Matt Davis - The Patriot Party

0:00 hush. Welcome back, World of Blaze audience. Today I have guest Matt Davis. He is host of the Patriot Party podcast. And I wanted to get you on here because I know that she put the Constitution first. And as we just discussed before we recorded, you consider yourself a conservative, but you're not necessarily hard set on party lines, so to speak. More about holding people accountable to the Constitution as it is written and how it is intended for us to live under those guidelines in the United States of America. And so with all that being said, Matt, explain exactly to me what you consider yourself because I don't think there's the terms being thrown around, Republican, conservative, MAGA, everything.

0:50 I'm not sure what you consider yourself. I know that I'm not a Democrat myself, but I can't really, I'm not MAGA either. I'm conservative. how would you define yourself and what do you think of all of these different names that everybody's trying to make for every single different group let me touch down on on a couple of important issues because you named off several things so let me unpack it just a little bit and the way i look at it um and and i put out some videos on this maga maha those america first Those are all righteous movements if they are not connected to a political party. They need complete political disassociation to be truly righteous because then there is no agenda connected to the movement itself.

1:38 Gotcha. And so with that being said, what do you consider yourself? Now, the movement that we're going to go into, the Patriot Party movement itself, uh it's it's it's an unbiased movement set on a couple of standards and we'll go over those personally subjectively not objectively i am a uh i'm a common sense conservative which i had a really good discussion the other day on one of my podcasts with a guy who's who's uh doing some really big stuff with veteran stuff across the country with the white house and um he made a lot of sense when we were talking we actually were going back and forth had a great debate. And he made a lot of sense when he said, today's common sense conservatives are 1980s Democrats. Yeah. No, I've had that same discussion. And that I think is spot on with, yeah, the Democrat part today is not the Democrat of old whatsoever. And I know a lot of people today that would have said, well, that actually have said that they consider themselves probably leaning more liberal or more Democratic back in their youth. And it was a different time. And now they're like looking back on that and saying it's not the same party.

2:46 And they have definitely shifted over a bunch more to the right. Some stay a little more center, but yeah, I agree with you on that statement. It is, it is the Democrat party of the eighties really in today's Democrat part. I don't know what they are and what they actually stand for, but I can think of a lot of choice names. I'm not going to say here. Right. Now you can say whatever the heck you want. This is your time. But yeah, Yeah, I agree with you on that statement. So putting the Patriot Party, the intent is to do things differently. Now, is it your intent to actually form your own party with its own supporters? Or is it just an organization you want to form to keep people accountable and on track with the Constitution?

3:39 a reset to the country, the reset that we need. Everybody overcomplicates everything. So, I mean, a lot of times, I mean, that's why we have, you know, legislation coming out this thousands of pages long. It doesn't need to be thousands of pages long. It's kind of like a Stephen King's book. You know, he can say everything he needs to say in 300 pages, but he writes in 1,100 pages. So a lot of times, and I grew up in a family of lawyers. I was eight years old in the jury stand watching family members try cases. I worked, helped with motions. I was actually the black sheep that didn't go to law school. I was the only guy in my family that didn't go to law school.

4:20 In my family, men were lawyers and women were teachers. So I went in to be an entrepreneur. But lawyers, and I've talked to a lot of them in my lifetime. and I was talking to one one time super smart guy and um we were talking about uh we were getting into an idea that I had and I was like I don't want to give you too much of it because I don't want you to take it and run with it before I can get it and run with it he said nah you don't have to worry about that because lawyers think in circles and CEOs and business and entrepreneurs business people think in a straight line connect the dots straight ahead and that's the problem I think with a lot of Washington, D.C. right now is everyone wants to overcomplicate everything.

5:08 The simplicity in this movement, I mean, so the mission statement is truth and constitution above all because hashtag truth matters. What it is, is it's formed into a grassroots movement where we are demanding to hold the media and politicians to a higher standard using truth in constitution as a moral compass. So, you know, we use something called the three Ps. When we break down whether an executive order, whether, you know, laws that are existing laws that are being able to be challenged, and you got judges saying, well, I think Congress meant, which we'll get into in just a second, in essence means it's unconstitutional because it's void by vagueness. So the three Ps, the Patriot Party principles, which people can find on our brand new website, you know, they can print them off. We use the 27 amendments to the Constitution.

6:11 We use a little bit of constitutional doctrine. One of the big ones, like I was just speaking of, is void by vagueness. That basically means that any law that is written needs to be written so the average American citizen of average intelligence can read and understand the law. When we have judges saying, I think Congress meant to say that, if they don't know, we as citizens sure as heck don't know. So it's unconstitutional. It's linked up to interpretation too often, right? Well, and interpretation is subjective by nature, so it just continues to muddy and erode and erode and erode. And then what we added in, we actually just added this in with a really, we had a really good interview. I think it was the last interview with the guy who invented thoughts of political giants or political giants of thought. And he brought something else to my attention. So we added the second part of the Declaration of Independence to the three Ps.

7:17 and that is to handle politicians like senator tim kane who want to come out and say that rights are granted by government and if you look back one declaration of independence blows that apart there's amendments that blow that apart there's doctrine that blows that apart but if you look back in the history books to before the american revolution that is the same thing in the same frame of mind that the monarchs had. They literally said that rights were granted by the crown or by the parliament. So we are being pushed back in time. You've heard the saying, if you don't learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it. And I feel like that's kind of what's going back. There's other things that have happened with the CRTs and the splitting of races being taught in schools.

8:12 Also, now we're doing segregation again. I mean, it's just like we didn't learn, so now we're going back and we need a reset. And none of this would have happened. None of this legislation that has caused lawfare, that has caused the eroding of the Constitution, that has caused a broken criminal justice system, none of this or other pitfalls would have happened. It could have all been avoided if the politicians would have just used and followed the Constitution. and in my mind, all these laws that are unconstitutional need to start being amended or repealed. So let's go over those constitutional amendments that are needed.

8:55 Let's talk about, for example, some of the laws that you say that are unconstitutional, and I have some things that have happened recently that people claim to be unconstitutional that we'll get into as well, and I'll ask your opinion on that, But give me some examples of what laws you are considering unconstitutional. I mean, you'd be hard-pressed to find a law that wasn't, that was not unconstitutional at this point because the legislative branch has gotten so used to over the last hundred years. You could just pick a law. Just pick one. And we go through the language of it. Any of the language, like I said, the most recent one was when the judge, oh man, what was he? he was ruling on something and he said, I can't remember it. I report so much news, I cannot remember. But the judge literally said, I think Congress meant this. If Congress doesn't specifically state what they mean, or at least for a normal person to be able to read it, not a judge.

9:52 And here's the thing. Here's the thing. We truly believe that all it's going to take, everybody wants to say, well, we just can't get back there. It's going to take one administration to go in and to say, we're going to do everything humanly possible to follow the Constitution on all legislation, policies, everything that comes out of this administration. And obviously, the public is going to have to hold. And I think that will start a domino effect too, especially if the administrations start putting out and putting their laws like that, that it will almost kneecap the media in a way where they won't be able to put stuff in these echo chambers that is just basically pushing emotional buttons of people. And they leave out parts of stories so they can spin it this way or spin it that way. And I think that one, we have to demand truth. But that truth, if it comes out, if it starts at the top, if it starts at the top, it will roll downhill. And the top is Washington, D.C. It's got to start there.

11:08 And then, see, I think it'll be a hard road to hoe for the next political party, Democrat or Republican, to say, we're going to backslide and start challenging everything and see how far we can take it, how far we can take it, all these interpretations. If the administration before didn't, and we started rebuilding our country back to what I believe it can, I don't know if it ever has been as great as it can, but back to make America great again. I agree in that sentiment. That's the original, that's what MAGA originally meant was make America great again. Now it's just looked at as a way to shame people and point to a group that are being labeled extremists, you know, people without empathy that don't care for other people's livelihoods or even the way they want to live, which is a bunch of bullshit in my opinion.

11:58 That's not what MAGA stands for whatsoever. That being said, I'm not even claiming to be MAGA, but I do like what it means because we did need to make America great again. We got away from what we were culturally. We got away from what we were morally. and when you're talking about constitutionality, I mean, look, it's been written purposely to be interpreted so that it can evolve over time because throughout time, mankind will evolve where we're going to learn things, we're going to progress and we're going to move on and we're going to want to say, well, maybe stoning someone to death wasn't the right way to handle that particular crime. I know I'm going back a ways, but you know. That's a bit of a problem. I know that was in American Valley, but I'm just saying, you know, we can move on and we can evolve.

12:43 So I believe the Constitution was originally intentionally written this way so it could be amended to keep up with the times that we're living in but I don't believe that it can be so convoluted with lawyer speak that as you said you can read it and say it says that I am not supposed to pick up a gun and shoot someone just because I want to shoot them That very very easy right to interpret It shouldn't have all this word in there to where a lawyer can go, well, it doesn't quite say you can't shoot the guy. It says that you shouldn't shoot him, but you possibly could if you felt a certain way about him and if he offended you. But did he offend you? And then you get in this whole freaking rabbit hole of what is our judiciary system right now in the courts, right? Lawyers arguing and trying to interpret law to convince you that, you know, my client's right, you're wrong, and they did nothing wrong whatsoever in shooting and murdering someone. I know that's an extreme example, but, you know, I get where you're going with what you're saying and how the wording is just so, it's just so big. There's so much in it, and there's no reason it takes 500 pages just to say one simple thing. Don't do this because this will happen. Literally.

