Best of The Program | Guest: Andy McCarthy | 11/9/21

At Burger King, when it comes to value, you make the rules.

Introducing the you rules of value.

And you rule number one, you choose food you actually want.

With seven tasty options, you can have it your way.

Try the $5 duo or $7 trio from VK Classics to fanfabes.

Choose your deal.

Price and participation vary.

U.S.

only, no substitutions, restrictions apply.

Hey, great podcast today.

You don't want to miss it.

There are some, there's the best news I have heard in 20 years.

And I don't think that's an exaggeration.

Something that I think is going to make a huge,

huge difference in America and our society.

We also go through a lot of the good news, even though it seems kind of bad or frustrating that doesn't seem like things are happening.

They are.

You have the Rittenhouse trial that we go into today.

You also have Russia Gate and this weird Project Veritas story.

We talked to Andy McCarthy about all three of those.

It is so important.

Also, CNN and a prediction on what America is facing.

You don't want to miss it.

All on today's podcast.

You're listening to the best of the Blanca program.

Hey, don't forget, order, pre-order my new book, The Great Reset.

Everything you need to know, The Great Reset.

You'll find it on Amazon.com.

It is the rise of the 21st century fascism and Joe Biden and all the players.

That is coming out in January.

Order it now so you get it right away.

We welcome to the program Pat Gray from Pat Gray Unleashed, the program program that can be heard on the Blaze radio and television network

prior to this program, also available wherever you find your podcast.

Pat, I don't know if you listened to the Megan Kelly show yesterday.

Stu, did you?

I did hear a good chunk of it, yeah.

Yeah, I listened to all of it this morning when I got up.

It is incredible.

It is the story of the guy that Don Lemon assaulted in a Hamptons bar.

Oh, wow.

And, you know,

I think I've read something about this, but not a lot.

It's been around for several months or several years, actually.

It happened years ago.

But you're not hearing anything.

When you heard anything about Fox, it was everywhere.

It was everywhere.

But this guy's protected.

And CNN is protecting him.

I want you to hear the accusation, and there are several witnesses of it.

So we know this did happen, and it's true.

This guy walks in.

His name is Dustin Heiss.

He walks into this bar in the Hamptons.

He's a bartender.

He has the night off.

His boss is with him.

They go into this bar.

He sees Don Lemon.

They're walking by and he's like, hey, Don, let me buy you a couple of drinks.

How about some lemon drops?

And

Don Lemon said, hey, man, I'm just trying to be left alone.

And he's like, cool.

Sorry.

and walks away.

He's standing at the bar.

A few minutes later, like 15 or 30 minutes later, Don Lemon walks up to him in the bar.

And I'm going to let him describe what happened.

So I walk around the bar

and about five minutes goes by.

And he walks, he comes around the bar and comes up to me.

And he says,

pardon my language, but he says, do you like me?

Is that why you're fucking with me?

And I said, no, I just wanted to say what's up.

And I was just like, what's this guy's problem?

And

I looked at my boss.

and in that moment, he puts his hand down his pants and starts

aggressively.

Can you start that over?

You're talking about Don.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

So after he says, are you, do you like me?

Is that why you're effing with me?

And I said, no, just wanted to say, what's up, man?

And I look at my boss and I look back and he has his hand in his pants, rubbing himself aggressively.

And he shoves his two fingers up underneath my mustache.

thrusts my head back and says

do you like put your dick And he said it like two or three times after that.

And I just said, what the hell, man?

And I just ran out the back door.

So forgive my indelicate question, but when you say he put his hands down his pants, what kind of pants was he wearing?

And how do you know what he was doing in there?

Well, he was wearing shorts.

And I mean, it was.

pretty obvious to everybody that saw him what he did that he was just rubbing himself and uh you know with impunity just pushed his hands hands up under my face enough to thrust my head back.

Okay, stop.

So, this guy runs out of the bar.

He doesn't do anything except leave the bar.

He leaves with his boss, and they're just standing outside.

And he's like, I'm just like shocked.

He said, and it's reminded me of me when we had an incident, wasn't sexual in nature, but it was a violent incident.

