RestorationPAC

Doug speaks with Harmeet Dhillon, election integrity expert about what we can do to secure our future. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration of America. I'm Doug Truax, founder and president of Restoration of America. Today we are blessed to have as our guest Harmeet Dhillon, one of the most recognizable and effective conservative lawyers in America. Harmeet is in the middle of nearly all hot button issues right now, Civil liberties, big tech, election integrity, and politics. It's our pleasure to get her perspective today. Welcome to the show, Harmeet. Harmeet Dhillon: My pleasure to be here. Doug Truax: So we've all had plenty of time now to take in what happened in 2020, the election, and you know, all the covid stuff and everything that happened. And I just want to get your assessment of how you feel about the people in power, what they might have done to twist the rules in their favor because of Covid. Harmeet Dhillon: Well, I think one of the biggest things that we saw during Covid that was fairly new to the election law world was the use of both the courts as well as collusive settlement agreements with attorneys general or secretaries of state to rapidly change election laws for the worst. So for example, this happened in Minnesota, a liberal group, Mark Elias or some other group would sue, and then the Secretary of State or the Attorney General would either enter into a settlement agreement to waive or expand election laws that provide integrity protections. Or in the case of Pennsylvania, the ca the Pennsylvania Supreme Court basically concocted new rules that were not passed by the legislature and are not part of Pennsylvania law to allow liberal absentee balloting and so forth. So all of these things were a one way ratchet, if you will. Now, in some cases, like in Minnesota, the court stepped in and said, this is entirely impermissible and it's a violation of the Constitutional elections clause. But in other cases, like in Pennsylvania, these loosening of rules we're allowed to stand and I believe change the outcome of the election in certain states. And so that's what we've been dealing with. And of course you might think covid is a one time deal, but if covid were successfully deployed to allow a handful of well funded special interest groups through the courts or otherwise to rapidly change our laws, you can imagine that this tactic will be used again. So that's really what we election lawyers have been gearing after, try to fight and prevent. Doug Truax: Yeah, that was leading into my next question, but I want to make a quick comment. And you first brought this to my attention a while back. It's such a sneaky trick when a democrat lawyer sues a Democrat politician and the politician says, Oh, I gotta just give this lawyer this thing a settlement. And, and lo and behold, they get what they want. And I'm glad, I'm glad you're watching all this like a hawk as we know you are. And, and that's really what I want to ask you next. And so what's your assessment of where we are going into this election? We've had time now, and what have Republicans been doing and and how does it shake out compared to what we went through last time? What, what, what's, what do you see coming? Harmeet Dhillon: Well, what I see coming is it was a big wake up, if you will, to Republicans to see how really a combination of a small number of lawyers and activists and a lot of money managed to flood our courts with this type of litigation. And, and on the Republican side, to be frank, in prior election cycles, they weren't well prepared for that either monetarily or even with the lawyers staffed up to be able to do it. And sort of a early warning system to look out for these lawsuits to look out for sneaky legislation passing its way through the legislative system. Today, I would say we were in a much better position than that on a number of fronts. First of all, just in the nuts and bolts of election administration, Republicans are very alert to those issues and now checking in more regularly with election officials, well before elections and going to court more quickly when we see problems. But also just in the nuts and bolts of winning elections, lawyers are an important ingredient and in many prior election cycles, Republicans have relied on lawyers like me to sort of quit their day job for two weeks or four weeks and do do this work for free political consultants don't do the work for free. The people who print the signs don't do the work for free. Campaign consultants don't do the work for free. But lawyers were expected to do that, and as a result, you weren't exactly getting necessarily either the volume or the quality of lawyers that you needed. And that dynamic has changed both the combination of party waking up and spending more money on these issues, the Senate and the congressional committees, but also importantly conservative donors stepping up and realizing that just like the left has been financing election litigation for some time in large numbers, we need to match that dollar for dollar or even outspend them in order to protect our elections. Doug Truax: Yeah, I'm, I'm so glad to hear you say that. And I'm in the same place. I think we were a little late to this party. They were, they got way out in front of us. We kind of year over year, Oh, maybe there's some fraud, some cheating, but we just need to beat 'em by enough. It'll be fine. And, and just kind of quickly move on to the next election. But there was really no moving on after the last when everybody stopped for a second and said, Okay, what, what have we got to do? And, and you were been on the forefront of that, so I really appreciate that. So, so we've made progress, but what would you say in your opinion, is now the most widespread objectionable thing out there when it comes to election fraud that's still kind of baked in the cake out there? Harmeet Dhillon: Well, I, I have a, some different views about this. There's, there's two issues. Number one, from the White House to the national news media, there has been a concerted effort to label anybody who talks about election irregularities or fraud using shorthand as, as you know, some kind of de you know, reality denier or criminal, when in fact it is entirely factual to point out that in multiple states, particularly the battleground states, there were election irregularities including, and I would include changes of laws that violate the constitution that affected the outcome of the election. You know, ballot harvesting where it's not legal affects the outcome of an election. Absentee balloting where it's not legal, refusing to allow observers in Philadelphia or Detroit to see how ballots are being counted, not only may affect the outcome, but more importantly undermines confidence of Americans in the outcome of an election, which is equally important because a lack of confidence means people don't vote. I'm concerned about that and I'm frankly concerned that with both misinformation on the Republican side as well as information on the conservative side, you have a lot of people who are disenchanted with our election system and they're being disenfranchised by, I would say first Amendment violations by threats by our government to try to shut people down for their speech. That is going on, and I'll talk about that more in a minute. But I think the other sort of systemic thing that I think is really affecting the outcome of elections is outside spending. Now the shorthand for that in the 2020 elections is, is zucker bucks a single wealthy donor through a pair of foundations. Mark Zuckerberg poured over $400 million into election administration, again, focused on not just battleground states but democrat counties. And the idea was to make sure that more ballots were being returned than they would have been only in liberal areas to ju the overall statewide vote. Now, some states have taken action to pass laws to prevent this, but it's a system of whackamole really. And what we have replaced that with is the Biden administration has made vague pronouncements about how they're gonna be given grants to nonprofits to help combat election disinformation and provide information about elections. That's Orwellian speak for, doing the same thing with federal tax dollars. But they refused to respond in a timely manner to do public records act requests and tell us exactly who's getting that money, what is the process for applying for those funds, how that money is being spent. So that's going to be probably mired in some litigation for some time. But look, it's perfectly legitimate for groups to provide information. But what we are talking about in that election, and I don't know what's gonna happen in the 2022 election, included third party subsidized election workers opening up ballots and tabulating them and and chasing ballots and getting them returned. This is all illegitimate and outside our election system. So I think that's a huge problem that we have to deal with. And another problem we had, but now we're overcoming is, is the apathy. And I think that the situation in our country right now economically and politically is, is unrecognizable for many of us. I, I find it hard to believe that we're in a situation right now where we are, but I think that is causing a lot of people to wake up and see. You may not like or love every a hundred percent about a candidate, but this is a zero sum game. And so, you know, I think a combination of those factors means we have more enthusiasm on the conservative side at this point in time than we have in the past combined with resources. And so, but back to the issue I mentioned before about the free speech issue. I think it is absolutely chilling that the government has paid outside vendors to identify so-called election misinformation speech, and then gotten American citizens banned from the public square, from Twitter, from Instagram, from Facebook for speaking on election law issues. I have a long running lawsuit for a conservative activist lawyer named Brogan O'Hanley who posted accurate questions about election integrity and how the election was running California and also about whether Joe Biden got the most votes in history with a question mark and he was removed from social media and had, you know, millions of followers. So we now know that it wasn't just California doing this and John Solomon is the middle of some ongoing reporting about this that's being developed as we speak. But the government has drawn up through outside vendors lists of so-called misinformation spreaders. I'm on that list in the top 20 I think on that list. Basically anybody with a prominent voice who retweeted or shared information about concerns about the election in multiple states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, they're being labeled as misinformation spreaders. This is a form of social credit like you have in China where you are labeled and your freedoms are curtailed on the basis of your views or your speech. This is incredibly dangerous, setting aside the election issue, this lens is being applied to issues like vaccines and covid and other issues. And so I think this is really one of the most important civil rights issues of our time. It's critical to elections, but it's critical to other issues Doug Truax: As well. Yeah, and I'm, I'm so thankful for lawyers like you that are brave. In my line of work, I come across a lot of lawyers and too many of 'em are weak in my opinion, because people, what's happening is just what you said, they're labeling people or they'll put this label on this law over here. If you do this this way, then you know we're gonna call that criminal when it's not at all. It's just that they're saying and they need people like you to come alongside of them and push back as hard as they possibly can. Otherwise, people do get to that place of saying, Well, you know what, I'm gonna kind of play along and I'm not gonna say anything about all this irregularity and you know, all these things that have happened. I'm just gonna keep my mouth shut cuz that's all they really want you to do. And you know, you said something a second about the whackamole piece and, and, and that's what I felt like when we've gone through this process over the last couple years is everywhere you look, there's some other thing that might be brewing and some other way to do it. And you know, they're tacked is to just, if they can do it and then get through the election, then they're on the other side of it and all they gotta do is call you a denier and then you're in trouble. Right. So that's, it's like a, it's like a broader strategy. So, you know, I I would like to, you know, you, you also said the, the confidence piece in the elections, you know, expound upon that a little bit. I we're in a place now where, like you said, both sides, you know, and obviously the conservative side this time is like, wow, that last election, there's a lot wrong with that. So what do you see coming down the road for the confidence that we either, you know, we, we need to have, but we don't have, It's such an important piece. How do you, how do you see it playing out over the next probably decade? Cuz it is this kinda whackamole concept in terms of just trying to keep up with what's coming next. How do you see that playing out? Harmeet Dhillon: Excuse me. So this has been a problem brewing for many years and it's going to take many years to fix the problem. But one problem I've complained about a lot, and I've been active not just as a lawyer in the courts but also in politics, I, I sit on the Republican National Committee, is that both donors as well as sort of party activists and consultants have been really, really focused on the big money races. President, Senate, Congress, maybe governor and virtually no attention has been placed on very important but less sexy, if you will, races including attorney general, secretary of state, and even lower level county election officials where those are elected or appointed. And really that's where the laws are made, that's where the outcomes are crafted. That's where, for example, if you don't have judges to rule on election contests or whether the poll should stay open for two hours longer in a place, or what happens if there's a disaster, if you don't have good judges who will rule fairly, or if you don't have good election officials who will be non corrupt in their motive and will be honest with the people about what's going on and how the ballots are being counted, you, you have a real recipe for disaster. This is entirely avoidable. You know, George Soros gets a lot of attention, rightfully so with relatively low dollars. He's managed to affect district attorney races in major American cities, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and and others. And, and for, for a relatively low investment conservatives could have changed the outcome of those races. I I hope people are awake to that issue now. And I mean, it, it becomes as basic as getting parents to run for school board, School board is often the training ground for people to run for higher office and ultimately become the senator, the governor and be the person who can affect those laws. And so I think that's very important. I think giving conservatives the backbone and not allowing ourselves to be bullied into silence over saying no, that election was irregular. It was irregular for Wisconsin to allow people to have absentee ballots returned even though they did not have a cause as defined in statute or it was illegal for ballot harvesting to occur in Georgia or it was illegal for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania in general to both change the laws regarding ballot absentee balloting as well as not allow observers. That not allowing observers thing is such a critical issue. And so I think sunlight is the best disinfectant for the process and I think we need to regain the confidence of voters in our system overall, regardless of the actual outcomes people need to be signing up to be election workers, poll workers, not just observers, but actually taking that minimum wage job to greet people and, and all of that. And even that's going by the wayside with so much vote by mail. In some states, like my state, California covid was used to effectively convert everybody into vote by mail and until, and unless we get back control of the state legislature, that's going to be a difficult thing to change. But in other states people could take notice and change that. And so I would finally add, don't ignore judicial races. Well fought improvements in election laws in some states are being overturned by politicized courts in those states. And that doesn't have to be the case. That could have gone the other way if we'd invested in judicial races as well. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's a great point about fighting for everything all the time. You never know where it's gonna be. And I, I've been so surprised too about the impact that, you know, in a state one county, if they have all the right people in place and they're willing to do all what they need to do, they can start to control things and finesse it, which then creates this, you know, whether they threw it or not, it creates the illusion or the impression I should say, that something went wrong in that county. And so I think the Democrats by and large are onto this concept that, all right, we have, we have control in certain counties, let's really focus in there and you're right, we gotta, we gotta win all those elections up and down no matter what. And the judicial races for sure. Cuz that's, that's obviously if they can't win at the ballot box, they're gonna try to take us to take it to the courts and get it done that way. So That's right. So what do you see taking off all your lawyer hat and everything, just talk pure politics. What do you see coming up with the elections? How are you feeling about it? Harmeet Dhillon: Well, this is gonna sound like a cop out, but in the closest races I think it's really too close to call. But the, you know, like for example, you would look at events that happen in Georgia over the last couple of days. And I think it's very easy to get distracted by hype from the fact that every election is a zero sum game and you know, whatever flaws our candidates may have or you know, we may or may not love them enthusiastically. Yeah. You gotta compare them to the other guy. And so I think it's just really critical that using that focus, we turn out the vote, but the economy is terrible. And of course now I live in San Francisco, which is the worst of the worst, but even in other states, every American going to fill up their gas tanks or seeing their grocery bill double you, you cannot avoid that. And so it's just gonna be critical to just avoid the noise, avoid the distractions, and keep hammering on our messages of where you better off two years ago than you are now and, and, and focusing on winning back the midterm so that we can block the Biden agenda and we can advance our agenda and then set up 2024. Absolutely. I don't think this country will survive another couple of years like the last two we've had. Absolutely. It's a nightmare, really. Doug Truax: Absolutely. And I think a lot of people in the in the middle are saying that to themselves now. So last question. So California, I, I grew up in New Mexico and we wanted to go on a big vacation, we went to California, I love this. Beautiful, but what a disaster now. And so what's your opinion of, is there some kind of political revolt on the way at some point? Is there a low that gets get reached? I mean, we've got all the energy problems that you're having, you alluded to a second ago. I mean, what's your opinion of the future of California? Harmeet Dhillon: You know, you, you look at similar problems happening in Europe and because there isn't as much mobility and let's say Italy or Germany or something because of language barriers, people aren't gonna go move to the next country across the border. And so they stay there and they elect better people. In California, our problem is people who have the ability to move, have moved out of California, conservatives have moved out of California. I feel like I'm one of the last people standing of my group of close friends who lives here. And it becomes increasingly difficult to justify that decision economically. And so the people who care about this place have reluctantly moved and we are becoming a tourism state for illegal aliens, people who wanna mutilate their children, transgender and, and abortion issues. And so it is a very dark time in California and there are pockets of light here or there. For example, we did recall our school board here and our district attorney, but our replacement district attorney is in a hard fought battle to keep that seat and well-funded opponents from the left are trying to take that back. So I I, I think that the good money I was on, frankly, leaving California and letting it collapse and have to re be rebuilt from the ashes. That's a multi decade project unfortunately. And it is really sad. I love waking up in the morning and seeing the ocean and, and I saw whales yesterday on my drive and so you don't get that in other parts of the country. And so, you know, I really, I hope I'm wrong, but I think California is not looking like it's going to turn around anytime soon. Doug Truax: Yeah, yeah. That's a shame. I'm glad you got those views. I live in Illinois, so I don't even have that, but so Well, you know, Harmit, I really appreciate your bravery, your courage and taking on all this stuff. I know you're doing a lot, a lot, a lot more than people recognize and super important work. The country is way too important to let it go. And, and you're right there in the fight. So thanks for all you're doing and thanks for coming on today. Harmeet Dhillon: It's my pleasure. Thank you so much for all that you do too, Doug. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness. Until next week, let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First. Right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant Every morning in your inbox, always free subscribe by texting first right to 3 0 1 61. That's FIRSTRIGHT All caps one word to 3 0 1 61.

Jerry speaks with Tiffany Justice, parent advocate and co-founder of Moms for Liberty. Please visit www.restorationofamerica.com

First Right welcomes Brian Gitt, an independent thinker in the energy arena.

Jerry speaks with Greg Stenstrom and Leah Hoopes, authors of The Parallel Election.

Jerry speaks with John Fund, one of the nation’s foremost experts on election integrity and voter fraud.

First Right welcomes Amanda Milius, producer and director of The Plot Against the President.

Jerry speaks with Kevin Tober, media analyst with NewsBusters.

