Primary Her NOW!

Well, ladies and gentlemen, is about time finally the save act is going to the floor and

it looks like we're going to get a talking filibuster, but there was, of course, there

was, of course, a couple of Republicans that didn't even want to have the talking filibuster.

It wasn't good enough to just be able to vote know if that's what they wanted to do.

No, they wanted to obstruct in every possible way that they could in order to prevent this

vote from actually going to the floor and doing what is considered to not only be one

of the signature pieces of the Trump administration, but to be something that the Republican base

has demanding and have been asking for for years now.

So of course, of course, it would not just be any Senate Republican, it would be a Senate

Republican from an entirely safe state doing this.

So today we're going to do two things.

I'm going to briefly describe what the save act actually does, not the hype, not the fear,

but it actually does.

We're going to talk a little bit about some of the concerns that were addressed.

And then we're going to talk about why this particular senator must be primary.

And we're going to talk about why it's not only the right thing to do in principle, it's

the right thing to do practically.

All that coming up on this episode and making the argument, I am your host Nick Freitas.

Let's jump into it.

Right.

So the good news is is that the GOP triggers a marathon senate fight to expose DIMS opposition

to the Trump backed voter ID bill.

So for a long time, Senator Majority Leader John Thune was saying, well, we can't bring

into a vote because it's just going to die because we don't have the 60 votes necessary

in the Senate to get past the filibuster.

And people like Senator Mike Lee and Senate Eric Schmidt, great guys have said, do a talking

filibuster.

If they're going to, we're not going to hold this whole thing up just because Democrats

threaten a talking filibuster.

If they want to actually do it, make them do it and then let's have the debate.

And then we can at least get them on record.

So if you're not going to get rid of the filibuster, okay, at least make them do the things

that a filibuster requires.

And John Thune came out last week and said, well, I don't even have the votes to do that.

What do you mean you don't have the votes to do that?

And then we started to see that people like Tom Tillerson, North Carolina, who's retiring

or John Curtis and Utah seem to have problems.

And then of course, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska had problems.

So let's go and see what they actually had problems with, okay?

So this is what the bill does.

It amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to enforce the existing federal

requirement that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in federal elections.

Under current law, applicants simply attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The Save Act replaces that honor system approach with mandatory verification.

I want you to remember that the Democrats have allowed millions of people into the country

illegally and have been actively working in many jurisdictions to allow illegal immigrants

to vote in local elections on local boards to serve in certain capacities, even though

they're in the country illegally.

So this idea that this isn't a problem or this is a, this is a solution in search of

a problem is absolutely absurd.

It is ridiculous.

This is a legitimate concerns that Americans have and they deserve to have it addressed.

And the fact that all the way up until this point, it was just like, hey, you better be

a U.S. citizen to vote.

Are you sure in?

And that's all that's required seems absurd to most Americans that I don't know are not

willing to engage in complete cognitive dissonance.

So how do you prove it?

The core requirements, documentary proof of you at a citizenship is required for any federal

voter registration.

Okay.

So let's, let's clarify this real quick, because this doesn't mean that the feds have

the ability to intervene in election law for local or state elections.

That is still a state function.

And I think that makes sense.

But what the feds are saying is that if we have certain rules on what permits you legally

constitutionally to be able to vote in federal elections, then we need to have mechanisms

in order to ensure that those things are achieved.

And so the way that we're going to do this is documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.

So here's what that means.

If you want to vote by mail online, DMV or in person, there just needs to be proof of citizenship

with respect to registration.

Acceptable documents include a real ID, ID compliant, ID and indicating citizenship, a valid

U.S. passport, military, military, D plus U.S. birth record, naturalization citizenship

certificate or certain government issued photo IDs showing U.S. birthplace.

States cannot process any registration application without this proof.

States must run their voter rolls through the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE,

which is systematic alien verification for entitlements, database, identify and remove

non-citizens after giving them an opportunity to prove citizenship and maintain ongoing verification

programs.

So again, what this is saying is is like the states don't get to just just like the individual

person registering to vote doesn't get to say, yeah, the citizen trust me.

