Speaker 1: We have got so much to talk about with the
Speaker 1: end of the year coming Christmas, as there are a
Speaker 1: lot of things that are happening and changing. Let's steal
Speaker 1: first with Hunter Biden. The latest Hunter Biden problem is
Speaker 1: now putting the White House in a very tight spot.
Speaker 1: President Joe Biden's administration is set to release hundreds of
Speaker 1: emails dating back to his time as the Vice president
Speaker 1: regarding his son, Hunter Biden, millions of dollars the younger
Speaker 1: Biden earned from a Ukrainian energy firm while his father
Speaker 1: was Vice president. This coming from Newsweek. The trope of documents,
Speaker 1: which were requested under the Freedom of Information Act earlier
Speaker 1: this year by a lawyer for a nonprofit with ties
Speaker 1: to former Donald Trump advisor Stephen Miller, includes We're being
Speaker 1: told nearly three hundred emails and dozens of photographs dating
Speaker 1: back to two and fourteen, when Biden's son joined the
Speaker 1: board of the Ukrainian energy firm Barisma, despite having no
Speaker 1: experience in the sector and not knowing the language, Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden's ties to the country, as well as the contents
Speaker 1: of a laptop acquired by the New York Posts in
Speaker 1: late twenty twenty that was also described as Russian disinformation
Speaker 1: by the top spies in America. We know they were
Speaker 1: lying to us as well. Now have inspired widespread speculation.
Speaker 1: The conservative press. Notice how they have to say, the
Speaker 1: conservative press, because the rest of the press, the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: the liberal press, hasn't done their job on this story
Speaker 1: ever and refused to do it. Now, the conservative press
Speaker 1: did cover it that the younger Biden was running a
Speaker 1: Biden crime family, in my opinion, exploiting his political connections
Speaker 1: to enrich his entire family. Now the documents attesting to
Speaker 1: his role there could be a critical part not only
Speaker 1: of Biden's story, but also of Donald Trump's, who was
Speaker 1: impeached by the democratically led US House of represented for
Speaker 1: threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine unless it's president Zelenski
Speaker 1: agreed to dig up compromising information on the bidens That's
Speaker 1: actually not true either, but hey, that's how Newsweek puts it,
Speaker 1: so it must be real. It's the same Newsweek that
Speaker 1: said that the Laptop from Hell was Russian, different information
Speaker 1: and not real. While the National Archives has already declined
Speaker 1: to release a number of documents containing sense of information,
Speaker 1: quote unquote, Biden himself has sixty days to decide whether
Speaker 1: to employ his rights of executive privilege or to prevent
Speaker 1: the release of the entirety of these documents. I'm going
Speaker 1: to go ahead and guess that's exactly what he's going
Speaker 1: to do. Experts, however, telling Newsweek that Biden's decision could
Speaker 1: be a defining action for a power that dates back
Speaker 1: to the days of George Washington. The presidents have long
Speaker 1: deployed presidential privilege to protect themselves and their family members,
Speaker 1: as President Bill Clinton did for First Lady Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: during the White Wall scandal in the mid nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: Biden's decision could be seen by political opponents as comparable
Speaker 1: to the efforts by Richard Nixon to protect himself during
Speaker 1: the Watergate scandal, even though the records in question are
Speaker 1: the focus of a partisan political group's efforts to discredit
Speaker 1: his administration. Is that what Republicans are doing? No, But hey,
Speaker 1: news we can write it that way, so why not
Speaker 1: just go with it. What are Republicans actually doing? Something
Speaker 1: totally different. They are actually looking at a real story
Speaker 1: with real emails and real words from the president and
Speaker 1: his son also known as the Big Guy, and making
Speaker 1: millions and millions of dollars off of selling out the
Speaker 1: United States of America, getting more than a billion dollars
Speaker 1: in loans from the Chinese Communists Party. All of this
Speaker 1: is a fact, we know it should there be an investigation.
Speaker 1: Doesn't seem crazy to actually think that, hey, maybe we
Speaker 1: should investigate this. Republican House majority already been on investigating
Speaker 1: his son. Newsweek puts it, quote, the problem for the
Speaker 1: Bidens are going to be that the justification for denying
Speaker 1: these records is going to be very weak. That's what
Speaker 1: a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a
Speaker 1: one time Minority staff director director of the Senate Select
Speaker 1: Committee on Intelligence said. When Republicans take over the House,
Speaker 1: there will be more blood in the water for them
Speaker 1: to pursue these matters. So the Biden White House is
Speaker 1: going to have a difficult time, and difficulties not only
Speaker 1: from a public relations standpoint on why they're keeping something secret. Now.
