There Is A Storm Brewing From The Left

Leave message if you see a Fan Mail button while listening.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:15

Welcome in to another episode of The Truth Behind the Truth. I'm Jonathan Prell, and as always, thank you for tuning in, and more importantly, thank you for your time. Everybody's time is very, very precious these days, and we appreciate any and all time that you give us here at The Truth Behind the Truth. So today's episode is going to be just a little different. It is going to be political in nature. I'm just going to go ahead and say that up front, but it's something that I think we all need to be paying attention to. And there was something that happened last week that I definitely think requires some explanation. And there are two different things we're going to cover here, but you know, we're going to start with the decision by several major television networks not to carry President Trump's July 16th primetime address, which generated criticism from a number of different directions. Through the intensity and the reasons, of course, they varied widely. Now, I should note that there is no, because Buddy Carter, after this, he was uh he's a representative from Georgia. He was absolutely livid about this. Absolutely livid. And he thought that there might be something uh legally that might be wrong with that, or it broke a rule somewhere. Well, I did some research on that, and I also spent 30 years in radio, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no law that requires these networks to carry anything the president does, in particular, these primetime Oval Office addresses. And it's not because they don't want to have to fight all the camera crews. I don't know if you've ever seen one of these things before it happens. Um, there are a lot of documentaries where they show what happens, you know, as the president is getting ready to speak. More often than not, there's only one camera that's in the Oval Office. He's looking at one camera. There's not a whole bunch of cameras all over the Oval Office from all these different networks from this country and from around the world. There's one camera, they call it a pool camera, and then all the networks are able to tap into that and they're able to carry that from that one camera. Okay, and that uh so it's not like there's a room full of microphones and cameras that make it impossible for the president to do and address. And it is not illegal. And I want to keep stressing that it is not illegal. But some of the most prominent backlash came from exactly who you would expect it to come from. A lot of it came from President Trump, uh, who criticized ABC, NBC, and CNN during the speech itself and then even afterwards. Now, he does that all the time. He accused the networks of suppressing information and later suggesting that they should face consequences regarding their broadcast licenses for not airing that particular address. Well, there might be, there might actually be something to that. And of course, President Trump is always clear on what he thinks about that. I mean, you are never going to listen to Donald Trump speak, and you're never gonna find yourself going, huh. I wonder if he really actually believes that. Oh, yeah, he does. I can assure you, there is no gray area with him. And that's one of the things that I think makes him who he is. He he does what he says and he says what he means, and he doesn't sugarcoat it. There's gonna be no doubt in your mind where he stands on a particular issue. And I admire that. I really do. I wish more politicians were like that. These politicians who are always testifying on Capitol Hill about something. And it's it's it's usually uh the Democrat who is in front of Congress to have to testify, and then you get the Republicans who just want to go after this person like there is absolutely no tomorrow, which immediately sets it up, you know, to be absolutely insanely ridiculous. And then it just turns into a shouting match, and all you're really left with is a bunch of petulant children who are arguing back and forth. And it just is absolutely ridiculous. And I think it's a waste of time. It's certainly a waste of Congress's time if everybody's just gonna spout their anger at that person and move on from there. White House officials were also uh very critical of that and very surprised, actually, that uh those networks didn't carry it. And again, we're talking about CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN. In fact, uh press Secretary Caroline Levitt and communications director Stephen Chang argued that Americans deserve to hear the president's remarks directly rather than through edited clips or summaries. And Republican lawmakers, people like Buddy Carter, you know, were extremely critical of this. And they basically argued that refusing to do that and cutting away prevented the viewers from hearing what the president had to say and hearing it firsthand, you know, not an edited version of what he said. Real time, this is what he said. Now, at the same time, the networks defended themselves and their decisions, but their defense holds no water whatsoever. There's only one reason and one reason only. Now, what they said is they made the speech available on their streaming news platforms and indicated that they would interrupt regular programming if significant news warranted it. Well, I yeah, okay. Uh, I think this was pretty important. Uh a lot of what he was going to talk about was the prog the progression of the war in Iran, what was coming, where they were