The danger of governing by headlines not principle

It's the tip of the spare in the epic battle to defend the United States of America.

The National Security Hour exposes the wolves and sheep clothing and then a various plots

to undermine and destroy U.S. National Security.

Welcome to the National Security Hour on the America Out Loud Network.

I'm your host, Juanquita Column, and joining us, a man of mystery, an international political

analyst, head of strategic operations for the real America dot vote, my friend, for many

years, Brian Maloney, Brian, there's so much going on.

I don't know.

We can keep up with it all.

Keeping up with it is a full time job in itself and the headlines just come fast and

furious.

And, you know, I guess better with that than a slow news day, but I'd rather we weren't

at war.

And no kidding.

And the other thing it looks, it appears that the president is taking a bit of a delay

on his ultimatum for hormones.

What do you make of that?

What's the plan behind that?

Well, I think that what actually happened this morning at 7 a.m. Eastern time is that Trump

hit the panic button on what was probably going to be at least a minor stock market crash

and acceleration in oil prices going higher.

And, you know, I don't know how true this was, but the bottom line is this story emerged

that there's going to be a joint deal to run the state of our moves together with the

regime, which I don't think anyone on either side believes, but it did do what it was supposed

to do and that has prevented the stock market crash.

So the bottom line is now Trump's being accused of jicking it out, but I don't think it

was anything like that.

And I think in a day or two this will be forgotten.

The regime immediately shot back and said, no, there's nothing of the sort going on.

We're not in any talks here.

So Trump was trying to stave off financial collapse.

Let's explain to people who don't understand strategically the importance of the straight

of our moves, because it affects so much, but for the folks that really don't know about

that, since something that we learned in school, explain it to them.

Well, I mean, the bottom line is such a large percentage of the world's oil flows through

that straight, but it comes with a caveat.

And that is the United States and Israel.

We don't lose the straight of our moves ourselves, so people have said, well, then why should

we care?

Well, when there is a chokehold there, when ships are being blocked from passing through,

it increases oil prices for everyone globally.

It still ends up affecting us in the same way, because the global supply is then hit,

and then that affects prices here and everywhere.

So in terms of direct supply, what it hits first is Indian, China, in terms of running

out of oil, or having to, some of these countries in Asia are already having to ration fuel.

The other thing it affects is liquefied natural gas supplies.

So there are other issues like that that affect us as well.

So when these supplies tighten, prices go through the roof, and we start paying at the pump

almost immediately, because I mean, sometimes I'm hate to say it, but some of these gas stations

really do take advantage, and they raise the price by, and it's like, well, they're the

supply they got yesterday the day before was not at the higher price, they don't need

to do that right away.

But they do it.

So they're taking advantage of us a little bit.

Well, I keep wondering when they're going to bring back the issue of fracking, and a lot

of the other things that were very popular, when George W. Bush had been president kind

of stopped when President Obama came in, and certainly came to a stalemate when President

Biden was in office.

But it took forever for a lot of these oil and gas guys to even get leases.

To continue in fracking completely came to a halt in places like the state of Texas.

You think we're going to see a resurgence of that?

And even our relationship that we had transporting oil from Canada on a pipeline, we had to go

back to sending it on a train.

Where does that stand?

Well, I'm surprised Trump isn't talking more about this because I think that one of

the most effective ways he has, one of his most effective tools to jaw-boning oil prices

down.

I remember what we've had for the last eight days is Trump jaw-boning markets lower.

Jaw-boning works until it doesn't, and it's been working so far because we're early

in this war, basically.

But a great jaw-boning tool would be to say, as you've just mentioned, that, hey, you

know, we can go back to fracking.

We have the Alaska oil leases issue.

We have, as you say, the pipelines from Canada, we can open up more drilling in Texas.

You know, I want to hear more about drill baby drill, and I haven't been hearing drill

baby drill.

You know?

No.

Not at all.

In fact, it's been really quiet.

It's strange.

It's very strange, and especially when you think about what's going on with Venezuela

that had made that relationship, that concontractual relationship with China because they were so broke,

and then China was losing patience with them because they weren't fulfilling their obligations.

And the concern I have is not just with China and oil, but when I was in Venezuela and

a lot of those countries, who was there?

Iran.

Right.

Exactly.

It's the same thing in Bolivia, the same thing.

All those countries were making nicey-nice with Iran and Russia and China.

And China is really the puppet master above Iran and above Russia, China is the ultimate

authority here.

Now, Trump has had those oil, you know, what little Venezuela is still exporting because

you remember Venezuela's infrastructure, oil development infrastructure has been rusting

away for 20 years under Hugo Chavez and this, you know, clogged.

We just got rid of, yeah, Maduro and the bottom line is, you know, all the engineers fled

the country.

Anybody with, you know, where the knowledge and the training was, they left and they went

to work for Exxon or whatever, you know, they went to work for somebody else, they went

to Guyana, where all the oil is being drilled.

But what it is exporting now is being diverted to the U.S.

The problem with Venezuela and crude oil, as we know, is that it's very thick, it's very

dirty.

It's not, it's not easy to refine.

So it's less appealing oil, whereas the oil, they send it to Houston, they send it to

Texas, Texas has the capability to refine that oil, but that's problematic on its own

right.

And it comes at greater cost, and when it's more difficult to refine, and as you say,

there are less places to refine it, it's very unappealing oil.

However, do you still want Venezuela to get its infrastructure back and start exporting

a lot more of it here?

You bet.