Speaker 1: Newsweek also says politics aside, Biden could exert his authority
Speaker 1: to deny the release of these records, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to tell you right now, I think that's exactly what
Speaker 1: he's going to do. But then he faces the prospect
Speaker 1: of a court battle against the nonprofit American First Legal
Speaker 1: that has already defeated his administration in numerous cases this year,
Speaker 1: so they'll probably win again. Notably, by the way, the
Speaker 1: Obama White House lost a federal court case in two
Speaker 1: thousand and sixteen when it to point executive privilege and
Speaker 1: its challenge of the release of records related to the
Speaker 1: Fast and Furious scandal, where weapons sold by American intelligence
Speaker 1: officers were deployed in the murder of American citizens and
Speaker 1: a border patrol agent. It was a pretty stupid decision, right.
Speaker 1: Clinton also sought to deploy executive privilege in its fight
Speaker 1: to prevent the release of records related to the Monica
Speaker 1: Lewinsky scandal back in nineteen ninety eight, only for a
Speaker 1: judge to rule his claims were outweighed by the necessity
Speaker 1: of the evidence supporting obstruction of justice charges that were
Speaker 1: brought against him. Biden Newsweek says, if he were willing
Speaker 1: to go to court, would need to make the case
Speaker 1: that executive privilege to protect a son would overrule the
Speaker 1: public interest. As of now, it is not clear what
Speaker 1: that argument would be. Now, I tell you all of
Speaker 1: this to just remind you that the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: in a serious quagmire going into the holidays. Do you
Speaker 1: hang the president out to dry because you know that
Speaker 1: what he did you cannot defend, and do you do
Speaker 1: it because you also just want to get rid of him? Now,
Speaker 1: the old guard they're not budging. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 1: They decided to have a sit down lunch with CNN,
Speaker 1: literally eating lunch at what looks like a Chinese or
Speaker 1: Japanese restaurant, and they said that Biden is doing an
Speaker 1: excellent job and should run again. You're stepping aside. Do
Speaker 1: you think President Biden should step aside for a younger generation?
Speaker 1: I think President Biden has done an excellent job as
Speaker 1: President of the United States. I hope that he does
Speaker 1: seek reelection. You think he should run again. He's done
Speaker 1: an excellent, excellent job. He runs, I'm going to support
Speaker 1: him all the way. Chuck Schimmer, Nancy Pelosi sticking together,
Speaker 1: making it clear the old guard, even as they're stepping
Speaker 1: down from leadership, they're going to make sure that they
Speaker 1: tell everybody that he should be the guy. Now, there's
Speaker 1: many within the Democratic Party that think that they're actually
Speaker 1: getting this wrong. They believe that this is a total disaster,
Speaker 1: that this is a mistake, that this is something that
Speaker 1: should never happen. We also know there's a new poll out,
Speaker 1: a poll that says that there is now officially bipartisan
Speaker 1: support for investigating the Biden crime family. This goes back
Speaker 1: to the emails as well, but there is a wide
Speaker 1: range of problems for the Bidens as they go into
Speaker 1: the new year. I want you to take a listen
Speaker 1: to what they had to say on Fox about the
Speaker 1: latest with a Biden investigation. And this really is not
Speaker 1: about Hunter Biden anymore. This is about the president. I
Speaker 1: should all archives reportedly set to release hundreds of pages
Speaker 1: of White House records, including emails about Hunter Biden and Barisma.
Speaker 1: The documentary of dates back to twenty fourteen, when President
Speaker 1: Biden was President Biden. But will the White House allow
Speaker 1: those records to go public? One of the questions we
Speaker 1: are going to ask to Byron York, chief public chief
Speaker 1: political correspondent for the Washington Examiner. And if Fox needs contribute,
Speaker 1: you go public all the time, every day. Take that point.
Speaker 1: So let's look at this first of all from the
Speaker 1: thirty thousand foot level, because you wrote in the Washington
Speaker 1: Examiner that House. Republicans in the White House are about
Speaker 1: to go to war over Hunter Biden. What does that
Speaker 1: war look like? Well, Republicans in the House start an investigation,
Speaker 1: the investigative, the Oversight Committee under James Komers start an investigation.
Speaker 1: A number of outside groups that favor Democrats, former Democratic
Speaker 1: activists and like are currently raising money and planning strategy
Speaker 1: on ways to attack the investigation, to help Democrats or
Speaker 1: potential subjects resist subpoenas, to attack the witnesses like Tony
Speaker 1: Bob o Lenski, the former Hunter Biden business partner, who
Speaker 1: has had a lot to say. Basically, do the old
Speaker 1: fashioned attack the investigator strategy. We're going to see that.
