Podcast Summary
Cell Phone Companies and Liberal Causes: Consider switching to Patriot Mobile, a conservative cell phone company, to align your finances with conservative values and support organizations that prioritize the First and Second Amendment, border security, and the sanctity of life. Try Omax Health's CBD products for joint discomfort relief, with no THC and third-party testing for quality.
During the Dan Vongino show, it was discussed that your cell phone company may be funding liberal causes and organizations. Patriot Mobile, described as America's only conservative cell phone company, offers an alternative for those who want to withdraw their financial support from liberal causes and instead contribute to organizations that align with conservative values, such as the First and Second Amendment, border security, and the sanctity of life. The company also promises reliable nationwide coverage and savings. Additionally, the show featured a promotion for Omax Health and its products, including a CBD roll-on and a CBD supplement, which were praised for their effectiveness in relieving joint discomfort and inflammation. The CBD supplement, Cryo Freeze Advanced Joint Defense, was highlighted for its ability to reduce aches and pains, improve flexibility, and promote long-term joint health, all while containing no THC and undergoing third-party testing for premium quality. The show also touched on the chaotic state of the Democratic debates and expressed concern over Joe Biden's performance and apparent health issues.
Beto O'Rourke's Flip-Flop on AR-15s and Joe Biden's Proposal on Non-Violent Criminals: During the debate, inconsistencies in candidates' past statements and new proposals raised questions about their authenticity and potential impact on public safety.
During a recent debate, Beto O'Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate, was criticized for flip-flopping on his stance regarding AR-15 rifles. Previously, while running for Senate, he expressed support for gun owners keeping their AR-15s. However, during the debate, he advocated for confiscating these weapons. This inconsistency raised questions about his principles and authenticity. Another notable moment came from Joe Biden, who suggested that non-violent criminals should no longer be imprisoned. This proposition, if implemented, could lead to increased crime rates and raises concerns about public safety. Overall, the debate highlighted the importance of having clear-cut principles and being consistent in one's beliefs.
Discussing Democratic presidential candidates' stances on non-violent crime and taxes: Candidates' positions on non-violent crime and taxes need scrutiny. Biden's stance on imprisonment raises questions, while Warren's tax claim is false.
During a recent discussion, it was brought up that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden expressed his belief that non-violent criminals should not be jailed. However, this raises questions about figures like Paul Manafort and George Papadopoulos, who have been imprisoned for non-violent crimes. It was suggested that it's fair to ask Biden about his stance on their cases. Additionally, Elizabeth Warren proposed a Medicare for All plan, which is claimed to not increase middle class taxes. However, it was pointed out that this is a lie, as credible studies show that middle class taxes would indeed go up. Overall, it's important to hold political figures accountable for their words and actions, and to fact-check claims made during the campaign trail.
Misconceptions about Medicare for All and its costs: Despite misconceptions, Medicare for All would decrease costs for families, but increase them for wealthier individuals and corporations. It's important to fact-check information and separate fact from fiction when evaluating healthcare policies.
The cost of healthcare is a significant concern for families, and under Medicare for All, costs would decrease for families but increase for wealthier individuals and corporations. However, there are misconceptions about the plan, such as the idea that insurance will be canceled and middle-class taxes will triple or double. These claims lack credible backing, and it's essential to fact-check information before making decisions. The Medicare for All bill clearly states that free market health insurance will be banned, and the cost of the program would be around 32 trillion dollars over 10 years, not 50 trillion as some claim. It's crucial to separate fact from fiction when evaluating healthcare policies.
Increased taxes under Medicare-for-all plans: Under Medicare-for-all, while some may save on premiums, increased taxes could offset these savings for many families.
Under proposed Medicare-for-all plans, while individuals may have the choice to select their healthcare plans and potentially lower premiums, they will face increased taxes, including payroll and income taxes, which apply to every household member, not just the head of household. This means that the cost savings from lower premiums may be offset by higher taxes for many families. Additionally, it's essential to recognize that healthcare premiums and taxes are not the same. A tax is a forced payment to the government, while a healthcare premium is a voluntary payment to an insurance company for coverage.
Importance of personal preparedness in healthcare: Paying for someone else's healthcare through taxes doesn't directly benefit the payer, but having personal emergency supplies does.
While individuals have the right to cancel unsatisfactory insurance companies, healthcare and insurance are not the same as collective goods like military spending. From an economic perspective, paying for someone else's healthcare through taxes does not benefit the payer or their family, but rather the person receiving the healthcare. The speaker emphasized the importance of personal preparedness and encouraged listeners to have emergency food supplies. He also criticized recent political events and debates, calling them a "disaster" and a "charade."
Inconsistencies in the timeline of when key figures obtained information from the Steele dossier: Questions about the origins of information used to investigate the Trump campaign and potential conflicts of interest or collusion between intelligence agencies arise due to inconsistencies in the timeline of when figures like John Brennan and the FBI obtained information from the Steele dossier
There are inconsistencies in the timeline of when key figures in the Russia investigation, such as John Brennan and the FBI, claim they first obtained information from a CIA source mentioned in the Steele dossier, and when that information actually appeared in the dossier itself. The source's boss is mentioned in the dossier in September, but Brennan claims he didn't see the dossier until December, and the FBI allegedly didn't obtain it until September. This raises questions about the origins of the information used to investigate the Trump campaign and the potential for conflicts of interest or collusion between intelligence agencies. The Epic Times article mentioned in the podcast provides further details and analysis on this issue.