And Guyana is the country where that is really filling the void because massive amounts

of oil were discovered off the Guyanese coast about 15 years ago and the pumping is now

underway.

And that is, that's going to be our savior.

But the thing is, the Iranian crude, it's very light, very sweet, and very easy to refine

and everybody loves it, because of that.

When it's easy to refine, it commands the premium, and it's in high demand, so, but the

straight-of-war moose in this closure, it is hitting the oil spies for China and for

India and for Russia, and it is hitting them, so it's really fascinating to see how all

the pieces move on the chess board.

I just, you know, I just questioned Trump's strategy today.

You know I'm a supporter of it, I don't have to, yeah, okay, I want to make that clear.

Does it mean I always, I call upon it?

But it doesn't mean that you can't question, and you can't ask, I mean, you know, people

are not, I mean, you know, what was the term that they used to use when we were in school?

They'd say, are you a blind chauvinist?

In other words, that you would follow without even asking anything, and that results in

its own problems.

Well it really does, and I'm an analyst, so I can support him, but still question what,

you know, individual decisions, and I like to call balls and strikes basically, you

know, if you strike out, I'm going to say so, because I'm just being honest, but I've

also had a lot of criticism of some of the people that are in Trump's inner circle

in the White House, so I think steering him the wrong way, and also lead to bad hires,

and then that creates bad policy.

So that's been one of my key criticisms, there's been shared by many, many, many supporters

of Trump, that's a common sentiment, bad hires.

So I'm not saying overall that Trump is blowing it on this war at all, it's just that

today's stock market job owning was excessive, and I think it'll consider it, I know it

was what he was trying to do, but I think he needs to worry less about stock market prices

in a lot more about winning the war, because look, stocks can go down in the short term,

we can then win the war, and stocks prices will go back up, but if you're paralyzed by

every small stock market drop, or every small increase in the price of oil, or even moderate

price of oil, you know, increase the price of oil, if you're paralyzed every time that

happens, you won't win the war, because your focus is on the wrong things, and we've

already seen gas prices go up, we know they're going to be up for a while, and it probably

is hitting his popularity, I'm sure, but you know-

Well, do you operate on popularity, or do you operate on trying to get things done?

Do you operate- Well that's exactly-

That's the problem is in the past, because we had limited outlets, we didn't have this

massive social media, we didn't have, you know, pretty much the end of regular television,

you know, we at the time, a lot of these presidents like Reagan, he was just dealing with the

new newly formed CNN, you didn't even have NBC at that point-

Well that's a good point-

Now you have more outlets to cancel you in effect-

Well you do, and you have social media reacting and responding to what you're doing in real

time every single second, so-

That's the problem, so you have backseat drivers everywhere like I guess me-

You know, but I mean, some of these people are not, you know, they're not really considering

all the facts when they do criticize, so my criticism is just more specific, more direct-

Well let's look at that for a minute, because there's criticism, there's analysis, and then

there's sabotage, and there are choices legitimately that you'll say, well, you

know, he didn't do such a great job picking that person for that position, it kind of

hurt his image, it hurt the whole plan of where he was trying to go with his make America

great again, and they were limited. The question is, you know, you think about, well, how do

you separate that, because certainly you've had other presidents who've made terrible

choices, and then going back to Reagan, where Reagan was successful, he did a pretty good

job on picking the people that he selected for the cabinet positions.

Well he really, Reagan really did, he only had one or two bad apples, and when he discovered

them, he got rid of them as you may remember, he wasn't afraid to fire people, and first

term Trump, what's the afraid to fire people at all? Second term Trump, you know, other than

Kristinaum, which was, you know, that was so necessary, it's not even, you know, in question,

but you know, there are 20 more people I would fire right now that are in his inner circle,

and you used the correct word, and that is sabbatur, because these people are sabotaging

him, and they are all in it for their personal gain, and their deep state political agendas

that are not Trump's, that are not ours, and yet these people, how they ever got hired,

much less kept their jobs. So, you know, Trump is a strong leader, but the weakness has

always been in the betting process, the hiring process.

Well, you know, and I want to bring you back to that too, because you've been around

for a while, you know, a White House personnel, they had very qualified individuals back in

the day, that desk, who was going to serve a president, you know, I served a president,

I know how that is, and they really went through it, I mean, when I had to go through

Senate confirmation, you have no idea how I had to go through the FBI clearance, and you

had a clearance that came from the Congress, and you had another clearance that happened,

you were cleared by so many people that you felt cleaner than clean, by the time you got

through it.

It probably violated.

Probably violated, but the main thing is, it's a different, I don't know whether it's

more casual, ironically, maybe it is, maybe it's not, one of the people that worked for

them in the first term, and I can't tell you online, but I can tell you offline, was

one of the biggest leakers that hurt him, and came across on camera as one of his strongest

allies, and terrible things, privately.

Well, and, you know, I'm not even sure which person you're talking about, because there

have been so many of those, there have been dozens of them, and maybe one stands out

to you, but this situation with Joe Kent last week, you know, was just one where it got

so bad and so out in the open, and the leaking was so obvious that he jumped out in front

of the news cycle and turned into a never-trunker, you know, he tried to play offense essentially

instead of having to be defense when being caught, but I think that a lot of the problem

here is that Trump's tires him and based on who he sees on the Fox News channel when

he's watching, and he thinks come across, well, the problem with any of those folks is

they are, you know, by their nature self-serving, which isn't a bad thing when you're pursuing

a media career.