Speaker 1: And the biggest challenge, the biggest challenge that Republicans have
Speaker 1: is convincing the public that this investigation is really about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and not just about Hunter Biden, who doesn't
Speaker 1: hold a position in the US government. In fact, that's
Speaker 1: the point that James Kummer is making, saying, you know,
Speaker 1: this is not about investigating Hunter Biden. This is about
Speaker 1: investigating the president in the United States to see if
Speaker 1: he improperly benefited from his son's overseas business dealings. I
Speaker 1: mean you can't really make a case if you're the
Speaker 1: chairman of the Oversight Committee that, oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: investigate a private individual. You have to say we're investigating
Speaker 1: a public individual. And then if you catch a private
Speaker 1: individual in the investigation, well then you got both. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: if you listen to some of the defenders hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of sordid material on the Hunter Biden laptop.
Speaker 1: He was a crackhead and they do all sorts of
Speaker 1: really awful things in the midst of their addiction, and
Speaker 1: much as that is recorded in pictures and stuff on
Speaker 1: the laptop. So you're hearing Democrats saying Republicans are just
Speaker 1: they just want to expose that stuff. They're just crazed
Speaker 1: about all the salacious material, and that's all this investigation
Speaker 1: is about. And Republicans are saying, no, no, no, we're
Speaker 1: interested in bank records, the natural records. We want to
Speaker 1: know where the money went. So this treasure trove of
Speaker 1: documents that the National Archives is apparently preparing and may
Speaker 1: be prepared to release, how hard do you think the
Speaker 1: White House will fight to keep these from seeing the
Speaker 1: light of day. Well, we don't know. If it's a
Speaker 1: treasure trove. I mean, we don't know exactly what it is.
Speaker 1: It's very interesting. This is a lawsuit filed by a
Speaker 1: group called America First Legal, which was started by Stephen Miller,
Speaker 1: the former long time Trump White House aide. And they
Speaker 1: did a pretty clever thing, which is file a Freedom
Speaker 1: of Information Act request for documents that have the word
Speaker 1: Barisma in it, being the Ukrainian energy company that hired
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden for at least fifty thousand dollars a month
Speaker 1: to do not much of any anything. So the question
Speaker 1: is will the White House or the Obama archive turn
Speaker 1: over this information. There's two ways that they cannot turn
Speaker 1: it over. One President Biden, the current president, could claim
Speaker 1: executive privilege over something. Might be a little a bit
Speaker 1: of a stretch. And to anybody who's ever filed a
Speaker 1: Freedom of Information Act request knows they have ways of
Speaker 1: not giving you stuff. So it's entirely possible that there
Speaker 1: could be lots of withholdings just for no particularly good reason,
Speaker 1: or even redactions. Exactly all right, Byron, great to see
Speaker 1: you good. I mean, you listen to Byron there. And
Speaker 1: what Byron is is making it clear is that there's
Speaker 1: a probable cause to say no to this right just
Speaker 1: through executive privilege. Is it going to be good enough?
Speaker 1: Probably not? And they're asking about the word barisma. It's
Speaker 1: a very smart way to get these documents. We also
Speaker 1: know former Deputy Director of National Intelligence Cliff Simms is
Speaker 1: breaking his silence stating that he actually warned CNN and
Speaker 1: their top reporter who was covering the Hunter Biden laptop story,
Speaker 1: Natasha Bertrand, that the Hunter Biden laptop story was in
Speaker 1: fact not Russian disinformation. What did she do after she
Speaker 1: got the official warning from the director, the deputy Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence? She wrote now an infamous and now
Speaker 1: discredited political story which was used over and over again
Speaker 1: by the left to say that this was clearly a
Speaker 1: Russian hoax. She's the one that wrote the article telling
Speaker 1: the story of dozens of former Intel officials who are
Speaker 1: officially signing a letter that the entire Hunter Biden story
Speaker 1: was a false story. It was a false story, it
Speaker 1: was misleading, and it came directly from Russia trying to
Speaker 1: influence our elections. She knew when she wrote that story
Speaker 1: for Politico that she was lying to the American people.
Speaker 1: It didn't matter. Now Bert Rand was a reporter for
Speaker 1: Politico at the time. She approached the then Deputy Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence Simms on October the nineteen, twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: We have the timeline now exactly how this went down.
Speaker 1: She when she went to Simms, she said she was
Speaker 1: coming hen regarding an article that she was writing about
Speaker 1: fifty plus former information officials, the America's spies, who were
Speaker 1: going to come out and claim that Hunter Biden's laptop
Speaker 1: was in fact Russian disinformation. She decided to ask the
Speaker 1: actual government at the time about this story. She then
Speaker 1: decided that she didn't like the answer she got from
Speaker 1: our government, and she decided to write propaganda for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Now, Simms actually said before publication of the
Speaker 1: political story that she knew that this was not Russian disinformation.