And I, when it happened, I said exactly what he did.

Did that just happen?

Right?

Yeah, I was hit by a guy, and I'm like, was I just hit by an adult?

That's what I said to Pat.

The same thing, that's it, what he said.

He's like, did this just happen?

And he's like, yeah.

And he's like, should I go back in and say something or do something?

He's like, no, man, leave it alone.

Right.

So, well, and as he points out in the interview,

what happens to that story if he goes back in and punches him in the face?

Oh, he's a

homophobe.

He's racist.

He's racist.

All these things.

He's going to, they're going to lose the intersectionality battle there.

Yeah.

So he just leaves.

And

then the next day, he's at his bar because he's a bartender.

And Jimmy Fallon is at the bar.

And

Jimmy is apparently a very nice guy and knows everybody.

And

he was talking to him.

And one of the guys said, hey, did you hear what happened to Dustin with Don Lemon last night?

And he's like, no.

And they start telling him the story.

And Fallon looks at him and goes, Geez, why would he what?

I'm sorry that happened.

And that's interesting because, in theory, he would be able to testify that that story was told in the next day.

Next day, yeah.

And this is, by the way, the Hamptons.

So, you know, lots of rich people, lots of celebrities.

Celebrities.

And they're all protecting themselves.

Seems like a bizarre situation where Don Lemon's in a bar one night and Jimmy Fallon's in the next night, but that's somewhat regular in that area.

And it is a very tight community.

one guy spoke out uh in his defense uh and his employer found out about it and they fired him he was a private chef or some celebrity and they heard that he had spoken out against don lemon

and fired him for it

this guy he said at first i didn't know what to do i just kind of laughed about it he said but as the summer went on i became the laughing stock of the community he said every bar i walked into they're like hey how about a couple of lemon drops?

And

he was constantly mocked about it.

And I don't know if it was necessarily

mocking, like making fun of him,

but

picking up a bad incident in your life.

I didn't want to be known as that guy.

And also, he talks about it.

He said, You know, I felt, you know, afterwards, I felt like my manhood was challenged.

And as somebody who is a lifetime weenie,

I can tell you that I don't have the ability to punch back.

I mean, if somebody was like doing that to me,

it wouldn't even occur to me to punch back because, or to punch, because I don't, I don't even know how to, I think I would hurt my hand.

This is why I carry a gun.

Right.

It is.

It's what I would throw a punch and I know I would be like, ow, and everybody who witnessed it would go,

that's how you throw a punch.

Okay.

We've seen you throw a ball.

And that's how we went.

That's exactly what we said to you about that.

Okay.

So it's really bad.

And as somebody who has,

you know,

doesn't have a lot of masculinity in the first place because of things like that and made fun of as a kid,

that would really bother me.

Walking out and then not doing it and then everybody going like, oh, you know, you're the lemon drop.

It would have bothered me that I didn't do anything.

Well, he said he was trying to get past it until he heard Don Lemon give this monologue.

There is no standard way survivors talk about sexual assault.

It isn't always a police phone call and a rape kit or a report filed with HR.

Sometimes they don't talk at all for years, even decades.

Sometimes a little comes out in a conversation with a friend, a partner, or a doctor.

And sometimes it comes out all at once.

Why is it so hard to talk about?

Well part of it is fear and part of it is doubt.

Will I be believed?

Will I be blamed?

Will I have evidence?

Do I have to relive what happened?

Will everyone judge me?

And if I speak out, will it even matter?

People are tricky characters.

Innocent until proven guilty must remain the law of the land.

But at the same time, some guilty people do cloak themselves in innocence.

Remember, after all, Bill Cosby was America's dad not so long ago.

Are we interested in truth?

Are we interested in healing?

Or is there, as there always seems to be these days, a political game being played with people's lives?

Okay, so he said, I couldn't.

I couldn't do it.

Oh, yeah.

He's like, this guy is making himself.

He said,

he had to move away from the Hamptons.

He moved back to Florida.

He's like, I couldn't take it anymore.

And I just wanted to start my life over again.