If they're smart, and they know what they're doing, and they're acting in the interest

of the bigger perspective for the American people, it's the old George Burns line.

Don't get the folks who buy the tickets, you know, and if you're working for everybody

else, and you're working for yourself, because you want to be seen as a great and powerful

Wizard of Oz, instead of really serving the people, that's the problem.

Well, it is the problem, because you end up with people who are self-promoting, and I think

Christy Nome was the worst example of spending $200 million plus in taxpayer dollars to

create an ad campaign.

By the way, the money went to a friend of hers who created a business day earlier, you

know, all the money went there, and then we have these ads that are touting who, they're

touting Christy.

You know, so they're promoting Christy with taxpayer, it was really a huge, ridiculous

situation.

It was like watching her wearing her chaps boots over there by Mount Rushmore, fostering,

and you know, great, this is not a love magazine shoot.

We're not trying to, you know, this is, you don't need to be glamorous, I would have liked

to have seen her, and believe me, I'm a Latina, I love my makeup.

But when you're out there, you need your hair pulled back, you need your cowboy boots on,

but the ones that have got the dirt on them, and getting out there really and working

here.

Exactly.

Broken.

You know, when you were in the airport security line, you know, there was a Christy gnome

ad, you know, playing over and over and over, even in the line, and I just found that

to be ridiculously excessive.

So these people that end up in the truck administration, then are really there to promote their next

book deal, their next cable talk gig, hopefully on Fox News Channel or Newsmax or wherever they're

hoping you'll land a contract.

So everything is about their own personal career positioning, and none of it is about serving

the president of the United States.

That has been lost, I think.

Maybe it will be found.

We're going to take a little break here.

Talking with our good friend, international political analyst, my friend Brian Maloney,

I'm Blanket Phillips, and we are talking here right now in the national security hour.

Don't go away.

To get ready, my fellow Americans, July 2nd, 3rd and 4th, America out loud dot news in partnership

with Clear and the Wellness Company invites you to Nashville, Tennessee for a red, white

and blue celebration you'll never forget.

We're saluted 250 years of America and 10 incredible years of America out loud news,

stand in strong, for truth, justice, and the nation we all love.

Three days of high impact speakers, powerhouse voices delivering dynamic, unforgettable insights

that will fire up your Patriot spirit and on July 4th, embrace yourself because you'll

experience America's most explosive fireworks show lighten up downtown Nashville and pure

patriotic glory.

You can reserve your spot with early bird pricing right now at America out loud dot news

forward slash Nashville, it's America out loud news, 250, 10 and Nashville, even.

Have you been looking for a healthy snack for on the go?

Well, not all energy bars are soft and sugary, bear bars, or a crunchy, savory bar made from

just six simple natural ingredients, bear bars are plant-based organic, gluten-free, contained

six grams of protein and a low temperature dried for a unique crunch.

Most energy bars are based on chocolate or fruit and are held together with syrups

or sweeteners to learn more, just visit bearbar.com slash out loud.

Feeling off lately, bloated brain fog low energy, it could be parasites, the sound

invaders so we can your gut immune system of mental clarity.

That's why Dr. Peter McCullough and the doctors at the Wellness Company formulated

Ivermectin and Mebendizoclens, a medical grade solution designed to help eliminate

parasites and restore balance.

No gimmicks, just real medicine trusted by top doctors, go to TWC dot health forward slash

out loud and use code out loud for 20% off your first order.

Take control of your health today.

In just two minutes per day, you could reclaim your health and cut your grocery bill in

half with one simple convenient product.

Our doctor formulated green 85 juice formula's powerful dose of ultra-concentrated essential

nutrients, stops hunger in its tracks, and supplies your cells with what's missing

in the grocery store food.

Go to chemicalfreebody.com forward slash out loud today, get nature super multivitamin

green 85, empower your immune system, cut down on your grocery bill, and save 20% on your

first order.

Welcome to the National Security Hour on your host,

where he could tell him, on the America out loud network, joining me, my good friend,

the International Political Analyst, the great Ryan Maloney, and he is the head of strategic

operations for realamerica.vote, and people are, and I don't want to make sure I say vote

because a lot of people, Brian, are wanting to make sure that the vote is legitimate vote,

you know, while we have to show an ID to get a pack of cigarettes or to get a bottle of

champagne or buy beer, you don't have to show anything under some people's advice from

another side of the aisle that's saying, no, no, no, no, we don't need to do that.

But I think we should, what do you think?

Well, I mean, we have 80% approval for the idea of voter ID in this country, and almost

every country around the globe has a voter ID card, I mean, including Mexico, including

almost all Latin American countries, I mean, you know, I've seen images of thieves, and

they look a lot like our U.S. passport cards are very, very similar to those, actually.

And you know, and that is a standard operating procedure that everyone understands.

You don't vote in Mexico without showing that card, and that's why we have that here.

But the problem is, as such as the Democrats in the Senate are opposed to it, it's that

we have Republican turncodes in the U.S. Senate who are either blocking it, who refused

to vote for it, who are citing with Democrats, you know, there are a variety of schemes with

this handful of senators that are making sure that we can't move this forward.

And then it came down to Trump trying to make a deal over the Texas U.S. Senate race,

which would have been a bad, bad, bad deal to support John Kornin, who needs to be his

head, his butt kicked out of office, very, very badly, you know, we're doing very well.

And Ken Paxton is the candidate of choice for Republican voters who can win in November.

John Kornin will be defeated by the Democrat because Trump's voter base will stay home

in protest in November, and that's interesting.

