(4-27-26) Ep. 196: Another Gunman, Another Security Breach — While Iran Tries to Leverage the Strait & Much More.

Today's Articles:

(Wall Street Journal) - The simple security flaws that exposed Trump to another gunman. (The Federalist) - The Secret Service Failed Trump — Again. (The Associated Press) - Iran offers to reopen Strait of Hormuz if US lifts its blockade and the war ends, officials say. (The Hill) - Virginia court rules in favor of Democrats in redistricting case. (Gadget Review) - Federal Surveillance Tech Becomes Mandatory in New Cars by 2027. (Just the News) - Trump’s prescription drug policies are making small-town pharmacies great again. (Study Finds) - Study Links UPFs To Rising Dementia Risk Scores. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Due to the graphic nature of this program, viewer discretion is advised.

SPEAKER_01 0:43

Here today's groundbreaking news right here in America and across the board, where the facts are facts and hard truths thrive. Let's begin the best of radio, informative, uncensored, unapologetic, and ready to go. There's so much we've got to delve into today, ladies and gentlemen. We've got so many great topics today stemming from the Warney Run. We'll talk about that as we near day 60. Some cause for concern in America with our failing crop yields and smaller herd sizes affecting our food supply. We'll get into that. We've also got a great article on big tech and what that means for surveillance in your automobiles coming from the federal government today. You're not going to want to miss out on that one, so make sure you stick around for that. And we've got to talk about the partisan Virginia judge now that has blocked the GOP that is challenging the rogue redistricting referendum. We've also got a discussion about the Trump administration's prescription drug policies and how that's a major, major win. And we got another couple of great articles for you as well. You'll enjoy each and every one of them, so make sure you're sticking around for all that. But before we get into all that, we've got to discuss the elephant in the ballroom. And by that I mean we've got to talk about what took place at the White House correspondence dinner on Saturday evening in D.C. We've got to talk about the breaches and failures of Secret Service. I don't believe any of the proper protocols seem to be in place. That's my own estimation, but I'll explain to you why that is. And how this would-be assassin, this Cole Thomas Allen, 31 of Torrance, California, who, by his own admission, referred to himself as the friendly federal assassin. This was a Kabbalah donor, by the way, donated to her by way of Act Blue in 2024. The rhetoric this guy uses, by the way, in this manifesto, and by the way, I read through all of it, and his discussion about how he wants to kill every single member of the Trump administration, except for Cash Patel, he writes this. He said, I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes. Again, I don't understand what he's talking about here. President Trump has not been found guilty of any of these crimes, yet, this seems to be the idea that a lot of these deranged leftists believe in. So right off the bat, we can tell clearly that this is not a well individual. This is an unhinged individual. And again, it makes no sense really from any logical standpoint if he's obsessionist with President Trump and that all of these things that he's referring to are, again, he's guilty of. So this person, again, clearly premeditating these crimes that he wanted to carry out, traveling by train from Los Angeles all the way to Chicago, and then of course down to DC. Uh he's carrying several different firearms with him. He's got a 380 pistol, he's got a shotgun with him, he's got several knives that he's carrying on his person, and he walks right in to the Washington Hilton Hotel the day before this event takes place, with all these items with him, in order to carry out this awful, awful event that he was hoping to achieve. Now, I understand you can get in with a pistol, you can easily conceal that, but how does somebody walk in with a 36-inch long shotgun and nobody understands this? How is nobody from Secret Service figuring out what everybody brought into this building, by the way? And again, I understand there's many, many rooms, and it's very difficult to go through and search everything. I understand that. But if you know that the said guests are going to be staying in this hotel while the president and again many, many officials in the administration are there, how do you not know exactly who everybody is and have an idea of what everyone has brought in? Obviously, there will be surveillance footage of people checking in, what they're bringing in with them. How is it not known what these people have brought in? This is what I have to ask you. Because we never get these questions answered, unfortunately. So I'm very concerned about all this. And by the way, we gotta talk about the perimeters that were set up for the security purposes. It doesn't seem like anything was carried out properly. Now, why do I say this to you? I'm looking at this article, and it says here, the Wall Street Journal, Carrie Lake, the former gubernatorial candidates, Senate nominee in Arizona, said, Upon entering, nobody asked to visibly inspect my ticket, nor asked for my photo identification. All one had to do was flash what appeared to be a ticket, and they were fine with that. So guests were able to really access the Hilton's lobby, and especially at the lower levels, without going through any proper security screening, it seems like. And only passed through the magnetometers right before entering the ballroom where the dinner was being held. So you gotta understand these these the security breach really that he made was probably about 60 or so feet away from the entrance to this room. So just keep that in mind right now when we're talking about all this. So, you know, I've got so many questions about how this is taking place. How do we have such a big-scale event? You have members of the media that are there, you have members of the administration that are there, and yet no one's getting screened enter this? I've I've got a lot of concerns about this, folks. And none of it seems to be adding up as to why this is happening right now. And again, you can look at other things as well. Katie Pavlich said a lot of the similar things as well on X. She says there were no checkpoints at the doors at the street level. This checkpoint was only one level up from the ballroom, the stairs down to the ballroom are yards away. You know, what where is Secret Service on this? How are they not securing the perimeter? When they know that the president is going to be someplace, they have to secure the entire area, not just the room that it's held in. They have to be able to cut off certain access points from the public that's staying at the hotel. So why do they do these things? How is it that this guy took from the 10th floor, comes down, walks through the hallways, and is unknown until he reaches the metal detectors? Again, it doesn't make any sense to me. And of course, he runs through. We'll talk about that momentarily. But let's take a look at this. And this is what the this is these are the protocols that are supposed to be in place. At the Washington Hilton, for example, the hotel was closed to the public at 2 p.m. Okay, that makes