Political Influence and National Security Scrutiny

What does it mean when 741 individuals endorse a political candidate, and can we trust their expertise? Join  Clay Novak, as he scrutinizes the National Security Leaders for America letter, which endorses Vice President Harris while conspicuously withholding support for President Trump. We'll critically examine the qualifications of these signatories, many of whom may not be the national security experts they claim to be. This episode questions the authenticity and motivations behind these endorsements, urging listeners to dig deeper into the backgrounds of those signing their names to such significant political statements.

Ever wondered about the real weight behind the title of "ambassador"? We'll dissect the political leanings and varied career paths of these individuals, many of whom are appointees from past administrations, particularly during the Obama and Clinton years. Additionally, our analysis spotlights 220 flag officers, including National Guard and Reserve generals, revealing how their diverse backgrounds, from medical to legal professions, might shape their political endorsements. This examination unravels the potential biases and broader implications that these endorsements carry for national security.

The episode doesn't stop there. We'll highlight pressing issues such as the escalating gang violence in Chicago due to Venezuelan gangs, and critique President Biden's leadership, particularly focusing on the absence of full cabinet meetings. The role of battleground states in the upcoming election and the influence of demographic voting patterns following Vice President Harris's nomination are also explored. We wrap up with my thoughts on Matt Walsh's thought-provoking film "Am I Racist?", which challenges the intentions behind DEI initiatives and societal perceptions of racism in America. This episode promises a multifaceted discussion that will leave you pondering critical national and

The Ryan Samuels Show
Modern-day politics discussion and analysis. Conservative Political Commentator Ryan...

Listen on: Apple Podcasts   Spotify

Chapters

• 0:00 Security Leaders for America Endorsement Analysis
• 8:44 Analyzing Military and Political Signatures
• 14:41 [Ad] The Ryan Samuels Show
• 15:30 (Cont.) Analyzing Military and Political Signatures
• 21:43 National Security and Gang Violence
• 32:46 Concerns About Lack of Leadership
• 39:52 Battleground States and Federal Overreach
• 48:26 Implications of "Am I Racist?"

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

It's the Elsa Kurt Show with Clay Novak. Conservative views on world news Brought to you by the Wellness Company. Prepare for the unexpected and Refuge Medical. And now it's time for the show. Hey everybody, clay Novak here for the Elsa Kurt Show with Clay Novak. I'm flying solo this week. Elsa is down visiting her beautiful grandbabies down in Florida.

Speaker 1: 0:29

But before you run away, because Elsa is not here, we're going to be covering a lot. I'm going to be covering a lot this week the National Security Leaders for America letter that endorses Vice President Harris. We're talking about gang violence and an impending gang war in Chicago, along with President Biden's first cabinet meeting in almost a year. So stick with me, we'll start up right after this. Okay, first topic. First topic for the week is this National Security Leaders for America letter endorsing Vice President Harris for president. Now I have it and really the letter is like a page and a half, and then the rest of this is all the signatures. So you guys have probably heard of this. It was a huge list. The number is seven hundred and forty one security officials that have signed this letter.

Speaker 1: 1:30

Now let's talk about the letter first. There's a lot of, a lot of a lot of information in there, or a lot of you know kind of opinion in there, on why this body of people are endorsing Vice President Harris and really it's not even about endorsing her, it's about not endorsing President Trump. So they don't have necessarily the confidence in her, but it really is more about not endorsing President Trump. So that's a key thing in there. The next thing is that it says right in here and I'll read it right to you it says we are retired generals, admirals, senior non-commissioned officers, ambassadors and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans admirals, senior noncommissioned officers, ambassadors and senior civilian national security leaders. We are Republicans, democrats and independents. We are loyal to the ideals of our nation, like freedom, democracy and the rule of law, not to any one individual or party. I would tell you that that is accurate but also misrepresenting, and here's why. So the letter itself is very brief.

Speaker 1: 2:25

There are 741 signatures on there. And why are there 741 signatures on there? Because it's meant to be overwhelming 700, everybody hears that and they go wow, 741 security officials have endorsed Vice President Harris and gone against President Trump. That's a huge number, and it is. It's a huge number 741. Now, when you say 741 security leaders, that could mean any number of things, but what they don't want you to do is dig into who they are, what their background is and what they represent. That's why it's 741. Anything that large, the average American is not going to dig into it. People are going to look at it and they're going to go wow, national Security Leaders for America, 741 signatures. That's a lot of people going against President Trump. However, that's what I'm here for.

Speaker 1: 3:17

So I dug into this and I spent the last day and a half. I probably look a little haggard, but I spent the last day and a half digging through not really so much the letter itself, because it's really. The letter is very, very simple. What I dug into were the signatures and who's on the list, and here's what I will tell you. So, just as an outset, right, I took a few key demographics out of this, again, national security leaders for America. And the first thing that jumped out at me so you've got in the order of signatures listed with the letter. You've got the president right of the organization, you've got the steering committee for this organization, and then the next thing that comes below that is senior military spouse advisors right. Alarm bells went off in my head.

Speaker 1: 4:01

I've been around. I spent 25 plus years around the military. I spent a lot of time around very, very senior spouses and I would tell you that being a senior spouse does not qualify anyone as a national security leader Nobody, independent of an individual career. I know a lot of dual military couples. I know a lot of military couples where you've got a senior military leader and a spouse who does other things, has his or her own career and is involved in security defense politics, whatever right, but listing yourself under a senior military spouse advisor category to me immediately takes you off the list. There's 10 total spouses senior military spouses on this list and listen, I'm going to hurt some people's feelings when I break this list down, for listen, I'm going to hurt some people's feelings when I break this list down for you, but I'm doing it for a reason. So we've got about 10 to a dozen military spouses senior military spouses listing themselves as national security leaders for America.