It's interesting.

I've known Kornin since he was a judge in San Antonio when I was just starting off my career.

I couldn't even use my real name.

They wouldn't let me use Blanquita.

I had to work with a guy by the name of Tommy's and they called it the Tom and Tony show.

But he was kind of a different guy.

And what happens when they assume this great mantle of becoming the this of that, becoming

the United States senator, that power, that, that cloak of power becomes almost hypnotic

to them.

And they believe that they're more important than the people they serve.

And that's tragic.

Paxton, ironically, is kind of a funny guy, but he's pretty down to earth.

And I think even though, you know, he's got one eye that's a little messed up and people

don't care about that, they kind of know he's the real deal.

It's going to be interesting to see how that turns out.

Well, he is the real deal.

And that's why there has been this multi year smear campaign against Ken Paxton with

these various ethics charges that have been thrown out the window ultimately because

they weren't real.

And I'm not saying that anybody ready for office is an angel or a saint, but what I am saying

is what they've thrown at him absolutely is not stuck.

And it has been thoroughly investigated from top to bottom.

And if there was anything on Ken Paxton, we would know about it.

Yeah, they would have found it.

They would have found it.

They would have found it.

They would have done it.

Yeah, one of the most thoroughly scrutinized attorney generals you've ever seen in

your life.

And now you have said, you can't it.

So the thing is, I truly believe Ken Paxton can wipe this floor with the Democrat in November

and corn and we'll go down to flames because no one wants him back in office.

He has no support base.

And I'm amazing.

He got as many votes as he did, but look, he got 40% of the primary vote.

And as we saw, the 60% that voted against him was split with a spoiler candidate getting

20%.

So, you know, and that's how we ended up with what we did.

I mean, it's just, you know, it was a, and that spoiler candidate, as you, I'm sure you

know that he was put in that race to spoil it.

And that was an obvious ploy and, you know, very transparent ploy.

We will test this voters right now are very engaged, though they care, they're not messing

around.

And I know a little bit about the voters in Texas having spent so many years there and

working closely with a lot of people that are involved in politics here.

They are not wasting any time.

They're getting out there and they're going to try to make it, make it better.

It's interesting because, you know, when I first worked as a tour guide at the state

capital a thousand years ago, the first thing that happened, I mean, Texans, I mean,

Texans are crazy guys.

They called the bombs, bombscare because they didn't want to have a vote.

And I thought, wow, this is interesting.

I'm telling you, I've seen a lot of interesting plays politically in Texas, but I really believe

that this may be Mr. Corn and Senator Corn has left election.

We want to get rid of the country club, the Gentile atmosphere in the U.S. and as you

were talking about a few minutes ago, we need to get rid of that.

And you can't get rid of these senators there attached to the capital like barnacles on

a boat and scraping them off is hard.

They don't want to be scraped off and they want to serve for some reason until they're

99 years old.

I'll look at, you know, you've had Nancy Pelosi, you've had, you know, you had Diane Feinstein

who couldn't even remember who the name of her, members of her staff.

I mean, she had some really, her problems mentally at her end.

You know, God bless her, but at some point, you said, okay, isn't that better to leave

while you're on top than to leave before they're going, oh, God, please, you know, enough

is enough.

Well, as you say, with her, you know, she had a 50 year political career and I think that

in the end, she's most known for hanging onto power for too long and that's not what

you want.

You know, go out with the bank at an earlier age and enjoy the rest of your life or whatever.

You don't need to be running the US Senate with either.

But they're clever.

Okay.

Let's talk about this even more.

For example, I mean, you know, you can have term limits for senators, you can have term

limits for the members of the Congress.

You don't have term limits for their staff.

Their staff can continue their, ever.

You have allies that were like, for example, I worked with Ted Kaufman, Ted Kaufman was

a governor on the broadcasting board of governors with me.

But when Joe Biden decided he was going to run for the presidency, who did he put in

there?

But he put in his old chief of staff who became his best friend, Ted Kaufman, who became

Senator Ted Kaufman.

Not a problem with Ted Kaufman personally, because I like Ted Kaufman, but the problem is,

there's, it's like they haven't created a way where they can have a farm team where

they can bring in new talent, fresh blood, younger people.

Right.

Right.

You know, it's like almost a rest home for a lot of these politicians.

Well, and, you know, I think to kind of illustrate your example, if Ken Paxton were to

win the US Senate race in November, which I know he can once we get past May, you know,

if he were to keep corn and staff, let's say, you know, it would just be, and I hope

that Paxton would do that.

But, you know, as you say, sometimes you inherit that last person's staff, you know, and

so unless you're willing to clean out to get entirely new staff, it's just going to be

a corn and repeat.

Well, you just made me think of something on that, Brian, because the other part of that

is, look, there are all like, I don't want to use a term mafia in the Italian, correct

version of mafia, but like little groups like if you need to, you've got military people,

you've got religious people, you've got anti-religious, you've got pro-choice pro-life,

you've got all these different pockets of members of staff that control more, more seniority

than a member of Congress that they may be working for, that will operate more powerfully

and underneath than even the elected member of Congress.

Well, give me an example of that, and that is, you know, that staff controls who the

senator gets to meet with, you know, that staff can block meetings with people they don't

want, you know, within reason, not with a majority leader or anything, you know, of someone

of other places.

But, like a like a like a citizen, like you?

Exactly.

Yeah, yeah, they can wave you off and not get you the appointment with the senator, and

that's what they spend 99% of their time doing, actually.

