Biden’s Inflation ‘Time Bomb’, Iowa Bans CRT in Schools, Pregnant Arkansas Woman Sues Bad Popo

Economists and market analysts fear a ticking inflation “time bomb” may be around the corner that could prolong the post-pandemic recovery – where did all the spending come from? Iowa bans critical race theory with new legislation aimed at prohibiting certain teachings in classrooms. Bad police officer Rodney Dunn and his police department face lawsuit over insane traffic stop.  ​

And more! Join criminal defense lawyer Robert F. Gruler in a discussion on the latest legal, criminal and political news, including:​

🔵 Deutsche Bank warns of a global “time bomb” over rising inflation fears. ​
🔵 Economists and central bankers are expressing concern over $5 trillion dollars’ worth of pandemic-era stimulus which is reaching historic levels.​
🔵 Did you hear? Security experts claims more than $400 billion dollars of pandemic stimulus may have been stolen.​
🔵 Recap – what is inflation? Ronald Reagan called it a “violent mugger” and “deadly” – he is right!​
🔵  “Shrinkflation” can be found everywhere you look – a few examples.​
🔵 Deutsche Bank report provides an alternative to the central forecasts and scenarios, and identifies government is prioritizing economic policy on reaching social goals.​
🔵 The report calls the coming higher inflation the “toughest battle in 40 years.”​
🔵 Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signs law targeting critical race theory into law.​
🔵 The new legislation, House File 802, takes effect on July 1, 2021.​
🔵 Although the new legislation does not directly reference Critical Race Theory, it does ban certain teachings, including the concepts of systemic racism.​
🔵 Review of Governor Reynold’s signing statement and the legislation, Iowa House File 802 to see what the law contains.​
🔵 Meanwhile, in the psychology department, Dr. Donald Moss pens an article in a healthcare journal that describes “whiteness” as a malignant, parasitic-like condition.”​
🔵 Police department sued after assaulting 38-year0old Nicole Harper by ramming her vehicle during a traffic stop.​
🔵 Senior Cpl. Rodney Dunn “willfully and wantonly engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct”, according to the complaint.​
🔵 Filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the lawsuit seeks damages for compensatory and punitive damages. ​
🔵 We review the dashcam video from Ofc. Dunn’s cruiser, where we see the assault / traffic stop occur.​
🔵 Your questions from WatchingTheWatchers.Locals.com after each segment!​

COMMUNITY & LIVECHAT QUESTIONS: ​

💬 https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/​

💎 CRYPTO LATEST: Darkside Hackers Ransom Seized by FBI Seizure Warrant & Affidavit- https://youtu.be/rjs128IlTHA​

🧠 GUMROAD: https://www.gumroad.com/robertgruler​

Channel List:​

🕵️‍♀️ Watching the Watchers with Robert Gruler Esq. LIVE - https://www.rrlaw.tv​

🎥 Robert Gruler Esq. - https://www.youtube.com/c/RobertGruler​

📈 Robert Gruler Crypto - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkUI3vAFn87_XP0VlPXSdA​

👮‍♂️ R&R Law Group - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfwmnQLhmSGDC9fZLE50kqQ​

SAVE THE DATE – UPCOMING VIRTUAL EVENTS!​

📌 Saturday, June 12 @ 12-2 pm / Noon ET – Law Enforcement Interaction Training Live Virtual Seminar with Robert (via Zoom)​
📌 Saturday, June 26, 2021 @ 7-8 pm ET – WTW Locals Community Monthly Virtual Meet-up (via Zoom)​

🥳 Events exclusive to Locals.com community supporters – learn more at https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com/ ​

Connect with us:​

🟢 Locals! https://watchingthewatchers.locals.com​
🟢 Podcast (audio): https://watchingthewatchers.buzzsprout.com/​
🟢 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/robertgruleresq​
🟢 Robert Gruler Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/RobertGrulerEsq/​
🟢 Miss Faith Instagram https://www.instagram.com/faithie_joy/​
🟢 Clubhouse: @RobertGrulerEsq @faith_joy​
🟢 Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/robertgruleresq​
🟢

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Hello, my friends. And welcome back to yet. Another episode of watching the Watchers alive. My name is Robert Mueller. I am a criminal defense attorney here at the RNR law group in the always beautiful and sunny Scottsdale Arizona, where my team and I over the course of many years have represented thousands of good people facing criminal charges. Throughout our time in practice, we have seen a lot of problems with our justice system. I'm talking about misconduct involving the police. We have prosecutors behaving poorly. We have judges not particularly interested in a little thing called justice, and it all starts with the politicians, the people at the top, the ones who write the rules and pass the laws that they expect you and me to follow, but sometimes have a little bit of difficulty doing so themselves. That's why we started this show called watching the Watchers so that together with you, your help, we can shine that beautiful[inaudible] of accountability and transparency back down upon our system with the hope of finding justice. And we're grateful that you are here and with us today because we've got a lot to get into. We're going to be talking about inflation. What inflation, this isn't a monetary policy show. What the heck are we talking about inflation for? Well, because it all starts with the money. Our monetary policy is the backbone of everything else that we bicker about a lot in this country. And we've talked about a lot of the problems over this last year, talking about the pandemic, a lot of these summer unrest and a lot of the turmoil that we've seen throughout the country. Well, we've done a lot as a country to mitigate some of those harms. Some of those ills in our society that stemmed the consequences of some of the unrest, some of the pandemic response. And so now we look back and the bill is coming due and economist and market analysis. And analysts are a little bit concerned that maybe we are facing what they're calling a time bomb. Remember this thumbnail that we had a time bomb out there. So we're going to be talking about inflation because there is some interesting stuff happening here. And we want to make sure that we're caught up to speed. We're going to talk about Deutsche bank. There are, they are forecasting now that the next 40 years or so are going to be trying times for a lot of our politicians. So we want to see what's going on there. We're going to do a quick crash course on inflation, what that means and how that works, because it is going to be something that I think we're going to be hearing about for the foreseeable future. Then we're going to change gears. We're going to talk about Iowa because the governor there, Kim Reynolds just signed into law, a bill called house file 8 0 2, going to take effect July one, coming up a couple of weeks. And it is banning critical race theory from being taught in Iowa schools. So I have a copy of the bill house file 8 0 2. We're going to read through it. We're going to look at what is actually in there. So it doesn't, it doesn't say, you know, this is a banning critical race theory, but it gives us some pretty clear guidance on what type of material are allowed and not allowed. What type of curriculum is prohibited from being taught in local schools there? So, interesting stuff we're going to talk about then there's this new article that is floating around right now that was written by a doctor named Donald Maass. And he, you know, he's not real happy with whiteness. He calls it a malignant parasitic light condition. So I didn't know I had that, but we're going to learn a lot more about what's going on with that. So we're going to hear from Dr. Donald Maass, whatever that means now, whatever his, his, uh, analysis means. We have, uh, the abstract of the paper. So we're going to take a look at that. Then lastly, we've got a bad Popo. We got to talk about this guy. His name is, uh, senior corporal, Rodney Dunn, and he was conducting a traffic stop. So-called on a highway, dark at night. The driver of the vehicle, her name was Nicole Harper, 38 years old and pregnant. And suddenly this cop is not happy with how she's pulling over and decides he's going to take matters into his own hands. So we're going to show you the body camera video or the dash cam footage on this situation and talk about this case because Nicole Harper has filed a lawsuit against that officer and against the city or the, the police department claiming damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages. And when we go through the body camera, you'll understand what we're talking about. So we've got a lot to get into a couple of quick things before we dive into it all. I want to remind you, there are some nice links down below. We have a crypto channel where I just a couple of days ago talked about the dark side hackers. Remember they were the hacking group that took control of the pipeline out on the east coast. And so the FBI went in and tracked down their money, their Bitcoin following it from one wallet to another, eventually seized it$2.3 million. So we go through the affidavit and the search warrant. If you haven't checked that video out, I'd encourage you to go do that as well as subscribe to some of the other channels down below. We talk a lot about Arizona law on our R and R law group channel. And we love to help good people. Who've been charged with crimes in Arizona, get the representation they need. So if you know anybody in the state of Arizona that needs help with that, be sure to send them our way, couple of quick things. We have a law enforcement interaction training, which is coming up on Saturday, which I'm actually very excited about. So I was working on the presentation this morning and I found this clip of an officer that is supposed to be telling the young ins, young children, young kids, just getting their driver's licenses, how to drive their vehicles. He's giving them advice, you know, keep your registration handy, make sure you're respectful to the officer and so on and so forth. But then I, and I agree with everything he says, tell the last little bit there. So I have that clip. It's going to, we're going to start off the law enforcement interaction training on Saturday morning at 12 noon, Eastern 9:00 AM Pacific. And of course that is free for people over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com, which is where you can sign up for that. We also have a monthly meetup coming up. We also are going to be taking questions over there. There's a live chat right now. So as we go through the show, be sure to get your questions in. If you are not able to make it to the law enforcement interaction training, I am going to post up the recording for locals subscribers, and it will also be available for sale at Gumroad, which you can find my link down in the description down there below. All right? So that is enough of the self promotion there let's get into the news of the day. 2020 was a heck of a year. The entire country had to make some pretty serious adjustments to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. And then to add on top of that, we had a lot of just social unrest in general, we had Antifa, we had BLM, we had social unrest, we had the Capitol hill insurrection. We had a lot of different animosity and vitriol all around the country. And so many people have sort of been equating what we went through, like an explosion, like society is sort of wobbly right now, due to the fact that so much is sort of uncertain and different people have called it different things. But now that we're looking back on the last year or the years, 2021, and we're sort of doing a retrospective hindsight, taking a look and saying what happened there and what are we going to have to do in the future to deal with some of the consequences that we're still feeling, right? This is a long-term thing that we're going to be going through. The domino effect is still cascading down. And so now economists and market analyst are saying, whoa, wait a minute. We just did a whole lot of stuff. This last year, we need to analyze the current state of affairs. So I want to show you this article. There's a bank here called Deutsche bank. They are warning now of what they call a global time bomb coming due to rising inflation. And so we're going to talk about inflation here. This was published here by Jeff Cox a couple of days ago, June 7th. And what they are saying is that this is a very, very explosive thing that is coming down the line. So we're going to talk about inflation here in a little bit, but I just want to frame out how this works and why this has become the issue that it has become. So if you recall, Joe Biden has been spending a lot of money. We've talked a lot about it on this channel. Very frequently. We have a trillion here, a trillion there 900 billion here, 800 billion there ever since he took office. There's been a lot of spending. And very recently we talked about one of the limitations on that spending. It sounds like their infrastructure talks between one of the senators from West Virginia sort of came to a screeching halt, but they're looking for more money, right? They're spending and spending and spending like crazy. In fact, the numbers are so high. I want to show you this summary here from Ben wick over at business insider, he says the$5 trillion in pandemic era stimulus 5 trillion. Okay. See, that's a big number. There is more than triple the great recession era aid and suggest a permanent shift in the way that Congress spends. Okay. So you're going to be imagining that 5 trillion, right? Yeah, of course. It's going to be three times, whatever the great recession era is because that happened back during the great recession. That was a long time ago, but I'm guessing this is all inflation adjusted. And so they're telling us that what our government is doing is very, very expensive. At least in historical context, we have a note down here, passage of Joe Biden's stimulus plan brings the total pandemic relief tab to 5 trillion. Okay. And that's Joe Biden's. Now this was published on March 10th, 2020. It was like two months ago, three months ago, right? March 10th, we're in June. So it's a lot of spending and in historical context, this is something that is, is even more, more than triple, not more than the great recession era, more than triple the great recession era. And we all sort of recall what happened there and how the, you know, the w the, the, the mega change that happened in our country, industrially as society store started to sort of deal with that led to FDR and a lot of expansion of the government throughout the entire infrastructure of our nation. And it's not just overcame. Now, many pit places are opening back up. Arizona's largely open. Other states are reopening up. People are saying the economy is coming back. This is why we're seeing some supply chain disruptions. This is why gas is so expensive, or lumber is so expensive, or you can't go buy a new house here in Arizona, because prices are through the roof. Everything's doubled and tripled. So why is that happening? If everything is over? Well, it's not, in fact, the government is still paying money out. Look at this article that came out yesterday more than 2.3 million new stimulus checks have been sent out, right? A new set of stimulus checks up to$1,400 per person has been sent. The government announced on Wednesday, Wednesday, June 9th, 2.3 million people got new checks,$1,400 a piece that's more than 2.3 million payments representing over 4.2 billion it's on its way. Figure includes plus up payments to people who are, do newer additional money. Now that their tax returns have been processed. So, you know, more printing more money. And the reason why this is problematic, we're going to get to this. But you know, this is not necessarily about not helping people. Okay. There are people, there are poor people. There are people who are dire straits as a result of the pandemic and the consequences of a lot of what our government has imposed upon them. Right? The pandemic was one thing. The virus was one thing. The government's reaction was something entirely different. And there are a lot of people that are hurt from the former, and a lot of people who were hurt from the latter until we got to take care of both groups of people. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the government printing gobs of money. And what does that do to the very people that they intend to help? So now let's think about those same two buckets of people, the people that the government hurt by their response and the people that the pandemic hurt by printing a bunch of money and giving them a temporary stimulus here, we're going to see how that might have long cascading effects that ultimately hurt them worse than it would be. Had they not gotten the stimulus in the first place? So let's take a quick look, we're going to win. We're going to dive deep into inflation here in a minute. And I've got some graphics and some charts. I'm not an economist. We're going to try to make this moderately interesting when we're talking about monetary policy. But before we do, we're going to put a pin in that because another story came out today that we're just going to pause. So put a pin in the inflation stuff. Don't forget inflation coming back to that puppy. But before we do speaking about all this government spending, there's a new story that says, well, more, most of that, or at least, you know, 400 billion of it may have gone to fraudulent claims. Axios is reporting that half of the pandemics unemployment money may have been stolen. Oh my goodness. And you're going to notice this may, right? We're going to come back to that says criminals may have stolen as much of half of the unemployment benefits. The U S has been pumping out over the last year. Why it matters? Well, unemployment fraud during the pandemic could easily reach$400 billion. Okay. Now I know when we're talking about government spending that it's easy to get lost in the zeros and the BS and the ends. And it's all just very complicated because they just sort of throw it around. Like it's meaningless. It almost doesn't mean anything, right? 400 billion worth. I don't know. What's the national budget every year. A lot more than that. So that is that reasonable. Is that a lot? Is that a rounding error? Is that tip money? I mean, 400 billion certainly sounds like a lot to me, but when we spend, you know, 900 billion on Lord knows what that's multiple times a year. Maybe it's not that big of a, of an issue anyways. All right. So it's a lot of money, but we don't know how much we're going to put it in context here in a minute, when the pandemic hit states, weren't prepared. They all knew that fraud was inevitable, but they decided that getting the money out to people who are desperately in need of it was more important than making sure all of them were genuine. Right. So they know, Hey, they know that they're in competent, that they're full. It's a bureaucratic mess. They're going to be just throwing money at people. So they figure there's going to be fraud, but that's okay. It's better to get the money out the door. And there's some, there's some actual economic arguments. I don't think that they're particularly persuasive, but if you're a Keynesian economist, then you may be somebody who says, well, it doesn't really matter what we do with the money. As long as we were just pumping it out into the economy, giving it out to the people they're going to spend it one way or the other. Either there's even arguments that even the criminal, you know, sort of black markets are part of the economy in some way, because they're funneling transactions that are creating profits for people that are then redirected back into the main economy. And so the fact that, you know, 400 billion may have gone to criminal enterprises. Some people might argue us, not that big of a deal. The other people might say, well, that, that is a pretty big deal. Because if these were places like China and Nigeria, Russia, and elsewhere, that were siphoning off these funds that doesn't come back to the American economy that goes out to other, to other nation states or to political cronies who are going to use it in ways that actually don't benefit the American economy. So, you know, there there's that argument. I don't buy it now by the numbers. So when people say, oh, but this just says may, right. I saw this posted all over Twitter today. It doesn't say that they were stolen. Rob. It says that they may have been stolen. So now we have to sort of weigh the experts. You know, are we going to listen to Congress, Elizabeth Warren on the banking committee? Or are we going to listen to this guy? Blake hall, CEO of id.me, says a service that tries to prevent this kind of fraud tells Axios America's lost more than 400 of fraudulent claims as much as 50% of all unemployment monies might have been stolen. So he's a CEO of a company that deals with this stuff. All right, wait, is he the only one? No Haywood. Talco the CEO of Lexus nexus risk solutions. He estimates that at least 70% of the money stolen by imposters ultimately left the country. Most of it, most of it ending up in the hands of China, Nigeria, Russia, and elsewhere. These groups are definitely backed by the state. So his are foreign governments ripping off the country. Much of the rest of the money was stolen by street gangs, domestically who made up a greater share of the fraudsters in recent months. Now they asked the treasury department, treasury department here declined to comment on these estimates, right? So do you expect them to give you some explanation? Of course not there the treasury department. Now, if you just do some basic math on this, everybody knows I can't do math on this channel, which is why I went over to Wolfram alpha. Let's just plug some numbers in shadowy. Let's take a look. So$400 billion that were stolen. We have 155 conservatively conservatively. Uh, I'm sorry. Generously. Last I, I, number I pulled up was from 2018. I think the numbers, there were 145 million or so taxpayers. So we take 400 billion divided by 155 million. We get$2,580 and 65 cents my friends. So if you paid your taxes and you believe this, that maybe a good portion of, of all of these trillions, all of the$5 trillion, maybe a portion of that got siphoned off. Well, if you want to just round it, let's say let's say 400 billion out of the 5 trillion total, your bill, your portion of that about$2,500. So you're welcome. Thanks for paying your taxes. It's going to good use. We promise. Keep going, keep, keep paying them. All right. So now that we know what a kind of joke it is and how much money we're talking about, that was the point of the 400,000,000,400 billion divided by every taxpayer is$2,500. Okay. We're talking about 5 trillion that was spent under Biden. According to the CNBC article, a lot of money. I didn't do the math on this, but divide the 5 trillion now by the 155 million taxpayers. Oh, all right. Well, they're just going to keep printing the money because they can't generate it. So let's talk about this now. What is inflation? This article put together by Kimberly Amadeo. We're viewed here by Michael J. Boyle. I liked this definition a lot. She says inflation, how is it measured and manage? And why? Why is inflation one of the Fed's top priorities? Well, let's take a look. Inflation reduces the purchasing power of each unit of currency. Okay? So each unit of currency think of this like a dollar, right? Inflation reduces the purchasing power of each dollar makes it worth less. This leads to increases in the prices of goods or services over time. Because if your dollar is worthless, you're not going to be able to buy the same amount of goods. So if you go to the store today, you buy a pound of beef, it costs you a or whatever, whatever you get for it. And tomorrow you want to spend the same dollar, but you get less than a pound of beef because your dollar doesn't buy as much. Or if you're going to spend$1, you get less than the same amount of beef that you got the last time you bought it. We all are sort of seeing this happen around us. This is an economics term. This article says, which means you have to spend more to fill your gas tank and buy a gallon of milk or get a haircut. In other words, it increases your cost of living. Okay. It's almost like attacks. It's almost like everything that you do has an additional cost. And what does that, where does that cost come from? Because the government is inflating the currency and why are they doing that? It's to pay for all of their expenses. It's for them to make sure that when they have a$900 billion budget problem, or when they need to, you know, more stimulus for another 2.3 million Americans, that they have the money to do it. They're inflating the currency that gets trickled down to all of us in the cost. Our cost of living it's like a tax across the board. So let's keep that in mind, us inflation, this article says, has reduced the value of the dollar. Compare the use dollars value to date with that in the past. So as prices rise, your money buys less. We're going to run through some examples of this here in a minute. For that reason, it can reduce your standard of living over time. So if so, and so let's think about this. Now, if the government is saying to people, we're going to give you a bunch of stimulus and we say, great, we love that money. We all need it. We're in the middle of a pandemic. You shut everything down. You, you should give us some money. So then, then they say, okay, great, but we don't have it. So we're going to print it all. And then funnel that down to you. Now, what that has done is it's increased the monetary supply. It's inflated the money. And what that does for you is it increases your cost of goods because every single dollar you have is now worthless, which means in the long term, you are in a worst position. You may have gotten that$2,300 or the$1,400 or whatever it is. But when you add up your, every time you go and you fill up your gas tank, buy a gallon of milk, go buy some bread, go out to eat. Everything goes up three to 5%, let's say. And that adds up to a lot more than the$1,400 does, but then they'll walk around and scream at everybody that, oh, we're only going to raise the taxes on the rich. Meanwhile, they're printing a ton of money that the middle class and the poor pay for, and they call themselves humanitarians. Ronald Reagan was right when he said this down here at the bottom, he said, inflation is as violent as a mugger, as frightening as an armed robber and as deadly as a Hitman, it's the silent tax that we just sort of silently absorb. It's a huge problem. And there is a ton of it coming down the pike. And the reason as we're discussing this, we've got to ask ourselves why, right? Why are they doing this? Is it just for pandemic stimulus? Is this just for economic recovery or are they transitioning into a new system of order? I want to show you what I'm talking about. A new method of using the monetary supply, using money and inflation to promote social goals, to achieve political ends. This is the argument that is being made by Deutsche bank. We're going to take a look at it first and foremost. Let's take a look at, make sure we understand what inflation looks like. So this is over from Investopedia. You see that there and inflation, he says back in 1970s, all you needed here was one quarter, right? One token, whatever this orange, this gold token is 1971 token buys you one cup of coffee, but then you go up to 1980s because they printed a bunch more tokens. Now, suddenly that one token, that's not worth one token anymore. So you need two tokens to buy the same cup of coffee. And the same thing happens every year. Then the monetary, the, the dollar is so inflated. When you go up to 2019. Now the average cost of a cup of coffee of supports. We all know this is a dollar 59, right? And so now it takes you, what is this? 6, 6, 7 coins to buy the same coffee, right? So it's 2019. It goes up significantly. So we know what this means. We see this everywhere we go, we see prices going up. We see the value of the dollar going down. Gas is up. Milk is up. Everything's up, Lumber's up, copper's up. All the commodities markets are up. Everybody's paying for that. And so now what the question is, is this transitory, is this something that is going to just sort of fly by the night? Well, we've we know that this is something that sticks around right here is something that you may have seen at your local restaurant, right? The size of the meat, Patty has gone down, right? You get less for the same amount of money. You may recall this, right. It's called shrink flection. All your products are in your house are kind of shrinking up a little bit, right? You have this toilet paper member of the great toilet paper saga crisis of 2020 other going down a little bit. Products are just shrinking up. Deodorant. Old spices has shrunken up tide know a laundry detergent has gone down. There was the Cadbury creme eggs. Remember that that guy from the office, Ryan went on somebody's, you know, late night talk show and held up the Cadbury egg, whatever that was, everything is shrinking because they want'cause. They, they, they want consumers to continue to buy the products, but they don't want to raise their prices because if a consumer, because consumers are price conscious. So they go and they say, well, you know that that gallon of milk costs$2. Well, now it costs, you know, now it's, it's, it's going up for the same gallon, something like that. You can't really shrink because we know what it is. But these other products you can old spice. You just kind of go from, you know, three ounces to 2.4 ounces and sell it for the same price rather than raising the price. So people go, why is it getting more expensive? I can't afford that. Now. We kind of have a good understanding what inflation is. I probably beat that horse to death, but let it, let us go into some analysis. Now, here is a little bit of background on Deutsche bank. So I want to show you why or what this organization is doing. So Deutsche bank they've been around forever. You can see they are, you know, massive organization. So they were founded March in 1869 and Georgia bank means, you know, German bank. It's a, it's a German bank. It was founded in Berlin. 1870 was a specialist bank for financing foreign trade and promoting German experts. Exports. It's been around forever. Lot of controversy, lot of you know, world war II history here and there. If you look up there Wikipedia, you'll see just, you know, lots of issues with, with all sorts of stuff. As you would imagine for a company who's been around since the 1870s. Now you'll notice down here, revenue 24 billion in 2020. So it's, it's massive. We also have a, it looks like a total assets, maybe under management or total in total is$1.3 trillion in 2020. Okay. So the point of this is we're talking about$1.3 trillion. So they have a ton of money. This is not a government. This is a bank and they are doing some very serious analysis on inflation and how this all works and what is coming down the pike. And I wanted to point out this article and this organization, because they are different than kind of what everybody else is saying. If you listen to the fed, if you listen to all the bureaucrats in Washington today, and all of the elected officials around the world, they're meeting today at the G seven, and they're all sort of patting each other's backs, Hey, we did it together. Trump's out great. And they're all very excited with themselves that they've sort of survived. The pandemic problem is they are all in lockstep. And they're sort of making sure that the public believes that this narrative, that all of this inflation, all of this money spending is all transitory, meaning it's all going to come and go. Don't worry about it. Don't take a look at anything. Very consistent Deutsche bank is giving us an alternative perspective and they tell us that they say, Hey, listen, we're trying to spark a debate here. So take that for what it is. Let me show you this. We're not going to read through the entirety. I read the whole thing last night, outstanding read if you want to read it, but I would, I would encourage you to do that if you're interested in this stuff, but just a couple of highlights. So they posted this earlier this week, June 7th, 2021. And they are telling us that Deutsche bank, Deutsche bank research warrants of the impending threat of rising inflation. You're going to notice a couple of PhDs here. You got David Fulkert PhD group, chief economist economic research. We have John Reed, the MADEC research CPA research analyst, Deutsche bank says it's published its first paper. The new occasional that is titled what's in the tails is designed to further stimulate debate with our clients. Okay? So they're being a little bit contrarian ear by providing a reasonable alternative to the central forecasts and scenarios. Okay. U S government is telling us one thing, the fed Jerome Powell, all these people, very consistent up just transitory, not a big deal. A super pricing index is out today. 5%, not a big deal. It's all just transitory. So everybody out there don't freak out. Okay. Just keep going about your business. Yeah. You're going to see some prices come up a little bit, but they're going to go back down and the feds are not going to raise the interest rate. This is important for everybody, whether you know it or not, you know, th this is stuff that impacts small businesses impacts big businesses. And if we start seeing inflation rates raise, you've got student, you know, low people with student loans and the whole, the whole economy can, you know, come to a screeching halt with the adjustment of interest rates and with, you know, rapidly rising inflation. So this could be something that turns into a big deal or not. The whole thing could be overblown, but we're going to be up to speed on it either way. Now today's paper, they say is inflation. They are calling it now, nothing insignificant. They're saying this is the defining macro strategy of this decade, right? For all of 2020, because the government is changing, how they are approaching this issue of inflation. The government is, is seeking to change a lot of other things. We're going to talk about critical race theory in the next segment, we're going to talk about, we have talked about a lot of the justice reform, things that they want to get done. A lot of the educational systems that they want to reform the tax policies that they want to modify and change big changes across the board spending and not worrying about inflation is also on that list. So today's paper, as we said, there, they're noting. This is the biggest macro strategy of this decade. They're saying the very role of government in the economy is undergoing the biggest shift in 40 years, manifested in the receding fear of inflation and the rising levels of government debt that shaped a generation of policy makers. They don't care about printing money. They don't care about government debt. It's going out the window. They're saying this is important. Replacing it is the perspective that the economic policy should now prioritize broader social goals. Okay? All of this talk about inflation was for that line, replacing it is the perspective that economic policy should now prioritize broader social goals. Okay? At the expense something's got to give either inflation gives government debt gives, or we achieve these social goals, right at the heart of the research, the report debates, whether inflation is transitory or the pursuit of these social priorities by governments will mean inflation will have longer term and far reaching implications for the health of the global economy. Either way higher inflation is coming. Policymakers are about to face their toughest battle in 40 years, they say 40 years, right? So we, we know according to them, 40 then in the last 40 years, we had a lot of policymakers, economists market analysis analysts who would say things like we gotta be concerned about inflation. We got to be concerned about government debt because it makes your money unsound. It's a problem. And we see what it does with our boom and bust cycles. We have all these bubbles that pop up. It causes a lot of chaos in our economy, but inflation was always something to be managed. But now what Deutsche bank is saying, and this is not an American bank, this is a German bank. It's German bank in German.