Speaker 1: How do we know it because the then Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe told Simms to warn her. And
Speaker 1: that's exactly what happened. And despite warning her, she decided
Speaker 1: to write the story anyway and gave the Democrats the
Speaker 1: most powerful headline that was used right before that presidential
Speaker 1: election to guarantee that Donald Trump would not get reelected
Speaker 1: and guarantee that Joe Biden would win that's what she
Speaker 1: decided to do. Natasha bert Ran goes all over TV.
Speaker 1: She's a darling of the left and a CNN employee now.
Speaker 1: Now in October the sixteenth, a few days before, she
Speaker 1: approached Simms Representative Adam Schiff, the scumbag liar who tried
Speaker 1: to impeach Donald Trump now once but twice over information
Speaker 1: that he knew was actually fake and false information about
Speaker 1: it being Russian collusion. And he knew for a fact
Speaker 1: that he was trying to overthrow the will of the
Speaker 1: people in a coup attempt. He knew that the manifesto
Speaker 1: of Russian collusion right, this entire dossier on Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and Russia, was actually financed by his own party, the
Speaker 1: Democratic National Committee, and was financed by Hillary Clinton, his
Speaker 1: dear friend. He didn't care. He wanted to overthrow the
Speaker 1: will of the people. Now, represent of Adam Schiff shockingly
Speaker 1: again claimed that the New York Post laptop from Hell
Speaker 1: story was quote part of Russian attempt to smear the
Speaker 1: then candidate Joe Biden. Radcliffe had condemned Shift's false claims,
Speaker 1: and Simms relayed that to the Political Reporter as background
Speaker 1: for her now debunk political story. But it didn't matter.
Speaker 1: She ignored the Director of National Intelligence statement, which contradicted
Speaker 1: the narrative she wanted to push with the dozens of
Speaker 1: former intel officials. That's what Simms explained about the timeline
Speaker 1: as he releases via Twitter. He said, in his exact
Speaker 1: words quote, I was serving as Deputy National Intelligence Director
Speaker 1: for Strategy and Communications in twenty twenty, so during the
Speaker 1: height of election season, I was part of the then
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence, John Radcliffe's small circle of advisors,
Speaker 1: and part of my job was handling reporter inquiries, particularly
Speaker 1: if they dealt directly with National Intelligence and John Radcliffe
Speaker 1: as the director. October the sixteenth, Representative Adam Schiff suggested
Speaker 1: that the laptop might be part of a Russian effort
Speaker 1: to smear Biden. October the nineteenth, he tweets John Radcliffe says,
Speaker 1: there's all caps no intel to support Schiff's lie. The
Speaker 1: press played it like it was a battle, right, two
Speaker 1: different narratives. History has proven who was a liar and
Speaker 1: politicized their position. That would be Representative Adams Shiff. Then,
Speaker 1: on October the nineteenth, a political reporter Natasha burt Rand
Speaker 1: preps a story about fifty former Intel officials claiming that
Speaker 1: the Biden laptop story is Russian disinfo. I warned her
Speaker 1: that it is not and pointed her to Ratcliffe's statement,
Speaker 1: she writes it anyway and gives Democrats the headlines they
Speaker 1: want now. Sins also stated that bert Rand had never
Speaker 1: admitted she pushed false and misleading information at Politico that
Speaker 1: likely impacted the twenty twenty election. In fact, she was
Speaker 1: shortly thereafter hired by none of them CNN, the Chinese
Speaker 1: communist news network, which had been pushing the false narratives
Speaker 1: spun by her story at Politico about Hunter's laptop being quote,
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation. None of them, Schiff, the former Intel officials
Speaker 1: who lied about the laptop, the journalists involved have ever
Speaker 1: admitted anything they did was wrong and never admitted wrongdoing.
Speaker 1: And these headlines, also, by the way, remain on Politico
Speaker 1: to this day and they have not been correct it.
