Nick Reed 09.09.26 - Dem Knives Out for Fetterman

0:00There was the story regarding the Ohio Democrat gubernatorial candidate Amy Action at this fair and the initial news reports was there was would be assassin. A man stormed in. He was so violent. He was knocking over elderly people and he had guns and I mean the campaign issued a statement about how they think those who saved lives that day and it's of a warrant political violence. This is horrible and awful. One of the things I noticed it was missing was any sort of video. I mean this day and age when you're talking about a crowd of people at an event like a fair and something no worthy happens and no one managed is to have captured any of

1:02it on video. That's always a bit of a red flag to me. Even if in whatever the given moment was no one happened to have their phone out filming particularly I mean here's this gubernatorial candidate giving a speech surrounded by people that presumably are supporters of hers or even if they're not supporters you know what happened you know what happens on that level by the way is you get people often I don't like you that are filming you in order to you know just to document everything that you're saying and so forth point mean is it even if somehow as unimaginable as it may be no one was filming her during this period of time once things began to unfold no one got out their phone to capture it. Of all of the things that people catch on video today I always find it amazing when these stories pop up like this one some near assassination attempt this fantastic event yet no video of

2:06it released now what that usually tells me what it does tell me is what usually turns out to be the truth and that is the story as it's presented doesn't line up with reality and that appears to be the case with this situation as apparently there is video and guess what the video doesn't show it doesn't show an assassination attempt at all. The carefully constructed narrative surrounding the alleged armed attack of Ohio Democrat gubernatorial candidate Amy action rapidly falling apart Patrick Ovis 38 was arrested Sunday after entering the Mahoning County Democratic Party tent at the Canfield Fair while action was speaking this is the name of the Democrat candidate for governor actions campaign immediately portrayed the incident as a terrifying act of political violence claiming that an armed individual lunged at

3:08the Democrat candidate and injured multiple people in doing so quote while attending the centerfield fair an armed individual lunge to doctor action injuring multiple people in quote this was according to the campaign communication director the campaign director added at the time doctor action in Erica grateful for the swift and decisive action of law enforcement and our praying for the recovery of those injured this kind of violence has no place in Ohio doctor action will always stand up to the chaos hate and vitriol that pits us against one another left wing outlets treated like a mega hit job at a county fair the actual charging document is to misdemeanor assault counts for knocking people down plus disorderly conduct and including pant or inducing panic no felony no attempt charge no brandishing of a weapon charge now is the gateway

4:10pundit previously reported the facts already known Sunday night to not support the most sensational claims circulating online have this never drew either weapon never touched action and was not accused of even making a threat against her during have this is a rainment yesterday majonine county prosecutor Lynn Marco told the court that have this apparently entered the tent because he wanted to ask the gubernatorial candidate some questions low and behold by the way this is the prosecutor this is not the defense this is the individual in charge of prosecution acknowledging yeah he was just there to ask some questions Marco said investigators reviewed a recording made by have us himself the footage reportedly showed him entering the tent with his phone recording moving forward through the gathering and repeatedly

5:10calling out actions named ask a question there was no weapon brandished there was no threat whatsoever on video there was no physical contact with action have this never even reached the democratic candidate before members of her Ohio state highway patrol security detail intercepted him law enforcement also received permission to search have this his cell phone from have this and discovered zero threats or zero searches or anything that would indicate that he was any sort of threat whatsoever that of course a serious problem for a campaign that he immediately blasted out the explosive claim that an armed man had launched at the candidate authorities previously confirmed that have us did possessed handguns however the Mahoney County Sheriff's Office said none of the weapons were brandished or removed from its holster during the incident

6:12the candidate was never touched suffered no injuries ultimately the prosecutor acknowledges that there's no evidence for anything whatsoever other than accusing have us of knocking down two people while he was filming and trying to push his way through the audience both individuals were treated at the fair and released according to the incident report he pleaded not guilty yesterday to two counts of assault one count of disorderly conduct and one count of inducing panic bond set at five thousand this is another example of the left halting to pretend something occurred that did not in order to try and create a false narrative the left has been desperate to try and convince people that violence against political opposition is a both sides problem they say it all the time they'll say it casually oh yeah i mean

