"Can download it wherever you get your podcast. Johnson & Johnson getting an upgrade to buy at UBS today J &J up for a fourth day advancing by 2 4 % again recapping stocks higher S &P up 26 up by six tenths of one percent 2000 today up by 3 % I'm Charlie Pellett and that slash. Hey Charlie thank you so much Carol Master along with Bailey Lipschultz in for Tim on this Friday we're talking with Mandy Long CEO and board member at Big Bear AI still with us on zoom in Chicago Mandy you were talking about just before we went and did some news about the importance of both the public and private worlds in terms of your business forward. going Talk to us a little bit more about that and I know you also made a recent acquisition tell us about that and how that kind of feeds into your business and fits into the business growth. Absolutely and I think I think the best way to break down the importance of the relationship between the public and private sector side outside of of what we do is that there's an incredible amount of collaboration that happens between both sides today and I think Big Bear in particular sits at an intersection point between the two of those right in the private sector side we support with a lot of the technology we have in not only in the autonomous system side of our business but also supply chains a lot of capabilities that then get delivered right into the federal government through those providers in addition to the work that we do in for example you you know healthcare right I spent 15 years in healthcare I was early days in machine learning and vision AI there we do a lot of work with hospitals and health systems supporting patient flow optimization right so if you have a patient that presents in the ED how do you make sure that you get them to the right place at the right time those patterns right and the ability to apply advanced technology to that means that both sides of our business are growing right and relevant because we're solving problems that cross the chasm both of sides and when we look forward to where we're headed the anticipated acquisition that we announced recently with Pangium bolsters our vision AI portfolio because you heard me talk you know a lot about Arcus right and the work that we do in horizontal imagery right and satellite Pangium has a remarkable portfolio that does advanced biometrics right facial you know iris -based work and it provides a really comprehensive solution that we can bring to our customers and Manny kind of balancing though the utilization of technology AI streamlining things helping you know work in healthcare and better treat people but on the flip side buying a facial recognition company how does that play into some of these security issues and getting customers and consumers kind of on board with that just given as you mentioned biometrics is something that's very hotly debated. It very much is right and I think it was it's an important strategic decision right and it was not made lightly right. At Big Bear we play a very big role and we use our voice very openly as it relates to talking about the safety and security of technology. AI We're very active right in the you know responsible innovation category, the input associated with how to do regulation at scale and so when we think about the use of biometrics I think one of the things that's really important to keep in mind right is that in many ways as a society we've crossed over a lot of the chasm associated with putting information out there because of the widespread use right and multi -year at scale use social of media. Now from a kind of where we sit on that spectrum and the role that we play right most of the capabilities that when we think about our vision portfolio today where we're very focused on is not in making autonomous decisions right it's in helping to distill and provide decision support for the ultimate customer. So you'd be working side by side with a human where it might come up always in terms of one of your systems saying hey here's what we've come up with but you need to look at it and kind of make some kind of decisions maybe off of it, correct? Because I think we get we get we get worried you know our David Weston we talked with who had talked with Henry Kissinger very concerned about AI in or wartime in war specifically and I think about the role that you know you guys are going to be you know that already you do work with the government I mean what are some of the oversights that we need to have though in place to make sure there isn't some kind of runaway technology and I'm not trying to be in sci -fi but these things could happen it's not an unfair question yeah and and I think it's you saw in the executive order that came out you know the top item is safety and security of AI technology and that is not for no reason one of the things that I think we have to keep in mind as a society as well is that we have already through the gates of a human being able to individually manage and provide oversight of this kind of technology at scale we're already an augmented PCs right I you know you I'm sure a phone right on you at all times or a computer at home I'm leveraging technology to help keep those guardrails in place is going to be what's important here because the traditional processes and paperwork is not going to get us there one one of the things that played out with open AI going too fast too soon I think back to

The Charlie Kirk Show

01:33 min | 3 weeks ago

A highlight from The RNC Teams Up with NBC with Mollie Hemingway and Alina Habba

"Dr. Peter McCullough says the most common question he's asked is how do I get this out of my body? Spike support formula is the only product that contains ingredients researched to block and dissolve spike protein in the bloodstream. So whether you got the shot, had a bad bout of COVID, or are worried about shedding, there is something you could do now to protect yourself. Head to twc .health slash kirk to buy the wellness company spike support formula and get back to feeling your best. Use promo code kirk at checkout for 10 % off your order. That is promo code kirk for 10 % off your order. Hey everybody, it's Anna Charlie Kirk show. Alina Habat joins us for a legal update regarding Donald Trump. Very important conversation. Molly Hemingway about breaking news on how the federal government colluded to smear and censor conservative speech and why is the RNC partnering with NBC News? Email us as always freedom at charliekirk .com. Subscribe to our podcast. Open up your podcast app and type in Charlie Kirk show. Get involved Turning Point USA at tpusa .com. That is tpusa .com. Buckle up everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created. Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here.

Alina Habat Donald Trump Molly Hemingway Peter Mccullough Charlie RNC 10 % Tpusa .Com. Nbc News White House Covid Charliekirk .Com. ONE Federal Government Charlie Kirk Turning Point Usa Turning .Health Slash Kirk Anna TWC

Unchained

00:09 min | 7 hrs ago

Fresh update on "federal government" discussed on Unchained

"All right, so in a moment, we're going to talk a little bit more about financial privacy. But first, a quick word from the sponsors who make this show possible. Have you ever wondered if you could experience complete freedom in your trading journey and achieve your dreams without compromising on reliability? You should, because FEMEX is dedicated to revolutionizing exchanges, bringing forth a new era of empowerment for traders. Join the Web 3.0 revolution today. Kickstart your earnings through their growth and enjoy tangible benefits through staking. Secure your stake in the future now. For more details, visit femex.com slash web three. Arbitrum stands at the forefront of innovation as the premier suite of layer two scaling solutions, bringing you lightning fast transactions at a fraction of the cost, all with security rooted on Ethereum. From DeFi to gaming, Arbitrum one plus Nova is home to over 500 projects. And with the recent launch of Orbit, Arbitrum welcomes you to build your very own tailor-made layer three or an orbit chain. Propel your project and community forward by visiting arbitrum.io today. Back to my conversation with Vivek. So we were just talking about the third party doctrine and you talked about this belief in the right to financial privacy. You know, as far as I understand, that's not a current right. So is that something that you would support as, you know, something you would institute? Yes. I mean, I think it's a basic what I laid out to be clear in my first wave of our crypto policy, which, by the way, I want to be clear on this, is a first step as part of a broader digital asset framework that I think the public deserves. The American people deserve and I expect to provide early next year. Here were the basic rules of the road, the principles, freedom to code, freedom to financial self-reliance and then freedom to innovate free from regulatory overreach. So those are basic principles. How that's codified, much of that involves just a proper enforcement of the existing laws as they exist. And then some of that may require specific legal added protections as well. So I'll get to the implementation is yet to come in terms of the specific modes of exactly which will take the form of regulatory rollbacks versus new laws being passed. But the general point is any regulation that was written by an administrative agency that Congress never gave that administrative agency the power to write, which impedes on somebody's ability to have a self-hosted wallet, is something that I will be and our administration will be deeply skeptical of. If you want to ban it, fine, go through the front door of Congress. That's democratically accountable. And the people of this country would have to support that by a majority margin, which I want to do it through the front door, go through the front door. But we can't allow that through the back door, through the regulators that were never empowered by Congress to do it. And have you thought about how that would impact the business models of financial services companies? Yeah, I have. I mean, I think there will be implications in a lot of different directions. Some of the larger financial services companies have lobbied for the sets of rules as they apply today, partly because they're threatened by new competitors. The age old trick you see in big pharma, you see it in big tech, you see it amongst big financial institutions as well, use the government as a moat, as a barrier to entry for somebody who threatens your existing business model. That doesn't mean that those are necessarily good rules. In fact, often it means that they're not good rules, but they're still part of how we got to the status quo of where we are. And I think that there's no accident. Even if you go to the start of Bitcoin and the advent of cryptocurrency, it was in the wake of the shameful, what I view as ignominious 2008 financial crisis bailouts. And so just because you have an existing rule, it's a product of lobbying doesn't mean that that's necessarily a good rule. But broadly, I think the sector wide impact would be one of unleashing innovation, one of applying the basic rules of the road as they stand today. If you're lying and stealing and you're committing fraud, you're liable for doing that with a digital asset as you are with an ordinary asset. Yes, but it's not the fact of it being a digital asset. That was the actual wrong act. It was the fraud underlying it. Yeah, one point for people, you know, maybe challenge people to to pay attention to an obvious fact, it's not like the existing regime has been particularly effective at preventing large scale fraud of the kind that we saw at FTX or otherwise. And so, again, I reject this idea that taking a more pro innovation approach is automatically somehow going to increase the risk of legal violations or increase the risk of fraud. That's, I think, a false dualism. I think that the reality is the status quo is failing on both counts. It's creating regulatory uncertainty. You have regulators that aren't writing clear rules, but are determining what the rules are after the fact by enforcing them a paradigm of regulation by enforcement that I reject. While at the same time, the real fraudsters are playing within the confines of those so-called rules on the face of it to actually defraud people of their assets. So I think you lose on both sides of the trade versus the clarity that I'm looking to bring to bear. Yeah, so let's talk about that, because this has been an issue for years now in the U.S. where a lot of the entrepreneurs feel like they don't have regulatory clarity. And I've heard you talk about a 2022 Supreme Court case, West Virginia versus EPA. And when you say that, you say that, you know, your conclusion is that the regulations that are currently being used to classify cryptocurrencies as securities or commodities are unconstitutional. And I wonder, you know, if that is the inference, then how do you believe the agency should regulate crypto? Do you think there should be a single regulator assigned to crypto or should we continue to have this same policy where, you know, every agency regulates some portion of crypto activity? So I think the current status quo is in some ways the worst of all worlds. It's ambiguity for everybody. It doesn't effectively stop the bad actors from doing what they're going to do. And it doesn't follow the existing constitutional principles codified in West Virginia versus EPA. And for people who are, you know, wondering about that case, you don't have to be free to read it. It's one of the most important cases of our lifetime. But basically, the gist is the EPA applied certain regulators to coal miners that Congress never gave the EPA the power to actually implement. And the Supreme Court felt that if Congress never actually passed those laws through the front door, then they were unconstitutional when the regulator wrote them through the back door. If those regulations at issue in that case are unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court last year held that they are, that means that literally a majority of federal regulations, not specific to the SEC, it goes for the FDA and otherwise, a majority of current regulations are also unconstitutional. As the next president, I swear an oath to the Constitution and I intend to keep it. We will not enforce day one. We'll have executive action that says stand down from enforcing any regulation that fails to test in West Virginia versus EPA and will immediately rescind those regulations as well. It so happens many of those regulations are the ones being used, I think, to back door regulate crypto. Now, let's get practical. I'd say the CFTC and the SEC need some process, whatever it is, to determine clarity of something, counting as a security or not. I think it is entirely and wholly unacceptable to live in a country where you have the person who leads the SEC unable to answer with clarity to Congress whether or not Ethereum widely used cryptocurrency is or is not a security. Right. If that's not widely used, that many people affected by it. If there's one person you might expect that it's the chief commissioner of the SEC that's able to say whether or not Ethereum itself is a security governed by the laws enforced by that agency. If he can't do it, it's not his fault personally. It just shows how broken the current regime really is, that if it's not even clear to the ultimate head of that regulatory body, how could it be clear to entrepreneurs across this country? And so whatever the right answer is, I'd say the wrong answer is the purposeful ambiguity that we have today. And I'm a bit of a cynic. When it comes to the government, you have purposeful ambiguity. Often it's a combination of innocent mistake versus the fact that history teaches us that ambiguity is the friend of the tyrant. That's what regulation by enforcement is all about. You enforce the law. And then only after somebody is left in the hot pot to hold in the hot potato, the game of musical chairs, the last person left standing. Now, you know what the regulations are. That's not this country. You don't pick the person and then figure out the law afterwards that they violated. You have a clear set of laws where a nation of law is not of men. That's the United States of America. So I have my views on this, but I would say whatever my I can go to my views, but less important than that is at least we need clarity where the government and all parts of the government from the CFTC to the SEC is clear about whether a particular digital asset is or is not a security that much. I think the entrepreneurs of this country deserve and I think the regulators of this country deserve as well. And so I think the role that the president could play here is that they would be selecting the heads of these agencies. So what qualities or policy views would you look for or like what would the process look like to choose them? Or do you already have people in mind that you would nominate to be the chair of the SEC or the CFTC? So we're working on this across the federal government. And I want to be clear again, I know you're reaching more of a crypto focused audience. For me, my crypto policy is an outgrowth. And yeah, I think this is hopefully how you can know that I mean it right. It's not specific. I happen to like crypto currencies as a broad part of American future. I probably I think of the only presidential candidate who's owned Bitcoin prior to running for president, at least per the presidential disclosure forms. But that's not what guides my policy. This is part of an outgrowth of reshaping the administrative state across the board. Three letter agencies that have nothing to do with crypto. So as part of that, yes, we're working on a broad staffing plan for the federal government. We're thinking and working in what we call triads. Right. So each of the federal bureaucracies, we're going to have teams of three people near the top who are focused, one of whom is going to be a domain expert in that area, likely with experience in that agency, one of whom is going to be a purposeful outsider, generally somebody who's been a business builder or an outsider, understanding how to cut through that bureaucracy. And then the third person who's bringing a constitutional perspective to say who is actually applying the principles of West Virginia versus EPA or otherwise to understand whether this agency is really following the rules of the road or not. And so those are the skill sets. We're going to have almost three of those people per major agency that we're bringing in. We're working on staffing that. And then the person who's in charge is going to be able to say the chief commissioner or the head or cabinet level appointment is going to work with those people across the board in some cases to shut down that government agency, in other cases, to downsize the staff by 75 percent or more, in other cases, working with the staff to figure out which of those existing regulations fail the Supreme Court's test for what a constitutional regulation actually is. And so we're working with a number of leaders from public and private sector backgrounds alike to put together that bench. One of the learnings from the last administration, or at least Donald Trump and his leadership, was he came in with a lot of the right ideas. But that staffing cannot start only once you've been elected. We need a running start getting in. And I think that's what I'm going to bring to bear, because I think we've got about 18 months to get this right. And then after that, unless you've succeeded in those first 18 months, you're a sitting lame duck after that. I refuse to be in that position and we want to get that running start out of the gate. You've also said that you would consider ordering the Federal Reserve to grant stablecoin issuers the same access to Fed facilities that incumbent banks enjoy. As far as I understand, the central bank is independent of the executive branch. So how would you put that into action? Well, look, I think that that goes to the one of the very first points that you raised, right? The idea that that central bank somehow is independent, that it's not accountable to the three branches of government, rejects that premise that there are three co-equal branches of government. I like the very first question you asked. Aren't the administrative agencies part of the executive branch? That's what our founding fathers would say. That's what I would say. It's not how the status quo operates, but that doesn't mean the status quo is correct. So I do get an appointment power of a new chairman of the Federal Reserve in January 2026. I intend to use it to put somebody in that role who understands that there's one executive branch of government, not tens or hundreds. And do you have somebody in mind? We have a few candidates in mind. Want to name some names? You know, I would say, you know, one that I would name who I think is an example of the kind of person I don't think Rand Paul or Ron Paul, you know, version of a Ron Paul. And he's such an advanced stage of his career and I respect him. And if I'm as sharp at his age as he is right now, I want to learn from him the tricks of how he got there. But maybe the version of Ron Paul that ran for president, you know, a decade and a half ago would be the kind of person who I think would be an appropriate chairman of the Federal Reserve, because part of the job is going to involve a 90 percent headcount reduction at the U.S. Fed. Part of the problem is when you have a bunch of people showing up to work who should have never had that job in the first place, they start finding things to do that are outside their mandate. What I want to do is put the Fed in its place with one single mandate, stabilize the dollar as a unit of measurement, peg it to commodities. That's how we tie the hands of the government. That was exactly my next question. You know, as you said, you had this plan to stabilize the dollar as a unit of measurement measured against this basket of commodities. So what would that look like? Which commodities would you include? Are you thinking of including things like Bitcoin or even ether? So I think that that's a second order discussion and I'm open to having it. We haven't nailed in exactly what our basket is, but we're looking at gold, silver, nickel. We could look at agricultural and farm commodities over time after it's been, I would say, broadly accepted. The volatility of Bitcoin is no less than the combined basket of those commodities. I think it could be reasonable to include Bitcoin in that list as well. But again, the way I'm coming at this is, again, it's not from within crypto. And then how do we use that to advance an agenda through the presidency? I mean, the reality is I'm just wearing an oath to the Constitution and I'm telling you what I actually believe. I happen to believe I'm the most pro Bitcoin and broadly pro crypto president that probably will and maybe for the foreseeable future will ever run. But it's not because I'm in here to be a single issue advocate for crypto's inclusion. In fact, I'm looking at what's my job as the US president, stabilize the dollar. I'm against the volatility of the dollar that we've seen. I'm against the government having widespread authority to print money the way that we have. And so I think that whatever reduces that volatility, stabilizing the value of the dollar against actual hard commodities, which would be what I would use, take something like Bitcoin, put other cryptocurrencies to one side, but something like Bitcoin that has a fixed supply, that has an inherent defined value. I think that that is higher on the list to be included as a candidate in the foreseeable future. But for me, the basic point is stabilize the dollar as a unit of measurement. Think about it as returning to the gold standard, but with an expanded set that even gold is really just a form of paper. I don't want to be tethered to one, but to a basket of commodities that anchor the value of the dollar and tie the government's hands from being able to just print its way out of whatever political convenience presents itself. It seems that there's a kind of geopolitical battle with China in which they're trying to use the digital yuan as a way to undermine the US dollar as the global reserve currency. And I wondered if you would either try to use crypto or blockchain technology in any way to combat that. And if so, how? Well, I think the first order question is you got to be careful not to fall in the trap of this siren song that just because China is doing it, we need to do it. Ask yourself why China is doing it, I'm against a central bank digital currency, because part of what China wants to do is what you saw with the Canadian truckers last year. You've seen in China after the white sheet revolution in China, after the covid lockdown policies over there, they want to be able to wipe your bank account clean if necessary, wipe your accounts clean. If you say or do something that the government does not approve of, I think that's frightening. The weaponization of the financial system is almost every bit as bad as the weaponization of a justice system against political dissent. And so this argument that somehow that's going to keep the dollar stronger versus the yuan if we do the same thing, I think is backwards. I think the dollar actually becomes more desirable as a reserve currency of the world. If the US is not able to, on a whim, decide that the holder of a dollar, because they engage in some type of government disapproved behavior, is at risk of having the value of that dollar wiped out. So I'm dead set against the use of a central bank digital currency out of the gate. I'd put an end to the Fed now program, which is the early stages, I believe, of laying the groundwork for the future of a central bank digital currency. And that's the first step out of the gate for me. Now, if you're looking at technical alternatives to the current wire transfer system or otherwise, look, it's a clunky system and we can look at easier ways of being able to wire transfer your money than the broken system that we all know and don't love. But that's a separate technical question that shouldn't be conflated with this other, I think, approach that we've created to pave the path to a central bank digital currency. And I'm against the CBDC in the US and this idea that China is doing it and the yuan is going to be ahead. And we need to keep up with the Joneses or, as the case may be, keep up with the Xin Pings. I reject that. To the contrary, I think that taking the opposite approach would be a better way of preserving the dollar's status as the reserve currency of the world. All right. And I'm going to use my last maybe 30 seconds or so to just ask, you know, your policy points, support rights around, you know, developers and, you know, financial freedom. But I wondered if there was any particular application of blockchain technology that you think the US could best use to support its technological preeminence, sort of a lightning round question. Yeah, I think there I mean, it's really boundless. I do think that drug discovery is one of the areas where it's probably underutilized to be able to decentralize innovation in the way that we're developing new drugs. And it's a longer conversation I've even had at my prior company that I founded, although it was towards the tailing end before I ended up moving on in my career to the kinds of pursuits I'm pursuing now. But I do think advent and advances in innovative areas that improve people's lives outside of politics, decentralizing the innovation in every one of those areas is broadly the category I would give you. And so I'm not going to pick one sector from energy to drug discovery. I put broadly the innovative categories where it's better done in a decentralized way rather than by centralized bureaucracies in the private sector, which exist today from industry incumbents. That's broadly what I would say. But that's more of a 20-plus year discussion ahead of us, not the next 20 months that I'm focused on today. All right, well, thank you so much. Where can people learn more about you and your platform? Yeah, sure. Go to vivek2024.com, vivek2024.com. If people prefer to understand a little bit more of the message, you could also go to knowtoneocons.com. And I think that gives you a sense for what my domestic and foreign policy vision is. I'll just say one thing in closing as well.