Speaker 1: The House Republicans are also saying, we promise come January
Speaker 1: to investigate all of those involved in the false narrative
Speaker 1: leading up to the twenty twenty presidential election. Representative Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan Republican Ohio demanded two of the highest ranking spies
Speaker 1: that signed onto the political letter former Director of National
Speaker 1: Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA director John Brennan the
Speaker 1: vulge information related to their attempt to discredit the Hunter
Speaker 1: by laptop story. In twenty twenty, Clapper and Brennan refused
Speaker 1: to comply. Jordan is now vowed he will use his
Speaker 1: subpoena power to compel the two men to comply with
Speaker 1: his request. Now here's the other part. According to recent polling,
Speaker 1: seventy one percent of Americans believe that if there was
Speaker 1: accurate reporting of a Hunter Biden's laptop that it would
Speaker 1: have altered the twenty twenty presidential election. That includes Democrats
Speaker 1: in this poll. In twenty eighteen and in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: Peter Schweitzer published two different books, The Secret Empires and
Speaker 1: Profiles in Corruption. Each of those books hit number one
Speaker 1: on the New York Times bestseller list and expose how
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden Joe Biden flew to China aboard Air Force
Speaker 1: two in twenty thirteen before Hunter firm. His firm inked
Speaker 1: a one point five billion dollar deal with a Chinese
Speaker 1: government's Bank of China, How quickly they get the money
Speaker 1: after they flew over on Air Force two less than
Speaker 1: two weeks after the trip. Swire's work also uncovered the
Speaker 1: Biden families other vast lucrative foreign deals and cronyism, and
Speaker 1: what are Democrats now saying, Oh, it's just this is
Speaker 1: a fake story and it's time to move on. Heading
Speaker 1: into December, there's a lot going on. Heading into Christmas
Speaker 1: and New Year's there's a lot going on, and it
Speaker 1: is very clear that the Democrats now are concerned. Earned
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson talked about this on his show, saying, back
Speaker 1: in the olden days, there really wasn't a lot of
Speaker 1: news to report. Now we're overwhelmed with major headlines during
Speaker 1: the holidays. Take a listen, and for a confession, run
Speaker 1: off the bat. There were times, we will admit it,
Speaker 1: back in the dark ages of cable news, when we'd
Speaker 1: milk a single news event for weeks in some cases,
Speaker 1: and we're talking to you O. J. Simpson for months
Speaker 1: and months and months. There wasn't that much going on,
Speaker 1: so you couldn't afford to waste a good story. That
Speaker 1: is not the problem we're having these days. The problem
Speaker 1: now is the opposite. Of course, there's too much going on,
Speaker 1: and some of it's terrifying In just the last week,
Speaker 1: China signed a fifty billion dollar trade deal with Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: old ally signaling an end to America's long standing global
Speaker 1: petro empire. That's not a small thing. Vladimir Putin, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: who runs Russia, once again threatened to launch a nuclear
Speaker 1: war on the West. Then Wall Street began laying off
Speaker 1: large numbers of people, which is not something you can
Speaker 1: ignore in an industry whose business it is to predict
Speaker 1: the future of the economy. And at the same time
Speaker 1: that was happening, the wealth of the average American household
Speaker 1: dropped to one of the lowest levels ever recorded. The
Speaker 1: CDC responded by trying to resurrect face masks because that'll
Speaker 1: help Sam Bankman Freedom got arrested, and then the Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartels, which run the largest human trafficking operations since
Speaker 1: the Transatlantic slave trade ended, now officially have control of
Speaker 1: our southern border. So it's been a busy week. In fact,
Speaker 1: more has happened in this past week than happened during
Speaker 1: two full terms under Bill Clinton a lot. So if
Speaker 1: you're running our country right now, you'd be staying up
Speaker 1: all night every night trying to figure out how to respond.
Speaker 1: But that's not what the Biden administration is doing, not
Speaker 1: at all. This afternoon, as the old global order collapses
Speaker 1: to be replaced by god knows what, the Biden people
Speaker 1: decided to hold a drag event at the White House,
Speaker 1: just in case you were wondering if those comparisons to
Speaker 1: Wimar were overstated. No, they're not overstated. The occasion for
Speaker 1: the celebration was the official signing of the Respect for
Speaker 1: Marriage Act, which the White House tells us will codify
Speaker 1: gay marriage into law. But wait a moment, you wonder,
Speaker 1: wasn't gay marriage legalized by the Supreme Court way back
Speaker 1: under Barack Obama. Well, yeah, but they've legalized it again.
Speaker 1: It's double legal. And you know what that means. That
Speaker 1: means it's time to hear from Lady Gaga. Dance party
Speaker 1: at the White House. Her Ray, what's been legal for
Speaker 1: years is still legal? Break out the White Claw. Cindy
Speaker 1: Lauper was there, of course, to celebrate. Cindy Lauper is
Speaker 1: going to be seventy years old this spring, meaning she's
Speaker 1: lived in this country a long time. But until today,
Speaker 1: until this afternoon at the White House, under the beneficent
Speaker 1: gaze of Joe Biden. The Great Cindy Lauper informed us
Speaker 1: that Americans were not allowed to love each other until today.
Speaker 1: Love was banned, but Joe Biden changed that, and now
Speaker 1: we're free to love. Watch this and see if he
Speaker 1: don't choke up just a little. Our families are validated.
Speaker 1: And because now we're allowed to love who we love,
Speaker 1: which sounds odd to say, but Americans can now love
Speaker 1: who we love. And bless Joe Biden and all the
Speaker 1: people that worked on this for allowing people not to
Speaker 1: worry and their children not to worry about their future.