So, you know, they are controlling the information channel, the information's low to the senator,

and when you go in, it's very interesting when you go in and you meet with senators' staff,

you know, what you find is they're not from the state, the senators, from usually either

one or two of them at front are, but usually in the back, they're not.

And they just have completely different agendas of their own that may have nothing to do

with what the senator stands for at all, and it makes you wonder where they find these

people.

Well, part of it is that they, if they come in and they're so green, and they've done

that before, and they say, oh, I've got to get Joe Johnson, Joe's been around.

He knows everything.

He can help you write those bills.

He knows what to look for.

Joe knows how to work this operation.

Right, right, right, right.

You hear that from someone, you think, well, God, you know, I've got to go in there.

I've got to run an office in my home district, but I've got to run an office here.

And I don't know.

I don't have time to read all this stuff.

Maybe Joe's got to get.

That's exactly right.

Well, so you've nailed another point.

When you do meet with these folks, what they are really trying to do is what anyone's

trying to do in any job, and that is work of voice, you know, it's like, well, I've got

a lot on my plate.

I don't have time to review all this.

And as you say, this person comes recommended.

This lobbyist knows how to write this bill.

So we're going to let this lobbyist write the bill because I don't have time.

I've got a lot of other things to worry about.

And then the lobbyist writes the bill.

So the system, I think, is flawed inherently.

And then you end up with bad bills, and you end up with this weird language inserted

into bills.

Nobody knows where it came from, and we have that every day of the week.

You know, we have these writers attached to things that make no sense.

And yeah.

So I think you think.

I mean, people don't know to look for that.

It probably didn't understand that here's a bill that looks like it's going to help the

homeless.

And that sounds good.

Everybody wants to help the homeless.

But then you see $52 million that's going to some other thing that happens to that

benefit a bridge or some event, something, and somebody's district.

And they're not going to help you to pass that bill unless you give that money to them

and that particular little writer in the bill.

That's exactly right.

And that ends up wasting trillions of dollars.

And even the safe act right now, as it stands, has a bunch of other issues attached to

it, like that tangential issues or totally unrelated issues.

And you see that all the time.

So how many more of those writers you have to add to get the safe act passed, and all

the bridges you have to build in blue districts, and that never really get completed.

Yeah, they never get completed either.

So and that's probably, you know, if the safe act ever does pass, it will be because enough

people were essentially bribed by having this or that or, you know, another thing done

in their district.

And that's not, to me, that's not okay.

Because the safe act is fundamentally an issue of honesty and decency and embarrassed,

you know, and having a system that we can trust.

Right.

There was a guy that wrote the book on pork.

Who was the one that wrote the pork book, and he, you know, he said, you know, you're

paying, you know, $15 million to be able to get the toothbrushes, you know, it's Grover

Norquist.

Maybe it was Grover that did the pork book.

It might have been, yeah.

But yeah, no, absolutely where they attract all of those things, and we still have some

people that are tracking those things.

I guess we could use AI to do that now, probably, but for the bottom line is all that stuff

adds up to massive amounts of money.

There's massive amounts of waste and fraud that are going on.

And yeah, so we have basically a broken government, I think, you know, it's the people come

to me and they're so adamant that their side, their party has everything figured out

and the other one doesn't.

And I just always look at them and say, you know, I have been there.

I've seen it.

Yeah.

Tell you, it's broken.

There really aren't two parties.

There isn't one you can really put your faith into in any way.

Right.

I have a friend.

I don't know if you know him and DC and the ironic thing is his other career, other than

being an analyst and a financial analyst as well.

He's a magician.

Okay.

He's a very good person.

Perfect.

Perfect.

His name is David Mori, and he wrote this book talking about the missing middle that,

you know, it's usually when people get elected, whether a Democrat or Republican, they somehow

as a president end up going more toward the middle to be able to represent all the people.

Right.

The missing middle now, you've got a real extreme right and you've got a real extreme

woke left.

Right.

Right.

And where is that missing middle?

Well, the missing middle is now the majority of the American people.

And I could tell you, you know, in my state, which is a very, very, very liberal state,

the one of the most liberal in the country, the majority of voters now, not even just

a plurality of voters anymore, but now a majority are registered independent.

So even the Democrats now have a shrinking percentage of registrations and Republicans,

a tiny sliver of that.

So that, when you have a majority of voters registered independent, you know, there's

an incredible opportunity to go in there with an independent campaign, an independent

voice.

You have to have independent money.

And that's the problem.

That's hard to get.

That's hard to get.

That's hard to get.

Yeah, it totally comes in with a banquerel because you're not going to get it from your

party.

Right.

You have one.

And if you try to start kind of a moderate party or whatever, it just really get off

the ground because people aren't motivated to really get it.

It's the far left and far right that are motivated to get out there and do things down to

the middle of the middle.

And really, you have to tell the old Woodward and Bernstein line, and that is follow the

money.

Follow the money, absolutely.

It's coming from because it may look like it's coming from a corporation, but that corporation

could be housed in China, could have ties at least, you know, so to be up in the case.

Well, that's often the case.

Yeah.

It was a lot.

Well, that's it.

So, you know, so what we end up with are candidates who, you know, have to toss the

party line of one or the other, but what we find in the solid states that are either

solid, red or solid blue, you know, you just tend to get the same incumbents running

over and over again until the dogmasthumids to go until they're 90 or whatever because the

machine is set up to perpetuate their power not to bring in new people.

