Back to episode — Episode 2660 CWSA 11/15/24
Context —
e wars. Quote, "The only way you make money in the UN is if you go to war. You get paid more." Who gets paid more if they go to war? What job gets paid more if you're at war? I mean, I could see if the actual military people are deployed they might get military pay or something, but do the managers get paid more? How's that work? I don't know. I'm not sure I believe that. And then this manager sa…
← Previous segment →hen they would have had to do it if it was ordered. What choice did they have? Why would you fire somebody for following an order, you know, unless those generals knew it was an illegal order and the country wasn't treating it like it was illegal? So certainly there are some people at the top who need to be replaced. I feel confident in saying that. I don't know that you need to go all the way through all the generals. There got to be some generals who are just taking orders. So I don't know how you sort that out anyway.
But I love the fact that everybody's all worried that truth and the end of racism might be coming. All right, and they're struggling to hide in evidence. Well, I would too if I were them.
Rand Paul says he's going to reinstate Trump's Remain in Mexico policy. I guess he'll be the Senate committee chairman for whatever is the right committee for that, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. So that's good.
Washington Times is reporting that meanwhile the editor-in-chief of Scientific American has resigned under pressure because she called all Trump voters fascists and bigots. She decided to take some time off and think about what comes next. Yeah, I looked at some of her posts. Just batshit crazy, racist, just crazy. And how did she become the editor-in-chief of Scientific American? Do you think that was DEI? Well, based on her social media posts, she doesn't seem very bright or very nice. She's definitely not nice. But to publicly put these opinions out there when you run a magazine, that's also stupid. So at the very least she's not very nice and she's stupid. So yeah, she needs to find maybe a job that doesn't have science in the name.
Here's a fun one if it's true. Zero Hedge is reporting that the FBI official who oversaw the January 6 pipe bomb probe, remember January 6 there was reports of pipe bombs and then we don't know who planted them. But luckily there's always cell phone information about where people are. So you could check the cell phone information and you could pretty well find out who was in that area at a certain time. And you could then match the time to the video because there's security video. And you would largely know for sure who planted them because you'd have the video, you'd have the phone information. There was only one person there at that time and there he is right on video. Pretty easy. And then we were told by the FBI official who's in charge of that that they received corrupted files from the phone company. And that amazingly, and they admitted it's just the weirdest thing, this never happens, but just the exact information that they needed about this one situation, the data was corrupt. Wow. So quite the gigantic coincidence because it really would be weird for that to be corrupt. And then we found out that the phone company say we didn't give anybody any corrupt information. And if we did, nobody mentioned it. And by the way, it doesn't look corrupt to us. The FBI lied about the pipe bombs. January 6 was probably exactly what you thought it was, a giant FBI op.
Now there is definitely not enough evidence to prove that's true. There's definitely enough evidence to prove it's the main theory. Would you agree with that? I can't say it's true. I can say it would be stupid to take it out from the top theory. It's the top theory, right? If nothing changes, it will still remain the top theory of what happened that day, right? Something big would have to change my mind at this point. If the pipe bombs were really covered up, yeah, we have to assume the worst about the FBI. And maybe the FBI will get fixed.
MSNBC had a guest on to call Pete Hegseth, everybody knows, a white supremacist. That according to the guest whose name was not on the screen, which is probably pretty smart because I wouldn't want anybody to know my name either if I said something like that. That just says casually that Pete Hegseth is a known white supremacist. And then Chris Hayes sits there and listens to it and does not say something such as, "Why would you say that?" or "What evidence do you have that he's a white supremacist?" Because obviously there is none. There's no evidence he's a white supremacist. Duh. But the guest on MSNBC was a racist, obviously. And Chris Hayes has some questions that need to be answered. Why would he platform a racist? I mean a real, obvious, overt, not hiding it kind of a racist. Why would they do that? And maybe that's why the total value of MSNBC is checking 75 cents. Yeah, can't sell it at all.
Well, Scott Jennings, who does a great job on CNN representing the Trump side of the world, some say he's up for discussion as the White House Press Secretary. And that's making some people at CNN wonder why they're keeping him on the air. Because if he's just sort of in the pocket for Trump, why should they have him on CNN? Can I explain this to the people at CNN who are confused why the person they hired to express the point of view of the Trump people might be under consideration to be a person who expresses the point of view of the Trump people? Which is exactly what he was hired on CNN to do, to express the point of view of the Trump people. And so it would be a problem if he's being considered for a job to represent the opinion of the Trump people. And that's CNN for you. Now I don't know which idiots on CNN thought that the person who is perfect for the job and was hired for that exact expressed purpose is now wrong for the job because it's been proven that he's right for the job by being considered for a job that's even better than that. That's the same job, expressing one side's point of view. Wow.