And so he moved back.

And he said, then that monologue happened.

And he's like, this guy is holding himself up as being the pillar of virtue and the Me Too movement against sexual harassment.

And that's what he did to me.

And he's, and so his lawyers came up with $100, sorry, $1.5 million to sue him civilly.

And he said in it, it's not about the money.

Because she said, is there anything you would settle for?

And he said, it would have to start with an apology and an admission of guilt.

He said, that's all I want is that I did that and it was wrong and I apologize.

And that's the one thing Lemon's not willing to do.

CNN is smearing Dustin.

Yeah.

And I just, I just, I think this is a really important story for a couple of reasons.

One,

it's a horrible story for Dustin Heiss, and it's an important story that these people can't sweep these celebrities.

What's the difference between this and

what's his name, the guy in Hollywood that did it for all those years and everybody knew?

Harvey Weinstein.

Harvey Weinstein.

Well, no, no, no, no.

What's the difference between the two?

I know on the levels, but

their responsibility, they know this guy, they know Don Lemon has done this,

and they're protecting him because he's part of their group.

Okay, it's the same thing when people see things and they're in their group, they don't say anything.

So, me too means nothing.

The second thing is: this is CNN

protecting Don Lemon,

Cuomo,

and Jeffrey Toobin.

It is becoming a

a sick sexual club.

It does seem to be the, I don't know if it's the price to get in.

Maybe it's like one of those situations.

It's pretty creepy.

One other quick detail here, Glenn.

And I don't know if Pat, if you heard this either.

He said that Don Lemon has already offered him $500,000 for this to go away.

Wow.

So like that was really compelling evidence that this did happen.

Oh, yeah.

You know, what's going on?

No, it did happen.

You know, it's such a weird and sick thing to do to somebody that, you know, he didn't start with that.

That didn't just, that wasn't the first time it happened.

He said, anybody that acts like that in public without any fear of what it might do to somebody or the consequences it might have, that's a pattern.

Yep.

He's done it before.

He's done something similar

many times.

We're talking about arrogance.

Yeah.

The arrogance, the arrogance of Cuomo on night after night after night, talking as a hero and a champion of women when he has sexually harassed a boss.

As soon as she wasn't his boss, he harassed her.

And he's held up as a champion.

To be the guy writing the words for his brother

and saying, I'm not involved at all in any of this, and it's all sexual harassment.

For Jeffrey Toobin

to

do that,

how can anyone

look at him seriously?

How could any woman that's working at CNN

look at him and not think of him in the corner of their screen masturbating?

And now Don Lemon?

Look, in their arrogance, they will fail.

They are getting so arrogant, so arrogant.

There's a dark side to that.

But the only thing that happens is

failure with stupid and criminal arrogance.

Failure follows every time.

This is the best of the Glen Beck program.

Andy McCarthy is with us, friend of the program.

How are you, Andy?

I'm doing great, Glenn.

How are you?

I am good.

So

I am seeing a collision course here of arrogance and lies

coming up right up against the truth.

And I'd like to get your opinion on these three stories and tell me what's really happening.

And can we start with the Rittenhouse trial?

Sure.

Okay.

I want to play you some testimony from the Rittenhouse trial that came out yesterday.

Here it is.

Cut four.

Right?

Correct.

It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So this is the prosecutor's case.

The prosecutor's case.

And this is, I think, the third witness that has shown that

this was clearly self-defense.

You know, one was like he only shot when the other guy lunged for his rifle.

You know, this guy was pointing a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse, and that's when he shot him.

I've never seen the prosecution put people on that should be for the defense.

ever before in my life.

Have you?

Not to this degree.

And I think, Glenn, you know, there's two alarming things that are going on here, which ought to upset people.

One is there's obviously a divide that makes, that should make you busy between

what goes on in today's prosecutor's office,

where social justice is as important as constitutional justice in determining who gets charged and with what.

Because this is a case, I think, where the prosecution was clearly driven by the mob to bring a charge that shouldn't have been brought.

And then the disconnect is in the four corners of a trial, if the judge is doing his job and applying the law, then constitutional law still applies.

