0:00 Intro
1:10 How did Trump raise his children?
5:22 How to instill ambition in your children?
7:30 New technology + Linear media still needed
8:11 Trump’s favorite African-American
10:48 Surviving the assassination attempt + Opening line
13:03 Trump wanted to finish his speech!
16:41 “Impossible to miss”
18:29 Did it increase Trump’s spirituality?
19:18 Who does Trump think tried to get him?
23:54 Apple refusing to open the phones?
25:04 If you had to say who did it…
28:21 Trump loves to weave + Iran?
33:40 We were being ripped off by our Allies
36:18 How to assess World Leaders?
38:36 Trump was close to denuclearization + Too destructive
40:35 Tough Scottish Moms + Trump’s parents
46:14 Trump’s humor, Putin + Covid was a Lab leak
49:22 Biden’s special ability
50:40 Immigration + path to Citizenship
55:40 Trump going after the New York Times over Russiagate
1:00:01 Trump’s the biggest influencer + Great names
1:05:13 Pence didn’t do what Trump asked him
1:06:45 Abortion, Support for exceptions + Wrong to attack IVF
1:15:34 Arizona has gone too far with their abortion ban
1:17:16 What does Trump want his legacy to be?
1:21:35 There will be elections, even if Trump wins
1:23:20 Rhetoric being extreme + Things that don’t make the news
1:27:12 Abraham Accords deserved more credit
Sunlit7 op
The probability is better than not that it is the billionaire class out there paying people twenty seven fifty an hour to walk around trying to get people to register to vote. Elon Musk recent offer of forty seven dollars to any person who is a registered voter, or any person who refers a person who is registered to vote, to sign a petition pledge to stand for freedom of speech and the second amendment tilts them as being the culprits. This offer is exclusively for the registered voters of what he termed battle ground states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and North Carolina.
https://petition.theamericapac.org/
Something of such a limited scope smacks of some sort of election interference going on. This is just another prime example of how seriously stupid they think people are. A person would have to be seriously hungry or fiending for their next fix not to stop and ask themselves why only registered voters and registered voters of limited states. If their convictions were of a honest nature, wouldn't they want to know the whole of the number of people across the united states who'd be willing to stand for their first and second amendment rights. Really when you get right down to it, what does it really establish even on a whole? Absolutely nothing, the petition in and of itself isn't going to accomplish any end goal of significance. It will forever be a meaningless piece of paper without substance linked to an objective end.
The only real purpose such a proposal serves is to show that individuals in those states reside there, are registered to vote and are alive and kicking living at the address given as close to the election as possible. All would be prerequisites to achieve as flawless as it could ascertain of an extensive inclusive voter fraud system. This is one step above having to go out on election day and offer up twenty dollar bills or gift cards to get those who normally don't vote to go vote and influence that vote while they are at it.
Same can be seen here in my state of the multitude of people they have out standing in plaza's and area businesses asking people if they are registered to vote. They are paying these people twenty seven fifty an hour to get people to register to vote. People with inquiring minds like myself simply couldn't resist the urge to stop and ask how many people a day do they get to sign up. I figured it had to be quite a few to justify having three people working the plaza where the secretary of state office was located, never mind even the curiosity as to why you'd have people working a plaza a few feet away from where people go in to do exactly that, they had both main entries to the plaza covered plus the front door to the secretary of states office. Why? It just doesn't make sense. On this particular day of my inquiry they had gotten ten people to register to vote. They paid six hundred sixty dollars total for three guys to work the plaza to gather ten signatures. My question posed was do you get a lot of people to register. The answer was a partial answer of many people don't understand.... He just stopped. Don't understand what? They have a right to register to vote? For the vast majority of Americans, registering to vote is one of those anticipated passages into adulthood. I don't think there is any misunderstanding about it. Over the course of the next three weeks I'd see two more people standing outside a local gas station in my neighborhood asking people if they were registered to vote, and two others on different days standing at a plaza located in a near by city. The oddity that the one guy stopped himself midsentence of saying "that many people don't understand", if he was being legit about what he was about to say, why not just say it. I didn't see the paperwork he had on his clipboard. Did it contain language you have to be a US citizen to vote. I don't know if they had to provide proof of identify, swear under oath, show citizenship papers or any other questions that the SOS ask when registering to vote.