Okay.

As the states are carrying this out, they don't get to pretend like they've done due diligence

because we already know some of these states won't do it.

All right.

And then they have to maintain ongoing verification programs.

This is about just updating the voter rolls, right?

And if you think that is an issue, we had several cases in Virginia where we had people

that were illegally on the voter rolls and Democrats wanted to fight Governor Youngcan

on it.

Well, it's 90 days within an election.

And Youngcan was like, yeah, but these people are illegally on the voter rolls and some

of them even requested to be taken off.

So we're going to remove them and Democrats through a fit.

What are ideas required to cast a ballot and federal elections?

So there's a distinct, you got to distinguish something here.

What's going on is to register to vote.

That's where you need stuff like the birth certificate or something like that, which, which

by the way, the states are more than welcome to make birth certificates free to attain.

They can do all that.

There's nothing preventing them from doing that, right?

They can come on with an easy online mechanism whereby you can request your birth certificate,

request a copy.

They can do all of that.

Nothing prevents them from doing that.

They can make it super, super simple, easy free if they would like to the citizen requesting

it, right?

But when then you're going to go to vote, that's when you need a photo ID.

So it's required to cast a ballot in federal elections, physical ID, provisional ballots

allowed if lacking a resolvable within three days via ID or affidavit for religious objections.

So they even created provisions to address some of the concerns.

Some non in-person voting is restricted without ID or last four of your Social Security

number plus an affidavit.

This is again, part of the problem where you have some states where you'll have 13 or

14 people listed at one address and all of these absentee ballots or mail-in ballots are

getting sent there without any verification whatsoever on whether or not that person still

lives there.

So you can be living in one of these places and 14 ballots show up and you're like, yep,

yep, yep, return.

And there's no way to know whether or not that was an actual 14 people voting or it was

voter fraud in places like Minnesota, one person from your precinct can let bring eight people

in vouch for them and they can all vote.

Accommodations exist for name discrepancies common for married women.

Disabilities, religious objections and citizens lacking standard documents, alternative processes

with affidavits and attestations under penalty of perjury.

So they've even addressed some of the current concerns like how do people find a birth certificate

or how do people get a passport if they can't afford one or they don't have one, right?

There are ways that they can do that with signed affidavits.

Doing is it's disincentivizing people from cheating under easing systems.

And then it's also making it a lot easier to find out if they cheated because now we

have proper documentation.

Enforcement includes a private right of action for citizens to sue non-compliant officials

and criminal penalties for officials who register non-citizens.

Again, there has to be an enforcement arm of this because if it's just do it because

we say so.

Okay, what's the penalty if I don't do it?

Well, nothing.

Okay.

Cool.

Right.

And then part of the problem here is that in some of these jurisdictions, because it's run,

because right now all this is run by the states, if you have a governor or an attorney general

or a commonwealth attorney or district attorney and they don't feel like enforcing these

sort of laws, they don't feel like prosecuting people for fraud.

They just don't.

This is now adding a mechanism where the feds can say, well, listen, if you want to commit

voter fraud and state and local elections, that's your business.

We are guests.

But if you're going to do it on federal elections, which impact the whole country, there's

going to be a mechanism whereby we can hold you accountable and punish people for doing

the wrong thing.

And that's what they're terrified of because in some of these places, you know they're

allowing voter fraud to just take place and they don't do anything about it because it

benefits them and there's no consequences for their actions.

Look, I'm sorry it's come to this, but when you simultaneously weaken all of your voter

laws in order to make it very easy to cheat, at the same time that you allow millions of

people to come into the country illegally, these are the sort of things that are now required

to protect the integrity of our elections.

So liberal opposition, it would disenfranchise 21 million eligible citizens who lack ready

access to burst certificates.

Okay, well, here's the problem.

If it suppresses votes or disenfranchises millions, that's absolute nonsense.

Our idea and proof of citizenship laws in 36 states have not suppressed turnout, right?

It's always the same claim.

Anything that you do to make it harder to cheat is now a barrier, which is going to hurt

minorities or poor people.