Speaker 2: 29:43

The first word they are

Speaker 1: 29:45

Telling us that they are predicting that this inflation is going to be a problem. And that the governments don't care about it. That that is a lower priority. Inflation debt. Those are lower priorities than achieving

Speaker 2: 29:57

The social goals. So it's

Speaker 1: 29:59

More important to enact whatever justice they're working on that particular day. It's always changing. I can't keep track of it. Somebody is always fighting for some version of justice that suits their end. And in order to achieve that, we're talking about massive economic redistribution, massive social programs, massive government spending

Speaker 2: 30:15

At the expense of the fiscal sanity of the nation and its decision. Meaning all of the 5 trillion that we just saw being spent is not necessarily about responding to the pandemic. It's about changing

Speaker 1: 30:29

How the government spends money in the future. Forgetting

Speaker 2: 30:32

About inflation, forgetting about debt, which is why I started a crypto channel, by the way, it's down in the description below.

Speaker 1: 30:39

Okay. So a new report came out. What prompted all of this today? MarketWatch tells us that U S consumer prices soar. Again, they push CPI inflation, which is a consumer price index to a 13 year high folks, inflation surges as the economy recovers, but the fed insists it all. It's all temporary. So far wall street agrees. Now I read the financial times. They don't agree. And this article you're going to see, they're kind of flipping about it like, oh, I guess wall street doesn't care. Whatever the numbers, the cost of living surge, again in may, your costs are going up. It drove the pace of inflation to a 13 year height, 5% inflation, reflecting a broad increase in prices, confronting Americans as the economy, recovers SU consumer price index. It jumped 0.6%. Last month. Government said soaring used car prices accounted for one third of the overall increase, right? So the markets are ebbing and flowing right now. Economist pulled by the Dow Jones. They had forecasts look at, look at this economist previously, they were pulled by the Dow Jones and the wall street journal. They had forecast previously a 0.5%

Speaker 2: 31:42

An increase in the CPI. Hmm. Looking like it's a little bit higher than that. Doesn't it inflation

Speaker 1: 31:49

Surges to a 5% yearly rate. This is what it looks like. Historically the rate of inflation over the past year has escalated from 5%, from 4.2%, the prior month to put that at the highest level, since 2008.

Speaker 2: 32:01

Right. And do you know,

Speaker 1: 32:02

I was, I was in the workforce in 2008. I went to law school. I was gearing to go right into law school in 2008. And I was doing construction before. Uh, when I was in college, I was a political science undergrad, and I was

Speaker 2: 32:14

Doing construction, building, swimming pools,

Speaker 1: 32:17

Digging ditches, and the hot Arizona sun. I couldn't wait to go to law school and, uh, you know, get three years off

Speaker 2: 32:22

Of doing that. Coincidentally,

Speaker 1: 32:25

2007, 2008, we had that major market crash and stuff

Speaker 2: 32:28

Dried up. The, uh, swimming pool company just kind of went up anyways.

Speaker 1: 32:32

So it was a good transition. You know, it was a good timing for me that I was already transitioning, but I remember what happened when the markets got

Speaker 3: 32:40

Roiled construction. Right?

Speaker 1: 32:41

I was devastated. I mean, the entire, the entire economy was wrecked in 2008 for a long time. And you're going to notice that we're getting up to those levels again, aren't we right on this chart,

Speaker 3: 32:52

Recession inflation was, was massive at that time. We're getting right up there again. So

Speaker 1: 32:57

Just flagging that for everybody here. Now, before that, the last time inflation was this high, as it was now was in 1991, another closely watched measure of inflation that emits volatile food and energy energy also shot up 0.7. The 12 month rate claimed, uh, climbed from 3.8 to 3.8 from 3.3, this is a 29 year high. All right, core rate they say is a more accurate measure of underlying inflation, but soaring inflation stems in large part from reopening the economy. If price pressures don't ease in the near future, it's going to put more stress on the recovery. The federal reserve, the nation's inflation watch

Speaker 3: 33:33

The stock insists that price pressures will wane. Once the U S and the global economies were gaining nor more normal footing, the upsurge, they say

Speaker 1: 33:42

It's mostly tied to temporary shortages. They're going to fade away as supply catches up. The worry amongst some inflation Watchers though, is that part of the increase will get embedded in wages and prices will become harder to eradicate. The fed would have to raise interest rates sooner than it wants and risk short circuiting the economy in a way,

Speaker 3: 34:01

Worst case scenario. And they say the debate will play out over the next year for now. Wall street is

Speaker 1: 34:06

Isn't worrying much, right? Because the Fed's not worrying. Nobody cares. They're just printing more money. They're talking about more infrastructure. They just send it.

Speaker 3: 34:12

I got a bunch more money to a bunch of Americans who I'm sure some people need it, but probably

Speaker 1: 34:19

Not everybody. All right. We've got our questions coming in from watching the watchers.locals.com. And if you haven't already checked out the crypto channel, you know, there are, there are alternatives to the dollar that are being built. It might be a good time to take a look at it. So our first question from watching the watchers.locals.com is from Joe. Snow

Speaker 3: 34:38

Says, Joe, Joe says,

Speaker 1: 34:40

Love the show, love the community you've built here. Nice work. Thanks for everything you do. Well, thank you, Joe. What a nice comment. What a nice way to start the day. Thank you for that. We're grateful that you are here.