Doug speaks with Brian Burch president and co-founder of Catholic Vote, exposing the attack on churches. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. A weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration of America. I'm your host, Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration of America. Today we are blessed once again to have, as our guest Brian Burch, president and co-founder of Catholic vote, a strong and forceful advocacy organization that knows how to move the needle. The reason we were having Brian back so soon is Catholic Vote's important new ad campaign on church attacks in America. Welcome back to the show, Brian. Brian Burch: Great to be with you. Doug Truax: Well, let's just jump right into the ad and then we'll talk about it after that. Okay. Brian Burch: Sounds good. Voiceover: In the 1960s, when churches were burned, president Kennedy stepped up condemned it to burn churches. I consider that both cowardly as well as outrageous President Kennedy pledged justice. As soon as we are able to find out who did it we will arrest them. Now, churches are being burned again because they protect unborn babies and women in need. Our second Catholic president. Keep protesting because keep making your point. Doug Truax: So we're living through this time now where we've got Biden and the DOJ aggressively attacking conservatives through raids and other means, but there's all these things going on with pro-life Americans and nothing. So just talk us through what you're doing here with the ad. W what, what's your, what's the reasoning behind it, obviously. And then how do you anticipate it impacting the viewers? Brian Burch: Absolutely. Well, thank you again. You're absolutely right. We've seen the department of justice focus in very isolated ways on political opponents, whether it be parents who object to critical race theory or a radical gender ideology in their, in their schools, whether it be the recent raid on president Trump, or of course just in the last day or so, the department of justice announced that they are going to go after anyone criticizing a hospital that is bragging about doing pediatric gender reassignment surgeries. Meanwhile,over 200 Catholic churchest hat have been vandalized, desecrated, as well as over 65 pregnancy resource centers, just in the last three months. And we've seen absolutely nothing from the department of justice, no prosecutions, zero arrests, and frankly, Catholics are fed up and not just Catholics. Everybody's fed up. We're, we're sick of the department of justice being politicized in such a way to go after their political opponents while the rule of law is left on the sidelines. When it comes to people who believe in life, who are protecting vulnerable women and who simply want to go to church on Sunday without the threat of violence. Doug Truax: Yeah. How about it? And in this ad, you've got something that's really unique. I think here, you've got the footage of JFK, a Democrat president and what he would have done. So just talk us through the thinking on that and what you're trying to get across to the audience. Brian Burch: Yeah. Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, a lot of people still have some sort of respect and affinity for, for JFK and the way in which at least at a time in this country, it wasn't considered partisan to prosecute people that were burning churches. This clip comes from a press conference in the 1960s when there were voter registration efforts occurring and racist segregationists set fire to churches in the south and Kennedy rightly at the time said, we're going to find out who these people are. And when we find them, we're going to prosecute them. Contrast that to today. Again, I just explained we've had over 200 examples of churches being attacked, vandalized, including some burned just last week, a drive by shooter two days straight shot bullets into a Catholic church. What, what have we seen from the department of justice? Absolutely nothing. And so the ad is intended to contrast this, this, the needed leadership that JFK exhibited and president of Biden and Merrick Garland, the attorney general unfortunately, has been totally absent on. Doug Truax: Yeah. And I'm glad you're highlighting the pure number of these attacks. Cause you know, we live in an age right where they just don't, the media is not going to cover certain things. And you know, I didn't realize it was that many. I knew this. I knew it was going on, but that's a lot. And it's, it's, it's an epidemic. And you know, it's just common safety piece and it's just completely being ignored. So, you know, people watch this ad, what can Catholics do, what are other patriotic Americans that aren't Catholic? What, what can they do? How, how do we fight back on this, Brian? Brian Burch: Well, it's no coincidence ad campaign starting in the last a hundred days before the midterm election and our opinion, this issue is on the ballot. The question is whether or not both members of Congress and us senators who are up for reelection, whether they've spoken out on this, whether they have urged the justice department to equally enforce the law, or whether they've been silent in part as we, as we can surmise because their political opponents might benefit from calling out this violence. And so the most important thing is to spread the word you just said, you had no idea it was this large of number. We need to get that message out to everywhere that we have this escalating violence, an epidemic of violence, as you rightly described it with no response from our leadership's leadership in Washington. The second thing we need is we need pressure on the department of justice. We're seeing time and again, the politicization of justice from this administration. And they need to hear from every citizen in this country that we want to see the law enforced equally on everyone. The third thing is we need to pressure Republicans. If they in fact take control of the house, we want to see hearings. We wanna, we want to see what the left would do to on this. And that is let's connect the violence that we're seeing across the country to the kind of political rhetoric and the kind of example, being set by frankly, a lot of the leaders of the democratic party, who in some ways are winking and encouraging this type of, of activity on the part of, of their supporters. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's right. We got to push back. And I think that, you know, we're all hoping for the red wave and this could add to it. I know there's polling out there that says, sadly, these kinds of things, the raids and the politicization of the DOJ and the FBI, it can fall down party lines. When, you know, when your side's on the right side and your, your guys are pushing back against Trump or whoever else. And that's a sad statement, a commentary on where we're at as a country, however, the moderates and the independence, the folks in the middle are not okay with it. And so that's, you know, that's encouraging and we could see that play out, but we'll, we'll see what happens. What do you think about those folks in the middle? What's your take on them? Brian Burch: Well, you're right to point out. That's, who's going to decide this election, you know, hard left Democrats are not going to change their opinion, no matter how bad it gets, but the, the middle of the independent voters that do swing back and forth election to election, they're outraged by this. I just saw some polling in the last several days, over 70% of Democrats said that the refusal to prosecute violence against political opponents, what influenced their decision and how they vote. Now, of course, a lot of people are focused on January six. This is, you know, two three-year-old issue now. But the point being is that it actually is an issue according to polling, that Republicans and Democrats should be and are actually United on. And I think if we bring this message to the voters, that's going to help shape how people decide what they do in November. Doug Truax: Absolutely. And speaking of last question, bringing messaging to voters. So it feels a lot like Republicans, aren't where they need to be right now on abortion post Dobbs. And we're, you know, they're getting attacked, you know, because, oh, you know, this is a terrible thing that's happened. And, but they're not fighting back, at least in my opinion, the way they should. I mean, how, how are you guys seeing that with the battle being waged right now with Republicans on the abortion side? Brian Burch: Well, we're Catholic vote. And we like to say, we're Catholics first, not Republicans or Democrats in almost every case. We're fighting Democrats, but sometimes we need to push back against Republicans too. And it's no secret among those that are involved with lobbying and efforts with the Republican party that were, were they a lot of reticence out there to touch this? You have abortion since Dobbs. And again, back to the polling, the majority of the countries on our side, when it comes to protecting unborn children, whether it be at heartbeat stage or whether at 12 or 15 weeks, not to mention, you know, late term abortions when babies feel pain and taxpayer funding of abortion. And we need to go on offense. We need to be asking senators and members of the house that are up for election. Where would you draw the line? And we know where they draw the line. They don't draw a line. They would support abortion up to the moment of birth, even after birth for any reason. And we need to put them on the defensive and stop pretending as if somehow this is a difficult political issue for our side and force them and expose their extreme position. And I think if we do that, we can, we can push even further and defending life and protecting women, which is what this is all about. Doug Truax: That's right. Amen to that. And that's so true. They have got to defend their sick and disgusting physician who were the ones, just with the common sense. So I, I just, I, I think we're possibly missing an opportunity here, but you know, we'll see, there's a lot of people doing a lot of great things like you guys are moving. The needle really love the new ad, wish you the best in the campaign. We're going to do our part to get it out and appreciate all you do and keep up the good work. Brian. Brian Burch: Thanks so much. Keep at it, everyone doing their part. We're going to keep moving the ball forward. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Have a good one. Brian Burch: Thanks Doug. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First. Right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox, always free subscribe by texting first, right to, 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6 1.

Doug speaks with Dwight Chapin, special assistant to former President Richard Nixon. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative new show brought to you by Restoration of America. I'm your host, Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration of America. Today. We're blessed to have a super interesting guest Dwight Chapin, longtime personal aide to former president Richard Nixon. Mr. Chapin witnessed a lot of history up close and has a new book out that tells that story. All right, Dwight, thanks so much for coming on and being on the show. Dwight Chapin: Well, terrific, Doug. Nice to be with you. Doug Truax: All right. So a great new book out a really good, interesting stuff before we get to that and your life as an aide and all the, all the time you had in the white house. Just give us an idea of what your life has been like after the white house up to now. What led to you writing the book? That kind of thing. Dwight Chapin: Okay. Terrific. Well, after leaving the white house, I went to the United Airlines and I was there and then ended up being indicted. So I had to leave. It was a public company after I took care of my obligation to the government and served my time in prison. I published a magazine. Believe it or not, the name of the magazine was success. It was located actually in Chicago and owned by w Clement stone, a philanthropist and w a wealthy insurance man there in Chicago. And I published that magazine for 13 years and then left and was moved out to Asia to run the Asian operations of hill and Knowlton, which was a huge public relations company. I did that for another six or seven years, and then decided to start my own business. I had my own company for 30 years and I did strategic marketing and counseling to corporations and to CEOs and, and anyone that wanted to use my services. I decided to write the book for a couple of reasons. Number one, I wanted my family to know and understand what had happened to me, why, why it was that I had to go to prison and what that was all about. And I also wanted to put down because I was one of the few remaining Nixon people from the white house years, I wanted to put down what I remembered about the man and about the era that we all live through. And it was important for me to do that because I, I had come to the conclusion that people thought there were only two things about Richard Nixon, either China or Watergate. And there was much more to the man and I wanted to get that onto the public record and do what I could to have him better understood by, by the population. Doug Truax: Wonderful. Now that's, that's really important to get down because you're right. So many people now it's all just Watergate. It's like, no, no, no. There was a lot of remarkable things about the man and I'm appreciative of you doing this. So if you go back, back back, how did you get to be his aide? How to tell us that story, how that came to be, that he picks you and there you are. Dwight Chapin: Yeah. Well, Doug, I was a young man at the university of Southern California. And between, you know, during the summer, the rule in my family was you always had a summer job and I didn't have to have one in 1962. And that was the year that Nixon was running for governor out in California. He had lost the Jack Kennedy in 1960. So he was back out in California in 62. And dad said, I know someone at the Nixon headquarters, maybe, maybe with your interest in politics, you could get some kind of a position there. And I went down and I was interviewed by a young brew cut guy, 32 years old, who was a campaign manager and his name was Bob Haldeman. And as you may know, Bob ended up eventually be Nixon's chief of staff. But that, that was the start of my association with Richard Nixon in 1962. Then I, I moved east and around 1965 and I volunteered to go down to his office in the evening. Of course he, I should say that he had lost to pat brown there in that race for the governorship. So he moved back to New York and I would go down after hours and help out at the law firm answering correspondence and the person teaching me how to do that was none other than Mrs. Nixon. And she really got to know me. And I think the key to how I ended up being Nixon's personal aid ties, right to Mrs. Nixon. She got comfortable with me. She trusted me. She had doubtedly passed that word onto her husband, Dick Nixon, and said, you know, maybe you ought to look at this man, young man as a possible aid. He did, he hired me and I started working for him in 1967. It was just the two of us traveling around the country. And then of course that matured into a, a presidential type campaign. And I served by his side all the way through the election itself and then up to the inauguration. And then he invited me to join the staff white house. Doug Truax: Wow. Great story. And so how often is it? It's the wife's influence sometimes, right? The spouse says if you get in good there, right Dwight Chapin: By, I mean, that's my theory on it. When you're working for people like this, the important thing is trust you, you have to be able to trust the people that are working with you. That's another thing about my book. I didn't, I didn't write my book 10 minutes after I left the white house, I've waited almost 50 years to write this book. It gives it a whole different perspective. And the, and the motivation of the individuals that are writing the books. I mean, when they do it immediately, it's either for profit or they're worried about, you know, using kind of using the book to land a job or something. Right. When I avoided all that by waiting so many or Doug Truax: Yeah. Good for you. I appreciate you doing that. I know our audience does as well. Cause that is in this day and age, it is getting very annoying. When you see somebody, like you said, quickly write the book so they could make a buck or whatever they're doing. They've got their vendetta or whatever. It's, it's, it's not, it's not good. So that's, it's good for you to be, be kind of old school this way, right? The way it used to be, you know, loyal and trustworthy and all that. So good for you on that. Dwight Chapin: Well, I may be old school, but you know, it's one of the things I think that we've got to be focusing on the country today and that's this whole level of trust. We've lost respect of our elected officials. We've w w th there is no trust factor, particularly among institutions. And this, this is huge. If we're going to make this democracy continue and work the way that the founders had in mind, one of the things we've got to be able to do is to trust not only the institutions, but the people that are in these leadership positions. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Well, we'll get to in a second, too, about the media back in your day, but I interview a lot of media people, you know, that are obviously conservative, but they can start to identify the moment when they realized that the most of the media was Democrat and running against, you know, the conservatives. And so we've had this, we, when we lose trust in the media, then it, then the accountability starts to slip all over the place. So it's, it's, I couldn't agree with you more. It's a, it's a difficult time. So w we'll hopefully get back to a better place on that. So if you're, so you're the aid and I was in the army for a while. I was an aid to a general for a year. And so I know a little bit about that, and I understand, you know, when you're an aid to a politician or a CEO or military officer, you're going through the day to day, and you're there, you know, bearing the brunt of the, of the difficult situations. I mean, there's some good things, obviously, but some the, the brunt of the difficult situations, and it can become quite a pressure cooker. So talk about that a little bit and how you, how you, how that, how you handled that was that different than you thought it was going to be. Any, anything you care to share about that side of the job? Dwight Chapin: Right. Well, first of all, I had no idea how it was going to be because I had never been there before, but I, the good Lord gifted me with a, an intuitive sense, I think, and I, as I got to know, Mr. Nixon better and better, I understood what it was that made him perform at his peak level. And my, my job really was to make sure that within the, I let's use the term bubble, that, that space immediately around him, as we travel wherever we went and so forth, that, that he w that he had everything he needed in order to perform at his highest, highest, possible level. So that meant managing everything from the phone calls to the visitors coming in to seam, and it meant making sure that he had all of his preparatory materials available. It meant sh it meant saying no to a lot of people that wanted to give him advice or come in to see him when we were on the road. So, but, but, but the idea in terms of the responsibility I had was his operation, making sure that he had everything that he needed. Some people in recent years, I noticed have referred to this more as a body man, or use that, that kind of terminology. I think I was fortunate. I got in ahead of that. I wasn't, I wasn't a senior advisor, anything like that, but I, I was given a lot of latitude to make determinations on what would be appropriate for him to do and a given situation, and to help shepherd him through that time. And I, I have nothing, but the fondest memories of, of the campaign time at it changed when we got to the white house, there's a heck of a difference between running for office and then government. So what once we made that transition into the governing haven't mined, this is a man that had been in the house of representatives, the Senate. He had been vice president under Eisenhower, great years. He knew what he wanted it and how he wanted things to work. Plus he had an incredible competent chief of staff and Bob Haldeman, who was a managerial genius. And so that really helped me kind of transition from the campaign type operation, into the governing type situation that we have. Doug Truax: Right. It's a good transition. Yeah. That's I can't, I, I can't imagine the difference between campaign to governing. And I've always thought that I see the, the ramp up in the campaign and it's so, you know, frenetic and everything. And then all of a sudden, not duration. Now you got to get to governing and it's just like a total. It seems like it'd be a total 180, but you know, you gotta be ready to handle it. You see these guys take that time to ramp up, right, until it to inauguration day, Dwight Chapin: It's a, it's about policy. And it's about getting a law. Let me make a point. I was watching the other day and preparation for the publicity side of my book. I was going back through all of the video of the China trip. I had been very involved with Dr. Kissinger and putting together the trip to China. And what I came across that really got my attention was that the day that Nixon left for Beijing, he walked out of the south protocol article of the white house toward the helicopter, and he stopped. And he said, he went up to the microphone and he said, I want to thank the majority leader, Mike Mansfield for being here this morning and speaker Carl Albert, and the other bipartisan members of Congress. And that reminded me that when he took office, he said that he wanted to have the bipartisan leaders of Congress come to the white house no less than once a week to meet with him on policy. And they did that for month in, month out, the leaders would come and they would meet with him and they got so much done the next and their accomplishments or the number are huge. How did he, why did that happen? Because these men talk to one another in today's world. If the bipartisan leaders go up to meet with the president of the white house, it's national news, right. We're back there. They were going every week, they were sitting down, they were talking about what was in the best interest of the country and they were acting on it. It was a hell of a different types of situations. Doug Truax: Yeah. Big changes. Absolutely. And I was going to ask you about the China piece. So you were heavily involved in planning that, and so what, what's your take then now on our relationship with China nowadays? Dwight Chapin: Well, I, I think if president Nixon were alive and with us, I mean, he, he let me make a point. He said 50 years ago in 1972, he said in 50 years, which is right now, we are going to be adversaries. And we have to be able to talk to one another. That was one of the reasons he stated that he went to China. So here we are 50 years later and we've gotta be able to talk to one another. The bottom line, I think though, is that as this whole relationship with China developed, we left the commerce side of things, the, the doing business side of things, the economics side of it take the lead with our business people and so forth. And we, we took and put into a second theory position, the strategic interests of the nation itself. And I think that needs to be flipped. There's no question that we can work with China. We can do, we can have trade with China and so forth. It's got to be on a level playing field and it's gotta be fair. And we gotta stick to that. But as a nation, we need to take and put our national interests ahead of the commercial entrance. And that just has to be a rule of thumb and our business people may not like that, but it's something that they've got to accept, because if we do not do that, we are going to see China, not only undermine us, but take over and large sectors of the world. And I don't believe we should do that because that's your is not in our national interests either, Doug Truax: Right. That's such a wise point about having the national interest first and what's happened. I think a lot of the, I'm a business guy myself too, in addition to politics, but watching the capitalists turn into, you know, such globalists in the sense that it feels like so many American business people would be willing to sell out their country to make an extra dollar and, you know, wherever that goes and whatever. And, you know, I think Trump tapped into this too, and it's a, it's a, that kind of sell out mentality and it's kind of the way it just was. It has been allowed to grow. And to your point, we need to go back to the days like, Hey, before we do anything, let's think about our own country and our own people first. It doesn't mean we're not going to go there and, and, you know, have a relationship with them and trade with them and all that. But let's begin in that spot because if we don't do that, then you're right. It just kind of takes on a life of its own. Dwight Chapin: Right. In a moment of frustration. One time I remember, and this is, this is an incredible quote. I, Nixon was so upset about the business person's interest in the almighty dollar. He said, Dwight, you know, there's no one as small as a big businessman. I mean, they do not get the big picture. If we do not keep this democracy in shape and having it operate and the free enterprise system operating in a fair way and so forth that they're, they're not going to have the profits and their mentality is going to shift. And I think we've seen part of that happened. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Yeah. It's been hard to watch in our country, especially the middle lower income, you know, the closed factories. I mean, here in Illinois alone, I mean, there's just all these great towns, Rockford, Decatur, they used to do great with manufacturing places. They're just devastated. Dwight Chapin: Yes. We have a lot tremendous amount of work to do in that area. And, and of course, as you know, Doug, there's, there's nothing that does a man good, better than the dignity of work for they, where they're providing for their family. And so for them, you know, our, our handout mentality is, is any thing. And that denominator, it just does not work and we can't afford it either. So we've got to shift that. And on that subject, I really feel that there's a tremendous amount of work that needs to be done in the school systems and that the educational side of this whole ledger we have got to, we've got to be teaching people why this is so, and we're not doing that. Doug Truax: That's right. There's a lot of things that are wrong today. We have a lot of, it's a difficult time, isn't it? Oh my gosh. Dwight Chapin: But, but let me say that there may be a lot of things wrong, but I wish I were 22. Again, I wish I was going to be around for the next segment. This, this ride that we're about ready to come in to, or approach has got all these challenges, but what a great time to be alive, what a great time to be solving these problems. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Amen to that. And I always tell people, no matter how bad it gets right now, would you rather live in this time in this country or some other time in some other country, you know, you go back a couple of centuries and you know, this is still pretty good deal. We just got to work it out, you know? Dwight Chapin: Yeah. Part, part, part of Nixon stump speech back in 1968 was, he said, folks, he says the traffic's all one way nobody's, nobody's trying to leave here. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. You got that. Right. It's still the same situation. So, okay. Well, speaking of interesting times, so on the media piece, and then also the, the slanting of the media, and then also the slanting of the DOJ FBI. So we've got the Ray to Mar-a-Lago when you were in your boss was treated unfairly many times and there was, there was issues there as well. So what's your take on what's going on right now with the department of justice and where this is going with Trump and everything. Dwight Chapin: Yeah. So I, I really do not know. I don't believe any of us know as of this moment exactly what that warrant said. I happen to be a friend of David Varios. He was the former archivist of the United States, a Democrat, but a terrific guy. I had worked with him on the renovation of the Nixon library. And he, he's the kind of man that I, that I know that if there was a issue on getting the documents from, from president Trump, that, that he was the kind of man that would negotiate and have lawyers go meet with the lawyers. And eventually they would come to a conclusion. I think that if the attorney general and the director of the FBI went to that judge in Florida and, and pushed for this going after these documents at Mar-a-Lago and, and seize them just because there were documents there, it is, to me outrageous. Now it may have been wrong for president Trump to have those documents there. But, but again, that was a negotiation type thing. And you do not take and do an FBI raid on any former president. I don't care if he's a Republican Democrat or whatever. It's not what we should be doing. So a real critical eye has to be cast on this. We do need to know what happened, and we need to know the specifics. And I think the longer that the FBI takes and the department of justice of clarifying this, now I know when you're doing investigations, you, you need to keep them curtailed and confidential until you get to the end of the line. But this kind of qualifies for a special consideration in my mind, because the longer they leave the people out there speculating the worst. All of this speculation is going to get, and it does not work in the favor of our democracy. Doug Truax: That's right. It's a dangerous precedent. And we can not go down this path. I just, yeah. Nobody wants to see this. Even people on the left are saying now, you know, we, we need to be thinking about this and, and, and not doing anything like this again, but nobody nobody's really stopping them. So I don't know what they're gonna do next, you know? Dwight Chapin: All right. And I mentioned about the media side of this brochure, I gave a talk on it's part of you can get it on C-SPAN. I gave it on the, at the library of Congress on June 17th on the anniversary of the break and Watergate. And I said, Watergate could not happen today. I mean, back in the old days, when Watergate happened, we had ABC, CBS and NBC. We had Walter Cronkite, John chancellor and Howard K Smith. We had no blogs. We had no talk radio. We had no cable television systems. We had none of that. And I would venture to say that the reason that we have such a 50 50 in the country now is the least, the thing is competitive. At least the conservative side of this equation is being heard. And, and, you know, you're part of that. And this is incredibly important. Back in the Nixon days, we didn't have that, right. We had to fight this thing all ourselves. And we were up against a democratic house, a democratic Senate demo, democratic oriented, investigated prosecutors, and a media that was slanted toward the Democrats. So we were really up against it. And I don't think if it happened, if Watergate were to happen in today's world, that Nixon would ever have to resign. Doug Truax: Oh, that's a really interesting point. And it goes to the perspective in your reference point to the time you're living in where we might think, oh, we got so bad, but like what you just said, there are a lot of emerging, you know, conservative, well already established conservative outlets and more emerging, which helps level the playing field, right, Dwight Chapin: Where we're fighting, we're finding, and as has been made by any intelligent conservatives, we, we need to be encouraging Republicans to get Republican in particularly conservatives to get involved, starting at the school board level, the local community level. We need to get in there and, and start weighing in. The Democrats are very good at that. They have done it for years. They, they make a profession out of it. Our people go to work and come home and are raising kids and so forth. And they don't have time to go to these civic events and these civic opportunities. And we can not afford not to do it. We've got to, we've got to become more involved. Doug Truax: That's right. Taking our own country back self-governance. Yeah. Cause you're right. It's like if you're busy raising a family, working hard, it's it, it falls down the list, but it should be going back up because of the importance of the time that we live in. So I, I totally encourage everybody I talked to in the same vein and we're doing our part to help people. Dwight Chapin: Yes. I mean, with the Democrats that they've always done, it's almost a, a second occupation with them. Right. And we, we have a paid attention with it. And I mean, parts of this routes itself back, I remember when there were 250,000 people demonstrating against the war on Vietnam, Baca the ellipse in the next 10 years. And a lot of those people went on to the universities and the higher institutions of learning and became professors and so forth. And they've propagated a, an ideology and to our young people and that's been absorbed and now they're raising their kids and teaching them, we have to get back to the fundamentals of what this nation was about. Doug Truax: That's right. Losing the fundamentals and the foundation of our Christian faith to, you know, we gotta get back to that. That's, you know, you have too many generations that don't even know what it, what it means to be a Christian. I think we fall, you know, the founder said you have to have good moral people to keep this thing running. And there's certain things we got, we got to keep an eye on that too. For sure. It's yeah. Dwight Chapin: I believe I don't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. Yeah. I believe that translates into excellent candidates. I mean, I know you were a candidate out there in Illinois, but, and God only knows what your next steps going to be, but, but, but people need to get involved and good people eight to be running. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Absolutely. Yeah. Dwight Chapin: The good news is that the Republicans have a terrific bench. I mean, we've got some credibly, fine talent coming up. Doug Truax: Oh, that's right. That's right. And I I've often said that the upside for us is that we don't get a pass on anything. The left, the Democrats get a pass on everything, especially when it comes to mainstream media and we have to be super sharp and they don't, but it's going to catch up with you at some point because it makes you better and it makes you lazy, you know? So we're, we're on the better side. And so, yeah, I totally agree. We got a, we got a good slate coming up. So last question for you. So what are you looking for for people to learn about president Nixon as they go through your book? Maybe the good, some of the bad. So w what do you hope to have them learn about the man once they're done with your book? Dwight Chapin: we need to start off with the idea that, that president Nixon with human, you need to understand where he came from from Whittier, that he was a Quaker that he believed in peace at the center, that he was antiwar, that he, when he was young, lost two brothers to tuberculosis, here is a young man that got into Harvard, but he couldn't go to Harvard because his parents couldn't afford the train ticket. He did end up going to duke to law school. He worked his way up. This is a man that is a self-made man. It was a very brilliant man. As people read more about it, they will understand that, that he had an incredible grasp of what the United States was about. But as Tom Wicker, one of the Polish apprised, New York times authors wrote in his book, his book was entitled. One of our, and he wrote about the con the heritage of Richard Nixon, and the fact that he really truly was one of us. And, and that gave him a special mess. It gave him a sense of understanding what the American people were about. So you couple that, with his extraordinary sense of strategic visionary capabilities, I mean, he, he saw a way ahead of time, the opportunity to go to China and to open that up. And he did it only, only a conservative Republican would have been able to pull that off. He got the arms control, talks going and, and executed the solid agreement with the Russians. He brought about the clean air act, the clean water act, the all volunteer army title nine for women OSHA. I mean, a lot of stuff with was progressive. Maybe in today's current conservative world was a little too progressive, but it was things that he knew needed to happen. He took, he took the segregation south from an 80% segregated school systems down to 10% and most important of all he took. When he went into office, there were 510,000 troops in Vietnam. You would know this from your military background. When he left, there were 10,000 and they were on their way out. So this was a man who had a hell of a record of accomplishment. And I would give credit by saying not only was it Nixon's work, but I go back to that idea that he worked with CA Carl Albert. He worked with Mike Mansfield. He knew the other senators on both sides. And, and they were able to sit in the council, the high councils of government and make decisions and get things done and, and keep this nation as unified as possible, even under the cloud of Vietnam. Doug Truax: Yeah. Amazing accomplishments. He's remarkable, man, for sure. You, of all people know that. I think we've all, especially on the conservative side, read things here and there and said, wow, there's, there's always more to him than, than meets the eye, especially the further we get away from it. So what a credit to him and to our country that you wrote this book. So thank you for that. And we wish you the best as you roll it out. And, and we're going to encourage our audience to go get a copy and read up on it and make sure we have the correct memory of president Nixon. Thanks to you. So I appreciate you coming on the show. Dwight, Dwight Chapin: Doug, thank you. Very great meeting you. Nice being on the show. Doug Truax: I have a great day. All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we can serve as can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First, right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first, right. to, 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to, 3 0 1 6 1.