The Financial Guys

06:10 min | 3 weeks ago

A highlight from The Decline of Critical Thinking in Education

"All of this just screams that there's a void of leadership, right? There's a void of leadership in our federal government. So things happening across this country and across the world, when America used to be the strongest leader in the world, and the things happening now are because of the void of leadership under this Biden presidency, the void of leadership in states like New York and California and Illinois, cries for defunding the police. That's what has led to all of this. Welcome to another Financial Guys podcast. I'm Mike Hayflick, along with my partner, Mike Speraza. Mike, it is Election Day. We've been waiting and waiting and waiting. And here it is, November 7th. I will say it's a big day, especially here in Erie County. I do want to say, Mike, kudos to you. We used to have some really good bloopers on intros coming into the podcast, and we haven't had one in a while. You've been on your game for like two years straight. We first started this. We would used to do a couple of reboots, you and I. But we've had a good run with the start of the podcast. Old pros, right? We are old pros now. We should pull some of those out. Those are actually fun. Maybe we'll do that. We'll do a little blooper reel of a podcast someday. There's probably some with Mike and Glenn, too. I'm there's sure often some fun stuff happening before we actually record or during recordings. But, yeah. So, Mike, I want to definitely spend some time today on the importance of voting and how people will vote here in Erie County. I mean, one of the things I'd say about that and I'll pick up more on that later. Everyone always wonders, what can I do? I'm only one person. Nothing. You know, I can't make a difference. You know, you hear all the excuses. And honestly, I just give so much credit to like Mike and Glenn. Mike is sending out texts saying, tell your mother, your father, your brothers, your sisters, your aunts, your uncles, your nephews, your nieces, your cousins. Tell them to get out and vote. Like, we have to spread the word. We can't all believe that we can't make a difference because we can. We'll talk a little bit more about that shortly. But, Mike, first, war rages on in Gaza and calls for a ceasefire persist from the left. They just can't acknowledge that these bad guys, these terrorists, these savages all in Hamas have to be eradicated. Yeah. I mean, this is this is a pretty wild revelation for me, to be honest. We've talked about this on this show and our morning show a few times now. But I really I'm kind of at a loss. Right. I mean, you've said it. You know, if Pearl Harbor went and happened right, if America just said, oops, they didn't mean it, you know, what are we supposed to do? You know, if 9 -11 happened in America and said, oh, no big deal. I mean, that's that's what this sounds like. And this idea of ceasefire, Glenn said it when he came on the radio show Saturday, Mike, before you were on the show. He said he goes, people don't realize Hamas has been shooting bombs into Israel for like last three decades. You don't hear AOC talking about that. You don't hear Talib talking about that. There wasn't a call for ceasefire when they were doing that. Right. And that's the part that that to me is is pretty sickening. Like, again, I'm not saying I want America involved in the war. Let me just stress that. I'm not saying put our troops on the ground. I'm saying Israel has every right to do what they feel is right to get Hamas out of their neighboring countries, to get the Lebanese forces that are terrorists out of their neighboring countries. Like, I have no problem with that. I would do this if Canada was this way and we knew there were known terrorist cells in Canada shooting rockets at America. We wouldn't put up with that for 10 seconds, Mike, not one bomb, not one bomb. And we put up with that for no. And there's an Israeli defense system called the Iron Dome. Now, if anyone's listening or listens sometime after today, Tuesday, November 7th, we have never proclaimed to be Middle Eastern experts. OK, I will never proclaim to be that I don't want to be a Middle Eastern expert, but I'll tell you what, if I'm living 10 miles away from some group who just randomly will shoot missiles to try to destroy the group that I'm part of and me, I think we have a right to say those people have to be eradicated. We've got to get rid of them. I mean, I don't I don't know how people can be so dismissive and be so ignorant of that fact. And Mike, look at evil happens. It's happened for millions of years. Right. We can even go back just to 100. We had an Adolf Hitler, right? There were innocent Germans that died in World War Two because of the evilness of, you know, Adolf Hitler. Benito Mussolini, same war, right, was an evil dictator in Italy. Right. Innocent Italians died. I'm an Italian. Innocent Italians died because of the evil of their leader. This and it's terrible. And I hope that no, you know, innocent Palestinian or innocent Israeli dies, just like I hoped that no innocent Russian or innocent Ukrainian would die. But this is what happens when evil happens. There are innocent bystanders to that. That doesn't mean, though, that you can just say, well, we can't let anything happen. So we're just going to let these Hamas terrorists kill our innocent people like it just doesn't work like that. No. And here here are Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini says that he expressed strong regret over the crimes of the Zionist regime. So this is still the stuff you hear from Iran's leader going to talk to Hamas's leaders, going to talk to Hezbollah. I mean, they believe they have every right to eradicate the Jews from this earth. And they are justified in doing what they did on October 7th, one month ago. They have they have no regard for that as as being evil. They think it's completely justified because Jews should not exist. The Israeli state should not exist.

Mike Speraza Mike Hayflick Benito Mussolini October 7Th Mike Adolf Hitler Erie County November 7Th Glenn 10 Miles Italy 10 Seconds Two Years World War Two AOC Gaza New York Hezbollah Illinois California

Unchained

00:03 min | 8 hrs ago

Fresh update on "federal government" discussed on Unchained

"We'll read the law a little more carefully. Those civil service protections do not apply to mass layoffs, mass firings. Mass firings are actually what I'm bringing to the D.C. bureaucracy. So other presidents will come in and say, hey, I want to go after individual bad actors who are corrupt or behaving in a politicized way. Well, yeah, the civil service rules, unfortunately, stop a president from being able to carry out those individual firings as a as a CEO in the private sector would still be free to do. But the way the law works today is still the U.S. president can execute mass firings that are totally indiscriminate. And that way there's no claim of political retaliation or a civil rights violation. That's why my plans are, as I would say, unusual in the approach to firings from relative to prior presidents is I don't believe in the use of a chisel initially. A, I don't think it's going to be successful operationally. B, I don't think that that's what the law would really permit a president to do. But if you're bringing a chainsaw, you know, give you a thought experiment. If you take on day one, say you want to come into the federal government on day one and say anybody whose Social Security number ends with an odd number, you're out even number you're in on day two, you're going to have half the size of that federal bureaucracy. Yet it was totally in compliance with the civil service laws because no one can claim political retaliation or racial or gender discriminatory violation. That's the kind of change it's going to take to wrap our arms around this administrative state. Anybody who thinks they can come in and incrementally reform this, cut off one head of an eight headed monster, it's going to grow right back. You have to be able to gut the thing at its core and at its center. That's going to take someone coming from the outside and I think someone from the next generation, which is why I'm in this. You know, I've heard you say that that would be one way to do it, about the odd number social security. Yeah, but I'm sure like you probably have some kind of principle around which you would actually suit. And I know this is a crypto podcast, but I'm just so curious that I have to ask. So one of the things we're working on is larger scale tests of people's understanding of what does it mean to actually be swearing an oath to a constitution? What's your level of understanding of that constitution? What is the last 10 years of reporting for duty? What your work requirements have been, what your performance has been on the job, but do it in a large scale, blinded manner, that it still stays in compliance with those civil service rules, but at the same time gives you the ability to execute quick and rapid large scale mass firings. That's what's in compliance with the law. That's also what's required to drive change quickly. You don't get a lot of time as a president. And I think if you don't make those changes quickly, if you strike that swamp, the swamp strikes back. And I think that that's one of the lessons from the past. I don't want to make those same mistakes in my predecessors. And so those are some of the principles that we'll use. But I laid out some thought experiments for how we would do it, I guess. So I maybe I didn't understand in terms of the principles. It would be something, quote unquote, random like that. Is that what you're saying? It would have to be without individual discretion of individuals evaluating individual by individual, because then you're mired in litigation for years about political retaliation or otherwise. And so it has to be something that's blind to the individual. But ideally, I'd like to bake in competence, understanding of the Constitution, understanding of large scale, blinded performance over the course of the last 10 years. But without making individual judgments, doing it en masse, that's what it's going to take to get the job done. OK, so now let's discuss your three point crypto policy. We'll talk about the first point, which supports the freedom to code as a reflection of freedom of speech. And when I've heard you discuss this, you've said that, for example, there could be parallel systems of law, there would be the existing legal system and then also areas where, quote, code is law, you know, as people say in crypto. And I wanted to pose to you a hypothetical. Let's say a developer codes something up. And as you say, you know, users who use that would then opt into that legal system set up by that code. And if the developer has actually coded in something that causes that blockchain or that smart contract to do something different than what people expected or different than what was promised, and let's say somebody was able to steal a large portion of the money or, you know, something like that, then would that code is law system still apply? And would people just sort of be out of luck if they didn't catch the vulnerability beforehand? Or how would you handle that? Yeah, so I want to be very clear what I've talked about when I say code is law. That's the original promising vision of the future of Bitcoin that it had on promise. And many cryptocurrencies, I would say broadly, that was the vision. Now, that's a theoretical idea. How does it apply in the context of the United States today? Well, look, I think that the key element of what you gave in the hypothetical was telling people one thing and then doing another. You can't tell people you're going to do one thing and then factually do another. OK, that's fraud, lying to somebody, selling them something that wasn't the very thing that you promised them. That's old school fraud. So bringing that to the real world. And what if it was accidental? What if the developer did this accidentally? They didn't realize that the code didn't do what they intended. Well, you're going to have to get to the very specific facts here about what exactly was the rules of the road of what the user signed up to in the first place. So in the general case, if you're going to tell someone you're going to do something, it doesn't work that way. And then somebody loses assets as a consequence, they have a cause of action. But if something was done that's internal to the rules of the road and you're signing up to that as an individual saying going in eyes wide open, here are all of the risks, here are all of the rewards and opportunities and I'm signing up to that, then, yes, you bear both the risks and the opportunities of making that trade off. So I think it requires going into the details a little bit. Right. Depends on what is accident versus what you actually told the person. But my general principle is if you told somebody something false and somebody loses their assets as a consequence because you gave them something else, that's old school fraud, no longer than this bottle of water. I'm told that it's water, but it actually contains cyanide. And then I'm poisoned as a result. Yeah, I get to sue the person who bottled this bottle of water. It's no different for a real asset as for a digital asset. But what I'm against in the first prong of my cryptocurrency policy is freedom to code. What that means is you can't just make that code itself the law breaking act. That's part of what you see in the tornado cash situation, right, is I think this idea that there's theft, but that's separate from penalizing the code itself. So that's where I see a violation of our core principles that we need to respect. You can't outlaw a particular mode of expression, a particular kind of code. That alone is not a legal violation. The legal violation is the theft of property when you're telling someone one thing and you're taking another. That's a violation for a digital asset as it is for an ordinary asset. And that's what I mean by the first prong, the freedom to code. Code is a form of speech and you can't outlaw that form of speech any more than you can outlaw another. But if you tell somebody that they're actually getting one thing and in fact, they get another, that's not a form of protected speech. That's a form of fraud. And then what if we combine two of these scenarios? Let's say some developers coded something up. They accidentally coded it in a way that wasn't as you know, it didn't work as they promised. And then that allowed somebody else to steal the money from the users. Then you're going to have to, again, get into the specifics of who's liable, in which case, but if the if the provider of code, if the provider of a piece of code or a blockchain or whatever is telling a user that they get one thing, but that user gets another, then that provider, the person who lied about it or who made an inaccurate promise is the one who's liable. And you use the person who, quote unquote, stole the money. So, OK, it depends on exactly, but it depends on what those rules of the road are. So it all comes down to the specifics. Right. If part of the internal rules of the road is the way the code works is it's a zero sum dog eat dog world. And you know that you're signing up to, but that's clearly laid out to everybody else up front. Yes, I'm a firm libertarian on that. You sign up to one set of rules of the road. Everybody knows what they're getting into. And there's not somebody who's a bad actor by playing internal to that set of rules. But if you have the actual provider saying that you're getting one thing on an exchange or otherwise, when in fact you are getting another, then the person who made you that promise is the one who's liable to you in the court of law. OK, OK, these are super and I love this thought experience. It's fun for me, too, actually. But it would be even better if we got into if we got into specific examples like those are the principles, though. Yeah. So so actually and I'll just state this briefly. The reason I'm asking is this is what happened with the Dow where and I know I think somebody for your own podcast asked you about this. And the reason I'm asking is this was a big part of my book. But basically, yes, the way the developers coded it up, that's not how it actually worked. That allowed somebody else to steal a bunch of the money. And I heard you kind of I think it was, you know, you felt in that case that CODOS law and the fact that the Ethereum blockchain made a change in order to make users whole. You felt that that was wrong. So in a way, your your statements sort of line up with what you said at that time. Yes, exactly. I mean, that's a specific example of it. But in the broader principle, the person who promises the rules of the road and makes the promise to the users needs to keep that promise. And if they fail, they're the ones liable for breaking that promise. But you can't change the rules after the fact when an existing user has assumed that when engaging in a contract of any kind, smart contract or otherwise. All right. So now let's talk about the second policy point you support, which is the freedom to financial self-reliance and that alliance with supporting self-hosted digital wallets. And I wanted to ask about the fact that in the past few years, crypto activity in DeFi or decentralized finance has allowed North Korea to obtain two billion dollars worth of crypto and they might be using that to fund their nuclear capability. And I wondered, you know, in terms of your policy of not limiting self-hosted wallets, how would you support that while at the same time trying to prevent bad actors from using crypto to elicit ends? Go after the bad actors, don't go after the crypto. I mean, it's really been the case for as long as money has existed that it has been laundered and used for bad and ill purposes. You think North Korea or other bad actors from Iran to other nations haven't been funding terrorists and other activities long before the advent of crypto? Of course they have. Right. And so we didn't outlaw money in that case. We didn't outlaw the people's right to hold money or to be able to transact from paper dollars to wire transfers. And so I think it's yet another example of laziness on behalf of the government. I think it's lazy to go after the means of transmission as opposed to going after the bad actor who's doing the transmitting. And I think that that laziness in some ways will stop us from still getting to the essence of what we need to be focused on, which is the nature of those bad actors in the first place. It's like a water balloon. You squeeze it in one place. It's going to go to a different place. You try to squeeze that place. It's going to go somewhere else. And so we view it that way. I think that's not the crypto exchange. That's the problem. It's not even the money. That's the problem. You can always blame the intermediary. It's the fact that you have an ill-intentioned bad actor that's hostile to the United States. Own up to that reality and then go after the root cause rather than the modes of transmission. That's what I would say. And so just from what you described, it almost sounds like going after them after they've obtained the money.