What is the big deal wanting to pay people to scrounge around looking for those needles in the haystack that never bothered to register to vote. If you are building an extensive, inclusion voter fraud system, those are exactly the people you want registered to vote, people who never felt compelled a need to register. Maybe they aren't politically minded, maybe they don't really think it matters or changes a course in the overall scheme of things. Because they can also be verified as being a current resident living in the state close to the election, their signatures are just a bonus to boot. Now they can forge those signatures, which, by the way, signature verifications have been a big issue in the last couple elections with questions of the signatures not matching. Secretary of state public records shows people registered to vote, shows party affiliation, some provide if they've voted in the last election, but the one thing they don't provide is that voters signature or who or what party they voted for.
That brings me back to 2016 standing on my porch with my son who lived next door to me at the time. A guy approached him and asked him his name and if he was going to vote. My son was an infrequent, if ever at that point, had ever voted but he was registered. There was some slight discussion over who he intended to vote for if he was going to vote, which he turned to me and told the guy I was going to vote for Trump. (Which I'll never vote for a third time, nor the current occupants of the white house). The guy asked him to sign his name on a post card and when it got close to the election they'd send it back as a reminder to him. Funny part was he never asked me to sign a post card of reminder, nor any of the neighbors on my block. Instead he drove around the corner across the park from me and stopped at a house over there. I thought it was sort of odd, didn't appear to be a door to door get out the vote drive. I didn't think to much more about it until later on that day driving down a main street in my neighborhood when I saw him exit his car, cross the street and go up to a house in the middle of the block. It appeared he was specifically targeting certain addresses. My guess would be targeting infrequent voters or people who were registered who didn't bother voting. Now those individuals handed them their signature on a post card that my son can't recall if it ever did arrive.
There are a matrix of things that changed during the pandemic but none so flagrantly expanded and abused as the mail in ballots. If you have built or are building an intensive inclusive voter fraud system it has to be as seemly an operation as possible. Which is a near improbability, which is seen in "intensive inclusive" and terms spoken of "every vote is voted and counted" of Secretary of State Benson's, which reeks of as finally have found a solution to the individuals who just can't be compelled to vote. Like, for example, those they used to have to go out and bribe, now they can just take it upon themselves to vote for them. To get there first they have to build the system. You can't account for tens of millions of votes in a couple of days so you have to remove restrictions on who can use mail in ballots and increase the number of days individuals can vote prior to election day and the number of days votes can be counted after election day. That allows them to track and mark off a substantial amount of voters who have already voted prior to election day as having already voted. When election days rolls around the number of people who go vote on election day has been reduced substantially, leaving them running those who vote on election through the data base as having voted, leaving them with a list of those who didn't go vote at all. This leave them with that frustrating list of individuals who just didn't know what was in their best interest to vote, and now they can "inclusively" vote for them. Now with an established guideline of how they are going to run their extensive inclusive voter fraud system, next up would be to increase the voter rolls in a seamless fashion as possible to allow the capture of as many legal voters as can be found. They accomplish this goal by putting hot topic issues on the ballot(s) that would drawn even the most staunch anti-vote advocates, like legalization of marijuana and a women's right to an abortion. The types of things that were left off of ballots as it wasn't in individuals best interest of allowing self determination moved them forward in allowing them to make the best determinations for them in the future.