sense. They close down the hotel, nobody else can enter unless, of course, you're a hotel guest, you're a credential attendee, and of course, you are a ticketed dinner guest, or you're affiliated somehow with the White House correspondence uh personnel. Okay, fine, that makes sense. But again, Carrie Lake just told us all you do is flash what appeared to be a ticket and you were just ushered on in. You know, you pass through the magnetometer, but you were just able to go in. You weren't given any ID to the Secret Service or what have you. This is problematic. So this tells me, first of all, the perimeters of which they created were not effective in any single way. And anytime you have these events, there's always supposed to be layered perimeters that Secret Service are watching and they are preventing people from accessing. So that could be hallways, elevators, ballrooms, rooms, doesn't matter what it is. There should be several different things that people have to get through in order to get into this event. That certainly did not take place. So number one, you have an outer interior perimeter in the hotel. And by the way, they've used the Hilton Hotel many, many times in the past. This is where Reagan was shot, by the way, in 1981, just so we're all clear about this. So we we have to come to terms with folks that this was not proper. So this outer interior perimeter, this would be a controlled access to, for example, the lobby, the event floors. Again, you'll have credential checks at these, you'll have local and hotel security assisting them. You'll have elevators, stairwells as well being restricted or locked down completely. So if they don't want you to have access, they just simply close this down. They close away all your access to these areas. I don't see any of that being taken place right now. Certainly not uh what we're being told. Then, of course, you have your middle interior perimeter. This is where the suspect, this Alan, in the hotel incident was intercepted, by the way. So how does he make it past the first breach and then gets through the second? He runs right through it. You know, you have agents, you have officers controlling the corridors that lead up to this event. How is he able to run right through firing his weapon? Again, you're only supposed to get through if you're you've been properly screened and you are credential. This guy runs through and he gets through everything. Uh, this is this is very problematic. And then of course you have your inner perimeter, that would be the entrance to the ballroom, which again he did not breach that, thankfully. Thank God for that. Uh, but again, if he was firing at these agents, which again he allegedly did because we know someone was hit with a 380 round, and thankfully they had a bulletproof vest on, they were not severely injured. But this is lethal force, ladies and gentlemen. And in this protocol by Secret Service, for example, if someone is entering with lethal force and they're running in, you see that they have a weapon on them, which I believe he had his pistol on him, not his shotgun, he should have been shot right then and there. Shot dead. That's the that's the protocol. Um, but this is the breach in Secret Service detail. And by the way, we look at the photos of him, he's on the ground afterwards, he clearly was not hit with anything. And we're getting estimates from five shots being heard to eight shots being heard. But we know that he took a shot at a Secret Service agent because somebody was hit. So that tells me how was he taken to the ground? How was he apprehended by Secret Service? Do they tackle him? Do they shoot at him? Because clearly I see him apprehended, he's in restraints on the ground, face down, he's prone. And it doesn't look like he's been hit. And if he was hit, you would see Secret Service or medical personnel around him administering first aid to him. That wasn't taking place. So this tells me he was, I guess, apprehended in some way, either was tackled or something along those lines, or he just simply surrendered, which I don't believe. But why would he not be taken out? That is a massive, massive risk to everybody at that event if he was able to, again, breach the perimeter and then get into that ballroom. Thankfully he never did. Okay. And then I got some more questions for us too. So beside the, you know, breaching the several perimeters without being apprehended, without being taken down lethally, which he should have been, by the way. So either the Secret Service are bad shots or somehow they were able to get him down some other way. But again, he's got a gun on him. He's a lethal force. He should have been taken out right that other. That is what the protocols state. Lethal force is obviously going to be met with lethal reaction. He was not. Okay, fine, whatever. But then I have another question for you. Why was JD Vance taken out some 30 seconds before President Trump, by the way? We see this in the video footage. Again, another breach in protocol. Now, some have said President Trump had said he wanted to wait. Wait, wait for what? I don't understand this. The President just doesn't get to decide what Secret Service does, they act accordingly to the rules and they act on them. So I don't understand at the moment, Secret Service doesn't even begin with President Trump. I I really don't understand this. They remove J.D. Vance, and then later they take President Trump, of course, to safety. But he's just sitting there. So if this guy were to able to breach the room and get in, I mean, we could only make a speculation about what could have happened, but the president is just sitting there when they know that there is somebody armed in the hallway outside of this room. So very, very troublesome to see this. And again, you take JD Vance first and you leave the president sitting there while this is going on. Again, this lack of following the protocols needs to stop. We saw this in Butler. Okay, we've seen this before. People are saying, hey, somebody's on the roof, and no one is following up on this. And then they they they track Thomas Crooks and they forget where he is, and then they still let President Trump go out and speak. It's amazing to me. But what's really more bizarre, I have to say, after all this, right, you see the Secret Service taking out several different people. But what's more bizarre afterwards, instead of asking how the Secret Service didn't stop this guy from running through the security right away, and again, you see him coming from a mile away. Yes, he's sprinting in, but there's no way, no way he should have gone through everybody. Not not a chance. President Trump was speaking directly afterwards, and he goes through and he starts talking about the need for a ballroom, if you can believe that. Let's listen to clip one.

SPEAKER_00 14:01

We looked at all of the conditions that took place tonight, and I will say it's not a particularly secure building. And uh I didn't want to say this, but uh this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we're planning at the White House is actually a larger room and it's a much more secure-proof, it's fully proof. We need the ballroom. That's why Secret Service, that's why the military are demanding it. They wanted the ballroom for 150 years for lots of different reasons, but today's uh a little bit different because today we need levels of security that probably nobody's ever seen before.