podcast – Lawyers, Guns & Money

04:05 min | Last month

A highlight from LGM Podcast: Citizens of a Stolen Land

"In the course of an entire graduate training, I was introduced to maybe two or three books in Native American history, and I studied the 19th century United States. That's stunning. This is the Lawyers, Guns, and Money podcast. Hello, and welcome to the Lawyers, Guns, and Money podcast. This is Eric Loomis, and today we're very, happy to have Stephen Kantrovitz with us. He is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, and he's the author of three main books, all of which I think are fantastic, and which all of you should read, that have kind of defined a pretty lengthy career now in mid to late 19th century American history. The first was Ben Tillman and the Reconstruction of White Supremacy that came out in 2000, and if you thought Ben Tillman was a terrible person before, you will find out even more about that. And then there was More Than Freedom, Fighting for Black Citizenship in a White Republic, 1829 to 1899, which I just really love. But we're talking about his latest book, which came out earlier this year, Citizens of Stolen Land, a Ho -Chunk History of the 19th Century United States. It's published by the University of North Carolina Press, and I very strongly encourage all of you to buy it. Steve, thanks for joining us today. It's great to be here. Would you talk about the book, give our readers kind of an overview of how you came to this topic, and what you, in a minute or two, would like a reader to take from this? Sure. This book concerns the struggles of the Ho -Chunk people, whose homeland encompasses a lot of what's today Wisconsin and a lot more, and their encounter with the United States, its settlers, its government, its armies, mainly in the mid -19th century. And it's a story, in some ways, a familiar story of conflict and dispossession and exile and banishment. But it's also a story of persistence, endurance, return, and their continued residence on their ancestral homeland, despite the fact that they had no treaty claim or other claim to that land after 1837. So it's a pretty remarkable story of a people's determination to remain in a place. It's also a story about the implications of that history for the way we think about and understand American citizenship. So it's kind of a through -the -looking -glass story for people who are not well versed in Native American history, but who think they know something about American citizenship, because Native citizenship, as imagined by the federal government, is primarily a means of detribalization and land -taking. But in this instance, the Ho -Chunk are able to leverage a combination of their own desire to remain in Wisconsin, their ability to understand the incoherence at the core of the federal project of civilization, and the very hazy language around their status under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and put those things together and completely thwart the final act of the federal government in the 1870s in its final attempt to remove them from Wisconsin and banish them to Nebraska. So it's a story that kind of upends a conventional narrative of citizenship, especially for readers who think they understand the Civil War era history of that pretty well.

Steve Eric Loomis Stephen Kantrovitz 2000 TWO Nebraska Mid -19Th Century University Of North Carolina P 19Th Century United States Three Main Books Citizens Of Stolen Land 1899 First 1829 1870S Wisconsin More Than Freedom University Of Wisconsin Citizenship Clause Of The Four

Telecom Reseller

23:13 min | Last month

A highlight from New opportunities in the federal space for voice communication modernization, Ribbon Podcast

"This is Doug Green, and I'm the publisher of TR Publications, and I'm very pleased to have with us today Dave Hogan, who's the Vice President for Enterprise and Government at Ribbon Communications. Dave, thank you for joining me today. Doug, thanks for having me, as usual. Great to be here. Well, I'm very pleased to have you, and I also thank you for being a reader and a long -time reader at that, so a double thank you for your presence and taking time out to talk to us. So, you know, Dave, we're going to be talking about some really important issues today, but before we dive into our topics today, can you just tell us a little bit of an update on Ribbon? Yeah, you know, Ribbon Communications Company has been around for many, many years. Most people know us by a lot of different brands that we've either acquired or merged with over several years, so Nortel Networks, General Bandwidth, which became Genband, Sonus Networks, Edgewater Networks, ANOVA Data, and then most recently, three years ago, we acquired an IP and optical company by the name of ECI out of Tel Aviv, Israel. So our business really is focused on, you know, communications infrastructure across voice data and wireless networks, so we work with service providers, wireless providers, large enterprises, government sectors across the globe in order to provide communications infrastructure solutions. So you know, we're looking at 2024, we're already starting to look about future and modernization, so let's start off with, can you tell me a little bit more about the opportunity you see in the federal space for voice communication modernization? Sure, you know, the US government as well as many governments globally, right, you know, they operate in a, you know, a very functional environment in terms of technology, right? I like to think of the lead model, right, how enterprises operate, you know, you have a strategy, you design it, you build it, you run it, you operate it, and then you get to the next technology. Most companies, you know, at an enterprise level, they operate in a period of five to ten years in terms of the lifespan of that technology. Federal governments can be very different in terms of, you know, the lifespan of that technology, so we're currently working with many, many organizations within the federal government as they're looking to upgrade their voice networks, they're having to upgrade the which applications could be unified communications, contact centers, auto attendants, ACDs across, you know, across many, many sectors of the federal government. So as you see Microsoft Teams, you know, at the forefront of user adoption, there's still continued requirement for connectivity between internal users within an organization as well as external citizens, users, third party organizations that are still connected in a TDM infrastructure environment that need to connect, whether it's, you know, voice at a local level or long distance level, could be a variety of applications for communications engagement there. What we see is the ability to uplift and modernize that technology by integrating ribbon applications and solutions, whether it's a gateway for, you know, IP to TDM technology, it could be an SBC for session border controller functionality, or our application server, which is aligned or interconnected with Microsoft Teams to ensure communication still happens, you know, in a real time basis across an agency's network. So as we know, the White House has been heavily funding federal IT modernization via the Technology Modernization Fund, in which investments are dedicated to building and improving digital services at federal agencies. So what are some of the driving forces behind the push to modernize the federal network infrastructure? I think a lot of it, Doug, just has to do with the end user experience. You know, as humans, we've all become more adaptive to the use of applications, to the use of mobile devices, to handsets, to iPads. And as we continue to adopt and use more and more of that technology, agencies within the federal government to meet the needs of their customer, which essentially is citizens and businesses of the United States. So if you have an organization like the Internal Revenue Service, they need to have a modern solution for communications between the businesses and the citizens of the United States who are asking questions about tax returns, filing tax returns, looking to get a specific code in order to file that return. They have a fraudulent event. They need assistance there. Having real time communications becomes very valuable to the experience of someone working with the IRS, as an example. I think the VA and the hospitals are another great example where you have veterans that are in need of modern critical patient care, whether that's a Vietnam veteran who needs a hip replacement to an Iraqi veteran who may be going through PTSD and has some particular crises that they need to deal with. The VA needs to be accessible to a patient regardless of their physical, mental, and technology becomes valuable there. So as we can assist the White House and the federal government in order to make investments into technology that improves real time communications, that becomes significant for a veteran of the United States that needs that help and assistance. So we feel very strongly and passionate that while we provide technology, at the end of the day, we're providing a service and the services to improve the experience of the end user for our customers, whether it's the Veterans Affairs Hospitals or the IRS or the U .S. and their families, regardless of that environment. Right. It's our job to help provide a great service and experience for how they communicate. So what kind of benefits can agencies expect to see from upgrading their network infrastructure? Gosh, you know, Doug, it's very similar to a for -profit company. I think about the goals and the initiatives of a for -profit company. They're looking to improve their productivity. They're looking to reduce the cost of doing business and they're looking to improve the customer experience in a for -profit environment. Obviously, it's important that they grow top line revenue and they drive margins and profit for their business. But those three key pillars that I mentioned regarding the experience of the end user, productivity of the workforce and then reduce costs, those are highly valuable to an organization or an entity, whether you're a school system, whether you're the Health and Human Services or even the national parks, which I'm very fond of, you need to continue to provide that experience and leveraging that technology becomes very valuable over time for them. So, you know, as an agency that serves, you know, the United States, we, you know, we get the best we get the best experience possible with those agencies. And you see these benefits trickling down, having a trickle down effect on the contractors and vendors that work for the government? I do. You know, it definitely provides a lot of opportunities for vendors and contractors. We're fortunate to work with several. Dell is a great example where we have a very strong partnership with Dell. We've been fortunate to be very active with Dell in the Department of Defense and engagement of some voice modernization opportunities. CACI is another very strong partner that we work with. VAE, Lidos, Verizon, AT &T, I could name many, many more, but these are partners of ours that are also contractors of the United States government that are working to do site surveys. They're installing new local area networks, Wi -Fi networks, you know, wide area networks across the board. They're upgrading that technology. They're upgrading headsets, handsets, video conferencing equipment. You know, there's a variety of applications, software and hardware that contractors are benefiting from and providing a valuable service to the federal government. So, you know, have you over the past year witnessed an increase in demand for modern voice communication? So DISA, which is essentially the IT department for the Department of Defense, they've put a mandate in place, right, that they are completely eliminating the TDM network and sunsetting that by March twenty twenty four. And so it's a excuse me, March twenty twenty five, the requirement for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, you know, they have to up the communications infrastructure in order to meet the needs that are necessary to migrate to an IP based network. So we have definitely seen an increase in activity, volume and engagement with many with many, many agencies there on the public sector side. We continue to see more and more user adoption of Microsoft Teams as well as Zoom. And that's driving increased demand for voice modernization as well as those agencies look to incorporate a external voice communications environment with the needs of their internal communications as well. So what are some of the needs the federal agencies are trying to fill better with telecom technology in the public sector? I think the need is really accessibility. You know, you have individuals within the federal government that are similar to private, private, private corporations where someone may not be working in an office five days a week. They could be in a hybrid environment working in an office two days a week, three days a week. They could be working remotely the rest of the time. They still need to have the same experience, whether they're working from home or they're working in a in a federal facility. If you're a if you're an administrator for the U .S. Army Hospital organization, you could be at Fort Campbell, Kentucky one day and Fort Knox, Kentucky the next day. Well, you still need to have the same connectivity and communications regardless of which hospital that you're at. So those are the needs that I see that continue to be applicable and beneficial because that that just improves the productivity of the person. It improves their job satisfaction and improves the quality of the experience that the people they work with on a daily basis are able to have. So are there or what are the risks for agencies if they don't do their updates? Yeah, I think the biggest one is security, obviously, first and foremost. You see the number of TDoS attacks, DDoS attacks, robocalling, spam calls that happen on a, you know, on an almost hour by hour, minute by minute basis. If you don't upgrade the technology, you put yourself at risk. And protection for of your internal infrastructure environment there, you know, as we've seen on the private sector side with, you know, casinos, with retail chains, with financial institutions, right, no one wants to have their personal data exposed and at risk. So it's, you know, it's highly important that federal agencies make those investments and those upgrades as well in order to protect our information, as well as the information of the federal government. The other one I would just say is obsolescence. You know, technology that's been in place for 20, 25, 30 years, parts just aren't available anymore, Doug. You know, I hate to say that as a 51 year old guy, right? I don't, I don't, I don't run or I don't run swim or bike like I used to. And so it's the same with technology. You know, that, that obsolescence is, is ultimately going to happen. And those parts just can't, can't be replaced. So there's a, you know, there's an impact of not being able to maintain a current environment state of communications without continuing to make those investments. So, uh, you know, where do you start? How do you start this process? Oh, um, and it's a, you know, it's a great question, right? I always look at not the technology element, but I look at the, the organizational element, you know, what is the, what is the, what is the purpose and the mission of an organization, you know, what are they ultimately trying to accomplish and achieve who is the, the person that they're serving, you know, at the very end of the engagement model, how are they trying to communicate effectively with those individuals, how are they trying to communicate internally against, uh, their own department or other departments within the agency? It, I believe it's valuable to have a clear understanding of the mission, the purpose for the communications environment of an organization in order to successfully create a technology infrastructure that's the most meaningful for that agency. Once you have that, that, that strategy in that direction, then you, then you build consensus right within an organization, you, you align your partnerships, you align your contractors, you align thought leaders to come up with a constructive strategy and execution plan in order to, you know, upgrade modernize, you know, every facet of the, you know, of your infrastructure necessary to be successful. And does Ribbon come in the door with some, some tools to help with that process? We do, you know, we have, uh, we have a variety of products. We have, you know, our, our, I would say at the heart of it for what we call our cloud and edge products are our session border controllers, right? Those are secure communication devices, right? That ensure that that information is being passed back and forth in a packet environment. That information goes from an IT environment over to TDM. We have gateway technology, you know, that connects those two networks together. We have, uh, uh, a great product called application server that's used by many, many agencies of the federal government. That's a next generation PBX for most of the listeners who are familiar with that. Um, and it provides great feature functionality, parity to their existing environment and integrates well with Microsoft teams in order to, you know, deliver a rich feature solution. On the IP and optical side, we have, you know, IP switches and routers. We have optical routers that are connecting, you know, met, um, metropolitan networks, campus -wide networks. Um, we just, uh, finished a partnership with Texas A &M university where they put our IP and optical products into their network to create a private 5g environment for their campus. So for readers who don't, for listeners who don't know Texas A &M is the in largest university the United with over 83 ,000 students. So think about the number of buildings on that campus and the number of wifi networks required to, you know, run that environment, creating a private 5g network becomes very valuable for the university's campus -wide system there. And our technology was able to help, you know, put that in, put that model in place for. The other thing I was just going to mention is, you know, how active we've been with the FCC in terms of robocalling and some of the challenges that, you know, many of us have consumers have been facing, you know, we run things like identity theft, we run scorecards with, you know, with hundreds of service providers, the country of France just certified on our solution for robocalling to prevent some of the issues that are happening within that country. That's something that I'm very proud of that we worked with the FTC, the FCC several years ago in order to, you know, put stir shaken solutions in place in order to improve our, our own livelihood as citizens of the United States. I think we've all gotten phone calls about selling our house or being eligible for insurance or helping with a bank loan or, you know, what, whatever is, you know, top of mind to, you know, to somebody that's robocalling us, you know, with that, we would all love to see those calls go down, but, you know, the important thing is there are times when, you know, there's a legitimate, there's a legitimate color that someone that's reaching out, you know, a hospital as an example, or a bank that needs to get in touch with you, you know, putting, putting things like identity hub in place where, you know, that's a certified, um, honest call and lack of a better term, I think is something that we're really proud of the work that we've done with, uh, within our own company, as well as the U S government and hundreds of service providers in the United States. What does this all look like 20 years from now? If, if, if I had the answer to that, I'd be investing in the right companies at the moment. I think it's a very fascinating time for us. You see rapid advancements in technology today. We talked about it before the call, the telephone was originally invented right by an Italian in 1849. The first U S patent was in 1875 from Alexander Graham bell. The first satellite voice communications was in 1958. Um, the first, the first transmission across the worldwide web was in 1983. So 40 years ago, um, you know, think about how rapidly technology has advanced since 1849, when Meucci in first invented the telephone to where we are in 2023, you know, we're now looking at, you know, technology like private five G we're looking at, you know, chat, GPT and AI. Um, you know, we're looking at cloud environments, you know, with Amazon and Azure and Google, um, and Dell and Rackspace and many, many other companies out there. So I think what happens in 20 years really is up to us, right? It's up to us as individuals to determine what we believe is the most beneficial for mankind and how we use that technology to be better citizens of the world. You know, the old adage of, you know, is very true. And as stewards of communications technology, it isn't more applicable than our industry today. You know, we have a responsibility to educate and teach people about the use of technology and communications technology in productive and meaningful ways. If we can continue to do that as stewards of the earth of mankind, then I believe whatever happens 20 years from now, from a technology standpoint will be advantageous to every human being on this earth. But if we're, if we're greedy and you know, we're bullish on a particular technology without thinking about the long term impacts of the world, then that's irresponsible of us as individuals. Well, Dave, on that note, and on that very visionary note, I really want to thank you for joining me today. This has really been instructive and, you know, topic that we don't get to talk about often on our podcasts about, you know, where we're taking the huge federal organizations that help us and are part of everyday life. And of course, the defense posture of the United States. Where can we learn more about RIBN? Really easy, right? RIBNcommunications .com, rbbn .com. You can find more information about there. We're, you know, we're on Instagram, we're on Facebook. I'm not on TikTok very often, but we're there as well. So find your favorite social media channel and we're available to you. So Doug, I just want to say thanks for having me on. It's always great to have these conversations with you. As you said early, I'm a long time reader and advocate for telecom reseller. And I appreciate all the work you do for our industry. Well, Dave, ditto, ditto. And it's always a pleasure to see you personally. And it's always great to hear an update on RIBN. You guys, the DNA, you mentioned many historic features of our community. RIBN is part of that, that history and also the future. So I want to thank you again for joining us today. Thank you. Thank you.