Speaker 1: Wait didn't that happen ten years ago? Well, we checked
Speaker 1: that tape is from today. The party was the White
Speaker 1: House today, and that means that somewhere our nuclear disposal
Speaker 1: friend Sam Brenton, formerly of the Energy Department, is sitting
Speaker 1: atop a pile of stolen women's clothes, cursing the fact
Speaker 1: that airports have security cameras in the baggage claim damn
Speaker 1: those cameras. If only Britain hadn't been caught, this would
Speaker 1: have been like Christmas for him. He could have spent
Speaker 1: the morning in Sydney Lauper's dressing room trying to purloin
Speaker 1: a new altertop. Talk about a missed opportunity. Thanks Marty
Speaker 1: Cummings was there to make up for it. Cummings is
Speaker 1: a drag star who likes Sam Britton, has a long
Speaker 1: history of unfiltered social media posts. F the police, Cummings
Speaker 1: tweeted in twenty twenty, yes we want to defund the police.
Speaker 1: Yes we want to abolish ice. No we won't settle
Speaker 1: for anything. Least we'll continue to fight for this to happen.
Speaker 1: And quote that sounds like Antifa, well yeah, and to
Speaker 1: prove it. This year, Cummings promoted something called a cab
Speaker 1: coffee using the all but copyrighted slogan of Antifa. So
Speaker 1: here you have an Antifa friendly drag queen dressing up
Speaker 1: like a woman and promoting violence. Talk about a perfect
Speaker 1: white house guest. And of course Cummings is also interested
Speaker 1: in children in all the wrong ways. Cummings once tweeted
Speaker 1: this quote the kids are out to sing and suck
Speaker 1: to perform flacio okay Cummings and added anyone who thinks
Speaker 1: drag isn't for children is wrong. Cummings then posted this
Speaker 1: picture with a child, writing he wants to perform with
Speaker 1: us next year. So if you think it's unfair to
Speaker 1: accuse people are being creepy with kids, not that unfair,
Speaker 1: actually kind of fair. It's amazing. This is what the
Speaker 1: White House is doing. Who they're inviting all during the holidays.
Speaker 1: Of course, because when you start losing, you still double
Speaker 1: down on these psychotic ideas of having kids at drag shows,
Speaker 1: saying all they want to do is sing and suck.
Speaker 1: You know what children? That is? That's from the White
Speaker 1: House guest who's there to contify marriage it's already happened
Speaker 1: years ago, to celebrate something that already happened years ago. Now,
Speaker 1: before I get into more of this story, I want
Speaker 1: to say thank you and tell you about our good
Speaker 1: friends at Legacy Precious Metals. Without them, the show wouldn't
Speaker 1: be possible. And if you have not looked at gold
Speaker 1: and silver as a way to protect your hard earned
Speaker 1: dollars against what they happening on Wall Street with inflation,
Speaker 1: it's time for you to call them and get the
Speaker 1: free Investor's Guide. Why because so many around the world
Speaker 1: are now using gold and silver, and historically they have
Speaker 1: for decades as a protection, a hedge against inflation, which
Speaker 1: is exactly what we're dealing with right now. If you're
Speaker 1: terrified to look at your retirement account, you're four one
Speaker 1: case statement because of what's happening on Wall Street. That's
Speaker 1: all the more reason why you should call and get
Speaker 1: the investors got in gold and silver, protect your hard
Speaker 1: earned money and diversify. Call them and get the free
Speaker 1: investors Guide from Legacy Precious Medals one eight six six
Speaker 1: seven five one twenty two eighteen one eight six six
Speaker 1: seven five one twenty two eighteen or online at Legacy
Speaker 1: PM investments dot com. If you think the Democrats, by
Speaker 1: the way, are learning from some of their mistakes or
Speaker 1: being out of touch with America, you'd be wrong. How
Speaker 1: do I know it? There's now forty one House Democrats
Speaker 1: who've actually filed an actual bill to ban Donald Trump
Speaker 1: not just from running for president in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: but actually ban them from running for office anywhere. That's right.
Speaker 1: Forty one Democrats have now filed a bill to bar
Speaker 1: former President Trump from running for president in twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: siding section three of the fourteenth Amendment. Of course, because
Speaker 1: now the same people that hate the Constitution apparently absolutely
Speaker 1: love it. Quote Donald Trump is very clearly engaged in
Speaker 1: an insurrection on January the six, twenty twenty one, with
Speaker 1: the intention of overthrowing or overturning the lawful and fair
Speaker 1: results of the twenty twenty election. You don't get to
Speaker 1: let a government you try to destroy. That's what one
Speaker 1: Democrat wrote in a press release saying this look. Even
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell admits that the Trump family or Donald Trump
Speaker 1: specifically bears responsibility. Sang on the Senate four that there's
Speaker 1: no question none that President Donald Trump is practically and
Speaker 1: morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. The
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment makes clear that based on his past behavior,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is disqualified from ever holding federal office again.