13:51 That's all it needs to say. Now, let's talk about a few things that have happened recently that are considered unconstitutional, at least in the eyes of the left. So, let's talk about border security. Let's talk about how Donald Trump is handling that stuff. I'm sure you have an opinion on it. For example, blowing up the boats. Okay? So, recently using the Navy and Coast Guard, which they always have been used, by the way, when it comes to policing all of these cartels and drug runners. But, for example, is it unconstitutional, per se, to be able to use extreme force against these cartels or these narcos, for example, if we're talking about the Constitution?

14:34 Because recently, from what I recall, I thought that they were labeled as domestic or actual terrorists anyway, considered terrorist organizations now. So you have these people in Congress, right? It's people that are saying, that's wrong. There's no due process. We are not supposed to be able to do that. That's inhumane. That's not how you handle things. That's declaring war, they would even say, which is not. Are they American citizens? Yeah. So again, yeah, what do you think? What do you think of that scenario? Well, I'm asking you. The people that were blown up, to my knowledge, they weren't American citizens, correct? Nope. They're not in America, correct?

15:14 Yep. They're not covered by the Constitution. They're an international order. They've been ruled a terrorist organization, which means the military takes over instead of federal law enforcement. That was legal. In my mind, I would debate it with somebody. And I challenge anyone. These Patriot Party principles, which I told you what it consists of, is literally two and a half pages, double spaced. got it sitting here in front of me anybody bring me anything that i can't handle the order that needs to evolve with with the pages that i've got in to two and a half pages double space that i got here but as far as the the terrorist um the terrorist uh or him him uh classifying them as a terrorist that brings in the military they're in international order that they, you know, I don't think they are afforded constitutional rights per the Constitution.

16:16 Well, and once they're designated terrorists at that point, there is no due process, really. You know, they're put on the list. If you're identified as a terrorist and it's been deemed that what you're doing is against the United States' misinterests, in this case, infiltrating the United States and their borders to spread drugs, fentanyl, which is a real thing, you know, And I've talked to a few XDEA agents who have given me the backstory on how all that works. Yeah. At what point is it unconstitutional to defend your borders and to defend your interests? And what's interesting about this whole situation is how Venezuela themselves, the government, wants to make a bunch of noise and threaten the U.S. as if literally telling the entire world that they support drug running and selling drugs around the world, which is insane.

17:05 So in your mind, look, I'm not going to argue that you're incorrect on that because I don't believe you are. It's just crazy that some people would hate any movement so much, would hate Trump, for example, so much. I don't even know if you're pro-Trump. It doesn't even matter. But for example, our president put an executive order out there. He was able to determine that these narcos and all of these drug runners, mafias, whatever you want to call them these days, they're terrorists. They're terrorists. They're on a list. It's done, right? And you got people in the Democrat Party will go so far as to twist everything so much to turn people against their government in a way to be so untrusting and say, this is wrong.

17:51 No, you have to have sympathy and empathy for these drug runners who are literally killing millions and millions of people through basically distributing fentanyl and hot drugs and whatever you want to call these things. There's a new fentanyl out now that's even worse than what we got. I think it's car fentanyl or something like that. Yeah, car fentanyl. They have to wear suits to do it. It's like one to a thousand or something. It's crazy. Yeah. So that was one example. And then defending our borders in general, closing our borders. People are crying that that's unconstitutional, that we can't be deporting anybody who's been here for 10, 15, 20 years to make their own life. That's a situation that is wrong, that is morally wrong and unconstitutional. I'm sure you have something to say on that.

18:32 I do. I do. I absolutely do. I'm glad you brought it up. First and foremost, the Republican Party lost me last April 12th during the FISA vote with Mike Smith, who is my representative and a constitutional lawyer who was a tiebreaker who continued warrantless spying on patriots and Americans to break the Constitution. Trump, I actually helped Trump with his campaign strategy, got it to him through Mike Johnson before he lost me, and he used it on one of the debates. But for me, Trump went off the rails after Liberation Day with a lot of stuff. Now, he's come back this latest or last week, and I think he's done some brilliant things that have to do with the Constitution and him trying to push it and then push him back.

19:24 But let's get back to the immigration issue that you asked about. So first, Trump stumbles over his own feet a lot of the times. He gets these loyalists, for everything I've read, everybody I've talked to, he gets loyalists around him when he's supposed to be getting the Office of Legal Counsel, the White House Counsel to make these executive orders and executive actions bulletproof, and that's a reason they're so, they're leaky. They're like a leaky ship. That's the reason a lot of them are being challenged. But with the immigration, he came in, he promised the biggest immigration ever. and then he goes and uses a hundred year old wartime act that's fraught with fourth amendment challenges what he should have used was the same act that obama used to deport way more people when he first came in as president and way more over the course of time if you divided it per what trump's going to be in versus what he was in he used the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act of 1996 which was ratified by bill clinton that takes away due process they don't even see a judge. Local law enforcement can help ICE, can help Border Patrol, and it is a way to get them out very quickly. Why he decided to use a wartime act to deport people that has caused all these challenges and allowed all these challenges and opened the door for all these challenges. And I mean, if you really look at it, the reason a lot of these challenges are probably being able to be had is because the act itself is unconstitutional. It's too vague,

20:57 and everybody's got to interpret it. I think the reason he probably did that was because he made the move to declare these people. Because originally he was just saying, I'm just going after the criminals. I'm going after the cartels. I'm going after MS-13. I'm going after Trendy, Aragua, all these people. And then I'm just trying to maybe explain. I know I may be wrong, but he classified them as terrorists. So then maybe that wartime act could apply to that. maybe but the thing is is why would you use something to get one percent when you need to use something to get 99 it doesn't make sense if that if it ain't broke don't fix it it wasn't broke when obama deported like 5.3 million or whatever when he came in we were being told there was between 7 to 14 million people that had flooded the border maybe even 20 million some people said in the higher range. I don't know. I'm going to go with 12, you know, 10 to 12 is what I'm going to think there are and just kind of split the difference. If you come in and most of those people are not gang members, most of them are not, cannot be classified as terrorists. And even the way that it was used to classify the gang members got thrown back by the courts, saying, no, you overstepped. That's not what it was meant for. They never threatened the United

22:28 States as holistically as a whole. So the act was wrong to start with. Now, here's my big issue. And you kind of touched down on it when you said something about, we don't care, people that have been here for 20 years or whatever. Okay. But here's the way I'm looking at it. You've got all these people that are living off of the states, the governments that they reported on, I mean, all last year on Fox. People that were coming in, getting hotels for free, getting put up in hotels, three hots a day, cell phones, and in some states making more money than people that are just enlisting into the military with a family.

23:11 why aren't we going after the people that are costing us all those tax dollars what we're doing is we're deporting in reverse and not a bunch this is just something to charge the base we are deporting people who are who own businesses houses who are paying taxes if these people were paying we are literally deporting a hundred billion dollars worth of taxes and residual could be in trillions for free markets out in the free world. So why are we deporting in reverse? Why not deport all the people that were being complained about last year? And then when you get to the people who have been here for 5, 10, 15, 20 years, they got jobs, they're paying taxes, give them a 10-year pathway to citizenship. We're not talking about millions of people. Give them a 10-year pathway to citizenship. If you don't get in any trouble other than maybe a minor misdemeanor, if you lose your job, you have to have a job within three months. You cannot select unemployment because you're not a citizen. And then after 10 years of jumping through hoops and paying taxes, they have bought their way to citizenship and they were already productive in the United States to start with. Why go through and desecrate the healthcare systems? Why go through and take these people out that some of the economies are depending on?

24:27 okay fair point but the fact that our economies are depending on illegal workers in and of itself or illegal immigrants is the issue though um we we already have visas in place for some of this especially we're talking about agriculture we have the h2a visa that actually allows people to be here for a certain amount of time sponsored by their employer and the thing that's been uncovered is especially in ag is that these companies these farmers um large organizations are willingly circumventing it to hire people that they know are illegal. They're not even part of the system, the H-2A program whatsoever. They're getting caught for it. So we have to address that. As far as the other thing about people being here for 20 something years, I'm, you know, 10 years, I agree with you.

25:12 It's illegal that they're here, but they've done nothing wrong while they were here and they made a life and they haven't paid taxes. I say, you know, hey, let's have that conversation with those people. But we do have to address, and I agree with you that, you know, the people that have come through recently because that was the problem and anyone coming in now, we do have to turn them back around, period. I mean, we do have to uphold the law regardless. Um, but as you said, you know, Hey, someone's been here 15 years. They already had a family, everything. Some of these people actually have businesses, founded businesses, and they they've done very well and they're contributing. Great. Let's give them that opportunity. But, uh, the counterpoint to that is, well, they've had 20 years to get it right. What stopped them? Um, well, I would say this So I have family that lives over in England My grandmother was from England So my uncle is from england and he and his wife started with um samsung magnavox it was one of those companies when they first started they ended up way high up like vp of the company retired from the companies as multi-millionaires uh tried to move into the united states legally paying wazoo amounts of money for an immigration attorney even said they would come in and make it part of them getting their citizenship to come in and open a business here in the United States. They were bringing millions of dollars into the United States.