So

when you take a case that should never have been a case in the first place, it's one thing to say a bunch of stuff about it in the media.

It's quite another thing to bring it into court.

And as you're seeing what happens in court, where they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person they charge with murder committed murder, the case is collapsing.

Collapsing in a spectacular fashion.

I mean, I'm hearing the testimony.

The prosecution, when that guy said that yesterday, just put his head in his hands.

I mean,

it was a moment of incredible defeat.

And

I mean, I just feel like I know it won't happen, but I just feel like the judge should be saying, what the hell is this even in my courtroom for?

Hopefully, that's the question he'll ask at the end of the prosecutor's presentation.

Once they've decided to go forward with the trial, I guess they have to let the prosecutors try to make their case or at least finish their presentation.

But there is a point of law in a trial where the defense gets to move for dismissal of the case before they have to put on any evidence or decide whether to do anything.

And so hopefully the case will end then.

Do you think it will?

Do you think that will happen?

I think that there is at least one misdemeanor charge which involves, and this is a vague charge that the judge may throw out for legal reasons, but if he allows that to survive, there's an argument that a jury should resolve whether Rittenhouse is guilty of possessing a gun illegally because he was under 18 under the statute.

But the statute is very clumsily written.

It's not clear it applies to him.

But that's the only charge that I can see so far that you could make an argument that

maybe the jury should resolve that.

But the murder counts, they should go.

So, what does this tell you about Keith Ellison, who took and ratcheted the charges up to murder?

Well, you have to look at the murder statute that

is involved.

You're talking about Ellison.

Keith Ellison, the Attorney General.

Yeah.

You know, I think, for example, when you look at the

he was the attorney general in the Chauvin trial.

Yeah, wasn't it?

So am I talking about a different case?

Yeah, no, that's Minnesota.

So who was the pro who was the

lead prosecutor or

somebody above the team

came in and said, ratchet it up?

And I was thinking it was Keith Ellison, but I was in the wrong state.

Yeah, well, it was a good argument that Ellison did that too.

But

I don't know what the name of the prosecutor is, but the phenomenon you're talking about certainly happened, which is that the mob pushed for these charges.

And the thing is,

justice in a courtroom is not a morality play.

You know, you may look at the world and decide that we have endemic racism, and you may decide that there's a lot of things that are bad that are unrelated to murder, like, you know, a 17-year-old kid shouldn't have been out on the street in a melee like that, armed.

You can have all those views.

But in a courtroom, the issue is the charges that you bring, can the prosecutors prove the elements of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt?

And all the noise is supposed to be tuned out while we decide those very important questions.

Prosecutors are supposed to analyze those questions objectively and dispassionately before they bring charges.

But what you're seeing is that political pressure is being brought to bear on the prosecutors to bring the charges.

And look, sometimes they get away with it in court.

I think there's a lot of things that happened in the Chauvin trial that we just alluded to that were very disturbing.

That case may be held up on appeal, but he's got a lot of arguments to make about due process.

All right.

I'm going to take a quick break.

First of all, this is a federal prosecution because it's murder charges?

State.

State.

State.

So can the feds come in after this, if this is dismissed, and recharge him?

I don't see any evidence of a civil rights violation, Glenn, but

that would have to be their basis for coming in.

I don't see it.

Andy McCarthy is a former assistant U.S.

attorney for the Southern District of New York.

He was the guy who led the prosecution in 1995

on the first World Trade Center bombing and the planning of a series of attacks on New York City landmarks.

He has also

been

contributor to the prosecutions on many, many terrorists.

He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003

and is a trusted friend and guide here on some of these things.

Andy, let's go to the Durham case.

I had given up hope that anything was going to happen.

Now I'm not so sure.

Can you tell me what you know about

what the indictments mean and where you think they're headed?

Glenn, it looks like the two indictments that have been filed in the last six weeks, one against the Clinton campaign's lawyer, Michael Sussman, or one of the lawyers, and now this other one against this guy, Igor Denchenko, who was the main source for the infamous Steele dossier.