7:16political violence it's something that that comes from both sides now it doesn't and much of the evidence of that is a situation like this in which they take a non-violent situation by a person that you know maybe he was rude trying to make his way to the front and you maybe he was asking questions that weren't approved questions but this was not violence but they take a situation that is benign and claim that an armed gunman launched at this individual trying to assassinate this candidate until law enforcement risk their lives stepping in if this were a both sides problem one side would not have to make up situations like this whether it's this it's a jessy small net a small net situation or countless situations in between which people make claims uh generally against conservatives that i was called this name

8:20or this happened and then it turns out it did not their need to fake violent situations in which they are the victims prove that this is a one-sided issue democrat senator john federman is under fire over leaked texts with his staff in which he brushed off meetings with a children's hospital and paralyzed veterans he's pushing back calling the report smears with support from his republican pennsylvania collie senator david mccormick federman broke his silence following the bomb show report based on leak text messages between him and his staff that portrayed him as brushing off basic duties and being a senator including meeting with constituents federman told CNN a statement that disgruntled staffers had concocted the story first reported by the wall street journal in order to knock his reputation per usual lives have trues in you endos smears and anonymous federman said no matter how many smears

9:25or stories i'm proud to continue to deliver for pennsylvania uh the lawmakers response follows an explosive report published last week that painted federman as a politician more interested in appearing on fox news to discuss israel than meeting with constituents including paralyzed veterans and opting to blow off a funeral for slain police officers because it would have taken too long and so you know they throw in israel there because of course the jews so now let me explain how these things work and listen every every elected official is different there are some elected officials out there that do everything they can avoid going to actual events unless there's going to be national cameras there there are those that when they are back home in particular they're busier than when they're in washington i mean i i can tell you just because of you know the fact that he's the seventh congressional congressman burles and he is an

10:30example of someone that is constantly nonstop meeting with constituents meeting with groups meeting with businesses when you are an elected official well let's first let's start with the elected officials that that have no interest in doing that stuff they don't want to do it they don't see the benefit of it if it's not going to get them any sort of national attention then you know they don't have any interest those individuals end up turning down obviously a lot of invitations right they turn them down because they don't want to do them you know who else turns down a lot of invitations perhaps even more or elected officials who go to as many things as they possibly can and that's because they get invited to things all the time constantly and when you and and a lot of events are you know they hit these certain windows particularly when the weather's

11:30nice so you may have these summer events going on if you're an elected official and you get invited to six different events that are on the same day during the same period of time you turn down five of them sometimes there are things commitments that you have made and then something else pops up later so you know say yeah but you've got to choose between I mean you know paralyzed veterans why why would you pick anyone above paralyzed veterans well if you committed to someone and you are an individual who believes us and I made a commitment I need to stick with the commitment people need to know that they can rely on me plus I'm a person of integrity and then two months later you can invite it to go visit paralyzed veterans you have to turn them down because you've already booked it and you don't want to break that commitment that you know these things that now I don't know if that's the federalment situation or I have no idea you know the the ironic thing is people who go to more events turn more down because they get a reputation of accepting a lot of

12:37events whereas if you have let's say a US senator that is known for never really going to anything unless that's going to get him face time on national media you just don't even it gets the reputation gets around and then you the the invitation starts to dry up because everyone knows he's not going to come anyway he won't come to our event because we're not going to get him the national attention so ironically it's the members of either the you know the senator the house or you know this applies on a state level as well that go to the most things that oftentimes have to turn down the most things like I said I don't know the situation with federalment I don't know the details of it I don't know which one he is but it's clear the way they're presenting it what they want you to believe it I don't explain any of this in these stories instead the reader is supposed to infer that all he wants to do is get on Fox News and talk about Israel and here he just turns down sick children events he turns down slaying officer events without giving any

13:39context or explaining why there are a number of stories are kind of national stories but they'll pop up in local news snap cuts could lead to kids losing free school breakfast and lunch that the media is very good about leaving out context which misleads its viewers its readers and sometimes I think that it's deliberate I know it is other times I believe that the people crafting the stories just don't have and I don't mean this to be insulting it isn't even their fault but we have trained people through our education system not to be curious not to ask probing questions not to have that intellectual curiosity so I think a lot of times they get presented a perspective from a certain you know institution or entity you know people for example who make their money off of government taxpayers buying lunches for kids and they present that to media outlets by way