26:32 After 10 years of paying lawyers, they finally moved to Spain. So if they can't do it being millionaires, how do the people that don't have that kind of money do it? Yeah, but that's a case of someone actually trying versus someone actually ignoring the system altogether, right? That's the difference. I have friends that are in the same situation from Mexico and people that have worked with me for a long time that, you know, they're in the same boat. It's like, man, the system is not kind. It takes forever to get through things. You got to jump through a lot of legal loopholes. One of my friends right now is trying to get his wife over here. He became an American citizen. Discussed his American citizenship, by the way. He went through college here, everything. He's a computer science engineer.

27:13 Brilliant guy. And, you know, I see the other side of it that you're talking about. but at what point do we have to ignore the law because we feel empathetic towards somebody we may know personal? And I'm not trying to be that devil, by the way. I'm not that guy. I'm just trying to call it cut and dry, right? So yeah, we do need to do better when it comes to that. We do need to do better. Let me ask you something. Go ahead. Do you think, other than, my perspective has changed just a little bit, other than trying to grow it bigger, Because most businesses, you know, that's one of the objectives is to grow bigger. Other than to try to grow it bigger, do you think that the government needs to run with the same kind of efficiency as private industry, as a business?

28:00 So it runs proficient and efficient like a business does, instead of just saying we print money and therefore we don't have to try to work smarter or anything. We just print more of it. Do you think it should be run by a business, or do you think it's a different kind of entity? It should run as a business because, in the end, it is an organization, regardless. It's a governmental organization. Okay. I know where you're going to go. Go ahead. Well, my question is, yes, we can say, well, this person and this person. But to me, someone who is living off the government here illegally is different than somebody who is paying the government and owns stuff and has been employed.

28:53 They're apples and oranges to me because one is something that needs to be cut off the machine because it's just draining the machine. The other is actually feeding the machine. That's why I say it's in reverse. And when I researched it, they said that the reason they were going after those people is because they were low-hanging fruit, because they live like they're citizens. They report taxes and everything. So you're going after these people because they're easy. But what about all these people that were living in all these hotel rooms and all that were getting their money and the three meals? Where are all these millions of people? Right. So, as I said earlier, that's a different example.

29:33 Okay, an example that you set earlier about how do we handle someone who's actually contributing to society and paying the taxes and capturing the money here domestically and building something. That's different. And as I said, if someone has been doing that for 10 years, they made a life here, then I think we could approach those people differently. I don't agree with just stripping people away from the land suddenly when we weren't enforcing it for so damn long. We should have been enforcing it the whole time, all these years, and we wouldn't have gotten to this point. We wouldn't have had to make these hard decisions. These decisions are actually based on moral principles, if you think about it, because now we're separating families and we're causing a lot of harm and strife for these children who are trying to process everything, right?

30:19 And of course, everyone's going to argue, well, then if that's the case, then go with your wife or your husband and go back to the land from whence you came or hence you came, whatever. But when you're willingly also, let's get back to the employer situation. If you're willingly circumventing a system to save money by hiring illegal immigrants, it's not the illegal immigrants' fault per se. I think we should be going after those businesses and employers and truly finding them as they should be under the law. I have a business. I've had four. I know how employment law works. I have to deal with it. I don't hire illegals because my type of business, I don't need to go that way. and I probably will never would. But the reality is I am agreeing with you.

31:02 But at the same time, we also have to draw the line and enforce our constitutional laws to protect our borders and our sovereignty, period. And as you were saying earlier, I've done multiple shows on how many people have come across the border. And you can find all this stuff at the websites for Border Patrol. We've had a few hundred terrorists actually caught already coming across the borders this year. I think it was from January to May. I forgot what it was. And my recall is not so good, but they can go back to those episodes or just look it up themselves. It's right there. It's public. And if you think about that, because you're correct, not everyone's a terrorist, but the danger in not knowing.

31:43 And when we call interactions, when we call the act of just interacting with that person, that's not a kind of forgot-a-ways. that doesn't count for the people you don't know. Think of one terrorist, for example, what they can do when they could radicalize 15 people and then that turns into 25 and 50. There was enough terrorists that came in recently to put 15, I believe, in every state of America. Last time I looked. Wow. I mean, I think it's great that he shut the border. I think it's great he shut the border. I mean, we knew it was just going to be a matter of executive orders once he, because he did it last time.

32:24 And we knew it. And the whole time, the Democrats and Biden, well, we can't do anything. Yeah, you can. You just put back in what you took out the first day or two you went in, you know, when you first went into office. So getting back to what we're talking about, I agree. People have been here a while. Let's circle back to them, give them an opportunity. The people that have been just coming over, that have been coming over recently, the ones that were funded by the Democrat Party, that were flown around and given hotels and everything. We got to handle that differently. You know, the people who have been here a while who's paid into the system, yeah, we shouldn't just, you know, tear them out of here and kick them out. I believe if they're not going to go to the system and they don't meet the requirements, we'll have their conversation. But we should absolutely give those people an opportunity.

33:05 The reason we're at where we are now is because, as you know, it wasn't being enforced for all these years. And it's not those people's faults. They got away with something. All right, fine. You got one over. We're going to give you the opportunity to write this. That's how I think we should approach that personally. Now, the question being, because we're going to get back to the Constitution, is a lot of people are arguing that the way Trump has been handling this whole thing is unconstitutional. What are your thoughts on that? Absolutely. The act that he used was full of Fourth Amendment. Fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth amendment, those have been the common pushes of this administration. But like I said, if we go back to the root of it, the act itself probably wasn't constitutional because of the way it was written.

33:47 but he used it and then trying to push it further when he when i said he used the wrong act uh you know but but a good a good thing to come to that was unconstitutional but the way he just spun it was brilliant uh and and i didn't like it at all so you know when he first federalized dc he could do it there was i mean i think for like 30 days he could go in he could do an extension he could do it and that's fine but then he was talking about going into chicago and these sovereign states and under the constitution he cannot do that the governor has to ask for there are only certain conditions and he didn't even meet the condition out they just they just ruled on in the supreme court he didn't even meet the condition when he sent them out to la during the riots they said no that did not constitute for what you used so he that was unconstitutional we kept saying if he tries to send them, you know, let's put the shoe on the other foot. What would have happened last year if Biden had tried to federalize law enforcement in conservative cities and said, I don't like the way they're being run. Oh, I mean, it would be unconstitutional, unconstitutional, unconstitutional. So what he did was, it was actually brilliant the way he, the way he, you know, the way he, the way he spun with it. So he flipped the narrative.

35:06 And he and they're still calling unconstitutional. But the thing is, I said it on my last show. One thing is, is most of the times when the Democrats say something's unconstitutional, they're getting it wrong. The Republicans get it right when they use it normally because, you know, their conservative opinion falls right with, you know, how how narrow the scope on some things are. but um so he flips it he gets conservative states my state being one louisiana i think they're going to come down to new orleans he's going up to memphis the governors are letting them come in they're going to go in they're going to work with law enforcement they're going to bring crime down and he already spun and said hey we wanted to come help chicago but the local people didn't want us to come and you know we hate we couldn't come help them and and bring their crime down and safer for their citizens. So he's going to make them look bad by spinning the narrative instead of pushing the constitution, which I like and I agree with completely. Yeah, the situation, we're talking about the National Guard deployment. So the situation in Washington, you're absolutely correct. That can be under the National Guard via the president or the administration. But as you said, it's only 30 days. It got up to 30 days and it's up to Congress to extend that if they see that it needs to be done. So you're correct on that. Absolutely. A lot of people miss that.

36:29 They think that what he did was just outlandish and he was just being a fascist dictator. That's not what he did. But what I don't agree with is exactly what you're saying is that I don't believe that he can take the National Guard in every state now and federalize it and now say, oh, we're coming in to clean things up. I understand why he wants to do it, but there's a danger in it. You got places that are so crime-ridden that the cities themselves did nothing to fix it or right it. They defunded their police departments. They have judges and lawyers in place that would rather give someone a slap on the wrist and walk out without bail for second-degree murder than hold them until trial or whatever it is. I mean, there's a lot of reasons why I think Trump wants to do this, but the danger is this. Once you give someone power, will you be able to take it back away from them? And what I see the danger in all of this is, and why it is unconstitutional, as you were saying, is once this happens and they see it works, what's going to stop them from taking the next step? What's going to stop it before we all become under martial law after he's proven, hey, I've gone state to state, you guys like it, it works. Now I'm going to take the next step and I'm going to add even more to it. And that's the danger I see. You know, that is exactly why we have these checks and balances. You know, absolutely.

37:54 Absolutely. I mean, you just spoke on it and I always term it as it's a slippery slope. Yes, sir. Where is it going to stop? It's a slippery slope. And this tip for tat, it's like, okay, well, the means justify the ends and they did it. So I'm going to push it. My whole thing is, well, where does it stop? Does it stop in 50 or a hundred years with no constitution? Does it stop when things degrade down into violence? Where does it stop? I don't know. I mean, what you said is exactly the truth. It's exactly right. It's already been proven that, you know, once they get a little, they never give it back. They've already been, you know, I live in California, so you can imagine what I go through out here. I got some friends out there. We talk.