They're very descriptive in terms of the narrative, even though the charges are

pretty pedestrian.

They're lying to FBI agents.

But he lays out a theory where it looks to me like where he's going is that the Trump-Russia collusion storyline was essentially a concoction of the Clinton campaign, which not only formulated it through the Field dossier, among other things, but peddled it out to the media and to an all-too-credulous FBI, which enabled them to argue to the electorate that Trump was a Putin puppet and that he was under investigation by the FBI for being a Putin puppet.

So I think that's what happened here.

And the issue has always been: is the government in on it or

are they dupes?

And Durham seems to be going with the theory in these cases that the FBI was duped.

I don't believe that.

Well, yeah, I've always thought they were pushing on an open door.

And let's not forget we have a

when I say pushing on an open door, I'm saying the people who brought this anti-Trump information to the FBI, these guys were predisposed against Trump, and they figured that if they investigated long enough, the evidence would bear out their predisposition.

I think that's what happened.

But that's a different thing from saying that they committed a fraud on the court.

And I think

what about the Pfizer stuff?

Yeah, well, look,

I think

what they did here was utterly irresponsible because they didn't corroborate the information they brought to the Pfizer court.

I would point out that what they bring to the Pfizer court is called, technically, a verified application, which they make under oath.

And the reason for that is because they're supposed to corroborate the information before they go to court.

Here, they didn't interview Danchenko, who was the main source, until January of 2017, when they first went to court in October of 2016.

And by the time they interviewed the source, they're looking for their second 90-day warrant.

So it's outrageous.

It looks as though

they knew, though, by 2017.

It looks as though now that in 2017 the Washington Post knew

and it was kind of an open secret in

the media, but they all continued to do it.

What does that tell you?

Well,

from Durham's perspective, I think what it indicates is that the reason that Barr

made him a special counsel, and remember when he started this investigation, he was the U.S.

Attorney Attorney in Connecticut, so he's just like a regular federal prosecutor.

Bard put him in the same designation class as Mueller, and I think he did that because he recognized that there was a lot of abuse of power here and a lot of potential corruption here, but that it might be hard to charge a lot of it as criminal activity.

But a special counsel is allowed to write a narrative report at the end, unlike normal prosecutors who just drop cases that they can't where they can't bring criminal charges.

So I think we're going to get a report, and it'll be comprehensive.

And what Durham's going to end up saying is that

the Clinton campaign is the main culprit here, but that the FBI was utterly irresponsible in how they handled the allegations.

So is anyone from the Clinton campaign, I mean, is Clinton going to pay at all?

Is there going to be any real ramifications on this?

Well, I think only in the sense that, you know, there'll be a historical document that lays this at her feet.

And, you know,

what I always say when I get asked a question like that is,

we're not in the first year of the second term of President Hillary Clinton.

I mean, it's not like she hasn't,

you know, it's not like nothing happened here.

She didn't get elected.

So there's some justice in that.

But, you know, look, I think if people want to see

a bells and whistles indictment and people get drawn and quartered at the end, they should disenthrall them themselves because that's not going to happen so people have asked me why isn't this a coup why isn't this an attempted coup they knew what was going on and they all they were trying to do is to get the president either impeached thrown out stopped whatever why isn't that a coup

well i mean for for sorghus trump did win the election you know the the objective was to stop him from winning the election and he did win yeah but then when they knew they continued with the impeachment and everything else.

Yeah, no, and look, I think it's fair to say that the law enforcement and intelligence apparatus of the government was

used as a weapon by the incumbent Obama administration and the holdovers from the Obama administration who continued into the Trump administration to try to take Trump out.

I guess it's not a coup because they didn't succeed, but that doesn't mean they didn't try.

So no punishment for an attempted coup.

Well, it depends on whether that's gone.

It depends on whether they can find that he committed, that they committed criminal violations.

And gross incompetence and political dirty tricks are reprehensible, but they're not necessarily violations of the criminal law.

That's why, for example, with impeachment, we don't require a crime for impeachment, right?

A lot of times very serious misbehavior is not misbehavior that's addressed by the penal code.