Doug Dave Hogan Dave 1983 Doug Green Texas A &M 1849 1958 VAE Caci Lidos FTC Edgewater Networks 20 Genband 2023 Dell Sonus Networks At &T Verizon

Thinking Crypto News & Interviews

16:10 min | Last month

A highlight from Matt Hougan Interview - BlackRock Bitcoin Spot ETF Approval Fake Out, Bitwise's BTC ETF Application, Relisting XRP, Paypal Stablecoin

"And so what we're doing every day with a 20 -plus person sales team is having meetings with these advisors, talking to them about what Bitcoin is, talking to them about where it fits in a portfolio and sort of laying the groundwork for when that ETF launches for them to adopt it readily. We're seeing real traction. There are a lot of advisors who want to allocate ahead of the Bitcoin ETF. This content is brought to you by Uphold, which is a great crypto exchange that I've been using for years. In fact, I've been using them since 2018. They have 10 -plus million users, 250 -plus cryptocurrencies, and they're available in 150 countries. You can also trade precious metals and 37 fiat currencies on this platform, and you can instantly swap between crypto and precious metals in these fiat currencies. So Uphold is a unique platform. If you'd like to learn more about Uphold, please visit the link in the description. Welcome back to the Thinking Crypto podcast, your home for cryptocurrency news and interviews. With me today is Matt Hogan, who's the chief investment officer at Bitwise Asset Management. Matt, it's great to have you back on. Thanks for having me. I love being here. Matt, yesterday, Monday, we're recording this on a Tuesday, but yesterday was a wild day with rumors and fake news of a Bitcoin spot ETF approval. What were your thoughts on that? I saw you tweeted out that you liken this to the Emulux stock fraud in 2000. That's right. Yeah. Actually, my very first job out of college, I was working at a high -tech mutual fund, and one of the stocks we owned was Emulux, and a disgruntled employee of a wire business put out a fake press release, and the stock fell dramatically. I think it fell like 60 percent, and I had flashbacks to that this morning. Of course, it went the other way, right? Bitcoin, this thing that I love, this thing that I'm focused on, popped on the news. But any time you get this sort of fake news scenario, it's bad. It speaks poor things about the market. I don't think this colored the crypto media in any sort of glory, and I'm glad that it's behind us. It was a crazy morning, not what I needed to wake up to on Monday morning before I even had some coffee. So I do think it's a teaser of where we're going, though. One thing you did see was news of a spot Bitcoin ETF approval lifted the markets. And I think that's a reflection that the market hasn't fully accepted yet that we're on path to get a spot Bitcoin ETF, which of course, there are no guarantees, but I do think we're on that path. I do think it will be positive for the market, both in the short and long term. And so we got a little taste of that, but I still wish it hadn't happened, Tony. For sure. Yeah, it was a big time fake out. And, you know, I know the market is kind of clamoring, you know, people wanting to get this ETF and, you know, following the SEC not choosing to appeal the grayscale ruling. Everybody's almost on edge, just waiting. But we can't have the fake news. It's just, you know, it just muddies the whole thing. Mm hmm. What were your thoughts on what Larry Fink had to say yesterday? He kind of went to do a bit of maybe damage control. He went on Fox Business talking about the ETF, talking about crypto as a whole and saying that crypto may be a flight to quality. What were your thoughts on that? Yeah, absolutely amazing. I'm going to repeat those words four thousand times between now and the end of the year. If you thought if you had Larry Fink calling Bitcoin a flight to quality asset on your bingo card at the start of the year, you are a better forecaster than I am. It shows you how completely BlackRock has changed its position on Bitcoin. And I think it's honestly reflective of a change underlying the market in the attitudes of traditional finance to this asset class. It is really flipped over the last six months. Sort of BlackRock may have been the catalyst, but it's no longer just BlackRock. We're hearing similar words out of other major asset managers, whether that's Fidelity or Franklin Templeton or Wisdom Tree or others. We're seeing similar actions out of firms like UBS expanding efforts, tokenized assets on Ethereum. I think we really are in this transition to mainstreaming of the market and the world's largest asset manager calling Bitcoin a quality asset, a place people move to when they're worried about the state of the market is an absolute game changer. It makes me really excited for the year to come. I think we're in a multiyear bull market and this was just another clarion call that that is true. Now, with that said, we are still facing some headwinds as it relates to the SEC. Just recently, Cathie Wood said Gary Gensler is the one blocking the Bitcoin spot ETF. The SEC also, as mentioned, chose not to appeal the court ruling in the grayscale situation. And the court said the SEC was arbitrary and capricious. So, you know, what do you think is going to happen? Is the SEC in a position where they're getting caught flat footed? There's a lot of media attention and everybody's waiting for this approval. What is your thoughts to say, you know, as far as approval and what the SEC might do next? Yeah, you know, I'm going to take a very unusual position in the crypto industry, which is if you look at the facts, we've had multiple commissions reviewing spot Bitcoin ETFs and crypto ETFs, and it's never been approved. Under this commission, we got Bitcoin futures ETFs, we got Ethereum futures ETFs, we got crypto equity ETFs. I think that point, that fact pattern puts us on a glide path to a spot Bitcoin ETF. So even though this SEC has been much slower than we want and even though I think they should have approved a spot Bitcoin ETF years ago, I think we have to give them credit for opening the door to ETFs in crypto land. And I feel a high degree of confidence that it's going to open wider. We are going to get a spot Bitcoin ETF. Of course, there's no guarantee, but I think the SEC is moving in that direction. I bet they're feeling some pressure to do so. And I think the facts on the ground suggest that they should, in fact, push this forward. So I'm very optimistic. I want to give them more credit than the rest of the crypto industry, even if they're not moving as fast as I want. They have moved substantially on the ETF front. Sure. And Matt, what do you think about this theory? It's something I've been talking about lately. I could be a completely off base here, but I almost feel like the approval, I kind of want it to be under quantitative easing versus quantitative tightening when there's more liquidity in the market, when people are not worried about inflation and conflict around the world and they're more focused on, okay, the economy's in a better spot. I think I want to invest now. Do you agree with that? Yeah, I think if you're thinking about the short term impact, then the timing of it matters, right? We saw, for instance, the Bitcoin futures ETFs launched the height of the 2021 market and really accelerated the price upward, attracted a lot of assets. By comparison, the Ethereum futures ETFs, which just launched, met a very quiet reception. And I think that has to do with the market attitude. So from that short term perspective, it would be better in a positive market with more excitement if we get it at the early part of next year, I think we'll be in a good time in the market, but longterm, it doesn't matter longterm from my perspective, it's completely transformative to the asset class. And if we look back three years, five years, 10 years from now, it'll be this step function up. But I think you're absolutely right. The scale of the short term impact will depend on the market climate. Now, bitwise, any updates on your application? I know there was a lot of applicants making updates to their filing. Did you guys have to do anything like that or are you still just moving along with the application waiting for the SEC? Yeah, completely fair question. Unfortunately, the lawyer perched on my shoulder says, I can't comment on our specific application, but on the broader space. But we have seen other companies update their filings. I would read that as progress if I was an outside observer of the market. That is a sign of forward momentum that aligns with the forward momentum we're seeing in other ETF avenues. Now, in addition to your filing, are there other things that bitwise is working on in preparation for the Bitcoin having next year, whether it be accumulating more Bitcoin or another ETF product or anything else? Yeah, absolutely. First and foremost, it's massive education. So the thing to think about with the Bitcoin ETF, why it matters is it unlocks this other segment of the market that is essentially has no allocation to crypto, which is the financial advisor marketplace. Now, this is an important market. It's at least twice and maybe four times as big as self -directed retail investors. So the people who own crypto now are mostly self -directed retail investors. The financial advisor marketplace controls between two and four X as many assets. And so what we're doing every day with a 20 plus person sales teams is having meetings with these advisors, talking to them about what Bitcoin is, talking to them about where it fits in a portfolio and sort of laying the groundwork for when that ETF launches for them to adopt it readily. We're seeing real traction. There are a lot of advisors who want to allocate ahead of the Bitcoin ETF. And of course, we have products that do that. We have index funds, we have estimates, we have equity ETFs, and we're seeing a lot of people who want to get in ahead of the wave. But more than anything, we wake up every day and just talk to these people, these next buyers of crypto about what this is. And we do it relentlessly and we'll keep doing it right through the launch. Yeah, I was recently talking to investor Raoul Pal and I was sharing a story that I have a financial advisor and for years I've been talking about crypto and he knows I'm allocated and he's but they can't touch it. They can't do anything. They can't make money off of it. But now that the news of Bitwise and BlackRock and all these folks, they're like, OK, talk to me more about crypto. It's all their antennas are up now because they know something's around the corner. That's exactly right. And once that happens, once you have BlackRock and Bitwise and Spot ETFs, they can't tell you, I can't touch it. Right. And as you know, 50 million Americans own crypto directly. They want their advisors to understand this space. They, you know, advisors want to be seen as being on their side. And I think the change you're seeing with your advisor is happening to millions of Americans right now. And to me, that's enormously positive for this space. That's how we get to the next level. It's how we return to new all time highs. And I think it's tremendously positive. Now, in the crypto industry and market, we're seeing a lot of TradFi players coming in outside of Bitcoin and Spot ETF filings. For example, PayPal launch a stablecoin. What are your thoughts on the stablecoin market and these different big players like PayPal, maybe Amazon's around the corner? Who knows to launch a stablecoin? What do you think about these things? I think the market is dramatically underrated how significant that PayPal launch is. And here's why. You have to remember stablecoins are politically controversial. They still exist in a regulatory gray zone. You could even call them like the third rail crypto, right? Because people are worried about them pretending to be money market funds. How are they structured? Who can operate with them, et cetera? The fact that PayPal, the largest fintech in the world, thought it was important enough to establish a position here, that they were willing to touch that third rail, tells you that they see a huge future of stablecoins in the payment space. The fact that they built a product on Ethereum tells you the direction the market is going towards public blockchains. PayPal or stablecoins are one hundred billion dollar market. I think they could be a trillion dollar market overnight if they start to penetrate the payment space. And I think, you know, I think the market didn't fully read what a big statement this was from PayPal. If you've gone, I'll point out another thing. We use we use stablecoins today mostly between trades and crypto exchanges, but go to the PayPal website. Look what they say in like size one hundred font. They say built for payments, right? This is about real world uses. This is not about crypto traders parking cash. This is about disrupting the current payments model. And that's another example of this mainstreaming of crypto that is the defining feature of this bull market. I think it's a really big deal. Yeah. One of the things I was talking to some family members and people I know who are still skeptics of crypto and don't understand the technology. You know, I pose a question to them. PayPal, you currently use PayPal. They send money, you could send money to different people across the world. Why do you think they created stablecoin? I just left it at that. And then the light bulb went off for many of them to understand instant settlement and transaction speeds and much more. And I think as these large players start adopting the technology and building with it, I think it's going to click for a lot of people because they have an affinity to the brand or the company. It just breaks down the barrier of we don't know who uses this stuff. Oh, PayPal uses it. That is right. Yes, exactly. And it's these companies that see a step ahead that push people to the next level. PayPal innovated on payments. They did a fantastic job, but they see where the puck is going. We're not at the end of payment improvements. Stablecoins are the next step. And they were willing to to go there. I think it's a great proof point. And these these proof points are just stacking up right. The largest asset manager calling it a quality asset, PayPal launching a stablecoin. It's it's at some point it becomes overwhelming, even to your skeptic friends. For sure. Now you're based in California recently, Gavin Newsom, Governor Gavin Newsom passed a crypto regulation bill, not perfect, but certainly put some guardrails in place to help protect consumers as well as foster innovation. I don't know if you got a chance to get a gist of what that was about, but any thoughts on California and as well as states kind of leading the federal government right now and regulations? Yeah, I think when you have a vacuum at the federal level on sensible regulation, the states will fill in. Right. We saw that with New York, with the bit license, and we're seeing it in California. The goal as an industry is to hope for balanced regulations. I haven't done a full deep dive into the California bill, but it looks like it at least has some elements of balance to it. They're not going to be perfect, but I think we're going to move along.