Speaker 1: Under Section five. Congress has the power to pass legislation
Speaker 1: to implement this prohibition. Among those Democrats seeking to deprive
Speaker 1: you the ability to decide who you want to be
Speaker 1: president are the same people that were all on board
Speaker 1: for impeaching Donald Trump for a crime that he never committed,
Speaker 1: Russian collusion, a crime that was made out of thin
Speaker 1: air by the same Democrats who are now saying that
Speaker 1: he should be ineligible to ever run for president. The
Speaker 1: same Democrats that were working with Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube
Speaker 1: to silence and suppress any conservative that they didn't like,
Speaker 1: that said something they didn't like, and also to get
Speaker 1: the president off of all platforms while he was actually
Speaker 1: the president of the United States of America. These include
Speaker 1: Representatives Ballman, Democrat in New York, Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas,
Speaker 1: Democrat of Course, Telu, Democrat from California, Jaya Paul Democrat
Speaker 1: from Washington, Rashid to Leave Democrat from Minnesota. Section three
Speaker 1: of the fourteenth Amendment states Democrats want you to know quote.
Speaker 1: No persons shall be a senator or representative in Congress,
Speaker 1: or elector of President and Vice President, who, having previously
Speaker 1: taken an oath, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
Speaker 1: against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
Speaker 1: enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two
Speaker 1: thirds of each House, remove such disabilities. Democrats are likely
Speaker 1: focusing on the words insurrection or rebellion tied to January
Speaker 1: six to disqualify Trump from seeking office. Such disqualification demands
Speaker 1: evidence that Trump committed insurrection or rebellion. Thus far, Democrats
Speaker 1: have failed to produce qualifying evidence, though the Just Department
Speaker 1: is reportedly investigating Trump's January six actions as related to
Speaker 1: a criminal probe, and don't worry, we've got a special
Speaker 1: prosecutor for that. So apparently the fix is already in
Speaker 1: All this is going on right now heading into the holidays.
Speaker 1: There's two ways to look at this. Either Democrats are
Speaker 1: incredibly desperate and they understand that Republicans are out to
Speaker 1: rock their world with the real investigations in the House.
Speaker 1: Or this is exactly what they're always going to do
Speaker 1: anytime we give them any power you get to decide.
Speaker 1: What I know is they're working not just in America
Speaker 1: but literally around the world to make sure that their
Speaker 1: ideals and ideology are mandates. Now how do I know this?
Speaker 1: Let me give you another example. Europe's largest bank, we're
Speaker 1: now being told, is going to halt financing of new
Speaker 1: oil and gas projects after world pressure that included Democrats
Speaker 1: in America. The bank HSBC kind of a big deal.
Speaker 1: They are a multi international or multi national investment bank,
Speaker 1: I should say. They have come out announcing we will
Speaker 1: no longer finance any new oil and gas projects in
Speaker 1: order to meet the green agenda goals of the globalist
Speaker 1: elites within our bank. The large bank in Europe, which
Speaker 1: has only three trillion dollars in assets, has said that
Speaker 1: it will no longer finance new oiler gas fields to
Speaker 1: supposedly meet its commitment to achieving the UK government's goal
Speaker 1: of reaching net zero carbon admissions by the year twenty fifty.
Speaker 1: According to a report from the BBC, this massive bank,
Speaker 1: HSBC came to the decision after following consultation with leading
Speaker 1: scientific and international bodies. Translation the New World Order of
Speaker 1: the Green Universe. In twenty twenty, the British bank already
Speaker 1: committed to investing one trillion into supposedly green energy sources,
Speaker 1: as well as committing to net zero. So is this
Speaker 1: bank really that awesome? Are they really this great? Are
Speaker 1: they really this incredible? Let me tell you another story
Speaker 1: that involves the same bank, HSBC. We now know they can.
Speaker 1: They colluded with a Chinese communist party to de bank
Speaker 1: democracy activists, yes in Hong Kong. Not only that, they
Speaker 1: went after church bank accounts and froze their assets. So
Speaker 1: the same bank that's now telling you they won't invest
Speaker 1: in oil and gas, that manages trillions of dollars has
Speaker 1: no problem silencing Christians and those that stand up to communism.