38:34 It's like, man, you know, all the laws they pass without us voting on, which I guess they can do, because, you know, under the bylaws of the government, oh, we can pass these bills. We can vote them. We're doing it on your behalf. sure and I wake up the next morning my gas is fucking ten dollars and I got to pay more taxes and it cost me more to be an employer you know there's all these things that they do um and we won't even get the gap news so much that'll be a three-hour discussion with that guy but you know it it it it really it really um insane to me how you know the left is going out of the way because they hate Trump so much to call everything unconstitutional Because, you know, some of it really is. Some of it is kind of like, it's not unconstitutional, but it's so fucking borderline.

39:16 It is so borderline that it can literally go either way depending on who's reading it. And I agree with you that, you know, that act, was it called? Was it the Act of 17? I forgot what it was. The War Child, 1796 War Act or something. 1796, yeah. That was an iffy one, but he pulled it off. And you got to understand that what you said is correct. He is brilliant. He knows what he's doing. A lot of people think he's stupid, but he really isn't. But again, there is fear of once you get a little, you're going to take more. I don't agree with this National Guard thing at all. I think that if a governor sees that they have an issue, then they could reach out. That's one thing. But just saying, hey, we're coming. And then, like you said, what happened in Chicago, he tried to spin it to say, well, we offered help, but you didn't want it.

40:00 But what's behind it, I believe, is wrong. It really is. He shouldn't be doing this. They should be working with the governments of these states, of the cities, to see what they can do to help them out. But absolutely ignoring any help whatsoever because you hate Trump that much is just ridiculous. And, you know, hey, we don't think he's perfect. In my house, we don't think he's perfect. I'm sure you don't either. You already said you don't. so it's it's like you can't ignore a hand that's reaching out to offer you help either especially that from the federal government who's willing to flip the bill on it it just doesn't make any sense so you already you already just a few things that people are calling unconstitutional right how do we write our justice system though in your opinion how is it that we're getting i'm going to touch on judges because you know you grew up around lawyers you know many of them how do we write a judicial, write the judicial system where it just appears that we have in some places where you could be a judge by maybe taking courses online. I know I'm being, I'm stretching, but I think you know what I'm alluding to. You know, how, how, how is this possible? How, how is it that, you know, judges themselves will rule against, you know, rule on certain cases in a way that is unprecedented just because they don't want to agree with the Republican Party, for example.

41:23 How do we fix this? Isn't justice supposed to be blind or is it not supposed to be unpartial? It sounds redundant with this. I know I do, but I have to bring us back again. Sure. If we fix the problem with the judicial system is there is too many people interpreting things. There are too many people pushing too much to interpret. But if we get back to the laws themselves that were written unconstitutionally and amend them or repeal them, then that's going to help clean up the criminal justice system. That's going to help where they can't do lawfare. I mean, I'm glad lawfare is being televised now, but it's been going on for a long, long time. I mean, you know, I have intimate knowledge through family members in cases of the federal system and lawfare has been going on a long time.

42:09 I mean, literally, I read a book that was called like three felonies a day and they play games with junior U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys where they'll go and judges where they go out to the restaurant and point somebody out or pick an actor and want them to build a case with three different felonies just from what they know about them. Famous people, people walking right there that do something. The laws are so ambiguous. And I don't think I'm exaggerating because I'm pretty sure I read this in a legal book that they can indict a hamburger. You don't have to be living to be indicted. So the problem with the criminal justice system, I mean, look at the numbers. We have 5% of the population and 25% of the incarcerated population in the world.

42:52 But yet we're supposed to be the most involved, you know, innovation. No, there's nothing. Well, I mean, I guess it is big business. But, you know, we have to start with stopping to challenge and push because then we get everybody's opinion. You get a liberal opinion, you get a conservative opinion. But the thing is, is that a lot of now some of these judges, I have read cases because normally what I'll read when I decide if the judge is a radical left or if they're doing something they shouldn't be doing is if in their written order, they personally attack Trump or the administration.

43:33 They literally say things outside of character of a judgment. It's supposed to be written unbiasedly. This is what happened. This is the law. No, they come out and they actually put things in their approach. But that's not a large majority. 20% of these judges saying no are Trump appointees. And then a lot of other ones are George Bush and they're conservatives. And some of the Democrats, as long as there's case law or constitutional precedence, then the judge is not being radical. But I think what you're saying, and it is true, where you get these idiot judges up in New York. Oh, my gosh. The girl that was beside him that was whispering into his ear. The one that was doing push-ups with that shirt on.

44:14 What was his name? The one that presided over that fraud case and convicted him guilty before the first day of the trial. Honestly, I can see his face. Ingeron. Judge Ingeron. I see the face. I'm just like, I can't recall the name. I mean, how does he get to be a judge? He's talking to young girls. And he asked the prosecution in the case, well, I don't want to object to every, I don't want to rule in your favor on everything because then they'll get overturned on appeal. And the whole time it was going to get overturned on appeal. The whole time it was not constitutional gagging lawyers. And I mean, that case was a kangaroo court. That was a ridiculous case. Extremely ridiculous. Yes, and so was the Stormy Daniels case.

44:56 The only time that hush money is illegal is if you're paying somebody to keep quiet on something that was illegal. It has to be in furtherance of a crime. There's that, and there was a fact that two parties agreed to it willingly. It wasn't like she was coerced or forced. She was given the opportunity, and she said, yeah, I'll take it. And then when she found an opportunity to try to get more, whoever talked to her, then all of a sudden it turned into a bigger deal. Suddenly it was like, hold on. and then the way they made the case by saying well it wasn't so much it was hush money it was how you recorded it on your ledgers in business it didn't say that you were paying her you were paying this other person well yeah he was paying the lawyer who was paying her via the contract but that was an accounting issue on their accounting software how did they call that 34 counts 34 counts of felony because based on every check that was written that was a bunch of bullshit listen this is how the whole thing went down So have you heard of Matthew Colangelo?

45:54 No. Okay. So this thing got turned down for prosecution. Nobody was, even Alan Bragg, the DA, wasn't going to do it. So Matthew Colangelo was high up in the DOJ. He was like a deputy director of something. He goes all the way down and takes a job as assistant district attorney in New York. Goes from a high-paying federal, high-power federal job to an assistant DA. And after he does that and gets in Alan Bragg's ear, that's when the charges came. But the fact that they turned a misdemeanor into the 34th, a misdemeanor who had gone past the statute of limitations, it had expired.

46:36 There's an expiration date on all crimes of murder as far as I know. So it had expired. And they turned it into the 34th. It's going to get thrown out. I mean, there's no question. But I mean, all these high powered, I mean, I listen to all of them talk and, you know, all their perspectives and the constitutional lawyers and everybody. And then I read into it myself and watched it. And I mean, the whole thing was a sham. I mean, every case that was going on was a sham except for and even that case in Florida was. But Judge Cannon actually followed the Constitution. I mean, you got that one in D.C. where they got what, 12 million documents. is as tall as paper stacks, as tall as 10 national monuments. And they wouldn't even give them but four months to go over it. And the second biggest case, because that made the biggest case in history, the second biggest was Walmart versus Visa. And it took seven years of litigation.

47:30 And they wouldn't even give them four months to go through 12 million documents or something. And it's, oh, you don't need to go through them. We made you a roadmap to everything important. But no, I'm not going to take the defense's roadmap. No, you can't do that. There's obviously stuff in there. Well, the case with the 34 felonies that they try to convict Trump on, what I looked at it from, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty savvy in reading contracts and things. And I'll just say that I looked at it from a business perspective and how they tried to nail them in terms of unlawful business practices and how the money was being handled and how they were recording it was a bunch of bullshit. And that was something that when I looked later, New York actually put a law into effect to try to catch businesses that way, but they never really enforced it.

48:15 They never really enforced it. And so that whole thing was bullshit. It really was. Like you're going to nail the guy based on what he wrote on his ledger in terms of where the money was going. It was still an expense. It was still recorded. It was going to his lawyer. The lawyer had, well, it was the person handling the contractual agreement between him and the other person who accepted this deal. where's the issue? I mean, they were really reaching. Let's just put it that way. They were reaching big time. It was a bank and the bank came and testified on his behalf and said, we like the deal and we do it again. There was no victim. Exactly. On that one, you're talking about that case as well. Yes. And they can't nail them for that whatsoever. The bank had no issue. There was nobody who was taken advantage of. There was no victim at all, but the court still ruled that someone somehow was a victim.

49:02 They ruled it before anybody testified. It wasn't a crime. They ruled it before the case started. I've never seen that. You're guilty. Yeah, I know. And look, it's not like, I'm sure we're not sitting here just trying to defend Trump. The world is just, if you just take these examples of political lawfare, like the biggest, most apparent cases that you can't ignore, and there's no way anyone in the right man can look at this and say, that wasn't a political lawfare. No, no. That was just Trump getting caught in his. No, it wasn't. It's obvious. It's blatantly obvious. And ever since Trump got elected, you've seen the ramping up this political law fair. And like you said, it's always been there, but not to the level it's been.