Speaker 3: 34:48

You're in a part of it. And, uh, we'll, I'll see you over there. We have want to

Speaker 1: 34:53

No says Robert griller, how high will inflation be at the 2022 elections, 20, 30% besides spending money. You don't have, how do you lower inflation and keep interest rates from going up, uh, and what to do? What do older people do about inflation? Those now making 15 an hour? Did they gain anything at all? Or did they lose it to higher prices? Yeah. So there are all sorts of charts. So if you go go and you actually read the full Deutsche bank article, they have all sorts of beautiful charts that I would have loved to spend, you know, two hours going over here, but it's, there's a lot. And they show you, right. If, if your dollar is worth less, you can actually go back and sort of, uh, make adjustments to hourly wages that, that are based on inflation. And the hourly wages right now are dipping way down, historically low because of this, because every right, because think about that, right? If somebody makes, I don't know,$20 an hour

Speaker 3: 35:47

And they are

Speaker 1: 35:49

There, that is not changing for them unless they get a raise. But the value of that, that$20 that they make for that hour, it doesn't go as far. So it's almost like a tax to them. Now that money is being diluted because it's, it's essentially being extracted out of them and taken by the government in the form of new printing that they're redistributing out to everybody else. So when people say, oh, I'm getting free money. No, you are not my friend. You might think you are, but you are not. Ultimately, if you are in a position where you're getting, you know, free money from the government, you know, on, on the grand scale of things and an additional$5 trillion that are being printed out of thin air, you got to share in that. Some people think that that$1 that's being spent by the government has a compound effect to be fair, right? The Keynesian say that they say that if the government gives you a dollar, well, then you go and you spend that and you create a dollar 20 of economic activity. And that dollar 20 is spent by somebody else. It creates another$2 of economic activity. And then now we've got this compounding effect that creates all this economic activity that we tax. And then we take that money back into the federal coffers, but that's their argument for it. Uh, I don't, I don't necessarily buy that. I don't understand how you have these sort of these, these booms and busts that you create

Speaker 3: 37:03

With these. All right. It's a great question. Thank you.

Speaker 1: 37:07

I want to know there's like six questions in there. I'm looking at them.

Speaker 3: 37:11

And I think we got, I think we got, we got the best one. Thank you for that.

Speaker 1: 37:16

All piggy number two is in the house as Rob inflation is coming because of the currency reset, getting away from the hands that bound us to keep us to debt. Since the civil war, hopefully inflation time period will be short. The globalist are causing this to happen. Well, it's the, it's the, the money managers, right? There's all the central bank conspiracy theories out there. I think Alex Jones is probably onto something on that Robert said or wants to know, says didn't the Russians and the Chinese and others need new computers to ransomware us

Speaker 3: 37:45

New computers. I don't know. I mean,

Speaker 1: 37:47

I need to have some pretty fast computers. I think they're working on a super computer like AI. It's going to take over the global over there. We'll see software nugget says there's never been a good check against unemployment fraud, nor does the government care because they're not spending their own money. Right, exactly. Right. Good point software nugget. They have no skins.

Speaker 3: 38:04

The game, nobody cares. And if, look, if a portion, let's say this, it looked if a portion of the money happens to disappear and nobody asks questions about it. And somebody knows about that pipeline. And

Speaker 1: 38:22

That person who knows about that pipeline might do some favors for a Congress person. And they sort of work together in this whole little sheet

Speaker 3: 38:29

Stick. Nobody cares because they're all

Speaker 1: 38:32

Part of the grift. The only person who was hurting the whole transaction happens to be the American taxpayer, which nobody cares about. Obviously now wants to know, says this is going to go on for a while. This is like them stealing value of Rob's money. Cause they are you're right. Once, you know, you're right. They are that's right. I work hard for it. And they just say, oh, it's like worth less than what it was previously. I earned it at a dollar. And then it's suddenly, it's less than a dollar big problem. Christina's here says how does inflation affect the used goods market? Good question. So if, uh, you know, so I'm not an economist here, but there is right now, there's a big issue with used cars. So, you know, the, the, the inflation, I think for those products are going through the roof. We saw that. I saw that in a lot of literature that there's sort of a supply side problem with new cars. So people are very interested in used cars. And so right now you have these markets that are fluctuating. So if the supply chain, which is, this is what the fed is saying. If the supply chain problem is now transitory, and we get over the chip shortage and we get over the commodity short, you know, the copper and steel, if they can figure all that out, then what the fed is saying is that in the longterm or in the very near short term, the markets will balance back out. New cars will start coming off of the assembly line again. So people will not be looking to buy old cars so much. And the old cars, the used car market will, will normalize again. So right now, those are, you know, are, are very high, but the point remains the same if across the board, the entire monetary supply, meaning the entire dollar, every single dollar in the country is now worth less than that's going to apply to basically everything that you do, unless you see a relationship where whatever it is, you're trying to buy, whatever that use goods market is. There could be changes in that market. And so let me, let me frame out another converse theory here. That is something that Kathy would, by the way, I think she's outstanding. If you're into financial stuff, Kathy wood is the CEO of arc investment, and she's brilliant. One of the most impressive people I have, uh, I I've seen recently. I love when she gives her, I just listened to her monthly market report this past week. Uh, brilliant. And she's, she is saying that she doesn't buy any of these inflation for your fears. She says that technology is very deflationary. And so what we're sort of seeing now with people working from home, you know, a lot of remote calling in and technology is advancing to the point where it is acting as a deflationary pressure. So while the government is printing a bunch of money technology, because it's improving, meaning technology is providing us more value for the same dollar. So the U S government is making our dollars worth less technology is making our dollars worth more. And you can sort of think about this on a, on any number of levels, right? You bought an iPhone and every year, whether you buy a new one or not, it kind of gets a little bit better, right? You get some more features that are put into it and you didn't pay much for it. So that, that$1,000 brand new iPhone, you know, maybe now it's kind of has features that are like a$1,200 iPhone, because technology is acting as a deflationary pressure. So you've got all these different pressures that are coming to bear on one another. And this is why it's such a contentious debate. Deutsche bank says, no, it's the government printing all this money. That's the problem. And the fed saying, oh no, it's just normal economic market forces that are all compounding with each other. And it's all going to balance out soon, right? Everything's sort of in this jumbled up mess. But as soon as we start opening up and we can untangle all of this stuff, it's all going to settle back out. But in the meantime, there's been all these little bubbles that have been created through all of this government intervention, all of this stimulus for different markets and passing a bunch of money and, you know, helping them and helping them and helping them that you create these unnatural bubbles in the markets, because you're sort of responding to supply and demand unnaturally. It's the problem with centralized management of government. And our government has been trying to do that, right. And it's been a disaster for this entire year. And the bill is coming due of big one,$5 trillion. And I think that's going to impact, you know, everything, as so as those Deutsche bank, now we have sliding edge says worthless, or did you mean our currency is worth less sad and not a joke. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 42:49

Worth less or worthless. Right? I mean, there's a, there's an outstanding book that I was, uh, reading, but

Speaker 1: 42:59

Oh, it's called the beginning. I think the beginning of infinity or the end of infinity by David Deutsch up. No David Duke. No, not David Duke. It's

Speaker 2: 43:07

David. I forget the name of it,

Speaker 1: 43:09

But he goes through and he gives us an analysis on money. He says, listen, the government,

Speaker 2: 43:14

What do they do? They say that

Speaker 1: 43:16

You have to use this piece of paper. That's not backed by anything. It's just a piece of paper. It used to be backed by gold, used to be sort of, you know, something that you could trade in and get some monetary value for it. But now not anymore. Now the dollar is just whatever the currency is. And it's because of us says it has value. It has value. And he uses this as a general concept. So, you know, don't beat me up too badly over this, but he says the government prints the money. And what they do is they tell you that you have to pay taxes on

Speaker 2: 43:43

That money. So they take

Speaker 1: 43:45

What, what would ordinarily be a worthless piece of paper? And they make it worth something because they tell you that you have to pay taxes on it. They use the monopoly on force that they have to encourage you to pay those taxes under the threat of the, the, the force of the government we're talking philosophically here. So that incentivizes you now to go and get their useless pieces of paper. Because if you don't, you might be subject to the power of the government. You might be incarcerated for example, for not paying your taxes. So now suddenly that worthless piece of paper becomes very valuable because you have to pay your taxes. And the only currency that you can pay your taxes in is the dollar. And if you want to live in America and participate, you got to pay your taxes in the dollar. And every single time you spend something and somebody receives anything of value, they got to pay their taxes in the dollar. So we're all sort of bought into this,

Speaker 2: 44:37

This currency, even though, is it really tied to anything? It's a good debate.

Speaker 1: 44:43

We have pinky. Number two says these stimulus packages have payoffs to other countries in them. They have forever. Yeah. We've gone through many of them. I think, you know, we've gone through billions here. 500 million, there are 700 million here because we have had so many corrupt politicians on both sides. It seems, this is starting to change. The dams are losing power and it helps the situation. They are in a little bit of a kerfuffle these days. Aren't they last, I saw AOC Ilhan, Omar versus Nancy Pelosi and some

Speaker 2: 45:10

Other Republican all fighting over.

Speaker 1: 45:14

Well, I think, all right, wants to know, says will history repeat itself? Germany before world war II was using money as wallpaper, then a German guy, then German guy came in against Antifa and the communists put everyone to work. It worked for a little while. No, no, we don't know. History is not going to repeat itself. I think he's

Speaker 2: 45:31

Talking about off, which we're not going

Speaker 1: 45:33

To let that happen again. I'm not gasses in the house. What's up. I'm not gas. I don't think I've seen you in a while. Says the best stocks against hyperinflation land gold, silver and bullets. Yeah. Right. Because these things, these things tend not to inflate. Okay. Gold and silver. There's um, there's another book that I feel like I'm dropping books all day, but there's another book I was listening to called the Bitcoin standard, which is a very good book. And he talks about why gold is something that is really sort of resistant to inflationary pressures. There's only so much of it. It really cannot be consumed. It's not a consumable, like some other things. They can't really increase the mining production of gold. So they can't inflate it, which is why it's so, so sort of protected against inflation. Whereas the dollar, they just

Speaker 2: 46:17

Prince, you know, they just go in, change some numbers around, yeah. Print another billion here. Another trillion over here, which is

Speaker 1: 46:23

Different with land land, right. There's only so much land that can be consumed. So those are naturally inflationary resistant. I'm not gas as trying to keep value in valueless fee at currency is an exercise in futility. We were always headed down this path. The people in power, just determine how fast we are running down it. I mean, they, everything is sort of controlled by them,

Speaker 2: 46:44

Right? They can, I mean, you just think about it, right. I have a small business in Scottsdale, Arizona. Really.

Speaker 1: 46:50

If, if you know, they changed the abortion laws. If something happens with the Supreme court, it's probably gonna impact maybe our criminal cases, if it's a criminal case and maybe we'll have to have some changes, probably not though, that happens very rarely.

Speaker 2: 47:06

Um, Joe Biden, does it,

Speaker 1: 47:08

You know, does something ridiculous with Russia or something like that, you know, absent a nuclear war

Speaker 2: 47:12

Or most of it is kind of on the margins on how it impacts us, which is why, you know,

Speaker 1: 47:18

Joe Biden comes in. It's, you know, it's a lot of culture, war stuff, and it's a lot of, um, you know, diplomatic, boneheaded, mistakes and everything. But when people say, oh, he's going to wreck America overnight. I'm like, ah, you know, what's he going to do?

Speaker 2: 47:30

And he's slowly working on it. But the big issue here is the monetary, everything, everything we do is based on that, it's the skeleton, it's the spinal cord. So it's very important that we at least pause, spend a little time

Speaker 1: 47:43

Monitor here today. Now Sharon says, Deutsche bank is right. Deutsche bank is right. They can be a little, there can be little doubt that the Marxist dams who were running everything now are using inflation as a tool to promote their political agenda, which is exactly their point. It says, it looks to me like the last days of the Weimer Republic, my guess is there will be a substantial unrest as people are no longer able to buy necessities. Yeah. There's that picture from world war II. And I think there's somebody who has a wheelbarrow full of Deutsche marks trying to go buy a loaf of bread because the money has no value anymore. It's very important that book, the Bitcoin standard is great. Goes through, goes through a history of the Romans. And for a long time, the Romans were the powerhouse of the entire world. And why was that? Technological, superiority innovation, all of those things, right? Yeah. So how did they foster

Speaker 2: 48:29

A marketplace that facilitated that type of a society that was so advanced at that time? Well,

Speaker 1: 48:36

The Bitcoin standard it's because of a sound monetary supply when they had when they were printing their coins, they waived the exact amount. They knew exactly what they were worth, and there was trust and truth to that coin. You would take it around and everybody knew what it was worth, but then emperor after emperor would come in and they would need to spend more money and they would need to raise more funds. So what would they do? They would take

Speaker 2: 49:00

That same coin and they would sort of, you

Speaker 1: 49:03

Know, cut off a little bit of the gold, cut off a little bit of the silver and that same

Speaker 2: 49:06

Coin that used to be worth,

Speaker 1: 49:08

Let's say$1 was now worth 90 cents. And then they started moving into sort of a, a, you know, more of,

Speaker 2: 49:15

Um, representative banking

Speaker 1: 49:19

And they just kept inflating the currency. All of the currencies kept starting to be worth less and less. And so people had less faith in that. So they stopped doing business and transacting in that nation. They went elsewhere and the Roman empire just slowly dissipated and fizzled away in, in what we all know in the history books. So maybe your analogy here, Sharon is not too far off software nugget says the best thing for the economy is for the government to stay out of the way. 100% agree with that. If they just keep printing money, things will only get worse. Yep. I totally agree with that. I, you know, I think the government should just get out of our way. Just let us live our lives. Let us run thing, run things our way. All right. We have Davis park says slight correction. Monetary policy is policy from the central bank or the fed fiscal policy is government spending. Thank you. Yeah. So thank you for that. So, you know, obviously I don't truthfully, I don't spend a lot of time in this space. I'm trying to learn more about it. He says, don't get me wrong. Our monetary policy is disastrous. Interest rates are so low that people are borrowing money that will never be paid back. But what you're angry about is the fiscal policy. Okay. So yeah. Thank you for that correction there. Davis parks, you know, like I said, this, this, I'm sort of trying to learn more about this because I am figuring out how important

Speaker 2: 50:28

It really is. And now what we're seeing are some of these major projected market disruptions that obviously, you know, if I was, uh, still in college, I might have less interest in this stuff,

Speaker 1: 50:41

But I've got a whole team of people here that I'm very concerned about, you know, and I want to make sure that we're, we're being smart and proactive and that we're, we're planning for, you know, some of the different contingencies that are out there. And so I just think it's important that we understand this. So fiscal policy is government spending through the bureaucrats. Monetary policy is through the central bank or the

Speaker 2: 51:00

Fed. Try to remember that, but

Speaker 1: 51:03

I'll probably botch it again. But thanks for the correction. We have speech on Lee says, first, they need to get everyone dependent on the government. Second. Then they raise taxes to pay for all the things people come dependent on. Third taxes will never go down because those social welfare programs will never be removed because doing so will quote, hurt the people that depend on them. This is how it always has been. The difference on, on this

Speaker 2: 51:21

Time is the scale. Yeah. Right. Everybody, you know, gets a raise. Once

Speaker 1: 51:27

They have that raise, it's very hard to pull that out

Speaker 2: 51:29

From under them. And now any politician who does is sort of, you know, awful. They don't get to be,

Speaker 1: 51:36

He voted for, because they're going to take stuff away from you. Meanwhile, the people who promise you, everything

Speaker 2: 51:42

Do so with hiding the ball there,

Speaker 1: 51:46

Being dishonest with you, that we're going to give you all this stuff and help you all with, with all of

Speaker 2: 51:49

These materials. But they are

Speaker 1: 51:52

Printing the money that is making everything else

Speaker 2: 51:55

Worthless. All right. We've got, want to know, says isn't the Camila admitted,

Speaker 1: 52:00

Trying to make crypto illegal because of the ransom hacks. How did the FBI gets some of it back? FBI has good hackers. Do what happens if the governments of the world crack the system and take all the crypto for themselves? Well, want to know, you know,

Speaker 2: 52:13

I discussed that in about 40 minutes,

Speaker 1: 52:16

Uh, in a video that is linked down in the description on YouTube. So go check that out. It's on my crypto channel, but I went through the affidavit. They didn't crack Bitcoin. Many people were thinking that they didn't hack the Bitcoin system. They just trace the money because Bitcoin operates on a public ledger. You can go look up any transaction you want. So what the, what happened was is it just got transferred. Somehow it ended up in the custody of the FBI. They needed the warrant to go

Speaker 2: 52:39

The custody. And basically they had the private key to get access to the Bitcoin. And that's what the seizure warrant was for. It was just about sort of a process now how they got the private key could be up to a month.