as far as negotiations. And I think that's something that almost all of us actually care about. At the very least, it's something that all of us have an opinion on. But uh some of the other arguments uh centered around a broadcaster's responsibility for public service announcements. It used to be you had to do X number of things and you had to keep a log of all the public service stuff that you did, whether it be uh a talk show on Sunday night or whatever, whatever programming you're doing, even if you're interviewing somebody on your radio morning show from the Humane Society, you know, for example, that is public service. And most radio stations, they used to be required to do that and got in a lot of trouble if they didn't do that. A lot of those laws have been relaxed since then, but it always is a good idea to err on the side of public service. But there's only one reason that these networks, those four, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, there's only one reason that they didn't air Donald Trump's speech in real time. Because it was Donald Trump. Because their ideology, their political ideology in particular, is in direct conflict with the presidents. So they make the decision to go ahead and not show the American people their president. And by the way, just a quick note to these people who say Donald Trump is not my president. And, you know, even for Republicans when they were saying Joe Biden's not my president, Barack Obama's not my president, yeah, they are. Like it or not, right now, in 2026, there's only one occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and that is President Donald J. Trump. Whether you like it or not, he is the only one who is the president and can act as the president of the United States. I would really like to know who you view as your president, because there isn't anybody else with that title. There's certainly nobody else with the power that he has. So who are we talking about here? I I would really be interested in knowing that. If if you are one of these people who say he's not my president, I would really like to know why. Why do you say that? I mean, that comment doesn't even make any sense. Now, CBS did air some of the speech, so I will give them credit there. But of course, you know, CBS is they've got Barry Weiss in there now who uh is making all kinds of changes. Uh Scott Pelley was recently fired from 60 Minutes, and 60 Minutes basically had an edict that they had to go in a different direction, you know, with their stories. But CBS did air some of the speech, but they did cut away before it ended and immediately began fact-checking portions of the president's claims, which again ties into all they want to do is they want to get rid of that and they want to bury it. But the reason that they didn't carry it is because it was Donald Trump. Come on. I mean, if we can't be honest about it, then we're really in trouble. And you see this sometime with these hearings where there'll be somebody testifying in front of Congress and one of the congressional members will ask that person a question and they will never answer it specifically. Like when a person on the left was asked, What's your definition of a woman? She could not answer that. She could, but she didn't want to. That's what it was. She never gave an actual answer. And and we saw this the other day. Somebody was testifying, they were asked a very specific question, and they kept hemming and hawing around it. And the congressional person who was asking the question said, This is a yes or no question. Yes or no. And they refused to answer that. So, which is another reason why these things are ridiculous. You know, those hearings turn into shouting matches and they don't do us any good. But I thought it was shameful and irresponsible of those networks to not carry the president in real time. We're all concerned about what's going on in Iran right now, especially in light of the fact that this past weekend, four of our very brave service members lost their lives over this. And that makes it a concern of everyone in this country. And if you have a family member who is serving in the military, you understand exactly what I'm talking about. But it is not unprecedented, and I do want to say this, it it's not unprecedented that U.S. television networks have on several occasions, under presidents of both parties, declined to air or have chosen to limit the live coverage of presidential speeches they viewed as primarily political rather than addressing an immediate national emergency. Well, they're always going to be political. There are always going to be a political element to what they're doing. Just the very fact that it's the president of the United States gives it a political angle, that in and of itself. So, you know, to say that is ridiculous. But yeah, you should be anything dealing with a national emergency, some kind of weather emergency. Uh, you know, we've had, God, we've seen some tragic flooding incidents over the last couple of years that have just been absolutely heart-wrenching to watch. So, and if the president wants to address that, he certainly has that right. And I think for the most part that uh they probably would air something like that, but I have a feeling they're showing their true colors now. And anytime Trump wants to do one of these primetime Oval Office addresses, he is probably going to be denied. Now, he touched on something else as well in that speech that I'm sure was one of the reasons that the networks decided not to cover it. And that was he made a big push for Congress