Restoration of American Founder and President Doug Truax speaks with Emerald Robinson on The Absolute Truth on Frank Speech TV, The Voice of Free Speech. They discuss Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin signing an anti-election transparency bill in his state.

First Right welcomes Grace Reilly, conservative commentator and Ambassador for TPUSA.

Doug talks to Dr. Paul Marik, world renowned doctor and chairman of Frontline Critical Care Alliance. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration of America. I'm your host, Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration of America. Today We were blessed once again to have a courageous doctor who refused to buckle to the lies about COVID told by the medical, pharmaceutical and media establishments in America. Dr. Paul Mark is one of the top doctors in the world, particularly when it comes to ICU treatment. He figured out early on that the way we were treating COVID patients was all wrong and he hasn't stopped telling the true since. Well, welcome to the show, Dr. Marik. Dr. Paul Marik: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. Doug Truax: All right. Great. Well, so before we get into your COVID story, we would like for you to give our audience an overview of your distinguished career before the pandemic hit. Dr. Paul Marik: Yes, very distinguished. Yes. So I did my medical school training in South Africa, I entered a residency and some critical care training. I then did a critical care fellowship in London, Ontario, Canada. And then after I came to the U S and I was in academic medicine for close to 30 years at teaching hospitals. And that's what I was doing till the pandemic arrived. Unfortunately, you know, due to circumstances, which we can talk about, you know, I, I didn't follow the narrative. I refuse to follow the narrative. And basically that ended my career. Doug Truax: Yeah. So let's get into the specifics on that. So when, when everything got going and, and, and you saw how they were recommending covid be treated well, what did you see different that you're like, wait a minute, let's do something. Let's do something different that's actually going to work. Dr. Paul Marik: Yeah. So, I mean, it's a good question. So this started in March of 2020, you know, when COVID arrived on the Eastern shore and maybe on the west coast. So we were getting ready for it. And at that time, the treatment from the NIH, the CDC the WH was supportive care, and what supportive care means is essentially no care, which is completely absurd. You know, we knew that in New York, the mortality, you know, in the ICU was 80%. So, you know what disease is there that physicians will say, Hey, I'm not going to treat this. I'm just going to do nothing. It's an absurdity. So what we did is we put together a treatment protocol for COVID. If you hospitalized patients, there was based on clinical observations, based published data and information that we knew. So we put together a treatment protocol, which at that time included corticosteroids, because we knew there was significant inflammation and included anticoagulation because we knew these patients had clotting problems. And, you know, we were ridiculed at bedtime and people said, you can't use corticosteroids. It's malpractice, you know, six months later down the road, obviously a study came out, which showed corticosteroids, saved people's lives. So, you know, it validated what we were doing. And then our protocol evolved with time. We then obviously recognize that the goal really is to keep patients out of the hospital. Once they get to the hospital, they're ready, you know, us critically ill, they, their chances of doing of surviving are not good, have lots of problems. So we then developed an early outpatient treatment protocol, which rarely is, is the essence of controlling this pandemic. So there are a whole host of drugs, you know, it's not just ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, but there must be 20 or 30 drugs, medications, nutraceuticals that have actually been shown scientifically proven to have a great impact in the early treatment of COVID yet to this day, early treatment has been ignored by the state agencies who the powers that be that the, that the mantra of the NIH was, you know, there's no treatment stay at home until you can't breathe. When you get blue and concrete and Gato hospital, which again is completely absurd. You know, they're all really effective treatments. And, you know, we strongly believe that the way to have controlled this pandemic was early treatment. What that would have done is it would have prevented progression. People go to hospital, it would have prevented spread of the disease. And in fact, the likelihood is a whatever eliminated this disease. If there had been widespread use of early medical therapy, we probably would have eliminated this disease. And we wouldn't be in the place we are now. And there is epidemiological data to support that, that concept. There's a large province in India called Uttar Pradesh. They did a very broad wide seek and treat program using ivermectin, and they managed to eliminate COVID. So it really was the key to solving this problem, but obviously the powers that be did not, you know, that was not part of their agenda because then it would have, you know, made the vaccination protocol or program or incentive null and void, and obviously the goal, their goal, and their stated goal. And I don't think there's any question of the Baptist is that their goal was a vaccine and every arm, whether it was safe and effective was irrelevant. And they were going to do everything make, could to prevent early treatment, basically to, to validate, to make people scared and to provide what they, you know, the only option people had for control of this disease. And we obviously know that that has not happened, you know, despite the lockdowns, the masks, social distancing and the vaccination, you know, the disease is still uncontrolled. The cases are rising, BA five is out of control, right? And if you remember going back, you know, what they said is, you know, we need to vaccinate you once we have 70% of people vaccinated, we'll have herd immunity and the disease will go away. And obviously I was completely false. Doug Truax: Right? Absolutely so much has been wrong. And I want to go back to something you said a second ago, you're talking about the NIH, not not looking at the evidence. So you have like the, the province in India or the state in India, all this data's coming in, you're you and your team, you're presenting your data. It builds and it builds, but the NIH and the medical establishment is just like, don't want to see it. So what you're saying though, to go back to what you said, they had already know no matter what they had bought into the vaccine thing. So they're not even a look at new data as it comes in, or is it, is there a, what's your opinion of the motivation of them at that moment? Do you have one? What, what's the deal with that? Dr. Paul Marik: It was just inconvenient science for them with inconvenient truth. So for multiple reasons, they did not want to look at the data. They just, they disparaged the data, they dismissed the data. Firstly, the EUA for all these experimental therapies, including the vaccine. If you look at the FDA rules and regulations is pretty catered on the fact, there's no effect of alternative therapy. And when they sign the EOA, they have to basically say, we, you know, we have an easy way because there's no other alternative therapy. If they accepted hydroxy, chloroquine or ivermectin as a reasonable effective therapy, it really have made the EOS completely now null and void legally and you know, would have stopped this billion dollar industry. So they went out of their way to disparage the data, ignore the data. And indeed, you know, what they did, which is unconscionable, especially with four hydroxy, chloroquine is they designed clinical studies that were designed to fail. I mean, it's an outrageous thing that they would actually expose people to the risk of a study where the study was designed to fail. So what they did with hydroxychloroquine firstly is the studies used it in the late hospital phase. And we know it doesn't work at that time. The virus has stopped replicating. It works in the early phase. The men, what they did is they used a toxic dose. So the normal dose is 200 to 400 milligrams a day. They use the dose of 2,800 milligrams. And unlike ivermectin hydroxychloroquine has a much narrow therapeutic index. So what actually happened, the actually killed patients because they use such a high toxic dose. And then obviously they say, see, it doesn't work, but that's scientific misconduct. It's actually immoral illegal. And as I understand in a part of the study was done in Brazil. And the attorney general in Brazil, I think is going to, is late charges against these scientists for manslaughter because the study actually killed people, but they did it intentionally. Doug Truax: Unbelievable. So I've always been trying to figure this out. So you have decision makers and NIH, are they, you know, are they being, are they being paid off by pharmaceutical companies? I'm trying to figure out how, how, why is that happening that way? I D I not coming up with anything else. And, and then I give, well, the only thing I might add in there potentially is governmental hubris. You know, we can, we can solve any problem now here at the government. So we're going to come up with, forget about the easy stuff that's ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine or therapeutics. We're so smart. We're going to come up with this vaccine and it's all going to be great. And along the way, the pharmaceutical guys are gonna love us. They're gonna, we're all gonna be in bed together and keep moving it along. I mean, is it something like that in your opinion? Or is there any, Dr. Paul Marik: So, you know what I mean, unfortunately, COVID has shun a bright light on what's been going on with this agencies and big pharma. So w w we know it's an unfortunate statement that I'm going to say, but it is actually the truth is the agencies are captured. They, they are controlled by big pharma and this Pharmaca industrial complex, the FDA and the CDC and NIH, they do not work for the American population. They do not work for the benefit of Americans. They work for big pharma. And there's absolutely no question of doubt about it. Many of them have worked for big pharma. There's this room revolving door. They're absolutely controlled by big pharma, big pharma, you know, supports the FDA. And there's no question of doubt. I mean, it's, it's, it's so obvious and clear to anyone who looks that, you know, the big pharma control the FDA, and you just have to look at the fact that the FDA was prepared to bury the Pfizer data for 75 years. Right. But seventy-five years now. W why would you do such a thing unless you want to hide the data, right. And the FDA where work conspirators in this plot, and you know what I discovered, you know, this has been shocking and it's, it's opened up a whole can of worms that I really was not aware of is that, you know, when a scientific journal publishes the data of a steady, they never given access to the actual data. They never see the data. The, the, the company writes the study, they provide the data and the peer review is, assume the data's correct. And obviously often it's not correct. The FDA has access to the data, but they will not make it available. And we know now definitively categorically and undeniably that the studies that Pfizer did, they cheated, they cooked the data that misrepresented the data that manipulated the data. And we know this now from the freedom of information act that the judge said, no, you can't bury this to 75 years. So the data's now coming out. And, you know, and apart from that, there is a whistleblower who worked for Pfizer. Who's now suing Pfizer, I think for a trillion dollars, a trillion dollars, because she was involved in the Pfizer study and she was witnessed to them, manipulating the data, unblinding the patients, dismissing data, and basically covering up their, their side effects complications. So, you know, what, what what's published in the medical journals is just not true. And just to make it even worse, the, you know, the editor of new England journal and Lancet, who, you know, they have the most premiere journals who, you know, I used to look up in awe as the, the, the pinnacle of science have publicly admitted that pharmaceutical companies are so powerful and so influential. They actually forced to publish papers that they otherwise wouldn't publish. It's a, it's a, it's a remarkable admission. And obviously that profit from this, because what they do is they have a relationship with big pharma, big pharma, won't buy reprints of the papers and it at a high cost. So there's a financial incentive for the journals to go along with this scientific misconduct. And, you know, you look at the Pfizer study, you know, we know, I mean, there's no question that it was, they did not publish the truth. You know, we know this from the whistleblower. We know this from the leak data, for example, in the first 90 days after release of the buys, the vaccine. So this is until February of 2021 Pfizer, we're aware of over 1200 deaths, 1200 deaths, and over 40,000 serious adverse events related to the vaccine directly related to the backseat. So at that time, the whole program should have been shut down. You, we talking about February 21, the data was so overwhelming at that time as to the serious adverse events, it should have been shut down, but the data was hidden and the FDA and the CDC just turned a blind eye. Doug Truax: Well, let me ask you about the percentages on this, just so I understand, cause I'm with you, they should've shut it down. I just saw Dr. Fauci in an interview. He's now talking in a way relative to these adverse effects. It's like, well, we had to make decisions about the bigger, the greater good versus some damage. And I feel like where they're headed here is, well, so many people got the vaccine that there's going to be the absolute number of people that have an adverse effect is going to be higher than you might want, but that's, that's just comes with the territory. So can you talk to that a little bit? I totally am with you, they're hiding the adverse effects and the damages of the vaccine, but how does that play out when you have all these people take it and you do have these adverse effects. Well, how do the numbers shake out relative to the people who took it and the amount of folks that have the adverse effect? Dr. Paul Marik: Yeah, so I, I saw that press release and I was sick to the core because the fact that he could, so blatantly lie is truly astonishing. So they're multiple sources of data that, that indicate the profound effect and the profound toxicity of these vaccines. They're not safe. So firstly, if you look at the vaers data, which is the vaccine adverse event reporting system run by the end of the department health and human services. So in that database itself, there are something like 20,000 deaths. And if you look at the trend of all the vaccines, you know, in the last 20 years, we're looking at a really low number, suddenly in 2021, there's a massive spike in the number of deaths and adverse events related to vaccination. You know, there's the yellow card system in, in the UK. And then there's something called VG access, which is run by the who, which is the biggest pharmaco vigilance database in the world. And they track, you know, multiple medications and vaccinations. So if you look at their database and this is run by the who, they currently over 20,000 deaths at 4 million, let me say that again, 4 million serious adverse events against the vaccine. Whereas you look at ivermectin in the same database, which has been used for 25 years in their database. There so-called 18 deaths and 4,000 adverse events. So the absurd paradox is the FDA and NIH and CDC consider ivermectin a dangerous toxic toasty worming medicine, which in 25 years is so-called called 18 desert, which most of those were due to the parasite yet the vaccine, which is safe and effective, according to their own data in 18 months has racked up over 4 million adverse events. So the, the hypocrisy, the lies, the deceit is truly astonishing. So, you know, we do have some data. So, you know, I mean, you know, if you look at all the other vaccines, there's never, the first of all, this is not a vaccine. You know, this is an experimental genetic experiment. It's never been used before. There's no medical precedent. This is an experimental therapy of which the long-term benefits. We just don't know. It's never been used before. So you, you, the, you know, if you look at the department of defense database, the increased risk of complications, which includes strokes, heart attacks, cancer, miscarriages increased by three to 400%. And this is in the department of defense database. So we have multiple sources of data confirming that something, something is, is wrong. And then we have the, the life insurance data. So, you know, the life insurance company is that they obviously acutely aware of young people buying unexpectedly and the most recent studies show there's 110% increase in the non COVID deaths of people between the ages of 20 and 60. And this is across the board. So something very irregular is happening. Doug Truax: Yeah. It's, it's just terrible. Yeah, go ahead. Dr. Paul Marik: You know, if you look at the Pfizer data, the risk of adverse events is probably 2%, but they, there is a study done by an independent polling company that reported 8.6% of people who vaccinated 8.6 will have a serious adverse event. And there was a study done in the VA looking at adverse events with Madonna and Pfizer. And again, it was 8%. So that is a enormous number of patients. So if you consider the number of people that are vaccinated, you know, maybe, you know, 350 million people we talking about over at, you know, over 10 to 15 million people who are vaccine injured, this is, this is a catastrophic and monumental problem we facing. Doug Truax: Yeah. It could be the greatest it's. I think it's going to be the greatest medical blunder in the history of the world. And I think that that point you made about it, not being a vaccine is a good one. That was a marketing problem. From the beginning, you start calling this thing a vaccine when it's just a treatment, it's not, you know, the, the connotation began and everybody's my well, it's going to get rid of it. It's going to protect me from that, all these things, it's going to suppress the symptoms and you're still going to carry it around. But all these things were conspiring. It felt like to just like you said, everybody take the shot. You know, the pharmaceutical companies don't have any liability anymore. They got control of the data. The medical journals are using data that they've got control of. And they're pushing it, pushing it out there, no matter what. And it just feels like this, you know? And you brought up the point about people on the inside of the FDA and NIH, former, former SuiteGL people. It is just it. I think a lot of people need to go to jail. I'm happy to hear about the situation in Brazil, but do you think this is where this is going to land over time, right. More and more is going to come out. It's like, wait a minute. Who said yes to that in spite of this information, and those people are going to be there, there's going to be some criminal charges at some point. Right? Dr. Paul Marik: So yeah. I mean, you know, the data is overwhelming. You know, if you look for it, you can see the data, you know, obviously there's, this is a crime against humanity, something that's never been perpetrated at this level ever. You know, the problem is the people, the stakeholders now are so deeply involved that they never, they never gonna admit that they made a mistake. Doug Truax: Right. Dr. Paul Marik: I don't think they ever gonna admit it. Yeah. So, you know, it's, it's to have to be, you know, legislators maybe with, you know, w when the Congress changes towards the end of the year, maybe people, they are, there are some legislators who know what's going on, who are investigating this, but they are the small minority, because unfortunately, you know, you have to follow the narrative. And, you know, people like Tony Fowchee on not questioned, you know, any alternative point of view is censored. As you know, everything I say gets censored. YouTube takes me down. Facebook takes me down because although I'm absolutely telling the truth, I'm considered a mis informationist. So misinformation is actually the definition is, is anyone who says anything against the narrative it's safe and effective. If you say anything, which questions that you or misinformation is. And if you think about it, science is based on people asking questions. It's based on people having an exchange of ideas. It's about having a conversation. Like we having a conversation and we open and we honest, and we talk about things and that's how we progress. But when you silence everyone, I mean, this is truly astonishing is that science has been decapitated because it's been censored. And only one, one point of view is disseminated. And, you know, they have spent millions and billions of dollars in advertising and the same people that, you know, did the misinformation related to smoking the safety of smoking and promoting smoking it's these same bad players are the ones that are doing this public relations to, you know, provide the misinformation about the vaccines. Doug Truax: Yeah. It's all about the money. I think at the end of the day, you know, that's what, that's, what's this going to come down to the pharmaceutical companies are way too far into everything and they don't have any liability on this deal. So yeah, they're going to keep censoring. Dr. Paul Marik: The worst thing is that, you know, by, by, by the regulation set up by the federal government, they have indemnity. So basically they can do what they want to, they have no recourse, and that's what gives them the freedom. I mean, it's truly astonishing. And you know, when people get the vaccine, they sign a consent form, but it's not truly a true consent form because they're not given the true information and any consent form should include, you know, what are the options? What are the alternatives to this therapy? And patients are not told about alternatives, and they're not, they're not told the truth about the adverse events. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Well, you are a great example for how to be a true professional in the medical profession, which we need way more of. I love having folks like you on, because it brings back some faith in the rest of us that are there. Our faith is waning as we've watched all this happen, but I know it's been difficult. We appreciate your boldness and your willingness to tell the truth and your dedication to what you do. You know, we're going to get the word out as best we can. And I do believe they will come a day. Will you be truly vindicated? And because the truth always does come out. So I appreciate you telling me that. Dr. Paul Marik: Yeah. So I think the bottom line is you can hide the truth for only so long, but the truth will come out and you want to be on the right side of the truth. You want to be on the right side of science and you want to be on the right side of history. And I think these people are, have a lot of accountability to, you know, to, to, to be responsible for, because, you know, the, the, the, the effect that this has had on society, as we all know it has been catastrophic, you know, not only the human suffering, but the social isolation, the effect on the economy, the effect on children, the effect on Kansas be terrible. The horrible childhood has been turned upside down, and that should never have happened. Doug Truax: That's Dr. Paul Marik: Right. We should never close the schools. We should never have treated kids the way we treated them. Doug Truax: Yeah. It's wrong decisions early on. And here we are. So, well, thanks again for all you're doing, and I appreciate you coming on the show. We'll get this out far and wide and make sure your message gets out there and appreciate all you've done. Dr. Paul Marik: Thanks. And thanks for, thanks for speaking and things for what you're doing. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's helpful that you can have a conversation with somebody who is prepared to, you know, understand and listen. It's somewhat unique. Doug Truax: Well, we do. We need more of it. We need more people like you for sure. Thanks doctor. Dr. Paul Marik: Have a good day. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First, right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first, right to 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6, 1.