SPEAKER_01 14:45

Okay, so again, he makes a case for creating the ballroom. I just found out earlier today that the Justice Department asked for the lawsuit against the building of the ballroom to be removed and rescinded. But here's the problem. If Secret Service is not doing their job, ladies and gentlemen, and by the way, I've heard several different people speaking about going to places like Mar-a-Lago, for example. Uh, again, security being very laxed. Now, the person I listened to was a former CIA analyst. He was at an event at Mar-a-Lago for President Trump, of course. And he uh he was attending the event, he drove up, and Secret Service asked, Do you have any firearms in the vehicle? And he's a Florida resident. He says, Yes, yes, I do. I'm a I'm gonna conceal a carry permit, and the guy says, Well, you can't have them on the property. So he drops off his guest, he goes back to wherever he was, takes him out, comes back, and then he's they ask, Do you have any firearms? He goes, No, no, I removed them before I got here. They just let him in. Shouldn't they have checked his vehicle before going in? Again, I I have to ask you, why are we not taking more steps to make sure we prevent these things? What if he didn't go back to his hotel room and remove, then he brings the guns on the property? So again, I don't understand this. I don't understand this push. I'm seeing this from the right-wing influencers online now. A lot of them are all parroting the same thing. We've got to build the ballroom, we've got to build the ballroom. But if you're not securing, which President Trump just said, it's difficult to secure, well then why are we having the events there? If this location, which we've had many other White House correspondent dinners at, is so difficult to secure, why are we going there then? We know that there have been two attempts on his life previous to this: Thomas Crooks, Ryan Ruth, uh, the other one that showed up to Mar-a-Lago recently, they didn't obviously breach anything, but there's problems with all these things. And if it's so difficult to secure, why would we go and do this then? That's what that tells me. Why would we do this? There's that doesn't make any sense. If you can secure the building properly, then these things should not be taking place. So, again, I I'm very concerned about again, obviously, any president's safety, but this is happening over and over again. And no one is being held responsible. We know that the last uh Secret Service director was obviously fired or resigned, but we've got to follow the protocols. None of these protocols are being followed. From securing the president if there's a lockdown situation like that where they're just trying to remove all the members of the administration, why is President Trump just sitting there like a lone duck? Just sitting out there in the open. How are we allowing the guests at the hotel not to be properly vetted? How is somebody able to walk from the 10th floor all the way down to where this event is being held and to get past the outer perimeter and right past the metal detectors, running right in? God forbid he runs into the building and starts shooting at people. I mean, these are hypotheticals now because they didn't happen, but this is the reality of the situation. We have got to hold Secret Service to a higher standard, and we're not seeing that level being met as of late. And bad things obviously happen when these protocols are simply not following. And they certainly, to me, do not seem to be followed properly. That's my take on it, but again, uh anyone can look at this and say, yeah, this is not being met properly. This is not being met properly. So I think obviously in the future, the building needs to be locked down. You've got to create multiple internal perimeters that cannot be breached. Anyone that crossed through needs to be vetted, uh, obviously screened properly to make sure they don't have weapons on the person. Uh and controlling all the movement inside the hotel. So they know someone's coming down from the room. They know exactly who this person is that's entering the lobby, for example, or entering the building. If they can't do that, they need to close these off then. Okay, that's the way that it needs to be. They need to, I guess, have an empty hotel then in the future, where only the guests are showing up that day and doing the security that way. I mean, this guy even wrote down certain things that said, hey, the security seems like it's pretty laxed. Well, again, it should not be that way. And again, you have to have your your tactical teams there. They should have obviously local PD there, Secret Service there, you have your own hotel security there. Where are all these people? And why was there no proper vetting for people to get into this event? Again, uh, these are questions I have being asked that I they don't seem to be getting answered right now. This should be the number one topic of concern right now. And of course, the response to this grave threat. This guy gets through and and he's shooting at people, and nobody shoots back and kills this guy, as is in the protocols. It's very, very troubling, folks. So I just wanted to discuss this with everybody. Thank God nothing obviously happened this weekend, but very, very troubling to see this time and time again. Uh, this should not be happening. I certainly don't think so, and I think you all would agree with me on that. All right, let's change gears here for a minute now. Let's move on to something else. We've got to talk about what's taking place with this war in Iran right now, as we are now in our post-ceasefire right now. This Associated Press says here that Iran has now offered to end the chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz if the United States lifts its blockade on the country and ends the war in a proposal that would postpone discussions on the Islamic Republic's nuclear weapons program, is what two regional officials have stated. So we've got the Iranians now have made it very, very clear that they are not going to accept the zero enrichment by the United States of the uranium hexafluoride. It's simply not going to happen anymore. And they they've claimed that they will continue to enrich for medical and civilian purposes. So that part of the negotiation is no more. It's null and void. Now, whether President Trump agrees to all this, I do not see that as being likely that he accepts this offer. Again, this is being passed down to the Americans by the Pakistanis who are trying to be the negotiators through all this. I don't see this being taking place for several reasons. I don't think Trump wants to concede to the Iranians access to the Strait of Hormuz, where they will be charging a fee of$2 million per ship, where they will control what goes in and out moving forward. Uh again, any level of enrichment I think Trump would probably move away from. I don't think he wants that. Um again, we had this deal last June. Well the Iranians wanted to enrich to 3.75%. They were going to agree to that. They were going to agree to U.S. weapons inspectors to come into the nuclear sites to inspect everything that's happening, to monitor if any developments are taking place of nuclear technology. And of course, that means. A nuclear bomb, they were gonna agree to all this. And of course, sign on to really what the JCPOA was that they're not going to build a nuclear bomb. Now, folks, for those of you that don't know, and I've said this on the show many, many times, the Iranians have stated since 2003 they have done away with any sort of nuclear weapons development programs. They don't want them. They've issued two fatwas. That's an edict coming from the Supreme Leader, who everyone says has all the power in the world. Okay, fine. Well, he called and said, like, listen, we're not gonna build this nuclear bomb. It's