to pass the Save America Act, which basically covers election integrity, election fraud, and all of that. So it is a voter ID issue. You know, that is because that has been a sticking point now for a long, long time. The left, they don't want anything to do with ID requirements, you know, for reasons that we outlined earlier. They everybody should be able to vote. If you're in this country, you should be able to vote. Well, if you're not a legal citizen of this country, you have no right to vote in this country. If you are illegal, you do not have that right. So you should have, and I again, I look at this the same way as I look at biological men and women's sports. Why are we even talking about this? Why is voter ID an issue? I have to show an ID to pick up my medication at Walmart every single time I go there. When I go to the bank, if I'm cashing a check or making a deposit, guess what? I have to show my ID. And I understand why they do it, but I'm in my mid-60s. And when I'm in a restaurant and I order a beer or a cocktail, yeah, it's a little inconvenient when they card me, because I think it should be obvious in some cases. And I know that they're just being safe. They're just gonna card everybody. I get that. It's just a little inconvenient, you know. So, you know, that's my complaint about that. But it should be obvious that I am over the age of 21. So, but I have to show that ID if they ask for it. But when it comes to elections, you no, you don't have to have an ID. Come on in. Here's a ballot. There's a booth over there, there's a computer terminal right over there. Go vote. How old are you? Are you 18? Yes, I am. Good. Okay, there you go. Now, here in Georgia, you do have to show an ID, a valid ID. It doesn't necessarily have to be a driver's license. Um, I I don't know if they accept passports or not. They might, but uh a driver's license or a birth certificate or even a state-issued identification card. You know, you're not required to have a driver's license, but you can get a state identification card in the same way that you would get a driver's license. Now, I totally agree that that kind of identification should be free of charge. There should not be a cost involved in that. And they should be readily available for people, even for people who can't get to certain places. They should be very easily accessed should somebody want whatever kind of ID they need to vote. But I think they do have to have it. We have to stop this because if you don't, if you just allow, and we we already know, like we mentioned earlier, we already know that hundreds of thousands of ballots go out in the mail every single time there's an election. And you know they're going to places where they shouldn't. The people that are receiving these are either ineligible, they might not even still be alive, and then you've got people who impersonate other people. I mean, it it's it it is it is crazy. But what what I think happens when you have people who shouldn't be voting trying to vote, that is gonna keep the registered voters, the people who can actually legally vote, that's gonna keep them, at least a portion of them, from actually going to the polls. Because then they're gonna start thinking, well, you know what, all these illegals and all these other people have ballots. I can't compete with that. I'm one person, I can't compete with a hundred thousand, you know, of these people. So I'm just not even a vote. I'm not gonna go to the polls because my vote is not gonna count for anything. And that is really sad. Uh, I can't remember a race that has come down to one vote, but every single vote is important, which is another reason why we have to have voter integrity. There has to be some sort of voter ID law because that will almost make people go to the polls, and they know that they're not going to be competing with all these other people who shouldn't be voting in that election in the first place. Now, those who oppose or criticize the voter ID laws, you know, it's it's the in-person voter impersonation thing, the specific type of fraud that voter idea is designed to prevent is what actually happens sometimes. But to be fair, it is rare. But I think it's been a little bit more prominent over the last several election cycles, maybe over the last 20 years, than it ever has been. So I don't think it's as rare as it used to be. Some eligible voters, especially elderly people, low-income individuals, people with disabilities, people who live way out in the country, and even some minorities may not have the required ID or may face costs and logistical barriers in getting that, which is why I said I'd be totally fine with offering free voter ID and making it readily accessible so people have access to it regardless of what their situation is. And uh they also believe that improving access to IDs, you know, is would be a great alternative, which is what we just talked about. And and, you know, that should be. And there is a middle ground on this, on this position, which is interesting because it's usually one way or the other. Some people support voter ID if the ID is provided free of charge, right? Like we just talked about. It's easy to get. Uh, and hopefully multiple forms that there will be multiple forms of identification that you will be able to use in the absence of a driver's license. And there are backup options, such as signing an affidavit or casting a provisional ballot that can later be verified. But uh, you know, like I said, here in Georgia, we already have a voter requirement law, and I like it. Uh, I don't mind at all having