49:43 Not so public. It's ridiculous. So how can we fix that? Like you said, some of these judges, like Supreme Court judges, for example, they're appointed by Republicans. Okay, fine. Understood. But how do we fix these judges from not Supreme Court, for example, but all the other judges around from using political lawfare to help their party in achieving their goals? How is that possible? How can you fight the law to that effect? Let me ask you something. I want to give kind of an analogy here. I think it will help the audience understand some stuff. so do you remember it was several years ago trump was had this huge pile of taxes and it came out that he didn't have to pay any taxes and he's like we are the ones that have the loopholes you know if you don't like them close them up yeah remember that truth okay all these laws have loopholes we have to close them up because if you don't want judges to be able to to to have such an opinion, then it can't be as ambiguous. It can't be written so the judges can have such an opinion. Or there's going to continue to be lawfare because if it's there, you can't get mad at Trump for not using it. You can't get mad at them for not using it. It's there.

51:08 Yeah, I see what you're saying. But when it comes to the other side, the prosecution side, We're talking about district attorneys. They build their careers on how many people they can convict. And I think some of these loopholes or ambiguity are there purposely so that they can try to convict as many people as they can so that they look good. And that's the truth. Look, I know lawyers myself as well. Oh, yeah. And I know that's a thing that happens. I know it is. It's like when you see someone convicted of a minor crime, whatever it is, and they come out the other end with 50 other crimes attached to it all of a sudden. You know, they're just trying to pile whatever they can on top to make sure they get you on something. And if they get you on one, hopefully they can get you on the others. And all of a sudden, you know, you're six months lap and the risk turns into 30 years.

51:57 So, yeah, we should close the loopholes. But as you said, it needs to be done on both sides for sure. Absolutely. And it's Almost like, I can give another analogy in the healthcare system. The way the healthcare system is, they don't fix through the problem. They put a Band-Aid on it. So you'll have a problem again in a couple of more years. You know, it changes your gait to your other knee that's not injured. Anyway, you end up having more problems instead of fixing the root. You know, it's repeat business. They're not going to stop the cash flow, man. Why would they heal you? Okay. And that is a private business. And we don't have the power that we do over government. We the people have the power over the government. That's what it was meant to be. We the people vote you in. We the people take you out.

52:38 So, you know, you have to take the issues that are so serious. You have to take them out there. So if we go and we start saying, okay, we need to do this to this judge and this to this judge, we are literally just putting a Band-Aid over. We are not fixing the root of the problem. Right. I agree. So fixing the root of the problem comes down to kind of circling back what we started the conversation with is the Constitution. people actually knowing the Constitution and understanding their rights and taking advantage of their rights to keep these people in check. Because in the end, they all answer to the people, but they're not. Absolutely. Absolutely. That's why we want people to come to the website and see the Patriot Party principle because it's not actually the original Constitution.

53:19 Because people want to go back there and they want to say, oh, well, you believe in slavery. No, it was abolished in the 13th Amendment. The 13 amendments are what lines out governmental power, our rights, all the things, all men are created equal, all the Declaration of Independence, all those things come together to outline, really, I believe, a document that evolves. It doesn't need to physically evolve. It was written to evolve. Let me give an example, okay? A lot of people would say, well, they would argue if you said God-given rights, well, what if you don't believe in God? Okay, well, the creators were so smart that when they wrote the Declaration of Independence, they didn't say God.

54:05 They said, you're a creator. You're a creator. If you believe in evolution, okay, you were created through evolution. But you have that right granted to you by your creator. Evolution, reincarnate, whatever you believe in, that's your right. but you have the right, not by God, but by your creator. So they wrote that document to be able to evolve with time. Because back then, I mean, religion was a huge thing, a lot bigger than it is now. Yeah, absolutely. Well, that's another discussion. That'd be another day. That just almost triggered something here. So let me get your opinion on this.

54:47 Okay. Are you America first? yes this is an america first movement but it is america first it's america first it's maga it's uh you know maha all those are righteous movements i just will not they need political party disassociation so they have no agenda attached it can be make america great again for as many people as possible republican democrat whoever you know it's just it should be intuitive how to make america america first i'm america first not america only if it costs 10 cents to keep somebody across a kid across the world alive and we've said we would um but america first i mean we have a lot of guests on that have america first companies that are america first guests and that is what this movement is about is it is an america first movement too because if we don't do something whether it be because we don't have uh we don't we have open borders and there's no there's no way to have a sovereign nation with open borders or whether it be because it dissolves over something else. If we don't put America first and do something, maybe not me, maybe not my kids, but maybe my grandkids or great grandkids, they may not have an America. All right. So let's circle back to what you kind of said. You said you're America first, not America only. So let's expand on that and help us define that statement a bit, because I think a lot of people are confusing what America first means versus America only. And when we're talking about our geopolitical relationships within the world and how we have to interact with all the other nations around the world.

56:14 Because I'm sorry, but we can't shut ourselves up in this modern era. There's just no way we can just shut ourselves off. We're all too reliant on each other to some degree. So give me, expand on what you said, basically. Give me a little more definition on your thoughts on that and what that means. Okay. My thoughts are, is that, or they are, that America first, you know, when we look at something, okay, we need to look at it. How is this going to affect America? When I say America only, I only mean like, you know, I think we were paying, what, 15, 14, 19 cents a day for medication, for kids that were born with AIDS and to keep them alive, things like that.

56:58 That's humanitarian. We're supposed to lead by example. That does not mean we need to police the world. That's another big issue we've had is trying to go and police the world and turn places into democracies that don't need to be democracies. you know but this now this is my personal opinion this is this has nothing to do with the movement itself this is my personal opinion you know uh that's all i would meant as far as like not america only is um i'm not going to look as a business deal going to be equally good for for uh europe as it is for america no i want it the best it can be for america i'm just saying as far as the humanitarian issues and a view on humanitarian issues is I don't care about, you know, 12 cents of my tax dollars per kid that is keeping alive a day. I don't care about that. That's, I mean, you know how much money they waste in the government. That's nothing. That's not even, I mean, that's nothing. So when I say America first, so I mean that everything that we look case in point, we were given all these weapons to Israel. And hey, you know what? I think Israel, they have the right to defend themselves. They were attacked, whatever. They're supposed to be our allies. They are our strategic allies. That cannot be argued with, whether you want to call them an ally or not. That's kind of a personal opinion. But my thing is, is that they have money, they have plenty of money, and they have stuff we want. They have technology, we buy stuff from them.

58:31 So we don't need to be giving them weapons and we don't need to be putting them with strings. They need to purchase them as a business deal. Maybe they get a 20% break or a 10% break or whatever keeps the military industrial complex in the green well. But maybe they get a discount because they're an ally, but it's still a business transaction. And that way that you don't have different factions of different parties saying, well, you can't use them here. You can't use them there. No, they're mine. I just bought them. I'm a sovereign nation. Yeah, we can touch on Israel slightly in a bit here, but let's talk about constitutionality again.

59:12 Let's talk about tariffs. Tariffs. Love to. I'll just let you go. I think you're already pretty good at just taking a topic and running with it. So give me your thoughts. All right. My thoughts on tariff. Now, I've been saying this for about, ever since Trump was campaigning and talking about doing these tariffs, I've had the same strategy and I actually fed it into three different paid for AIs a couple of months ago. And it said that my strategy was much more effective that would have been much more effective and not as turbulent and tumultuous across the globe. So I haven't agreed with the straight across tariff.

59:52 Now, constitutionality, I think they're probably... So I think they're going to rule against them. I don't know how they will rule against them if they'll break it into separate rulings like you can do this for this nation because it does fall under this emergency act of fentanyl, but you can't or maybe you can do it for China, but you can't do it for these other 50 nations. I don't know how they're going to rule on that. I do think they're going to rule against them with these sweeping tariffs. My issue was Liberation Day was one of my big issues. So my thing is, if you really wanted to do what you said you wanted to do, which was to bring China to Neil, and you wanted to balance out trading, the way that you could have instantly stimulated the U.S. economy, this is not projection of five or ten years from now with the fact that they're getting tax breaks to automate their factories, so there's going to be less workers working for them.

1:00:46 That's not all these variables coming in. This is right now money. The first thing you should have done was everything that the U.S. manufactures that is being imported into this country needs to be tariffed so the playing field is even to buy U.S. right now. So people would have been more apt to buy U.S. produced goods that are being produced right now in this country than getting them from overseas. So that would have been stimulating the economy right now. you don't what i said was you do not need to go in with a sickle you need to go in with a scalpel because then what you need to do is you need to tell all of our allies everybody that you treated as an adversary you should have told all of them to begin with listen guys i'm giving you two choices you can come here and we'll work things out with tariffs because tariffs were pretty even you know uh before this i mean what what other countries paid versus what we paid i I got it all, you know, I looked it all up, researched it.

1:01:43 I won't go into too much detail now unless you want to later. But so we're not going to do textiles again. We're not going to do any of that stuff again because we cannot compete with 10 cents an hour. So we go to our allies and we say, look, you got two choices. You form a coalition with us. So it's the Western world against China, not America. And we bring China to heel together. Or you don't. and we're going to tariff the heck out of everything that comes out of your country. They would have come together. We would have brought China to heel. China may have brought Russia to heel. I don't know. That's a little more complicated. But I think it would have worked out much better than tariffing textiles.

1:02:29 I just had to pay 25% tariff on a wedding dress. We're talking thousands of dollars. I had to pay 25% tariff. And it's made here in the country. But the material, I think, comes from another country. So, you know, I think that that would have worked better. We wouldn't have had so many flare-ups trying to deal with, and the problem was we kept moving the goalposts. You negotiated 11% with, I think, the Philippines, or I think that's who it was. And then on True Social, before you closed the deal, you said it's 21%. They're like, whoa, we didn't agree to 21%. You can't make a deal with somebody that continues to move the goalpost after you make a deal with them.