Speaker 1: 52:51

A number of theories are floating around, out there in, in that video. I go through many of them. All right. So next up. But that being said, yeah, Elizabeth Warren

Speaker 2: 52:59

Is out there today hitting the, the news shows,

Speaker 1: 53:03

Talking about the central bank digital currency. So they're talking about this folks, whether you're into crypto or not, the U S government is going towards cryptocurrencies. They're calling it a, CBDC a central bank, digital currency because they know China's doing the same thing with the U S

Speaker 2: 53:17

And, and they, they don't want the Chinese currency to be the world reserve. They want it to be the U S dollar. And if people are going

Speaker 1: 53:26

To be into cryptocurrency as well, the U S government is sprinting right now in order to come up with a solution. Elizabeth Warren is now running around, basically

Speaker 2: 53:37

Talking down Bitcoin

Speaker 1: 53:39

In order to elevate up the CBDC she's out there yesterday. Uh, and I'm going to just go through her, her, her narrative sentence by sentence and show you what a joke. The whole thing is on the crypto channel. All right. So let's take a look now from Kareem here, says governments in general, rarely accomplish anything. Good. I find, I agree with you on that. I mean, you know, very rarely they'll do something productive, but I could almost always come up with an example where I think the private sector could have done a better job faster for less resources almost every time. I think, I think basically every time there are some situations where even the government used to tell us, well, what about like NASA? So, you know, maybe in the seventies, you know, 60 seventies, eighties, that that was something that only, you know, the government could do, or maybe like, you know, the Manhattan project, for example, the building of the nuclear bomb here in the United States very quickly to go and, and world war II, you know, against the Japanese, maybe something like that would be the, within the scope and the purview of the government. But most other things, uh, they're just awful at, I mean, actually like bad at all. Right. Next up, we got leafy bug. Good to see you. Leafy bug says, inflation is

Speaker 2: 54:46

Feature, not a bug for the state. How does

Speaker 1: 54:49

Have how to have the real value of the national debt in a year? I'll have inflation run at 50% for a year. Unfortunately, inflation is not something that can be easily. And so neatly controlled. Yeah. It's going to be a problem. If it is going to be a problem, it's going to be a big problem because they

Speaker 2: 55:05

A ton of money.

Speaker 1: 55:08

Yeah. We'll see where it goes. Now we have Joe Snow says when inflation starts to reveal itself, it's going to go pedal to the metal like Venezuela did. It's going to become incredibly difficult to assign value to your assets.

Speaker 2: 55:20

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 55:22

It's scary. You know, this is scary, right? People are starting to think, well, the toilet paper's gone. Oh, no gas has gone. I'm going to go fill up grocery bags of gasoline on the east coast. Right. Remember those stories. Well, what happens if people just suddenly, you know, they, they just can't buy the regular necessities anymore because it's too expensive. Right? Suddenly, you know, a full cart walking out of the grocery store, a mom with three kids, like my mom was with three kids walking out of the grocery store. Suddenly that cart shrinks up a little bit. It's a big problem. And there's a lot of people out there who are patting themselves on the back. Oh, we're taking care of Americans by printing all this money. No, you are not. And the consequences may be pretty severe. So we'll see where that goes. Great questions. You know, there's a lot of interest in this topic. I wasn't expecting that, but I think it's very important. I know a lot of the time we kind of come on this channel and, you know, talk about the exciting, you know, police shooting or whatever, but this stuff is fundamental. This stuff is important. You know, maybe this is how they're going to defund the police by defunding all of us. Just keep inflating the money. No cops will have money anywhere and neither will wait. Oh, all right. So those were great questions. Thanks for sending those over@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. All right, we're going to move on here. We're going to change gears. We were talking very sort of dry

Speaker 2: 56:35

Inflationary, monetary and fiscal policy. Fiscal is the government. Monetary is the fed. I think I got that. All right. Hopefully,

Speaker 1: 56:45

But now we're going to change gears. We're not talking about money at all. We're talking about critical race theory. I was governor Kim Reynolds signed a new law into bill targeting critical race theory that is eliminating some of the curriculum that wanted to be taught in Iowa schools. So this story is interesting. We're going to take a look at the bill. It goes into effect on July one and it's called house file 8 0 2, not a huge bill, but we are going to look at it and see what it does because you may be seeing this come to a state near you hope,

Speaker 2: 57:14

And we'll see what it actually does mechanically on the ground level with the schools in Iowa.

Speaker 1: 57:21

So we're going to start by going and doing a little bit of background here from the Hawkeye, which is, uh, uh, I guess the name of a website from the Des Moines register here. It says the Iowa governor signs, a law that is targeting critical race theory saying she's against discriminatory

Speaker 2: 57:36

Indoctrination. All right.

Speaker 1: 57:38

So we're going to take a look at this and,

Speaker 2: 57:40

And to show you something that's happening in medicine, because we're seeing this kind of concept of critical race theory permeates its tentacles into all different facets of our life. Right now we're talking about

Speaker 1: 57:54

Schools, but next we're going to talk about medicine. We just talked about, if you miss the last segment, how social goals, maybe working their way into economic policy. Now let's go back to the schools and see where we are we're at. So Kim Reynolds signs up

Speaker 2: 58:07

New law. That's going to target the teaching of CRT in government and other things,

Speaker 1: 58:14

Concepts in government, diversity trainings in classroom curriculum. All right, here's what she says. She says critical race series is about labels and stereotypes, not education. It teaches kids that we should judge others based on race, gender, sex,

Speaker 2: 58:26

Actual identity, rather than the content of someone's character. Oh, I love that line.

Speaker 1: 58:33

Reynold said, and that it's such a good line content of someone's character. It has that

Speaker 2: 58:37

Nice alliteration, bup, bup, bup, bup buck,

Speaker 1: 58:39

Right? Content of someone's character. It's beautiful Reynold said in his statement, I'm proud to have worked with the legislature to promote learning

Speaker 2: 58:47

That discriminatory indoctrination, this article,

Speaker 1: 58:50

It says, this is not my commentary. This article says critical race theory is a decades old legal theory that examines how slavery's legacy continues to influence American society. It is not specifically named in the new ledger,

Speaker 2: 59:02

But the law would ban teaching certain concepts

Speaker 1: 59:05

Such as that the U S

Speaker 2: 59:07

Or Iowa is systemic systemically racist. Okay. Sometimes they say systematically, but they got it right.

Speaker 1: 59:15

Systemically racist. Okay. So it goes into effect on July one, Reynolds signing comes after other Republicans. The country have said they want to eliminate this. Iowa is among a, more than a dozen states that have considered legislation this year aimed at eliminating similar concepts. Opponents have said that the efforts would likely discourage important conversations about racism and sexism. The Iowa legislation faced opposition from Democrats variety of groups like ACL. Ooh, I will Nebraska NAACP opponents criticized Iowa as the law is vague and subjectives, uh, subjective. And so, you know, on this type of stuff, right, the ACL is going to come out here and they're going to say, well, this is, uh, sort of, you know, put putting limitations on free speech. What happens if a teacher wants to speak about these things, and it's gonna turn into a whole free speech, uh, mess, you know, in these types of systems,

Speaker 2: 1:00:04

I tend to think that locally

Speaker 1: 1:00:07

Is the best solution on stuff like this. So that individual schools, individual school districts, they get to decide what to do with their kids. You know, I it's. So, you know, w w well,

Speaker 2: 1:00:16

I'll say, you know, well done

Speaker 1: 1:00:19

Iowa for standing back up to this, to some of this stuff, you know, maybe there is a segment in Iowa, or they do want to teach that stuff.

Speaker 2: 1:00:26

And I don't really, you know, have a, have a problem with that. Honestly, if, if parents

Speaker 1: 1:00:30

Want to send their kids to a CRT school,

Speaker 2: 1:00:34

I guess they should have the freedom to do that, right. Just like we should say,

Speaker 1: 1:00:38

W w we have the freedom to send our kids to other schools. You know, I, I don't really, I don't have kids by the way. So maybe I should just shut up and keep reading the story. According to Washington, post, most teachers don't specifically refer to critical race theory in the classroom, but some lessons do reflect some of its themes such as the existence of systemic racism. So here's what the law will

Speaker 2: 1:00:57

Ban. It's going to ban the teaching. The

Speaker 1: 1:00:59

Ideas that the U S or the state of Iowa is fundamentally, or system systemically racist or sex

Speaker 2: 1:01:04

Exists, can't teach that

Speaker 1: 1:01:07

Dividual by virtue of race or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressed

Speaker 2: 1:01:12

Either consciously or unconsciously. And they cannot teach that anyone should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any

Speaker 1: 1:01:20

Other form of psychological distress

Speaker 2: 1:01:23

Because of the race of one's one's race.

Speaker 1: 1:01:26

Okay. It will also ban any form of race or sex stereotyping or race or sex scapegoating at race or sex. Stereotyping is defined as ascribing character traits. We're going to read all of that here in a minute. The measure prohibits school and college employees from discriminating against students or employees based on political ideology, along with protected characteristics, outlined in federal civil rights law school and college training must also discourage students from this kind of discrimination. All right. So the bill applies to classroom instruction, mandatory diversity training for state and local government employees. It would not ban teachers or instructors from answering questions about those concepts, and it would not prevent teachers from discussing them as part of a larger course of study. Okay. So there you go. There's a little bit of flexibility there. I was new law in parts draws, nearly word for word from a Trump administration executive order that targeted critical race theory. Joe Biden rescinded that

Speaker 2: 1:02:16

In January. Yeah. Well, governor Reynolds put it right back

Speaker 1: 1:02:20

There, Joe. So what do you think about that? Here is her signing statement here from the office of the governor. So we'll notice this came a couple of days ago, June 8th, the honorable Paul potty, secretary of state of Iowa. She's saying it, listen,

Speaker 2: 1:02:32

I hear by transmit that

Speaker 1: 1:02:36

8 0 2 an act providing for requirements related to racism or sexism trainings, and diversity is hereby approved on this date, signed it into law. This is what it looks like. So when we read through some of these, we're looking for really the general framework when it comes to, you know, legislation is, I always kind of look at the size of this thing. It's not very long. You can see it. This is it. We just went through the whole thing. We also can see there's sort of a definitions section here. So we have race or scapegoating means the same thing as the, as defined elsewhere. So they're pointing us to different areas of the law government entity means what you think it means agency so on and so forth. Let's see

Speaker 2: 1:03:14

Agency prohibits it.

Speaker 1: 1:03:17

Yeah. So subsection three, each agency, entity subdivision, shell prohibits employees from discriminating against other employees, by any characteristic protected under the civil rights act. It's like, why do we have to say that, you know, section shall not be construed to do any of the following. So don't over read it. We have a new section here. They're giving us some more definitions about race and sex,

Speaker 2: 1:03:39

Scapegoating,

Speaker 1: 1:03:41

Race, or sex stereotyping. Let's see what this means. So race or sex scapegoating. What is that?

Speaker 2: 1:03:46

I mean, it means assigning fault, blame or bias to a race or sex, or to members

Speaker 1: 1:03:55

Of a race or sex because of their race or sex,

Speaker 2: 1:03:58

Or so that's one definition, or it's claiming that consciousness

Speaker 1: 1:04:02

Or unconsciously, and by virtue of a person's race or sex members of the race are inherently racist,

Speaker 2: 1:04:08

Or they are inherently

Speaker 1: 1:04:10

Inclined to oppress others, or that members of the race are inherently sexist or inclined to oppress others. So, so you

Speaker 2: 1:04:15

Can't, you can't blame, you

Speaker 1: 1:04:17

Can't assign blame fault or bias based on race or sex.

Speaker 2: 1:04:21

So you can't say that anything that somebody did was a consequence of one of those things, which, I mean, that's white privilege, like gone. You can't use that anymore. Right? Wow. That's powerful. No more white privilege. That's, that's a big one because that one, the white privilege

Speaker 1: 1:04:42

Attack. It defeats a lot of arguments.

Speaker 2: 1:04:45

Because if you sh, if you say anything, they just use that to beat you,

Speaker 1: 1:04:49

You over the head with it, you say, well, I think that that that's inappropriate. And they say, well, of course you would, because you're a white person. You grew up with white privilege

Speaker 2: 1:04:56

And you have no idea what it's like to be in that person

Speaker 1: 1:04:59

Shoes. And we go, oh, I guess you're right about that. I guess we can't talk.

Speaker 2: 1:05:03

Not at all about anything, but this law says that

Speaker 1: 1:05:09

Can't assign fault, blame or bias to race or sex. So when I say to somebody, Hey, I think that might be problem. That policy issue might need a correction. And they say that's because you're a wa I go up illegal governor. We got a law breaker over here accusing me of white privilege that is in violation of the law. So good for Iowa. Now, same thing goes with race or sex. Stereotyping means ascribing character, ascribing character traits, or values or morals or ethical codes or privileges or statuses based on sex or race. This is the dumbest, the dumbest world we're living in here. I gotta be honest. Now, not that this bill is dumb, this, this, this idea that this we have to do, we have talk about this is like insane to me. You know, I thought, I thought it was the content of your character, your character. That was important. Now it's all about race. Like you can't even like you have to tell people that they can't blame you for your opinion on your race. Okay? So this is a law. Now this is, this is in law. So that meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic. So they're also saying, oh, no. So specific defined concepts, let's see this includes all of the following that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex. So if they're saying that you can't talk, or you can't teach specific defined concepts, that an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment based on their race or sex that individuals should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other forms of psychological distress on account of their race or sex that meritocracy or traits like hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by a particular race to oppress another race. Right? We've seen a lot of that, like hard work and, you know, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is somehow like a white supremacist thing. What's any other form of race or sex scapegoating also not allowed each public institution or higher education may continue that training that fosters a workplace and learning environment. However, they cannot do it unless they ensure that everybody is following the rules is what this sees institution diversity. All right, let's see what else we have race and sex stereotyping training. Each school district may continue training that fosters a workplace and learning environment that is respectful. As long as it doesn't touch on any of that prohibited conduct, we cannot prevent a school district from promoting racial, cultural, ethnic, intellectual, or academic diversity provided such our efforts are consistent. Okay. So they can, yeah. So, so there are some pretty nice protections in here. It says this section shall not be construed to do the following, prevent a school district from promoting racial, cultural, ethnic, intellectual diversity. It's not about anti diversity. That's not what this is about at all. They're saying, in fact, this section shall not be construed to do any of these inhibit or violate first amendment rights, right? So now we're starting to take a look at the protections of the professor, the PR of the teacher of the academic

Speaker 2: 1:08:16

Environment.

Speaker 1: 1:08:17

And of course, we want to foster that, right. You know, I went to law school and they talk a lot about diversity in law schools and that it fosters all of this, you know, rigorous debate and that we have different perspectives in there. It felt like one perspective

Speaker 2: 1:08:30

That I was the problem with everything course. And we have,

Speaker 1: 1:08:34

Or death on here. He's going through the same thing right now, prohibiting

Speaker 2: 1:08:39

The discussion

Speaker 1: 1:08:40

Discussing of specific defined concepts that are part of a larger course of academic instruction, right? So they are, they're, they're, they're making some pretty strong limitations here as well. This was

Speaker 2: 1:08:51

And into law speaker of the house,

Speaker 1: 1:08:54

Pat Grassley, Jay Chapman, president of the Senate, Megan Nelson, chief clerk, Kim Reynolds, the governor June 8th. So this is

Speaker 2: 1:09:00

Now in effect. And as I mentioned, you know, I don't have children and I don't know what the school situation

Speaker 1: 1:09:08

Is like right now. I think it's probably

Speaker 2: 1:09:12

Not ideal. What do we do about it? But I am a person and I do need medical care from time to time. And could this concept be trickling over into that industry as well? Well, according to Breitbart certainly looks like it. So they tell us that this individually,

Speaker 1: 1:09:35

Somebody who goes by the name of Donald Maass right now, Dr. Donald Moss, we're going to find it. We're going to take a look at this fellow here in a minute, but let's

Speaker 2: 1:09:43

See what he wrote. First. He's a doctor. He is somebody who is a current faculty member of the New York psychoanalytic Institute. He's also a

Speaker 1: 1:09:55

Part of the San Francisco center for psychoanalysis.

Speaker 2: 1:10:00

Hmm. Well, he wrote a peer reviewed article entitled on having whiteness, which is kind of this thing that the scholarly academics do, you know, they write on something like, you know, on infinity, on morality, whatever. Okay.

Speaker 1: 1:10:16

Sophisticated. If you want to be sophisticated, write an article and start the title of the book

Speaker 2: 1:10:21

Article with the word on, on the problem of hierarchical male structures on that. Right. Get started. Every goes, oh, this article is going to be impressive. I can't wait to read it. Can you wait to read

Speaker 1: 1:10:36

This one? Probably let's take a look at what's going on here. So in this journal he published his peer reviewed article, which means somebody else read it and said, yeah, that's good. Put it, publish it. And probably a bunch of people read it and said, yeah, that's good.