to show my D. And they check it. You know, they check my name, they check my address, and then you have to verify that all that is uh, you know, they type it in there, then they make you verify that it's all correct, and then they give you the ballot, and then you go do your thing. But something else that is kind of an offshoot of all of these things right now, and the reason it's becoming such an issue is this idea that these extreme leftist socialist candidates who are gaining traction in this country, and this should scare every single American. The fact that these people are getting the traction that they're getting. You look at Zoran Mamdani in New York, how that guy got elected, I will never know. But their their platform, the things they talk about, you know, we talked at length about Graham Plattner in previous episodes in Maine, who was gonna go against Susan Cotton, you know, the guy who had the Nazi tattoo and all that. This guy is one of the most dysfunctional human beings ever. He's just not a good person. He isn't. But people would even say, people on the left would even say, I'm gonna vote for him if it eliminates what we have now in this leadership under Donald Trump. So I'll go ahead and vote for the scumbag if it means I get rid of this. Now, that is a flawed ideology. That is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous to think that, well, you know, just gonna go ahead and vote because I can't stand this guy. So I'm gonna, I hate this guy too, but I'm gonna vote for him anyway because I like him a little better, you know, than the other guy. That is absolutely ridiculous. But they're platforms, and I'm talking about these people who are now being put in a category of what they call it's almost a political party, the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America. Well, make no mistake about it. These people are not Democrats, they're not mainstream Democrats. They might be progressive Democrats, but they're not these ultra-extreme leftists. Those people are the socialists and the communists. They are not Democrats. They're only putting a D next to their name so they can disguise themselves as a Democrat. And they can go out screaming and yelling and get all the support from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Casio Cortez and all the other members of. Of the squad, right? You know, it's it but these people are their agenda when you listen to these socialist candidates, and they will tell you and it and it's frightening their platform, what they believe. They want to abolish the presidency, they want to abolish the Senate, they want to get rid of the police, they want to get rid of prisons, they want all deportations from this country to stop immediately and all of our borders be open. Are you kidding me? On what planet do you think that is gonna actually work? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, okay, that in this next election cycle, let's say we get all that, which the Constitution, that's basically the gist of what they're doing. They're trying to completely throw out the Constitution, completely eliminate it, and just eliminate the Constitution as our foundational base for anything. That's what they're really trying to do. But let's just say, hypothetically, that some of these people get in and some of these changes are made. Do you, and if you are somebody who has that belief, I really want to know what motivates you? Why are you coming to that conclusion? And do you really think that if all these things happen, that somehow we are going to be better off in this country without the Senate, without the Supreme Court, without the president, without police, without jails? Really? How do you see that being successful? I really, really want to know. I'm not judging you, at least I'm trying very hard not to judge you if you hold that belief, but how is that even, how can you even begin to explain how that's going to be better than what we currently have? These people are frightening. They're absolutely frightening, but they're gaining traction. Mom Donnie was the first. And these midterms that are coming up in November, uh there are some people on the ballots that I don't know about you, but uh, there are some people on there that cause me to lose some sleep, I'll tell you that. I mean, I would never vote for them, but somebody will. Hopefully, it's not enough to get them a victory. But when you really listen to these people, I mean, really listen to them. And without the filter of Trump derangement syndrome, just completely independent of Donald Trump and the Republican way of thinking in general. How do you find yourself agreeing with that? I really want to know. One of the things that Zoran Mamdani said during his election was that he wanted to be able to arrest Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, should he ever set foot on American soil in New York City. He wanted to be able to arrest him and have him put on trial for war crimes. And then after he got elected, just a couple of weeks ago, he doubled down on that. And apparently there's going to be a meeting at the United Nations here very soon. Netanyahu more than likely will be there. And Mamdani actually checked to see if he had the authority to put handcuffs on him, put him under arrest, send him somewhere until he can be put on trial for war crimes. He doesn't have that power. And it was his own team that had to say, no, you don't have anything even remotely close to that. You don't have any power beyond New York City at all. You are a city mayor. You are not holding a federal