14:42of press releases and they just get written up in stories so they might as well be written up by people who have skin in the game so this is a it's a repeat story but this one comes from the North Dakota Monitor in Fargo cuts to the nation's largest food assistance program will likely spill over into schools causing students to lose access to free breakfast and lunch more than a million American children have lost access to snap following a recent federal law now as schools gear up for a new term apportion of those children could be at risk of losing free meals viewed as crucial support for both childhood hunger and classroom learning with the changes in cafeteria's could affect even families who have never participated in the federal snap program many students who receive free school meals automatically qualify because of their household participation in snap or

15:42Medicaid so a reduction in those social service programs can directly threaten their eligibility for free school meals and many schools offer free meals to all students those schools qualify for federal funding that is tied to rates of snap participation the complicated federal funding formula means even a slight change in snap enrollment could jeopardize free meals funding for entire schools and districts Clarissa Hayes deputy director of child nutrition program and policy at the food research and action center said cuts to snap are not going to stop at the grocery store they really are going to threaten children's access to school meals which is obviously going to increase hunger at home and in the classroom and going to have that negative ripple effect across children's health and academic performance the threat to school meals comes during a period of up evil for federal safety net programs and growing hunger across the country amid rising grocery

16:42prices last year one big beautiful bill act implemented new eligibility and work requirements for snap as well as push new cost on the states already millions have lost food stamps but the threat to schools are just coming into focus and then it goes into how if kids aren't fed they're going to do more parling school now what they want you to infer from this is that kids who have no means to purchase lunches are now going to go without that they are going to be sitting there hungry because their parents have absolutely no way whatsoever to pay for lunch now the problem with that is it doesn't line up with reality the cuts to the program that they are talking about here without explaining it are individuals who are choosing not to work but are

17:49able to work this is the same thing with the Medicaid situation in which you had people on the left running around claiming that you know it's going to the big beautiful bill was going to deny people medicine and that you know you you've got the mom with the 12 year old with leukemia that is going to have medicine withheld because of these cuts when none of that was true this this was all about getting people off the system who were scamming the system this was about making sure that the dollars allocated to the program actually went to it's who needed now my perspective on this is if you really truly care about kids that are hungry and who have families at can afford lunch you would support getting people off of it that don't need to be on it it even notes in here subtly that this could affect some schools that pay for the in which school lunches are free for every single

18:52child that means regardless of economic standards so some of these kids that are being so cruelly denied taxpayer funded free lunch and breakfast are the kids of millionaires now I'm not going to pretend as if that is a huge percentage of these individuals but the point of it is the removal of the new standards of these people are to make sure that only those who actually need it get it which shores up the program the problem with part of the formula here is schools get money based off how many kids they get addicted to these these government programs and how many families they get addicted to it they get money off it I've talked to numerous people in the past you may be some of them if you have children in areas school districts who one day found out that their

19:53child was enrolled in free lunches and they didn't not only did not need it but didn't apply for it they were put on it by default I this was several years ago from one of the area elementary schools that someone that I knew I still know had gotten it was like a checker something from the school district or they had gotten a rebate for a pretty significant amount of money and they're like what they what is this for and I don't know what it's for well it was because they were paying for their child's lunch every day because they could easily afford it not knowing that their child had by default been put on the free lunch program so they were getting a rebate for paying for the the lunches this is all about money and what and if you were paying attention in the 90s we've been through a version of this in the 90s we were subject to this propaganda campaign that

20:57Republicans were taking lunches from kids because the Republicans were offering up an increase I'm just throwing out numbers here I don't remember the exact numbers but Republicans in the budget were increasing the amount of spending for reduced or free lunches by like 3% Democrats were like no we wanted to be 4% when Republicans said no they were accused of slashing school lunches which of course was a lie they were increasing the amount of spending and you had I think Jesse Jackson and others they were showing up at elementary schools and they were going into these lunch rooms with cameras show all these starving kids and of course the media carried the narrative along with the Democrats so this they're starving the kids narrative is nothing new it's just been a while since it's been around it isn't starving kids by telling parents who can afford it including

21:59millionaires yeah you need to pay for your own kids lunch and breakfast springfields talk 104 one broadcasting live from springfield live stock home of max vet supply I'm Nick I want to make one other point about this the new you know the scare tactics about all these kids are going to be refused to you know to be fed because of the evil Trump snap benefits being cut there's long been the narrative that kids that are hungry are less likely to learn effectively and I think there can be some truth to that but it's not an end all be all and by let's just look at the landscape here when many of us grew up rarely rarely were any kids on any sort of free lunch