Raoul Pal Cathie Wood Tony Bitwise Asset Management Matt Matt Hogan California Larry Fink Gary Gensler Fidelity Franklin Templeton Amazon Emulux 60 Percent UBS Monday Morning Yesterday Gavin Newsom 2021 Tuesday

Thinking Crypto News & Interviews

22:28 min | Last month

A highlight from SEC WON'T APPEAL GRAYSCALE BITCOIN ETF RULING & CALIFORNIA PASSES CRYPTO REGULATION!

"Welcome back to the thinking crypto podcast, your home for cryptocurrency news and interviews. If you are new here, please hit that subscribe button as well as the thumbs up button and leave a comment below. If you're listening on a podcast platform such as Spotify, Apple or Google, please leave a five star rating and review. It supports the podcast and it doesn't cost you anything. Well, folks, I want to start off by talking about the grayscale SEC Bitcoin ETF situation. Yesterday, Friday, October 13 was the deadline for the SEC to appeal the court's ruling in the grayscale case. Now, we know the three judges destroyed scumbag regulator Gary Gensler and the SEC calling their denial of the grayscale Bitcoin spot ETF as arbitrary and capricious. But what can you expect? We're dealing with a scumbag corrupt regulator that is Gary Gensler, who is on puppet strings being controlled by Elizabeth Warren and the Wall Street incumbents who want to destroy crypto startups like grayscale, Coinbase, Ripple and others so that they can come in and take over the market. So the fact that the SEC did not appeal and we're past the deadline, obviously, is a good sign. It's bullish. It means the SEC does not see a way to win this. They are pretty much kowtowing here, right, which they have to the courts are ruling here. And even the folks at Bloomberg, James Safert, who I've had on the podcast, said, look, it's being reported here and confirmed by Bloomberg News that the SEC won't ask the court to reverse its decision on the Bitcoin spot ETF as it relates to grayscale. So what's going to happen next? It's going to be the SEC and grayscale are going to have their conversation started where they're going to discuss, I guess, how they're going to approve this and what else grayscale needs to do. Obviously, we're all waiting for this Bitcoin spot ETF approval to happen. I think the SEC is going to approve multiple at the same time. If they were to approve the BlackRock ETF ahead of everybody else, you know the game is completely rigged. We have some sense it is rigged, but if they do that, it will be really blatant. So I think they're going to approve multiple at the same time. However, this is my opinion. Look, we got world conflict happening. We still got inflation. We still got the Fed raising rates. Liquidity is low. We're still in the quantitative tightening cycle. I don't think now is a good time for this ETF to be approved, honestly. I think next year when things calm down, maybe near the Bitcoin halving would be a good time. The conflict ramps down, dies down. People are not as focused on it. Just normal human life and things go back to normal to a certain degree. Maybe the Fed is ramping down rate hikes or they have paused completely. They start QE. Liquidity is blowing back in. I think that will be the ideal scenario, but we'll see what happens. Maybe I'm wrong and they approve it sometime this quarter and maybe it does well, but we'll see what happens. The one thing I want you all to expect though, there's not going to be capital flowing in overnight into these ETFs. I think they have to be fully, the groundwork has to be set up. The marketing has to be there. Once again, people essentially wouldn't want to be focused on investing. Right now, people are not really focused on investing. I'm talking about the general public. Just keep that in mind. Now, speaking of the SEC, we have an update here as it relates to Coinbase versus the SEC. Paul Grewal, chief legal officer at Coinbase given updates on their response to the third circuit and it says here the TLDR, the SEC's unilluminating update is mere bureaucratic pantomime and confirms that nothing short of mandamus will prompt the agency to take its obligations seriously. We respectfully request an order to the SEC to act on Coinbase's rulemaking petition within 30 days. We appreciate the court's careful consideration of this matter. So remember the SEC filed their response and it was a bullshit letter. It pretty much was nothing in it. It was just a delay tactic. So I appreciate Coinbase putting the pressure. That's what we got to do. And we saw the judge already in these cases with Coinbase versus SEC is calling out the SEC saying like, what are you guys doing? What's a security? What's not a security? You approved Coinbase to go public. You knew what their business was. So what are you doing now? It's not like they're charging fraud on Coinbase. They're just saying you're selling unregistered securities, yet they won't say what is a security and what's not. Even the scumbag regulator, Gary Gensler, before Congress, can't even answer what's a security and what's not. It's ridiculous. We're dealing with a government agency that is funded by our tax dollars that doesn't abide by the law, that are hypocrites and liars. Even Judge Sarah Netburn in the Ripple lawsuit said the SEC lacks a fateful allegiance to the law. It's pathetic. But we got to keep putting the pressure on this corrupt scumbag bureaucrat and he will be exposed. He lost in the Ripple case. He lost in the Grayscale case. And I believe they're going to lose here with Coinbase. So I appreciate Coinbase, you know, putting the pressure and we got to keep doing the same thing. Contact our representatives, share the facts on social media and expose these lies. Now some good news, folks. And this involves Governor Gavin Newsom out of California. Now, whether you love Gavin Newsom or you hate Gavin Newsom, that is one thing. Let's put it to the side. That's a whole other conversation. But folks, California, they passed a crypto licensing bill, which is really good, folks. Gavin Newsom signed this yesterday. So here's the headline. Governor Newsom signs crypto licensing bill in California. Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday signed into law a measure that would regulate California's crypto industry, home to nearly a quarter of the blockchain companies in North America. This is being reported by Bloomberg Law. But I'm going to jump to another article here, which gives the full details because Bloomberg wants me to pay to read, which is annoying. So according to the report by Bloomberg Law, this first law aims to establish basic regulations for crypto companies operating in California, making them obtain state licenses and meet specific requirements related to reserves, disclosures and audits. The law also covers assets backed crypto currencies like USDC and USDT, so stable coins, making it mandatory for them to keep complete reserves, which would impact algorithmic stable coins that rely on different mechanisms to maintain their pegs. This crypto regulation bill was passed in August 2023, a year after Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a prior version of the crypto bill stating that California needed a more flexible approach. So, folks, this is great, great news. It is logical, reasonable things. There's no overreach here. If you are a centralized exchange or a stable coin issuer, you have to have your reserves. You have to provide audits. You have to make sure you're abiding by the laws. We don't want any more FTX or Celsius things, no commingling, no lying, no pulling customer funds to go trade it, right? Like these idiots, Caroline Ellison and Sam Bankman Fried and even a scammer, Alex Mashinsky. No more of that nonsense. The industry needs to raise its standards. All exchanges decentralized need to be audited, whether it be monthly reporting or quarterly reporting it, sending it to the licensed agencies in the States and it's being reviewed, right? I think we can all agree with that. You can be a very pro -crypto person, very much into decentralized exchanges and defies, but we can't ignore that there's going to be centralized entities in the market. They need to abide by the law. They have to follow these best practices. We can't have what happened last year happen again. That was ridiculous, right? So this is a great move, great bill. And it's sad that the States have to do this and the federal government is not doing it, right? But the good thing here is that the States moving ahead will force the hand of the federal government because it's not just California. It's Wyoming, it's Texas, it's New York and many more are passing comprehensive regulations. So this is a really great move, really happy to hear about this. And obviously there's a lot of crypto companies in California, some like Ripple and others. So really, really big crypto regulation bill here, folks. And here's what Tim Grayson, who is an assembly member in California, tweeted out. He said, today, California is taking the necessary step to regulate a market that is volatile risky and in some cases deliberately rigged against everyday consumers. Thank you to Governor Newsom for helping ensure that our state leads in fostering responsible innovation. Folks, this is huge, huge, huge, huge. I can't, once again, I'm not endorsing Gavin Newsom here, so please, please don't get me wrong because California has a whole lot of problems and other things happening. But as it relates to crypto, this is a really great move. And I think game theory is going to play out. Other states are going to follow suit and follow the direction of California, which is one of the largest states, folks. So a move in the right direction. Now I want to highlight a great, responsible and safe exchange that is Uphold, which is a sponsor of this podcast. I've been a user of Uphold since 2018, so I can vouch for this platform. I've interviewed the CEO, the CFO and many folks over the years. They have 10 plus million users, 250 plus cryptocurrencies, and they're available in 150 countries. You can also trade 37 fiat currencies and precious metals on this platform and easily switch between crypto, fiat and precious metals. It's pretty cool. It's a unique platform. And once again, I can vouch for it because I use it. I use it for trading and much more. So if you'd like to learn more about Uphold, please visit the link in the description. Now, folks, as we're talking about crypto regulations, we know Elizabeth Warren has her anti -crypto army. She's corrupt. She's, you know, three peas in a pod with Gary Gensler and Brad Sherman. We know she's been doing all kinds of nonsense. Well, there's news coming out here. Ryan Selkis said rumor is John Donenberg, Liz Warren's COS, is heading to the White House to replace Bharat Ramamurti. Bharat responsible was for making the admins deep crypto hostility. So talking about the Biden admin, some in D .C. told me to wait and see Biden soften with Bharat gone. If Donenberg is in, that won't happen. So we'll see. Here's what Caitlin Long, who's battling the Fed right now, said. She said, yes, as Novogratz, Mike Novogratz said, Senator Warren is driving the Biden administration's bus on crypto policy. Biden cut that deal with her long ago. And that's why she gets to a place or gets to place her people at the White House in key agency positions. This was an open secret in D .C. And it's now no longer a secret. P .S., where is the press on Biden's Warren deal to let her pick White House economic staff and financial services appointees? This has been an open secret pretty much since Operation Choke Point 2 .0 began in January. And I haven't seen it reported yet. Any ideas? Ryan Selkis and Nick Carter, she said, and Novogratz, I think you said in an interview on stage at Mainnet that Warren's senior staff didn't agree with her. Let's hope John is among those you are alluding to now that he's at the White House. Folks, we shall see what happens. My hope is that Biden overall losing popularity and with different things economically and, you know, Elizabeth Warren going crazy over crypto and the industry fighting back and Gary Gensler taking losses in court, you know, take some wind out of her sales. It's Senator Elizabeth's sales here and take some power away from her. And maybe the people Biden has around him, you know, who are anti -crypto get kicked out. You know, we can see next year is a election year. So we'll see what happens. Maybe things soften up. The Bitcoin spot ETF gets approved. You know, I think we're moving maybe out of the eye of the storm with this operation choke point. We'll see. You know, I think the court law losses for Gary Gensler really help the causes here. Even with Caitlin Long, the court denied the Fed's request to throw out her lawsuit against them. So the lawsuit is proceeding. It's going to discovery. So these anti -crypto people are getting exposed. And, you know, we hope Elizabeth Warren, her corrupt ass gets exposed as well. Now, the IRS is also putting out some crypto tax rules, which the industry are trying to push back on. So here's the headline. Coinbase tax had calls on IRS to revise crypto tax rules. The IRS is proposed tax rules hinder digital asset growth by exposing restrictions that question their utility. Coinbase is VP of tax wrote Thursday. So great to see the industry is pushing back in a letter disclosed on Thursday. Lawrence Zlakten, if I'm saying that right, a Coinbase's vice president of tax criticized the proposed regulations for imposing an unprecedented, unchecked and unlimited tracking on the daily lives of Americans. In August, the IRS issued a 300 page proposal that revises the definition of a broker in accordance with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including crypto exchanges, which provides guidelines on tax compliance for both the brokers and their clients. Now, many of you may recall the infrastructure bill situation with this, and we're still fighting this. So I'm glad the industry is pushing back. And, you know, these things are not set in stone fully yet. So we have an opportunity to push back and we're seeing more pro crypto governors and congressmen and lawmakers and so forth, even presidential candidates. So we got to keep pushing. We got to keep fighting. And, you know, where we need to rally and call up our representatives and send letters and emails and tweet and whatever we got to do, we will do that. But good to see that folks at Coinbase are pushing back. Now, we've got news here that Taurus expands crypto footprint after Deutsche Bank linked up. So the crypto infrastructure firm Taurus that partnered with Deutsche Bank last month is set to announce more large partnerships with banks soon, exec says. Now, I remember recently Deutsche Bank said they were going to launch crypto custody and they were they're doing this with Taurus. So Switzerland based Taurus, which offers infrastructure to issue custody and trade crypto tokenized assets and NFTs is opening offices in London and Paris. The firm says it expects more of the region's banks listen to this folks to wade into the crypto space as the regulatory environment becomes more clear. Folks, that's music to my ears. And they're talking about the EU here, right? Because both the EU and the UK have passed crypto regulations. Now, if only we could have that in the United States. Right. Where where are the members of Congress? Where's the federal government on this? So the expansion is part of a bid to better serve institutions that will soon have to comply with the Markets and Crypto Assets Regulation, the MICA law, the European Union Parliament passed the framework in April with implementation expected next year. So great, great news, folks. Very bullish. And let me give you some more details. So Jurgen Hoffbauer from saying that right previously towards his global head of strategic partnerships will lead the London office. He spent more than 10 years at Bank of America, where he served as head of sales for Europe and Middle East and Africa. Folks, a lot of the legacy banking TradFi folks are coming to crypto and they're helping to build out the crypto infrastructure for institutions. And of course, you know, they know there's money to be made here. They know this is the future and they're doing it. And this is why we have to be patient. This is why we dollar cost average. We study the market cycles. We look at what these big players are doing, not what they're saying, but what they're doing. And we are positioning ourselves to take profits as the value of our tokens rise. Right, folks? So we have to exercise patience. Taurus raised 65 million dollars in a February funding round led by Credit Suisse. Deutsche Bank also took part in that round and German megabank linked up with Taurus last month to build out their digital asset custody and tokenization services. Wow, folks, I hope you see what's happening here. And this thing is global. It's not specific to United States. So while Elizabeth Warren acts the fool with the clown Gary Gensler here and delaying and causing all kinds of nonsense, the rest of the world is moving forward. And the great thing about this market, it's borderless. You can be in any part of the world. I've said many times you have a smartphone, you have Internet access and you can be part of the asset class. You can buy a fraction of Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, whatever it is. You can put as little as 10 bucks in each. Right. And you are part of the asset class. And that's something they cannot stop. They would love to. They would love to gate keep it like they have historically and put the borders and say, oh, you have to go through Wall Street and you have to be an accredited investor. Right. They would love to stop that so they can control it. That's why they're fighting so hard. That's why this corrupt Elizabeth Warren. This is a big thing for her. That's why Gary Gensler is doing all the things he's doing. They want to control it, but they can't. The disruption is at their doorstep. They can't stop this thing. They're going to put up roadblocks. Don't get me wrong. Like they're doing, they're slowing us down to causing a bit of confusion. But this train has left the station. They ain't going to stop it. Now, got some news here that Texas County settles lawsuit over wrongful seizure of fifteen thousand dollars from Bitcoin ATM. The lawsuit also aimed to have the court recognize Bitcoin Depot as the lawful owner of the seized money. So I've interviewed the CEO of Bitcoin Depot and this is an interesting case here. So authorities in McClellan County have settled a lawsuit with Lux Vending operating as Bitcoin Depot following the wrongful seizure of fifteen thousand dollars from one of its Bitcoin ATMs. The lawsuit was dismissed after the county acknowledged the funds were improperly confiscating following a scam that targeted an 82 year old Crawford woman. Local media reported Thursday the scam was reported by the elderly victim who was deceived into withdrawing fifteen thousand dollars in cash and depositing it into a Bitcoin machine. This reportedly followed her falling victim to a ransomware attack initiated by a malicious email link. Legal action had originally been filed against the county investigators for allegedly violating due process. They had obtained a warrant to seize the funds from Bitcoin Depot kiosk located at a court recognized Bitcoin Depot as a as the lawful owner of the of the seized money. McClellan County Sheriff Parnell McNamara, who had previously stood by his the actions of his officers, declined to comment on the lawsuit's resolution or on Judge Scott Felton's admission that the funds had been seized erroneously. KWTX News reported. So interesting case happening here. And, you know, one of the layers here I want to highlight is that crypto is becoming a big part of society in the mainstream and the average everyday things that may occur, whether it be crime, whether it be just different things in life. Right. That happens that we don't control or had nothing necessarily to do with crypto that it's popping up in cases and all forms of regulations and law now need to be developed around it. So that's a great sign of adoption. I'm not saying what happened to this lady is a great right. Obviously, that's another issue with malware and scammers and elder abuse and all these things. But in the sense of adoption and this being part of the society, just as the Internet became part of a society and there were bad things that followed that, but obviously a lot of great things. Right. Same thing is happening here. So it's pretty, pretty interesting. I like to look at these things from a psychological macro societal human behavior standpoint, because it also tells a story of the direction we're headed. And are people moving away from this or are they adopting it? Is it becoming more prominent in our daily lives? And I think we're seeing that for crypto and block chain. Now, I just want to end it here by highlighting one of the partners of the podcast that I and it's a platform I use, Merlin, which allows you to track your crypto exit strategy in a very easy and safe way. Merlin allows you to tie in all your exchanges and ledger data. It does not capture your seed phrases or anything like that. It simply just takes a snapshot of your account and allows you to set your exit strategy. Which price points? I've been doing stuff like this on spreadsheets. It's super tedious and manual. And I've always been looking for some sort of solution. And Merlin is that solution, folks. So I'll be using this for the next bull market. So let's say for my XRP or Ethereum or Bitcoin, I'll set certain price points. Hey, I want to take 30 percent of my chain link or XRP at this price and I can set it in the Apple. Let me know right away, folks, on which exchange it hit that price and I can go right away and execute accordingly. So this is something that will make your life easy and you don't have to be constantly refreshing on coin market cap or, you know, going back and forth between a spreadsheet. So this is one of the reasons I'm highlighting it as a partner, because I'm using this platform and it's great. It's easy, it's safe and that you can plug in, uphold, you can plug in ledger, Coinbase, whatever it is. It is a great platform, folks. So be sure to check out Merlin. Link will be in the description. Go check it out. You can get a 30 day free trial, see if you like it and go from there. Thank you all for listening. Thank you for your support. Hit the thumbs up button, hit the five star rating on the podcast platform and I'll talk to you all later.