office. You have say over what happens in your city, but you have absolutely no say or any jurisdiction whatsoever in foreign policy or anything related to anything outside of your state. And I don't know where he thought he got the authority for that, but now he's backtracking a little bit on that. He just thinks war criminals should be tried and uh ultimately punished for their or what he perceives to be war crimes. Uh that's just that's just one example of that guy. Uh, you know, he's he's already, there's already a budget deficit in New York. They're already having all kinds of problems. And I just don't see how what this guy wants to do as a socialist, I just don't see how it's sustainable. I don't know how New York is going to survive. But you know what, New York? You voted for him. And even if you didn't, I feel sorry for you, but that's your mayor. You've got no one to blame but yourself. Even if you were a big supporter of his, and then two years from now, you lose everything. Your home, your assets, everything. Well, you it's because you voted for that guy. So that's on you. If you're gonna vote for a candidate like that and that candidate wins, I I don't want to hear you down the road later saying, oh gosh, I wish I hadn't done that. Yeah, well, you had every opportunity, and had you listened and truly listened to what these people were saying, you probably would have come to a different conclusion. But I I just don't understand it and I find it frightening. I I am not in the business of judging people, but I am in the business of trying to figure out your way of thinking. And if your way of thinking is along those lines of these democratic socialist Americans, if if you firmly believe in those things, I really want to know why. Explain it to me. And I won't interrupt you. I will sit back and listen. I'll push back, I'm I'm sure, on most of it, but I want to hear your explanation. I want to see if there's anything on there that I can say, all right, I can see that. I I get where you're going with that. But at the end of the day, you know, that's not going to fly with me. But I really just, I really want to know what it is about these candidates that is so attractive. Because they're wanting to do things that institutionally are just it's not possible. Getting rid of the Senate, not only that, you'd be getting rid of several articles of the Constitution, although thank goodness we have Article V of the Constitution, because Article V basically would put the kibosh on anybody trying to abolish the Senate or the presidency or anything like that. That's not going to happen. So, Article V, you know, even with a constitutional amendment, Article V will not allow for that, which just makes our founding fathers that much more brilliant and even to a certain extent clairvoyant because they could see into the future and they wanted as many guardrails as they could to make sure that none of the stuff we're talking about now could happen. And I don't mind so much that there are candidates out there that are spewing these things. That's fine. But if they get elected, that is a whole different follow-axe if they actually get elected. If they're actually in a position of power and they're actually in a position to make some of these changes, that scares me to death. Absolutely scares me to death. But we have to do better. As the American electorate, we have to do better, not just in not voting for these people. That's not my I'm not telling you don't vote for these people. I'm telling you if you do, have a good reason for it. But I think part of the problem is you've got these progressive leftists who are in these chat rooms all over social media, and they're in chat rooms with like-minded people. And they don't want to hear the other side. Not only do they not want to hear the other side, they're gonna vilify the other side. They're gonna call you names, they're gonna do everything humanly possible to make sure that you don't have a chance to argue that at all. That is frightening. Absolutely frightening. But we have to do a better job of holding these people accountable. And I don't think we're doing a very good job of that. I know that's what Congress is supposed to do, but again, going back to those hearings that become these arguments where you just have a bunch of petulant children yelling and screaming at each other. That's not what our founding fathers intended. And it's very unfortunate. I think so many of these hearings anymore, uh, I'll watch them. Um, but they're a total waste of time. An absolute waste of time. It's just there's a lot of pontificating, and there's no questions being answered, and there's no reasonable question being asked, especially by somebody on the other side. But nobody anymore, and this is one of the biggest problems in society, nobody is held accountable for anything anymore. It seems like the criminals have way more rights than the victims do. You look at the guy, uh Luigi Mangioni, who killed the United Healthcare CEO in Cold Black. He's being held up as this cult hero. I mean, people are actually saying that what he did, I understand, and I'm behind it. The same with this kid who took out Charlie Kirk almost a year ago in Utah, Tyler Robinson. I mean, when you have you been watching the pretrial on this thing? It it just really seems like the judge is doing everything in his power to protect this kid. When I think all he's doing, I mean, I think to a large degree, he's he's covering his own behind, I think is what he's doing. He's trying to make decisions, he's trying to make it fair