23:00program usually what would happen and this may have been even a little bit before my time if they couldn't afford lunch you got a cheese sandwich what they you look at today where some of these schools even the children of millionaires have their lunch paid for and breakfast too I mean you've got in springfield every summer at least one of the schools opens up in any one under the age of 18 doesn't matter who you are it can come and just eat free so that there's an over abundance compared to the way that it was several generations ago in the public school systems in terms of you want to look at the scope and you know once upon a time starving kids no free lunch programs versus today where some schools everyone gets free lunch should the learning curve not have increased dramatically if we're told that

24:05kids not getting whatever food it is that they need for lunch or breakfast means that there is going to be the diminished learning capacity why is it when we've gone from a public school school system in which there was no guaranteed free lunch or breakfast to one where virtually all of them have guaranteed lunch or breakfast yet instead of seeing a direct improvement in education it's been the opposite now I'm not claiming that there's a causation situation here my point isn't that guaranteed free food for all kids means that they're that the learning curve is going to go down but what I'm saying is you can't stand around and argue that it's going to help improve it when the opposite is happening and that's of course one of their big selling points that well if we've got you know you've got to feed these kids otherwise they're not going to learn is good

25:09because that seems to be what's happening now in fact you you look at pictures of kids in elementary school in the 60s and the 70s and the 80s versus today we ought to be in an economic boom or sorry an educational boom in terms of success if that direct correlation is the you know the the holy grail of children learning but of course it's not they like to present it that way oftentimes report trump may open child care funds to stay at home parents now what this is about is the the program that was set up in the 90s ccdf child care and developmental fund which exists in his current form to help low-income parents pay someone else to watch their kids so that they can go to work or school under the current rules a child is generally eligible only

26:13if the parent or parents are working in school or training the New York Times reported Saturday that the administration is seeking to open it to married couples in one in which one spouse stays home to raise the couple's children the proposed draft rule would create a category of parent-based child care allowing one married parent to access the tax-pair dollars to care for their own children if the other parent works at least 35 hours per week now I think this is a sign that we're in a very bad place and continue to head in a very bad direction and there's an interesting argument that's going on amongst I get Republicans conservatives on this marry rook has a piece of daily collar trump to fix marriage penalty hidden inside America's child care fund and she's railing against conservatives who are opposed to this because conservatives are supposed to be pro-family and this is simply closing a loophole that doesn't allow families that want at least one parent to stay

27:16home from the kid to get the same benefit that people who decide not to do so get and so you have two increasingly divided versions as to what conservative means those who believe that a conservative form of government is one that uses its power and authority and tax-pair dollars in order to promote what it feels and recognizes as pro-family values and then you have the what I would consider the more traditional conservative version in which government stays out of it smaller government government should not be deciding what is a family what isn't a family and who should get tax-pair dollars in order to promote that family the the to me I guess I don't even know if conservative is the term any longer what I'd say the smaller government view is is you just get government out of it altogether stop taking tax-pair dollars from people and then deciding who to distribute it to

28:16based off of how many kids government decides you should have how many jobs government decides that you should have and instead just stay out of it you know there are a lot of negatives to this sort of approach anyhow and one of them is it really does suppress wages not from the taxing standpoint but you will hear people say it's a sign the fact that the government has to subsidize child care is is a sign that those people aren't being paid enough well business is no they don't have to pay as much for people to pay for their own child care because the government's going to do it for them government creates every time government says well businesses don't pay people enough so we have to in turn subsidize it the businesses then recognize oh you're taking care of it we don't have to and people can argue over motivations they can argue that well businesses shouldn't be

29:17greedy and do it it's just the way it is we can sit around and talk about shut-ups and wood-ups until we're blue in the face but in the meantime reality is playing out I just it worries me that increasingly people are viewing conservative government as one that should pay people to stay home and take care of their own family to me that's like paying kids to go to school which increasingly some school districts are doing in a desperate attempt to keep the tax dollars flowing and to show attendance is up is what we'll just pay them to stay in school I just don't know that it's really a family value to encourage people to act more like a family because you're getting paid taxpayer dollars to do it it may be pretending in order to get cash hope everyone

30:17has a fantastic rest of your day tomorrow be talking to you about much nicer weather a high tomorrow Glenn Beck is coming up next I'm Nick Reed