And yet we have 36 states that have things like photo ID requirements, not to mention

the fact that hey, all of you states, all of you states who are the most worried about

this being a financial concern with respect to passports or burst certificates or whatnot,

you can maintain the databases.

You can keep them.

You can make it super easy for people to gain access to the burst certificate.

You can do that.

So do it.

So do it if that's your main concern.

It disproportionately burdens married women, name changes, young voters, minorities, low

income people.

Again, it's it's always about this and disproportionately burdens.

Okay.

So for married women, married women already go through a legal process to legally change

their name.

This can now become a part of the process or they don't have to change their name if

you they don't want to.

But but here's an honest question.

Do you want to see think Republicans are trying to make it harder for married women to

vote?

Married women are the most conservative of the female demographic when it comes to voting.

No.

This is about coming up.

First of all, any sort of provision that is put in place, which attempts to prevent voter

fraud and protect the integrity of election is by necessity a barrier on voting, right?

I can't text in my vote.

Well, that's a barrier on me voting.

It would be easier for me to vote if I could text in my vote.

Yes, but then it would also be easy for voter fraud to take place.

And that would disenfranchise people that legally voted because every time someone who legally

votes or every time with someone who illegally votes votes, they're in effect disenfranchising

someone who legally voted.

And that's a problem.

So if you look at all the unnecessary non-citizen voting is already illegal.

I love that, right?

Because if it's already illegal, it must not happen.

Extremely rare.

According to who, I like some of these guys will go to Heritage Foundation says, well,

Heritage Foundation has only found 1,600 documented cases of people actually being prosecuted

for fraud.

In Minnesota, one person can go in from that precinct and vouch for eight others.

And then when the elections actually held, how do you go back and check whether or not

they were real citizens or not?

How do you go back and check or do you think they are checking?

Do you think the local attorneys, do you think the local registrars in those deep blue

districts?

Do you think they're going back and checking the roles to make sure that no fraud took place?

And then when somebody else wants to come in and check, do you think they just get access

to all the data they want, no matter what?

Do you think they just get whatever they need in order to check that in order to effectively

determine that no fraud has taken place?

Do you think when people roll up and just stuff a ballot box?

We know which ballots represent fraud.

We may know that person was engaging in something illegal, but do we know how many ballots they

stuffed into the box?

Do we know how many are illegal at this point?

Do they pull them out and check each one?

We know they don't.

We know they don't.

We know Philadelphia isn't, oh gosh, we really want to be concerned about voter fraud.

And easily prosecutable, oh, is it?

We know it makes something very, very difficult to prosecute when you have district attorneys

and common attorneys who refuse to prosecute.

Steve Descono, right, a combo of attorney here in Fairfax County, Virginia.

This guy won't even prosecute illegal immigrants with 30 additional charges.

And then they go out and they stab someone to death.

And then our governor Abigail Spamberger won't even cooperate with an iced detainer to make

sure that this person doesn't get back out on the streets again.

But you're telling me they're going to prosecute voter fraud.

They don't prosecute people that are committing horrendous acts of violence against American

citizens who are already in the country illegally.

But yeah, voter fraud, I'm sure they're on it.

These are the sort of disingenuous arguments that just infuriate most Americans because

they'll see come up and like, oh my gosh, this is going to disenfranchise minorities and

married women.

No, it isn't.

It isn't.

It's going to set up a process where like anybody else, if you're a minority, you go get

photo ID, you show your birth certificate, you request your birth certificate, whatever

it is, in order to verify your registered vote.

And there you go, you're a woman you get married, you go through the process of changing

your legal name.

Okay, cool.

This will now be a part of the process.

And all of these states that are complaining the most about it can make sure it's as easy

and transparent.

And again, they can even remove the cost burden from the individual seeking the birth certificate

or whatnot if they choose to do so.

They can do it all.

They can do it all.

But that didn't stop good ol' Lisa Murkowski from deciding that not only, not only was

she going to oppose the Save Act, but she was going to fight against even the talking

filibuster.

Now, you might be asking yourself, well, Nick, you know, how big a deal is this, really?