1:03:11 So I think we should have, I don't think, I think they're going to be ruled against constitutionally to some way or another. I don't know, like I said, if it's just going to limit certain countries or if it's just going to take and say this country does qualify or it's just going to make it all null and void and say, no, you don't have the power to do that. Congress has the power of purse and you do not have that. This was for emergencies. This was for sanctions. I don't know how that's going to roll out. But I think it could have been done much more efficiently. And then we have this loophole that just expired just expired a week or two ago where and a lot of businesses depended on this where anything it used to be anything under didn get tariffed Now everything that comes into this country gets a tariff or a flat fee. That means if you've got family traveling abroad or that lives abroad and they send you a Christmas or birthday present, you got to get your pay to get your own present in the mail. Yeah. That's how it works. Yeah. I don't, from my perspective, I understood what tariffs were intended for.

1:04:15 It's exactly what you said, is to buy domestic, try to buy in America. It was trying to return business to America, return manufacturing. But look, that's not going to happen. That may be in a few industries, but as a whole, we're not going to become the leader of the world in terms of manufacturing anymore. It's just not going to happen. There's too many other laws in place that won't let it happen. And namely, most of that are environmental. And when you're talking about textiles, for example, sure, there's some made in China. A lot of it's in Indonesia. And the reason they're there is because, yes, 10 cents an hour. The other is environmental laws are circumvented. They can use certain dyes. They can do things that don't meet OSHA standards either in the workforce.

1:04:56 And so, therefore, it's never going to come back to the U.S. because as soon as that cloth comes back here, I mean, we're talking about a 400% jump probably. I'm guesstimating, but I'm sure our $5, $10 t-shirts are now going to become $120 to $250 for no reason. And they're not even designer shirts. So sweeping tariffs were kind of a bit much, but we cannot deny, and you said you did research on this, we can't deny that there were some countries that had unproportional tariffs towards American goods, and they did so for the same reason we're trying to do it. They're trying to protect their own economy with their own manufacturers. It just makes sense. 250% or 200% on milk, for example, or soybeans or whatever it is, it was intentional.

1:05:39 It was intentional to protect their markets, just as what Trump, I believe, is trying to do now. Problem is, is what you said. He kept moving the goalposts. He didn't stick to anything because I think that is a tell. He was bluffing. He was just trying to see who would react and who would come to him and try to negotiate. And then when they didn't, well, let me change the terms. You know, the problem is I don't think Trump is as strong as he's trying to make himself out to be. If you're going to draw a line, a hard line, then you got to fucking stick to that. You really do. If you're going to draw a line in the sand, then that line in the sand has to stay. You can't redraw it because whatever you said or whatever your stance is suddenly didn't work.

1:06:20 And like, well, let me try to get them on this one. That's not how it works. But I believe the tariffs did have to be adjusted with certain industries, right? But the way he went about just saying, I'm tariffing everybody and it's 40% this time, 200% late. Like, dude, you can't do that. You can't do that. Especially in industries where we're not even set up yet. to be able to absorb that impact. You know, what are you going to do? Apple's a good case, right? We're going to commit to building our own plant here. That's not going to be overnight, man. If you're going to start to tariff China, basically, or Taiwan or whoever, well, I don't know if he's ever going to do it, but these are just examples. 200% on semiconductor chips, for example, or parts or whatever that are made for iPhones, how much is your iPhone going to cost down the road?

1:07:05 Immediately, if we just did that, we were talking now, you know, they're already expensive enough. What are we going to talk about? A $5,000 iPhone now? It's not going to happen. We're not even set up yet in certain industries, even in automotive, to bring everything back. That's the problem I saw. That's what I saw. You can't just walk in with a hammer and say, we're doing this now. No, idiot. We can't do that. We don't make the parts here. We don't have the infrastructure set up yet. We don't have the manufacturing plants yet. And so that was the issue I had with the sweeping tariffs. But I didn't disagree with some countries and some industries looking at it and going, yeah, we need to adjust this. If you're going to hit us for this, then we've got to kind of make it even. So I agreed with that, my opinion.

1:07:48 Well, tell me what, because I only looked up some of the main countries. But when I looked up what we were paying and what other countries were paying for tariffs before Trump, before Liberation Day, because that was part of the deep dive that I did when I reported on it. Um, I found out the EU, I think we pay 3%, they pay 2.7 or it was, it was right there. Uh, Japan was five and five and China, we paid three, they paid eight. So it was a 5% difference. I never saw any countries that, that any big countries that would mean anything that we couldn't strong arm that were charging that it wasn't kind of a free flowing market.

1:08:29 Yeah. Yeah. again I I don't understand his intent on what he was trying to do with everything but I'll just use one example that everybody was crying about and that whole squabble had Canada which was fucking stupid but for example their dairy right their dairy they can buy American milk this is an example that you can look up this is true but they have a quota now we had an agreement in quota say okay you buy X amount And then after you get past that quota, then there's a tariff imposed on our milk. I think it was like 200 and it was over 200%, literally. My brother and I actually, we went down this rabbit hole.

1:09:12 So it was over 200% and it was intent and intended to control and protect the dairy farmers of Canada. Rightfully so. I don't have a problem with that. But this whole back and forth on tariffs with Canada started with that. and then the Canadians were like, well, we won't want your milk because it's bad and that's the reason why that we put these, impose these tariffs. Okay, well, here's my counter. What's wrong with our organic raw milk that you guys think that you have and drink is fine, but you don't want to buy ours. So that's what triggered this whole thing and that's just one example. China, for example, also, I don't know what the actual tariff was, but they were so high and they also had a law. I think they had a law.

1:09:52 You can probably correct me on this later. I don't work. I'm not going to make this up. But they did have policies imposed to where American cars couldn't be sold there. Same thing in Europe. You see so many people importing BMWs, Mercedes, Volkswagens. How many American cars are in Europe? Ford had some agreements. Chevy had some agreements. But it wasn't widespread like it is here. It was very lopsided. And so that was another thing that caught Trump's attention. It's like, wait a minute, this ain't working out. And I'm not sure that was necessarily tariff-driven. But I think he used the tariffs to try to get them to open up those markets. Well, you know, and I want to comment on this because German engineering is high quality engineering.

1:10:40 And if you go to Germany or Italy or somewhere where you can buy a Porsche over there, it's 60% less than what you pay here or BMW. So the problem, I think, was, and maybe I'm wrong, but you're getting really nice luxury cars over here for the same thing or less than you'd pay for Fords over there. So I think you're getting a better car. But I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they would want what the U.S. has. Maybe they'd want the muscle cars. I don't know what import taxes were for automobiles. I can't speak on that. So I really don't know that. But, you know, another big thing Trump was talking about is the trade deficit.

1:11:25 And I've used this analogy before, too. I'm like, okay, you got the U.S. and you got China. So you can't get mad because we as the U.S. were like Walgreens and China's like Amazon. But you can't get mad that Amazon sells more goods than Walgreens. Yeah. Well, and here's the problem with that. Let's get off tariffs and talk about why that happened. We let that happen. Oh, absolutely. We gave all these industries away to China because companies wanted to save money. As China said, we can save you money. We can mass produce. We can do X, Y, Z for you. And companies decided, you know what? It's cheaper to go there, make a hell of a lot more profit. Let's shut down our plants.

1:12:05 We gave it to them years ago, years ago. The United States did nothing to protect their own businesses in the US. Other countries will actually do that. They'll protect their own industries and businesses. We, for some reason, I don't know why, we really don't. We're just so profit-driven. And now look at where we're at. It affected the jobs markets to no end. The automotive industry in general was literally run to the ground. I mean, look at Detroit. You know, it was a shining light, an example of American ingenuity, American manufacturing, American skill. And then after everything started getting outsourced, just like that, it disappeared.

1:12:48 You know, now they have their plants in Mexico. Okay, great. It's still North America, but it's not in America. And we're getting parts made in China for some of the automotive parts, for example. India makes a lot of parts as well. So the problem is we did it to ourselves, and now we're trying to course correct by bringing a hammer and just saying, you know what, we're going to tear it for everybody 300%, 400%, and everything's going to go good. And this is a short-term, like you said, a band-aid. This is a short-term fix. Like they're bragging right now, the administration, oh, we've already brought in trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars in tariffs. That's not going to last forever, man. You know, that's just the initial, that's what you're getting in initially from the rush because people, there's no other way to go about it.

1:13:30 Like, as I said earlier, we don't have alternatives. There's no other, we don't have industry set up internally to absorb the loss of those suppliers. It's just not going to happen. So this is a bandaid. I don't know where it's going to go. I don't know if it's going to blow up, but let's get back to where this is on Constitution. tariffs are not unconstitutional we were a tariff nation period we switched over because of globalization and once that happened you can't turn that off and unfortunately we due to globalization free markets and open trade there's no way to become a tariff nation again it's not going to happen like like trump thinks he could just turn taxes off we would all like that to happen but tariffs are not going to do it on their own it's just not so we can't go back like you said before Some of these things that happen, we can't just go back.