Tim Grayson Alex Mashinsky Paul Grewal Jurgen Hoffbauer Gary Gensler Brad Sherman James Safert John Elizabeth Warren Lawrence Zlakten April London Novogratz Caitlin Long Ryan Selkis August August 2023 Friday Paris Donenberg

The Dan Bongino Show

01:36 min | Last month

Colorado State Rep. Tim Hernandez Refuses to Condemn Hamas

"Is here right now. Right now. I want you to listen to Colorado State Rep. Tim Hernandez. Simple question. This just isn't at the federal government, folks. This is everywhere. This cancer. The savage virus. Tim Hernandez asked a simple question. Can you condemn Hamas and the terrorists? I want you to listen. I want you to listen especially at the end where he says, ah, who's going to hear this, like three people? Eh, our audience is a little bigger than that. Jim, four or five maybe, you think? What do you think? Maybe ten? Jim says it's maybe ten and listening, I'm sure. Yeah, Jim's, yeah, he's using both hands. He's like, I'm just guessing. He's doing this thing with counting digits. He's like, one, two, three. Here's Colorado State Rep. Tim Hernandez. Check this out. And I think it's despicable what they're protesting for and what you're protesting for and the fact that you can't condemn women and children and people going over the streets. Do you condemn it? I already said. Why can't you say yes? Because I already gave you my answer. You didn't give an answer. I think anybody who watches would understand what you're actually doing. Yeah, Tim, I think it's more than three. What did Talkers Magazine say, Jim? We talked to eight -and -a -half million or so a week. It's a lot. A couple more than three. They're off by a factor of a couple million or so. Sorry, Tim. Yeah, Yeah, yeah, it's true. Jim says he's doing Brian Williams math. Yeah. That's Colorado rep Tim Hernandez,

Brian Williams JIM TIM Hamas Tim Hernandez Three People Both Hands Eight -And -A -Half Million TEN Five Four More Than Three Three ONE TWO Colorado A Week Couple More Than Three State Couple Million

Capstone Conversation

06:28 min | Last month

Capstone Conversation: Jared Asch Asks CCTA's Tim Haile About Transportation Taxes

"Let's talk about transportation taxes, right? Cause you talked about we're moving to a zero emission vehicle. So nobody's buying gas, maybe 2035. It'll definitely start reducing as no car in California will be allowed to be sold. That takes gas anymore. 2045, 2050, you're cycling out entire fleets, people that do have gas vehicles by that point. So it's going to seriously impact your funding. We've seen funding needed for BART, funding needed for transit agencies. We've talked about bridge toll increases, MTC, putting a regional ballot measure on for transit. And then CCTA has potentially a ballot measure coming up in the next 10 years. Just talk about a little bit of funding ballot measures, what people should know, inform us. Well, there's a lot of things happening right now. Uh, that's a tough question, but I think I'll, I'll put it this way. I think people are really fatigued on taxes and in transportation revenues. And I, and we all as transportation professional, we all recognize that. And I think, and I think the first thing we need to do in my, this is my opinion is we need to understand better where all the existing funding is going. Right. I think we need to hold ourselves accountable in terms of where this funding is going. And I was giving a presentation to a group a couple of weeks ago, and we were talking about this in terms of before you put another ballot on the measure, where, how are you going to show me that, that this is going to make an improvement? And I think that really comes down to being obviously transparent, but also having good data and being able to share that data. And I think that's something that we all have that data, but I think it's a matter of using that data to be able to demonstrate that the work that we've been doing for the last, especially with measure J we have been doing good work with measure J in fact, Contra Costa transportation authority, we were actually given an award for good governance by the Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association. And so I think something to know about CCTA is that we're only 20 people. We are a high performing agency. We operate this agency as Jared is almost like a private consulting firm. Like we hold ourselves accountable every single day. And I think that's what people are looking for. They're looking for government to be more efficient, more accountable. And, and I think once people understand that, that there's good governance, I think that's what's going to take to really help people understand that, okay, my money is going to good places. Yeah, maybe I can, you know, vote yes on another measure. But to your point, there is a lot of moving parts right now in terms of a regional housing measure in 2024, regional transportation measure in 2026, which quite frankly is there to address the transit fiscal cliff that's coming. And I think a lot of people, the general public, I don't, a lot of people don't even understand that there is a transit fiscal cliff that's coming. But I think, and that transit fiscal cliff is important because transit is important for everyone and especially for those that really need to use it. Like, like for example, the yellow line, the BART line that comes from San Francisco all the way to Antioch, it's the highest productive line in the Bay Area. Like people use BART in Contra Costa County. And so if BART, like right now, BART has a tremendous fiscal cliff and that's because their revenues are down, their fare box is down. Right now, I think they're right around 45 % pre -pandemic revenue levels, whereas before they were depending on 70, 75 % fare box return, that 30 % of revenue is gone. It's missing, right? And luckily the federal government stepped in and was able to provide, I'll call it gap funding. Just recently, the state jumped in and tried to provide some gap funding out to for the next four years. But this is really about transit doing two things in my opinion. One is getting creative and figuring out how to become more efficient and more, quite frankly, in some ways more accountable. And then two, what is that money going to do to improve the transportation system and what's the value proposition? Why should I take transit, right? What's the value proposition? I think that's what people are looking for is they're looking for the why of why are we doing this? And so I think that's a big part of the regional measure in 26. I will say locally here in Contra Costa County, we, the board of CCTA, which is comprised of about 14 elected officials, will be discussing and looking at potentially when we will be renewing Measure J because it does sunset in 2034. We may go out for a measure in 2028, 2032. I don't know. We have to have that discussion to be able to continue those revenues. And those revenues are important because without Measure J, everyone's commute in Measure J would be anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes longer in Contra Costa County without Measure J, which is significant, right? That's significant. And I don't think people realize that there's an agency like CTA with this local revenue source that is your transportation agency. We are focused on this every single day, trying to bring benefit to Contra Costans. And we're leveraging every local sales tax dollar that we can possibly can to provide the most benefit. And like I said, without that local dollar, everyone's commute. Can you imagine if we never built the Fort Board of the Caldecott Tunnel? What's 24? I'd be sitting there from last Friday. Yeah. Could you imagine if we never widened Highway 4 from two lanes to from two lanes to six lanes? Like it would be a mess still, right? It would still be considered the most dangerous highway in the country. And Measure J has brought in these really important improvements into Contra Costa County. And we've done it very well and very efficiently.

Contra Costa County Taxpayers California 70, 75 % 30 % 20 San Francisco 2026 First Contra Costa County Ccta 2024 Bay Area Antioch Last Friday 2045 2050 CTA 2035 2034 Two Things

The Dan Bongino Show

02:00 min | 2 months ago

Kyle Seraphin: No Surprise the FBI Is Targeting Trump Supporters

"Yeah absolutely I appreciate the opportunity to share this so as far as what we're hearing what this is not news honestly this is something that I knew as I was leaving the agency in 2022 and I was suspended I knew that this category of anti government authority anti violent extremists exists and I actually started predicting this about a year ago that this would be the next push they started kind of seeing if they could get some traction on the militia violent extremist types which is the people that like the Betsy Ross flag and the Punisher skull and people that love America and have tattoos that say it so that was kind of the first push but this was the move second this is the you know going after people who love the founding fathers and the give me liberty give me death crowd so if that's problem a for the federal government you know we've got a real problem and they've been talking about it I can actually give you the receipts that you just played a little piece of that police state clip that trailer and Nick Searcy's character actually says these are anti -government anti -authority bomb extremists and you think well how did he know to say that how did they write that into the scripts because the script was sent over to me and Steve Friend we looked at it and we said this is the words you have to use because this is the words that are being used right right now so we've known this for a little while that's number one it's not news it's scary it's terrifying but I I 100 % agree with you this was not I would even go further I don't even know that it's a warning I think it's a threat I think that in the in the law enforcement world you're familiar with a certain thing of ask tell make you do that as a street cop I'm sure you ask people to comply fly you tell them to do it and then you make them do it and this is in the tell phase they're telling people you must not be involved in this organization you must not be part of the extremist MAGA problem because our president said no so we have to listen to it and the other thing that's really scary is that we have an FBI you just talked about the Attorney General being a bald -faced liar he said but they don't do it so obviously they don't do it the FBI has their own version of that they put them under what are called First Amendment caveats they're on every single symbols guide they're on every single intelligence investigation like this they don't to have be a criminal predicate which we talked about you know just over a year ago you and I the the idea is is that they write on the the the document FBI is not

Nick Searcy 2022 FBI 100 % Betsy Ross Maga First Push Over A Year Ago America About A Year Ago Punisher Attorney General Single Symbols Steve Friend Single Intelligence Investigat Government Second First Amendment ONE

CoinDesk Podcast Network

06:50 min | 2 months ago

A highlight from SBF Trial: 10/05 Update

"Welcome to the SBF trial, a Coindesk podcast network newsletter bringing you daily insights from inside the courtroom where Sam Bankman -Fried will try to stay out of prison. Follow the Coindesk podcast network to get the audio each morning with content from the Coindesk regulation team and voiced by Wondercraft AI. A Parisian cocoa trader told Sam Bankman -Fried's pricey ads and FTX's confident CEO helped convince him the crypto exchange was a safe place to deposit over $100 ,000 so he could trade cryptocurrencies. But he never expected that anyone but him would touch his funds. The federal government began its prosecution of Bankman -Fried in earnest Wednesday afternoon with a customer turned witness who introduced the jury to crypto trading, the FTX exchange and the allegedly illegal loans that felled last November. Marc -Antoine Jolliard, a commodities trader who lives in London, said he only intended to spot trade cryptocurrencies on FTX, which is to say buy and sell tokens like Bitcoin. Critically he said he never agreed to loan his assets out. The finance professional said he avoided FTX's more lucrative margin lend feature because he wanted to have full control over his assets. Did you ever consider the possibility that FTX was borrowing your money? Asked Assistant U .S. Attorney Danielle Kudla, a prosecuting attorney, Jolliard responded, No. More than 100 reporters and onlookers gathered in one of Manhattan's largest wood -paneled federal courthouses to catch a glimpse of Bankman -Fried, the 31 -year -old who prosecutors say defrauded his crypto customers, investors and lenders of billions of dollars. In their opening argument, prosecutors cast Bankman -Fried as a calculating villain who told few in his empire about the alleged illegal activity that they said ruined his companies and ravaged investors. They bolstered this image of a secret conspiracy with their second witness, Adam Yedidia, a college friend of Bankman -Fried, who followed him to the crypto hedge fund Alameda Research and then on to FTX. During questioning from AUSA Danielle Sasson, Yedidia said he resigned from FTX the week of its bankruptcy when I learned that Alameda Research had used customer deposits to pay back lenders. The legality of the loans are central to the case against Bankman -Fried. Prosecutors allege Alameda backstopped its bad bets on the crypto market with FTX customers' dollars plus their crypto deposits. Defense attorneys said the relationship between those two companies was neither secret nor illegal. Bankman -Fried and his companies were building the plane in flight, Mark Cohen, who anchors the defense, said in his opening statement. He told the jury his client, a math nerd, did nothing illegal but perhaps unwise, like never hiring a chief risk officer to watch the health of his innovative crypto exchange. And he began casting blame at former Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, Bankman -Fried's ex -girlfriend and a key witness, saying that the defendant told her to hedge the trading firm's risk on multiple occasions, but she didn't. Day one of witness testimony gave both sides a taste of Judge Lewis Kaplan's hold on the courtroom. The 78 -year -old Clinton appointee cracked the rare joke and on occasion lightly tussled with trial teams for asking what he found to be leading or irrelevant questions. In one of the stranger back -and -forths of the day, he challenged prosecutors' attempts to show the jury a zoomed -in version of the first witness's FTX wallet. When the DOJ was showing various advertisements, he asked, just so we're all complete, who's Tom Brady, to get an answer on the record. He's a professional football player, Yedidia said. He ended the day at 4 .25 p .m. before prosecutors finished questioning Yedidia. That will resume on Thursday. Prosecutors said they hoped to call at least two more witnesses this week, including Matt Huang of Paradigm, a venture firm that invested heavily in FTX equity, and Gary Wang, a member of Bankman -Fried's inner circle. After the jury left the room on Wednesday, Bankman -Fried's trial team asked Kaplan to make accommodations for the defendant's Adderall prescription. He is not getting the four doses he needs to stay focused throughout the day, they said. Kaplan deferred on taking immediate action and told them to take the issue up with an official in the Bureau of Prisons. I'm not a medical professional, Kaplan said. For his part, Bankman -Fried himself was glued to his laptop throughout the day, where he appeared to be typing up notes. Former FTX developer Adam Yedidia will complete his testimony Thursday, but the anticipated names are more likely to be Paradigm's Matt Huang and former FTX executive Gary Wang. Huang's name was first mentioned on Tuesday and confirmed by prosecutors on Wednesday. The DOJ's case so far seems to be focused on casting FTX as a troubled company and Bankman -Fried as the face and director of those troubles. Early testimony was light on the specifics of blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Marc -Antoine Jolliard, the London -based French commodities trader and FTX customer, briefly told the jury what cryptocurrencies are, saying he invested in coins like Bitcoin and Dogecoin. Prosecutors had former FTX developer Adam Yedidia take this description a step further, mentioning that they are decentralized currencies, but not delving too deeply into what that means. It is a tactic seemingly geared toward easing a jury composed of laypersons into what promises to be a complex case stemming from the digital asset ecosystem. The first set of witnesses is also revealing, no law enforcement officials are expected to take the stand just yet and we're barely scratching the surface of the technical details about what blockchains are or how FTX actually operated. Instead, we're hearing from people immediately affected. A trader who lost north of $100 ,000 and still hasn't gotten it back and deeply involved in the company's operation. Paradigm was part of a massive fundraising round for FTX US, the US branch of the global crypto empire, which raised $400 million in January 2022. Huang, being the next witness, suggests the DOJ will continue to pursue a way of expressing the idea that FTX seemed like a safe, good place to store funds, but in reality wasn't. The DOJ said in its opening argument that it intends to show that Bankman Freed directed all of the activities that led to his company's failure. Wang, who is expected to discuss FTX's software, including possibly the backdoor that allowed Alameda to borrow so heavily from FTX, may then be the kicker at the end of the first week of the trial.