Tony Heller, climate expert and Real Climate Science founder.

First Right welcomes Brian Burch, president and co-founder of Catholic Vote.

First Right welcomes Dan Gainor, prominent media critic in America.

Doug talks to Dr. Peter McCullough, leader in COVID-19 research and response. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. A weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm your host, Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today, we are blessed again to have one of the most important voices in America when it comes to COVID-19. He's Dr. Peter McCullough, a deeply credentialed doctor who has been telling Americans most of what they are hearing in the mainstream media about COVID is wrong. He has a new book out that outlines the massive failures, the medical tech and media establishments in America when it comes to COVID-19 doctor. Welcome back! Dr. Peter McCullough: Thank you. Doug Truax: All right. Well, thanks so much for coming back on. So since we last had you on, you've been out there continuing to tell the truth, and you've been putting your, your thoughts and some of your findings in a new book. So tell us about the book. Dr. Peter McCullough: Yeah. I'm pleased to announce a new book. It's already hit number one in three different categories on Amazon. I partnered up with true crime author and bestselling author. John leake. The title of the book is the Courage to face COVID-19 preventing hospitalizations and deaths while battling the bio-pharmaceutical complex. Doug Truax: So, so what have you found that, you know, since we last talked, we talked a lot about the Rogan interview and everything going viral and things like that. So in addition to what we talked about last time about the establishment, is there any, anything surprising? I want to get the vaccines for kids and babies in a minute, but anything surprising that we're going to find in, in this, in this latest update on what you've been finding out there? Dr. Peter McCullough: No, we've, we're into third, three years of presenting data to Americans. And, you know, there are probably 250,000 peer reviewed papers on the infection. What the book does, it's written as a very readable fun narrative. It's the genre of non-fiction true crime. And it is the story about the discovery of the treatment of the illness, how myself and others worked in collaboration, both together, many groups separately, we conversed on the same ideas that the condition was treatable and how the shock that was felt when we realized that our must trusted government and pharmaceutical entities were actively blocking early treatment. They were actually prolonging the pandemic. They were actually causing suffering fear, hospitalization, and death. It's just such a shocking revelation. Who's involved. Why did the white house contact me? Why, why did I get called to the us Senate? How did I set all records on Joe Rogan? For instance, why did all this happen? And how can we fit this into an understandable story? The book is 309 pages, 45 chapters. You can actually read it within about a two to three hour period of time. It's fun. The chapters, what are the, the most eye catching chapter titles is one on Cuomo, sexuals. And that's the story of Andrew and Chris Cuomo. How did they fall from grace? How was this related to the pandemic? Remember Como had won an Emmy award for his briefings. It's all in the book. And so I encourage everybody to pick up a copy and, and, you know, be sure to give us review and feedback, but it's already a seller. And the reason is because there's very few books on COVID and none of them are written as an understandable story. Doug Truax: Right? Well, thank you for doing that. And I think this goes to people are looking for the larger story of what actually happened, because there were so many pieces of this and we had John last and we got to the end and I said, you know, is anybody going to be held accountable? And you went into this, you know, your opinion that you thought that 95% of the deaths could have been avoided and we could avoided millions of hospitalizations. And I think that that is where a lot of us have been thinking, okay, this doesn't, this whole thing just seems out of whack and off. And, and so for you to put this all in one place, I think that's probably the biggest. I hear you talk about it. It feels like that's probably going to be the biggest value is it sets the larger, I don't use the word narrative anymore because the left is hijack that it sets, it sets the larger picture of the, of the story that that's happened. Right? Dr. Peter McCullough: It's true. You know, everything in there is sighted. It's all part of history. We can't go back. It finishes as I'm giving my speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to a huge crowd about, about basically constitutional rights and our liberal democracy and what John leakes remarks remarks about is, is isn't it interesting in the context of a pandemic and pandemic response, it's a doctor who's advocating for personal autonomy and medical freedom. It's a doctor that's reminding Americans that what's at stake is our constitutional rights and our liberal democracy. Doug Truax: That's right. You could have safety or you can have freedom, but you can't necessarily have them both depending on the situation. Right. So, so what's your life been like in, in recent months? How about inherit about some professional and media censorship? So what's going on there? Dr. Peter McCullough: Yeah. I can tell you what I've experienced over time is I've become one of the most frequent media guests in the entire world. And the more intense the efforts are to try to sensor my analysis and my opinions, the louder, my megaphone gets it's completely backfiring. It's a, a type of, it's a where if I had nothing to say, or I was completely unimportant, there wouldn't be any more invitations. In fact, the largest thing I've done, I'm getting ready to go back for the fourth time now is day star. They started the largest Christian broadcasting network in the world by a mile. They are about 200 million paid subscribers, about three people per a subscription, watched the show. That's 600 million people per show and they run reruns. So that's about 1.7 billion people that are reached. I mean, that blows away Joe Rogan or CNN or MSNBC, all the major media combined. And so, so the, the message out to the people is, is very clear on pandemic response. We have a treatable illness. The virus has mutated to become far less, virilant. Patients are getting through the illness. Now there's some high-risk people that we need to treat and that our big approach with this mass mandated program in the United States, partially genetic products, they not only have not worked, but in fact, they are grossly unsafe. The world council for health, June 11th, 2022 is clear. They did a pharmacovigilance report and they said, pull them off the market. They're not safe as long overdue, pull them off the market. Doug Truax: Yeah. Speaking of things that seem to not make sense and still get pushed. So we're now in this phase of vaccinations for children and babies. And, and it, you know, before, before I throw my opinion and what's the science behind this and where do you, where do you think this, where we should go with this side of it? Dr. Peter McCullough: No, the CDC told America that in February 75% of children had already had the illness. They've already had it. We had a presentation on Monday, June 27th, 2022. And the leader of the school of public health in Texas at Houston said that 99% of all Texans had already had antibodies now to the SARS cov two. So it was clear. It's basically over with the children have already been through it. And Dr. Ryan Cole has just presented down in a conference in Brazil and he announced there hasn't been a single childhood death with the Omicron Berrien, not a single one. So what we know is the vaccines are not clinically indicated are not medically necessary. However, they have been tested in children. And we know from the registrational trials, age 12 to 17 and five to 11 by Frank and, and respectively that the children had no clinical benefit from taking one of these, that there was no reductions in hospitalizations and does no reductions in spread or spread to family or teacher. And that the product's made patients sicker with fever, body aches, chills. Then they would be just the illness themselves. So it clearly was a bad idea to do this. Now in children aged six to a five years old, six months to five years old, they had absolutely no impact whatsoever. They tried to use arises of antibodies to claim a biologic effect. We know in a paper by housing colleagues in MMWR, December 31st, 2021 issue, the grossly unsafe in children, even the families were reporting this through the be safe system. The children were becoming incapacitated. Couldn't go to school afterwards were very sick. And I was alarmed to see in the data table for children, five to 11, actually evidence of heart damage elevations in cardiac troponin, which the FDA agrees that the products cause heart damage on my Twitter feed right now is a paper just was released from Berlin using cardiac biopsies, showing with a, that genetic products, but as well with AstraZeneca Johnson and Johnson. And it happens with they had no viral products as well. That in fact, there's myocarditis, spike protein is found in the heart. And then a really scary features was called giant cells. Giant cells actually predict cardiac death. So we have a terrible situation where these products are grossly unsafe. They are not needed. In fact, there are now two real-world studies where they were tried ages five to 11 and 12 to 17, adorable Willa and Fleming dotra published in JAMA showing no clinical benefit of vaccine efficacy was far less than 50% notice on this podcast, how I easily cite the literature and that the government health authorities on any interview failed to cite any literature. They simply presume safe and effective and try to propel this propaganda campaign towards a massive administration. Doug Truax: Yeah, it's, it's just, it's a terrible, terrible thing. It doesn't, it not only does it not hurt, it's not, not help people, it's hurting people and it was, they're still getting pushed. And I just, I can't, I can't believe I just want all parents out there to wake up to this and you know, common sense tells us this thing is over. So why would we keep going through this? And I think we're living in an age now, I just keep hearing all these strange deaths and people dying suddenly. And, but the media doesn't cover it. So, you know, maybe that's another book that you're going to, you know, part two of your book, a second book for you later on, but you know, conceding the point that the, you know, establishment manipulated the at-large population in this country over this last period of time, we've been in w what's your opinion of, of, of it happening again? Are we more or less susceptible to being manipulated in the future? Now that we've gone through this? Dr. Peter McCullough: I think we're more susceptible. What's been diagnosed for the population by professor Mateus does a Desmond into your mercy. Again in Belgium, a is mass formation, mass formation psychosis. And we believe a large fraction of Americans are in mass formation, which is essentially a form of brainwashing through propaganda PSYOP. If you will, there's been a prolonged period of isolation. Things taken away from them with that. They enjoyed constant free floating anxiety. And then they've been offered a solution from entities of authority. They've been told to take it without exception, without exception, not to question it. So even as the FDA has safety warnings on it saying it causes heart damage causes blood clots, neurologic damage, people are told without exception, they must take it or lose their job, lose their military career. You know, the, these are basically examples of absurdity. No one can take a product against their will. No one can have a pill shoved down their throat, a needle put in their arm. And, and, and everyone knows that not everybody can take the same pill or injection that each, each person is uniquely different. And what we're learning now is tragic, but there are mass numbers of deaths in the world council for health pharmaco, vigilance report, 40,000 deaths. If we combine the CDC verus system, yellow card system, the uja system and the who Vichie safe system, and that's a gross underestimate, a paper from Columbia pentose autos and Seligman, they estimate through December that has been potentially 187,000 Americans that have lost their lives. And as evidence that they're in mass formation is that there's no outrage. You know, one of the first public deaths was Hank Aaron, you know, retired baseball players in great shape, comes out, has a press release, takes one of these. And he's dead within a couple of weeks. And the deaths continue to occur. One after another, we've had football players, all kinds of public figures who have died. People in the press, mass number of athletes overseas. There's no outrage. We know now in a paper by Gillan colleagues from Connecticut, two boys died at home on days three and four, after the second shot of the Pfizer common Natty vaccine, they had autopsies, the families were outraged and they were found to have fatal myocarditis by, by examination of the cardiac tissue. Doug Truax: It's, it's the craziest thing. And it is that mass formation and you know, you, and some others brought that to everybody's attention. And that made a lot of sense. And I guess it's gonna, you know, it's the question becomes, how long does it go on? At what point do people say, okay, enough, we got to start talking about this. I mean, do you have a sense for that? Because you talk about more people are, are coming out of it, hopefully, but is it years? Is it ever, you know, Dr. Peter McCullough: Well, let's talk about proportions and the New York times, about a month ago, front page, they had a story based on semester that 35% of Americans are not going to take one of these, or they're not going to take a booster. Our CDC says that 18% of people I've never taken them. That's me. I tell you the smartest decision I ever made was not to take one of these. Yeah. But so 18% are not taking it. 17% have taken one, but they're not taking a booster. That's 35% of the country. That's a third of the country that is basically awake. They have a sense of something is going wrong. Two thirds of the country, doesn't probably a middle Third is, is starting to see things go bad as loved ones, die, become injured. But then there's a third that are fully entranced in this they're fully engaged. One of the best examples is Anderson Cooper was recently interviewing bill gates. Anderson took three. Bill gates took four. They both get the illness. They get through it. It's a mild illness now for virtually everyone and Anderson Cooper asked bill gates for medical advice. You know, not being a doctor, but gates, you know, predictably gives his response because he's a stakeholder in this. And he thinks about it. And he says, well, we've already had the illness. We should keep taking more, more of these. Let's just keep taking more. Remember each time, if someone takes a shot, these are lipid nanoparticles that are loaded with the genetic code for the spike protein, which was manipulated in a bio-security lab. And Wu China, the spike protein itself has been shown to be fatal to the human body. So everybody taking this is taking basically a Russian roulette with Chinese genetic code for this lethal protein is just a matter of, did you get enough of the good stuff? Did it get delivered in strategic place? Did you produce it, but enough of it to damage an organ or actually kill the person outright? It's a Russian roulette with each one of these that are given. It's an, it has a dangerous mechanism of action internally and externally consistent large signal. Even in randomized trials, there were more people who died than were saved. This fulfills all the Bradford hill criteria for causality. So, you know, at this point in time, again, there's global calls to get these off the market. I think everybody should pay attention. I testified in the Texas Senate on the 27th of June, and I told, listen to centers. I said, listen, your job is to pay attention. They asked me, they asked me a tough question, Dr. McCullough, how come the CDC, NIH are not doing anything about it. And you know, I thought about it. And at the time I didn't have the right words, but the words I'll tell you on this podcast is that they are willfully blind. And I tell you the best example of this is under court order. Pfizer had to release their documents. Pfizer knew about 1,223 deaths that occurred within 90 days of their product. They should have shut it down. After about 50 deathss, no more. And the lawyer for the FDA. And they represented the FDA. They didn't want to release that for 55 years. That is prima fascia evidence of willful blindness. The FDA did not want America to know that they knew that Pfizer's vaccine was resulting in large numbers of people dying. Doug Truax: It's tragic. And we have the situation where Pfizer's not liable. You know, they, they got this, they are able to pump this thing out and they got no liability on the other end of this. And I just want us to go forward and figure out we need to follow the money on this thing. There's just so much, it's just crazy. I, I can't, I can't believe we were at this place, but we are people like you are speaking truth. Thankfully, I asked you on the last show, the last question. So today where we are with things, just, what's your advice to somebody who's thinking, you know, I'm still vulnerable to this thing is still floating around a little bit. What should I do? You know how what's, what's the procedure I should go through with my doctor? What should I get ready for? Dr. Peter McCullough: I think every patient ought to visit their doctor and ask them if the doctor recommends a vaccine. And if the doctor says, yes, the appropriate patient responses that, that, you know, you don't think they're safe enough for, for yourself that you're concerned about safety. I think the doctors need to hear a patient concern regarding safety and the doctors need to hear a clear answer on deferral. No, I respectfully decline these. The doctors need to hear that right now, patients aren't saying anything and they're running for the Hills and they need to confront their doctors. Say the first, the first thing that needs to happen, practical safety, the better than a vaccine is actually using virus, Seidel, nasal washes. We now have 12 clinical studies, three randomized trials take dilute. Povidone iodine, dilute hydrogen peroxide or commercial products like Kofax immune mist clear. There's a variety of products and actually use them after one's been out and potentially exposed to individuals if they work great. And these nasal washes probably twice a day for prevention for high risk patients. I go through this with all my patients during active treatment, we increase them to every four hours. They're they're enormously important. The treatments for the illness are wonderful monoclonal antibodies, working great nutraceuticals and supplements. Hydroxy, chloroquine, ivermectin. We have Paxil avoid Malone appear severe. We have doxycycline, azithromycin inhale, Buddhist tonight, oral prednisone, oral aspirin, anticoagulants the drugs work in combination about four to six drugs. And we run them hard for the first few days. And we get through illness, even nursing home patients. We get through the illness very easily. Now I commented on Fox news this week with Laura Ingram about our director of the national allergy and immunology branch. You know, he's in his eighties, he took four of these shots. He gets COVID and he takes PEX avoid reportedly alone, which is not the right thing to do. Remember people who've taken the vaccines. They were excluded from the PEX avoid trial. So he's already not following the science. He's off, he's off the indications from the inclusion criteria in the trial, but he takes it and then it gets better. And then he rebounds. It gets much worse as called PEX, avoid rebound. And on the 24th of May, the CDC issued a health advisory. We've actually never had any health advisories on our other drugs. We use in the protocol. And then the health advisory to CDC, cited papers from Gupta Charnas and Carlin showing that in those who are fully vaccinated, Paxil, Boyd doesn't work very well and patients get a rebound. And so I commented that he should go on to community standard of care, community scanners, acquires using hydroxychloroquine ivermectin and other drugs. In combination. When I testified in the Texas Senate, I, I, you know, reeducated the Texas Senate that the community standard of care can be defined as one doctor in a community who stepped up as in a challenge to treat an illness. And that's common for other illnesses where it takes specialty types of expertise. So a community standard of care has been established. We use drugs in combination packs avoid is okay. It looks like we're finding so weaknesses on rebound. I saw a patient like that in my office yesterday and had to convert to a hydroxychloroquine for a prolonged course. But the bottom line is the messages. We can treat this illness. The vaccines are not sufficiently safe. They clearly are ineffective and don't work. And there's not the, they're not that they're not worth any type of risk for any more of these injections. People, every six months have a chance to get back on track and get their body healthy. I hope they make the right choice. Doug Truax: Yeah, me too. And that is such great advice to everybody to, I want everybody to hear everything that you just said and do the common sense thing. And you know, I want everybody to read your book too. I definitely am going to read that. I want all of our viewers to read it as well. And I have the sense that you're not letting this go. You're going to keep following this and see where it leads you because the truth needs to be out there because that's the only thing that will eventually set us free. And I appreciate your courage and your intellect and all your boldness. We, we need this more in America nowadays. So thank you for all that you've done. Dr. Peter McCullough: Thank you. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't ever forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First, right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox, always free subscribed by texting first right to 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRST RIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6 1.