Speaker 1: 4:56

On the surface Doesn't hold water with me. Next is about 30 senior non-commissioned officers across all branches and I will tell you there are certain levels of senior non-commissioned officers that I would consider and that most people would consider a national level senior security leader. If you are a service level E9, sergeant Major of the Army, sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy If you're one of those, that's a gimme. And there is one of those on here. Senior non-commissioned officer for the Marine Corps. Former is on this list. That 100%. I have no problem with that, no problem with listening to his opinion, because he has worked at national level and has national level exposure when it comes to security. But just by virtue of being a sergeant major or a chief petty officer, you know, master, chief petty officer or a senior master sergeant in the Air Force, that does not qualify you as a national level security leader. Oh, by the way, there are at least two E-8s on this list For those of you not familiar with the military, an E-8, and they're both listed as retired first sergeants. Let me tell you something A first sergeant works at a level where they supervise not more than about 200 people and that's not at any level of national security, not even close. So there's some holes in this and those were my first two kind of indicators that this list was extremely bloated and inflated to make it this 741, this massive number, to make it really overblown to the point where people don't even look through it. So I dug into it.

Speaker 1: 6:42

There are 130 plus ambassadors on this list. Now, what's important about ambassadors? You know they are political appointees, they're appointed by a president. I got through this is the. The signatures are in alphabetical order and I think I got through the ends in the in the list of ambassadors, and I would tell you that probably 80 plus percent of them were Clinton or Obama appointed. 80 percent, easy, clinton or Obama appointed. There are a couple of Bush. There was even some back as far as Reagan.

Speaker 1: 7:14

These are not necessarily young people. There are a lot of these people who are a significant number that are not involved with security anymore. You can look up their bios on Wiki, you can look them up on LinkedIn, you can look them up on all kinds of places. But you've got these ambassadors and again, you retain that title of ambassador for life if you're confirmed or put in that place politically appointed by a president. So we have a number of them, a large portion of them, that are Obama and or Clinton appointed. So what does that mean? That means that that's where their political allegiance lies. So again in the beginning of the letter where it says that they're not politically aligned. They're really for America.

Speaker 1: 7:53

I would tell you this overabundance of people on this list are Democrats by and large. Of those 133 ambassadors that I look through, some of them don't even fill what we would the general public would consider to be an ambassador. Right, when you say ambassador? When I say ambassador, I think of an ambassador to Germany, or to Vietnam, or to Australia or to South Africa, where they're dealing with national level. They're representing the president and the administration at a national level with some pretty powerful players. There are some of these on here. One listen the size of the country matters. Their relationship with the United States matters. There are definitely some easier places to be as an ambassador.

Speaker 1: 8:44

But also, at the same time, being an ambassador does not necessarily mean that you are assigned to a country. There are a number of ambassadors on here who have been given that title based on a lifetime of service in the State Department, the diplomatic service world. So never actually an ambassador to a country. So it's a little misleading. You've also got ambassadors to organizations right, not necessarily a country. So you got US ambassador to the United Nations. You got US ambassador to the EU. There's a couple of them who were ambassadors to an economic organization Again misleading to use the word ambassador.

Speaker 1: 9:23

There's even a guy I found on here who lists his title as ambassador was never an ambassador, was never listed as an ambassador in any documentation. He was listed as an ambassador under a different job title, but not a US ambassador as designated by our government. So a little sketchy when it comes to ambassadors. And again, vast majority of them were Obama or Clinton or both appointees. So, you know, obviously skewed in their political leanings. You know, loyalty is what it is.

Speaker 1: 9:55

And the last thing I'll say about ambassadors is there are no specific qualifications to be an ambassador. None, many of them, vast majority of them, come from the diplomatic service. They come from state department, they are trained, they've spent a lifetime doing this stuff, but that is not in all cases. Remember, shirley Temple was an ambassador. I'm just saying and again I said this, I'm going to hurt some feelings when I talk about this. I'm not saying that everybody on this list is bad. I'm not saying that. And I'm going to talk about some people that I would love to have a conversation with. I'm not saying that everybody on this list is is biased towards, you know, a political party. I'm just telling you that when you dig into this, which they don't want you to do, nobody wants you to dig into this list of 700 signatures, but that's what I did and I dug into it. So you know, the vast majority of them are politically skewed Not all of them, but most of them. So again, I'm going through some of my notes.

Speaker 1: 10:51

So there are 220 combined flag officers from across the services, and when I say flag officers, I'm talking admirals and generals across Army, navy, air Force, marine Corps and Coast Guard, and there are a number of Coast Guard flag officers on here as well. So what does that mean? It means a lot, especially when you dig into who they are. A lot of these, a lot of these. I dug into a lot of Army folks. It's who I am. I'm an Army guy, but I dug into a lot of these, and a significant number of these generals are lifetime National Guard and Reserve generals.

Speaker 1: 11:29

Now, as a National Guard member or Reserve member, you have to remember these are for most days out of the year, not as generals, but before they were generals. They're private citizens, they're business owners, they lead a normal life, not like a full-time. There are points in their National Guard career or reserve career where they will be on active duty. If they're in command positions, they will be activated at times and spend a significant part of their life in uniform. However, they have spent a lot of their lives as just normal, everyday American citizens. Why does that matter? Because they have other interests other than just being in the military right, again, business owners right. Some of them have political jobs. There are a number of people on this list who were in the military or were ambassadors and are now either in office or running for office National Guard, especially because when you in every state, there is what they call the tag, which is the adjutant general for the state, that is, the senior ranking general for each state. That is a political appointment by a governor OK, if it's and again, there are very little qualifications that you have to have to be the tag for any state, but they are politically appointed.