Speaker 2: 1:10:46

Publish it, love it, get it in there. So the healthcare journal, uh, this guy writes whiteness

Speaker 1: 1:10:51

Is a malignant parasitic like condition that creates perverse

Speaker 2: 1:10:56

Appetites. So, which is all news to me. I mean, I didn't know that I was a malignant parasite or that my whiteness was parasitic, but I'm going to

Speaker 1: 1:11:08

Learn more about that right now. Thanks to this gentleman's brilliance. The articles says that the condition

Speaker 2: 1:11:14

Of quote whiteness after one acquires it, I guess, I guess in the womb gives a person a malignant parasitic light condition to which white people have a particular susceptibility. Hmm. All right. Well, I, I obviously don't want this parasite, so how can I deal with this doctor? He says he added the, that the condition while being in one's body in one's mind and in one's world makes the host, I guess, that's me specifically target nonwhite people. Oh. Due to their parasitic whiteness. Really. Okay. I haven't felt that I've felt that much, but okay. He further writes Moss rights once established these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. He went on to explain how a person could pursue treatment for the condition, which is great. All right. So if you happen to be white, let's figure out what we can do about this. He says effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social historical interventions, psychic and social historical interventions. All right. Well, okay. I'm not sure how to start with that. You know, all right. Says, uh, such such interventions can reasonably aim to only reshape witnesses, infiltrated appetites to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims towards the work of reparations. Okay. Yeah. So I didn't know that I had a condition. I mean, I, I th I thought, yeah, I mean, I, yeah, I have it. It's there. I can, I can feel it. I definitely do have that. So I guess what do we do? So he's talking about reparations here, so that's good. So what about reparations? Maybe this will prompt that conversation since although white parasitics, uh, malignant white people, uh, can talk reparations and, you know, to be fair about the reparations, I like, I'd like to know what his offer is or like what they're proposing here. What is the, like, how much are we talking? Okay. I I've told you this before, but when I was on clubhouse, there was a, they were talking about a big number in reparations. Now I, you know, I just kind of want to know what the number is. I'm just curious at what, what it is. If it's something reasonable, can we just kind of make this whole thing go away? If we pay, you know, a billion dollars, no more white supremacy in America anymore. Like, we, you, you can't like, that's it like the, the ledger is cleaned. What number is that? Now the last I heard on clubhouse, I think they were talking about four quadrille quad trillion, I think, which is for a 1000 trillions. I think. So that one, I think, was not reasonable. You know, you have to have a negotiating table. I'm just curious what that total

Speaker 1: 1:14:12

Number is for the reparations. I don't know what, if it's reasonable, maybe we can entertain it if it solves this problem for crying out loud, all right. Masa wrote that the ravages re REIT by the chronic condition can function either as a warning or as a temptation. The doctor said that memorialization alone, therefore is no guarantee against regression. He says, there is not yet a permanent cure for your whiteness. So if there's not a cure, you know what happens? They just send you off to the camps. One psychologist, Dr. Phillip Pellegrino commented on the articles. Publication said, how do my colleagues consider this scholarship? Here's what she said, right? Or he said, Dr. Phillip Pellegrino, how do my colleagues, because seriously, consider this scholarship. Anyone actually take this seriously on having whiteness, right? Public bite published by Donald Mossier. Here's what the abstract says from the article itself. First published May 27th. It says whiteness is a condition. When first requires when one has a malignant parasitic light condition, to which white people have a particular susceptibility condition is foundational generated characteristics of being in one's body in one's mind and in one's world, parasitic whiteness renders, oh, sorry. One sec. All right. Once established my, uh, my device went off once established these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social historical interventions. Such interventions can be reasonably aimed to only to reshape the whiteness is infiltrated appetites to reduce their intensity, to redistribute their aims into occasionally turn those aims towards the work of reparation. When remembered in represented the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function as a warning or as a temptation, there is not yet a permanent cure. So obviously folks, this whole thing is insane. This guy's a lunatic, right? All of this talk is, is whacked out talk. Now I have to, I was very jokey that, that last segment, I think this is reprehensible con commentary. I think that this is disgusting to see out there in the world. And I think this guy should be ashamed of himself if he is serious. Now, the question is, is he serious? Or is he just trolling everybody? You know, we're starting to see a situation here where it kind of feels like they're trying to one-up each other, almost, almost just to show, just to like get people riled up. And a lot of people are talking about this article today. You know, I don't know if this guy actually believes it. I would have to. I have, you know, the rational person in me has to think that anybody in a, you know, academia would look at this and go, this guy's a lunatic, right? This is pure racism, right? People are born whites. And we have a parasitic mind when we come out of the womb naturally, there's nothing we can do about that. That's insane racism. So why is he allowed to fester in academia? If these people are so enlightened and so holier than now, and they are always following the science, why is he allowed to just bounce around and be on the board in New York and San Francisco probably elevated, right? Probably goes to the cocktail parties. And every was like, oh, Dr. Donald Moss, thank you for being so insightful about how awful white people are. Tell us more of your trials and tribulations doctor. Probably a lot of that going

Speaker 2: 1:17:10

On. This is

Speaker 1: 1:17:10

What the guy looks like here. So this is him from his Twitter 644 followers. If this is his actual account, it looks like it is 1400

Speaker 2: 1:17:17

Here. It says the Dean college of integrative medicine and health sciences, right. Which is what we talked about, uh, Saybrook university, new book on that

Speaker 1: 1:17:27

Self care for chronic illness, integrated pathways and Springer. So joined April, 2009, got to imagine this is the guy. And again, is he, is he just trolling people? Like, is this a, is this a serious thing? Ordinarily, I would say this guy's just trolling, but I don't think so anymore. I think these people are actually dead serious. And I think this type of language is very serious. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:17:45

And it's very problematic. Joking aside, right? This guy is a doctor he's writing all

Speaker 1: 1:17:51

Sorts of publications that other doctors are reading

Speaker 2: 1:17:53

Been around for a long time. Probably has a, quite a big following, probably has counseled and actually provided medical services to people. And I would love to know how many white people he's had. He's had counseling sessions with and what the,

Speaker 1: 1:18:08

The long-term prognosis is for those people. Because I can imagine sitting there and being told that you're a parasite and that you're a Mulligan,

Speaker 2: 1:18:14

You know, awful contribution to human society is not good medical treatment. And is that something that, you know, we have all of these American

Speaker 1: 1:18:24

Medical associations and all these watchdog groups that are supposed to be these enlightened academics and these scientists, and they allow this type of stuff to go on on a regular. Yeah.

Speaker 2: 1:18:33

Is anything going to happen to this guy? Right? This is a doctor who has,

Speaker 1: 1:18:36

Has a certain ideological opinion that he's trying to essentially pass off as a medical article, I guess. All right. So very frustrating stuff. Now, fortunately, folks, there is some sanity out there. Want to introduce you to this guy. He's a black Ivy league professor, and this article comes over from the daily wire. So he writes that a truly anti-racist parent must pull their kids from a school, any school that teaches CRT. Okay. His name is John McWhorter. He's a black Columbia university linguistics professor. He's urging parents who are truly anti-racist to pull their kids out of school. He talks about Dwight Anglewood school. He references it as a DIII school in response to an English teacher, Dana Stangle plows decision to resign from the school over allegations, that it is indoctrinating students with the Marxist theory. Right? So I mean, major hats off to these people doing excellent work, just saying we're out of here, right?

Speaker 2: 1:19:28

Speaking out. Now this guy writes, John McWhorter writes all hail Dana Steagall plow. She's resigned from Dwight Inglewood, which

Speaker 1: 1:19:36

Teaches students anti-racism that sees life as nothing but abusive power and teaches that cringing hostile group identity against impression. I guess oppression is the essence

Speaker 2: 1:19:46

Of self truly anti-racist

Speaker 1: 1:19:48

Parents in the name of the love of their kids should pull them from Dwight-Inglewood school.

Speaker 2: 1:19:52

As of next fall, only this will arrest the misguided elect parishioners and their quest to forge a new reality for us all. Here's what he posted on Twitter, right? So you can see, uh, give him a

Speaker 1: 1:20:04

Good follow and a little bit of love if you're interested in doing so, but this is what he posted. And he actually wrote an entire letter here. So posted this at this organization

Speaker 3: 1:20:14

Called fair for all full letter, not going to read the whole thing, but here here's what you see. This is

Speaker 1: 1:20:21

Signed off on by Dana Stangle plow, right? The, the, the, uh, probably female, I guess,

Speaker 3: 1:20:27

Who is resigning. And she did so letter of resignation to Inglewood, New Jersey, June 8th, dear Joe copies to every

Speaker 1: 1:20:35

Head of school, board trustees, English department, everybody, because I became a teacher because I love people. DEA has changed the way that it is today. I'm resigning from a job I love because DEA has changed in ways that undermine its mission and prevent me from holding true to my conscience. As an educator, she said that I believe D is failing our students over the past years. They've embraced an ideology that is damaging our students' intellectual and emotional,

Speaker 3: 1:20:59

No chance of creating a true community among our diverse population.

Speaker 1: 1:21:05

I reject the hostile culture of conformity and fear that has taken hold of our school. The school's ideology requires students to see themselves, not as individuals, but as representatives of a group, forcing them to adopt the status of privilege or

Speaker 3: 1:21:18

Victim hood. They must locate themselves within,

Speaker 1: 1:21:20

In the oppressor or a press group or some intersectional middle, where they must reckon with being a part, a presser and part victim. This theory of power hierarchies.

Speaker 3: 1:21:29

One way of seeing the world yet it is provide it pervades the school as the single way of seeing the world. As a result, students come to my classroom, accepting this theory as a fact that people are born with

Speaker 1: 1:21:43

Less melanin in their skin. They are oppressors and people born with more melanin in their skin are oppressed. Men are oppressors. Women are oppressed and so on. This is the dominant and divisive ideology that is guiding our

Speaker 3: 1:21:54

Students. We hear a lot about this folks. She says

Speaker 1: 1:21:57

Classroom. I see up close how this orthodoxy hinders students, their ability to read, write. And I think she says, I teach students who recoil from a poem because it was written by a man. I teach students who approach texts in search of the oppressor. I teach students who see inequities in texts that have nothing to do with power. Students have internalized the message that this is the way we read and think about the world. And as a result, they fixate on power and group identity. This fixation has stunted their ability to observe and engage with the full fabric of human experience in our literature. Talk about, let her talk about your life. She says, in my professional opinion, the school is failing to encourage healthy habits of mind, essential for growth, such as intellectual curiosity, humility, honesty, reason, the capacity to question ideas and consider multiple perspectives in our school. The opportunity to hear competing ideas is practically non-existent. How can students who accept a single ideology as fact learned to practice intellectual curiosity, or humility, or consider a competing idea they've never encountered. How can students develop higher order thinking if they're limited to the world and looking at it through a lens of group identity

Speaker 3: 1:23:00

And empower Sally, the school is leading

Speaker 1: 1:23:03

Many to become true believers and outspoken purveyors of our aggressive and illiberal orthodoxy. Understandably, these students have found comfort in their moral certainty. And so they become rigid and closed minded, unable or unwilling to consider alternative perspectives. These young students have no idea that the school has placed ideological blinders on them. Of course not all students are true. Believers, believers, many pretend to agree because of the pressure to conform. I've heard from students who want to ask a question, but stop for fear of offending. Someone I have heard from students who don't participate. One student did not want to develop her essay for fear that it might mean she's a racist and fear in her fear. She stopped from thinking, this is the very definition of self-censorship. I care deeply about our students. I've tried to introduce constructive and positive views. My efforts have fallen on deaf ears. You express dismay, but I did not hear any follow-up from you or your other administrators. Since then, the stifling conformity has only intensified last fall to administrators inform faculty that certain viewpoints simply would not be tolerated during our new race, explicit conversations about our new anti-racist work. They said no one would be allowed to question the orthodoxy regarding systemic racism. The message was clear. The faculty was silent in response. The reality is that fear pervades the faculty on at least two separate occasions, 17 and 18. Our head of school standing in front of the auditorium, told the entire faculty quote. He would fire us all if he could so that he could replace us all with

Speaker 3: 1:24:32

People of color. Can you believe that head of the school says I'm going to fire you all? If I could. And I replace you all with people of color

Speaker 1: 1:24:41

This year, administrators continue to assert these policy that we're hiring for diversity. DEA has become a workplace that is hostile towards educators solely on their immutable traits. During our recent faculty meeting, teachers were segregated by skin color. Teachers were segregated by skin color at a recent faculty meeting. Teachers who had light-skinned were placed into the white caucus group. And they were asked to quote, remember that we are white and that to take responsibility for our power and privilege Des racial segregation of educators aimed at leading us to rethink of ourselves as oppressors. It was regressive and it was demeaning to us as individuals with our own moral compass and human agency will the school force racial segregation on our students. Next

Speaker 3: 1:25:20

Says, I reject essentially.

Speaker 1: 1:25:23

Racialist thinking about myself, my colleagues and my students as a humanist educator, I strive to create an inclusive classroom by embracing the dignity, the unique personality of each and every student. I want to empower all students with the skills and habits of mind. They need to fulfill their potential as learners and human beings. Neither the color of my skin, nor the group identity assigned to me by my DIII dictates my humanist beliefs or my work as an educator being told that it does is offensive and wrong. It violates my dignity as a human being. My conscience does not have a color DIII claims that we teach students how to think, not what to think. Sadly, that is just no longer true. I hope administrators and board members awakened in time to prevent this misguided decide doll ideology from hollowing out D E as it has so many other institutions sheers to you. Dana stains will plow upper school. English teacher in dad. Dash is a good English teacher, too. It's a nice letter. You know, I started to read that. I was like, I'm not going to read this whole thing, but it was good. Pretty good letter. Woo. Actually would have slowed down a little bit. Had I known it would have been so dang good. Love it. So that was Dana Stangle plow. She's resigning. We have another professor saying, don't send your kids to that garbage school. They're trying to indoctrinate them. And that's what it's going to take my friends. I mean, there's, that's the only way to, I think, to address any of this stuff now, again, I don't have kids. So keep that in mind. All right. Want to know, says you were right about local voting. My vote mattered a lot since only 25% voted someone, some laws still run off school, board elections in September and Oregon, some members within 50 votes. It definitely slowed CRT down. Yeah. So that's what I'm talking about is about running for these local boards. You know, here they did it at the governor state level, but a lot of you're seeing, you're seeing people do this all across the country. You're seeing these videos come out on Twitter saying stop teaching my kid, that crap I'm tired of it. And every one of them are pretty good. You know, these lately they've been moms. It looks like in the moms come out and they have a really rehearsed speech and they just get it. They get their three minutes and they get jacked up and amped up, man. And they let it melt. Let it fly. I'm like, yes, go get it. Love it. Love to see more of that. Right? Tell these people they don't know any better. The problem is is that people don't get engaged with their government. If more of us were engaged with our government, we'd see a lot less incompetence, but people have with their lives to leave, to, to, to live. And they've got better things to do. The, the, the bureaucrats want to go run things. And those are exactly the wrong people to be running things. Right. All right. We've got shades says California has CRT in schools. Plus other horrid things, white children are literally told they are the problem. Just terrible things are being pushed onto them. Now, why would you put your kids in school? I mean, honestly, you know, like I feel terrible for parents that are listening to this and like my kids in public school. Oh no. Going really like, I feel terrible that I have to come out here and do a show. I'm sure somebody is watching this with kids going, oh, I have no choice, but to send my kid to public schools, what do you do about that? I think, you know, as a parent, you just make sure you, when they come home, do a little deprogramming as it were all right. Speech Lee says what needs to happen is for parents to be more involved in what is being taught to their children with remote learning parents finally started paying attention to local school boards. Parents need to continue doing this because indoctrination starts with the young, the quicker the parents do this. The quicker CRT is abolished in all sectors, including businesses. And I noticed that too, right? A lot of parents were sort of sitting in the same room with their kid on zoom. And you know, the kids 12 years old and a professor comes out and says, Hey, you know, Hey, racist, little Susie over there. What are you doing with your white privilege? Get back over here and pay attention. Okay. Right. And so dad goes, what, what did they say?

Speaker 3: 1:29:02

Tells mom,

Speaker 1: 1:29:02

Mom goes down to the school board PTA meeting and lets it fly. Love it. Sharon Quinny says, juxtapose this comment with my previous one here, we see racial discrimination aimed primarily at whites, but including Jews and Asians as well. This is the core of CRT. All you have to do is connect the dots and take a backward. Look at Germany a little less than a hundred years ago. Oh. So if you miss the first segment Sharon's been here for the entirety of the show, we clip these up into different segments. If you're only watching this segment, the first segment we talked about Deutsche bank and

Speaker 3: 1:29:31

Inflation,

Speaker 1: 1:29:33

She's taken us back to that story. Germany rewind back a hundred years. Deutsche bank was founded in 1870.

Speaker 3: 1:29:39

And you know, we know where that went. Oh, not good there, Sharon, but it's just,

Speaker 1: 1:29:45

That's an astute observation. That's for sure.[inaudible]

Speaker 3: 1:29:49

The problem is the left. Isn't using critical race theory as a theory there,

Speaker 1: 1:29:54

Teaching people to use it as a general guideline. Yeah. It's it's critical race factors

Speaker 3: 1:29:58

Has how they're framing it. Right. For everyone

Speaker 1: 1:30:01

Life. And that's why there is such a big problem. They say it brings nothing about anxiety and paranoia to these young folks out here who buy into the lifestyle. Yeah. Yeah. They do. It's it's, it's sort of fact that I've been in conversations with people about that.