So anyway, the Washington Post was reporting that CNN's wondering about that. Jeremy Barr at the Washington Post. The newly elected LAPD chief says he's not going to help the feds with deportation. So Los Angeles has decided to leave the Union? On what basis does a local police department chief get to tell the United States government that they can't police the illegals? So I wonder how much weaponry they have in LA because they're going to go up against the entire military of the United States. How in the world is this going to work out? Don't you think he's going to have to fold? Right? I think it's the thing you say when you're first day on the job. But I don't think any of this sanctuary city stuff's going to hold. Tom Homan already said good luck. We're going to do what we're going to do. And he doesn't look like a guy who messes around. And he's going to have the backing of the president and the entire government. So good luck, Los Angeles.
I saw a video showing the El Salvador prisons. So as you know, President Bukele down in El Salvador is getting a lot of credit for lowering especially gang crime. But the way he did it was he just locked up basically everybody with a tattoo. I'm exaggerating, but that's pretty close because the gang members are heavily tattooed. So it looks like he just built enormous, three football stadiums, it was described, buildings that are just full of gang members. And they showed the conditions of the gang members. They have water, a little I don't know bucket or something that like 50 of them use for a bathroom. They're all in the same cell. But there are lots of these cells with a whole bunch of people in them. Every cell has a guard, an armed guard standing in front of the cell. Now there are multiple, multiple people in each little unit, but there's literally a guard 24 hours just standing there looking at them, armed guard, because they're the most dangerous people in the world. And they don't even have cushions on beds, so they're sleeping on hard ground, drinking water, probably not eating the best food. And I think they'll just be there forever.
So it's a weird situation because on one hand I'm completely in favor of it. On the other hand, I would add one thing. I think they should have a suicide option. Because if they're never getting out, I don't know who would want to live like that. So why don't you give them an option of killing themselves, you know, peacefully? Like you give them the suicide pills and you say, all right, we command your cell. We'll put you in this special cell. Just take these pills and then we'll take your body off to be cremated. Don't you think you would get rid of a lot of them? I mean assuming that they know they're going to be there forever and if they got out it wouldn't be that great either. Let them kill themselves. Because what I saw looked like torture. Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't torture them because it looks like they were pretty bad dudes. So maybe they deserve everything they get. Maybe it's better that they're tortured before they die. But it seems like you could save a lot of time and money and space if you gave them the option. I know that would seem like murder if you put them in a position where killing themselves was more pleasant than staying in jail. But Bukele made a joke on it and on X, so he's happy about it and certainly it's working. Anyway, do you think we're going to do something like that in the United States? No, we will not.
So Axios did a little study and said that none of the voters in their latest focus group, the Axios focus group that's the best one I guess, none of them think that Trump having a close relationship with Elon Musk is a good idea. Really? Really? You can't find anybody in a focus group who thinks that working with the smartest, most capable man on the planet could be good for you when he's working on the hardest problem in the world, which is reorganizing the government and the debt? And he's the person you would trust the most with that exact job. And you're worried about that? That's the thing they're worried about? Now I do understand they don't want him to be like a shadow president or something. But what do you think, you're going to get bad decisions? What happens if Elon Musk becomes a little bit too influential? What problem exactly does that cause? Because the whole time I'm just looking at it and I'm thinking, God, I hope he's influential. Like I hope Trump's taking him seriously. I hope he lets him do his thing. The only thing I want is for Elon to do his thing because I don't think there's any chance that he's in it for any reason other than to help the country. No, obviously it's good for business, but it should be good for everybody's business if they get the government out of their back pocket. So that's a weird opinion, but I guess it's widely held by some people in a focus group.
Speaking of, so Axios is also reporting that Trump's initial cabinet picks show that he's moving swiftly to implement anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice agenda that underpinned his election. Does that sound like a fair way to say it? That he's moving to implement anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice? Here's another way to word it. He is dismantling systemic racism in the government, and he won a mandate by a landslide to do that. Is that wrong? Right? Listen to my wording and then listen to Axios and tell me if my wording is more accurate. Right? There's again, is that he's anti-trans, anti-DEI, and anti-social justice. And I say that he's dismantling systemic racism. And by the way, he's not anti-trans. Nobody's anti-trans. This just not a thing. You might be anti-giving trans more rights than you think it makes sense for the other people in the public, but that's not exactly anti-trans. But he's anti-DEI, which is racist. So he's anti-racism. And he's anti-social justice because the way it's used is racist and sexist. So he's dismantling bigotry in the government. That's what he's doing.
Meanwhile, do you remember former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe back from the Russia collusion days? He says that Matt Gaetz, who's nominated to be the Attorney General, quote, "couldn't get hired by the FBI." Huh. So is that true? He couldn't get hired by the FBI but he could be the attorney general in charge of all that stuff? Well, probably true. I'm going to say true because there are enough allegations running around that maybe that'd be a problem. But I think this is a fun game and we should play some more of it. What kind of jobs our leaders couldn
Context —
't get? For example, Joe Biden, I don't believe could get a job as a babysitter. You know what I mean? I don't think he could. How about Kamala Harris? Could she get a job as running your AA meetings? Probably not. Probably not. Could Kamala Harris get a job that required a drug test? I don't know. Good question. Could Kamala Harris get a job as the head of the FBI? Again, I'm pretty sure you'd ha…
Next segment → →