Speaker 1: 12:46

These are not necessarily rise through the ranks, like an active duty officer would do to reach the rank of general. They do have careers like that, almost all of them. However, there is a highly politicized process for them to become a general in the National Guard at the state level. Now there are other paths. There are division level commanders within the National Guard. There are National Guard Bureau level commanders and those have a lot of federal inclination. But to get to that point, many of them have led a very politically influenced career in the National Guard. It's a fact of life. So while a number of them are Air National Guard and Army National Guard officers, they do have some political influence in their lives, which matters.

Speaker 1: 13:33

Now, active duty wise, you know there was a lot of MD, phd and and JAG officers on the list. So these are not necessarily your run-of-the-mill army officers or Marine Corps, Navy or Air Force. There's not a lot of those on there. There are some, for sure, but there's not a lot of them on there. So somebody who had a career path similar to mine, those are not the predominant population of general officers, flag officers that are on this list. Many of them are, if you look. They've worked in the world of medicine, within the military. They've worked in the law, the legal world, jag officers and those kinds of places. So not your normal. When you think of a general right, a patent or somebody like that that you've seen in a movie, those aren't necessarily what you're seeing. There's some of those on here, I'm not going to lie, but but not necessarily that's that's not the predominance of the 220 flag officers that are on this list. So when you take that group of small group of spouses, the little bit larger group of senior enlisted non-commissioned officers, the ambassadors and the flag officers, that is well over half of this list.

Speaker 1: 15:25

Okay, and I've already pointed out where a lot of this, you know, information, is a little bit of a misrepresentation and a little bit skewed to make you think, just because they know, you're just going to skim the list. Ambassador, ooh, ambassador, okay. Or wow, that's a general, or that's a lieutenant general, wow, that's a big deal. It's not necessarily what you think it is in all cases, but what you're not going to do, which is what I did, which is dig into a lot of these names and figure out who these people are. And let me tell you something this list is cumbersome, and I say that because it's alphabetic by last name, but it's written out as title, first name, last name, kind of a thing. So it every time and I've been looking over this thing for the last day and a half every time I look at this list I either see a new name or I see a name that I had seen once before and had forgotten about, and I come back to it and I've been pouring over this thing. So it's a lit, it's it's a lit. It's a lot to take. It's a lot to take in.

Speaker 1: 16:17

Let's talk about some of the other jobs that are on here. I think the proper term is the deputy postmaster. General for the post office is listed on here, or former, I think retired, but I wouldn't consider that individual's opinion any more of value than mine. There's also a lot of acting titles on here acting secretary of this or acting deputy of this, or acting this or acting that. So that means that they weren't. If it was a cabinet level, or even any position that requires Senate confirmation, they didn't achieve that. So they could have been the acting secretary of whatever for a month, filling in the role not a big deal. But if they were given that title in an acting role, they retain that and that's what they choose to use. There's also a lot of acting deputy, under assistant to chief of this and that.

Speaker 1: 17:08

These are again great long titles. It means a lot on paper and it means a lot. When you read it it sounds very, very impressive, but when you dig into it and you find out what that actually means and the process for how someone is selected for one of those jobs, it very, very quickly becomes less impressive and less important. But there's a lot of those on here and now we're talking about half of the list are in that non-military, non-ambassador type role. So you've got a lot of staff folks who've been working in around the beltway for a very long time.

Speaker 1: 17:43

Now let's talk about some of the names that are on this list, both good and bad, and again I told you there's some people that I would love to have a conversation with on this list and because I do think they have I personally either know them or have a good handle on their reputation I would love to have a discussion with them. But let's talk about some of the people that are on here that are kind of no-brainer but at the same time it shows you how politicized this list really is. So Secretary Clinton go figure. Secretary of State Clinton is on this list. Former Secretary of Defense Panetta, who also was the director of the CIA Obama appointment both of those positions is on this list. John Kerry is on this list Again. Super, super blue left. We all know John Kerry.

Speaker 1: 18:30

Gary Hart I don't even know why they let that guy put his name on this list. For those of you that aren't old enough to remember, gary Hart ran for president in 1984 and lost the Democratic nomination and then ran again in 1988 for the 88 election and was ashamed out of. He dropped out of the race very early when there were accusations of extramarital affairs and then tried to jump back in the race and did very poorly in the primaries and dropped back out again. That's not a guy that I think anybody should be associated with or would want on a list like this, but they put him on there. There's also and I talked about some of the not so some good and not so good flag officers Lieutenant General Hertling is on the list.

Speaker 1: 19:11

For those of you that maybe that name's ringing a bell, but you don't know why or where. He is the three-star general that, immediately after retirement, went on CNN as a subject matter expert to talk about assault rifles and consistently misrepresented and used horribly inaccurate terminology for somebody who was supposed to be a subject matter expert, including saying things like I'm going to fire this on fully semi-automatic, which isn't even a thing, but he's a three-star general, retired three-star general. So that proves to you for those of you that aren't familiar with the military just because you're a general, they don't know everything. In fact, a lot of times, when it comes to stuff like that, they don't know anything, and Lieutenant General Hertling is one of those people. So he's not a name that I would put a lot of weight behind as far as his opinion goes, very, very not self-aware. And then the last one that I love this. So everybody's favorite Ukrainian supporter lackluster, substandard Lieutenant Colonel, retired, which he chose not to use that rank. On this list, alex Minden, who was on the National Security Council, is the one who was a whistleblower against President Trump go figure that he's on here, no big surprise. But again chose not to use his retired military rank and chose to use a different title from when he was advising the National Security Council. So again, not a name I'd want associated with this, but so be it.