Mark Cohen Jolliard Adam Yedidia Tom Brady Wednesday January 2022 Thursday Marc -Antoine Jolliard London Matt Huang Danielle Sasson Tuesday Yedidia Wang Alameda Gary Wang Huang Wednesday Afternoon Sam Bankman -Fried Second Witness

The Financial Guys

14:53 min | 2 months ago

A highlight from Consequences of McCarthys Deal with Democrats

"The real danger of Obamacare is not the cost. That's not going to be the issue. It's going to be the destruction of health care because bureaucrats will make the decisions that the doctors should be making with their patients. And what happened? The bureaucrats in Albany, Dr. Fauci in Washington, the bureaucrats in government made decisions that were completely wrong that the doctors, for fear of losing their licenses under threat of termination, were forced to follow. Welcome back. Mike Lomas, Comical Financial Guys, a place where money meets politics. We still talk radio even though it's a podcast, but thanks for tuning in. And this, by the way, brought to you by our home and auto division. Give us 14 minutes, let us shop over 25 companies to save you money. And it is Medicare season. I can tell you that the Buffalo office is ramping up crazy. So if you need help turning 65, 65 plus need help with your Medicare, make sure you call us. But we, you know, throughout the week we send each other a ton of stuff. Glenn, the violence, let's start with the violence because the crime in, in these left wing hubs is to me just getting out of control. You know, one of the things Mike asked me this morning on the morning Mike's was, you know, do you think the liberals will, will get this now? Because this week alone, there's been multiple left wing nut job. You know, folks that have been stabbed. This is the New York City fatal New York City stabbing of a social justice activist, right? So, you know, this, this nut job didn't know that this guy was left wing, right wing. He just stabbed them, right? The guy was mentally ill, just stabbed them. I think it was Philadelphia. Was he just a criminal? Well, right. Well, right. Well, I think to be a criminal, you got to be mentally ill, but yeah, there are some people that are like legitimately like they're on the streets. They should be in an institution, but they're mentally ill. There's other people that are just like, Hey, I'm from Venezuela. I'm from El Salvador. I'm just going to get, I'm just going to get your crap. Although I don't think this guy stole anything. Right. He just stabbed them. Like, so yeah, I don't know what he just did. Yeah. Yeah. But, but, um, so go, sorry, go. I didn't say it was, I was saying to, uh, Marcy this morning, I'm like, you know, the sad thing is we used to say, you know, I know a lot of Venezuelans, you know, dying down here in Florida is a lot of Venezuelans, a lot of Cubans, good people, right? Yeah. Here's the difference. The, the, the, the next generation though, but you see, like I saw a video, I can find the video. I think you saw the video, right? Um, guys, 17, 18 years old. He's like, I'm from, I'm from, you know, Venezuela. I'm going to New York city. He's got gang tattoos, tattoos all over his face. You saw that, right? So 17 years old, you have to remember this kid has never experienced the benefits of the positives when Venezuela was a free country. Like he doesn't, like you talked to a 45 year old or a 50 year old Venezuelan. They're like, Oh my God, we lost our country. They lost their country when they were 20 or 30. He's fighting to survive the whole time. Yeah. Yeah. He knows breaking into a zoo to try to get the, that's right. That's what he knows. Right. That's the life he knows. So now you're taking that kid. Now you're putting him in New York city. What life does he know? What, what marketable skills does he have outside of eating out of a dumpster? Well, let me be fair. When you're, when your entire face is a tattoo, you've got very few things that you can do. Very few, very few. I'm not saying there's not things that you can't do because I'm sure there's all kinds of labor, but you're, you're basically wiping yourself out from half the workforce at that point. So here's your choice as an 18 year old El Salvadorian or Venezuelan, right? You can work in a construction job, make good money, 80, 90, $100 ,000 a year, pay 20 ,000 or more of that to the federal government. So you end up with half by time you're done. Or you can get involved in one of these new, uh, uh, organized gangs that are popping up in these major cities where they're targeting luxury homes and breaking in. They're also targeting luxury yachts and they're stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars that they fence on the black market and you can make the same $100 ,000 except there's no taxes. There's no, there's no filing of anything and you're seeing these things. You're seeing these criminal gangs organized criminal crime syndicates that are actually now moved here and are setting up in major cities across the country. Yeah. They, they actually set up the online campaigns, right? So you can see it all, you know, they'll show you how it all plays out, right? They'll loot five stores. Uh, you were, you were saying something about the yachts and the big homes. Here's what's happening folks. This is what happens, right? Now, the other, the, it's funny, I sent you this morning, Starbucks closing seven downtown San Francisco stores. So we already know that Walmart's closing in, in all those places. Target's closing and all these places, the San, the, the, uh, the Starbucks are closing, so they have nothing left to rob. Now in some of these they've got it out, they've basically got it out. San Francisco, right? So where are you going to move? The Starbucks to where the money is. The Starbucks went from sensitivity training. Remember five years ago, they had a, they had a, they had a black guy loitering in the place, harassing customers that they called the police on. It ended up being a major, it was racism. They shut down all the stores across the country. Remember? And then they, then they opened up a policy of anybody can use their bathroom, even homeless people policy. Then they had to walk that back. And now they're all close. Now they're all close. Now they're just throwing them in the towel. His question this morning, Mike was, will they ever get it? And I said, Mike, I said, I know I've used this analogy a million times, but I think it's so, so very true. If you look at the school systems that they've run and they've gone from 80, 90, a hundred percent graduation rates to 90 to 80 to 70 to 60, you would think at some point along the way that they would have been smart enough to figure it out. Now they're at 40%. And, and literally a hamster could graduate, right? I mean, if the hamster shows up in the classroom, that's a 40%, you move on. Right. So to answer the question, I don't think they're going to figure this out. I think the only way it happens truly is you have a structured bankruptcy and the social programs go away and you're going to have massive, I mean, really, truly, you're going to have hubs that are, that are Iraqi, you know, war zones and yeah, I mean, it's going to get worse. By the way, those war zones are going to get worse and worse and worse. The drug will get worse. And, and the, and the communities outside of that, if you've got a structured bankruptcy and they're not paying for the social garbage anymore and the free welfare, they'll be able to have the good police officers. They'll be able to have the good walls, right? The property values will be expensive, but the Democrats want those same crime, places, you know, subsidize housing. They want them in your neighborhood. They want them in Lancaster. They want them in Alma. That's what they want. To that point this week, they, they are now issuing vouchers. So you can, and those vouchers by the way, are not meant to say you stay right where you are in this inner city. That's already a piece of shit. You take this voucher and you give it to the landlord out in the suburbs and we'll pay your rent. Right. And now it puts a landlord in a tough position. Okay. Well, I can get guaranteed rent with these vouchers. Right. What if you don't take it? What if you don't take it? You're going to get accused of discrimination. You're going to get, you're going to get investigated by our very fair and honest attorney general in New York state. Of course not. That's right. You think about this though, Mike. So in Minnesota, we had the council woman, remember that, that was, he advocated for no police. Remember? And then she was carjacked in her driveway and violently assaulted. And she's on camera after with, you know, bloody head going, I can't believe this happened to me. You advocated for no police. Right. They're the first ones, by the way, trying to get their phone for 911. That's right. First ones, New York City officers, New York City, left wing advocate, right? Activist, uh, stabbed to death, right? Activist, left wing act to no police, no bail, bail with doing all the things at the left. When I said left wing activists, these activists, let's talk about what they support. They support no bail because that's not fair. Right. They think that criminals are, are, are, you know, mistreated. So they want them back out in the streets. Right. They want less police because police are the problem. Right. I mean, you know, I don't, do they get it? No. And then just yesterday or two days ago, you had a Democrat, a politician, carjacked at gunpoint in DC. That's right. It's insanity. In DC. In DC. You cannot, you're not safe in DC. Right. Where the, where the white house is. The Capitol. Right. Right. The Capitol. It's a crap hole. You know why? Because it was run by people like Mariel Bowser for years. Right. It was run by corrupt left wing politicians. Right. And to ask if they're totally getting rid of cashless bail in states like this, they're doubling down. There's been no conversation about that. He's not talked about that. Kathy Hochul. I mean, honest to God, talk about a narcissistic moron. I mean, she's saying, get this kid rescued. Thank God. Thank God. Hats off to the, to the state troopers and the police to put this together a great job and returning this child. Kathy Hochul, all the press stuff she does. There's not one picture of the family. It's all about her. Everything. Prescott. I promised a family. I'd get them back. Really? How could you possibly do that? Which is totally untrue, but she made this whole episode. Instead of praising the police and the good job that she made this whole thing about her. How great she was. Unbelievable. She is truly stupid. I think the guy had a rap sheet too. I think he was the guy, by the way, the guy that got stabbed in New York city, I bet Mike, he's like a red stripe. I said, we're both down in Florida. You know, that way we both win. This guy, when they find this guy and they'll find him, he'll have a rap sheet as well. He will have been out on jail multiple times. He probably has already stabbed somebody. This is probably isn't his first stabbing. Why, by the way, why, by the way, we're not outraged and getting rid of knives is beyond me. You can't defend yourself. I don't know. Where did that stabbing happen? That was Philadelphia, I believe. Was that New York city? Oh, stabbing was in Brooklyn. That's right. Something else happened in New York city. Oh, a lady got hurt with, uh, uh, uh, you know, hoodlums on motorcycles. A woman with two children got her back window smashed. And when they jumped out of her car, got out to confront the guy, he pulls a gun. She doesn't stop, backs him down and protects her kids. The problem though is, if you are living in one of these left -wing cities, you have to get out. You have to get out. This guy, let's say if he wanted to defend himself for two nights ago and took out a gun. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe now, maybe not because he's been a left -wing Democrat and he's a registered Democrat. So I'm sure, I'm sure that would go a long way. Was he gay? Yeah. Was he trans with the, what card did he hold? I don't know. He's got to have something because I think that, I think the perpetrator was black. Was he not? It's not, yes. You're saying it's not just good enough to be a Democrat anymore. You got to take it one level higher. You gotta have something. You gotta be something else. You gotta be an acrobat, you know, lesbian, you know, underwater free diver. I don't know. It's just, it's just so this preposterous. It really, stuff that they come up with. Another three here in Western New York, and three Colombian nationals this week charged with burglizing Amherst residents. See, this is the problem though. You know, you have to question this morning with Mike Hayflick. Coming to the suburb, a suburb near you. It's coming to a suburb near you. You're going to watch very quickly these left -wing folks that have voted Democrat, although I'm not sure that a little brains are going to get it, but you're going to find very quickly how we're going to go from an all loving open -armed community to whoa, whoa. And even Kathy Hochul's like, don't come, don't come here. We're full. We're full. Open arms, a statue of Liberty, something along, welcome everybody, blah, blah, blah. As Joe would say, you know, which wasn't the truth, by the way, Ellis Island, you had to go through, you know, I've been reading up and really started learning about a lot of the history of our immigration policy. Agree to learn English, sponsored by family. You had to go through, you know, testing to make sure you weren't sick. If you were sick, if you came, if you got off the boat and you exhibited open sickness, you got back on the boat and you were shipped back or, or you were quarantined. Interestingly enough, throughout the turn of the century, we had very strict quotas of countries that we allowed people to come in from. We had countries that were literally blacklisted. We were not allowing certain countries like African countries to emigrate, immigrate, I should say United States progressives, by the way, liberal progressives at the turn of the 19th century were the ones that put those policies in place. So again, you know, it's amazing how, when you look at actual and understand actual history and you see how things really flipped, you know, it's really two things, by the way, that, that changed this in a big way, right? Number one was these feet. People did not come in here and get massive amounts of welfare, right? They went right to work. There was no welfare. They agreed to learn English. They agreed to acclimate into the school systems, right? Number one, number two, we actually had a criminal justice system back then that actually put criminals in jail, right? So if you came over here and you did something stupid, you were going to jail. You were not getting out on cashless bail. Welfare wasn't waiting for you on the other side, a very different system than where we are today. And it could have impacted your entire family. Your family had to vouch for you coming over. We had a family oriented immigration policy that really stressed. So if you had family over here already and you were, let's say in Italy or you were in France or whatever, and you wanted to immigrate to the United States, you had a much higher probability of being able to get to the United States and, and, and meet, you know, get underneath that quota. But from, from, from a, a good chunk from world war, you know, about turn of the century through the great depression, we had very little immigration in this country. And it's amazing. I look at like my grandparents that came from Italy. I'm surprised they were able to get in, but it came, you know, my grandparents and then they brought over a few more family members, but most of them were still in Italy. They, they stayed over there. So just interesting if you really understand the policy and you understand history, and I wish they would teach more of this on who was responsible for what. But yeah, while they're removing all that. Yeah. Speaking of karma though, we've mentioned karma earlier and we got to talk about Kevin McCarthy and Carmageddon. I mean, I hope that the Republicans take notice that this is what happens when you cut a deal with the Democrats. Cause that's what he did, right? He cut a deal with the Democrats. Some of them are not getting it still though. Newt Gingrich I saw last night. Newt, I love you man. But he's on Fox. So he goes, I think this is a bad idea. I'm like, this guy is exactly why people like you and I McCarthy never give a goddamn penny to the Republican. And that's exactly why we don't show up for the benefits anymore. We don't show up because it's, it's, it's total. We are $33 trillion in debt with a clock, by the way, that is literally smoking. It's going so fast. You can't even see the numbers flip anymore. It's just a blur. It's just a blur.