And that, and so you have them until they die, basically, and that's what it's up.

So you don't, so what you have in, let's say, a deep blue state, dark blue state is

a Republican party that barely exists.

You have a Democrat party that is rusted and rotten and really not very active.

It doesn't have to really do anything other than put people on the ballot.

It doesn't have to work at it.

It just wins our, or just, you know, incumbents run on a post.

So the dominant party is actually surprisingly weak, surprisingly, you know, kind of like we

were talking about Venezuela, you know, and it's oil facilities were all rusted.

But what they did in Venezuela, we're going to talk about this a little bit too.

And that is they had the media police.

According to Chavez and believe me, I know about that firsthand because I was threatened

by the media police.

I'm sure you are.

And the fact of the matter is they just didn't know that I was a Latina and that I spoke

Spanish would save my life.

But what they would do is they'd literally go to every television, a radio station and

shut them down if they weren't running what Chavez wanted right now.

We have a situation right that is we don't have a media police, but we have a media that

feels that it's influential and that, you know, if people don't play the way that they

want to play, they can get canceled.

Well, I thought I know you want to shop on that.

We're going to have the international political analyst Brian Maloney of realamerica.vote

come back and start with us.

Blanky to column right here.

Don't go away.

This is a national security.

Oral hygiene hasn't changed in 50 years, but our diet and the way we eat has, creating

an environment in your mouth for bacteria to wreck havoc on your teeth and gums.

For better oral health, get Sprite dental defense and oral care line designed to combat

acid creating bacteria.

The toothpaste, mouthwashments and gum all contain xylitol and natural ingredients shown

to dramatically improve oral health.

Try can be found online and at all find natural retailers.

In a world of rising prices, you can still grow abundance.

I'm Doug Evans, author of the National Best Seller, The Sprout Book.

Sprouts grow in three to five days without soil, sunshine or fertilizer on your kitchen

countertop for under a dollar serving.

Take control of your food and your future.

Visit thesproutingcompany.com, slash out loud and use the code out loud for an exclusive

offer.

Grow food not fear.

Welcome back to National Security Hour and I'm Blanky to column with a great guest as

a good friend for so many years.

I have to start lying about how many years I know this guy, but that's okay.

Real political analyst, Ryan Maloney, realamerica.phote, tell me about that.

Yeah, so realamerica.phote is essentially a new tool that is being developed to find

fake voters and weed them out, get them off the voter rolls forever.

What is surprising to many people when voter fraud is discussed is that very few people

are aware of how many totally invented names are on the voter rolls, especially in these

new states, but can happen anywhere, actually.

I can't remember whether it's just happening in California where they discovered thousands.

How do they mask that?

How does that happen?

Well, they mask it by us not examining it and they mask it by refusing to turn over

the voter rolls in some states or some counties.

So what realamerica.phote is doing is, first of all, pressuring some of these governments

to cough up the voter list number one, but number two, to use a variety of high-tech methods

to figure out who the fake people are, you know, fake individuals are that are on the

rolls.

And, you know, because people joke about dead people voting or whatever.

And that happens.

Well, they say that about Chicago.

Sure, sure.

I think they still do, but they still do.

But the bottom line is you have people on there and they're not necessarily listed as

Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck, but, you know, maybe it's Joe Smith or something and they don't

exist.

And how do you determine that they don't exist?

Well, our group utilizes private detectives, most of which have a background in law enforcement

and they can utilize all the tools and they have tools at their disposal that the rest

of us don't.

They have access to special databases, but one thing what they can determine is that look,

these people don't have, say, a mobile phone.

They don't have an internet, you know, line.

They don't have a credit card, you know, they don't have, there's no sign of a mortgage

or paying rent or utility bill.

So they go through and they just go down this list and eventually you come to the conclusion

that any person living in this society functioning is going to have one of these things.

You know, even if you live with family or whatever, you still don't have a phone of your

own.

Who doesn't?

Right.

So you reach a point where if it walks like a duck, you know, it quacks like a duck, it's

a duck.

And that's, you know, where any reason or not, or you call foul, sorry, for your foul.

Hey, listen, I want to, I want to talk about, want to go back to something while we

here at our last segment because you and I talked about the issue of the president, not

picking some of the best people.

And you know, I mentioned briefly that when I first came here many years ago, gosh,

it's not been 30 years ago.

And they had very smart people and presidential personnel.

There was a criteria, not just for the people that work there, but they would have different

people that have, would have to interview you if you were being considered for a specific

agency.

And you had to have so much background and education.

And I don't know.

It just seems like that's kind of gone by the wayside.

You know, the first thing they would say, did you vote?

And then, but right now, there have been some very bizarre choices.

And then ultimately, I'm going to throw this also for your consideration.

Sorry, folks.

Just a little split here.

You have this group of people who had seemingly were very close to the president.

And they've gone off the rails, whether it's a Marjorie Taylor Greene or a Tucker Carlson

or a Candace Owens or, I mean, they've gone way off the radar.

Let's first of all talk about the selection and go to the second part of that.

Yeah.

So I think the selection process changed from, as you pointed out in the past where people

would be selected because they had some distinguished history as a maybe scholarship or leadership

or past government experience or whatever to a situation where people are picked because

they have the largest Twitter following, you know, have the largest, you know, so the

algorithms on social media favor them over other people.

And we've had some really bad, and that's going to be where we launch into the second

part of your question.

They are about these characters.

Right.

It's algorithms that are picking these people.