Mark Hemingway, conservative investigative journalist in America. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration of America. Today, we are blessed to have a special guest Mark Hemingway. One of the most conservative effective journalists in America. Mark has been all over the election integrity issue for years, and that's an issue we have to solve, or our Republic will dissolve. Hi mark. Thanks for coming on the show. Mark Hemingway: Great be here. Doug Truax: All right. So you've got some really impressive credentials. So give us, give us the thumbnail on your journalism background. Mark Hemingway: I, at this point in time, it's fairly extensive. You know, I've, I've worked at two daily newspapers, three magazines and a financial wire service, and I'm currently a investigative reporter. I'm sort of a weird asterix in conservative history. And then I think I've been the only guy that's ever been a paid staff writer at the weekly standard, American spectator and national review. So, but you know, like I said, I, you know, I covered the fed for three years at our financial wire service. I worked at USA today, know I've done a lot of different things. So obviously I've, you know, done, you know, conservative journalism. But you know, I also worked at USA today. I covered the federal reserve at a financial wire service for three years in a way that was completely apolitical. Basically I've been around the block fairly extensively at this point in time in my career. There's not much really, I haven't done in journalism in one form or another currently investigative reporter, which is, you know, one reason why you're talking to me today. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. You've done some great work there. We want to talk about voter integrity today. And so going back to 2019, you had a great piece that you wrote back then about the voter rolls, which is not something that people talked a lot about back then. They talked about it quite a bit more now, but give us in your own words, the current state of play with the voter rolls across the country. Mark Hemingway: So basically we have a horrible problem in this country, which is to say that according to the census information, about 10 to 11% of Americans move every year and that necessitates a lot of work to keep up accurate voter roles. And frankly elections in this country are underfunded. There's very little money that has historically been thrown toward election administration. And this means that very often people's names stay on the books in areas where they haven't lived or been registered to vote for, you know, a very long time. And it's resorted and it's resulted in all kinds of, you know, horrible distortions and problems. So like for instance, there was a lawsuit a couple of years ago involving judicial watch where they, they sued. And I think they got the, the city to basically agree because they had no choice under federal law and other things to, you know, fix well they sued Los Angeles and they got the city to agree to fix their voter rolls because they had no choice. Basically under federal law, got to a point where something like Los Angeles had a voter registration rate of 130% meaning that they had 30%. They, they, that they had 30% more people on the voter rolls than actually lived in the county, you know, in Los Angeles county is not a small county. And, you know, like California in general had a voter registration rate of over a hundred percent, a couple of years ago, meaning that the state had taken no action over a period of decades, essentially to do the things that the federal law requires in order to make sure that voter rolls are accurate and up-to-date, and you know, California was, is egregiously bad in this regard, but states across the country are all bad on this issue. Both red states and blue states, you know, like I said, it's frequently just a problem of administration and lack of funding for this sort of thing. It's not necessarily a political thing. Although in the case of California and some other things, there were definitely some political things that, that came into play basically when they pass a lot of these voter laws, when they passed a lot of voter laws in the nineties, you know, mandating federal laws, mandating that you clean voter rolls and stuff, California basically asked for a special exemption of Janet Reno, bill Clinton's attorney general so that, you know, that they interpreted basically that meant that he didn't have to apply within apply that none of these federal mandates applied to them. And so they went for years without being, without necessarily complying with this. And there was also a Supreme court decision in recent years that basically force states hand on this. So it's an ongoing problem that that needs to be cleaned up. And, you know, while, you know, having voter rolls that aren't, you know, cleaned up isn't proof of, you know, voter of, of corruption or any sort of voter fraud, it's certainly makes voter fraud much, much more likely. You know, when you think about the pandemic, for instance, a lot of states decided that because of the pandemic, they were just going to send out ballots to every person on their voter rolls. Well, that meant in most places that, you know, there were going to be tens of thousands, if not more ballots, just being sent out to addresses where people hadn't lived in, you know, years. And that of course is a huge problem. You know, when you've got, you know, actual ballots floating around in the ether that people can just fill out and send back in and there's almost no effort made to, to check them. Doug Truax: Yeah. And that's the problem. It gets to this lack of confidence that we all start to feel, whether you're not, you can improve the fraud. We all know that there's an opportunity for people to commit fraud. If that's sitting there like that. And somebody really wanted to put the effort into it, which is, which is the problem. Mark Hemingway: And to be clear, we did see a few isolated, specific instances of this that were absolutely undeniable. I mean, there was a city council race in Patterson, New Jersey. It was invalidated specifically because one of the candidates there was, you know, going around doing things like apparently like scooping up baskets, full of ballots that were being dumped into lobbies of apartment buildings, you know, and there was, you know, substantial fraud involved in, in what was happening. So we know it provides the opportunity for this. And, you know, again, this is a huge problem. And, you know, I talked a little about California, but I don't know if I have, you know, quite captured the scale of this. I mean, pew, the pure organization, which again is nobody's idea of a right-wing organization, did a study in 2012. They concluded, I think that about one out of every eight, which is, which is about 24 million voter registrations in this country were substantially inaccurate, was the word that they used. So, I mean, this is a massive, massive problem if we're gonna have this massive push toward mail-in voting, but there's no corresponding effort to make sure that voter rolls were accurate. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. And so the, the big question now that we're faced with this problem is how do you see us getting out of this? How do we fix this? Mark Hemingway: Well, one, like I said, that, you know, we've got to make an effort to, you know, invest in our election administration and, you know, and, and actually have some sort of, you know, enforcement mechanisms here for the federal law that mandates this sort of thing. And, you know, secretaries of state really have to take it upon themselves to make sure that these voter rolls stay accurate. And there have been some encouraging things that have happened that I've written about. So like Democrats have made a lot of hay out of attempts to clean up voter rolls as being, you know, Republicans attempts to, you know, disenfranchise voters, which is absolutely isn't true. Th this in fact was the heart of Stacey Abrams claim when she claimed that she was elected the governor of Georgia and, and it wasn't elected, even though she lost by a hundred thousand votes, she was claiming that because the governor of sorry, the secretary of state in Georgia had, you know, kicked off X number of people off the voter rolls over a period of like a decade that this meant that all these people were being disenfranchised. No, it's just absolute insane. In fact, if anything, if you look at the numbers, the secretary of state in Georgia, in a state of 11 million people, you know, him removing, you know, however many hundreds of thousands of people off the voter rolls over a course of a decade odds are he probably didn't clear enough off, you know, when you think about, you know, 11 million people in 10% of them moving every year. So this has been distorted by Democrats that aning up the voter rolls is somehow an attempt at mass disenfranchisement in now, the secretary of state of Ohio did something interesting, I thought was encouraging, which is he's. He said, look, we're going to clean up the voter rolls. All right. And there's, there's nothing that you guys can do about that. But what I'm going to do is I'm going to bring in liberal groups of stakeholders here, and you're going to, you know, have a part in looking at the process here, you know, because the reality is, is that, you know, once you actually sit down and look at the voter rolls and you compare them to, you know, known addresses and other things like that, there's no denying that, you know, this is a problem. So, you know, bringing in the local NAACP groups and some other things, you know, he was able to go about cleaning up the voter rolls in Ohio and sort of minimize the political controversy out of it. So it didn't look like so much of a closed door process, but, you know, if you groups on the right and left together that oversee the process then, well, you know, it becomes pretty obvious that it's not a political thing. It's just something that has to happen. So, you know, hopefully one states across the country will look at investing more in election administration and to bringing in different stakeholders to address the problem. Because, you know, when it's a unit party thing that's just done behind closed doors, then you know, you know, everybody's, you know, people don't talk about this much. The left is just as suspicious as well of what the right is doing with election stuff as the right is even though the media doesn't cover that angle. But I think if you can bring people to the table from both sides to oversee these kinds of processes, you know, you'll find that it gets done without incident for the most part, Doug Truax: Right? It's that transparency. And you just said it right. There was so much gets done behind closed doors. And I think over time, this voter roll thing has been building because we haven't had the transparency that we needed. I would say, you know, a scale of, you know, a percentage scale, we had like 5% of transparency into the voter rolls based on how you can pull them down a different state or whatever else. One of the things we're doing, I know, you know, we've discussed this previously, a vote raft.com. We're systematically putting the voter roll up online. That's come straight from the state and put it out there for everybody to see so that we can get to full transparency because that's, you know, when you get to that place and every, everybody, no matter who you are, which side you're like, well, yeah, I guess we can all see it. And we can all crowdsource it, no matter what party you are. And then you get back to the full confidence that we need to have, which is the main problem. Now everybody's getting less and less confident year over year and the whole thing. Mark Hemingway: Yeah, yeah. But you know, again, this is, this is the kind of like unsexy, you know, work that needs to be done. And there frequently isn't necessarily the, the money and the state budgets and other things, they may be interested in getting it done, but it just, it just has to be done if you care about free and fair elections. And in fact, this was an actively exploited in 2020, you know, obviously, you know, people watching this are probably somewhat familiar with the whole mark Zuckerberg controversy where Zuckerberg spent $350 million basically doling out grants directly to local election offices using democratic activists who were election experts. And there's a lot of controversy and analysis that now show that basically what was going on is they were running a democratic get out the vote operation out of local non-partisan election offices. Now there's some question about whether this, you know, might've been legal, but, you know, there's, there was nothing crazy about this in the sense that no one had ever, because what started, there was nothing brazenly illegal about it in the sense that no one had ever conceived of an idea where, you know, a billionaire would come in with $350 to shore up local election offices. But the fact of the matter is a lot of local election offices, even in, in red areas were taking this money because they needed the money, you know, and, and the fact that it came with strings attached was a secondary concern. When you know, it, you're just trying to like, you know, make sure that there isn't long lines on election day. I mean, this is something that we have to take very, very, because you know, as long as our election offices are underfunded, they're going to be vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation, both by local authorities. And like in the case of Zuckerberg, hopefully that won't happen again. But, but in that case, we were very definitely manipulated by their, you know, overwhelming need for money. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great point. And it has gotta be more and more pressure and more, more visibility on this stuff. So voter rolls, Zuckerberg putting money in, what were some of the other prominent things you see out there with the previous election, or just elections in general that you consider, you know, we need to get this stuff fixed. Mark Hemingway: Well, you know, from, from the election side of things, like, you know, it's, it's hard to say. I mean, basically the whole thing was, you know, it was just a mess, you know, especially with the pandemic and other things like that. I mean, I don't really have a lot to add other than, you know, beyond the specific issues of what I've talked about in terms of, you know, voter rolls. There is, you know, just a general lack of, you know, organization, you know, I mean, honestly, I think one thing that would help with the transparency was it, this is something that, you know, when I was helping my wife write her book or that we, you know, we came across it, I was sort of stunned about it. I didn't realize that there was a Republican, the Republican party, national Republican party had been under a consent decree that was put in place by a judge in like the early 1980s over some shenanigans involving a New Jersey election, which basically meant that the Republican party couldn't have election observers when the democratic party could have election observers across the country. And that the sentence that, that, that consent decree was just lifted in, in 2020 and the Republican party didn't quite have the muscle memory in terms of having a partisan election observers out there. And in places that were, you know, fall in that were there to document whether or not the rules were being followed. And hopefully as, as you know, I mean, it was an absolute crime that this was allowed to persist for decades. The judge that put this consent decree in place, like kept this descent, the consent decree in place restricting the part of Republican party's election day activities. Well, after he, he basically retired and took senior status. I mean, it was an Obama appointed judge that finally lifted it. I mean, basically looked at it and said, like, this is crazy. So hopefully you'll have part, you'll have more partisan advisors on both sides and election day that are election observers and like watching a lot of this stuff, you know, and, you know, hopefully that won't devolve into, you know, more partisan warfare over this stuff. It will just be more sort of transparency and accountability, but, you know, we've got to have, you know, a sense of, you know, fairness in terms of what election observers are out there. Doug Truax: Wow. That's really interesting about that. A consent decree. I didn't, I didn't realize that. And that goes to one of the things I was going to bring up too, is it just does seem like in general, Democrats are much more interested in the mechanics of the election than Republicans are like, you know, writ large over the decades here, obviously that contributes to it. But wouldn't you, would you say that in general to the CR the consent decree aside, would you say that Democrats seem to always have had more interest than just like the pure mechanics of an election than Republicans? Mark Hemingway: Hmm. I mean, certainly there have been times, you know, you have had figures and Republican parties history over the years, like Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. I think that have been very keenly attuned to the, sort of the mechanics of elections, I think in re recent decades where it should say post Bush, post Bush two. That's that's certainly been true. You know, we talked a lot about him in, in the Molly's book, rigged about mark Elias, you know, the democratic super lawyer that was also involved in the whole crazy dossier scheme in his role in elections. Basically what happened was, is after 2000 Democrats narrowly losing that presidential election on various technicalities and Florida. I mean, let's be clear here. I mean, they've done all kinds of subsequent things since then that show that Bush won that election outright in terms of votes in Florida. But, but that really radicalized Democrats for them to really go after process stuff. And then you saw some things happen, like for instance, the election in, in Minnesota, that Al Franken won by 300 votes in 2008, and then ended up Franklin being the 60 vote, the deciding vote on Obamacare. That election was one where Republicans, I think were completely blindsided by how Democrats have good Democrats, good gotten at this stuff. I mean, they had all kinds of sophisticated processes for using demography to analyze, you know, who likely cast a disputed valid and things like that. And whether the person was likely to be Republican or Democrat and stuff. And they were very, very successful. In fact, there've been a number of analysis posts that Al Franken election to show that that election may not have been a gain of strictly accurate, even if it was one on the legal merits at the time. So yes, I do think that, that they have been, you know, there's been a huge project on, on the democratic side to make hay about these things. And you've got to remember until, you know, J January 6th and that whole mess, you know, Democrats had disputed every single election they'd lost more or less, right. At least at the presidential level, since 2000. And I mean, in an official capacity with people in the, the, in Congress standing up to say that they thought the elections were legitimate, Hillary Clinton thought, you know, it was still saying, it is still saying that, you know, Trump wasn't able to digital president. And then, you know, you had all these, you know, races where Democrats fought tooth and nail and close elections for Congress and Senate, like the Franklin race. And I mentioned, and so there was a lot of money flowing toward Marquise specifically for that. So, yeah, I, I do think in recent years that it has been a thing that they've cared about more, but obviously post 2020, the right is getting in, in the action here because, you know, setting aside all of the voter fraud complaints, there is a lot of things that could be said about, you know, election administration and, you know, the way that laws were applied, various lawsuits, there were specific things that happened in Georgia in terms of how votes were counted. You know, there were a lot of votes counted in Georgia that, you know, they may have been valid Georgia voters, but they were voting in counties where they didn't live or precincts where they didn't live, which under Georgia law shouldn't have been counted, but they were, you know, and, and so there were lots of, of things that are very much in gray areas for Republicans in terms of, you know, maybe it's difficult to say, oh, the election result in 2020 was the legitimate in term because of Fort mass fraud. But there's all kinds of things around the margins of an election that was decided by, you know, 40,000 votes where things were awfully shady, one of the big things that happens and, and, and, and that it has been happening a lot and happened a lot in 2020 is this thing that the lawyers call Sue and settle. So what happens is a like mark Elias's group, we'll go to a state like North Carolina and like, like, and this actually happened in North Carolina where they will bring a lawsuit in a state like North Carolina, which is pivotal for the election where they have a democratic governor and they have, you know, maybe democratic, you know, officials in this, in, in state offices. And, and what will happen is, is the state will invalidate their democratically passed, you know, they're, bi-partisan democratically past election laws and agree to change all the election laws, according to the terms of the lawsuit as a settlement, rather than, you know, put the state through the onerous process of having to defend their own laws. And that, that has happened multiple times. And that was like a huge thing that happened in North Carolina, for instance, I mean, they passed a bunch of election rules. Some, you know, like not that long ago with strong bipartisan majority is that we're basically just invalidated because the democratic governor said, oh, well, well, we're being sued by mark Elias. So we better just do what he wants without any sort of input or, or, you know, feeling any obligation to defend, you know, laws that were democratically passed and, and that sort of thing people have gotta be paying attention to. And I think cued into, because that's really not, not right. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. And, and the temperature of the base on the Republican side, the conservatives it's gotten really high on this stuff, because like what you're saying, it's just, it's kind of lawlessness, you know, you have these election officials, that's kind of doing whatever they want. And then you have these, what you just described with Elias. And some of these governors, they just go around the law that's been enacted and yeah, it could get people very frustrated. And we got to get the confidence back in the system and get everybody back on the same page going forward, because we don't want to end up in a bad way on this stuff. So this flip the politics. And so you see a red wave come in, or how are you feeling? How are you, how do you decide in this next election up? Mark Hemingway: I mean, obviously, I mean, all the polls are telling us, you know, that it's going to be a major year for Republicans. I mean, I just don't, you know, there, there are a couple of things that are happening here. I mean, like if you just look at, say generic partisan preference in, in, in polls, you're looking at a situation here where you're seeing people turn against Democrats in a ways we've not, since we've not seen since 2010, which by the way, it was the worst defeat for that midterm election was the worst defeat for a major political party in America since the end of world war II. And we're possibly looking at something similar along those lines, but there's also another interesting thing that, you know, obviously, you know, I'm not just me, but a lot of people are paying attention to, you're seeing some pretty sharp turns in demography in terms of Hispanics are all of a sudden, very friendly to a Republican voters in a way that, you know, nobody could predict it. I mean, if you know the Republican party and, and, and according to some polls you've seen where you've seen, like a majority of Hispanics are supporting the Republican party. I mean, I don't know what the Democrat party is going to do if that in any way, shape or form holds in the longterm. I mean, typically when you are, you know, Republican looking at an election, if you were getting 35, 40% of the Hispanic vote in a given election for a Republican candidate that is considered to be that that's in an indication of just an absolute blowout. And if the Republican party, you know, at both as a result of the knee jerk woke ism and believe it or not, a lot of Hispanics in this country understand the politics of immigration and what that means acutely and our setting with the GOP on that contrary to what Democrats have long thought, nevermind the, you know, the bread and butter economic issues, you know, that, you know, hardworking, Hispanic families have a reputation for being dependent on it's going to be, you know, a really, really interesting election for Democrats and, and, and humbling. But at the same time, like we're seeing this weird dynamic in the democratic party where there are so beholden to certain ideologies and certain fringe special interests that there's like no one walking them back from the plank here. I mean, you know, even Hillary Clinton was out in a recent interview lately saying ease up on the pronouns stuff guys. And I just don't see that they have the will or the wherewithal to even like, know how to do that. You know, there's nobody that's going to tell, you know, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez in the party to sit down and shut up, you know, stop, you know, pretending that you're the face of the party, but so, you know, barring any sort of, you know, massive rejection of, of Biden and, you know, an economic turnaround and some, you know, way to appeal to Hispanics. I just don't see this being anything other than a bloodbath for Democrats. Doug Truax: Yeah. Totally agree. Way too early to ask this question, I'm going to do it anyway. If you don't want to answer, you can bail on it. Cause it's not fair for me to ask, but so 2024 presidential race, what are you, what are you thinking right now? Mark Hemingway: So it's interesting, you know, I think the conventional wisdom still holds, which is to say that if you know, Trump wants the nomination, then it's basically his, but there've been recent polling data about DeSantis. That is starting to question that assumption. I mean, think it's still early to rely on that, but I think it's also true that Democrats fixation on Trump is, is sort of a double-edged sword on one hand, it's hurting Democrats, because I think that people are tired of talking about Trump. Now, on the other hand, I think it's also hurting Trump because people are getting tired of talking about Trump. And so obviously Joe Biden has been a dismal failure in a lot of, you know, obvious ways as president, you know, COVID is not under control. The borders of mass inflation's rampant gas is high. I mean like this is, this is, you know, Jimmy Carter, 2.0, and people just generally feel, you know, the quote unquote malaise. So any alternative to that, that represents a rebuke of what the Democrats are doing. That isn't Trump, there might be a lane for that. But look, I don't know. I mean, I will say that after the last six years or so politics, people have routinely underestimated Trump and his appeal and he's, he's got this weird sort of like, I don't know, you know, almost like rain man sense for cutting to the heart of issues and making himself relevant. So I'm not in any way, shape or form suggesting that, you know, DeSantis is going to best Trump. It just that, I think it's, there's a lane for DeSantis to do that in a way that there, there wasn't even a few months ago. Doug Truax: Yeah. Right. Changing pretty quickly right now. But the interesting to watch I'm with you, we gotta get through this next one before we talk about the one after that too much, but yeah, looking good. So, Hey, mark, really appreciate all your work over the years, your bravery uncovering a lot of this stuff and, and just hard work going into it. And on behalf of a lot of conservatives, thank you for all that you've done. Mark Hemingway: Yeah. Thanks for having this conversation. You know, like I said, you said it's important to lower the temperature and I agree. I, well, it's important to lower the temperatures. It's also important that we address the real issues. And I think that there's been a lot of stuff flying around there about quote unquote fraud that isn't helpful when there's a lot of like very obvious issues like voter rolls and you know, some of this, you know, illegal some of this stuff of, well, it may not be like brazen fraud, but it's a question of legality that we need to focus on. And I think we can just steer people in the right direction. We'll be in, we'll be in a good Doug Truax: Place. That's right. That's right. You got to slug it out and do the right thing. So we're good. Well, thanks so much for coming on. We'll we'll talk to you soon then. Mark Hemingway: Thanks for having me. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First. Right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox, always free subscribed by texting first right to 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3, 0, 1 6 1 for more.