against our religion. And we're not gonna do this. We're not gonna develop this. Okay. Well, then we have Obama coming in 2015 with the JCPOA and the Iranians sign on and say, okay, we won't build a nuclear bomb, we'll let you come in and inspect. Fine. Well, then Donald Trump ripped this up in 2019 and said, no, no, we don't want this plan anymore. It's it allows the Iranians to, in several years, build a nuclear bomb, and this is no good for the United States. We're getting out of this. But the problem was he didn't replace it with anything. And so the Iranians since 2019 really are under no legal contract not to build whatever they want. So if they wanted to, if they were this hellbent on wanting to build a nuclear bomb and use it in the United States, on the West, on Israel, they really could have done that. But they haven't. And all our intelligence tells us they haven't. They're not building a bomb, they don't have a bomb, they don't have access to a bomb. No one's given them a nuclear bomb. So we've got to understand exactly what is going on here. So I think the Iranians would come to the table and agree to that provision, but I don't think they're gonna give President Trump a lot of the other things. I really don't see any of the other 15 points that President Trump has proposed being accepted by the Iranians. I think what the Iranians will agree to is we're not gonna build a nuclear bomb, but we are going to enrich to a certain level. We will do that, but now we are going to control the Strait of Ormuz. That's no longer coming off the table. And with the fragile ceasefire still holding on, again, I call it a ceasefire name only because, again, I don't see any evidence that we're really in a ceasefire. It's really just a pause right now. And we're still in this kind of standoff with one another right now. We have the United States creating a naval blockade all around the Persian Gulf, about 500 miles away, roughly. You have the Iranians firing on various ships and taking them, you have the United States firing on ships and taking control of them. That's not a ceasefire, folks. That is that is certainly aggressions of war. And anyone will tell you, even the UN Charter will say, any single naval blockade is an act of war. That's what it comes down to. So if the U.S. naval blockade is designed to prevent, for example, Iran from selling its oil, depriving it of its crucial revenue, which again potentially is creating a situation where Tehran has now shut off production all throughout the Persian Gulf, where no oil is, you know, being sold by its Gulf Arab neighbors, that is a big problem. And it has this economic ramifications that take place as well. So, how do we get the strait open? The straits closure is what's the problem here. And of course, we have the oil and gasoline prices now have skyrocketed as a result. President Trump is very much aware of this. And I think he really underestimated the Iranians, I gotta tell you, because I don't think he believed that they would be able to close the strait of Ormoose. Now, he comes out and says we destroyed the Navy, we've destroyed most of the military, they're all decimated, the ships are at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. Well, then how do they have access to closing the strait right now? How do they have access to laying mines? And again, if the Iranians are not in control of the strait, then why is the U.S. not ushering ships through the strait if everything's been decimated, if their stockpiles have been depleted? None of that makes any sense right now if we have full access to that, which again, I don't believe we do. I think the Iranians are full in control of what's taking place, and I think moving forward they will control that strait. That's my take on it. You can agree or disagree, but I see that as again being something that is non-negotiable to them. That's simply the way it's going to be from here on out. Now, the closure has also some far-reaching effects throughout the entire world, of course. So I think that's why the Pakistanis, the Omanis are very much involved in this, because again, China too, they want to see the regular flow of oil come from the Persian Gulf. And again, a lot of them are reliant on Iranian oil, particularly the Chinese. So I think the Chinese who said, hey, let's get you to the ceasefire agreement, let's talk, let's try to get this worked out so we can open up the strait again, stop the war, and resume to the status quo. But the Iranians are not going to count out to what the United States wants. And I think that was very much made clear when they met with J.D. Vance, Steve Whitkoff, and Jared Kushner not too long ago. And by the way, I don't think the Iranians are even interested in meeting with Kushner or Whitkoff moving forward. Over the weekend, by the way, we saw Foreign Minister Abbas Arachi. On Friday, he went to Islamabad to meet with Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan. Not to meet with Steve Whitkoff or Jared Kushner, which is why the President Trump obviously canceled their trips to the region. They're not going to meet with these two. There's no reason. They met with them in the past and then the negotiations have gone nowhere. Arachi has even said this. But I think Arachi in good faith has gone to meet with Sharif to work on their terms and their negotiations about what they will and will not accept. I think that's the way they're working on this. I think they're going to meet, obviously, through mediaries as time goes on. Arachi then goes over to Oman to discuss the control of the Strait of Hormuz, probably the future of that with them, how they will collect fees, how they will divide the fees up, what the fees should be, things of that nature, and what's taking place with the closing of the strait right now. Then he goes back to Pakistan, though. I think probably more to speak on terms of the peace talks and ending the war again. But what's remarkable is on Sunday he flies all the way to St. Petersburg to meet with President Putin. And I believe probably likely to discuss what the United States and Europe's roles are going to be post-this war and their approach to them. They're looking at things like what caused the start of the Ukraine war, why we are now in a war with Iran. And I think they're going to talk about how Russia views all these things and moving forward, probably a mutual security contract between, obviously, Russia and Iran. Because Iran does not want Russia does not want Iran, obviously, to fall and then have a puppet president installed. We saw how that worked out in Iran. So Putin is very much aware. He knows exactly what's going on and what the US wants and what Israel wants. So I think this is very, very interesting to see this taking place right now. But it's very important to understand Iran is the one that are really holding all the cards right now. And I know, you know, obviously that upsets a lot of people hearing that, but the truth is they are the ones that are controlling what's going on because they are in control of the strait right now. They are the ones that have caused the grave damage inside of Israel, inside a lot of these Gulf Arab states. They're very much aware of what's going on there. That because the United States has bases in the region, they're able to attack them much more freely and much more easily. The Iranians do not want that. And I think you're going to see a big change in the region moving forward. They're not going to want the United States present to be as great in the region. If the these countries even survive what's taking place right now, we have the UAE now wants to have a currency swap because their economy is in the tank. You see the Kuwaitis, you see the Bahrainis, uh, obviously you have um, for example, Qatar, same thing. Saudi Arabia, same thing. I mean, they're struggling right