1:14:20 Some of them were written for a certain time. Some of these constitutional laws or the way we did things were written for a certain time. But that's why we had these amendments, as you said earlier, that kept up with the times and had to be readjusted for what we're going through now. And after we became a global market, we entered that and everybody else did. The tariff thing isn't working. The tariffs, to me, apply to certain industries to protect certain markets within certain countries, right? But it can't be just some sweeping broad thing like you were saying earlier. It just doesn't work. Well, I mean, and I don't know if you remember, but the campaign promise was, I'm going to charge tariffs, but the other countries are going to pay.

1:15:02 And the thing is now. That's not how it works. Well, one country did. The EU is paying the US government on a lot of goods that are being exported 15%. They're paying us 15%. So he was able to negotiate that. You know, if he does something good, I call it. If he does something bad, I call it. And you know we put out a merch line on it So you know I did put out one where Trump delivers And then I put out one that said I didn vote for this So we try to accommodate with both on our merch store I hear you go either way. Yeah, you know, it doesn't matter really which way you go. You can find something there.

1:15:42 But he did do it with the EU, but I don't think he's going to be able to do it with anybody else. And it wasn't on everything, and there are some things that are exempt. But, you know, like I said, And I don't think he's going to be able to do it with everything else. No. As far as, you know, us losing manufacturing, I looked into that as well. And, you know, in the 70s, 80s, 90s, it said that we transitioned more away from the manufacturing because other countries did take it. And we went into more innovation, more technological stuff. You know, we have some of the best microchips by NVIDIA, a couple of others. You know, we are ahead. I mean, that's really what our stronghold is, is that we're innovators.

1:16:25 And that's the reason he's able to push a lot of these countries around because they can't afford not to deal with the U.S. government. But it's because of innovation. It's not because of manufacturing. No, no. Agreed with you on the innovation. But China has proven to be stealing a lot of those innovative ideas and designs. And I know this for a fact because in my business, what I do, I have dealt with Chinese manufacturers direct with certain products. and they would even call me to say, hey, we can sell you this direct. And I look at it, and it's like a carbon copy of said name brand that I've invested X amount of dollars in. I'm like, what the hell? So that does happen. And I was a manufacturer's rep in an industry too. I had my own rep firm for a while. So I have a lot of inside info on how this crap works and what really goes on behind the scenes.

1:17:08 And so we gave it away, but our innovation is also being stolen right now. And China is very good at reverse engineering. They can reverse engineer stuff. As far as the chips go, you know, like Silicon Valley, that's where everything was made. We had manufacturing plants just dedicated to making semiconductor chips. We don't do it anymore. Intel was trying to bring it back years ago. I don't know what happened to that plant. I don't know if it ever came to fruition or if it was even profitable for them. I think it's supposed to be, I think it got delayed by a year. I think next year is supposed to be functional. There was one in Arizona and one in Ohio. I think they had 20 billion in each one. And they're trying to bring back a lot of shit because, you know, we rely 95% on Taiwan.

1:17:51 We need to. Yeah. Absolutely need to. And semiconductor chips need to come back. I'm glad that that's actually happening. I didn't hear anything on it, any of the progress, but that's good. So hopefully that comes into fruition very soon that we can take that back. That'll definitely put us in a different position when it comes to technology. Absolutely. and Trump was trying to push to get batteries made here for electric cars and battery technology unfortunately Hyundai sent their people and what happened with that someone called them in as illegals what the hell I don't know ridiculous so yeah I agree with you we need each other and yes the rest of the world still does need America we are innovators but we can't ignore that there aren't innovators in other countries as well.

1:18:41 You know, the EU, and especially in like the UK, there's a lot of software engineers and software developers right now. Basically, there's people that are starting to look like they're going to rival Google, you know, and what they can develop. So it's no longer a closed market. We don't own the market, you know, altogether anymore, but we still are heads and tails ahead of the curve for sure. And we need to stay there. Maybe bringing those plants back online over here is going to help as far as the semiconductors. Absolutely. I've got to give your audience something that one of my guests on the other day said. We were having a really good conversation. And he said that the United States innovates, Asia imitates, and Europe regulates.

1:19:28 I mean, that is all very true. That's all true. I mean, seriously. Yeah, right. It's like even in our industry I'm in, it's like, you know, everyone always says that, oh, well, you know, EU standards are higher so that, you know, if they meet EU standards, it has no problem meeting American or US standards. Yeah. And you know what? In some cases, that's true. Not at all, but in some cases, that's true for sure. So with everything that we're talking about, I'm going to start wrapping this up pretty soon. But I do want to circle back to Israel, and I don't want to dwell on Israel, by the way. I just bring them up because it was brought up and we're talking about geopolitical relations.

1:20:11 Now, Middle East has always been a hotbed. And to me personally, I think we need to reevaluate the relationship, not abandon them, not walk away because they're our strategic ally. But what has been going on recently, and this ties back to what we're talking about, about America first. should we re-evaluate our relationship and actually rein them in at times to let them know that, look, we're not your show pony. You're not going to dog walk us and use us as an excuse for you to just do whatever the hell you want without consequence. Maybe I'm off on that. Maybe you don't see it my way. No, give me an example. That's a loaded statement.

1:20:52 How are we going to rein them in? What are we going to rein them in on? Well, not so loaded. if you want to just talk about what recently happened when they tried to kill those Hamas leaders in Qatar. And what they did to another ally, by the way, US ally, Qatar, is they launched an attack to kill Hamas leaders on Qatari soil, sovereign soil. The government of Qatar was not involved in this, didn't give them approval, wasn't in on it. Israel just decided, and what's crazy about this, even the Mossad in Israel advised the government against doing this. Originally, I believe that they wanted the Mossad to do some kind of a ground operation to take care of this, but they didn't heed the warnings of the Mossad.

1:21:37 And so the Israeli government decided to do an operation anyway to where they violated Qatari airspace, shot a missile, and destroyed a building trying to kill some oscillators on Qatari soil. What happened, and this just happened last Tuesday, by the way. I remember. Okay. So what happened now, after that, the response is Qatar calls for an Arab Islamic summit emergency meeting. Okay. We're talking about Qatar. We're talking about Saudi Arabia, not the European, but the Arab unit, like all those major leaders. I could pull it up, but we're talking.

1:22:18 But I had a list of everyone that was involved. And they're pretty pissed off. and they actually called for Trump to reign in Israel, even stating that America has leverage over Israel. It's time for America to use that leverage. Now, this is what I mean by Israel using us as a show opponent, for example, or a show of force saying, you know what? We can do what we want because we have America in our corner. That also put us in a bind with Qatar because we have the largest military base, U.S. military base in the Middle East hosted by Qatar. We're an ally of Qatar. We're also an ally of Israel.

1:22:59 So you can see where everybody's kind of stuck going, what Israel did was wrong. We should retaliate. But instead of doing so, they know they can't hold them accountable because the U.S. is also in Israel's corner. And now we're sitting here. We got to look at this and go, okay, how do we handle this? Really? No one's really said anything, which is crazy. No one's ever didn't really make a statement. Because we're in a precarious position because what if Qatar and everybody decided, you know what, we're done with this whole bullshit. Israel's unhinged. The U.S. isn't doing anything about it. We lose our base, right? We lose our relationships in the Middle East with all these other nations and states, which is not what we need. So that's one scenario that is extremely recent.

1:23:43 And on top of that, right now we've got 250 legislators or people who make our laws, basically, and all the representatives in Israel at a summit. Yeah, that's ridiculous. All right, so I'm going to rewind back for a minute just to kind of pad the case that I'm getting ready to make. And I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just going to try to present an option. What I think would be a good option. But first, I want to just kind of make a point. So, we know, last October 7th. It was more brutal than our 9-11. And per Kappa, it was 10 to 12 times the size of our 9-11.

1:24:28 Because they only have 10 million people. We have 33 times more people than them. Okay, so it goes to 10 to 12 times. So, I don't know if you remember the response from George Bush, George W. Bush, but he said, when the buildings got attacked, you're either with us or against us. Period. So this is 10 to 12 times more people, a lot more brutal, burning babies in barrels, cutting heads off, all that stuff. And, you know, so I think that they are within their realm of rights to go after these people however they want to. They're a sovereign nation. Now, you have a very good point.

1:25:10 they should not be able to go after all these people with with people thinking oh well we can't do anything about them because the united states is gonna we shouldn't be drug in if they're haphazard or whatever they're doing because we weren't dragging anybody else when and when we said you know you're either with us or you're against us we were going after so what i think is going back to making an america first a business deal is instead of providing these embargoes or you know, weapons and all this stuff. You sell it to them. You're selling another, another sovereign nation who is an ally, but not one you're going to go to war for whatever they want and let them deal with it.

1:25:51 Hey, I'm Switzerland. I don't have none to do with what they do, but they do have the rights to buy weapons from us. You deal with them. So I don't disagree with that. And that's what a lot of people want. A lot of people want us to be hands off and just let Israel handle their shit and whatever happens happens. Exactly. But the October 7th thing agreed, and I also say that Israel should hunt down Hamas and eradicate them, period. The sticking point here, though, in what just happened wasn't whether or not Israel had a right to go after Hamas. It's that they did so while violating the sovereignty of another nation that, by the way, is not a terrorist nation and is an ally of the U.S.

