and I don't say that offhandedly, it really is a horrible thing where she made an announcement of a couple of things the bipartisan this is in a white. You can go to whitehousegov and find this but it's an announcement about the Bipartisan Safer Community Act, which, truthfully, if you look at the words that are written, is nothing. It's very much there to just appease the masses. It looks like something's being done, but when you get into the nuts and bolts of it, it's actually very, very hollow and doesn't do anything. The second part, though, of that, the second part of the announcement, is and I want to make sure I get the wording on this right it is the announcement of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center. Now I'm going to read that again Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center, order resource center. Now I'm going to read that again extreme risk protection order resource center.

Speaker 1: 23:43

So what's that about? That's about red flag laws. For those of you that don't know what red flag laws are, these are very contentious. Not every state has them. Um, and, truthfully, um, I'm I'm wholly against them. Um, red flag laws and I'm wholly against them. Red flag laws, and I'm wholly against them because they're going to be exploited.

Speaker 1: 24:02

That's why red flag laws are when a family member and or friend can express concern to the local law enforcement agency About the mental health status of an individual. Now they can temporarily and then eventually permanently take away the guns from the person. Now that doesn't address if there is a significant mental health issue with the individual. That doesn't address that. It just addresses the guns, right, and that's the problem. Listen, if there's somebody who has mental health issues and they have access to guns, then yes, for the love of God, separate those two, okay, but get the person help. It's not about you know.

Speaker 1: 25:04

Well, I think there's something a little off about Mr Smith, and I know he has guns in his house. Well, the police come over they say Mr Smith, we're here to take your guns. And they take his guns, but they leave Mr Smith, who's mentally unstable, in his house. They're not doing anything for Mr Smith, they're just taking his guns away. And this is why I say I'm not a fan of these, because they're going to be exploited. So there's a short term where they can go and take the guns and then they talk to a judge and the judge says, yes, we need to permanently remove those, for whatever reasons, and there's a proceeding, all these other things, but it's based on the opinion of a friend or family member who has zero, you know, not required to have any kind of medical background or or anything else.

Speaker 1: 25:54

You know could be anybody. Could be some guy's ex-wife or some lady's ex-husband, right, you know there could be. There could be some woman out there I hate to say this but this is how people think. There could be a woman out there who has a gun in her house to protect herself from a former abusive boyfriend, right, it doesn't take but a couple of phone calls to the police department to say, hey, I think you know Mrs Smith, miss Smith, over there, you know she's, she's got a gun, she's acting a little weird. I think she's been known to to use drugs and I know she's associated with so-and-so all fabricated, right. And then the next thing, you know the police come over and you know they decide there's enough evidence there that they're going to take her gun away from her and now she's got no protection from some guy who's potentially going to abuse her physically, mentally, sexually, whatever. Um, you know this can be used to exploit old people. This could be used for a number of nefarious reasons. Um, that by the time it's over with, by the time it gets sorted out. It's too late, right? Criminals only need small windows to do things. If they can get guns out of a house, leave someone without self-protection for long enough, they can do what they want to do. It doesn't take much a day, 24 hours, 12 hours, whatever they need. And, trust me, there are plenty of police departments out there that are way too eager to support and enact these things. Now, there's plenty of them that aren't, don't get me wrong, but there are plenty that are Okay.

Speaker 1: 27:27

I'm not a fan of the red flag law, but what we've got now is a federal agency which has no power whatsoever. Keep that in mind. Federal agency the Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center that is supposed to be there to help law enforcement agencies, families, lawyers, whoever else needs to to use red flag laws. Red flag laws, right. So you have red flag laws. Now you've got a federal resource center that shows you how to maximize red flag laws, and this falls under department of justice. So this is about getting red flag laws enacted in places where they don't have any. This is about getting red flag laws maximized in their use so that local law enforcement and then, eventually, other types of law enforcement get involved and have the backing to take more guns away from more citizens.