First Right welcomes Ed Martin, president of Phyllis Schafly Eagles and accomplished political figure.

First Right welcomes Tom Hogan, former Federal Prosecutor and Manhattan Institute fellow.

Doug talks to Kari Lake, fearless America First candidate for Arizona Governor. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. A weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today, We were blessed to have a first-time guest, Karu Lake, Republican candidate for governor of Arizona. Kari quit her job as a respected TV anchor in the Phoenix area because of liberal bias. And now is speaking truth to power in the grand canyon state. Well, hi Kari. Thank you for coming on the show. Kari Lake: My pleasure, Doug, how are you doing? Doug Truax: I'm doing great. I'm doing great. Not as good as you could take an Arizona by storm. It's going great. We're happy to see all that. And so much of what you're doing is speaking truth to power and calling it like it is calling out the media bias. And so before I w I want you to talk about that, but before we get there, I want to, I want to run this TV ad. You got out there. Kari Lake: Okay. Hi Arizona. I'm Kari Lake, the Trump endorsed candidate for governor. If you're watching this ad right now, it means you're in the middle of watching a fake news program. You know how to know it's fake because they won't even cover the biggest story out there. The rigged election of 2020 and rigged elections have consequences. We're all feeling it. Soaring prices, a spike in homelessness and an invasion on our border. I'm the only candidate with a plan to tackle all of those issues. And when I'm governor, we'll finish the wall and criminals who cross our border will be sent back. We'll get the homeless out of our parks and off our streets and no more masks, swabs, or shots to go to work or go to school. Our kids will get a real education, not a brainwashing to see where I stand on. All the issues, go to Karilake.com. Now let's send the corrupt news, the lesson and turn them on Doug Truax: Kari lake for governor. So I would call that I would call that not hedging, anything so good, so good for you. So, so is that a you're having some great success? Is, is that the root of it. Kari Lake: I was just having fun with that commercial. I intentionally put that out kind of trolling the mainstream media, the corrupt media. And I only put that out during newscasts just to let people know, Hey, you know, if you're watching, if you're seeing this commercial, you must be tuning in to a fake newscast. And I wanted them to know because they're not covering the most important story, but actually we just put out a new ad today and this one's going to be airing all over the state of Arizona. And I'm so honored that the new ad we're putting out today is an ad featuring my favorite guy, president Donald J. Trump. And he's in our ad talking about why he's endorsed me. And I'm really excited about that one as well Doug Truax: You should be. And that's a, that's a big deal. And, you know, he sticks with the folks who tell the truth and, and you're definitely doing it. And, you know, interesting time in politics right now. So we, I feel like we have, most of the political class is being told by their consultants. Don't talk about election, you know, potential fraud and rigged elections or anything like that. And it seems like a lot of the politicians are listening. So you had this huge disconnect between the base wants to talk about this piece about election integrity, but a lot of the politicians are not doing it. And you are so talk about your success on that front. Kari Lake: I've been doing it since the beginning. It was just a year ago yesterday that I, I threw my hat into the political arena and wow, what a year it's been. I remember somebody who was in politics telling me when I first started do not talk about the forensic audit. Don't talk about the 2020 election distanced yourself from president Trump and whatever you do, don't bring up COVID or question the vaccines or the mandates. And I looked at this guy and I basically kicked him out and I took all of his suggestions and advice, and I threw it in the trash can. And I immediately went down and I toured the forensic audit site. And I started talking about our corrupt elections. And, you know, people have finally caught up. We're seeing some more evidence every single day come out, including with the true, the vote people. So I think I, I just realized I didn't turn my life upside down, walk away from my high paying job in the media because it's so corrupt and then decide to walk into politics and start lying to people. We got to start telling the truth and we need leaders to tell the truth. And if you can't talk about the biggest story out there, the biggest story of our lifetime are stolen elections, where we don't get to pick our representatives. Somebody else is picking them for us. Then, then what good are we? What good are we as American? So I'm all about the truth. It's resonating with the voters. We're doing quite well in the polls. I've, I've earned the endorsement of president Trump general, Michael Flynn, Mike Lindell, Rick Grinnell, Kash Patel, Brandon Tatum, Larry elder, Senator Marsha Blackburn. And I could go on and on. These are America first Patriots who are about saving this country. And most importantly, I'm earning the endorsement and support of Arizona's who are tired of the swamp running this state. Doug Truax: Absolutely. And you know, you talk about that election integrity piece, all the Republicans and conservatives that I talked to, they get the concept that regardless of how you may feel about the border or whatever else, if we don't get the election piece, correct know, it doesn't matter. Nothing's going to, you know, nothing's going to happen because we won't be able to trust our elections. Who knows who's actually supposed to have one. And then when, when the confidence is out of the system, then we're, then we're in big trouble. They're so, so good for you for doing this. Kari Lake: Yeah, well, we'll dug all of the problems you just mentioned are caused by a stolen election. I mean, think about it. The stolen election has been deadly, and that may sound dramatic, but let me explain. I mean, we've got a wide open border because of that stolen election. We had a border policy and a border plan that was working under president Donald J. Trump as a journalist. I covered Arizona's border and Arizona for 27 years. Never seen it more secure than under president Donald J. Trump, Joe Biden comes in on day one. He pulls that border policy back and he exposes us to the cartels, the narco terrorists. We've got fentanyl pouring in by the tons, literally by the tons poisoning and killing our young people. I don't know a single family who doesn't know somebody, whether it be a friend or a family member who's been killed by fentanyl. So that's deadly, that's deadly. What's happening. We look at Afghanistan, this illegitimate president, Joe Biden. He pulled us out of Afghanistan in the most careless, reckless way you could ever imagine. And we lost 13 brave men and women in our military. And so the people who are covering up this stolen election, I mean, I am, I'm appalled by them. They should lose their, their status as good Americans, because they're not good Americans. If they're, if they're involved in that. And I go, that goes for the journalists out there, I call them propagandists. Now these propagandists who refuse to cover what's happening in this election are going to try to bury this Republic and bring it down. And we, the people will not allow that to happen. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. And if they're against the transparency that we're all seeking in this, it's like, well, what do you have to hide? And so that's, that's exactly right. It's like, it's, it's not that complicated. Kari Lake: Well, no, they call it the most perfect election. You know, Ruth was perfect. You'd want to prove that rather than continuing to lie about it. Doug Truax: Absolutely. So you talked about the border. So I want to cover that. I'm actually, I was born and raised in Deming, New Mexico, which is if you take I 10 towards El Paso is 30 miles from New Mexico, the Mexican border. So I know all about the border situation. My sister still lives in Tucson. She's a big fan by the way. And just throw that out there and she'll be happy to see that. So, so your, so your governor talk us through what you're going to do for the border there in Arizona. Kari Lake: Well, I, I think my, the title kind of says it all. And my title of my border policy is called defend Arizona. And that's what we're going to do as a state. That's what our us constitution allows us to do. We're being invaded right now. And the federal government is supposed to protect us from an invasion, but they're failing. It's a dereliction of duty of the guarantee clause, article four, section four of the United States constitution. But our founders were so brilliant and almost prescient in, in when they put that together, that article one, section 10 clause three provides us a remedy. And that is when the state can step forward during an invasion and protect their own citizens. And so we will do that and we're going to on day one issue, a declaration of invasion. As soon as I take the oath of office, I'll remove my hand from the Bible and I will issue a declaration of invasion. We're going to get the ball rolling and start to rumble with the federal government. If we have to, we will finish president Trump's wall project. There's 20 miles to complete. We're going to take the materials that are sitting in the desert that we, the people paid for. We're going to take those back and finish the construction of that wall. And I will take the Arizona national guard and put them on the border and prevent people from coming across. Currently the border patrol is just accepting all of these people. They walk over one group after the next, after the next and waves of people coming across and we process them and take them in. We're going to stop them from coming across. They're not coming in and we have the right to do that as a state. Additionally, we will work to battle with the cartels. They're not going to allow, we're not going to allow the drones to across over the border, drop off drugs, do surveillance into intelligence and find out where our border patrol and our law enforcement are. We will shoot those drones down and we're going to blow up the drug tunnel so that they can't continue to use them. It's real easy. You just take it seriously. But unfortunately, we've got governors who are weak. We have weak Republican governors. We have destructive Democrat governors who refuse to protect their citizens. And that all stops in January of 23. When I take office. Doug Truax: Yeah. Good for you. Well, we, Republicans are no, conservatives are just a bending the problem. And there's so many problems. The border, you know, the election transparency, the culture, you know, you're taking that piece on the Marxist ideology and the school in the schools and CRT and everything else. Give us, give us your snapshot of where you are with that and what you would see as governor, how you would make some changes there to, Kari Lake: I am absolutely appalled. And I brought this up about a week ago. I was speaking to some of the great citizens in young Arizona. And I just read that the Joe Biden administration is going to dangle federal money. That is meant for the school lunch program. And he's going to pull that away from schools who need it. If they refuse to adopt this outrageous grooming sexual grooming of our children, these outrageous policies where they're pushing transgenderism and inappropriate sex education. And because parents are wising up and they're getting on the school boards and they're taking control of the curriculum and, and state lawmakers are now getting involved. And they're doing bands on CRT when it comes to curriculum and pushing that agenda and helping to take back parental rights. So that parents have the rights again, because that's happening at the state and local level, the Biden administration is trying to figure out a way to combat that. And the way they're doing it is by dangling our federal tax dollars and saying, we won't give you the money for your lunch program. It's despicable. It's absolutely despicable because remember that federal money that they dangled in front of us, like a carrot is our money. It's the money they take from our paychecks. They take it and bring it to Washington DC, and then they Dole it back out to us. And now they want us to accept this outrageous agenda to poison our children's mind. It's, it's a perverted agenda. They're trying to hypersexualized our children and we, mama bears and Papa bears will not accept that. We will not take it. I would rather say no to those federal dollars that allow them to dictate this kind of an agenda on our children. It's just not going to happen in Arizona. Doug Truax: Yeah. Good for you. And that's exactly right. That groomer phrase is what we need to use. I, they do not like that for good reason, because they know we're onto them and that kind of stuff, you know, from when we grew up as kids, it's like, how did we get to this place? It is so ridiculous that we just need more people like you standing up and saying, no, no more. That's enough of that. It's just ridiculous what you're doing. We're going to ruining a generation of kids. Kari Lake: Yeah. Everyone's with us, Doug. I mean, they try to make it look like we're in the minority, but we're in the majority. People don't want it. I mean, we remember when we were in school and I'm assuming we're about the same age. I can't imagine having this twist and stuff thrown at me in school. No wonder we're seeing our mental illness spiking with our children. They're going into school. They know this stuff. Doesn't make sense. It's totally inappropriate. Let our, our little ones be little ones. Let our children be children. We want, when, when they need a G rated education, we don't want an X-rated education being presented to them. And we want actually our kids to learn, learn skills that they can take into the real world. So they can grab all the opportunities they have and live a fulfilled life and a life where they're using their God-given talents. Doug Truax: That's right. And, and standing up for him, take strength. And you obviously haven't carried as it's displayed. Mostly what we like the most around here is when you take on a journalist, the so-called journalists who are actually pundants, you know, they're, they're displaying their ideological bias and you take them on, which is great. So why is it that more conservatives don't do what you do on that front? Kari Lake: Well, I, I'm not, I'm in a, not trying to criticize people because I did have 30 years experience in journalism. So I understand exactly what's going on. I know how they're trying to twist things and now it's sad. They come, you know, the corporate media, the corrupt media comes at you and you can see their agenda in the way they ask the questions, the way they word the questions. You know, if they're going to talk to me about my border policy, you would think they would ask a question like you did. Hey, tell us what it is. How's it work. Maybe they'll ask some pointed questions about financing it and how do we pay for it? And, you know, I expect hard questions. I'm not afraid of a hard question. And the funny thing is I'm a pretty measured, calm person. I don't think I lose my cool all that often. But when I do an interview with them, for example, I call the Arizona Republic, the Arizona repugnant, because that's just what it's become. You know, I I'm talking in the manner and the tone that I'm using with you right now in my interviews with them and the headline is rage politics, You know, anger, fuel candidate. And I'm thinking, wow, I, you know, they haven't yet seen me angry, wait until they see me angry because they'll, they won't know what's hitting them. That's what Doug Truax: That's right. Our headline back is thin skin journalists, right? They can't handle, you know, you're supposed to just sit there as a conservative and take whatever they dish out. Kari Lake: Yeah no but I do encourage, I do encourage all conservatives to push back, just push right back. You know, there's no need to take the abuse. There's no need to have them twist your words. And I also recommend recording. Every interview, you do invest in a microphone, invest in a camera, have a, have a staffer or somebody record that interview. I actually have started doing that. And I showed up at a television station to do an interview. They wouldn't let me in because I refuse to show a vaccine passport. So we had agreed to do the interview outside in the heat, which was fine with me. But when they saw that we had brought our cameras, they refuse to come out and do the interview. And that tells me, they're afraid of being exposed for being yellow journalists. Why wouldn't they allow me to record that interview that they are recording Doug Truax: That's right. That is such a great idea. And I've thought that so many times just record them back. There's there's no way they can do their selective editing. Cause you got the proof. So yeah, that's good. But that's what it is. They want to be able to control the whole thing and you're taking the control out of their hands and you're putting it back in a place that's supposed to be so well. That's fantastic. And last question. So you were talking earlier about the political consultant that gave you all this advice and you basically just said dominated the exact opposite, get outta here. W what's it been like for you to, to go from that great career that you had to now the political world, you know, what's been a company what's been the most surprising thing once you entered the political world about, oh, that's not exactly what I was thinking. It was going to be or something like that. Kari Lake: Yeah. Oh man. There's so many, there's so many things I've learned. I came from the corrupt news media, right? So maybe I'm prepared to go into this world. Of course I covered the politicians, but being on the inside, I've learned a lot, you know, we've got really corrupt consultants in Arizona. They are the Mo from the McCain machine in the McCain era. And I'm not using any of those people. As a matter of fact, I, I didn't have a consultant for the longest time because I said, if I can't find a consultant that is America first, then I'd rather not have one. Now I finally did find somebody who who's helping us out. But that, that first person who gave me that advice, he wasn't really hired. He was kind of volunteering his advice to me. And I'm Roman. He told me to back away from president Trump. I looked at him and I said, I will never back away from president Trump. He is the man who woke people up. He's one of the greatest presidents, if not the greatest president of all time, he's up there. And I will never back away from him. And so I just, after that one meeting with him, I never saw him again. I just said this guy's out of his mind. He doesn't know anything. Most of these consultants though, are, you know, sometimes they're 25, 30 year olds. They come in from another state and they don't know anything about your state. I've covered Arizona for 27 years. I'm a mom, I'm raising a family here. I'm not going to have some consultant. Tell me how the people of Arizona feel. I know because I am a person who lives in Arizona and I've been a part of this community for a long time. I've, I've learned how seedy and gross politics is. You know, the attack ads that are coming at me, they realized very early on that I was a threat. And two months into this, they started running attack ads, which is pretty early and unheard of in politics, especially statewide politics. I've had $6 million in attack ads directly aimed at me and my numbers keep going up. But they knew I had very high positives because I've covered Arizona fairly for 27 years. And they're intimidated by that and threatened by that. I think we're at a point in Arizona, critical juncture. We can either we're at a Y in the road. We can either go this way and follow the old McCain style, dirty politics. Or we can go this way and we can go with we, the people, America first policies that will get us out of this mess. And somebody dug recently said, well, you don't care. You don't have the political experience. And I said, yeah, that's the first line on my resume. Right? I am a political outsider. And it's the people who have political experience as they say, who got us into this mess. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. And people like you will get us out. And you know, you know exactly what you think about everything, you know, what's in your heart and makes you brave. And I appreciate that. And I know the good people of Arizona will appreciate that too. And we'll be watching your race and, and wish you all the best. And thank you so much for coming on a day and thank you for all you're doing. Kari Lake: That's great. And thank you for having me on. And if people want to learn more about where I stand on the policies, especially if you're from Arizona, you can head over to Kari lake.com, K a R I L a K e.com. And I'm just really proud to have the America first movement behind me. I'm going to be the most conservative governor Arizona's ever seen. And that's a good thing. We are a red state. They tried to tell people that we are not by stealing our election. And when I'm governor, I vow to get in there and immediately start working with our legislature to shore up our election laws and return our elections to the people and make sure they're free and fair and honest so that when we go to bed on election night, we have a result and we know that our all legal votes were counted. And, and we know that we can live with the results of that election, but we can't live with an election that's been taken and stolen from us. And we will not live with the consequences we will fight until we get truth back in our elections. So thank you for having me, Doug Truax: But you bet simply put and very true. So thanks so much, Carrie, for coming on. Talk to you soon. All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't ever forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First right A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first right to 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6, 1.

Jerry talks to Project Veritas media manager Mario Balaban.

First Right welcomes Kurt Kondrich, pro-life and Down Syndrome advocate.