How big a deal is this, really?

Like it is, okay, is this, is this just the one thing Lisa Murkowski is doing?

We've, we've understand it.

We understand that this is a big issue.

And we understand that this is something that conservatives, Republicans have really

wanted.

We understand that requiring photo ideas is something that has widespread popular support

among Republicans, moderates, Democrats, minorities, everybody.

But, but, you know, maybe Lisa just felt real convicted about this one and we shouldn't

hold her accountable.

Well, we're going to go through Senator Lisa Murkowski's record here very quick.

And I'm going to explain why I think this woman has to be primerate.

Like this is essential.

And the bad news is we got to wait a little while.

The good news is it gives you time to do it right.

And we're going to talk about what doing it right looks like.

But first, first, I need to do a big thank you to our friends over at Lear Capital because

the bottom line is is that the price of gold, the price of silver, it seems to keep going

up.

In fact, if you look at what's predicted to hit now, which is over $5,000 an ounce and

you realize that as back as 2011, it was like 1100 an ounce, it is going up exponentially.

Why?

Well, it seems like every time the government prints more money, things like gold and silver

go up and value.

I wonder why that is.

Oh, because the government can't print gold or silver.

And because gold and silver have actually stood the test of time with respect to not only

currency, but also something as an investment to hedge against inflation.

Now, for a lot of us, this is confusing.

Where I go by gold, right?

I don't, do I just go buy it at the store like what?

No, Lear Capital is actually going to give you all the education that you need to understand

exactly how you can buy it.

And when I say how, I mean, there's a ton of different ways.

If you want to physically own the gold in your house, in your safe, you're like, I'm

not putting it in a bank where it can get confiscated.

I want it in my house.

Great.

Lear can teach you how to do that.

If you're like, I want it in my 401k.

Great.

Lear can teach you how to do that.

I want it.

I want it in my IRA.

Great.

They can help you do all of it.

Right?

And the best part is, is by calling them up, by seeking them out, you don't got to commit

to anything.

Right?

So right now, you can call Lear Capital now at 800 707-4575, that's 800 707-4575, or visit

Nick4lear.com, that's Nick, the number 4-lear.com, you get your free information kit, and you

can see how you can qualify for up to $20,000 in bonus gold or silver with a qualified

purchase.

Again, it costs you nothing to learn more about this, right?

So just go check it out.

See what you think.

I think it's worth the time.

I think it's worth the time when we thank our partners over at Lear Capital.

All right.

Let's jump into the long record of Senator Lisa Mkowski in the United States Senate.

So I put together a list here of early career and various issues.

This goes all the way back to 2010s on all the major things that Lisa Mkowski broke

with Republicans on it and voted with the Democrats, right?

Because it's not just the sayback.

This is a pattern going back over a decade, right?

In 2010, she voted yes on a bill providing a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented

immigrants, known as the Dream Act.

Now I want you to understand something.

This might sound really nice.

Oh, yeah, we're going to do this for.

For young undocumented immigrants, what this does is it creates this and incentive structure

to send your kids to America.

Because if you're going to say you can't come to this country illegally, well, unless you're

a kid, then you can come to the country illegally.

What if you just incentivize people?

She was one of only two Republicans that voted for that.

In 2010, Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal.

She voted yes to repeal the ban on openly game military service, one of only eight Republicans.

In 2013, she voted for comprehensive immigration reform voted yes on the bipartisan bill with

a citizenship pathway.

She was one of 14 Republicans in 2017.

She voted against Betsy DeVos in 2017.

She voted against repealing funding for Planned Parenthood.

So apparently she's really, really big on your tax dollars, having to fund an institution

which makes a fair portion of its money off of killing the unborn in 2018.

She voted no on a 20 week abortion ban, only two Republicans.

So again, now your baby at 20 weeks, we're getting to the point where babies can feel pain.

So I guess for Lisa Murkowski, you got a heartbeat, you've actually got function going on

now.

Nope.

We can still abort you.

We can still have no ban there.

And in 2018, she voted no on cloture in the advancement, the only Republican who recorded

his present on the final confirmation.