Speaker 3: 1:30:15

They don't go very well actually. Well, we're going to leave that one alone. Yeah. I was going to tell you what happened with one of those relationships, but don't want to get into that.

Speaker 1: 1:30:24

All right. Ed green here says critical race theory. How are these states CRT bands going to enforce these bands? How will they monitor for compliance? What are the non-compliance consequences? We need laws to improve transparency and education so that parents and society know what kids are being taught. Indoctrination occurs behind closed doors. Yeah. That's a great point. They're at, and I think this is probably, you're going to see a bunch of lawsuits around this. You know, all this stuff is going to go into effect, but you know, at some point somebody is going to file a lawsuit if they haven't already. And it's probably going to come down to enforcement, right? What happens if somebody starts talking about one of these concepts and a school administrator

Speaker 3: 1:31:03

Says, no, no, you crossed the line

Speaker 1: 1:31:05

There. And they say, no, I didn't. The law says this. And I was talking about it in the bigger context, but I think racism is a part of that bigger context. And so I'm not in fact violating the law. I'm talking about something according to, you know, my, my contract that I signed when I hired here, uh, when I got my job as a teacher here and my, you know, rotten teacher's union, that's going to be fighting for me every step of the way. Then I have the freedom to go do these certain things. And

Speaker 3: 1:31:30

I can, I can run

Speaker 1: 1:31:32

My curriculum my way. You already agreed to that. Now you pass this new law on top of an agreement we already made. We have a conflict of laws. I want to teach this according to my contract and the curriculum that I think is appropriate. The governor just slapped a new series of regulations. On top of me, I'm going to go to my union. That doesn't want me to work or teach the kids anyways, because of COVID. And they're going to file a lawsuit, probably with the ACLU. They're going to take that up. And the courts are going to have to sort all of this out. So it's a big, it's a big, it's going to be a big is really what it's going to come down to. But I agree with your second point here that I think transparency is important. I think choice is important, right? If we had more choice than who cares about what any particular school is teaching, because you just say, Hey Johnny, what'd they teach you at school today. I learned that all white people are the problem. And you say, oh, well, that sounds terrible. That's not that that's not reality. So Johnny, I'm going to take you out of school. A we're going right over there to school B and guess what? That happens pretty quickly, suddenly school. He says, yeah, that's not, that's really not in alignment with what our community wants. So we just sort of use competition and say, well, that curriculum is, is in alignment with my religion, with my values, my ideals, and I'm going to move my children over there, but we don't have that right now. So now we have a situation where the governor really has no choice, but to come down and implement a blanket policy that slaps everybody down. And I don't necessarily like that, right? I'm not somebody who thinks that the government should be telling us what to do one way or the other. If a, if a, if a one parent wants to send their kids to a CRT school and they want to indoctrinate that kid and think that that's the best methodology for that kid in America, go for it. I totally disagree with that. I think that this entire concept really hamstrings kids, and I've talked about this before. It breaks my heart, thinking about, you know, eight year olds waking up thinking that every moment that they're walking around the mall or the park or Disneyland that they are in this environment where they are the victims and that every single white person, you know, who's in that Micky costume, is that a white guy or a black guy, right? Am I going to get attacked by Mickey? Or should I give him a hug because of what they are teaching people like what a horrible world to live in way to Rob a 12 year old or 14 year old of any enjoyable, you know, facet of life by just telling them that they are a victim and at the first step. And you think about this just with kids in general or people in general, if you tell somebody that they're terrible at everything, that they're a victim, that everything is oppressive to them, they're going to start acting in conformity with that, with that position, right, with that belief. And it just makes it impossible for them to succeed, which is a huge problem. That's why we tell kids, you know, you can be president, you can be an astronaut, you can fly to the moon. If you want to do whatever, you know, you, you have skills, you can achieve great things in this world and nobody can stop you little Johnny work hard, do well. You know, don't do drugs, stay in school. You'll have some success in America, but now we turn around the little Johnny and say, oh no, you know, you're a huge part of the problem. Everything that you're doing here is oppressive. And we tell, you know, the, the, the, the, the non-white kid that they're the victim of all of Johnny's actions. And you just go, all right. So if we had a choice, we just say, we're pulling our kids out of that school. They're going to a better school. You can wither away and die. All right. Want to know, says there is a lot of the Bernie philosophy out there it's in Florida and Texas. My mom calls me, calls it the Emmy generation. What can you do for me? I like that. Yeah. So it's not like millennials. It's like the me generation. I like that. We have, I'm not gas as a, I've never seen a parasitic species that hosts specifically seek out to live among. Yeah. It's kinda weird. It is weird. Yeah. And it's weird. Right. You know, so I was trying to, I was trying to sort of tease this out a little bit and it's, it's, it's really complicated because there's a lot, there's, there's, I think a lot of unity between these two, these two things. Like I actually see black people and white people getting along together from time to time. It's a bizarre scene. I mean, if you've never seen it, wow. It actually happens in America regularly. You know, people go to business meetings, they go to lunch, they're not killing each other in racial animosity in this country. I know it's hard to believe that, but it actually does happen. And so I'm trying to sort of conflate the two. If white people are such parasitic, malignant monsters, why are, why are we getting along so well, if we're just leaching off of all of the energy of the host, I don't know it's confusing, but I'm not a medical doctor. He is, I'm a Juris doctor, which is obviously not qualified to opine on anything involving racism in America, especially because I'm white as well. It's a huge problem. Huge problem wants to know, says, how do you cure this condition? Give them everything you own. What would that do it or should one borrow to get more money to give them well, that's what I want to know. I mean, I just want to know what the number is not, because I think that we should do reparations. I'm not saying that at all, but I'm just curious, right. Sometimes you go on that on the website and you look up that car. You're like, whoa, okay. You know, maybe that is doable actually. Maybe. Yeah. Maybe I can make that work. I just like to know. Right. What does that, what does that trip cost? Okay. That's pretty reasonable. You know, if you can knock that down a little bit, then maybe we can make this work. So I'm just curious what the reparations number is. And quite frankly, I'm not really sure who to talk to about that. If I, if I knew who to talk to and who was responsible for that decision, maybe we could get some start, you know, a head start on this. Is it Obama? Is it Al Sharpton? Is it the George Floyd family? You know, I don't know who to talk to about any of these, about any of these issues, but, but I'm open to the conversation. I I'm a problem oriented. I'm a problem. Solution oriented person. It's been a long week folks. Sharon says, okay. And you can put this down with the other two. This is the same rhetoric. And even vocabulary used by dear uncle H in the last century. Oh no. Oh no. Uncle H we're talking about Deutsche bank. We're talking about indoctrination. We're talking about uncle H oh gosh. The show going. We're snowballing fast. My friends. All right, Jeremy here says it. In my opinion, racism is a perverse man-made behavior. And the people pushing anti white is no better than anyone else. There was one race. The human race CRT is perpetuating racism. Not making it better. Honestly. I don't think this guy deserves much attention. He's clearly out of his mind. That's a good point care. Yeah. He might just be crazy, right? It might just be crazy old. Um, what was it? Mosque crazy old. Dr. Moss. He's just riding in there again. Or you got a public member in the office where they give creed creed, Bratton, the creed thoughts. They just set up a word file and I'm like, here's your blog? Just put everything into this word file on your computer. So the internet doesn't see it. Maybe that's what they're doing with Dr. Moss, except this one got out and we're all reading it. Sharon says he is not trolling. Just look at that number with the hate speech at Yale the other day, that person with the hate speech. Yeah. There are a number of other examples that have cropped up lately. Mohs needs to lose his license. Where is the class action lawsuit? Yeah, where's the AMA, where's the American medical association. You know, this guy is actually telling people that they are parasites. Is that clinical psychology. I'm not a psychologist, but is that in the DSM five that they use for clinical diagnoses, whiteness, parasitic, malignant condition? Is he, what is he following? You know, accepted medical practice. I don't think so, but I don't know. Who knows. It's very, very complicated. Tree. Mendez is here. It says the kind of nonsense. This kind of nonsense makes no sense to me. If you're trying to improve race relations by telling people you're trying to convince things, need to improve that they're evil, doesn't work. It makes me feel like, okay, uh, I'm evil. So there's no hope for me because it's my whiteness that makes me evil. So why even try to improve? What's the point you can't

Speaker 3: 1:39:28

Get rid of it. It's still there. I'm stuck with it.

Speaker 1: 1:39:34

Probably. I don't know. I don't know if we can change that in the near future. Not that I would want to, and not that anybody should want to because I don't think it's a problem. All right. Now Jeremy says, I think this guy has been given too many titles and becomes self-important and uncontested for so long. He believes the garbage is coming up with a similar phenomenon is when you think you are a great singer and everyone tells you that you're good. Yeah. That's a good point. It's a good analogy there, Jeremy. And I think also that, you know, this, this type of stuff, you know, it's like, it's like Brittany Spears, okay. Now not anything recent because that's a whole separate can of worms that we're not getting into. But remember when she was sort of young and a teenager, remember she was always kind of doing like one outrageous thing after another, I was a kid. I was like, you know, in love with her. And every time she did something crazy, it was like always a little bit more crazy than the last time we see this with a lot of celebrities and a lot of people in general, you know, they want to get attention. And so they're constantly escalating their rhetoric because everybody's tired of your old shtick. They already heard you say, we already heard your speech on white privilege. Okay. Everybody's saying my privilege now. So we get that. That's boring. It's bland. W we w we there's books about it. We've heard it enough. So this guy goes, oh, I need some, I need to come up with something. I know parasites, malignant

Speaker 3: 1:40:54

Parasites, that's the ticket. I'm going to write a whole paper about it, watch what this does to the internet. Right. So it could be something like that

Speaker 1: 1:41:02

Eat on test says, how do you calculate? How do we calculate reparations to people who are not directly harmed? It's a good, that's a good question. He says, if we are using the original promise

Speaker 3: 1:41:11

40 acres and a mule, okay,

Speaker 1: 1:41:14

We can calculate this, which is, uh, gosh, I'm, I'm liking where this is going in 1862, there were between 20,000 and 50,000 slaves freed take the most favorable number of 50,000. Okay. So 50,000 times 40 acres. So we'll say a 2 million, an acre times, an average of 9 47, an acre, which is 18,940.

Speaker 3: 1:41:36

The million you'll have

Speaker 1: 1:41:39

Calculate the cost of a mule. There you go solve. So, so my math was all over the place, but hard to research and write in here in real-time mule in 1867 to 60, 66, 97. So times 50,000. So it's three, 3.3 million grand, total 22 million. Okay. So that's a great number by the way. Thank you for that. And so now let's, so that sounds like that might be an 1867 numbers. So now let's add that up to it. Like, you know, let's, let's adjust that for inflation and we can add in some punitive damages, if you want. So 22 million, let's say we, I don't know, 22 million in 1867, let's say inflation was three, four times that. So we're going to multiply that by four,

Speaker 3: 1:42:21

Gives us about a hundred million bucks. Let's add another punitive damages of another hundred million bucks,$200 million folks. That's like a rounding error. That's like tip money. They spend that in, you know,

Speaker 1: 1:42:37

I'm in toilet paper and a month in Congress, lot of excrement there. So

Speaker 3: 1:42:41

It's sounds like it's pretty doable.

Speaker 1: 1:42:44

According to Aidan tests. Now that's a different number than what I had heard previously. So there was another room in clubhouse about four months ago, where they were talking about the reparations number, they were having a serious conversation about this and their numbers were, were a little bit different. You're about 22 million. There's a number. There was number. It was about four quadrillion,

Speaker 3: 1:43:02

Which I think is for 1000 trillions, which is a lot. So we've got a little bit

Speaker 1: 1:43:08

Of room to make up here, 22 million, four quadrillion,

Speaker 3: 1:43:12

But it's a start. That's all I was

Speaker 1: 1:43:14

Looking forward. So thank you for that speech on Lee says, resignation is the wrong strategy to change things. To be honest, these teachers need to use the same tactics that are used against them. They need to say they are being forced to teach. CTR is discrimination against them. And you know, that's a good point, actually, speech. I think that's a, that's a very pertinent point, right? The teachers here I think are at a major disadvantage because they, it is a David versus Goliath situation. They have the schools, which are obviously indoctrinated. They want to go one particular direction. They're ideological. They're not educational anymore. They have a particular outcome in mind. They want to see society changed. They're going to be a part of that revolution by teaching the students, they know that they have them captive and they can do essentially whatever they want with them, because most parents are just out to lunch, right? They are doing whatever, whatever they think is best for them and their families. And they're trusting that the government is taking care of their children. Unfortunately they don't know what's really going on. So if we're in a situation like this, where you have the entire school industry, and then you have the teachers who are all beholden to a union, and the union now is going to essentially do what doesn't jeopardize their continual position. The majority of teachers, it sounds like are sort of going in this direction or at least accepting it. And so the unions are not going to fight for the teachers who are resigning in protest. The unions will back. The teachers who maybe would get terminated if they didn't follow the CRT teachings, but not the people, or maybe this woman doesn't have a union. Maybe this is a private school, and this is a whole separate issue. But my point still stands. I think that if a teacher is, is, is not going to go in lockstep, they're going to be out on their own. So what are they supposed to do? In my opinion, I think a real good solution would be somebody starts a legal fund for these people, right? And she does exactly what you said. She, she sticks by her guns. She says, I'm not teaching that garbage. And if you want me to go and participate in this segregation faculty meeting, and you want to call me somebody, who's a part of the white caucus. I'm not participating. What you're doing is discriminatory. It's in violation of the civil rights act. It's racial, discriminatory, discrimination, it's sex discrimination, and I'm not standing for it. And I'm going to continue to work for Shu to fire me, which they will inevitably do. Then they'll get slapped with a lawsuit, right? But the teachers need to have a lot of funds, a lot of resources and expertise in order to do that, which, you know, I think that is probably beyond most of them. And if I were somebody who practiced in civil law and, you know, had more experience in that space and employment law, and, you know, teacher's unions and government contracts and all that stuff, maybe that would be a project I'd be interested in, but I am sure that there are other lawyers out there who would be interested in spearheading something like that, or at least doing work on this, because that is different. You know, resigning is sort of seeding the ground to them. Filing a lawsuit is a whole different ball game. And I think as these conversations continue to develop, we're going to see more and more of that. We're seeing people with a lot of funding, like project Veritas. I think he's backed by the Mercers or somebody like that. You know, billionaires who just say here, whatever you need, just go, continue to fight your war, go, right? You need a million bucks for a lawsuit against the New York times. No problem. Here you go, go get it right, because they're going to get it on the backend in, in fundraising and, um, uh, political victories that will then trickle back down to their, uh, to their benefit. So love the idea of using litigation to take the, the stands when the stands are appropriate, not to be, you know, uh, filing lawsuits by any stretch of the imagination, but stuff that is legally rights and morally appropriate, I think would be, would be the right tactic. All right, next up, we've got no doubt says the parents of one Texas school districts submitted a four year request to the district on CRT materials that were taught and then use the results to flip the school board in the next election. I think I saw that story. Don't think we covered that here. No doubt. But I did see that story. And I, and there was another story where the parents, I think sees the school board because they knew the, uh, the Robert's rules of orders for meetings. So what happened was I think that they were going to come and protest, you know, something and the school board said, oh, we're just not holding a meeting then. Right. We're not going to show up. So the school board didn't show up just sort of abandoned ship because they knew that they were going to get scolded by all these parents. Well, the people there said, well, uh, today's the time and place for the meeting. It's a scheduled meeting. It's a stated meeting it's supposed to happen at this time. Uh, there's nobody here. So the rules say, when nobody's here, now we get to just kind of vote on people who are gonna come in and fill their seats. Let's do it, voted everybody in. They took the seats, elected themselves throughout the old board, passed anti CRT legislation. I think that was the gist of an article I read, which is hilarious. It's just great. We have Davis park says is segregating professors by race unconstitutional by the brown vs board precedent. I don't get how this works. I don't either. My man, I don't know. You know, I thought we had all of these rules in place that you can't do that type of stuff. Right. We used to have the white people get that drinking fountain and the black people got that drinking fountain. You got to sit over here when you're waiting for your tire to get changed and you get to sit over here, but you know, that was separate but equal. Remember that whole system that we went through in this country, then our Supreme court said, uh, originally that, that that's okay, and then not so good anymore. And now we're sort of going back to that. So I don't get it either. My friend, Val brown vs. Board precedent. I don't know if they could, I don't know if they, if they could do that for their own faculty. You know, those are, those are, it's a whole separate, that's a whole separate can of worms. Like this is a, this is a, this is an employment situation now between an employee and an employer. And in my opinion, it's probably going to be closer to, you know, employment discrimination or something. The whole thing is, is, is ripe for a lot of litigation. We talked about Iowa passing this new bill. They're going to be faced with a ton of lawsuits and they know that going into this I'm sure. All right, next up, no doubt says reparations have already been paid through the civil rights act and affirmative action programs of the 1960s. And they continue through today. I think you could easily make that argument, right? We do have a very, very robust, uh, social welfare states in this, in this country. I think you could make the argument for that, but I don't think that's quite what the pro reparations people are looking for. All right, next up, we've gotten a DOB, says if as a parent I would be demanding a live stream of every single one of my kids' classes every day, so that I could access and check in throughout the day. I think that's probably something more parents are interested in. Speech says, taxes, pay for public school, sex education system taxes should not be used to pay for teaching discrimination like CRT. So absolutely no public school should be allowed to teach CRT. If private schools wants to, then you can argue, they should be allowed to, but not with the school. Not with taxpayer.