Doug talks to Marc Morano, climate expert the Left loves to hate. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today, we were blessed to have a first-time guest who needs no introduction to most of you. He's Marc Morano. The climate skeptic, the left loves to hate mark is a virtual machine gun of facts and figures that disprove and discredit the global warming premise that dominates the national discourse. A few people in America know more about this topic. All right. Welcome to the show, mark. Marc Morano: Thank you very much. Happy to be here. Doug Truax: All right. So to back up a little bit on, as far as your career goes, you weren't always in this place, you were probably more, a little mainstream Republican. It wasn't quite your forte. You did some research and the whole piece, and then you kind of had these realizations and it, it, it, it brought you to where you are now. So talk the, talk, our audience through how that happened with you. Marc Morano: Well, you know, during my, you know, I've always considered myself a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues, I was a volunteer on Reagan's campaigns for presidency. I actually did his soundbites to local radio stations. That was one of my duties as a Reagan volunteer, but I never liked his environmental policies. I got caught up in national geographic pop culture. I got caught up in Hollywood presentation and the news media, you know, about, you know, the, the logging of the forest roads and the interior secretary. And I don't, you know, I, there was always environmental concerns, but generally the wealthier, the country, the less environmental problems you're going to have, you're going to have better technology, better planning, better resources, better methods, whether it's forestry, whether it's clean up, whether it's, you know, so if you look around the world, the cleanest places tend to be the wealthiest. So I had my epiphany during the Rio earth summit of all times when it was Dixie Lee, Ray nuclear engineer, I was talking about the Amazon rainforest, which was what I was always concerned about and the deforestation in general, because I wanted to be a forest ranger. She was talking about it being the most intact forest and how this was hype and hysteria. Well, I said, whoa, that can't. So I started looking into that. I didn't believe it. It ended up commentating many years later with me doing an Amazon rainforest documentary, clear cutting the myths where I, and I even have environmentalist in the film, throwing the books down the guidebooks saying, this is nonsense. This is BS, bleeping, and cursing because it was all environmental exaggeration, either for fundraising or just to create alarm or to create a narrative that didn't exist. And it turns out for every acre of rainforest cut 50 are being regenerated. It was the most intact forest. Even the New York times admits this new forestry techniques that I'll come back to. So there's so much hopeful news in the environment, whether it's species since the first earth day, 1970, we've radically cleaned our air and water while at the same time, increasing huge amounts of population and economic growth. We, when you have money and you are prospering can actually do amazing things for the environment. It's the poor countries that have the problems. So that was sort of my, in a nutshell, my evolution. And once I realized that I'd been essentially lied to about the Amazon and deforestation, by the time climate change came around, I was pretty skeptical in the late nineties, just because of my previous experience. And I started covering environment as an investigative journalist. And that's a, I did a lot of TV documentaries on it and also ended up working in the us Senate environment and public works committee and then founded climate Depot, which is where I am today. Yeah. Doug Truax: Gotcha. Gotcha. The truth sets you free. It was great. So, so to just give our audience in a nutshell, then, you know, why is the left wrong about this global warming thing? Marc Morano: Very good question. Well, they'll say climate change is real well. What does that mean? The earth is warming. Okay. Well, let's look at that geologically first. We are in the 10% coldest period in the Earth's history. In other words, 90% of Earth's past history was too warm for ice at either pole that's 0.1 more recently, you look at the, since the Roman warming period of about zero ID, and I include this in both my book, green fraud and the politically incorrect guide to climate change. We have probably the same temperature or most likely have cooled since the medieval Roman warming period. And the same goes true for the medieval warming period from about 900 to 1,380, we've either cooled or been out at the same temperature. So when people say, well, we've increased well, what's your baseline. If you go to 1850, when thermometers came online and all our major us cities us has the best amount of network, we have absolutely worn because that was the height of what's called the little ice age where New York Harbor was frozen over the themes river. We had crop failures. It was a very cold period in our history. Then if you go forward, you look at the 1930s, we had the most still on record, even according to Biden's EPA it's they have the chart heat waves about 10 times higher than any heat waves of experience and all the major us cities in the United States. So here's the kicker. We have warmed and they always use the Arctic as an example, when we started monitoring the sea ice in 1979, that was the height of the global cooling scare, the coming ice age. So yes, we have warmed since the 1970s. We've definitely warmed since the end of the little ice age in 1850, but have we warmed since the medieval warm period? Have we warmed since the Roman warming period of zero 80? I don't think so. And the gist of this is carbon dioxide can warm the atmosphere, but humans can also create aerosols from fossil fuels, dim the sun, and create a man-made global cooling, which is what the scare was in the 1970s. Hundreds of factors influence our climate. It is not just CO2. CO2 is now is the preferred boogeyman because it's the way to regulate every aspect of our life. And that's where this goes from science to politics. Doug Truax: Yeah. And that's the end goal, right? Yeah. And so this is, so this is kind of this front edge propaganda war on that point. You're just making about where they're trying to take this as, this is the terminology on this, as far as climate change and very precise in what you say you say is, is man-made global warming a thing, right. You're very precise in that. And so what's your take though. I mean, I think we should all be talking that way. I mean, you see this right as the left is they get, everybody starts saying what they want them to say, and then you end up playing their game. And don't you think as conservatives too, we should all be more careful about how we talk about this in general to begin with. Marc Morano: Yes. I mean, there's the problem. I think with Republican party, I don't know about conservatives, but you know, you have a house leadership, they'll, they'll use words like they'll, they'll concede global warming as a problem, climate change, and we need to have a solution and their solution turns into a green, new deal, light mankind, as I said, contributes to warming, but there's also a lot of other factors involved. So here's the basic gist. You can't really distinguish mankind's influence on the climate from natural variability. And what I mean by that is whether you're talking temperature and by the way, hottest year on record is with intense to one hundredths of a degree in the record, it's within the margin of error. It's within the adjustment margins. It's a fancy way of saying the temperature hasn't changed much over the last 10 to 15 years, and we're actually have had no warming, but in absolute terms since about 2016 or so, according to the satellite data during the last peak. So this always becomes inconvenient. And when that happens, when current reality fails to alarm, they make scarier and scarier predictions of the future. So what I think Republicans and conservatives it's, it's a really, as a language game, I hate to see I cringe when I hear Republicans say climate change is real. That's a meaningless phrase. You know, the idea is, is mankind driving a climate crisis? Are we driving a climate emergency? That's the whole gist of what the United nations is pushing, what academia, the media, the Biden administration. And that's what the focus should be. Not this esoteric scientific debate of how much can man's impact be, is a tangible point is floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires, no trend or declining trend on 50 to 100 year timescales. This is the reality. C-level not accelerating. This is even a former Obama administration energy official came out and said, we've had no acceleration in sea levels since the 1920s, basically it's if you go by the tide gauges, what they do is they switch it, switch methods and they have new methods and then they add adjustments and they can come up with these claims that C-level is accelerating and the islands will be under water. Well, the islands that they claim are going under water are still building airports on the sea or on their coastlines. And they're still doing tourism and everything else. So it's just not showing up. And you know, it's about the thickness of a nickel every year, the sea level rise, and it's been rising for the last 10,000 plus years. Since the end of the last ice age, Republicans need a message to answer more directly a message of, regardless of your view on climate, this is our way forward. And the way forward has to be prosperity, economic growth and all forms of energy, particularly fossil fuels, because fuels give you a cleaner environment and give you better technology. You look at coal plants from 30, 40 years ago, and then you compare them to modern coal plants. We've radically reduced pollutants. And if you care about it, CO2 are switched to fracking. The most innovative technology in the last 10 years, the United States has led the world in reducing CO2 emissions, led the world in reducing them as China and India have skyrocketed. Of course, the left and Democrats love to praise China for their climate commitments, whether their climate commitments include building one coal plant a week. So Republicans have this issue all wrong. They should define the scientific terms and they should define the proper energy terms. Instead they end up capitulating. And that's where we have a whole group. Now of these particularly young Republicans who are looking for climate solutions. And it's just, it's a disaster because they're wrong. They're, they're buying into this idea that we can legislate a better climate. There is no cost benefit analysis of hurting us economically. And John Kerry's admitted it. We could zero out the United States and all of Europe and all of Canada and all of the industrialized west, including Australia and other places. And it would have no impact on emissions, let alone the climate, even if you believe the emissions drive climate change because the developing world is developing so rapidly. And then of course it will. How can we stop them? If we want to reduce emissions, you'd have to literally stop 1 billion people from leave, exiting poverty. And that's the thing. You cannot exit poverty and put in infrastructure and development with solar and wind panels. It's not happening. The technology is not there a hundred years ago. 80% of our energy is fossil fuel. Currently 80% of our energy is fossil fuel. Not much has changed except a lot of promises from the solar and wind industry that have been going on. Actually in my book, green fraud, I go back almost a hundred years and show you solar and went just around the corner. They're always waiting for that breakthrough. That's going to make it, and I'm not against solar and wind per se, but you don't mandate an energy that can't take over and ban an energy that's proven itself, fossil fuels. Doug Truax: That's right. And it's all, it all feels like so much hypocrisy. And just, you know, I remember when Obama bought that mansion on the shore, I was like, wait, hold on a second. Weren't you, the guy that said that everything's going to turn into a disaster. And I feel like it's like a building credibility problem for them because the more we talk the truth and just get this, get these points out there. And then to your right, people are thinking, okay, I kept hearing about the world was going to end and it was going to end and it was going to end. And it just hasn't. And so there's this thing that's happening. I think in people's minds, they've been convinced on a little bit of a level that, oh, maybe there's this climate change, but then you ask them, what issues are they concerned about? It's like so low down the list. It's like laughable sometimes. And so what, how do you explain that dichotomy? Is this just virtue signaling by people are like, yeah, no, I care about the climate, but in, in the back of their mind, they're like, I think these guys are lying to us. I'm not going to worry about this or whatever. What, what, what do you think the take that take on that? Marc Morano: It's a phenomenon could actually see it in the Trump. If I remember Trump always pulled, you know, much lower than he performed at elections. And it's because of that sort of shame, the people were embarrassed, you know? Cause they knew the pollster and polite society would not look kindly on that. Same with climate. If you don't say you're concerned about climate, something's wrong with you. So when a pollster would ask, if he would just say, you believe in climate change, you'd have high numbers. If you would actually answer the question, are you really worried about it? This is where Gallup poll since 1889, since the 1980s, late eighties, that hasn't changed much in all the polling. So what's happened is just recently, and this is a shocking poll you've referenced, you know? And when you look at all issues, inflation, you know, debt, crime and healthcare, global warming is typically 19 out of 2014, out of 15. It's nine out of 10. It's always dead last among all these issues, but here's the shocker, April, 2022 Gallup poll among environmental issues, water, quality, air, quality deforestation, plant, and animal species extinction, global warming ranked dead last among environmental issues. That's the shocker 30 years of climate propaganda. And it's still the least environmental concern among Americans. That's a shocker, but it's a Testament to the intelligence of the American people. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. I always have confidence in that. Cause if you, if you talk about it enough, the truth is going to come out. You know, when people, people can sniff it out and it's yeah. They just keep, it's just the constant alarmism. That just, it just wears everybody out. That's for sure. But so I think so I think we're winning that, that, that battle overall, because they're steadily eroding their credibility. However, there is this concept it's well, it's not a concept. It's a reality that they're stuffing all these environmental jobs into the government and the is everywhere. So we're, we're losing that battle. What's your take on how that's shaking out and you know, what, what do we need to do going forward besides, you know, fire a bunch of people, you know, Babs, Marc Morano: This is the crux of everything right now, what you just said. We've won this climate skeptics and rational conservationist. I won't say we're environmentalist, but conservation have won the environmental and climate debate. However, the other side never accepts defeat and they have the levers of power. They have the leavers of our government, bureaucracy, academia, the media, they have big foundations that fund all this. So how are they going to deal with this? Well, it comes down and that's the title. That's the topic of my next book. The great reset. The permanent lockdown. The gist of it is this when COVID came along and in March of 2020, and they had the lockdowns, the left was at first jealous and then they were envious to the point where Jane Fonda actually said COVID is God's gift to the left. And what did she mean by that? We'll all the same solution that the most radical extremes of the climate movement had been proposing economic de-growth planned recessions to fight global warming, a halting of all travel radical, you know, just limits on every aspect of your life in order to lower. Your carbon footprint literally happened overnight and every country maybe except Sweden, even in Florida, it happened. I mean, remember the early lockdowns in the United States, you couldn't go to church, you couldn't leave your, you were under curfew in most states, you had stay at home orders, but yeah, you could run to your local Walmart. No problem. Your corporate chains were open. The small mom and pops, particularly in the big cities got destroyed and estimates of the 60% of the restaurants in New York city got destroyed. The small mom and pops. That's great because once they realize what happened, the Progressive's, the administrative state realized that if we can collapse the current system, we can then have a permanent crisis on our hand. And that is what the fantasy of these essentially central planners has always been a permanent crisis. So what happened was, and this was sad because a Republican president, Donald Trump allowed and sign that emergency COVID declaration. It allowed governors to become dictators overnight. And all of these have then led to the climate movement, latching onto the lockdown saying, if it's good for a virus, it's also good for the climate. We've been clamoring for this for decades, and now it's happening overnight. They opposed the green new deal through COVID lockdowns overnight. So fast forward, just this past week journal nature and bill gates basically saying that uncheck climate change will lead to more COVID therefore, if you don't support the UN Paris climate agreement, if you don't support the green new deal, you are supporting more COVID which will then be, make you a grandma killer. And that's where they've come along as Biden imposes. There's no vote of the green new deal. This is so key. They introduced it in Congress and it went died. Who, who cares? They don't want it congressional debate. They don't want town hall meetings. They don't want care from their constituents. They don't want committee hearings. They want to impose this to every agency. And this is the phrase from the Biden administration. Every agency is a cabinet agency. It's not just as executive orders, which have been unprecedented on energy, but it's also the treasury department defunding all of the fossil fuel energy projects. It's also all of his spending bills. All of his build back better. Every regulation of the us government is hammering fossil fuels and also the, the, the supply chain issue, inflation debt. They're trying to collapse a current system, baby formula, shortages, food shortages, price of meat through the roof, gas through the roof. Everything I just mentioned brings a smile to the face of climate activists, because this is what they want. They want to keep gasoline in the ground. They want to get rid of the internal combustion engine. They want you to stop eating meat. They want thermostats on your home control of it. They want economic de-growth, which is what we've had. So what I'm telling you is this has been their fantasy and dream. COVID made it happen, and now they want to attach COVID to climate. So that it'll be a permanent part of the permanent crisis. And here's the last thing I'll say, house Democrats in the Senate, including Chuck Schumer are urging Joe Biden to now declare a national climate emergency. If this is so done, this will give the executive branch governors, bureaucrats, even more power to control how much we fly, how much we drive and make no mistake. The UK transport secretary, academic reports, international energy agency, all basically calling for not just rationing of vehicles OD even days, no driving in cities, but they're calling for the end, the abolishment of private vehicle ownership that it's not necessary. We had one Andrew Yang who ran for the Democrat nomination, wanted to abolish private car ownership and replace it with roving fleets of rental electric cars. You just order up as needed. And this is what we're facing. Now. This is the greatest threat we face to our Liberty is this disappearance of democracy and moving the climate and the COVID agenda into the bureaucracy away from our elected officials, because now it's being imposed without most people being aware it's happening. Doug Truax: And do you see back to the political side of this? Because you know, somebody has got to stand up to this. How are there any signs of hope amongst Republicans amongst recruit conservatives that are actually out there? You know, legislatively trying to stand up to this Marc Morano: Good question. There's a few. Yeah. I like ran Paul. I liked Ted Cruz. Does I like chip Roy? I like a couple of house members who stand up, but generally they miss it. I mean, here's the way he would fight this. The Republicans, it's the opposite way with the leadership. You have, like people like Kevin McCarthy and Scully's of the house, GOP leadership. And these, if we win our big midterm, you're going to be running the Republican party in Washington. They're all about green, new deal, light climate ruminating climate is a problem. We need a solution and a million years, they're not going to challenge anything. I just said there it's wheat milk toast nonsense. Now having said that, the way forward on this for it to fight this couple of different things, mass resistance, how did we end mass mandates in school? How did we end the VAX mandates in the north end bees, big some Democrats in these, they seem to drop overnight. It all began. I shouldn't say it all began, but it all was the lightning point was in Loudon county, Virginia with the parents protesting the mask mandates and the CRT and all the stuff coming out in the critical race, critical race training to the children that led to a Republican winning in Virginia, which shocked everyone for the governorship, the Democrat Phil Murphy in New Jersey, governor almost lost that shocked them doubly. That was even more shocking than the winter of gender that this the most deepest of blue states almost elected a no name Republican with no money. So they did some group polling, the Democrat party, and they found that among their democratic base, they didn't want, they wanted to return to normal, no more masks, no more kids, men, no more vacs mandates number locked down with it. And this was as reported by the New York times. It's in my book within two weeks of that, every major Democrat controlled city and state dropped the mask mandates for schools that dropped the VAX passports mandates all it was amazing. Resistance is what led to it. And I like to say the way forward is to look at 1989 Berlin east Berlin. What happened there? We didn't rely on, you know, the conservative elements of the east German government, the east German government didn't vote to tear down the wall because the people have had that 40 years of repression of Soviet domination. That's enough. Let's let the people be free. That wall came down in 1989 in Berlin because the people of east Berlin and east Germany no longer gave their consent to live under tyranny. And that is ultimately the way forward. We can't rely on political, you know, losers like, you know, everyone from, from Kevin McCarthy to Mitch McConnell, et cetera, to save us, we've got a mass resistance and that's the way forward. And you have to just bypass the, the, the establishment in every way possible. And now let's local go after your school boards go after and your state houses, we can't ever allow local public health dictators to just rule on a whim, but this is what they want to do. And if they can tie climate now to public health, which by the way is very important doctor last year diagnosed, the first patient is suffering from climate change. A lady had heat stroke. This was happened in Canada. And as the head of the emergency room at a major hospital in Canada and Australia, academics are urging to add climate change as a cause of death to death certificates. And the, and bill gates has said the death toll from climate will be much larger than anything from COVID. So if they can make climate a public health issue, just think of the latitude that we've had with the Fowchee and public health. And here's the thing I'll, I'll end on a very scary note, the world health organization and bill gates on a team up and have what's called even the Washington post called a radical pandemic treaty. The word radical came in the Washington post headline. And the gist of this is experts paid by bill gates, who by the way, bill gates has praised Australia as the best COVID response of every single country. You know, it's literally was China light. It was the most repressive military response quarantines, lockdowns, VAX mandates. It was like an island prison at returned to its roots. That's who bill gates likes. So bill gates, once a pandemic treaty with his experts who could declare a pandemic and literally have instant global lockdown without any outliers like Sweden or Florida next time. And they'll have control of information. They've talked openly about shutting down the glue, the internet globally, in order to prevent misinformation, be afraid, be very afraid of this pandemic, treaty and climate will be part of that. Remember climate change now as a public health threat, you can be diagnosed with it. It can be on your death certificate and you know, if you don't take care of it will lead to more COVID. So you're a grandma killer. If you don't support carbon taxes. Doug Truax: Wow. That is terrifying, but it's better to know where they're up to than to, you know, fall for it. And you're absolutely right. That mass resistance on that, you know, that's the great thing about the size of our country and we're still centered right across the country. And people are very nice and tolerant on some level, but somewhere in here, because we're not Australia, we're not an island. We're not England. We're not, it's hard to contain. It's hard to control and we just have to keep standing up for sure. And, and if we don't, it's not pretty, it's not pretty well. Hey marc Appreciate your bravery. Love the sound of the new book. W w when did you say it's coming out? Marc Morano: It comes out the end of August. It was supposed to be out six months ago, but because of the supply chain issues was all backed up. So we had to wait Doug Truax: One more thing, right? One more thing. Yeah. Another crisis. So, all right, well Marc Morano: It's called the great reset by marc morano. Doug Truax: Yeah, for sure. We'll, we'll, we'll talk, we'll bring it back on. Talk about that as well. I encourage all the viewers to get that too, but again, thanks for your courage and your bravery on all this. And I, and I hope that more people are listening to you. Thanks for coming on today. Marc Morano: Thank you. Appreciate it. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting sort of media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we can serve as can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First, right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant Every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first right. to 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6 1.