now. They're struggling, they're struggling to get imports in the country. Uh, food and water being some main necessities that are not coming in right now. And by the way, just the airport in Dubai alone being closed is costing the Emirates some$500 million every single day. So what the future of these countries, if they even exist, is going to be very detrimental. And I don't think they will invite the United States back. And by the way, how is the United States going to rebuild these bases? It's estimated to be over$100 billion at least in damages to these military installations all throughout the region. Um, again, how long is that going to take? And will they even have us? Because this is a net loss to these countries now. Now they have they have no commerce, they can't get any imports or exports going through the Persian Gulf right now, and their countries are going to be in grave danger as time moves on because it gets really hot in the Persian Gulf this time of year. It gets unbearably hot. I'm told it's it's unbearable. Uh, it makes a summer in Arizona look like uh, you know, a spring in Kansas. I mean, that's the difference to all this. I mean, it's just unbearably hot. And without oil, and obviously anything fueling their electricity, without air conditioning, that becomes unbearably hot. So I think you're gonna see a lot of people flee if this war again continues on, which I do believe it will. And you're gonna see a lot of people flee this region. That's gonna be, again, devastating to these economies as well. So I'm very interested to see what takes place if we can come to the table. Rubio has come out now and said that Iran is working on a deal with them. Again, I I listen to what the Iranians say in this case. Uh, we've heard this time and time again. The Iranians want to make a deal, we've heard this ad nauseum, but it's the Iranians that said, okay, here are our terms, and the United States says no, and then the Iranians say, we don't need it then. You're the one that asked us for the ceasefire. And we know now that three or four different times the United States has asked for a ceasefire, and the Iranians have said no. We don't we don't need this ceasefire, we're fine with where we are right now. And again, the U.S. has hit many military installations, they've hit many other civilian sites as well inside Iran, and the Iranians are still very much in control about what's going on with them. They're very resilient as far as their stance in this war. And I don't think you will see them capitulate to what the United States wants, and they're not in a hurry to rush to these peace talks. And I think Arachi has made that very, very clear. And now you have Russia. I again I don't know if Russia will offer anything beyond simple talks with them as far as what they should do, but I don't think you'll see them allow, and by them I mean Russia or China allow Iran to fall on this. I I really don't see that happening. And I think we've really overplayed our hand here in this naval blockade. I really do. It's costing us a lot of money, and ships are still going through the region. We have acknowledged that at least 40 different ships associated with the Iranians have breached this naval blockade. So, again, we we talk about pros and cons here. What are we gaining from this? It seems like the Iranians are coming out with the better hand of cards as this goes on. So, I again I we can only pray that this ends sooner rather than later. I hope it does too. And we'll see how the Iranians react to the U.S.'s demands that we come to the table and of course have peace negotiations. All right, folks, moving on, let's not waste any time. I want to move on to an article out of the hill right now, and we got to talk about this Virginia court now ruling in favor of the Democrats in this registration case. Ridiculousness to a T right now. We talked about this on the show on Friday, but I was shocked to see this, I really was. Because as I told you on Friday, there are provisions in the Virginia State Constitution that were completely omitted by the Virginia con Virginia delegations to allow this to happen. So, what's happening now? Where are we in this entirety? And it says here that the Richmond Circuit Court judge Tracy Thorne Belgland uh denied a request by the Republican National Committee, the Virginia GOP, and others to block the results of the registrying referendum held last week. Of course, there was the narrow victory by the Democrats, of course, pushed by Governor Spanberger, that wanted this referendum to get through, which allows them to narrowly, uh, but surely they passed it, to put forth these new congressional lines that gives them a four-seat advantage now, making it a 10 to 1 ratio for Democrat seats to Republican seats in the Congress. So, what he said. He says this court knows its role is clear. It is not to assess the wisdom of public policy nor to engage in policy making from the bench. Instead, it is to decide if those with whom we have entrusted power have exercised that power in the conformance with their constitutional mandate. On this question, the court's answer is in the affirmative, which, again, to me is really remarkable on a couple different fronts because they've totally skipped out on two of the major steps here. They're supposed to have the Virginia delegations, that would be their House of Delegates and their Virginia Senate, to vote on a constitutional amendment for the state. So they did that part. But what they didn't do was they didn't have obviously another election year that would be taking place in obviously this midterm, or they elect the new seats to come in. And in that case, they have to have yet another vote from the incoming. Well, it's not the assembly, but it's the delegates and the new Senate. So we have a new group of actors coming into the state. They're supposed to vote on it. And then after that, then they're supposed to have another referendum vote after that. So there's there's totally they're totally missing out on several of these steps to make a constitutional amendment to the, obviously, in the state. So I don't know how this judge doesn't know that. I really don't understand how they can go, they can skip out on two major steps here and and go ahead and try to pass this all at once. They basically said, we're gonna vote on it and then we'll have a referendum. Well, that's not how it works. Usually, again, it takes place over a couple of years. And the reason why they did this in the Virginia Constitution is so they don't just continue to jam through a lot of these provisions that they want to have in their constitution. So, for example, you have one Congress, or excuse me, I should say delegates in the Virginia Senate, they vote on it, and if passed, it's not done yet. They wait for the next group to come in. Once they are seated, then they vote on it. Once they vote on it, and if it passes, again, just by a simple majority, that's how the constitution in their state works, then they put it to a referendum vote. And if passed, um, then obviously it would become law later on. It would become a part of their constitution. So that process didn't happen. They didn't wait until the next session to occur. So fine, okay, we could say that it passed already, fine. Then they have to go through the midterms this year, the new representatives come in, and if they pass it again, then later on, and usually there's a time frame at which it goes through, then they can have a referendum vote, usually at the next election year. It's not a special election, so it takes some time for these things. This is what they wanted. Okay, this is what the the this is what the framers of the constitution wanted. They wanted things to be a slow process when amending the constitution. That didn't take place here. I think that's why this is all the more strange that we have