Speaker 1: 20:35

Now let's talk about the folks that are on here that I think are interesting, and some of you may not know some of these people, but you know. Lieutenant General Ben Hodges. I knew General Hodges a long time ago 10 plus years ago I didn't always agree with General Hodges In fact, I had a few personal run ins with him but I always he's a very, very smart guy, very smart guy and always respected his opinion, and he is a product of General Petraeus. There's a linkage there between the two of them. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but he did work a lot for General Petraeus and General Hodges is a guy that I would sit down and talk to and I would be very interested in why he put his signature on this piece of paper. Lieutenant General Sanchez is another one. For those of you that remember the earliest days of Iraq, lieutenant General Sanchez was involved in the invasion. He was one of the commanders in the early days. He's got a great reputation. I don't know him, but he's another one that I would like to have a conversation with.

Speaker 1: 21:34

General Wes Clark is on the list. He's a bigwig and has been for a long time, but, like a handful of other retired four stars that I found on this list, including a former assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, he's very long in the tooth. He's not a young man and he's been retired for a very long time. There are people retired general officers, four stars on this list that have been retired since, you know, for over 25 years. There are ambassadors, former ambassadors, on this list that are in their 80s and even pushing 90 years old. Some of them have lost relevance but retain the title, and that's why they're on the list is because of the title, not because of anything else. General Clark is one of those that's approaching that, that window of relevancy, not because of anything else. General Clark is one of those that's approaching that window of relevancy.

Speaker 1: 22:23

John Brennan, who is a guy who has never been shy about expressing his opinion, no matter who he upsets. He would be one that his perspective on this would be very, very interesting. I know he's not necessarily a President Trump fan, but I would also be interested in why he decided to join in on this and what his thoughts are on Vice President Harris, because that would be the great flip side to this coin. Michelle Flournoy I've met in my previous life in the Army. I met her a couple of times. She's an Undersecretary of Defense and is probably one of the smartest people that I've ever seen in the defense structure Really, really a brilliant lady, and I would be interested in her perspective on this.

Speaker 1: 23:07

And then the last one that caught my eye and it took me a second because I knew the name and it took me a minute to place it, so Major General Taguba. For those of you that are a little bit older, major General Taguba is the one who wrote the report that blew the lid off of Abu Ghraib and subsequently was brought back to Washington DC and, aftera period of time, was directed to retire. Now, why would I like to talk to General Taguba? Because he is a guy that is not afraid to tell it like it is, he's not afraid of the repercussions and he is, you know, surely not afraid of the ramifications of what he's going to say. So he would be a great one, I think, just to have the discussion with, because I'm sure that is who he is as a person and that would be, I think, of great value to this discussion. So just breaking that down for you.

Speaker 1: 23:55

The letter itself again the intent behind this was to make it cumbersome, to make it a headline that people listen to, they read, they're shocked by. They may take a cursory look at the letter and then the massive list of signatories on there and just bypass it and not dig into who's on there, but I would recommend to all of you take a few minutes randomly, just randomly pick out a name from each page, or you know maybe one from every third or fourth letter of the alphabet. Just grab one and do some research on who they are and where their political alignment is. I would be willing to bet, if you pick 10 names off of there, I would be willing to bet that nine of them are Democrats. So, while again there are Republicans on here, there are, you know, bush appointees on here, both Bush, uh, and even president Reagan. Um, there's a lot, a lot of Clinton, a lot of Obama.

Speaker 1: 24:48

Um, it took me halfway through the list to find a single ambassador that was appointed by president Trump. Um, I did find one. He's on there and there may be more. I just I found the one and it took a while. So, while it said, again, we're Republicans, democrats and independents, which is true, I would tell you that this is probably not a very even split amongst the political leanings.

Speaker 1: 25:13

So it's big, it's meant to be big, it's meant to be cumbersome, it's meant to be a headline, but it is not meant for you to dig into as an American as the voting public. So hopefully I can show a little bit of light on the value or lack of value of this document. And again, the letter itself is a page and a half and the next, I think 18 pages or so, are signatures. So it's it's a lot to take in. But you know the the intent is to have that impact on the election itself to sway potentially some voters who would not dig into this and go wow that if there's that many you know people against president Trump, security leaders of America or for America, then you know maybe I should, maybe I should listen to that and I would tell you, if you dig into it at all, it's not what you think it is. So you know that. Again, you know I did it for you, I did some of the homework, dig into it for yourself.

Speaker 1: 26:06

But we've got, you know, bigger and more immediate problems I think I saw. You know I'm a Chicago kid born and raised. You know the city. I used to run around the city as a, as a teenager, unsupervised, causing various levels of trouble. But it is my hometown and I do love it and it's a mess and it's about to get worse. So there's a headline out there.

Speaker 1: 26:33

There's already been activity from these Venezuelan gangs. You remember the one from Colorado took over the apartment complex. They just arrested 10 of those guys, by the way. But the Chicago police are already anticipating a high level gang war. You know, with the influx of these Venezuelan gangs Now, chicago is no stranger to gang land warfare.