It hasn't come without glitches in the system, signature matching and verification, people double voting in different states, so miraculously, unlike prior years, that which would ordinarily become an arguable position has now become an unarguable proposition, verification of the voter rolls by purging. Letters were sent out to people to verify their residency in the state if they hadn't voted in years, given so many months to reply back, if they didn't they were purged from the rolls as having either moved to another state or were deceased. Legal status to vote was questioned and asked for verification to vote legally leading to thousands of individuals being purged that weren't legally in the country. The vast majority had never voted in an election, and there wasn't any significant number of them that if they had, would have had an effect on a presidential outcome, maybe local elections, but on a federal level there was no proof of influence on a presidential election. That does lead to the curiosity how they managed to get on the rolls to begin with, in some instances, like shown above, maybe it goes back to the statement made by the petitioner above who said that some people don't understand before he cut himself off from finishing. Who really knows how they get there but there potential influence over local elections should be questioned and not seen as a no fault as many living in this country buy identifies of deceased individuals drivers licenses and social security numbers. That's a whole debate for another day and how illegal immigrants are used to label people conspiracy minded when it comes to voter fraud.
The heart of the matter is they used tactics to divide people, driven on individuals emotions to build an extensive inclusive legal registered voters base and tactics being used by Musk is part of fine tuning that system before an election. It's guaranteeing him those individuals currently reside in those states whether the intent is to vote for them if they don't vote, or even change up their votes, the individuals clamoring for forty seven dollars probably don't even care. The fact it's aimed at only registered voters in certain states reeks of some sort of attempt at election interference. It should be investigated. Same as with Robert Kennedy, he should be investigated for wanting to be removed from some ballots while remaining on other state ballots and asking those individuals to vote for him after he has done dropped out of the race. Why his campaign would even consider fighting to get on the New York state ballots is questionable also, the case should have been immediately asked for dismissal once he decided he wasn't going to stay in the running. It all reeks of election interference. There was a day in this country these types of things would have been immediately questioned and investigated. If all that wasn't bad enough, we have an ex-president in the running who advised people that by 2025 people won't even have to bother to vote anymore. The same man who says he will restrict mail in ballots if he is re-elected sending out flyers with his finger pointed at you advising you he needs you to vote early. The same individual sending out dozens of texts demanding to know if you are going to vote for him again. The same individual who has hired a squad of individuals to go out and hunt down two hundred to five hundred thousand people who have refused his request to acknowledge they will vote for him and find out what their status is concerning their support here in Michigan. The fact people aren't questioning these tactics, that these tactics aren't being investigated, all points to the final implementation of an intensive, inclusive voter fraud system, and chances are highly likely he is correct in advising individuals that this may be the last election you'll have to vote in again.
The Choice Is Between ‘Resistance’ and Peace
When anti-Zionists claim endless violence is necessary—every pro-Palestinian demonstration has embraced the concept of “resistance”—so-called supporters of the Palestinian cause sound a lot like the famous line from The Simpsons, “we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.”
Israel has peace agreements with plenty of Arab countries, including neighbors with whom it has fought several wars. Those wars, in fact, convinced the leaders of those states to finally agree to the offer of peaceful coexistence that Israel put on the table immediately upon its founding and never removed. Not only is “resistance” not justified, it’s unnecessary. Anyone fighting a war with Israel is doing so because they want to fight a war with Israel.
The fatalism about the Palestinian cause is, thus, completely unwarranted, and I reject it unreservedly.
The idea that it is difficult to make peace with Israel has been tested and disproved. Not only that, but this current war started because peace with Israel had such magnetic pull that war was required to stop it. Which is what Hamas did by invading Israel. Its fans around the globe are supporting that: the violent prevention of peace.
In fact, the choice is between resistance and peace. And it has been that way all along.
What was the deal under discussion that was so violently interrupted by Hamas’s pogromist rampage one year ago? Israel would be rewarded for facilitating the creation of a Palestinian state; Saudi Arabia would be rewarded for underwriting much of that state, and the United States would be rewarded for shepherding the deal across the finish line.