Speaker 3: 1:50:08

Yeah, yeah. Or, or if you're gonna use taxpayer dollars, let's say to support the students, you give them the choice, right? So like,

Speaker 1: 1:50:17

Oh, everybody here a thousand dollars for your kid's education

Speaker 3: 1:50:21

Wherever you want with that.

Speaker 1: 1:50:24

Yeah. I have to think about that. All right. So next up we've got pinky says, Rob, you don't have a condition. This corruption, the corruption in this world runs deep. Thanks, pinky. You know, I'm looking at you here. You know, you don't have a condition either. Dear, you are beautiful. Just the way you are as is everybody. This racism is garbage. It's just garbage. And I think it's ultimately going to be seen for what it is. I think longterm, this type of ideology living this way, living like you're a constant victim living like you are being oppressed everywhere you go. And living like you are an oppressor.

Speaker 3: 1:50:58

They mute you just that's. That's really what this is all about. It just mutes everybody. And it makes people more volatile and more angry against each other. And that is

Speaker 1: 1:51:08

A good way to live your life. Those people are not going to be effective. And it's sad for them. It's sad for those kids who are going through that world, going through that education, they're going to be less effective as people less effective as business owners, as doctors, as, uh, you know, lawyers, astronauts, presidents, or whatever they decide to do, whether it's, you know, welders and plumbing and teaching and all of these other professions that are outstanding, but they don't function. If every time you walk into your classroom or every time when I was digging ditches, you know, I go out there and I, and I, and I work with my, uh, my colleagues, many of whom were not white. We don't go out there digging ditches in 116 degrees, screaming at each other over about our origins and about who should swing the pick harder than the next guy and about why I should take over their bro. It doesn't work like that. Right? So if I show up on that job site and I start talking victim oppressor, oppressing all this

Speaker 3: 1:51:57

Garbage, do you know what happens

Speaker 1: 1:51:59

At that job site? Everybody goes, you're whacked, bro. We're not going to work with you. And that person gets routed out of the system. They're going to see a lot of failures, time and time again, living in that ideology, or they're only going to succeed in their own silo that lives in or operates that way. Okay? The productive people in society, even if this stuff is being taught in schools, even if the government is cramming this down your throats, the people who really are the gears of the world, they're not going to accept that. So let them have their little fun over there. And they're a little bizarre world where everything's racist and everything is broken. The other people who really want to live our lives and go find some purpose and create a mission and go and achieve that. And believe that we can do something great in this, on this planet. With our time here, we're going to over here, they, you know, the CRT people, they can go spend time over there with themselves and just bicker about who the bigger victim is. I don't want a part of it. I know you don't either, which is why you're here. And you're there and watching the watchers.locals.com and we love you. We love your support. Thank you so much for it. All right. And we're going to change gears. Now, last segment of the day long show, we've got a bad Popo. We've got to talk about being a little bit of time since we've talked about some bad Popo, but we've got one coming out of Arkansas. In fact, this is a, this is a pretty bad one. Now nobody dies in this one. There's no blood or guts or anything like that. Thankfully, unfortunately that is not always the case, but we do have a situation where a pregnant woman was driving her car on the way home. And when she's driving, you're going to notice that an officer kind of pulls up behind her and he's following around and he wants to conduct a traffic stop. You're going to notice what happens. As soon as this traffic stops starts that we see maybe her blinker come on or maybe her hazardous lights come on and we see the officer turn on his flashlight so he can kind of see what's going on. And then something kind of just goes wrong from there. We're going to show you what happened before we do. Let's get some background on what's going on here because this is coming out of Arkansas. And the woman is suing Arkansas for some serious damages. We're going to take a look at the lawsuit. It's 23 pages long. We're not going to go through all of that, but I want to give you some background on what is happening here. So let's go over to law and crime.com. It says police are sued after an officer flipped a pregnant woman's car for not pulling over fast enough. Right? And we have a video of this and we're going to take a look at it. So she's from Arkansas and the officer who attempted to pull her over, used a, a dangerous called pursuit intervention technique. Okay. Called the pit. And why did he stop her for speeding? Right? This was the, the, the, the, the charge. Now the woman is suing them for negligence, excessive force and assault. And you can be the judge of what this looks like. Now, in my opinion, this is a actual serious crime. This woman is suing in civil court. We'll see if this officer gets charged, looks like not so not. So, uh, not, not, not going to happen. At least now the officer claimed that he used this maneuver because the woman who was two months pregnant at the time did not pull over her car quickly enough. The plaintiff says the dash cam video shows that she reduced her speed, turned her hazard lights on before the officer rammed her vehicle. So briefly, uh, I'm going to read the article. I'll show you the video, but she's driving down. And the officer just comes up and gives her that little, that little tap that you see in the high-speed chases. And it gives that vehicle a little tap there, a little bump on the, on the back of the vehicle. It's sort of, you know, fish tails out. And it, it, it's difficult for drivers, most drivers to correct that they end up crashing, which is exactly what happened here. Actually, it was worse than that because this woman's car flipped. All right. So let's go back to the story in the lawsuit is filed mid may and up Palasky county circuit court claims that senior corporal, Rodney willfully and wantonly engage in extreme and outrageous conduct. He ran Nicole Harper's car causing severe bodily injuries. This happened July 9th, 2020. So

Speaker 3: 1:55:53

Almost a full year ago, 23 page

Speaker 1: 1:55:56

Complaint, uh, she was driving home, done, allegedly clocked her going 84 miles per hour,

Speaker 3: 1:56:01

70 mile per hour speed limit. Okay. 14 over going 84 on a, on a freeway. This wasn't like a, woman's going 35 down the neighborhood. Okay. Go

Speaker 1: 1:56:14

On about seven is 75, 70 mile an hour speed

Speaker 3: 1:56:16

Limit, very fast. And the violation here was speeding 14 over. Okay. So this is

Speaker 1: 1:56:23

A woman who is fleeing with drugs. This is not somebody with guns. Who's a danger to community, not even a, a suspect

Speaker 3: 1:56:29

Efficient of DUI. This is just a speeding ticket. Let's see what happens. Now. Harper's attorney say that dash

Speaker 1: 1:56:36

Cam footage of the incident shows that within seconds of Don turning his lights on Harpur slowed down, pulled to the right lane of the three-lane highway. But the complaint further alleges that due to the riddles reduced shoulder on the side of the road, she could not safely

Speaker 3: 1:56:50

Pull over. So she turned on her hazard lights continued driving in the right lane at six

Speaker 1: 1:56:55

50 miles per hour, looking for an area to safely stop the car. All sounds extremely reasonable, but there were no exits or shoulder for her to get off at. So after about two minutes and seven,

Speaker 3: 1:57:07

The seconds, the officer conducted a pit maneuver. He used his Arkansas state police patrol cruiser with his overhead lights on to flip her vehicle. According to the complaint we see here

Speaker 1: 1:57:22

After the pit maneuver caused the car to flip the footage, shows the officer, pulling up to the wreckage and then approaching the vehicle on foot knocking on the driver's side window and asking if she can get out of the car,

Speaker 3: 1:57:32

He says, why didn't you stop? She said, because I didn't feel like it was safe. And he says, well, this is where you ended up. Harper said, I thought it would be safe to wait until the exit, which done replied.

Speaker 1: 1:57:45

No, ma'am you pull over when law enforcement stops

Speaker 3: 1:57:47

You. Hmm.

Speaker 1: 1:57:49

According to the Arkansas driver's license study guide drivers being pulled over by law enforcement are directed to pull to the nearest safest spot out of the

Speaker 3: 1:57:58

Traffic lane. Later in the conversation

Speaker 1: 1:58:01

Done can be her telling Harper that the incident could've been avoided saying, all you had to do is slow down. She says, I did slow down. I turned on my hazards. I thought I was doing the right thing. Harper respondent,

Speaker 3: 1:58:10

Lawsuit, Harper

Speaker 1: 1:58:11

Accuses done of negligence, assault, battery extreme, and outrageous conduct. Excessive force, malicious prosecution.

Speaker 3: 1:58:17

The latter claim

Speaker 1: 1:58:18

Stems from done charging Harper with one count of failure to yield to an emergency vehicle. He charges her with a crime. My friends alleging there was no probable cause

Speaker 3: 1:58:29

To charge carrying a fine of$400

Speaker 1: 1:58:33

Suit. Also named defendants, their supervisor, state police director, William Bryant. The individual seeks damages in excess of a hundred thousand dollars, which cheap

Speaker 2: 1:58:42

Somebody tell that attorney to raise that price a hundred thousand dollars. Watch this. You tell me what you think. Reach for comment. Harper's legal team at Denton and Zachary PLLC simply said the video speaks for itself. I know it does. So raise that money. Oh my gosh. A hundred grand. Gosh. Be a hundred grand of punitive damages. All right. You tell me what this is worth. Let's take a look. This is the dash cam footage. This is Nicole Harper driving down a freeway. It's a big freeway. It's an Arkansas. It's got three lanes shoulder there on the right. Watch. What happens next Hat. See the hazards are flashing. Oh, oh. Oh, don't do it. Don't don't do it. Don't do it dog. Nope. There it is. Oh, no, there it is For a speeding ticket folks. Speeding. Okay. Well I'll just turn around now. I just wrecked that person's car. Okay. So they flipped over speeding ticket. Okay. So he just called for EMS. He said, Hey, let's get EMS started. He just called for it right now. This other car stopped pregnant. Nicole's now listen, the number three lane number three lane, shut down. He said, So Nicole pregnant, just laying there. Airbag deployed

Speaker 4: 2:00:35

Officer gets out. Huh?[inaudible]

Speaker 2: 2:00:58

So the audio is super low here. So you probably can't hear it, but everything I just read is what they're talking about. No, no, man. You pull over

Speaker 4: 2:01:15

[inaudible] I got plenty of room right here. Are you only one in the vehicle?[inaudible] can you come out?[inaudible]

Speaker 1: 2:02:03

All right. So you get the gist of it. You know, the audio is low. I'm not sure how much of that you heard, but you, you heard what I read previously? The guy just, you know, almost killed that woman. I mean, was that not assault with a deadly weapon? She was, she had her hazards on, which means I was slowing down. Well, let's take a look at what Arkansas says, right? Because we saw that they have their own driver's license guide, like many different states do volume, one edition eight. This is posted on January 18th. Let's take a look at what this says, what to do when you are stopped by a law enforcement officer. Hey, we're going to be talking about this by the way on Saturday, if you want to register for our law enforcement interaction training that is available for all subscribers over to watching the watchers.locals.com, but in Arkansas, here's what they're saying. What to do when you are stopped. Here are the steps that you should take, pull over to the right side of the road, activate your turn signal or your emergency flashers to indicate to the officer that you are seeking a safe place to stop. So if you have your emergency flashers on the police should know that it is indicating to them. You are seeking a safe place to stop. Yup. I see you. I hear you. I know you're there turning it on. I'm going to be looking for a place to stop. I'm communicating to you. It's pretty nice, pretty easy way to do it. Pretty, pretty convenient. The cars have hazard lights on for that version of communication, right? If you are unsure, if you're being stopped, pull over call nine 11, make sure that they confirm it is an actual officer. Good advice on that. Number three, pull to the nearest safest spot out of the traffic lane do not stop on bridges or overpasses. Okay? So between numbers one and number three, here, she did exactly the right thing. Exactly the right thing. Turn on her hazards slowed down and pulled to the nearest safest spot out of the traffic lane was trying to do that was probably going to do that. As soon as she got off at the next exit until maniac lunatic officer decided that he was going to assault her with his vehicle, almost killing her and her unborn child. So that's great. Now they are suing for some reason only a hundred thousand dollars probably should be about 10 times that in my opinion, but now we have Janice, Nicole Harper suing everybody from Arkansas comes. Now the plaintiff introduction, the action arises out of a negligently performed pit, a pit maneuver, which resulted in the accident that we just saw. Now let's see, they're looking for damages. They're saying this is a federal claim, 14th amendment violation of the constitution unconstitutional treatment of plaintiff during the traffic stop in question. No question. Absolutely unreasonable behavior, 9:00 PM. She was driving home allegedly 84 and a 70. This is a four seconds. Within four seconds of him turning on his overhead lights. She turned on her blinker turn, dropped her speed to 60 and moved into the right lane. So three things to confirm that she understood that plaintiff was unable to safely stop her vehicle. On the right side, there were concrete barriers there. They reduced a shoulder on both sides of the road, leaving plaintiff with no room to safely pull over a car within 14 seconds of turning on his overhead lights. He floored his patrol cruiser to get less than a car length away. And within 15 seconds of initiating acted, the emergency flashers to indicate that she was seeking a safe place to stop. 19 seconds initiated his siren. There were no exits or shoulders to exit upon. And then about two minutes and seven seconds after done initiated, which caused the plaintiff's vehicle to flip. Right? So that's, that's a, that's a fairly long time for an officer, right? So two minutes and seven seconds. Does that justify what he did? Many people would say it does. Hey, was two minutes. You know? Well, what's he supposed to wait like three or four minutes? That's ridiculous. He's a police officer. He's got other things to do. He's very busy, man. So like two minutes and seven seconds. That's like way too long. You should pull over immediately. And if you don't, oh, there are repercussions coming for you. There are people who think that way. So maybe you find yourself in that camp. Once a defendant done initiated the overhead lights on his patrol cruiser, she reduced her speed. Well below 70 look for a safe spot to park, but he performed a negligent pit upon information and belief. We're going to be suing everybody for everything. Plaintiff has a direct cause of action. Due to the negligence. Here are the causes of action. So direct and vicarious liability for everybody. Let's see what's going on here. He had a direct non-affirmative nondelegable duty to ensure that the officer is not a maniac. So the supervisor is liable because he hired a lunatic who is assaulting people with his police vehicle. Defendant Dunn, supervisor Johnson is also, you know, sort of negligent for being closely connected to him. Defendant Dunn is also negligent of course, because he was the driver. We have Johnson, arc-on Arkansas state police and other Johnson. Uh, they willful and wanton in their conduct. So they're just suing everybody. We have negligence of the actual officer. So they're saying that he failed to properly and safely execute the pit maneuver failed to obey the rules of the road. And in violation of the common law in Arkansas failed to exercise the requisite degree of care that an ordinary prune person would under the same circumstances. And he failed to operate his motor vehicle in a way to avoid potentially injuring or killing somebody. Right? It's foreseeable that the failure of done while in the scope of his work, blah, blah, blah, as a direct result, she suffered some serious injuries. So assault, right? So now they're saying that this is assault. She suffered injuries that were inflicted while she was not a threat to anybody. What he did was absolutely, you know, immediately

Speaker 2: 2:07:36

Let's see what else

Speaker 1: 2:07:37

They say that this constituted an intentional attempt to do injury

Speaker 2: 2:07:41

To the plaintiff. We have

Speaker 1: 2:07:43

A battery charge here, count, count for here battery. So, you know, they're going through and they're just listing out all the different causes of action battery in the third degree that the content that, that basically, you know, batteries, that sort of thing,

Speaker 2: 2:07:56

Physical touch by him by using his car to hit her car, she suffered damages also says mental anguish, humiliation, embarrassment. Let's see what else.

Speaker 1: 2:08:09

Very long complaint. We're going to fly through some of this count three violation of the us code count four or account nine, actually 14th amendment. So this is going to be an equal protection type of a claim. Probably.

Speaker 2: 2:08:21

I see your probable cause deliberately.

Speaker 1: 2:08:26

The difference here. Okay, here we go. We've got damages. Now let's see what she wants damages for. Cause she's only asking for a hundred thousand dollars,

Speaker 2: 2:08:32

My goodness for something like this. So she wants the permanency of her injuries, right?

Speaker 1: 2:08:39

You need more money than that to recover from your injuries, the full extent of the injuries you sustained the expense of the medical care, the treatment, I mean a new car, transportation, lodging expenses, you know, re like time off of work. And how about this pain? Suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of her life. They call them hedonic damages, visible results of scarring or disfigurement value of any lost earnings, personal property loss, consequential damages, right? And now what they're saying is it also is warranted of punitive damages. They want to punish the defendant for his reckless malicious, knowing and intention.