Speaker 1: 26:55

I mean, we're going back a century, right, we're talking Al Capone, we're talking all that and it's carried through. Even when I was a kid, you know, there was, there was always gang violence in the city. Emerge out of this as these Venezuelan gangs, you know, come in and try to establish themselves. Chicago gangs are not going to go lightly, they're not going to go softly and it's going to get ugly, and it's going to get ugly very quickly. But there are portions of the city that are somewhat free or untouched or very lightly influenced by the gangs and my fear is that even those locations are going to be influenced, they're going to be touched. You're going to see a crime increase across the city, but you're going to see a significant increase in high level violent crime and again, this goes back to the border. Oh, by the way, chicago is not the only place I saw, just literally before I hit record on this.

Speaker 1: 28:07

Oh, by the way, I'm recording Wednesday afternoon, right before I recorded that there is also speculation that this is starting to occur in New York City. So you're starting to see an influx of these Venezuelan gangs into New York as well. So it's going to keep going and it's going to keep growing in the hundreds of thousands of individuals that have crossed the borders not just border, it's not just the Southwest, the borders there's. You know, trouble is coming with them, and now it seems to be this Venezuelan gang, that or gangs that are coming in and they're doing what gangs do they're establishing themselves, they're trying to establish business and they're going to get into all the things that gangs normally do. It's going to be, you know, human trafficking, it's going to be drug sales, it's going to be illegal weapons, it's going to be all of those things that that the criminal gangs do. And when you start cutting into other gangs territory and their money, things tend to get violent.

Speaker 1: 29:08

And that is my big fear right now is that we as a nation, especially in the major population centers, are going to see a spike of violence that that, you know, is going to do some significant damage to to the nation, because you're going to start to see more and more people move out of the major metropolitan areas for fear of their own safety. You're going to see property values go down. You're going to see all of that. Um, it's, it's going to happen, it's coming. Um, and I said borders uh earlier, because you know another story that I just read today is they're starting to see another increase in Northern border um, traffic crossings, illegal cross crossings, upstate New York, specifically as it borders with Canada. Um, they're talking to a, a landowner, a farmer up there, who's got trail cameras set out there for deer at least that's how it started and now he's observing, you know, hundreds per week, uh, through his, through his area, even after someone just got arrested in New York with a plot to for a terrorist act in the city. It's troubling, and it's troubling because the impact on all of us. But at the same time, we're starting to see other things. If you haven't been tracking down.

Speaker 1: 30:22

In Mexico, right in and around the border, there's a war going on between cartels Sinaloa cartel and some others and that is starting to bleed across slowly. The war itself not necessarily, but what you're starting to see is there was a cache of high military grade and I'm not talking about AR-15s, I'm talking about military grade weaponry RPGs, belt fed machine guns, like heavy duty stuff right at the border on the Mexican side. But it is starting to flow over and that's where we are really really going to start having some issues here in the United States. As it stands right now, it's a criminal activity, it's violent criminal activity, but it's not elevated beyond that, and my fear is that it is going to continue to escalate beyond that and we're really going to have some significant problems, even potentially terroristic problems on our hands as a result. So keep an eye on the border itself.

Speaker 1: 31:21

Start watching those major metropolitan areas. If you live near one, I would definitely start paying attention. If you live in one, you might want to reconsider that. But Chicago and New York City are already feeling the impact of it, and my feeling specifically about Chicago is you know we are who we are in the city and you know even our, even our gangs are Chicago people and they're not going to back down. So you know the alternative to backing down is to fight, and it's my fear is it's going to get pretty ugly and and God bless the blue out there, the Chicago PD, and I have friends, good friends that, that work Chicago PD. I have friends that work New York. You know, nypd, and God bless all of them, because you're going to be the ones caught in the middle of all this as it escalates and continues to get worse. So, you know, let's, and if nothing else just to save our cities, but to save our officers, their lives, their families. You know, let's see if we can get this border closed in reality. Not just a promise from a presidential candidate, but get it closed down, start some deportations, let's deescalate this and get this thing under control. I'll tell you who's not doing that. That's the current president. President Biden just had his first cabinet meeting in a year A year.

Speaker 1: 32:37

I understand that presidents have in-office meetings with individual cabinet members. That is not a holistic form of government. Okay, especially when you start talking about diplomacy, when you talk about international relations, there's components to that that spread across the entire cabinet and you can't do that effectively if you're not meeting with the entire cabinet. Let's just say Israel. When you want to talk about Israel, you have to bring in the Secretary of State. You have to bring in the Secretary of Defense. You have to bring in commerce. You have to bring in transportation, because it all matters. It all matters right. Our relationship with Israel is not just bound by military, it's not just bound by diplomacy. It's bound by industry, it's bound by intelligence, it's bound by all kinds of things. Commerce, and every country in the world we have a relationship with is built on those things. And you can't go a year without putting your cabinet, your entire cabinet, in one room together.

Speaker 1: 33:35

That is the most inefficient, ineffective presidency I can think of. It's also horrifically bad leadership and we all know I mean, listen, the cat's out of the bag. We all know that President Biden is incompetent and incapable, but this goes back to before that. This goes back a year. A year he's been doing this. Vice President Harris knew this. You know how. I know, because she's part of this right. She knows everything that's going on and hasn't been going on. So he hasn't had a cabinet meeting in a year, which she's aware of. He's been spending a lot of time on the beach, as we're all aware of because it's on the news every day. He's been taking a lot of vacation and we all know that he has been deemed essentially mentally incapable and she's out campaigning. So who's in charge? Who's in charge Really? And I will tell you we got a glimpse of it in this cabinet meeting because you know who is there. Got a glimpse of it in this cabinet meeting because you know who is there, who's not normally there dr jill biden.