So remember when they tried to completely slur and slander Brett Kavanaugh, well, Lisa

Murkowski went along with it, right?

What a shocker.

2019 to 2021, 2019 Trump's border wall national emergency declaration.

She voted yes to disapprove and terminate it, one of 12 Republicans in 2020 in the Amy

Coney Barrett nomination.

She initially voted no on advancing cloture.

And then she finally voted yes on final confirmation.

But she voted no on our Supreme Court Justice nominee, February 2021, second Trump impeachment

voted guilty and convicted the only Republican Senator to do that.

Apparently, Lisa Murkowski thinks that Donald Trump should be, I don't know, sitting

in a jail somewhere, 2021 Biden administration nominees.

She confirmed 12 political and pointies were most Republicans opposed to include people

like Rachel Levine.

Oh my gosh.

I mean, I mean, it just goes on 2021 debt ceiling later, 2022 Respect for Marriage Act,

which codified same sex marriage protections.

She voted yes to change the entire definition of marriage and codify it into U.S. law.

2022 KBJ.

She voted yes.

So let me get this straight.

She voted no again.

So she didn't want Brett Kavanaugh as the Supreme Court Justice.

He wasn't qualified.

She didn't initially want Amy Coney Barrett.

She wasn't qualified.

But KBJ, the same woman that couldn't tell us what a woman was.

Well, I'm not a biologist, so I don't know what a woman is.

Oh, well, you know what?

I'm pretty sure you're not a farmer.

I'm pretty sure you're not a cop.

I'm pretty sure you're not a soldier.

I'm pretty sure you're not a business owner, but you're going to be deciding law that

will impact all of these things, but you can't tell us what a woman is.

Well, according to Lisa Murkowski, she was AOK and super qualified to serve on the Supreme

Court.

Not like those guys Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, who know exactly what a woman

is.

They weren't qualified or they were worthy of more scrutiny than KBJ.

KBJ has been the worst member of the Supreme Court probably in my lifetime.

And that's saying something 2025 planet, planet, planet and funding, one of only two Republicans

to vote against Indian federal funding.

Again, why do our tax dollars have to go to a billion dollar industry that focuses on killing

kids in the womb?

Not to mention the fact that you want to know when the other things that Planned Parenthood

does a whole lot of besides abortion, yeah, transient kids, how, how, you know, when,

Susan Collins from Maine, which is a blue state, which repeatedly votes for blue state

legislatures and blue governors and blue senators and, and blue presidential candidates,

when she votes for some of this stuff, I don't like it, but I understand Alaska has not

voted for a Democrat candidate for president since before I was born.

And then we get into pretty much everything else with obviously culminated in 2026,

A.Vac publicly opposed as the first Republican Senator to speak out against it.

Like this is a, this is a pattern to give you an idea to, or club for growth, which is

a very, very reliable conservative organization that ranks legislators, gives her a 2024

score of 52 out of a possible 100 and a lifetime score of 49.

She is an F Senator.

All right, heritage action, which is heritage action, probably, no, not probably, they have,

in my opinion, the best scorecard of any conservative organization on the federal level,

and the reason why is they don't just score floor votes, they score committee votes,

they score subcommittee votes last time I checked.

And that's really important because there's a lot of things, a lot of the things that people

really want, they get killed in committees so that nobody has to take a bad vote on the floor,

and then everyone can pretend like they're still conservative. Heritage action started

scoring the committee votes and people started losing their minds because all of a sudden

their scores dropped, but it was the right thing to do because it actually painted an

accurate picture of what's going on. So what's Lisa Murkowski's Senate score right now?

Session score 18%. For lifetime scores 34%. The average Senate Republican is 62,

which isn't great, but she's almost half of what that is.

And again, is Alaska a liberal state? Nope. Alaska voted for Donald Trump in 2024.

Let me see, Trump won Alaska by 13.13% and improvement from his 10.1% win in 2020.

So he won it by 10 points in 2020. He won it by 13 in 2024.