a sitting judge who doesn't acknowledge this, doesn't understand this. So they can say they've passed the first step of this, okay, fine. But then they have to have obviously the next group come in in 2027, they would vote on it again, and then in 2028, then they would obviously vote on this referendum. And then, if passed, then it becomes part of their constitution now. That didn't take place. The other problem that I don't understand how this judge doesn't understand, there's a provision in the Constitution that they cannot create these gerrymandered congressional seats. What do I mean by that? That means they can't make these weird districts that all go into northern Virginia, where it's very, very blue, and create these really odd-shaped districts. They can't do that in the state. That's against the Constitution. So they can't do that. And if you look at the Virginia map, by the way, the Virginia map that they're proposing now was not what was initially agreed upon at the start of all this. Um, so so there's so many things they have to get over. I think what's gonna happen, uh again, I do believe this will take place. It's gonna shoot up to the Virginia Supreme Court now, and I think it'll be adjudicated upon over, again, the issues of the referendum itself, if it's even constitutional, which I don't believe it is, based on what I'm reading. And even the new House map they proposed is totally different. So I think the High Court will be hearing the oral arguments today over whether the state lawmakers properly convene, which I don't believe they did, uh, using their slim majority to allow this to get passed. Um, so I hope that the Virginia Supreme Court will stand by the law, stand by the Constitution, and again, just say, listen, you obviously can't put this on the ballot and redistrict these seats the way you're trying to do that uh this fall. Just simply not gonna happen. I think that was their attempt. That was Spanberger's attempt to really obviously take away the votes. And by the way, we we have to be considerate here. Virginia is a state that is not completely blue. Alright, we know it's you know, voting blue now, but they just had a Republican governor and they just had a referendum vote back in 2021. Where I'm sorry, was it 20? I think it was 2020, excuse me. Where the state overwhelmingly 65% said, no, we don't want to take the commission away, this nonpartisan commission that rewrites our maps for the congressional seats and the legislative seats in the state. We don't want this. We want a nonpartisan commission to sit down. We don't want just one dominant party to write these seats, which is exactly which apparently now they have voted for. Now, some people are saying the language in the referendum was unclear, so people may not have understood what they were voting for. Now that's to be determined. But I think it's going to get shot down in court. I really do think it'll be shot down by the Virginia Supreme Court if they are ruling based on how the law is written, which, again, is very, very clear that they're not doing it according to the state constitution. So we'll see how that all turns out, ladies and gentlemen. Now I want you to stay with me because this next article is very, very important. This matter is very, very crucial as we talk about our rights, obviously. And this is not a gadget review. It says here federal surveillance tech becomes mandatory in new cars by 2027. What are we talking about here? This is obviously upsetting. We see the encroachment of the federal government now in our lives more than ever with these new gadgets we get. So your next car purchase comes with an unwelcome passenger. Now, it's this federal mandate requiring surveillance technology that monitors your every blink, your glance, your head nod, everything. Now, some people say, Well, I really don't care. Well, I think you should. I really think you should. This is, I mean, this is like the movie The Minority Report with Tom Cruise. This dystopian film that talks about crimes that haven't been committed yet, and of course, you being hauled away, isn't so far-fetched as time moves on, folks. So, thanks to this new section 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, they now want to finalize rules forcing all new passenger vehicles being made to include an advanced impaired driving prevention technology. Now, what does that mean exactly? Essentially, it turns your dashboard into this so-called judgment-free zone that's anything but judgment-free. What does it do? The technology involves the following infrared cameras mounted on the steering columns or A-pillars, tracking eye movement, pupil dilation, drowsiness patterns. I mean, this is unbelievable. Now, unlike a breathalyzer ignition, for some people that have DUIs, which I can maybe understand if you've been obviously convicted of that, uh, this is a system that operates passively. So, again, you are being monitored at all times, even though you haven't committed any crimes. So your car simply just acts as a monitoring device. So you don't get any passion. Peace at home with your cell phone. You don't get any peace in your vehicle. You have street cameras you never voted for. And now, of course, you have this. By the way, if the AI in the vehicle determines that you're impaired, so your blood alcohol is above the 0.08% or showing fatigue, it can actually prevent the ignition startup or limit your vehicle speed. This is unbelievable. And you know, if you think I'm I'm kidding about this, uh I'm not, obviously. I had actually had to look this up. I saw this too online, and it was really shocking to see all this, actually. Um, but they actually Ford did this, they put out a patent called 0104469, and this is what they claim it is. It's a a biometric data that is collected on you. So they look at things like facial recognition, for example, as being one of them. Um, they look at things like your iris scans, they they scan your eyes, so they know exactly who you are. Everyone's iris is different, and they also scan your fingerprints, if you can believe all that. Again, this isn't some movie, this is exactly what they are putting out there right now. So, again, this is extremely troublesome when we look at all these things. This should not be taking place right now. But here's the problem. Here's where it gets even more disastrous and more dystopic. All of this now is connected to a criminal database just to track you. By the way, Ford said itself, this patent is useful for police and for law enforcement. This was written back in filed in September 27th, 2023. So, again, if you if you think I'm making this stuff up, this is all connecting into bigger databases so they can collect information on you. Some people say, well, this is for our safety, right? This is for us. So, you know, if you're drowsy, it's all about control, folks. This is what it comes down to. They are controlling your every single move. Now they're controlling you inside your vehicle. And again, it's done in slow increments, right? You have your little camera in the back, you can look up the back, you know, when you're going in reverse. Okay, fine, whatever. But this isn't just for your own personal safety. This is so that you are monitored at every given point. This is what it comes down to. And again, if this doesn't sound like complete control, again, I don't know what else I can say to you. Um, but you know, this this is just the start of it. It doesn't just end with this. Obviously, it's gonna go much further. So, and aside from scanning your iris, determining if you're you're sick or if you can't do anything or you're intoxicated, it can get much, much worse and get much more controlling over time. What do I mean by that? Well, for instance, and by they I mean the government, they can decide, for example, uh, if you're made let's say you're driving too far.