Speaker 1: 34:42

Dr jill biden was in the cabinet meeting and actually spoke on a, on a white house initiative, which, okay, fine, right, every first lady has their their. You know nancy reagan was. You know, don't do drugs. They all have it. They all have a project. They all have a pet focus, whatever you want to call it, every first lady does. She was in a cabinet meeting and rumor has it she was doing more than just sitting on the sideline.

Speaker 1: 35:15

Now we you know, elsa and I have talked about this. I've been saying this for over a year that the biggest obstacle to getting President Biden out of the White House or to convince him not to run was Dr Jill Biden, and I am convinced that she is the one who is currently making decisions for our country Non-elected, never been in office in her life, hasn't been elected to do anything, hasn't even been appointed to do anything. She is in that building by virtue of being married to an inept president and she's running things Now. We have had this before. I don't know if we've had it to this degree, but we have had this before. Eleanor Roosevelt it's no secret was a power player, right, you know. As her husband's health was declining, she stepped in. There are rumors about Nancy Reagan stepping in mostly and I won't say exclusively, but mostly to protect her husband as his mental faculty started to decline in the last year or two of his presidency of a second term.

Speaker 1: 36:18

I don't think she necessarily was making decisions in this capacity, as we're assuming Dr Jill Biden is. She was more in a role of, you know, protecting President Reagan from being overwhelmed, trying to make sure that he was being taken care of. So we've had first ladies that have stepped into these kinds of situations. Before I'd heard something potentially about President Wilson's wife. Never heard that before, but in the context of this discussion I guess it kind of matters.

Speaker 1: 36:49

So this is not necessarily an entirely new concept, but at the same time it is disturbing. It's also disturbing because everybody keeps talking about November, november, november, president Biden's in office until early January. We've got over three months of this left and the entire world is continuing to watch. So I'm a little bothered. I'm a lot bothered, frankly, about the no cabinet meeting for a year. Bothered, frankly, uh, about the no cabinet meeting for a year. Um, I'm a lot bothered by the idea that, you know, dr Biden has been stepping in and making decisions, even though that's what most of us assumed. But even if she isn't, then the question is, who is? You know, we've got people out there, like you know, speculative George Soros. That's not speculative. Um, you know George Soros is making decisions on, you know, at, at, at an arm's length. But you've got people in there, probably the chief of staff of the White House, making decisions. You've got the vice president's out campaigning she's not making decisions for anything, for anybody, but you've got cabinet members that are probably making unilateral decisions.

Speaker 1: 37:54

Go back a few months. Anybody remember I talked about this. Anybody remember when Secretary Austin, the Secretary of Defense, kind of disappeared and had an operation done and then had to be readmitted to the hospital and he never told the White House? Why do you think that is? It's because President Biden was completely incapable and Secretary Austin just said you know, it doesn't matter if I tell him or not, I'm making all the decisions without him anyway. So I'm just going to do it and I'm sure now, hindsight being 2020, that's exactly what was happening. It was irresponsible and I said this before it was irresponsible for Secretary Austin to do that. But, at the same time, when the president's incapable, incompetent, why bother? So that's another indicator that you've probably got people out there making decisions without the backing of the president, specifically, people out there making decisions without the backing of the president, specifically.

Speaker 1: 38:43

But I'm also very bothered by the fact that, in the midst of all this, as many times as the 25th Amendment has been mentioned against President Trump specifically, but also, even not that long ago, about President Biden that while we have more and more and more evidence on a daily basis that he is incompetent, nobody's brought up the 25th Amendment and taking him out of office. I'm sure it's because they don't want to give Vice President Harris the title of president, making her an incumbent, and it probably has everything to do with the election. I can make all kinds of speculation, but the reality is is that she's not running the country right now. No one is running the country right now. No singular person is in charge, and it's an issue and we're doing nothing to address it. We're ignoring it. All of us Americans, we're all guilty. We're all looking to November and we're all looking to January. That's all we're looking for, and it's shameful because right now, we are extremely, extremely vulnerable and no one's taking action in Congress to do anything about it. So that's another, you know, another kind of spoke in the wheel of things that are not going right right now.

Speaker 1: 39:43

However, you know, taking a look at the election and the current polls, you know it is about the battleground states. Right now, everything that's going on the election is going to be decided by probably the five or six battleground states, as the last few of them have, but we're starting to see some interesting traction by President Trump. In places like Pennsylvania. The fracking discussion is big. Pennsylvania right now is a dead heat. President Trump now has a uh, a report and again, these are polls. So listen, even even if I say he's got a reported lead by, you know, percentage points, there's always the margin of error. It could be a lot better, it could be a lot worse, it could be even. These are all very, very close races, uh, in the battleground states, but they're getting closer than the states where President Trump was behind.

Speaker 1: 40:38

Unfortunately, in a lot of these states. He was well ahead of President Biden before President Biden dropped out of the race and then Vice President Harris got anointed not elected, not selected by voters, anointed by the state run media and the Democratic Party, not by you, the people, us, the people, any of us. Since she took over, there was a surge, there's a flip in a lot of the battleground states. She caught a lot of traction. A lot of those states favor her for a lot of reasons. I don't think it's competency. I think people in a lot of those states are voting based on demographics. Truthfully, I think that when it was two white guys, they were picking one. You know, one white guy over the other and it was very, very clear. And now that you've got President Trump and Vice President Harris, people are voting because she's a woman or because she is a minority. You know, black, indian, whatever you know. Whatever their reasoning is, I think there's a lot of people voting based on demographic and not on capability, not on capability.