So even the fact I have one minute and I got a break, and and I want to hold you over because I have one more case that I think is

the undoing of a lot of stuff.

The

shoot, now I lost my train of thought.

Even the fact that the president, now this goes to the impeachment trial, that President Obama met with Joe Biden and they colluded against General Flynn.

against the FBI, even that, that's not illegal?

Well, I think it could arguably have been illegal, but Barr said during the Trump administration that Obama and Biden were not subject to the investigation.

So, you know, they decided that I guess a higher standard should apply if the law enforcement is going to have impact on the politics.

The best of the Glenn Bank program.

Yesterday at this time,

Stu

asked a question

because he was noticing a trend in our society.

By the way, Bitcoin is still at its highest level, isn't it?

67?

Real cool.

Yeah, really close.

I think it hit 68 and change last night for an all-time high, but it's at 60.

It's crazy.

Right around 67,000 right now.

Incredible.

And you started on not Bitcoin, but cryptocurrency.

So

lay it out again.

One of the things that sparked this was a tweet from Mark Cuban, who noted that, according to a poll, 4% of people have left their job due to cryptocurrency profits.

And, you know, you might look at that and say, okay, well, they made a lot of money.

They can leave their job.

However, the vast majority of them were people who made less than the average salary.

They were people who were making like $25,000 to $35,000 a year in that range.

And

we were talking about this a little bit about the sort of weird incentive our society is currently

sending to people.

I mean, if you think about gambling as a whole, why don't you do it?

Right?

Everyone loves to win at gambling.

Why don't you do it?

Because you could lose everything.

Because you could lose everything, right?

But what if you couldn't lose everything?

What if the government set a floor

that you couldn't pass below?

This is the argument that we made against TARP.

Against TARP, right?

Because you're incentivizing the riskier behavior.

Because if you don't, if you socialize losses and privatize gains, you're setting up a really bad system.

Correct.

And if you think for the average person,

or maybe someone who's maybe earning...

Enough money to keep themselves alive, but not enough money to give them the life that they want financially.

You might look at yourself and say, okay, I'm making $25,000 a year.

I don't have a lot of money.

Why wouldn't I take a little, whatever extra money I do wind up getting a lot of times in government handouts and stimulus payments, why wouldn't I throw that at the riskiest possible thing

and get 10, 20, 30 X if I'm lucky?

And if not, I'm left basically in the same position I'm already in with a floor that the government is going to provide me with handouts and giveaways that I can't pass below.

So if you already think your life isn't that great,

why would you save?

Why would you even

make rational purchases, save for a rainy day, pay some health care bill off, when in reality,

the government's going to catch you there anyway?

And it creates this weird society that has the same problems as the banks had.

If you hit on some dog cryptocurrency and it goes up a hundred times, you could keep that money.

But if you miss it, you could still get the handouts from the government on the other side.

Okay, so I said you're not going to like the answer to this yesterday.

And let me give you the historic context on this.

History is not, it does not just repeat itself, it is repeating itself right now.

And it more than rhymes.

Think about what you're asking.

You're asking, and especially if

by 2030,

the 30-year-old will have no recollection of America at all before 9-11.

Okay?

30-year-olds.

Okay.

I'm 30, you're starting to shape society at that point.

Okay.

You are the movers and shakers, 30-year-olds.

This has happened before.

Our 9-11

was

World War I to the Germans.

World War I, everything was

okay in Germany,

and they understood the Republic and everything else.

They had some real rot there,

but

the churches and everybody got on board and rah-rah, Germany, and let's go in.

God's on our side.

And

once World War I ended and it was such a humiliating loss,

the republic kind of split, and it split between the people who were part of the old guard,

the older people, and the younger people who

really

didn't know the republic the way the older people did.

And then they had all kinds of problems.

They had financial problems, et cetera, et cetera.

And then it seemed as though those financial problems were kind of a thing of the past because there was this new era in Germany.

It's called Weimar.

And the Weimar Republic was all about

twisted views on everything.

And drugs were free-flowing and sex and cabarets and all of this stuff.