Why Alaska? Why is this woman your senator? I genuinely don't get it. In fact,

let's do it. I said, here's the ranking of the 50 states from the most conservative,

delis conservative based strictly on their voting and presidential elections from 1972 to 2024.

Alaska is tied for first place with 10 other states. Now, why am I mentioning all of this?

I'm mentioning all of this because I don't think we should ever, I don't think we should

primary Susan Collins. If I were to look at Susan Collins rankings on her, her rankings would be

very similar to Lisa Murkowski, but I don't think we should primary her. Why? Because she is the

most conservative candidate that we can get from Maine. And I might not like that, but that means

more work needs to be done in Maine before we can start demanding, reasonably demanding, a more

conservative senator. But Alaska, this should have never happened. Alaska is far more conservative

than not just Maine, but a ton of other states with Republican representation in the Senate,

that is voting for the Save Act, that voted for or against all of these other bills were Lisa

McCalsky broke with the Republican Party. Lisa Murkowski has made it her mission

to just oppose Donald Trump and oppose that, which is conservative. Whenever she gets a chance to

essentially say, screw you, I'll do what I want. The only thing left to do here is to hold her

accountable. Now, I wish Senate leadership would do things like stripper-ever committees,

because that's sure as hell what they would do to a conservative if they were doing this,

they would punish the conservatives, but nope, she gets away with it time and time again.

So here's the question, because there's three things I want you to think about whenever it comes

to primary in someone. The first thing that you do is you look at, is it reasonably certain that

if we primary the current Republican, the Republican will still win the general election. And usually

what you're looking for there is, you know, again, R plus 10, R plus 15, R plus 20, Alaska is

R plus 10 based off of the presidential elections with Trump. At least it was R plus 13 in this

last one, R plus 14 before that. So it is, we're reasonably certain that if you run a decent

Republican for U.S. Senate in Alaska, they're winning the election, okay? Now, if you think you're

going to lose the seat altogether, you want to be careful about who you primary. But in Alaska,

we can be reasonably certain that a Republican will have a Senate. So that's the first thing you

want to take into consideration. The second thing you want to take into consideration is, do you have

the time? Do you have the time to actually prepare and mount a good race? Well, unfortunately,

she's not up for re-election of the U.S. Senate until 2029. That's unfortunate. I wish it was much

sooner, but it does give you plenty of time to prepare. The third question we have to ask

yourself is, who would run against her? Well, I'm going to give you a list right now of current

Republicans. And the reason why I picked Republicans that are currently or have previously served in

some sort of elected office in Alaska is not because they're the only ones qualified to run,

right? You can have other people that are very qualified to run, but it's because generally what

this means is you have somebody with a voting record, which means you can vet them. It means you

have someone that knows how to run and win elected office. And it means, you know, you have someone

that knows that they have to raise money because a lot of newcomers to politics think, well, I'm just

going to outwork my opponent. Dude, if you can't raise money, you're losing. Period the end. You

got to be able to raise money. And so typically when someone has one election, it doesn't mean they're

great at it, but at least means they understand the necessity. Now, I'm going to tell you right now,

out of these people right here that I'm showing you, I don't know. I don't know how great they are.

I don't know how one of those, there's only one person on here that I know. Okay? But you have

George Rosser, who had a lifetime score from the ACU American conservative unit, which is another

very good group and the ACU ranks state legislators as well. Heritage action just as federal.

ACU to give a lifetime score of 92%. That's a lot better than 32%. Right?

Shelley Hughes, who served in the Senate, she had a 90% lifetime score. Sarah Vance, not

available lifetime score, but it has an A rating for 2024. David Eastman, not available as far

as a lifetime, but it had a B score for 2024. I know David Eastman. And not only is, in fact,

I'd be curious and white and have a higher score. And it was probably on something that was, you know,

maybe a little bit more libertarian or something like that. But David Eastman is a good guy.

Chris Kirk and Mike Schauer had both tied both serving in one of the House and one of the Senate.

So again, I'm not telling Alaskans these are the people that you should pick. What I am saying is

that I look at this. I'm like, okay, you do have more conservative people who have won elections,

who either have served or are currently serving, who have been able to raise money and win a seat.