unknown 47:13

Right?

SPEAKER_01 47:14

Or let's say maybe you made a comment online you shouldn't have. You upset somebody on a website, or what have you, it doesn't matter. And you run your mouth off, or let's say you drive and you consume a lot of gasoline, and the government has determined now, because we have a government in office that's determined you shouldn't be driving that far. You're driving too far to work, you're driving too much to travel, a vacation. We can't have that right now. Don't you know that 20% of the global oil supply has been shut off? Again, if you think I'm joking, I'm not. Again, I'll refer you to go look at Oxford in England about what they want to do to create a 15-minute city. Again, not making it up. They're very open about this. And let's say, for example, they determine that you're driving too far to work and you have to move closer to your work. But what they do is you say, you know what, I really like living an hour away from work. I like driving, I like to commute for some reason. I like it, okay? That's what I want to do. Well, now they have the technology, you say, you know what, we've got your GPS beacon in your vehicle, and we've determined now if you continue to drive, you know, past the 15 minute, 15 mile, whatever they decide, doesn't matter what it is, we're gonna shut your vehicle off. And you say, well, you can't do it. Well, obviously they have the technology, they can do this. And at that point, it's complete control. Now, I believe, ladies and gentlemen, this is my own belief, this completely violates our Fourth Amendment rights to be secure in our own persons, our houses, and now, of course, our vehicles. To be free from this illegal search and seizure. They don't have any right to record us. I haven't done anything wrong. You haven't done anything wrong, so why would we allow this to take place? You know, it's one thing to put a breathalyzer in for a certain amount of time if you had a DUI. I can understand that. Especially if you had it multiple times. You're putting people at risk. This is something completely different. This is very, very problematic, folks, and we didn't give them consent to do this. We didn't give them consent to put up these traffic cameras and these microphones on the streets recording your every movement. Oh, it sounds nice, but again, it's a complete police state when you think about it. And it's getting more and more encroaching in your house. We talk about smart phones, smart, you know, obviously this gadgets in your car. They want smart refrigerators now. Uh God knows only what that will do. For a cordial at all times, again, it's all problematic. We did not give this consent. And I pray that there will be endless lawsuits on this patent and anything other to come in 2027. But we've got to stay vigilant on these things, folks. We can't just allow this to happen. Uh, we don't need this to happen. We've seen some manufacturers are opposed to this. Uh, but the the Inc. is telling us what they're doing. It's all in writing now. This is what their plans are. Should it be get should it be able to get passed? Uh let's hope that it does not as time goes on. And by the way, it's gonna cost more money to your vehicle, this data collection. It's gonna cost you to have more of this technology in your vehicle. Who wants this? Who wants this? I don't think anybody does. All right, well, let's change gears here. Let's move on to something a little bit more positive, I'd have to say, uh, before we end today's show. President Trump has uh recently announced a substantial deal with drug manufacturers like Regeneron to lower drug prices and onshore nearly 10 billion to 27 billion in U.S. manufacturing, further expanding the access to domestic medicine, the absence of which has caused headaches for Americans, thousands of communities across the country, especially rural pharmacies as well. So, what is President Trump doing here, you might ask? Well, look at this. Says here that 17 of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, representing 80,000 of the branded drug market, have now agreed to sell their drugs to American patients at the lowest price possible. Anywhere in the world. So he's done a great job with this legislation. I think it's very, very positive. Uh again, this will result in the largest drop in prescription drugs inside the United States. And this is exactly this is part of the brilliant of Trump. And, you know, sometimes I disagree with him on foreign policy and what have you. But right now he's doing something very, very positive. And while I disagree with the way he's handling these tariffs, what he's done with these 100% tariffs on patented pharmaceutical ingredients, um, again, these active ingredients, they're called APIs sometimes. And you get these products from most countries. What he's done though, he's allowed for the most favored nation price rule. So what does that mean exactly? So let me let me just point to you this way: if a drug sells for, let's say,$125 in Germany, and over in Japan, it's$90. But inside the United States, it's$150. President Trump has made legislation through his executive order under the most favored nation that the U.S. can only pay up to$90. That's good. That's very good. Now, what else he's done? Because again, the most favored nation is tied to the tariff relief now. Let's say, for example, that company signs onto the most favored nation. Say, okay, we'll sell to you for$90 because we're selling this to Japan for$90. They get a 0% tariff coming in the US. But if they don't sign it, they have a 100% tariff on the patented drug and the ingredients coming into the United States. Now, for companies selling billions of dollars of patent drugs, this 100% tariff is financially impossible. That's what it comes down to. And he's also incentivizing other countries to move their products inside the United States. That's why you're seeing that big boost in the manufacturing as well. Now, the data has shown dramatic early results. In 2025 alone, drug makers announced more than$370 billion in U.S. manufacturing that's brand new on these commitments. The largest reshoring wave in industry history, creating tens of thousands of jobs in dozens of new or expanded facilities. This is what we want. This is what I've told you this before. To build a middle class inside the United States, you need to bring back the manufacturing. Now, again, I don't like when Trump just does these random tariffs, says 100% here, 150% there. But let me tell you this, he should go through the legislation. That's what the law says. But this is something worthwhile. This is why he needs to get Mike Johnson, John Thune, on board with this to put this legislation