Speaker 1: 41:35

So in those battleground states specifically, that was the backlash right, that was the whiplash from her being anointed as the Democratic nominee and I think what we're starting to see is people settling back to reality. I think you are starting to see folks as they watch this and they watch her and they don't hear her press conference because she still hasn't had one 50 something days in. And they see the horrible interviews that she's done and they don't want to hear that she's grew up in the middle class anymore and they don't want to hear any of those things. And they see her flip-flopping on things. People are starting to realize that she is a hollow candidate. People are starting to realize that she is a hollow candidate my opinion and they're starting to swing back towards President Trump. So you know, promises made I said fracking before Pennsylvania. That's a huge thing. And nobody, I think, believes Vice President Harris when she says that she's all now. Now she's all for fracking. So that's her newest and latest position. So I don't think we're seeing.

Speaker 1: 42:40

I think what we're seeing is a shift. I don't know how much of a shift is going to happen before election day, if it's going to be enough in enough states, but the election is surely going to be decided in those six or so battleground states. Georgia is leaning Trump. Pennsylvania is a dead heat. Michigan is closing the gap very, very quickly. So those and oh, by the way, georgia just determined we have to count all the ballots by hand on election day before anything can be validated. So don't expect a unless Georgia becomes irrelevant in the electoral college. Don't expect a you know, election day decision on who the president is, because if we're waiting on Georgia as a tiebreaker, it's going to take a day or two because they got to count all the votes by hand. Their state Supreme Court determined that. So the battleground states are going to matter, just like they always do, but in this election I think they're going to matter for everything you know there's. The polls are what they are.

Speaker 1: 43:42

Be aware of the mainstream state run media. I'm not even calling it mainstream anymore. Elsa tipped me onto that. I don't like it. The state run media is trying to manipulate the election by telling you oh, it's a done deal, vice President Harris has already won, she's already won, which is going to discourage, you know, people from voting. Hopefully it'll discourage, truthfully, actually, I hope it doesn't discourage anybody from voting. I think everybody should vote. If you don't, you've got your own personal reasons, then you know. So be it. I get it, but you know, I think. I think that you know the state run media is trying to manipulate it by discouraging people from voting, as if the election is a foregone conclusion. I think that's the intent behind the polls and their reporting of the current situation. So watch the battleground states, watch the polls there over the next couple of weeks, watch the fluctuation as we get closer to November and watch the expansion of law enforcement capability across the federal government.

Speaker 1: 44:42

This caught my attention the other day because you're starting to see federal agencies and organizations endorsing candidates for president, which I think is abhorrent. I think it should be like. I understand unions. Oh, by the way, teamsters didn't back any candidate. I think we talked about that last week. I understand organizations like that. I understand lobbying organizations taking a position. I understand unions taking a position. I understand charity organization, all of that Non-governmental entities. If they have a political leaning as an organization, so be it. Good for them. No government agency should be endorsing Vice President Harris to be president. Well, of course they are. Why? Because she, the Biden administration, increased their size and their capability, their capacity.

Speaker 1: 45:49

You know, we know about the tens of thousands of IRS agents that have been now armed to have the capability to come to your house and, you know, threaten you with violence to collect taxes. We're getting into Robin Hood kind of stuff here. But the IRS and their expanding role beyond, you know, tax filing, tax collecting electronically is getting a lot worse. Tax collecting electronically is getting a lot worse but that's because we have introduced law enforcement capability into a bunch of federal agencies that, frankly, don't need it, shouldn't have it. We have law enforcement. If you want to increase federal law enforcement capability, grow the FBI right. Leave it with the people that should have it. Grow the Secret Service. Grow the portions of the Treasury Department that deal with money, law enforcement of money. Have that. But the IRS and some of these other organizations that have law enforcement capability have armed, badged, sworn members. Taking on law enforcement tasks is ridiculous. It is total government overreach, it is tiptoeing into Big Brother territory and they are expanding beyond where they should be.

Speaker 1: 47:07

And I go back and I say this wholeheartedly when the Patriot Act passed and we all thought the nation thought it was a great idea because it was going to help counterterrorism, it was going to give us a capability to counterterrorism and prevent another 9-11. I was a pretty young man when that happened and was an army officer and lived in a kind of world where things were very, very serious. And even then I looked at the Patriot Act and I said this is a horrible idea, and I still believe it's a horrible idea. But it is expanded and I think that this type of expansion for the IRS and these other organizations having law enforcement capability, I think is way beyond bounds. And then, on top of it, the fact that they are taking political positions is crazy. I think it should be. I think it should be illegal, straight up illegal. I don't think they should have any any dog in that fight. I don't think they should even express an opinion, because they like vice president Harris, because she made them bigger. But what happens when president Trump comes in and he gets elected? They still have to work for him, or whoever else for that matter. That's how that works. So I don't like the fact that they are expressing or endorsing candidates. I think it's wrong. I think it's wrong all the way around, all right.

Speaker 1: 48:17

Lastly, this past week we talked about this last week, last show, but between last show and now, I did go see Matt Walsh's movie Am I racist? And I will tell you. There are a couple of number one. If you don't know who Matt Walsh is. You need to look him up. I would start with his. It's not even a mockumentary, right? Spinal Tap's a mockumentary. That's not what Matt Walsh is, although it's pretty close he started.