Conflicting Statements on When Intelligence Agencies Obtained Information on Russian Interference: The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election revealed conflicting statements regarding when intelligence agencies obtained certain information and whether it was shared between them. This highlights the importance of proper intelligence channels and the potential consequences of using unverified information.
During the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, there were conflicting statements regarding when intelligence agencies, specifically the CIA, obtained certain information and whether it was shared with the FBI. Lisa Page, an FBI official, testified that the FBI did not receive this information until later, but John Brennan, the former CIA director, claimed he did not have the information until December. However, it was later revealed that the CIA had in fact obtained the information in September from the same source. The confusion arises because the FBI and CIA may have had different sources for the same information, and the FBI may have been more cautious about using unvetted intelligence. Ultimately, the issue highlights the importance of proper intelligence channels and the potential consequences of using unverified information.
FBI officials tried to protect a sensitive source during the 2016 campaign: Despite FBI efforts to protect a source providing information on the Trump campaign, CIA Director John Brennan's unauthorized leaks led to the source's exposure. The leaked information was inaccurate and potentially damaging.
During the 2016 presidential campaign, there was an ongoing effort by high-ranking FBI officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, to protect a sensitive source. This source, who was providing information about the Trump campaign, was ultimately compromised due to unauthorized leaks from CIA Director John Brennan. The insurance policy text messages between Strzok and Page were about deciding whether or not to reveal the source's identity, not obtaining access to Trump campaign emails as previously believed. The source's information was inaccurate, and Brennan should have followed proper channels to vet and share the information. Instead, he leaked it, leading to the source's exposure. The timing of these leaks often coincided with challenging times for the FBI, suggesting an attempt to control the narrative.
Media narratives not always aligned with truth: Question media narratives, consider alternative perspectives, be prepared and protected, potential legal consequences for involvement in controversial matters.
The media's narrative may not always align with the truth. CNN's story about a well-connected Russian spy being exfiltrated from Russia to protect his identity is an example of this. The real reason for the leak might be an attempt to cover up for the FBI's handling of the dossier and the Halper story. It's important to question the narratives presented by the media and consider alternative perspectives. Another key takeaway is the importance of being prepared and protected, especially in today's political climate. The speaker's advocacy for carrying a firearm and having legal protection underscores this point. Lastly, the speaker's prediction about McCabe and the leaker of Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador's identity having legal liability highlights the potential consequences of involvement in controversial matters.
McCabe's Clinton Leak and Potential Indictment: McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, is under investigation for leaking info about a Clinton probe while his wife ran for office. He may face jail time but could use Clinton connection to mitigate jury bias.
Former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe is facing potential indictment due to his involvement in leaking information to the Wall Street Journal about an ongoing Clinton investigation. This leak occurred while his wife was running for office as a Democrat, raising concerns about political bias. McCabe's actions are particularly damaging because he then blamed innocent agents for the leak, making him appear dishonest. The Clinton connection to the case may help mitigate potential jury bias in a DC court, as it is not directly related to President Trump. However, McCabe's actions could still result in jail time, leaving open the question of whether he will cooperate with investigators or fight the charges.
Political maneuver by Nadler in impeachment proceedings: Nadler initiates impeachment inquiry as a political tactic to appease leftists and distract from other Dems' campaigns
The ongoing impeachment discussions in the House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jerry Nadler, are not an actual impeachment process, but rather a political move to appease the radical leftist challenging Nadler in his primary. The Democrats lack the numbers in the Senate to remove President Trump from office, and continuing with impeachment proceedings would distract from the campaigns of other Democratic candidates, including Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders, among others. The vote on a possible impeachment inquiry is just a tactic by Nadler to avoid being criticized for not taking action on impeachment.
Alleged Sneaky Vote in North Carolina's Legislature: Misinformation can spread quickly, highlighting the importance of fact-checking and verifying information before sharing it.
There was a controversial vote in North Carolina's legislature on a budget veto override, which was scheduled on September 11th. The national media reported that the Republicans had scheduled the vote as a surprise while Democrats were attending a 9-11 memorial event. However, it was later revealed that only one Democrat was present at the event, and the vote had been scheduled in advance. A Democratic legislator, Deb Butler, strongly criticized the Republicans for the alleged sneaky vote, but her reaction was later criticized as an overreaction. The incident highlights the importance of fact-checking and waiting for accurate information before spreading it. The Republicans were accused of political manipulation, but it was ultimately found that the scheduling was not intended to be deceitful. The incident shows how quickly misinformation can spread and the importance of verifying facts before sharing them.
Report of surprise vote by Democrats was inaccurate: Journalistic integrity is crucial. Fact-check information before reporting and wait 24 hours before reporting on potentially breaking news to ensure accuracy.
The Washington Post's report of a surprise vote by Democrats in the general assembly session was inaccurate. The AP had uncovered evidence that the vote had been announced days earlier, and only one representative had missed it. The Washington Post later issued a weak correction, but the initial misinformation had already spread. It's important to fact-check information before reporting it, and to apply the "Bongino rule" of waiting 24 hours before reporting on potentially breaking news. This incident highlights the importance of journalistic integrity and the potential consequences of spreading false information. It's essential to strive for accuracy and transparency in reporting, rather than sensationalizing events or making up stories.