Speaker 1: The same bank work directly colluded with the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party the CCP to de bank pro freedom campaigners in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong. That's where the founder of Hong Kong Watch
Speaker 1: had to say. The bank's chief executive is set to
Speaker 1: be grilled by British MPs this week. Why because last
Speaker 1: month h SBC froze the accounts of a church in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong. What did the church do wrong? They provided
Speaker 1: humanitarian assistants to protesters during the massive movement against the
Speaker 1: National Security Law, which was illegally imposed on the city
Speaker 1: by the communist dictatorship in Beijing. A former member of
Speaker 1: the Hong Kong Legislative Council also had his bank account
Speaker 1: frozen ted who after he fled the former British colony
Speaker 1: to seek political asylum in the United Kingdom. Last week
Speaker 1: and a remarkable move for a bank boss, the chief
Speaker 1: executive of HSBC personally told mister Hugh, I regret that
Speaker 1: HSBC is not able to operate your bank account, to
Speaker 1: operate your bank and credit card accounts as well. Following
Speaker 1: the admission, mister Quinn, alongside HSBC Compliance chief Colin Bell,
Speaker 1: will be forced to give evidence to the British Parliament's
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs Committee on the National Security Law and the
Speaker 1: recent freezing of accounts of activists. Activists is what the
Speaker 1: Telegram is now reporting in comments made to Bright bart London,
Speaker 1: the founder and chairman of Hong Kong Watch, that HSBC's
Speaker 1: collusion with the Chinese Communist Party repression is absolutely outrageous
Speaker 1: and should be called out clearly for by the international community.
Speaker 1: But don't worry, no one will Why because h SBC
Speaker 1: is a brilliant company that's going to save the world
Speaker 1: and the environment, So everything's going to be okay. Are
Speaker 1: they really saving the environment? Of course not, we all
Speaker 1: know that. But if you play the rules the right
Speaker 1: way and play the game the right way, you'll get
Speaker 1: plenty of people that will actually come in and bank
Speaker 1: with you. Just so you know, Communist China polluted more
Speaker 1: in eight years then Britain has polluted the world since
Speaker 1: the start of the Industrial Revolution. Yeah, so if you
Speaker 1: think China is playing by the same rules as this
Speaker 1: bank is by stopping oil and gas financing, China polluted
Speaker 1: more in the last eight years than the UK since
Speaker 1: the Industrial Revolution. Communist China doesn't care about the world.
Speaker 1: They admit more carbon dioxide over the past eight years
Speaker 1: than the UK has since the beginning of the industrial evolution.
Speaker 1: That is a fact. See my question is this, with
Speaker 1: communist China admitting more carbon dioxide over the last eight
Speaker 1: years in the UK has since the beginning of the
Speaker 1: industrial revolution, where are all the liberals freaking out? According
Speaker 1: to researchers at the University of Oxford, they say the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom has admitted eighty seven billion tons of carbon
Speaker 1: dioxide between seventeen fifty and twenty twenty eight years. Eight
Speaker 1: years is how long it took for China to do do
Speaker 1: the same thing. Actually, more than that, The data found
Speaker 1: that China has accounted for fourteen percent of all global
Speaker 1: admissions throughout the history of the world, a figure that's
Speaker 1: not only topped by the United States, which accounted for
Speaker 1: one quarter of historical admissions. And contrast, the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: has admitted just four point six percent of global historical admissions,
Speaker 1: eighty percent of which came before the year nineteen ninety.
Speaker 1: Since nineteen ninety, the UK has reduced its carbon diax
Speaker 1: had output, the fastest among any other industrial nation, with
Speaker 1: CO two admissions following by fifty four point eight percent.
Speaker 1: Over the thirty year time frame. This is steeper declined
Speaker 1: than those seen in Germany at thirty nine percent, France
Speaker 1: at thirty percent, in the United States at eight percent. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: would China do. China has seen its carbon admissions increase
Speaker 1: by a staggering three hundred and twenty nine percent during
Speaker 1: the same time period, with the communist country becoming the
Speaker 1: world's main industrial hub following pro market reforms under President
Speaker 1: g and the decision by the United States and others
Speaker 1: to allow it to join the World Trade Organization in
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, which has now made them a
Speaker 1: monster to deal with. It was argued at the time
Speaker 1: that by allowing the country to have full access to
Speaker 1: global markets, the influx of capitalism would liberate the communist nation.
Speaker 1: How stupid or we However, some including former President Trump,
Speaker 1: would argue that China's only use the West trading system
Speaker 1: to enrich itself and has no intention of ever becoming
Speaker 1: a free nation. In fact, now they're just you know,
Speaker 1: kind of threatening Taiwan. I just thought i'd bring that up,
Speaker 1: so as we head into Christmas, just know it's fun
Speaker 1: to check out, but don't think that the world's stopping.
Speaker 1: In fact, things are getting a hell of a lot
Speaker 1: worse now, and we better pay attention and call them
Speaker 1: out because they're going to try to keep doing a
Speaker 1: lot of this over the holidays. Make sure you share
Speaker 1: a podcast with your family and friends. Please write us
Speaker 1: a five star review and we'll see you back here
Speaker 1: tomorrow