Speaker 1: 48:48

The one that I saw first was what is a Woman, where Matt Walsh went to all these people in the, you know, on the, the fight for sexual equality, the fight for abortion, the DEI, in in the sense of gender, gender studies, in in the educational world, and he was just simply asking them what is a woman? And if you want to laugh at the absurdity of that entire discussion, go watch it, because he doesn't do anything underhanded at all in that entire film. What is a woman? Go watch it. That will lead you into, among other things, matt Walsh has got a ton of material Am I Racist? Which just is out in theaters right now.

Speaker 1: 49:33

And he was forced to because people know who he is. He's much more recognizable now, uh, so it very early in the film. He, he went to a, uh, he went to a session where people were going to talk about their whiteness and some other things and he just went in looking like himself. Now he gave a face, a false name, um, but people very rapidly caught on to who he was. And then he was asked to leave, um, and actually there was a guy who tried to take a physical stance with him. Um, that, uh, you know, I, I, matt Walsh, was a smart guy, um, but that I, I, I got a little, I got a little amped up, um, I can, I can tell you that guy guy, if you see the movie, he kind of stands over Matt with this impending imposing kind of tone in his voice and he was going to physically escort him out of the room and I certainly wouldn't have responded to that as gracefully as Matt Walsh did, regardless what he ends up doing, because he is more recognizable and you could call it underhanded if you want to.

Speaker 1: 50:37

But he goes in in disguise and he, he puts on a man bun wig and some skinny jeans and he carries a man purse and you know he goes and he talks to all these people. He talks to people from everywhere. He, he talks to people from the poorest parts of America. He talks to black people. He talks to white people. He talks to black people, he talks to white people, he talks to underprivileged. He talks to some guys in the motorcycle gang not gang, but like motorcycle club Harley Ryder guys, like down South.

Speaker 1: 51:07

He talks to all kinds of people in the education world. He talks to authors, he talks to professors, he talks to all kinds of people and really what he, what I took away from the film and not to reveal too much, but what I took away from the film is one the vast majority of America believes wholeheartedly that everybody bleeds the same color. That was repeated in the film multiple times and I get it. You're going to say it was propaganda or whatever, but I do believe that I don't believe that America, the heart of America, is a racist nation anymore. Do I think that that existed? Of course it did. Do I think it still exists? No, I don't. So he kind of leans into that. But I think what he he uncovers that most of America is so burnt out on this entire discussion that they'll do whatever they can to just not even have to listen to it anymore. They'll sign petitions, they'll do whatever. People just want to move on and just get away from it. They don't care.

Speaker 1: 52:34

But I think the biggest thing that he unveils in all this is that DEI specifically, has become a business and it has nothing to do with benefiting people. It has nothing to do with making things better for the country or for individuals and it has everything to do with making money. It has become a business. Dei. Racial studies has become a business and he does racial studies has become a business and he does it in a very in the movie, does it in a very smart way because he keeps a tally on how much money people are making or how much money he is spending in these experiences. So I do highly recommend Am I Racist, matt Walsh, suspend your political beliefs when you go in there. Just go in there and watch and listen. It's very entertaining. Go in with a sense of humor and enjoy it. But it is eye-opening and it is very well done. It's very, very smart. But it's also a little unsettling at really how stupid some of the most educated people in America are.

Speaker 1: 53:34

I will tell you there's an author that he interviews, uh, who is a three year running New York times bestselling author, um, and he what? When she realizes how dumb she looks on film, I'm sure she was livid, absolutely. Now she's probably laughing all the way to the bank because I'm sure she'd probably. You know she had to sign a release at some point. She probably sued him, uh. But she also has three years on the New York Times bestseller list for a piece of trash book. But you know she looks stupid. She looks utterly stupid on film. White Fragility is the book, and she has a PhD and her PhD is under significant scrutiny for plagiarism, go figure. Anyway, again, I do recommend.

Speaker 1: 54:25

Am I Racist? I think you should go see. I think everybody should go see it. I think it's important for the discussion. You don't even have to agree with it. You may walk out of there and hate it, I don't care, but I think you should go see it for the value of the discussion about racism in the United States and the way that it's been flipped away from trying to do the right thing to trying to make money. So, ok, wow, knocked out another hour, hey.

Speaker 1: 54:51

One last thing about this this National Security Leaders for America list that I went through at the beginning. Something not to forget about this and about the 741 signatures that are on this, no matter their political leaning. President Trump has made multiple and he did it in his last term and he has made multiple promises in this campaign that he's going to end wars. Right, he's not going to let the United States get drug into more wars. He's going to end the war in Ukraine. He is the guy I've set up before that can broker a peace deal in the Middle East and stop this crap with Israel and Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran.

Speaker 1: 55:37

Many of those people, do you think, work in the defense industry or have investments in the defense industry, who make money off of war, who are war hawks and have personal benefit coming from the United States, either selling military goods or participating in warfare around the globe. I bet it's a pretty high number. So, while they may be Republicans, democrats and independents, and they may be generals, admirals, senior non-commissioned officers, ambassadors and senior civilians from the national security realm, I would bet that a large number of them profit and benefit off of America at war. Something to think about. Okay, again, thanks everybody for tuning in. I hope you tune in for the whole hour. You know Elsa will be back next week. I think she didn't tell me until late, but I think she'll be back next week and you know, as always, you know we appreciate the support. You know rebuilding Elsa's Facebook profile is going to matter. We've watched the growth and continued movement over on YouTube and we really, really do appreciate it and, as always for me, I will see you next week and keep moving, keep shooting.