Speaker 1: 28:37

This is all part of the gun grab campaign that goes on with this, with this administration. That's what it's about, and and never, never, let them convince you that it is about anyone's safety, because it's not. They will hide behind that every day. They will convince you that's what it's about every single day. Hide behind that every day. They will convince you that's what it's about every single day. This is about population control and it always will be. You'll never convince me otherwise. Sorry, I'm a proud gun owner. Always have been, always will be. You'll never change my mind. I have seen and been around and worked inside of populations where people didn't have the ability to defend themselves, and I have seen and been around and worked inside of populations where people didn't have the ability to defend themselves, and I've seen the aftermath. And let me tell you something there's a whole bunch of women in Afghanistan right now that really, really wish that they could defend themselves from their own government.

Speaker 1: 29:32

And don't say our government's any different, because every government's the same. It's all about power. Okay, so, yes, our government is eventually capable of something that nefar's all about power. Okay, so, yes, our government is eventually capable of something that nefarious. It is Okay, we put Japanese in in prison camps in the forties, okay, wasn't that long ago? All right, we we've done some pretty horrible stuff, um, and and, and it's not like we're not capable of doing it again. So not a supporter of any of this, but it is about the overall campaign, the second amendment campaign, anti second amendment campaign from the federal government and really, and this administration particularly, and really that all the blue administrations, all the democratic administrations, are the same. This is what they're about. This is one of their main goals is to disarm the population. So what can you do If you're an owner, even if you're not exercise your Second Amendment rights on a regular basis.

Speaker 1: 30:31

I try to, but and I say this wholeheartedly and all completely honestly if you own a gun, you should be trained to use it. So I'm not saying go out and buy a gun just to have a gun. Go out and be a responsible gun owner, um, get trained on how to use it. If you have one in your house, you should know how to use it, um, and when to use it and all those things. Um, but go out and do it. And if you have never done it. Find somebody who does. There are plenty of places that give classes. I'm sure you have a friend, whether you know it or not, who is a gun owner and will happily take you out shooting. That we're everywhere. There's tons of us. Um, so it's an important, an important individual right that I think we are too quickly ready to wash away and get rid of because we're being sold that it's everybody's safety issue and it's really not. So, anyway, exercise that right.

Speaker 1: 31:32

Don't let this administration keep passing things without actually going through Congress and establishing laws, as they like to do. And keep an eye out. There's a lot of places you can find this information. You know, google it. It's pretty much that easy. But, yeah, so keep an eye on that. You know, again, a new, a new, oh, by the way, those are also your federal tax dollars being spent on something else the Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center. I think they're calling it the ERPO. Erpo, yeah, keep your eyes out for it. Again, it was mixed in some word salad from the current vice president.

Speaker 1: 32:10

All right, like many of you, I woke up this morning to some horrible news that Francis Scott Key Bridge I-695 in Maryland hit by an Indonesian container ship I think it was Indonesian container ship Hit one of the bridge pilings and dropped the whole thing. Dropped the whole thing. I think there are no fatality numbers that I know of right now and this is, you know, 12, 14, 16 hours later, uh, confirmed casualties, but I know there's people in the water that they're still looking for. The estimates early this morning were somewhere around 20. They counted for the entire crew of the ship. Um, and and you know it, it it's just horrible. Um.

Speaker 1: 33:01

Now, in the immediacy, there's been the conspiracy theories abound. Truthfully, it's been crazy. There's already people out there. You know um go look, they're replaying the footage and you know um, I saw somebody that's trying to say there were um explosive charges here here they're replaying the footage and you know I saw somebody that's trying to say there were explosive charges here here, here you could see you know he's pointed out on on all of the bridges and you could see flashes across the top as the ship impacted it and the people were trying to track the. You know the the route of the ship and why did it make a right hand turn really hard and it went right for the bridge pile on and you know the initial explanation and you can see it in the film footage is it lost power? It lost power a couple of times and there was a mechanical failure in the rudder.

Speaker 1: 33:53

Listen, I am, truthfully, in most cases, an Occam's razor kind of guy. Whatever is, the most likely explanation is probably the truth. I don't subscribe to a lot of conspiracy theories and this is one I'm not buying into. I think this one appears to be an accident, truthfully, and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong and God I hope I'm not. But this is part of a. This is part of a trend, and the trend is that we've got some infrastructure and and transportation issues in this country.