Mike Hayflick Mike Mariel Bowser JOE Kathy Hochul Mike Lomas $100 ,000 Glenn Kathy Albany 20 ,000 Starbucks Brooklyn Minnesota El Salvador 17 20 Italy Target Newt

Bloomberg Radio New York - Recording Feed

01:54 min | 2 months ago

Monitor Show 23:00 10-03-2023 23:00

"Investment advisors, switch to interactive brokers for lowest cost global trading and turnkey custody solutions. No ticket charges and no conflicts of your interests at ibkr .com slash ria. In which a jury found him liable for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. The trial is expected to last until December 22nd. And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Casting 24 hours a day at Bloomberg .com and the Bloomberg Business Act. This is Bloomberg Radio. Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz is aiming to remove House Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his post. He filed a motion Monday to force a vote to overthrow McCarthy. Speaking to reporters outside the capitol, the Florida Republican mentioned House Majority Leader Steve Scalise as a potential replacement. The U .S. Supreme Court will not hear a challenge to former President Trump's 2024 ballot eligibility. On Monday, the high court rejected the challenge brought by a long shot Republican presidential candidate. It used a post -Civil War provision of the 14th Amendment that barred former members of the Confederacy from holding office. It argued Trump was ineligible to run due to his alleged connection to the January 6th Capitol riot. The White House is pressing Congress to provide more aid to Ukraine. To see the continuation of the brave people in Ukraine to fight for their freedom, right, to fight for their democracy. Press Secretary Corrine Jean -Pierre told reporters today they're still strong. Bipartisan support to back Ukraine, which is a top priority for the Biden administration. Everyone's phone will go off this Wednesday at 2 .20 p .m. Eastern. Lisa Taylor has more. That's because the federal government will be conducting an Asia -wide test for its emergency alert system and wireless emergency alerts.

Lisa Taylor Donald Trump E. Jean Carroll Monday Corrine Jean -Pierre Matt Gaetz December 22Nd Mccarthy Congress June Grosso Bloomberg Business Act Steve Scalise U .S. Supreme Court Ibkr .Com White House Bloomberg Radio Kevin Mccarthy Today Asia 24 Hours A Day

Bloomberg Radio New York - Recording Feed

01:54 min | 2 months ago

Monitor Show 14:00 09-29-2023 14:00

"When professional soccer player Marcus Rashford injured his shoulder, he turned to Resle's virtual reality training program to help him maintain his skills and return to the field with confidence. Learn more at meta .com slash metaverse impact. Served for our country and good for him for getting in a final shot. Well done Lisa Kabusa Miller and Jeannie Chansin. I'm really glad you could both be with us on an historic day for three different reasons. Hour two of Sound On starts right now. Sound On. Politics, policy and perspective. From DC's top names. Federal spending combined with two lakhs monetary policy is produced this 40 -year high on inflation. China policy is driven basically by domestic politics. American families are finding themselves further behind the eight ball. To get anything done in this Congress, it's going to have to be done in a bipartisan way. Bloomberg Sound On with Joe Matthew on Bloomberg Radio. We're really doing this. Welcome to hour two of Sound On. As the federal government prepares to shut down tomorrow at midnight, even as lawmakers in both chambers try to move on stopgap funding bills. One just failed in the House. We'll see what happens in the Senate, but it doesn't matter because neither would pass in the other chamber. Are we following this? We'll bring you inside the Capitol Coming up with the latest now from Bloomberg's Kaylee Lyons. We'll talk it out as well with Ben Harris, Director of the Economic Studies Program at Brookings.

Marcus Rashford Jeannie Chansin Joe Matthew Ben Harris Kaylee Lyons Lisa Kabusa Miller 40 -Year Two Lakhs Congress Meta .Com Senate ONE Both Brookings Both Chambers DC Three Different Reasons Bloomberg Radio American Sound

The Charlie Kirk Show

11:40 min | 2 months ago

A highlight from Down with the (Burger) King with Michael Seifert and Russ Vought

"Lots of channels. Nothing to watch. Especially if you're searching for the truth. It's time to interrupt your regularly scheduled programs with something actually worth watching. Salem News Channel. Straightforward, unfiltered, with in -depth insight and analysis from the greatest collection of conservative minds. Like Hugh Hewitt, Mike Gallagher, Sebastian Gorka, and more. Find truth. Watch 24 -7 on SNC .TV and on Local Now, Channel 525. Hey everybody, today on The Charlie Kirk Show, Michael Seifert from Public Square joins us. Make sure you download the Public Square app, PublicSQ .com, that is PublicSQ .com. You have to email me, as always, Freedom at CharlieKirk .com. I really enjoy hearing from you. That is Freedom at CharlieKirk .com, Freedom at CharlieKirk .com. Russ Vogt joins us as we talk 9 -30 strategy. I ask, what is a woman to a group of college women, and they do not know the answer. And Bob Menendez, I got a lot of respect for this guy. No, I'm half kidding. Not really. You'll know what I mean if you listen to the end of the episode. It's far from respect, but the guy's got game. And I bet he could win re -election in New Jersey. Email us, Freedom at CharlieKirk .com and subscribe to our podcast. That is Charlie Kirk Show podcast. Get involved with Turning Point USA at TPUSA .com. That is TPUSA .com. Start a high school or college chapter today at TPUSA .com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job. Building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. Joining us now is Russ Vogt, president of the Center for Renewing America. It is September 26th. The shutdown is looming on September 30th. Russ, thank you for joining us. We've had a lot of congressmen on the program, some great guys, Congressman Dan Bishop, Matt Gaetz, we've had Chip Roy. But I'll be honest, it is a Chinese fire drill. It is disorganized. You have people on every single side. I was on the phone this morning. No one knows what the heck is going on. So Russ, what are you hearing? What can we expect coming to September 30th? Do you think the government's going to shut down? I do think it's going to shut down. I think that's where we are. And I think it's good because this is the last leverage point we have against the Biden administration. And you're right, Charlie, in the sense that when you have kind of an intentional strategy on the part of leadership to force this into a corner, it's going to leave something to be desired on the execution front. But here's the good news. I think the House conservatives are increasingly united in forcing a conversation about moving forward on bill by bill and really focusing on the woke and weaponized restrictions that need to be put in place to put a vice grip around the Biden administration's activities against the American people. I think you're going to see those kinds of debates this week, and it's going to move to a good place in terms of the theatrics of the last several weeks. I want to make sure that we calm down the alarmism. So I received a couple emails this weekend. Charlie, I can't believe you want a government shutdown. I need my Social Security checks. Russ, let's tell the truth about this. Social Security still goes out. Medicare still goes out. Essential government services, which I find hilarious because if they're not essential, why do they have jobs? They should all be fired. This is a partial, very partial, let's just call it a fractional government pause because it's not actually a shutdown because they all get back pay. It's basically the secret that no one wants to say is that a lot of government workers are hoping for this because they basically get a vacation. Russ, tell us what really happens because this is important. You've got the parameters of this. Two -thirds of the federal government is on autopilot. Not a good situation, but the reality of where we are. So a third of the federal government is subject to what we call the annual appropriations process. But if you're on Social Security, there's nothing to worry about. You're going to get your check, and you're going to get your check on time. Medicare, the Department of Defense is going to continue to be out there defending our country. All of the people that are in the business of securing this country are going to be similarly at their posts. What this does is this says for those of you who are working on the Biden climate regulations at the EPA or the Department of Interior, sorry, you're going to have to go home. You're not going to be able to be at your desk and working. So this is not something – there are tried and true ways, and I've managed this for President Trump, to make this painless as possible consistent with the law. We thankfully blazed a pretty good trail on that, that they're going to have a hard time playing politics with this. We'll be holding them accountable. But in terms of the – this is not a situation where you're going to go off a cliff, and somehow you're not going to get your government benefits. It's just not the case. Okay, so let's get into this here. What then is the ask? Because the way I look at it, the way the stars have aligned, the universe, all of a sudden – I'm not happy about this, but it just so happens the border has never been as bad as it is right now. And that's like intersecting right with this funding fight over border security. Russ, if Republicans can't get this done, when there's 8 ,500 people illegally entering an eagle pass alone, I mean, it's not as if this is something that happened six months ago. This is actively occurring. Then Republicans are completely worthless. Russ, so what is the ask, and strategically, what is your advice for how they actually get it done? So my view is that they have had a wonderful banner, a messaging parameter called no security, no funding, that allows them to be able to go at this seminal threat that we're seeing along the border, and to make that a very, very important issue. I also think it allows them to deal with the weaponization at the Department of Justice. I don't think that we can leave this leverage point without doing something against the regime that is trying to steal the next election, and at the same time going against half the country and considering them enemies of the state. So I think there's a lot of things that can be done, but if we don't get to the end of this process and have dealt with those two issues, and then spend a lot of time trying to defund the offices doing the bad activities, I'll consider it a failure. So the goal needs to be then not paperwork processors on the border, but actual border security. That's a major difference. But also, I think that the pressure needs to be that Joe Biden needs to start deporting these people. He's hosting them and just releasing them into the interior of the United States. Exactly. And there's a specific rider that needs to be put in place, and Stephen Miller has been calling for this some time, as well as Chip Roy. It needs to be illegal in the sense that you can't spend the money to be able to release someone into the border. That's the kind of thing that it's not just about changing laws that they ignore. It's about saying that a bureaucrat is going to be facing criminal charges in violation of the Anti -Deficiency Act if they ignore the appropriations law that's saying that they can't do that. And as a result, that will change a lot of the policies that we've been asking for. So we're looming towards this lockdown. Re -emphasize what you're saying about leadership. How has leadership basically set the table for failure? Build that out for us. Sure. The year started with much promise. For the first time, House Republicans were governing with conservatives in their caucus, and they were achieving things that no one thought was possible to pass $5 trillion in potential cuts. At the debt limit deal, Kevin McCarthy walked away from House conservatives and went essentially into coalition with House Democrats. At the time, he used it as an excuse. He said, we'll do all this through the appropriations process. That was an excuse, because they then didn't move any of the appropriations bills themselves. It's not like these bills are passed out of the House and sitting in the Senate. Instead, they've had a pileup in which we are now up against a deadline, and they're asking for more time. But the problem is that McCarthy has never governed from the standpoint of we're going to use leverage points to save the country. Instead, he puts a cartel view on it, which is we're going to try to minimize what is necessary to get past this leverage point, because otherwise it will have political risk. I think you and I agree, we're not going to save the country without managing political risk, and we can do that. We have done that previously in shutdowns, and the country will reward Republicans when they fight over these leverage points. That's what we're asking right now, and I think conservatives are insisting on it, and so far, he's having to go in their direction. Yeah, and I think we need to reject the framing of shutdown, which, by the way, ideologically, all I'm on board for. Maybe a pause? I mean, how else can we message this? Because, Russ, here's what's going to happen, right? So we are barreling towards not getting a deal done on Saturday, right? And honestly, I hope a deal doesn't get done in the sense of enough, draw a line in the sand, show your voters you're fighting. It's better for no deal than a bad deal. I think you would agree with that, right, Russ? It's better for no deal at all than a bad deal. And so September 30th happens, and again, your Social Security checks still go out, Medicare still goes out, military still do. You have the DEI, you know, lesbian bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security or whatever that might not, you know, be going to work for a couple days. Honestly, good thing. So, but Russ, let's just kind of think about this. How could we better message it? Because the media, Sunday morning, I face the nation, CBS, all that full court press, Republicans shut down the government once midnight hits on Saturday night. So how do we get ahead of this and preemptively message it, not just be on our heels and play defense? Yeah, I mean, I think the reality is, to go back to the facts, what is occurring here is a lapse in funding. It is a lapse in funding. The government is not shutting down. The Department of Defense is still up and running. That would be the case if it actually shut down. Those people would not be at their post. What is happening? Funding is lapsed. Funding will come back on when Congress reaches a deal. And I think if we can communicate facts in that vein, we will help our case and explain to the American people what's actually going on. But here's the thing that I would say. These leverage points in which there is confrontation, there is political risk, are incredibly important because the only chance that we get to get the country's attention. It's when people who are not listening to politics are listening to their Christian music station or whatever they're listening to. And all of a sudden they have the news update that's saying, OK, there's a government lapse. What are the terms that are being discussed? Oh, the weaponization of the Department of Justice. That's what we want. And that is a feature, not a bug, of our politicians here in the cartel of Washington, D .C. Russ, you're doing a wonderful job. Center for Renewing America. We're going to have you back on. September 30th is the big day. I think we're going to swing and miss. But honestly, I'd rather have us strike out with no deal than one that betrays our voters. Russ, thank you so much. You bet. Thanks, Charlie.

Mike Gallagher Matt Gaetz Bob Menendez Sebastian Gorka Mccarthy Joe Biden Stephen Miller Hugh Hewitt Michael Seifert Russ Vogt September 30Th Kevin Mccarthy September 26Th Russ CBS Dan Bishop Saturday Charlie $5 Trillion Two Issues

The Dan Bongino Show

01:47 min | 2 months ago

Steve Schmidt: 100 Days Legislative Timeframe Is Racist

"Well, that kind of narrows it down. How did this guy get in front of the Canadian Parliament, folks? I have no idea. Liberals are so dumb. I But again, the point is everyone's a Nazi to the left except actual Nazis. here's what I mean. Cue up for me. Cut five. This is Steve Schmidt. This guy's just a clown. He's an A clown, a total A clown, if you know what I mean. This guy was a Republican grifter. He wound up losing just about single every campaign he was involved in got smoked. So now he figured he could grift off the MSNBC crowd. So he goes over to MSNBC and spouts out a bunch of nonsense talking points. Listen to how they work, though, because this guy's a modern day liberal, even though he pretends to be a Republican. Anyone who doesn't toe their line is a Nazi or a fascist, except actual Nazis. Take a listen. The people who are trying to tear down democracy in the country keep telling the rest of the country what it is they plan to do to such a degree that they have announced their plans six months into 2025 to have taken apart the whole of the federal government. Now, since FDR's time in office, the legislative metric in the United States has been 100 days, not six months. This is a racist code whistle to every white supremacist in the country because it's how long it took Adolf Hitler to take one Weimar to Germany a complete and total dictatorship. Folks, these people are freaking crazy. They are absolutely nuts. There's an actual Nazi up in the Canadian Parliament. They can't see that, but they can

Steve Schmidt Adolf Hitler 100 Days Msnbc United States 2025 Canadian Parliament Six Months Five ONE FDR Germany Every Campaign About Single Republican Weimar Nazi Nazis

Mexico Rejects Texas' Proposal to Let Police Deport Illegals

Fresh update on "federal government" discussed on Mark Levin

If Kari Lake Wins a Senate Seat THIS Would Be Her Top Priority

Fresh "Federal Government" from Bloomberg Businessweek

A highlight from The RNC Teams Up with NBC with Mollie Hemingway and Alina Habba

Fresh update on "federal government" discussed on Unchained

A highlight from The Decline of Critical Thinking in Education

Fresh update on "federal government" discussed on Unchained

A highlight from LGM Podcast: Citizens of a Stolen Land

A highlight from New opportunities in the federal space for voice communication modernization, Ribbon Podcast

A highlight from Matt Hougan Interview - BlackRock Bitcoin Spot ETF Approval Fake Out, Bitwise's BTC ETF Application, Relisting XRP, Paypal Stablecoin

A highlight from SEC WON'T APPEAL GRAYSCALE BITCOIN ETF RULING & CALIFORNIA PASSES CRYPTO REGULATION!

Colorado State Rep. Tim Hernandez Refuses to Condemn Hamas

Capstone Conversation: Jared Asch Asks CCTA's Tim Haile About Transportation Taxes

Kyle Seraphin: No Surprise the FBI Is Targeting Trump Supporters

A highlight from SBF Trial: 10/05 Update

A highlight from Consequences of McCarthys Deal with Democrats

Monitor Show 23:00 10-03-2023 23:00

Monitor Show 14:00 09-29-2023 14:00

A highlight from Down with the (Burger) King with Michael Seifert and Russ Vought

Steve Schmidt: 100 Days Legislative Timeframe Is Racist

"federal government" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on Marketplace with Kai Ryssdal

"federal government" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"federal government" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"federal government" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"federal government" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York

"federal government" Discussed on 790 KABC