Saudi Arabia’s rewards would include long-sought security guarantees from America. Israel’s rewards would include recognition by Riyadh. In other words, for enabling Palestinian sovereignty, the U.S. would be a guarantor of peace. And that peace would also be America’s reward.
The deal, it’s worth noting, would be all reward for the Palestinians. It would take work, of course—Israel was a viable nation-state because the Zionist movement spent half a century building civic institutions, and the Palestinians would have to do the same—but we should stop indulging those who see effort as oppressive.
If this process sounds familiar, it should. This is the road map set down by the Abraham Accords.
Although it has become convenient for some parties in the conflict to forget, the Palestinians were the Abraham Accords’ first beneficiaries. “The truth is that the Abraham Accords were about preventing annexation,” explained United Arab Emirates ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba back in 2021. “The reason it happened, the way it happened, at the time it happened was to prevent annexation.”
Otaiba should know: It was he who penned the op-ed in an Israeli newspaper that set in motion the public moves that had only been talked about privately at that point. Fears that Israel would annex West Bank land motivated Otaiba’s country to do more than just talk about normalization with Israel. As more countries joined the Abraham Accords, it became clear just how easy it is to make peace with Israel.
That’s the model. It proved infinitely superior to the previous academic model of peacebuilding, which could be summed up as: Maybe the Jews will eventually just get tired and die.
Indeed, in the annals of peacemaking, it’s hard to describe just how much of an anomaly this is. Historically, has there ever been a more painless way to improve the relative security of one’s country than by saying “I admit the Jews exist”? You have to really not want peace with Israel to not have peace with Israel. It takes a staggering amount of effort and determination.
Last year, the Abraham Accords process was apparently so close to its goal that Iran and its militia that runs Gaza had to start a regional war. The many thousands stomping around U.S. cities and campuses with Hamas target triangles, with paraglider art, with “resistance is justified” signs believe that every death since Oct. 7 was worth it in order to prevent the existence of peace.
That was the choice on offer: peace with Israel and Palestinian statehood or death and destruction. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t hopeless unless you want it to be.
Lately, I’ve been learning a new vocabulary: radiation, infusions, chemotherapy, stem cell transplant.
Someone I love got a tough cancer diagnosis. There is nothing quite like bad news from a doctor that makes you think about how much time you have, and how you want to spend it.
Life is a fleeting gift. We should not waste a moment.
Sadly, in America, in so many ways, life is not valued. I’m not talking about the mindless hours squandered in front of a glowing television, computer, or phone screen. Most of us spend too much time in such useless pursuits. But that is a personal choice.
It is the government-sanctioned disregard for life that harms so many, and should trouble us all. Under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the U.S. has seen more abortions, political prisoners, and forgotten disaster victims.
Biden and Harris don’t value human life.
Abortion is just one example. While campaign commercials for Kamala Harris scream that states are banning abortion and that access to the deadly procedure is at risk without Harris at the helm, the US saw, in 2023, the most abortions in a decade: an estimated 1,037,000 in the formal health care system. It’s an 11 percent increase since 2020, the last year estimates were available, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion data.
That is enough babies to fill the University of Michigan’s “Big House” football stadium 10 times.
Abortion is big business, and politicians who pledge to keep the abortion racket thriving get huge campaign donations. They can afford it. The nonprofit Planned Parenthood Federation of America showed more than a half billion dollars in gross receipts in 2023. President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson earned nearly $584,000 that year, outpacing the $400,000 annual salary of the U.S. president. With so much money on the line, the idea of making abortion safe and rare is not the goal anymore. Killing the unborn is profitable, and it shows in the tone Harris uses when defending the grisly practice.
If Harris valued life, she would work to develop programs that reduce abortions. Instead, under the Biden/Harris administration pregnancy resource centers have come under attack, and abortions have soared to record numbers.
The Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) sentenced three pro-life activists in late September for praying, singing church hymns, and standing in the hallway of a now-shuttered abortion business in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, back in 2021. They were there to persuade women not to have an abortion and were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal crime to interfere with someone getting an abortion. The DOJ added a conspiracy charge, making the maximum possible sentence 11 years in prison.