And it's also, as I said, who was on Fox most or whatever who impressed the president?

I get that.

I mean, I think that I'm going to totally, you know, go after him about that.

Maybe somebody does present well on Fox or whatever, you know, it probably does mean they

can present well on camera on behalf of this administration.

But the problem is you need to know what their agenda is behind the scenes.

Is it to serve the president or is it to serve themselves?

And it's almost always to serve themselves.

And a Marjorie Taylor Green, and we're even seeing this with Lauren Bovers turning into

the next Marjorie Taylor Green.

And some of the other names that you pointed out, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, these folks,

it's more than just corruption and it's more than just, you know, taking a check from

the highest bidder because I think some of these people are on the payrolls and some very

bad global actors, I mean, very, very bad actors.

And it's incredible to think they were bought off so easily.

But it's something else too, it's clearly that these folks pretended to be conservative,

they pretended to be America first, Maga.

And then in the end, what they showed is that they were never anything of the sort.

They were just deceivers.

So what's the question, Brian, because you know, for me, what struck me is if you're

going to bail on somebody that you were such an advocate for, that makes you question,

why should you trust them ever?

You know, the question is if, you know, unless I did something so heinous and, you know,

you're completely heartbroken and you take a stand on principle.

But I'm not quite convinced that those people were.

Well, one thing I can say is that, you know, the day that Tucker Carlson was fired from

the Fox News channel, we were all in shock, you know, he had the number one show.

And there was no clear reason, there was actually no reason ever given for his termination

as you may recall, no reason was given to this day.

And we were all stunned because Tucker was at the time doing a pretty darn good job with

his show.

You know, and he had picked up basically Bill O'Reilly's audience and kept most of it.

And not all of it, but most of it.

And that's pretty good because Bill O'Reilly was number one when he was fired.

But as I went on, it became very, very clear that Fox executives obviously knew something

about Tucker that we didn't know because in hindsight, the decision to fire Tucker Carlson

was absolutely one of the most necessary and brilliant decisions made it to shock to

your point.

It was a shock, but they knew something about him.

And we still don't know what it was.

You know, now we do have those private emails that were subpoenaed, that were part of

that lawsuit that came out in discovery, you know, with the vote with the dominion lawsuit

that Fox had to pay that $800 million settlement.

And you know, what we saw in the emails and the text messages that were revealed was

that Tucker was celebrating the end of Trump's first presidency, which is the exact opposite

of what he was saying on the air.

So at least I'm thinking that Fox looked at all of his emails, looked at his text messages

and everything else and realized that best we've got a phony here.

At worst we've got a very dangerous loose cannon.

I'm still shocked because you know, there's been a lot of phonies that have worked on these

networks.

You know, you've had a lot of phonies that worked at these networks.

And they were charming, they dressed well, they had good hair, you know, organized suits.

But you had, I think I was surprised where I was surprised later with him was when he

was had that guy, what's this is a grouper, oh, this, Fwentis.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Vic Fwentis is that his name?

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I thought to myself that was bizarre.

And when he went to Russia, that was bizarre.

I don't question anybody going to Russia.

I think we have to have journalists after overseeing voice of American radio for Europe.

I can't tell you much respect I have for the journalists that are fearless.

Sure, sure.

But that's not what the talker was there to do.

But that was different.

Yeah.

He wasn't there to do, he wasn't there for the purpose of journalism.

He was there for the purpose of propaganda.

And I think in, for example, this video tour he did of a Russian supermarket was bizarre.

I mean, I don't think any of us were under the impression that Russians don't have grocery

stores and produced by, and the whole purpose of, I just thought he must think we're really

stupid.

You know, so yes, Russians have groceries, you know, I would have been more interested

to see if North Koreans have a grocery store.

Yeah, now that would have been interesting.

Okay.

Yeah.

But, you know, the Russians have a grocery store.

Yeah, the Soviet Union has been gone for over three decades.

We know they have grocery stores and they do look like ours.

Yes.

Okay.

Fine.

I mean, so the trip was weird.

And I think that what, first of all, I think Tucker is under the influence of foreign

agents who are paying him, but I don't think you're necessarily Russian.

I think they're probably cutter or some other Middle Eastern country.

I hope not.

That would break my heart.

I would be sick.

I think he probably is.

But number two, I think he is also, and I've based this on a person that I know who went

to Tucker's studio in Florida to be guest and wanted to show this before Tucker started

having his weird guests on.

This was a while back and who described the experience to me and said that it was really

like entering a cocoon or something where Tucker had so much protection around him.

And I don't just mean physical security protection.

I mean that he was protected.

You know, he had the gatekeepers, had gatekeepers, you know, had more gatekeepers.

You know what I'm saying?

But what they want you to do, did he have, you know, again, to give him the benefit

of the doubt?

Did he have threats?

Did he have people?

I'm sure he has threats.

I mean, so I'm not, I'm not just feuding Tucker's effort for security.

But I guess the guest arrived there as a huge fan of Tucker and left there scratching their

head once in a row.

A skeptic.

A skeptic like what's going on here?

This is weird.

You know, now I used to work with Rush Limbaugh as you may know years ago and the one

thing about him was he was incredibly down to earth despite also having, you know, kind

of a lot of people around him.

But he let certain people in to keep his feet on the ground.

He let a handful of people in and I was one of them and I was very, very honored to

be one of those handful of people.

Well, but he was also a big sinker.

I mean, at that time, he was a big sinker and, you know, I'm a big, first amendment

free speaker.