Speaker 2: 2:09:18

He was reckless malicious, and he acted deliberately knowing that he could and would probably injure him

Speaker 1: 2:09:24

Damage the plaintiff. So punitive damages they say are needed to punish the defendant and deter the defendant and other similarly situated individuals from similar

Speaker 2: 2:09:33

Conduct in the future. Yeah.

Speaker 1: 2:09:35

Yeah. Why not? So they want a jury trial and they want a hundred thousand dollars, a hundred award joint, and several judgment. They want interest on that. They want attorney's fees.

Speaker 2: 2:09:48

Andrew Payne,

Speaker 1: 2:09:49

Norwood. So Denton and zachary.com. So I don't know what civil law, how that works in Arkansas, but a hundred thousand dollars bump those up, get those numbers up. All right, let's see. What's going on@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com says depends on the state in Florida. You must immediately pull over. So attempting to go to a safer place as a matter of rolling the dice on the police response. Interesting. Yeah. So, you know, this is part of the problem with, with how this stuff works is laws are very different in different places. People come to Arizona all the time. We have criminal speeding in Arizona, a little public service announcement. So if you're going in any speed over 85 in our state criminal, even if the posted speed limit is 75 happens all the time. One of the most common criminal offenses that we see at our office in fact

Speaker 2: 2:10:37

Is criminal speeding. And

Speaker 1: 2:10:39

It's because people travel all through Arizona all the time to, you

Speaker 2: 2:10:42

Know, to get through to California, to go visit the

Speaker 1: 2:10:44

Grand canyon. We have a lot of foreign people from around the world who come here to go see that thing. And they go a little bit fast because it's out in the middle of nowhere. And it's very easy to get going fast. It's 75

Speaker 2: 2:10:55

Drive everywhere. So if you're going 86 and everybody else is going, you know, over well over 75, automatically criminal, a big deal. So when I, when I've tried to

Speaker 1: 2:11:07

Communicate to people about how to respond to the police or how to deal with law enforcement got to keep that in mind, rules are different everywhere you go. Sometimes it catches people off guard. We're going to talk about that

Speaker 2: 2:11:17

On a Saturday, we've got speech.

Speaker 1: 2:11:19

Lisa says I was taught in driver's education, that it was okay and legal to put my hazards on and slow down to signal. I realized the officer was wanting me to pull over, but then I could wait to pull over until I was in a lit environment where I felt safe. Well, that just makes sense. I mean, even if you're in Florida and you have to pull over immediately and somebody turns their hazards on and they slow down and they get into the right lane. I mean, to me, that sounds, it feels compliant right there.

Speaker 2: 2:11:44

Okay. If they start like, at least you wait until the next exit, right. If they skip that exit, then you go, okay, well kind of a problem here going to call on somebody

Speaker 1: 2:11:55

Back up, tell somebody to get on the, on the freeway before me, you know, get in front of the car, get behind. Well, we'll start, you

Speaker 2: 2:12:01

Know, communicating

Speaker 1: 2:12:03

Verbally, not just ramming somebody with your

Speaker 2: 2:12:05

Car. One man's opinion

Speaker 1: 2:12:07

Though, we got an, a Darby says, whoa. Now Robert, this is my town. You're speaking on. Let me remind you that the Arkansas state police was also part of governor, bill

Speaker 2: 2:12:17

E C I a, the elite

Speaker 1: 2:12:19

Cocaine import agency. So you already know their integrity is immaculate and cannot be questioned. She says, oh, LOL, just K. And the dark says, LOL, JK, just screw them up. Screw that, screw that cop, lock them up. I like it. And uh, thank you in the dark for that. Yeah. So hopefully I didn't

Speaker 2: 2:12:35

Then any are, are can our Kansans, Arkansas, Arkansas, or can Arkansas Indians? I think we call ourselves Arizona's or Phoenicians, which is the really like, kind of the bougie term. I'm a Phoenician okay. We have a resort here. We have a whole hotel here named the Phoenician. It's very fancy. It's nice spot. Actually. We've got Davis park says this cop is such a moron.

Speaker 1: 2:13:05

There are two options. One follow the car until she stops and risk. I don't know something. Or to stop the car with a dangerous pit maneuver causing lots of medical bills, automobiles taking other officers away from more important things. Clearly. Option two is the right one

Speaker 2: 2:13:17

Here. Major face Palm. Yeah, I know. It's like what's what did, what did you do that for? You could have waited another minute. At least seen if she got off at the next exit. Okay. Uh,

Speaker 1: 2:13:32

Want to know, says, okay, so you would Sue for at least a million. Nice cut. No, it'd be way more than that. I mean, at least a million. Yeah. You said at least a million. Yeah. At least a million look. If, if George Floyd, his family got 27 million, a hundred thousand is a little bit low for that. Not that you know, she wasn't killed in a nationwide,

Speaker 2: 2:13:50

Uh, spectacle,

Speaker 1: 2:13:51

But the whole thing in a political spectacle that the killing was not a spectacle. Let me be clear about that. The aftermath was the spectacle, so she doesn't have that same level of spotlight on her in this case,

Speaker 2: 2:14:04

But certainly more than a hundred thousand, she doesn't have$27 million worth of spotlight, but definitely more than a hundred. I would think the DOB says

Speaker 1: 2:14:13

The law here says that maneuver Was doing that maneuver over the speed of 45 is okay. If deadly force

Speaker 2: 2:14:21

Can be applied. So in order for this

Speaker 1: 2:14:23

To be okay, he should have been able to shoot and be justified. Wow. Oh my gosh. That's a great point in the dark. Love that. Thank you for that. It's a great point. Right? So what are the deadly force

Speaker 2: 2:14:33

Protocols? And so I was

Speaker 1: 2:14:35

Being flippant about this earlier today on Twitter, but yeah, I mean, I said actually aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. If anybody else did this, if, if a private person did this to somebody else, absolutely aggravated assault with a deadly weapon all day, somebody died, right? It's vehicular, vehicular Manson,

Speaker 2: 2:14:51

Or attempted murder, really, theoretically, this could be an attempted murder charge.

Speaker 1: 2:14:56

So at, at that, you know, if you're going to be doing that analysis, if the government is going to be prosecuting this guy, which as far as I can tell, they're not, you'd have to do an analysis on that basis. So why is

Speaker 2: 2:15:05

The county attorney

Speaker 1: 2:15:08

Or the prosecutor from Arkansas not doing that analysis,

Speaker 2: 2:15:11

[inaudible] you, you, you referenced what the rules are. Look to me like he used deadly force. Was he justified

Speaker 1: 2:15:19

In doing that? Was there a direct threat to him or his

Speaker 2: 2:15:21

Life or his safety? No, she was just driving. So I think

Speaker 1: 2:15:25

He should be charged. In fact, how about that? We have Sharon Quinn. He says why only 100 grand, maybe the PD isn't good for more than that, or, you know, maybe it's just so you know, this is, this is something interesting. Also you get different verdicts because you have different jurors in different parts of the country. So I don't practice civil law, never done a civil jury trial or have any real, any experience in, in civil litigation. Uh, other than I did some very brief personal injury work, but outside of that, um, you know, not, not a whole lot of things,

Speaker 2: 2:15:57

But if you are in assuming India,

Speaker 1: 2:16:00

Different cities or different states, you get different verdicts. Some juries just don't like to award verdicts. They just say, no, you're just suing for money. You're just money hungry. I'm not going to award you anything. I think California, like by contrast is very, very accommodating. You know, they just, yeah,

Speaker 2: 2:16:13

It's a big corporation, whatever, right. Or, or, you know

Speaker 1: 2:16:16

Sure. It's companies going to be paying for that, whatever. So they award big fees, whereas some other more conservative states just don't. So maybe they know that, which is why they're asking for

Speaker 2: 2:16:25

Only a low amount. And see, uh,

Speaker 1: 2:16:30

We have,[inaudible] says that last page you displayed, asked for damages exceeding a hundred and a hundred thousand. Okay. So, okay. So that's a good point. So maybe they're just putting that in there because that is a, uh, sort of a threshold, right. There are some times I could be wrong about this. I don't practice law in Arkansas, so I don't know. Right. Maybe they're, maybe they're really asking

Speaker 2: 2:16:49

For$10 million, but they have to put that threshold limitation down so

Speaker 1: 2:16:55

Order to get it into that court. So there are certain provisions, again, I don't, I don't practice, uh, uh, personal injury law. We only do criminal law here, but there are certain rules that in order to file a certain complaint in a certain court, it's got to meet a statutory threshold of an amount of damages. So, you know, you can't Sue somebody let's say for$25 in a superior court because it's$25, right. Go to small claims, get out of here with that stuff. So maybe hear what they have to do is just properly plead that it is going to be exceeding a hundred thousand dollars when they do come up with the calculation. Now, part of the reason why this lawsuit is happening, just to sort of frame this out for you. Remember this happened back in 2020, I think July almost a year ago. So presumably this woman has been treated

Speaker 2: 2:17:38

This entire time and they should

Speaker 1: 2:17:41

Have a good idea of what the medical bills are. And if our attorneys are worth anything, they got her, the appropriate treatment that she needs. You know, they're not just sort of sending her on her own to go figure it out. They have, you know, medical doctors who specialize in actual accidents and especially, uh, you know, vehicle flips and things like that, because there are all sorts of things that happen to your body when you're involved in an accident like that, that a regular doctor just doesn't know much about. So if the doctors did that well then of course, they're going to inflate her medical bills up dramatically giving her the treatment that she needs and deserves by the way. And they'll, they'll lump that into their request for the ultimate damages. And I'm going to, I'm going to guess, I mean, a hundred thousand dollars says very, sounds very low to me. So this makes more sense if it's exceeding a hundred, it probably just means that,

Speaker 2: 2:18:24

That they are meeting the threshold

Speaker 1: 2:18:28

Minimum and that the damages may be significantly more than that. So very good catch on that five. Thank you for that. And this is what is so awesome about this show. It's just like, you know, I go, I kind of fly through the material

Speaker 2: 2:18:40

And I had a, um, you know, kind of going off the cuff on a lot of this stuff and you

Speaker 1: 2:18:45

Just, me and you correct me and the fed and the monetary policy

Speaker 2: 2:18:48

And fiscal policy

Speaker 1: 2:18:50

And the government and the whole, you know, the whole thing is it's complicated. I think I got that. Right. I'll have to revisit this after the show we have Joe Snow says, in your opinion, is this the kind of disregard for human life that can be trained out of these room, temperature, IQ, drones. So

Speaker 2: 2:19:05

That that's, uh, no,

Speaker 1: 2:19:07

I mean, I, I don't know. I've never been a big proponent of the train, it, train it away. I don't know what that means. You know, how do you do that? We talked about this earlier this week, Joe, where we were mentioning, you know, the 10 different guards out of New York city who were beating women in there and breaking their eye sockets and hitting them 20, 20

Speaker 2: 2:19:24

Any times, like maybe they just need

Speaker 3: 2:19:28

Some more training to know

Speaker 1: 2:19:30

Beat people. 28 times smashed people's heads, 28 times with your fist when they're a prisoner and you are a prison guard, you need a, like a class

Speaker 3: 2:19:38

That this guy needs a class on. Not ramming another vehicle with her, with his, no, the guy

Speaker 1: 2:19:45

I was just whacked. Right? He's he should be removed immediately and probably charged with a crime. Absolutely charged with a crime, I think. All right. Now let's see, want to know, says he should have pulled her out and tased her and handcuffed her to be, uh, a total a-hole. Yeah,

Speaker 3: 2:19:58

Yeah, yeah. I know.

Speaker 1: 2:20:03

I know. I know pinky too says, oh my goodness. Who do they think they are? Police and bad Popo at highway speeds. That could have been deadly. No question about it.

Speaker 3: 2:20:12

Pinky. I know it's bad, Joseph.

Speaker 1: 2:20:14

Oh, says he feared for his life. He had a family to get home to. He was going to be late for dinner. He don't, we don't have all day here.

Speaker 3: 2:20:21

Okay. Pull over. All right. All right. You got it.

Speaker 1: 2:20:24

It's 30 more seconds here. It's been about two minutes, but you gotta, you gotta, all right. That's

Speaker 3: 2:20:28

Enough taking this into my own

Speaker 1: 2:20:30

Hands. Let's go, Johnny. Boom, boom, boom. Pregnant women flipped over

Speaker 3: 2:20:35

Could be potentially dead. Hopefully.

Speaker 1: 2:20:37

Well, she sees some serious monetary damages there, and there are repercussions for that officer because

Speaker 3: 2:20:45

It's only a matter

Speaker 1: 2:20:45

Of time until he does that again. Or somebody else gets killed one man's humble opinion. Okay. So long show today. My goodness we've been going for a while, but a lot of good content, a lot of great questions. The content was marginal. The questions and your participation was outstanding. And I appreciate that. So I want to thank all of you who were able to join us@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com. Quick, welcome to Polaris. Welcome Polaris who joined us at the community. If you want to sign up, you can the addresses down here watching the watchers.locals.com. Lots of questions today. Oh my goodness. Look at all these questions coming in from all of you. Thank you so much. Appreciate all the love there, everybody. There were great questions and very interesting topic. You know, I wasn't, I wasn't sure are very interesting conversation. I wasn't sure how, uh, how the inflation conversation would go, but a lot of great questions I'm learning a lot. So thank you for, thank you for allowing me to learn in public a little bit, kind of explore these ideas, open them up and muster kind of muddle my way through them and being so accommodating and conversational and appreciate and, and, uh, understanding. I appreciate

Speaker 3: 2:21:48

Your, uh, your, your, your, your

Speaker 1: 2:21:50

Courtesies there. All right. So if you are not already a member@watchingthewatchersdotlocals.com and you want to be, let's take a look at what you can get. When you sign up, you get a free copy of my book. First of all, you can download the slides that we went through today. We have some templates that you can download. You can download my personal productivity system called existence systems, download that template, make it your own. We share links throughout the day. There's a lot of great people over there. We have a monthly locals meetup that is coming up on June 26. Our last one was on may. It was a lot of fun. We are going to be doing it again. June 26th, this Saturday though, we've got the law enforcement interaction training. I just finished the PowerPoint, or I might, I'm not done with it yet. I've got probably another about 40% left, but I'm liking it. I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. And I have this fun clip of this officer. Who's like, oh, children, you know, make sure that you have your registration available and, you know, be kind to the officers. And, uh, it gives them one little last tidbit of advice that not good advice. So we're going to talk about what that is on Saturday. It is free for anybody. Who's a supporter over at locals. If you're over there, you're going to notice that there's a pin to post that has the registration form. So go check that out. Uh, it is going to be recorded. So keep that in mind, if you do not want to be recorded, turn your camera off or change your name or whatever, uh, because I am going to be recording it for those who do not, who cannot make it. So, uh, there will be some interaction depending on the size of the group. Uh, it can only be chat if you want. So we're going to have fun with it. It's gonna be the first one. We're going to see if we can sort of get into a rhythm with some, some stuff like this, monthly meetups, you know, some, some interactive trainings and things like that. Just to have some fun with the community over there at locals, want you to be a part of it, watching the watchers.locals.com before we get out of here, a couple of quick reminders, there are some new links down below, so I am on gum road now. So the law enforcement interaction training is also going to be uploaded to gum gum road, which is where some of my informational offerings are. So, uh, I'm going to be spending some time on that. So go take a look at that, you know, follow me there or bookmark that if you want. Uh, we also have other channels down below, which I want to plug briefly. Crypto channel. We have a non live channel for more of my deep dive recordings. There's one on Nicholas Wade's article about the Wuhan coronavirus lab escape theory. That's over on that channel crypto, I mentioned, and then we have RNR law group. Of course, that's what we do on a daily basis. It's what this whole star show started from, was my experience, practicing law and building a law firm. We love to help good people facing criminal charges. That's why I get so fired up about these issues on this show, because we want to help people and provide value to them in their lives. And so if you happen to know anybody in the state of Arizona who is facing criminal charges, we would love the opportunity to help we offer free case evaluations. We can help with any type of criminal case in the state of Arizona, whether it's a misdemeanor, a felony case, if it's a traffic case, if it's one of those criminal speeding charges that we talked about, we can help with that. And so much more, we can help clear up old cases. We can help restore a person's rights so they can vote again and feel like a full citizen and participate in this beautiful thing called America. We want to help people do that. So if you happen to know anybody, we would be honored and humbled truly if you sent them our direction so that we had the opportunity to help. We just want to make sure that they are in a good position, whether that is with working with us or if we can help them and send them on their way. We're happy to do that as well. And so all of our information is down below. We also have a YouTube channel for Arizona law. If you're interested in that, so please feel free to check those out. Otherwise my friends, it has been a tremendous time with you today. We're going to be back here, same place, same time tomorrow doing the same thing. Again, it's going to be Friday. I'm looking forward to it. I hope you are too. And so I will see you then and there it's going to be at the same time, same place, 4:00 PM, Arizona time, 5:00 PM, mountain time, 6:00 PM, central time, 7:00 PM, east coast for that one, Florida man as well. Everybody have a tremendous evening sleep very well. I will see you here tomorrow. Bye-bye.