Speaker 1: 34:35

Now, most organizations, when you start to have problems like this and you start to see trends like this, you go to the person at the head, and in this case, it's somebody in the cabinet, national Transportation Secretary, pete Buttigieg, who hasn't done jack shit for three and a half years. Truthfully, hasn't done a damn thing. This again falls on his plate, the guy who is a mayor of a mid-sized town which only exists because of an amazing university and its supporting community and, truthfully, my understanding, he wasn't even a good mayor in south bend. Um, but this is. You know he's, he's our, he's a secretary of transportation, right, this is falls on him. Dual, dual hat, I mean, or dual.

Speaker 1: 35:34

You know two issues. You've got a shipping issue and then you've got a road transportation issue. Right, the 695 bridge is going to be done. It's two years minimum to get that thing back up and running again, guaranteed two years, not to mention the cleanup in the river to make it passable by ships. Right, that's going to take a while too. They're going to have to clean out one of the lanes between the pylons, right, so you can get container ships or whoever whatever, shipping through there. This is a significant thing, okay, but it's a trend. So we've got the bridge impacting collapse. So now you've got slowed shipping through there, if not stopped shipping. Plus, you've got an entire road route trucking network bypass around Baltimore that's affected.

Speaker 1: 36:24

We've had multiple, as we know, as we've all been watching, multiple rail crashes, derailments across the country, all over the place, all year long, or all administration long, really, for the last, probably seven or eight years long, and that's an infrastructure issue, that's, that's an operator issue in some cases. Right, too fast, didn't slow down, I haven't, I haven't heard that. I remember of any of it being a maintenance issue with the railroads. Railroads are pretty good about that, but you've got rails that aren't being maintained. You've got, you know, training that's not being maintained. With crews, you got some. There's some pretty significant issues, but but it's infrastructure, a lot of it.

Speaker 1: 37:07

Now, you've got, you know, in the mix of this, you've got the airports. Airports and airlines and airplanes three different things, right. Airports, we know, I know, specifically in Chicago, that's not the only place, but airports are being used to house migrants. Okay, there's a security risk. Right, it is, it's a security risk. So you've got that going on in airports. By the way, it takes away from the capability capacity of the airport anytime you overload it, whether it's for food, whether it's for water, whether it's for whatever. You're putting a strain on the airport itself, right, and the security issue on top of it. You've got a lot of airports that are at capacity because airline travel continues to increase and post-COVID, it's just gone up and up and up and up and up, right. So you've got a lot of airports that are at or beyond capacity when it comes to flights and they're maxed out and they're having a hard time keeping up.

Speaker 1: 38:15

You've got airline problems right? You know we've all seen the memes about. You know pastors being allowed to bring tools on board to flights to help with in-flight maintenance and other things. I'm not going to name any airlines, but you know it used to be, if there was an in-flight issue, that was like hold the phone, stop the presses. There was an in-flight issue that was like hold the phone, stop the presses. The first thing on the nightly news you know this airplane or aircraft or airline, you know they lost a piece of sheet metal off of a wing and the whole world stopped Right. That was big news happens all the time. Now I mean it's frightening how much in-flight or fires and doors blown out and all kinds of other things that are going on with these airplanes and airline. And then you got the Boeing issue.

Speaker 1: 39:11

That's business, that's business practice, that's a lot of things, but there's some pretty significant impacts to the airline industry going on right now and again all falls under the transportation secretary, but it's all down to infrastructure. And what are we doing? Infrastructure is expensive to maintain. It's all down to infrastructure. And what are we doing? Infrastructure is expensive to maintain, very expensive. So what are we doing right? What are we as a nation doing to maintain our ports, our airports, our major roadways, our major railways? What are we as a nation doing to maintain those things?

Speaker 1: 39:57

And I'll tell you everybody who drives and I don't care where you live, if you drive you know there are some road construction crews out there that are busting their butt here in PA, where I live. I give these guys a lot of credit because they do absolutely everything that they can to not disrupt normal morning evening traffic. I'm not kidding, like there are whole sections of road to get repaired in the middle of the night. These guys work more night shift than any state I've ever lived in In all the years I was in the military moved around. They do most of their road construction at night and God love them, cause it's a. It's an amazing attempt to to not disrupt things or minimize the disruption, so I give them a lot of credit.