1:26:38 who also hosts our largest military base. I mean, that's where CENTCOM is operated out of, right? They're at Central Command, period. And so if you're going to assert our relationships and put us in between you, Israel, and this other nation, just because you feel you have the right to hunt down Hamas, what does it mean for the U.S.? Like, how do we save face in that instance? and how do we repair those relationships to keep our strategic military position in the area So that the sticking point here Because also Qatar does host Hamas leadership arm or their political arm And that was done intentionally as a way to communicate with them.

1:27:26 And from what I read and heard that it was really at the request of the United States. And this has been going on since 2012. So Israel knows this. Everybody knows this. Qatar is basically the mediator out there is what they are. They're kind of like the Switzerland. Even though many people argue that they harbor and fund terrorists, but it's really Iran. So that was a sticking point here. For me, the argument isn't that Israel doesn't have a right, because they do. The U.S. definitely demonstrates the right. Absolutely. No one's going to tell us what to do. And I think Israel can too. But it's not like we're going to go invade England and tell England to fuck off and launch an attack and blow a building up because we believe the terrorist is sitting in that building in England.

1:28:10 But Israel is doing those things, which puts us in a weird position. Well, there's a couple of things here. So we went back to 2012. The U.S. was aware that they were in Qatar, so was Israel. Nobody could have anticipated a 13-year-old later people coming in with rocket launchers on parachutes to beat the Iron Dome trained by Iran. Nobody could have anticipated that. So you can't really say, well, yeah, they knew they're there and they know that they're probably the head on the snake and the reason that their people are dead. So my thing is, is if you are a country and you are hosting an enemy combatant, then in essence, you're an enemy combatant of the country who's going after their enemy. Right. But they, they, they are the appointed mediator is why that was going on.

1:29:02 It wasn't because they were just doing it. If that, if they weren't, if they weren't a mediator state, for example, if they weren't the mediator there to handle and host these relations and negotiations, then I see, I see your point for sure. What my point is Israel has a right. Should they not have consulted both the U S and Qatar to say, Hey, we know they're there. We know that it's not just the leadership or the political arm here. It's the actual terrorists that are actually down on the ground doing all this shit. They didn't do any of that. They didn't go to these governments. They didn't go to Qatar and say, you know, what can we do? We need to make this happen. Well, let me ask you something. Do you ever let your left hand know what your right hand is doing? Is the Mossad going to tell another government that may have agents that are paid off in the government that can give them a heads up that they're coming after them?

1:29:51 Yeah. I understand that point. It's just, again, we have a strategic relationship with Qatar. And that relationship has also been said to be one of the more important partnerships that is a non-NATO ally in the Middle East, just as Israel is. And so, I think that's really my concern, and what the point is. Your concern is America's relationship with Qatar, not Israel. We can just put them out there. No, no, no. That's what I'm talking about. And what What I'm saying is what Israel did, let me backtrack. We're an ally of Israel and everybody knows we backed them to no end. Right. We're also an ally of Qatar, right?

1:30:33 Yeah. Qatar hosts our largest military base in the entire Middle East. That's how important the relationship is. So we're in the middle right now because everybody knows we're going to back Israel, but Israel is so emboldened and they know that we backed them. And then they pull these things like they just did with Qatar. And then the U.S. is in the middle to try to repair this. Because now, after this Arab emergency meeting that Qatar called, they're all calling on Trump now to reign in Israel a bit. How do we reign in another sovereign nation? And isn't it disrespectful? My thing is, okay, well, we're allies of both.

1:31:15 I didn't realize we were such big allies of Qatar. I've always thought that we were somewhat of a terrorist. I didn't realize we were such big allies. But if we're allies of both, okay, you know what? You got two choices. You can take it or you can go to war. If you want to go to war, we'll save you the weapons. If you want to do this, Israel will save you the weapons. You're both our friends. Y'all fight it out. It's a business transaction. It's America first. We're not going to get into all the ins and outs. We didn't authorize it. You didn't let us know. If you need weapons, let us know. If you need weapons, let us know. We're not giving weapons away anymore. You can buy them. Right. I think most people in America would like to start seeing that. They would like to see the Middle East just handle itself. They really would. Yeah, we got to stop overthrowing these dictators.

1:31:57 And it ends up being a vacuum of terror cells that come up and stuff. I mean, we don't know. Democracy is probably not going to work in the Middle East. Yeah. For the most part. Maybe in some parts if we stay hands-on. But look how quickly Afghanistan went back. And we spent a trillion dollars in 20 years over there and trained their military. Yeah, I think we should mind our own business as well when it comes to it. I mean, not all cultures are compatible. What works for us does not work for everybody. And we've got to understand that. And, you know, culture and everything about a nation is really based on geography and what they go through. A lot of times their environment. And then you also throw in the religion, the religious factor.

1:32:40 Islam and Christianity are not compatible. Sorry, it's not going to work. And if a lot of what we do and our laws are based on Christianity, which people try to ignore and say it isn't, but it is. How are we going to impose that on a country that practices Islam? You are speaking at the root. You got to the root of that one, buddy. It's not going to happen. Yeah. You know, so I do think we need to keep our nose out of things. You know, we do. We need to be vigilant, though. Terrorism isn't the product of the U.S.'s involvement. And everybody who says that is a fucking idiot. And I don't care how people feel about it. I've done the history. Terrorism has been a 1,400-year tool used by Islam, period. and they've done it against their own people for not being extreme enough in their practice of Islam.

1:33:22 So people may hear this. They may disagree with me. I've already gotten beat up on the internet by having Dan Burmawi on the show, and I can care less. Truth is truth. It's what it is. Absolutely. We don't have to intertwine everywhere. We could respect these nations. We respect these cultures, but it doesn't mean we have to be integrated and amalgamated in every single facet of what we do. We just don't. Absolutely. I mean, parliament works for some people. We'll look over and you're, it works. It's worked for a long time. Absolutely. You know, I mean, you have to respect another sovereign nation. And I think a lot of problems happened when we stopped respecting sovereign nations. And we started strong-arming, you know, countries. We even strong-armed Switzerland, I think about 10 or 15 years ago.

1:34:05 We went in there. Their banks said they had been holding in their vaults stuff since World War II. So the U.S. goes in there. I don't even remember that. You remember that? No, I don't. No, this was a while back. It's probably 15, maybe 15 years ago or so. So the U.S. goes in because it used to be you could take as much money as you wanted into the country of Switzerland. And people took suitcases. And the banks did not share any. I mean, Swiss banks were all about privacy. So what happened was is that the U.S. goes in and says, we know that you are holding a bunch of historic artwork and things in your vaults. you owe the Jewish people, I think it was $7 billion.

1:34:48 And if you don't pay the $7 billion and give us access and all the information on every American who has a bank, a bank account in Switzerland, in a Swiss bank, then you are not going to be able to bank with the world banks anymore. And we threatened Switzerland. And they did. That's crazy. They flipped. They said, here, here. Wow. That's fucking ridiculous. that's ridiculous yeah I'm with you man America first we need to get back to the basic principles of the constitution we need to stop over convoluting them with with legal speak and making them pretty much clear cut and dry I agree with you and even with our relationships with others around the world our geopolitical relationships we need to be better partners I believe you know now that being said NATO's a mess we've always carried it we've paid over 75 72 75% of NATO every year and carried everybody, period.

1:35:47 And people are going to argue that NATO is really America, whatever. But you can't call on us if you're not going to pay your end either. It's not a partnership. It's not how it works. But yeah, I agree with a lot of what you say. I would encourage people to check your website out and listen to your podcast. Why don't you just let everybody know about that, where they can find you and everything that you have to offer so they can interact with your content? Okay. You don't put it in the Patriot Party podcast. You just put it in the Patriot Party. We're on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and then we have in the description or on the social media sites themselves, there's links to all the other social media.

1:36:34 We have social media going on everywhere. our new website which is thepatriotparty.us all lowercase all one word thepatriotparty.us it's got a link to our merch store as well as our other social media and our podcast and it really explains the movement so you won't have any questions or if you do you can contact us through the website social media and there's an email on there truthandconstitution at gmail.com you can contact us if you have any questions, but we've laid it out and the podcast is on the website. So if you don't want to go to the podcast, you just go to the website and you can listen to the podcast off the website.

1:37:14 We run it to the website. So, and it's, it's all on one page. You just scroll down. Very easy to use, very user-friendly. So thepatriotparty.us, all lowercase. Yeah. And I'll, I'll have, I'll have a, I'll have you on our guest page. And then I'll also have your links and whatnot attached to that. So if anyone goes to the website, worldofblazepodcast.com, then they'll be able to see Matt Davis there as a guest. And then once you're there, you can click all these links to what he was just talking about as well. So hopefully that gives people a few places where they can make it easy to find you. But man, appreciate the conversation. It was informative. It was fun. I appreciate the back and forth little pushback.

1:37:56 That's good to have once in a while. I hate living in a world where you're just kind of in a bubble. and everyone's just like, yeah, yeah, yeah. You know, that's not having true discourse. So I appreciate all that. Hope to, yeah, I think we'll have you back down the road. We'll stay in touch, all right? Absolutely. Thank you so much. Yeah, man. Thank you so much. Thank you for taking the time. I want to taste your content, hold your breath and feel the tension. Devils hide behind redemption. Honesty is a one-way gate to hell. Bye.