These three had their sentencing delayed because they were charged in other, similar cases. They were part of a larger group that has already been sentenced.
Chester Gallagher of Tennessee was sentenced to 16 months in prison.
Heather Idoni was sentenced to eight months in prison, to be served concurrently with the 24-month sentence she is now serving for similar charges in Washington, D.C., and she will be sentenced for another case in Michigan.
Eva Edl, 89, was given three years of probation. As a child, Edl was taken by train cattle car as a prisoner to the Gakova (also spelled Gakowa) communist-run concentration camp in Yugoslavia, where she faced starvation. Today, she considers sitting in front of the doors of abortion businesses her way of sitting on the train tracks to stop children from dying.
After the Supreme Court’s June 2022 Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe. v. Wade, Biden issued an executive order directing his administration to address security risks at abortion businesses.
In July 2022, the DOJ announced it was forming the Reproductive Rights Task Force, with a goal of enforcement of the FACE Act. Since then, the DOJ has sent the FBI to the homes of pro-lifers, intimidated them, and thrown many in federal prison for years for FACE violations that happened before the crackdown.
These pro-lifers have spent much of their lives rescuing babies. Children are alive today because they convinced mothers to turn away from the abortion mill. They didn’t steal a car or stab someone — both serious crimes that have received less punishment. But their lives have been turned upside down by Biden’s policies.
The business of abortion gets more protection that a typical crime victim because Harris and Biden don’t value the lives of babies, the lives of the pro-lifers, or the lives of violent crime victims.
No matter how you feel about abortion, all Americans should be concerned when politicians use the force of the government to impose harsh prison sentences on gentle people, stealing years of their lives.
If Harris and Biden valued the lives of the people hurt by Hurricane Helene, they would have swiftly focused on hurricane relief. The administration would have communicated directly with the victims without prompting, they would have set up searches in the hardest hit areas, and they would have quickly moved food, water, shelter, and medical supplies to the affected areas.
They would try to negotiate an end to wars around the globe instead of perpetuating human misery with endless funding.
If they valued human lives, Harris and Biden would admit human trafficking, and all the suffering it causes, is intertwined with our open border, and make it stop. And they would develop dignified solutions to homeless encampments.
But none of this is second nature to leaders who don’t honor life.
Time is not on our side. Life is a fleeting gift.
Let us choose leaders who show up in hard times, seek policies that help people thrive in their lives, and work to bring peace to a groaning world.
Only Tyrants Fear Free Speech
John Kerry and the media want to control speech to control the people.
October 8, 2024 by Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage Magazine
“It’s really hard to govern today,” former Climate Czar John Kerry complained at the World Economic Forum. “The referees we used to have to determine what is a fact and what isn’t a fact have kind of been eviscerated, to a certain degree. And people go and self-select where they go for their news, for their information.”
And when it comes to a source that Kerry, the WEF and their political allies don’t like, “our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence”.
Four years ago, Obama offered a similar complaint that, “if we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.” Obama and Kerry’s definition of democracy is a system where everyone agrees on what’s true and what isn’t.
This regime of facts was very much on display when ABC News moderators crudely intervened in the last presidential debate to support their chosen candidate. CBS News was barred from having its moderators intervene directly in the debate and instead resorted to showing promos for its website where its activist reporters will ‘fact check’ the vice presidential candidates.
Having debates is a curious thing under a government of facts whose premise, as Kerry and Obama argued, is that there is nothing to debate. Candidates for public office can state their views only to have the public be told which of those views is correct and which is wrong.
And then it’s the moderators and the agenda they represent that is really running the country.
Obama argued that there can be no democracy where there are disputes, but it’s actually the other way around, where there are no disputes, there is no democracy. The greater the disputes, the greater the democracy. The fewer the disputes, the less democracy there is.