Speaker 1: 40:46

Um, but that limits. You know what you can do when you can do it, those kinds of things. That also doesn't work, unfortunately, in you know, major metro areas, right? Chicago, washington DC, new York, philadelphia, la. Whatever you can be doing road construction at three o'clock in the morning, it's still going to be busy, right, people are still driving around, so that you know there's only so much you can affect on that.

Speaker 1: 41:11

But road construction is only part of it. You know we've got the Eisenhower interstate system, you know, which is a federal responsibility that I think the federal government has. You know kind of and I'm not an expert, but they've kind of you know their solution is to pay the states to do it, to fund the states, to keep the interstate, you know, the national system, up and running the way it's supposed to be. I think we probably and I'm not for big government and I'm not for a lot of bureaucracy, but we probably need to be a little bit more proactive as a nation in, you know, maintaining those major roadways right, the interstate system, specifically, states can deal with their state roads. That's their issue. But the eyes right, wherever you live, you know the North South being the odds and the East West being the evens. But we, you know we got to maintain those roads for for everyone, for for commerce, for travel, for transit, for tourism, for all of those things. Those have to be maintained.

Speaker 1: 42:13

But my, my bigger concern, truth, is rail and seaport. Those are not things that get fixed quickly, easily, overnight. There are also millions and millions and millions of miles of rail that human beings other than the rail you know. Then the crews on the trains. They never see it Right. You just don't, because they're for cargo, they're freight line, right. And so few people travel via train anymore in the United States. We don't know how bad the rail lines are unless it's a commuter train.

Speaker 1: 42:51

I used to hop commuter trains all the time as a kid in Chicago. That was the best way to move around, but that's not everywhere. Trains all the time as a kid in Chicago. That was the best way to move around, but that's not everywhere. I know, by the way, once you get outside of the general spider web, the Chicago area, there's not a lot of train travel going on, um, and even less now than there used to be. So we don't see it, we don't think about it until something bad happens. Okay, so you know.

Speaker 1: 43:12

And? And ports, seaports are another. Like we, we can't survive well without those being maintained. So I think we as a nation need a little bit of a refocus on our infrastructure. I think we do need to do a little bit of refocus, reallocation, reapplication of our tax dollars applied appropriately to make sure that those are maintained. There are some things that are going to have to suffer accordingly and I got to be honest with you if it's the difference between some artist in Colorado getting a federal grant for $30,000 or fixing a section of rail that's going to maintain commerce and communications, the artist is going without.

Speaker 1: 44:04

So you know, it's a matter of prioritization. We can't appease everybody. We got to prioritize and there are things that need to go by the wayside to make sure that this country continues to roll and function the way that it should and it has for the last, you know, few hundred years. So this we, we need a, we need a better focus, and I and I'll I'll lay this squarely on Pete Buttigieg, cause I think he sucks, um, and and I he's was a horrible, he's useless. There's never been an administration in my memory that needed an actual transportation secretary to be active and vocal and, you know, moving around and have these many things, these many plates spinning in the air as this administration has, and I've never seen a worse pick for a cabinet member than this guy, like he is absolutely frigging useless. So so you know, hopefully the next administration, um, whoever it ends up being, uh, takes a good hard, look at the transportation and and put some effort into it and put somebody in there who can really really jump in and fix some things, cause that that's that's. Those are things we can't let go Like. We can't let that continue to to disintegrate and devolve and and land in disrepair. We, we, we as a nation would be completely screwed if we let this continue down the path that it's going down. So that's another focus. Just keep an eye on the trend. It's a it's concerning to me. I've connected some dots there and you know, maybe you have too, and there's probably some stuff that I'm missing, but I think, in the general terms, we do have to put some focus back on that. Okay, all right.

Speaker 1: 45:47

Last topic and and this is, you know, usually folks, I try to, I try to bring something to the table that's informational, educational. I try to. You know, I put my own two cents in. I think that's why you guys come here to listen to me and Elsa and what we have to say, and I try to offer a solution or at least some sort of visibility or something along those lines. This is something that I honestly I don't. I don't have an answer for. We are in this. So please chime in, chime in in the comments, contact me on the socials if you've got an idea. But but this one's, I don't know what to do with this.