Right? That's something to go for. Another one. And maybe this is your, maybe this is your best

option practically. And that's Governor Mike Dunlavi. Because this guy has not only one,

the governor's ship in Alaska, but he actually won reelection to the governor's ship in Alaska,

which I don't think has happened for a Republican since 1978. And it hasn't happened for Democrats

since 1998. Typically, Alaska trades out their governors pretty frequently. But this guy won

and won again. And he seems to have a fairly conservative voting record. He seems to be very,

very good on education. And the fact that he's one statewide is important because one,

unlike a state legislator that might have regional or district-wide name recognition,

he has statewide name recognition. And he has a statewide voter base and a voting, excuse me,

voting base and a fundraising base. Right? Because he's also served as governor as well. He's gonna

have access to other groups that are getting lean on to in order to raise funds to run against someone

like Lisa Mckowski. And so what does all of this mean? Well, basically, Lisa Mckowski's

68 years old right now. So by the time she runs again, she's gonna be what? About 71? Roughly 71?

So she's getting up there a little bit, although that's like being an adolescent in the Senate.

But guys, I'm telling you right now, the reason why you need to primary someone like Lisa Mckowski

is because what it does is it sends a strong message to every other Republican in a red state

that if you are going to essentially vote against core fundamental principles of the Republican

party repeatedly and over time, you need to be punished for it. You need to lose your seat because

you're not an accurate reflection of what Republicans want. Right? So either don't run as a Republican

or change the way you vote. But if you can't do either of those things, it's time to go.

And as I've said before, one of the other reasons why you run a primary challenger in these places

is because it tends to change the way they vote while they're in office. All of a sudden,

they're a little bit more reticent. All of a sudden, they're not as eager to vote for bad legislation

that they shouldn't be voting for in the first place. So you got time to prepare. You got time to

plan, but it's got to start now. And she needs to know she's being primary. She needs to be

know that she's being primary over this and over a long record of screwing over Republicans.

Because if she can continually get away with this, the opposite message that is sent to other

Republicans is, he can get away with it. He can do it. Just do a little bit over here, a little

bit over there. No problem. Ladies and gentlemen, now more than ever, like I realize that all

not all Republicans think exactly alike. That's fine. I'm not targeting Lisa Murkowski here

because she just screwed up one time. I'm doing it because there's a record of it. And I'm doing

it because now more than ever, we have to have things like the save act in place. It will help

determine the future of our country. And if she's not willing to stand up on this one, and apparently,

she hasn't been willing to stand up on anything significant with immigration, then she doesn't

understand what time it is and she needs to go. All right. Hope you found this helpful. I got a

couple of quick announcements for you. One, yeah, I wrote a book. I wrote a book. It's right

over there on my shoulder. It's called the man book. And basically what it is, it's about 52

things I've learned, being a husband, being a father, being a legislator, being a soldier,

being a combat veteran, just being a dude. And I just some lessons out there that I, you know,

different times in life, these are things that would have been great for me to know a little bit

more about. And so I decided to write it down to make sure that you can know a little bit more

about it. So everything in there from how to cook a steak, how to pick a firearm for a good home

defense weapon, how to, you know, have discussions and productive arguments with your wife,

the differences between raising boys and girls, you know, things like how to kick an adore,

how to hotwire a car because you never know, you never know. So go check that out. You can pre-order

the man book by Nick Freitas everywhere. Go get the book, the John Lovell described as the worst

coloring book ever, right? Also, also, if you're someone that really appreciates and loves,

they're coffee in the morning. We have our brew around and find out. That's right. We have

teamed up with first cup and excellent coffee company. And we have our brew around and find out.

It's, it's, look, it's a perfect gift. You can subscribe. Just, just get it ordered every month.

You got it coming in. My wife worked meticulously on the perfect roast for this. So you get,

you get your camphine, but it's also smooth and delightful, right? So if you want to be patriotic

faster, brew around and find out coffee. You can go check it out right now.

Once again, thank you for joining us. Consider liking and subscribing. It helps a whole lot.

Cost you nothing. And we'll see you next episode.