for everybody, and he doesn't want to, he doesn't want it to come back on him, and he doesn't want the end result to wind up in appeals court and be overturned by an appellate court. But some of the things that he's doing, I just don't understand. And he too is being held up as some kind of a warrior for a different kind of truth, truth behind the truth, right? And that to me is, I mean, that is just that is incredibly frightening. And that goes back to a previous episode we did uh justice for all or justice for some. Well, it's justice for some. And we are seeing more and more examples of that every day. But accountability is key, and that is the one thing that is totally missing from today's society. Nobody wants to be accountable. And another good example is on the left, Kamala Harris. He thought she was done, right? No, not only is she not done, right now, she is the leading contender for the Democratic nomination for president. Maybe she didn't learn anything from her last deal, but she we she's never talked about how she stands on any policy. She she does not make clear what she would want to do if she were president. In fact, when she was on the view, what I think the one thing that truly officially ended her candidacy is when she was asked what would you do different than Joe Biden? And she said, honestly, nothing. Kamala Harris spent a billion dollars during the what eight months you know that she was running for president. Eight billion dollars. I'm sorry, a billion dollars over eight months. And not only did she spend a billion dollars, but at the end of the campaign, she was in the red. Her campaign was actually in debt. But she has no clear option for anything. Uh, you know what she's doing now on the interview circuit, if if you've heard her, she's blaming everybody for what happened in the 2024 election. She's blaming everybody, she's blaming Joe Biden, she's blaming Jill Biden, she's bl she's blaming uh the president's staff. She's blaming Nancy Pelosi. The only person that she's not putting any accountability on is herself. She has not accepted any accountability for what she's done. Not one ounce. How can we elect somebody like that president who's not gonna be accountable? Not gonna happen. I find it shocking that she is the leading contender right now, but we're very early into this. I mean, yeah, the midterms are coming up in November, but uh, you know, this isn't gonna be an issue until we get to the 2028 election. So a lot could change between now and then. But it it's just we need to start paying better attention as Americans. We need, as the American electorate, we need to be holding ourselves accountable. Not just these candidates, but we need to be holding ourselves accountable for the decisions that we make at the ballot box that puts these people in a position of power. And when it doesn't work out, we need to be accountable for that. Remember, we don't work for them. They work for us. And that message seems to get lost everywhere. They work for us. And like any corporation, if you are in charge, if we put you in charge, we expect you to act a certain way and to do certain things. And if you don't, we're gonna get you out of there. You're gonna be fired. We have got to do more of that. We also have to do more vetting. We have to do more listening. We have to really listen to these people. And these people with extreme views. I mean, really extreme views. I would love to sit down with any one of you and just have you explain to me how you got there. I would really like to know. I don't want to judge you. I just I want to know where that comes from. And I want to know that it's real and it's not just something you're putting on for the cameras. Because a lot of things that people are doing right now are strictly, strictly performative. They're putting on a show because the cameras are on. So they're going a little bit further than they normally would to get the attention that they want. And remember, the bad attention will help you just as much as good attention. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Remember that. Howard Stern, the radio personality, made a living off the people who completely disliked him. There were more of them than there were fans of his. And the most common response when these people were talked to, why do you listen then? Because I want to hear what he's gonna say next. And that's what some of these people are doing right now. It's all performative. And when it comes down to it, at the end of the day, I just cannot believe that these people are actually gonna do some of these things. But we're just gonna have to wait and see. But we need to do better. You and I, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for these things and the role that we played in this happening. Just something to think about. However, you get this podcast, there should be, if you get it on Spotify, there should be a button while you're listening that you can send some fan mail to me, which will go through my provider, which uh I should be able to get, but I would love to hear some feedback. Um, especially if you don't agree and you you you do hold these extremist beliefs. I I really want to understand that. I I really do. So let's see if we can have a reasonable debate. And it it can be a fiery debate, but it just needs to stay respectful. That's all I ask. We'll get there. At some point in time, we'll get there. Thank you again for tuning in. Thanks for your time. We'll have a brand new episode. Next week of the truth, behind the truth. I'm Jonathan Perell, and we'll see you then.