Speaker 1: 46:33

We are in a a in a persecution versus prosecution mindset nowadays, and let me kind of delineate the two and you'll see where I'm going with this. So prosecution is legal. Okay, you know this country. One of our founding principles is innocent until proven guilty. Okay, prosecution. So you go through the legal process based on facts and evidence right Brought against you or against someone else. It's procedural. And then there's a determination made based on laws and facts. On laws and facts, okay, it's pretty simple. Now it does get a little dicey when we start to split between civil and criminal proceedings, because they're two very different things with very different vocabularies and our media likes to manipulate those depending on the perception they want to have. Okay, now we can educate people on the prosecution side of our society right now To include the civil versus criminal right.

Speaker 1: 47:55

Prime example, and I said this a couple of times a couple of weeks ago, president trump was held liable. Liable, okay, not guilty. Liable for and I'm trying, it's the eugene car Carroll case, right Sexual misconduct or whatever. It was Not a criminal charge. Okay, decades later, whatever a civil case determined that he was liable for whatever she accused him of, that is not the same thing as criminal. Okay, whatever she accused him of, that is not the same thing as criminal.

Speaker 1: 48:39

Ok, our media likes to exploit the lack of knowledge, the lack of education of the American public and make it seem like President Trump was convicted of a crime. He was not. Ok, very important distinction. So, so there's that right, that's the prosecution side. What we've got a predominance right now of is the persecution side. Okay, and I got like I kind of wrote these down cause I was trying to flesh this out in my own head. So this is in the court of opinion persecution, okay, court of opinion played out in the media, not in any kind of courtroom. This is where cancel culture has come from. Okay, um, you know there's little to no legal recourse or ramification associated with this when you get it wrong. Um, and it thrives on, not just takes advantage of, it thrives on a lack of education. A couple of examples, um, of education. A couple of examples Stephen Colbert not a fan.

Speaker 1: 50:08

I think the guy's a jackass. He, a few weeks ago, decided that he was going to offer that there were some less than wholesome things going on in the royal family, that there was an affair going on between Prince William and another woman and Princess Kate and all this other stuff. And, yeah, turns out, princess Kate has cancer and there's been a couple of medical procedures and there's some other things going on right a couple of medical procedures and there's some other things going on Right. So, because it was salacious, because it sounded good, because it knew he knew it would draw in viewers, he decided to make some horrible comments about, you know, for, as far as all of us know, you know, for as far as all of us know, a very functional and loving family who's, truthfully, probably the cleanest part of the royal that the royal family's had in generations. And he decided to, you know, talk shit about her. Horrible, no, no record. He did get a. He did get a, a stern letter from her lawyers, a cease and desist, and he apologized on air. But there's no ramification to that Right Court of public opinion. That's what he decided to do. He just decided to make up something, or he decided to take a rumor that he heard and publish it all over the place. Just a shitty thing to do. This goes on all the time. It's just a shitty thing to do. This goes on all the time. It's going on.

Speaker 1: 51:41

Today, right, sean Puff, daddy, diddy Combs. Right, p Diddy, whatever he is, two homes raided. Right, department of Homeland Security. Okay, the word was human trafficking. That was it immediately, immediately, all over the internet. People who don't know jack, they don't know why, they don't know what memes everywhere, what Memes everywhere. Sean Combs did he? That guy? He's going to have a rough time for the next few years because no one is going to remember why, if nothing else happens in this, they raided his home. They got whatever they were looking for. They didn't get whatever they were looking for. There's going to be no apology from DHS, whatever agency kicked his front door in. There's no apology from them, nothing. And and you know, but the memes are already out there. They're, they're already out there. People are already making assumptions, they're already saying things, they're already equating him to Ep, uh, epstein, uh, epstein's Island, you know all kinds of stuff. And there's going to be no legal recourse. And let me tell you that guy's got the cash to go after somebody if he chooses to.