I did not get out there and defend Rush Limbaugh and I defend Howard Stern at that point

and Don I miss because in, and really I would like to have a free speech off right now

where you have a battle of the free speech.

Right.

Those guys did not feel compromised to have people that had different points of view because

they knew how to fight for the, for what they believed in, you know, even if I didn't

agree with him.

If I didn't agree with Howard Stern, he still didn't have to do it.

He was a talent.

Well, and I think that, you know, the reason I bring up Rush is that Rush always kept

his feet on the ground despite essentially being a billionaire when he died and, and also

living in a protective cocoon which was one out of necessity.

I mean, so when I was a talk show host at KVI in Seattle in 1998, Rush Limbaugh came to

visit us for a couple of days and the amount of security at the station was essentially

a secret service level.

I think, I think some of them were former secret service agents, to be honest.

And I saw, and back then we used facts machines, do you remember at all?

Right.

I thought it was a dialogue moment.

A dialogue moment.

Yeah.

The newsroom had facts machines and the wire service that praying papers and, you know,

but anyway, I saw the facts machine when Rush was in our studio and I don't even know

how some of these people had our newsroom facts number, but they did and there were hundreds

of death threats pouring through the facts machine, wasting all of our paper and ink.

And, you know, and all these threats that Rush and I was seeing them pour through as I'm

trying to get ready for my own show and I'm realizing, wow, I don't know if I would

ever want to be Rush Limbaugh because I couldn't be able to go for a walk or-

Well, he had a lot of courage, but he had a lot of courage and as you recall, he was

genuinely very collegial with everybody despite their opinion.

He wasn't.

Oh, yeah.

And I mean, I think about a lot of the guys that I was on the different programs in that

period in the 90s when you had very opinionated hosts, but the great thing was, you know,

like I talk about my friend, Gloria Alredg, she and I would go on all the time together

and she'd say, well, I'm going to talk about this and I'll come from here and I said,

okay, well, I'm going to talk about this and I come from there and we'd fight great

on camera and then we'd go out and have dinner.

We're still good friends to this day.

Exactly.

And the thing of it is, that's the beauty of the freedom of speech and that you didn't

sit out to destroy each other.

You sit out to have a good fight intellectually about the principles of what you believed

and what they believed.

Now, we used to have a lot of that.

We used to have a lot of camaraderie even if you didn't agree, you know, I'll give you

an example and yo, I know you'll agree with me on this, but Alan Cums was one of those-

Oh, he was a good friend of mine.

Well, he was the nicest guy, you know, and I know you drove people crazy on camera or

whatever, but you know, he was the sweetest guy.

Oh, he was.

He was.

And I was at a Claremont Gala recently and his- I think was sitting next to me at the

table with sister.

I think it was.

He was a good brother.

And we ended up talking about him the whole night.

It was funny.

And I'm sure I know you knew Alan a lot better than I did.

It was, it was just amazing.

And so back then, you know, we could just disagree.

We could scream at each other or whatever, but like you said, you could have a drink afterward

or whatever.

Well, the other guy that thought that was Tom Hartman, Tom Hartman, and I would fight on

camera.

And then off the air, he and his wife and I would get friends, you know, part of it was

the intellectual depth that you could go to on a topic to be able to decide whether

you agree or you didn't agree.

I mean, that was half the fun of it, but now it's you either agree or I'm going to

destroy you and cancel you.

Well, and it's more than that.

We're not going in depth anymore on things.

What we're doing is we're tweeting out garbage, you know, we're tweeting out things.

Everything is in these little tidbits now.

And there isn't a depth to any argument anymore.

There is just a seven word, uh, freed or what, you know, or what tirade or whatever.

And then another one and another one.

And so there isn't.

So that's, I think that's why what we're seeing elevated to the top of our food chain

and social media are these clowns who are basically also griptored thieves, um, is that

they are the best at screaming the seven word tweets, you know, they are the best at

that.

They got some notoriety at some point.

The algorithm helped them pick up a million followers.

And all of a sudden, they're at the top of our food chain, but they are unfedded.

We don't know who they really are.

And they have new broadcaster media or journalism experience at all.

They have got nothing.

They were just whoever until one day when the algorithm said you, you know, you're the

new toes in person.

Here's a new influence.

Here's a new influence.

There's so one day you're sure that has so many, so many, uh, you know, viewers or whatever

that enough clicks.

I want to make sure it's running out of time.

I can't believe it.

We're on the air together, um, that people go to the real America dot vote.

Tell us where that tells any of the information that we have.

We don't have that at the time.

Well, so we really need everyone's support out there and you should find us on Twitter

X.

What I still call a Twitter.

I know people call it X whatever Twitter X, whatever real America dot vote is very active

there.

Marley Hornick oversees that and I know she's been on with you.

Um, and, yes, and, uh, also on, um, that, I mean, that's a really important thing to do.

So we need that support, but also go to the website realamerica dot vote and a lot of information

is there because some studies are about to get underway where the fake voters are going

to be rooted out of the system.

All right.

We're going to, well, you have to be back on when that comes out because you don't have

to be a stranger to this show.

We're going to have you come back on more frequently, Ryan Maloney, my wonderful friend,

realamerica.vote, thank you.

And I'm Blanky the Commonwealth talk again very, very soon, like, how about next week?

Is that, that would be, that would be, that would be fabulous.

I would love it.

Bye bye.

Thank you.

Okay.

Bye.

Bye.

Okay.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.

Bye.