Democrats claim to want to uphold democracy. They chant about the power of the people. But if what they really want is to implement the popular view, why are they so terrified of it?
The problem, as Kerry and many others have already explained, is that they are not doing what the people want, but convincing the people to want whatever the government does. Their version of democracy requires harnessing the will of the people and then disregarding it where it differs from their will. There’s a name for that sort of thing and it isn’t democracy.
Democracies can be justified by the will of the people but tyrannies rely on some abstract virtue. In a secular society where religion is a diminishing force, Democrats claim that their tyranny is based on the absolute truth of their beliefs as proven by science, by experts and the facts. Both science and facts however arise from a trial and error process not authoritarian assertion.
What the Democrats offer isn’t democracy, nor is it science: it’s dogma propping up a tyranny.
Scientists and democracy proponents don’t fear dissenting ideas. Democrats and tyrants do.
Ever since Hillary lost the election, Kerry has been the latest in a long line of Democrats complaining about social media. “”The dislike of and anguish over social media is just growing and growing,” he moaned at the WEF because it undermines any governing consensus.
“The First Amendment doesn’t require private companies to provide a platform for any view that is out there. At the end of the day, we’re going to have to find a combination of government regulations and corporate practices that address this,” Obama had threatened.
A year later the Biden administration was regularly intimidating Facebook and Twitter into taking down speech, including jokes, that it found objectionable in the name of fighting misinformation.
California’s Gov. Newsom just signed bills into law cracking down on AI generated memes. Congressional Democrats are mulling new forms of action over what they call ‘deepfakes’. These serial tech panics invariably relate to speech and the empowerment of individuals to dissent from whatever artificial consensus has been imposed on the public by the authorities.
The common denominator is a fear of ideas. If speech is decentralized then it can’t be controlled. And if speech can’t be controlled then, as Kerry put it, governance is impossible.
The purpose of government then becomes to control speech by controlling technology.
Big Tech monopolies that centralize technology allow for direct integration with the state. Wealthy Democrat donors fund media outlets which act as official censors through their ‘fact-checking’ operations. Tech platforms are pressured by the government into censoring whatever the media objects to and paying the media for the privilege of its censorship.
Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and Mark Zuckerberg’s disinterest in continuing to prop up Facebook censorship have crippled the technological end of the public-private censorship regime which has infuriated not only Kerry but many other members of his political movement.
NBC News claims that “misinformation” about the election is “running rampant” on Facebook. Misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and other similarly constructed terms treat speech as a dangerous thing. Misinformation “spreads” like a virus, it “runs rampant” until it’s censored. Its existence threatens the governing consensus through which the regime rules the people.
The obsession with stamping out “misinformation” has so overridden the liberal DNA of free speech that the ACLU now fights ‘misinformation’ rather than upholding free speech and PEN America urges that it is “important to correct misleading or false information”. It’s important because by controlling information, their political allies and agenda control the people.
John Kerry has a point. It’s hard to govern when everyone is free to speak their mind. That’s why America was a bold experiment in freedom whose purpose was to be hard to govern. Americans being hard to govern is not, as Obama and Kerry think, a bug, but a feature.
Pundits have been complaining that America is ungovernable not just for the last twenty years, but the last two hundred years, and being ungovernable is what makes us a free people. In the haze of trigger warnings, warning labels, hate speech mandates and speech crackdowns, it becomes all too easy to forget that free speech is our natural birthright as Americans.
And the establishment wants us to trade that birthright for some fact checking pottage.
European powers were terrified of a country where anyone could say anything. And they still are. Because a country where people are free to say anything is also free to do anything.
America’s accomplishments would not have been possible without its freedoms.
The war on speech is always carried on in the name of some imaginary crisis, hate, social justice or climate change, that requires the government to override those freedoms. Kerry and Obama object to allowing people to debate whether the crisis is real because the crisis is the source of their totalitarian powers. And if they lose the debate then they lose their tyranny.