Speaker 1: 53:08

But there's so much of it. And as soon as it hits the social media, the internet, there's, there's too many people out there and everybody runs with it and it gets crazy and out of control. All right, um, and, and there's tons of this going on, tons of it, and, and I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, okay, none, um, we, we, we go after people and then you know, well, my bad, sorry, no big deal, right, you might, you know, you ruined somebody's life doing this stuff, um, but nobody, nobody cares. Uh, and it and it's this, right, it's our desire, it's our need as a nation and and as humanity, um, to move information like that around, to to say things that you know. Everybody's a keyboard warrior, um, and they say things and they do things and they make, you know, claims and they make accusations and and all this stuff with with no, there's no recourse, there's nothing to hold them back, there's nothing to stop them.

Speaker 1: 54:28

And so we are, we are now a nation of prosecution or persecution, and I would tell you that we've gone more to the persecution than anything else. And we do, it's not just people, we go after it's topics, it's. You know, there are so many people who don't know, jack, about what's going on in Gaza and you know, hamas, israel war, that's going on. There's so many people who don't know shit. All they know is what they're told on the news, what they find on the internet. 90% of it's a lie, um, and they believe they know the truth. So, you know, they get online and they, they say things same thing. Right, they're going after the president or they're going after so-and-so or they're going out. You know they, just, you know everybody runs their mouth because there's no recourse, um, and again, so we, so we're in the prosecution versus persecution kind of mindset.

Speaker 1: 55:23

This is like Salem witch trials kind of stuff. There was no those women for as many as there were and for as many years as that went on, they weren't witches. Like witches aren't real. You know, we burned women alive because we, we claimed that they are. Someone claimed that they were witches. Right, that's what this is, and we're not burning people at the stake literally, but we're we're doing some pretty horrific things to some people and there's no recourse. Very, very we're we're doing some pretty horrific things to some people and there's no recourse. I very, very rarely does. Does anything come out of this where you know it's uh, there's punishment made, but we're ruining people's lives, uh, based on nothing other than our desire to do so. So I think we've got a pretty significant problem and I'll be honest with you folks.

Speaker 1: 56:15

I said at the beginning of this I don't know what the solution is. I really don't. I, you know it's, it's all moved around by social media. That's the platform that you know that this thrives from. It's our lack of education in our kids. It's our lack of education as adults. It's a lack of discretion, it's a lack of mind. Your own business, it's all of that. And I don't know what the fix is, but I know that it is going to continue to tear this nation apart. It's going to continue to tear families apart, friend groups, friends in general, businesses. Everybody suffers because of this, but we can't help ourselves and I don't know what the answer is and I really, really wish I did, but it's something we all need to be aware of.

Speaker 1: 57:02

Um, you know, and it's something truthfully just, if it doesn't affect you, don't hit forward, don't hit send, don't say hey, did you hear like that? You're not helping things. If you don't know, shut your mouth. Who knows why? Dhs kicked in Puff Daddy's front door in two different houses today. Who knows? I don't know. I heard the word on TV human trafficking. That could be anything, truthfully, but who knows? So if you don't know, don't say right, don't talk out of turn, it's not your business, mind your business. So, hey, listen folks, that was a pretty quick hour.

Speaker 1: 57:48

You know I've been going on this for quite a few minutes now, but I appreciate you guys, you know, tuning in for another week. I had a good time last week, great time again this week. It's Tuesday. Hopefully we'll know something by the time this show drops on Thursday and we'll know something from Elsa about. You know, grandma number three, grandbaby number three, um and uh, I assume crossing fingers and praying for her that all is well and good with her and the family, and then, uh, we'll have her back next week.

Speaker 1: 58:15

It'll be back me and her going at it. She'll bring more of the funny. I'm not good at bringing the funny, but she's good at that. That's why we love her. She makes us all laugh. So again, thanks for tuning in and thanks for listening along. You can catch us on all the platforms YouTube live, on Facebook every week. It's always fun for me to watch that, along with comments on YouTube, we're on Spotify, rumble and a couple of other places, and from me well, from Elsa, thanks for listening. She's very appreciative that you guys are tolerating me while she's gone but also from me, as always keep moving, keep shooting.