in effect so that we we can produce here in the United States. Now, why is this a big win for the rural or small town pharmacies, you ask? Their reshoring translates into tangible long-term gains. Why? Because you have independent operators, often who operate on these razor-thin margins, and they serve the Medicare and the Medicaid have heavy populations that have really faced these chronic shortages, these stockouts, the price volatility from global disruptions. Again, think back to COVID. We had these issues. We had domestic production ramping up, and we're already now easing these pressures by shortening the supply chain issues here in the United States because we're producing here. So you're cutting the transit risks and you're enabling faster replenishment because it's done right here in America. So again, this is a major, major win for President Trump. Major, major win for people. For example, they get things like antibiotics, or if they're in need of things like diabetic treatment or medication. It's much more easier to get this renewed local economic activity by newer plants in a lot of the heartlands and the southern states. It's boosting regional wages, for example, again, back to the manufacturing, I told you. Manufacturing jobs create better paying jobs. And when we outsourced in the 1990s, that was a big problem. All those good paying jobs went abroad, and it obviously hollowed out lots of middle America. So we're seeing some positivity in that. It's being more sustainable, it's making rural America healthy again, as the article in Just the News says. So again, I'm happy about this. I'd like to see these things. I'd obviously like to see more people off the prescription drugs, but again, some people are dependent on these things. They need them. Um, so I thought this was something positive, so I wanted to share that with you. But switching gears for just a moment now, on a different front, we've got to talk about this other article that kind of relates to what we're talking about here. And this is a study now that links the ultra-processed foods now to rising dementia risk scores. What did they find in this article? So we talk about things ultra-processed foods, think potato chips, think the frozen dinners, the diet sodas. You know, they're not really well known for being good for the body, certainly not brain food. But a new study now shows that 2,000 Australian adults suggest that these foods may be chipping away at something far more concerning than just the waistline. What are they talking about? For every 10,000, I'm sorry, for every 10% increase, hopefully it's not a 10,000, but for every 10 10% increase in the share of calories coming from ultra-processed sources, again, like the ones I just mentioned to you, these ultra-processed fake foods, again, the Twinkies, the ding-dongs, the sodas, the slurpees, all these things, the attention scores dropped by a small but measurable percentage, about 0.05 points on the study scale. And a score used to estimate future dementia risks now ticked upward as well. Again, both associated with um accounting for how closely the participants followed the Mediterranean diet. So we have two different groups here. Again, the Mediterranean diet that would be considered uh things like lots of vegetables, lots of fruits, uh, lots of things like olive oil instead of the fake canola oils and things of that nature. When you're using all these things, right? The fishes, the grass-fed meats, for example, uh, the lean proteins, moderate dairy. That's what the Mediterranean diet is all about. And of course, using things like whole grains. Now, we talk about, for example, this is good for brain health, better for the brain. Right? Makes sense. What they ended up finding out, this is what they found out. They said in Australia, these products make up, this are the ultra-processed foods, they make up roughly 42% of the total calories consumed on average. Obviously, everyone's a little bit different. Inside the United States, though, inside of the United Kingdom, the figure climbs to 50% at least. Now, some people, again, I always tell you, eat organic whenever you can. Um, but you know, obviously, if you're consuming nothing but these ultra-processed foods, obviously it's gonna have a bigger effect on your attention span and of course your risk of getting dementia. So, what do they end up saying in the article? What can we do to better ourselves? Well, again, when you're taking adults from 40 to 70, most of these participants had a family member with the onset of dementia. Again, placing them at a higher risk for this genetic risk for this cognitive decline. And when they were surveyed, and again, they they figured all this stuff out, um, but on the dementia front, the 10% increase in the ultra-processed food was linked up to a 0.24 point rise on the scoring that they did. And again, it is associated very closely to the diet quality. So, again, when you move away from the Mediterranean diet, the more you do that, the greater the uptick is for having attention issues, which again we can attribute here in the United States. We have different conditions, especially in children. Uh, and again, the risk of dementia, the onset of dementia, Alzheimer's later on in life. So, again, what we we look at the statistical significance, once the Mediterranean diet is adhered to and factored in, the scores for the rise in the attention and the dementia, they get lower. So, what is my big takeaway with this as we close up today's show? The more you look at things like the Mediterranean diet, the the healthier foods, the organic options, when you move away from the ultra-processed foods tied to obesity, tied to diabetes, high blood pressure, uh damage to blood vessels, especially that feed the brain, which I think is the biggest problem with all this, that's why it's probably linked to this. Uh, you see that the vascular damage is probably the big takeaway from this. You look at things like the, you know, the baked desserts, the soft drinks, the salty sta- all these things, processed meats, the you know, frozen meats, and all that other junk, get away from this stuff. We gotta switch to a healthier diet, so that's why olive oil, avocado oil, I tell you, grass-fed meat, free-range chicken, wild salmon, all the better options for you. Eating real whole foods versus the junk. I think it'll be better for us. That'll wrap up for today's show, folks. Thank you for being here. Make sure you're staying prepped with food, water, mutton, ammo, medicine, anything to be a social mission. Have a great rest of me. I'll see you back here tomorrow for more roundbreaking news on the next Marjorie Show. Until then, be good, stay busy, and God bless.