The average person couldn't keep up with it because the average person had a family.

And so they had to take their money and leave the office and go to the grocery store and cash their check as soon as they could.

It got to the point where you were paid twice a day and everyone would leave, go shopping, come back, get another paycheck, go shopping.

That's how bad it was.

Because of the inflation.

Because of the inflation.

Here's the difference.

The average person that had a family had to do that.

The average 20-something didn't.

The average 20-something that didn't have any children got rich because when everybody else went shopping, they went out, grabbed something, but then they went to the stock market.

Today's Bitcoin.

And they put it all in Bitcoin.

They put it all.

And

the society had changed in a way that would have been completely unrecognizable to the old guard.

And bankers were now 25 years old.

People were titans, and they became very, very powerful and very wealthy because the average German

was

fighting for their life with their family and also part of the old guard.

And so this new kind of group rose up.

That I think is our 20-somethings and 30-somethings right now.

And it came with great arrogance.

Okay.

And they just knew they were right.

Get out of here, old man.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Get out of here, old man.

It's a new world.

And they had great arrogance.

To get inflation under control, Germany elected a new prime minister who came in and figured out how to reset the Reichmark.

And he reset it, and he was Oldgard.

And he came in, and he was the same kind of guy.

that you and I would probably vote for because they were like, oh, he understands Germans and he understands Germany.

Okay.

And thank God we're going back.

So he was in charge and things were starting to really come back, but there was another problem.

As it was coming back to the old Germany and common sense was being restored, all of the kids, all of the young people that had gotten rich and powerful, they're suddenly losing their jobs to the old guys again.

They're suddenly kind of in this place to where now they're on the receiving end of

things.

Socialism is rising up at the same time.

And socialism says, we'll take care of all of it, all of it.

National socialism is part of it.

Most Germans don't want the Nazis.

The ones who were the most favorable for the Nazis were the young that had become wildly successful because they saw that the Nazis were all in a hierarchy that you could kind of buy your way in or move in and kind of muscle people.

It was just for the meanest of the mean.

And so if you were ruthless,

like our left is becoming now, if you were ruthless, there was a place for you.

And

you could be rich and powerful.

You just work with them.

Okay?

Then the prime minister was,

I think he died of a heart attack.

He dies.

Now

we go to a vote.

Hitler wins because socialism,

socialism is important.

30% of the population voted for the Nazis.

And I believe a lot of those people also just kind of voted for socialism.

It was this new idea.

It was happening over in Italy.

And there were tons of people that wanted a different world.

And they no longer understood

what it was

to be a German.

They had this new definition of a German.

So let me,

World War I in that story is our 9-11.

The Weimar Republic is really kind of right now where things, the truth doesn't matter anymore.

All of the old things are just being rejected because they're old.

And, you know, hey, boomer, that kind of attitude.

They are also, you have people who are doing really risky things.

That was the big thing in Weimar.

If you had the money, you're doing really risky things.

The next crash, the next crash is coming, and we will have the downside of the Weimar Republic with inflation.

There's two Americas, and you see them.

One that says hard work, ethics, ethical behavior, truth.

Put those things back in place and we'll be fine.

The other side is doubling down.

They're becoming more and more extreme and they care less and less about the people who disagree with them.

We are repeating exactly the same pattern.

And you have to decide right now which side you're on

because of what Stu just pointed out, we will, most likely, all of us, and I include me in this, most likely all of us are going to struggle to put food on our table at some point.

If they change the dollar to a Fed coin, If the world stops using our dollar as the reserve currency, which is likely to happen, experts will tell you, no, I'm telling you, it's likely to happen.

When that happens,

we will all have trouble putting food on our table.

And with the things that this administration is doing to our farmers, to our entire system through the Great Reset, it's going to be a tough schlog.

And we're going to need each other, or we will turn to the government.

A lot will turn to the government.

They're counting on it.

Bundle and safe with Expedia.

You were made to follow your favorite band and from the front row, we were made to quietly save you more.

Expedia, made to travel.

Savings vary and subject to availability, flight inclusive packages are at all protected.