Doug talks to Steve Cortes, former Trump spokesman and national commentator, about J.D. Vance, Ukraine, and Roe v. Wade. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, weekly concerted new show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today, we were blessed to have a first-time guest who most of you already know quite well. He, Steve CorteS, who was an effective spokesman for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns and former Newsmax TV show host more recently, he has been crisscrossing America supporting America First candidates. Well, welcome to the show, Steve. Thanks so much for coming on, Steve Cortes: Doug. Appreciate it. Thank you. Doug Truax: So a good deal. So really happy to have you here. Our audience knows you obviously, but we want to hear you didn't you weren't always this big national political figure. In fact, earlier in your career, you had kind of a, you had a different looking career in the beginning. So we want to hear all about that and bring us up to speed to where you are now. Steve Cortes: No, that's very true, Doug. So listen, I had a, basically a midlife, a middle-aged career change, and one that I frankly didn't plan on. I wish I could tell you that, you know, I wish I had some brilliant strategy and I knew this was how things are going to unfold, but that wasn't the case, you know, through, through some skill and some luck. This is just where I ended up, but I was a finance guy. And so from out of college for 25 years, I traded bonds and stock indices for major institutional houses, mainly hedge funds, mostly over in Europe and had an interesting and good career. But that then led to television, which is what led to politics. So I started on CNBC back in 2007 first, I was just a very regular guest and they thought I had some skill as a guest. So they asked me to come on as one of the broadcasters, as part of the team. And I did the fast money franchise for years. I did that for eight years. A lot of folks out there might know, it's, it's shown at noon Eastern time. And then again at 5:00 PM Eastern time, and it's essentially almost in a sense of sports show, but instead of talking about teams and sports stats, you talk about stocks and tickers and, and earnings releases and that sort of thing. So that's where I learned the craft of television, but we didn't get into policy a whole lot, but then fast forward to 2015, by that time, it was almost inescapable to address policy and politics when discussing the economy and financial markets. So I made the move over to Fox news. A lot of CNBC folks had recently at that time gone to Fox business people like Maria, Bartiromo, who I worked a lot with and, and collaborate with a whole bunch. So they recruited me over to Fox. And part of the reason was I wanted the ability to talk politics and particularly from a conservative angle, which Fox promised to afford me. Well, I wasn't at Fox very long because this, this orange guy came down the escalator on fifth avenue and, and really won me over. I was a skeptic at first, quite honestly, but he won me over. I had been kind of a, a wall street Republican. I would describe myself, Doug, I, for example, I believe in, you know, quote free trade. And Donald Trump really changed my mind. I, I came to realize that he was right and that we did not have free trade. It was always managed and it was managed generally against the interest of American workers. And so he won me over and turned me from an established Republican of wall street, Republican into very much of a populist nationalist where I am now. So I ended up leaving Fox news, working for his campaign. He said, I need you on television. Didn't know him at all, but recruited me to be part of his 2016 campaign lo and behold, he pulled off the greatest upset in all of American history. And I've basically been doing all media and politics ever since. So that's my story of how I ended up being one of the spokesman. And I hope one of the effective spokesman for the America first movement. Doug Truax: Oh, you were for sure that, and I think it's a really interesting how people with your background who had that business background, you know, you mentioned you were always Republican and you were conservative on some level, but that business background helps you see the world for what it really is. And then it gets into the policy. And I think that, that, you know, if you care to comment on this, like how that shaped you as you get, you go through all that, and then you see what Trump is talking about and like what you said about trade and everything else. You're like, Hey, wait a minute. There is a right way to do this in a wrong way to do it. Steve Cortes: Yes. No. And I'll tell you, so w what I hope I bring to the political arena and tend to political media, particularly what I hope I bring is some of that analytical background of wall street. So I have a lot of problems with wall street, by the way. And I think that wall street has used its political power largely to abuse Americans, but wall street does some things very well, obviously. And a lot of that is number crunching and data analysis. This is really sort of the lifeblood of wall street. So if I were to make a proposal to these major hedge funds who were some of the biggest players in the world of capital markets, believe me, I couldn't go with just sloganeering or just, ah, it's my opinion. You know, that interest rates are going to hit here. No, I had to give a reasonable data driven evidence driven analysis. It doesn't mean I'm always right, but it means there has to be evidence that it has to be a statistical foundation to it. Once I got into the political arena, Doug, I found out that sloganeering generally, unfortunately, is the default. That is the norm rather than approaching it from a data perspective. So I try to bring that and look, you can't dive too deeply in a data. If you get too far into the weeds, you lose regular people. But my point is what I try as much as I can to do in the political arena is to bring actual facks and numbers to the arguments. I'll give you a real world example of this one. That's very pertinent just this week. So I I've been very deeply involved in the JD vance campaign in Ohio. And one of the things that I, and I did a lot of in-person campaigning with JD Vance all over how as well as a lot of media appearances. And one of the things I've tried to, to convince Ohio voters up to earn their support for JD Vance is that Ohio, all of America has suffered the ravages of globalism, but Ohio suffered them particularly and disproportionately. And I use data to back that up, for example, and I think this is a really important, and frankly, you know, depressing statistic, but something that needs to be addressed the state of Ohio from 2001 until 2015 before Donald Trump was elected on the, on the recent. And, and then going back in time, 2001 was when China was allowed into the world trade organization on incredibly generous terms to the Chinese communist party. The state of Ohio lost 120,000 manufacturing jobs to China alone. And that's according, not, not to Steve or some right-wing group, that's according to the economic policy Institute. And the epi is a left leaning think tank, but that's, you know, think of what that does, not just economically, but also culturally in society, when you lose 120,000 manufacturing jobs that are high pain family sustaining jobs, what it does to the livelihoods of communities, what it does to the dignity of those individuals who lost those jobs, all because of predatory trade practices that we willingly allowed the Chinese to inflict upon the great people of Ohio. It's not that those Ohio workers couldn't compete instead. It was a rig game. So I like to use data to explain to people, this is what happened to you. And by the way, here's the solution. It's not enough to just curse the darkness. We have to also light that candle of here's the solution. Here's the way out. Here's what Donald Trump was doing. Here's what we can do again, if we elect the right Congress in 2022 and the right president in 2024. Doug Truax: Yeah. Amen to that. And I think that that's exactly the basics. The basic foundation of all politics is how's this affecting your day-to-day life. And you know, all these people, whether you got laid off or somebody, you know, got laid off, or you just look around your community and all these factories are closing and everything else, all these people are saying, this isn't working for us anymore. And then the professional politicians are into sloganeering. And that wears thin obviously over time. And you end up with what we had with president Trump. And then obviously like I was going to bring up the JD Vance thing. I'm glad you already did that. So, you know, I think that w what would you think about this concept? I feel like I'm starting to see in Republican primaries, the statewide folks, like the governors or whatever, the state legislators, obviously it's a, they get a pass If they're professional politicians, if they're insiders, if they're establishment, but it starting to feel like if you're going to run for federal office and go to DC, you might need to be an outsider because a lot of people are starting to say, well, if you get to DC and you're kind of a little corrupted already by the establishment, you're going to get even more when you get out there. I mean, what do you, what do you think about that concept? Right? Steve Cortes: No, listen, you're right, Doug. And I've seen this now that I spent a lot of time in Washington, DC. Thankfully, I've never had to live there and I hope I never do, because it truly is. I don't like to call it the Washington swamp, by the way, because I say swamps have nice things and I'm swapping at beautiful flowers. For example, there's nothing beautiful about the political scene in Washington, DC. So I call it the Washington sewer. So I hoped it never lived there, but I've spent a disordering amount of time there because of my career now. And I can tell you that it's, it's very enticing. It is to, to people who go there sometimes with the best of intentions to quickly sell out to the Washington establishment, to the permanent political class, to the administrative state that exists in this country, which is frankly, incredibly successful for its own. Self-aggrandizement again, let me give you some data on this to prove my point, the five richest counties in America by income are all in the Washington DC Metro area. I mean, think about that. Doug Truax: And that's right Steve Cortes: Wealthier than Silicon valley wealthier the New York suburbs outside of wall street, wealthier than the north shore, Chicago. They, all those places I mentioned are doing fine, but they're not doing nearly as well as the beltway area. Why it's not because Washington DC is curing cancer or is coming up with the next most amazing technology. It's because our United States Capitol acts too much like the Capitol in the hunger games, quite frankly. And it siphons off of the districts, our prosperity and our rights. So to your point about outsiders, and I think there's a lot of them running this year. Thankfully I mentioned JD Vance, but there's a lot of others. I love Joe Kent in Washington state. I love Jake bequette, down in Arkansas. I love Kerri lake, not running for federal office, but running for governor of Arizona. There are all of those people. I just named those for our newcomers to politics. All of them brings significant experiences in the military and business and athletics. In the case of kerri lake and television, they bring those experiences and abilities to politics, but they're coming at it with the agenda and vision of an outsider, but you're right. These people also have to have the character then to stick to it because I have seen politicians go to Washington DC with pretty good intentions, you know, and then succumb to the allure of the establishment. And it's listen, let me be concrete on this one. One reason that it's, it's easy to give into the establishment is that leadership. And this is true of both the Democrats and the Republicans leadership largely controls the funding. So if you are a good foot soldier for leadership, in terms of funding for your campaigns, I mean, you will get the funding you need or your campaign. And it's hard to go out and work and earn the support that you need to get reelected. So we need to send people who have an outsider's perspective in my mind, we need a lot more versions of Donald Trump. And I don't mean stylistically. They have to be like Donald Trump. I mean, people who've been successful outside of politics. And then people who also have the character and principle to stick to it and to never effectively go native in Washington, DC. Doug Truax: Yeah. That's very well put. And I think that that's where everybody's heart is whether they can, at least in the base wherever they can't fully express it sometimes. But that's what they're looking for. You know? And I, I, I love a lot of Trump's policies and everything, but it's like, what was that phenomenon? And it was, it was this concept right here. And it goes to, we're losing our country because of, you know, the sewer. I liked that. I maybe I need to start using that term too so well. Steve Cortes: And Doug, you know, if I could, when you say we're losing our country, I think we are absolutely. But here's the paradox there is that we've been winning elections. Okay. We are the majority. And I know sometimes it doesn't feel like that because we're not the majority of the power structures of America, but at the voter level, we are the majority, the majority of America believes in the America first agenda believes in cultural conservatism combined with a populous economic nationalism. We're the majority. So we've been winning elections with regularity yet losing our country, right. We have to change that formula. We need to win elections. And when the country back, and that takes a very different kind of approach, a very different attitude, a different policy agenda. I think we're getting that. I refer to it as the new, right, but by whatever phrase you want to use, or however you want to describe it, there is an awakening. Thankfully, now that awakening is, is uprising of frankly how dire things are in the country as it relates to inflation right now, that is forcing a lot of people who weren't terribly political to become political and to become animated in politics and to become activists. But again, let's stop winning elections and losing the country. Let's win elections. And when the country back. Doug Truax: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Another thing that I'm hearing relative to this winning elections piece is a lot of the folks I talked to, and this is how I feel about it too, is, you know, we can talk to we're blue in the face about immigration and economics and everything. But if we don't have confidence in the actual election itself, then we got there, we got bigger problems and we'll, we'll have you on some other time to talk all about election integrity. We do a lot of work on that around here, but that's, you know, we got to get to that place too. Cause that's, that's, you're roading over time. You know, it's, it's a, it's a crazy time we live in back to the JD Vance thing. And also this, this, this Washington establishment thing. So you wrote a piece on his stance, on the war in Ukraine and, you know, we're all, all of us what I would call true conservatives are thinking the same thing. Okay. Why, why would we want to get involved in that? And we all think we know the answer, but I'll let you talk about what you said in that piece and, and, and get everybody up to speed on that. Steve Cortes: Sure. Well, you know, unfortunately when I mentioned Washington DC and the way the capital operates in our country, nothing, nothing empowers Washington DC and the permanent political class like war. And so the Washington war machine is really revving up again. And I really believe that they see in Ukraine a chance for another Iraq, a new Afghanistan. And I know that sounds crazy because our experiences were so terrible in both of those wars. But believe me, I would, I would try to persuade regular folks out there who aren't maybe involved full-time in politics, believe me, the Washington war machine. And what do I mean by that? I mean, K street lobbyists. I mean the giant defense contractors, I mean the think tank, suppose it foreign policy experts that supposedly experts at foggy bottom at the state department, all of them are pining for war. They are desperately trying to escalate us involvement in what I believe is clearly a regional struggle in Ukraine. I think what's going on. There is an absolute human tragedy. I think Putin, his invasion is totally unjustifiable and he's inflicting pain upon regular Ukrainian civilians. I also think that as Americans, we need to take a dispassionate look in the world at the world and only intervene in instances where there is a significant vital us national security interests at stake, no more needless nation building war fighting and interventions all over the world to put a dollar figure on this. You know, again, I like data and evidence put a dollar figure on this, according to brown university. I'm not, again, I'm not citing a right wing organization, corner brown university study the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had cost the United States a total of $8 trillion. I mean, Doug, do you know what we could have done in this country with $8 trillion? And then by the way, even worse than the money also cost us almost 8,000 American lives, precious American souls who are gone. And by the way, also thousands more American soldiers who were not killed, but who are grievously wounded either physically or mentally because of their experiences in the, in these wars. So we need to learn the lessons of what the Washington unit party, because Republicans were every bit as complicit as Democrats in promoting and inflicting these wars upon the American people. I think George W. Bush in some ways is actually more guilty than Obama is, but they're both guilty regarding these wars. Donald Trump came to office as a peace president. He insisted in an American foreign policy of realism and restraint, but with Trump out of office right now, the Washington establishment believes including a lot of Republicans believes here's their chance in Ukraine. Thankfully, JD Vance, who himself is a Marine veteran, somebody who was deployed to Iraq who saw war firsthand, and he had the guts to stand up in a very competitive primary. Okay. He had some very high quality well-funded opponents in that primary, but he had the guts to stand up when he was the only one to do this and say, we do not want to escalate in Ukraine. He said no to a no fly zone. Some of his opponents tried to hide behind the caveat of, well, the no fly zone will be enforced by our European partners rather than by America. But if you think about that for more than a second, you realize that they will quickly our partners, Germany, Poland, whoever it is will quickly get into a shooting war with Russia, which then obliges the United States to directly intervene in a shooting war with Russia and incredibly reckless stance that the corporate media is trying to promote constantly right now. So we need, in my view, more voices like JD Vance, like president Trump, who put out thankfully a very strong statement on exactly this point. And he said, we need to beat it to force a deescalation. Let's get these two sides to negotiate. What's going on as a tragedy. But it is a regional struggle does not involve the national interest of United States. And by the way, Doug, I would stipulate that if there was a border for us to worry about it is not the Eastern border of your Ukraine, it is the Southern border of the United States. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Lots of problems down there. And it's like, look over here at the shiny thing right now. And you're right, it's a total tragedy. And I always feel now, too, what happens is there's this complacency leading up to this? It's like all these things over the years, Putin has been talking about this for a long time. A lot of things we haven't done over the years in terms of just like fortifying Ukraine or frankly, Ukraine fortifying themselves more. And all those things that have, have gone on. And then he got Keystone Nord stream two, he's got all the money he needs and then suddenly there's this disaster. And then it's like, it's the next crisis that they don't want to let, to go to waste. And so, okay, now we're going to talk about getting involved. And I'm like, oh, it's like, okay, where were you guys? When this was all leading, we were leading up to this and it does feel like what you're talking about. So, okay, well we're here. We got to deal with it. So let's, let's spend a lot more money and a lot more treasurer and lives and everything else. Steve Cortes: Yeah. And to that point by Doug of energy policy, because I think this is critical. Look, here's the reality right now, NATO is funding both sides of this war. I mean, which is, which is insanity, right? I mean, in my view, we are literally funding both sides. And what I mean by that the United States taxpayer, I was announced last week that Joe Biden wants to send $33 billion with a B over to Ukraine, by the way, no strings attached. One of the most corrupt governments on earth. And again, I'm not justifying the invasion far from it, but I'm saying this, this is not a fight, a pure goodness and pure light against pure evil. It just isn't okay. But we're going to send $33 billion of American taxpayer money over to Ukraine at the exact same time. And this was reported by Bloomberg. The Europeans, since the war began in late February, the Europeans have bought precisely double that amount in Russian energy. They have bought $66 billion of Russian, Russian energy. They are continuing to buy it. Doug, as we speak masses and masses of oil and gas coming from Russia directly to Europe. So here's my answer is this has to matter more to the Europeans than it does to us, right? This is in their neighborhood. If this is truly a crisis beyond Ukraine. And I don't believe that it is, but let's say for the sake of argument, that truly Putin doesn't just want Ukraine. He wants Ukraine, plus he wants to March on Europe. Again, I don't agree with that, but that's what the warmongers are trying to tell us. Well then Doug, this is Europe's problem. These are wealthy advanced countries and they should be more than willing to number one, defend themselves. But number two, if they really fear Russia that much, then stop sending billions of dollars, right. Day two, the two, what they regard as the Russian beast. Doug Truax: Yeah. How about it? Yeah, it's just common sense. And we just end up in this place where it's like, we've had all these years of not doing the common sense thing, and now we end up where we are. So yeah, I, I totally agree. All right. Shifting topics real quick. So crazy times here, Roe V. Wade is looking like it's going down, praise God. And then we got this leak and it turns everything upside down. So what do you think though, where we are relative to the midterms and how the impact in your view, how it's going to impact the midterms? Steve Cortes: Sure. Well, you know, first, just let me say this. This is a amazing victory for life and amazing victory for mothers and babies in this country. And there are so many people who really toiled for 50 years to see this moment. And a lot of that toy, a lot of that work frankly, was in the political wilderness. It looked like it could never happen. So a lot of faithful people, a lot of prayer and a lot of hustle and all of them just deserve so much credit and, you know, deserves perhaps more credit than anyone right now is president Donald Trump, who was the most pro-life president in American history. And this is his legacy. And even if he never goes back in the, in the oval office, I hope he does. I hope to help get him there in 2024, but whether or not he does, this is, this is a legacy that he deserves. And an honor, you know, that is largely his not only his, but largely he has, but regarding the midterms, then if I sort of, you know, switch tax and just put on my, you know, from being a thankful Patriot to put on my campaign hat and my strategist hat, I honestly don't think this is going have a massive effect upon 2022 elections. And here's why I think it will have a slight positive net effect for Republicans, for pro-life candidates, for people who were on the fence, who, for example, there's a lot of committed Christians out there who don't necessarily like the style and bombast of Donald Trump. I hope some of them will see the fruits of what Trump of what Trump did and, and, and recognize this massive victory for pro-life people. So I think it will bring a few more people into the America first fold, but regarding the people who are most upset about this, the people who are outraged, that this is going to go back to the states where it always belonged in the first place. Those people who are outraged dug in my view, and the polling backs this up. Those are not people that we could win over. Anyway, that's just the reality. I do not believe those were persuadable voters. And given that again, corporate media wants us to accept the narrative that this was massively consequential for the elections and that it's going to embarrass and imperil Republican candidates around the country. I just don't see that could be wrong. But when I look at the polling, America is very, very divided on this issue. I think that's the knee. That's the honest answer. There's not a massive pro-life majority, nor is there a massive pro majority abortion majority. When, when the questions are asked in an honest way, there is a slight pro-life majority. That's what the numbers actually tell us. For example, a recent Gallup poll shows that 52% of Americans believe that abortion should be always, or most of the time illegal. The other side is 45%. So the country's very divided, but also look, federalism works. There are a lot of states that are not divided. So states like Alabama and Tennessee are going to reach very different solutions than states like Illinois and California and New York. And you know that that's not okay from a moral perspective, of course, cause I don't want any baby harmed, but from a political perspective, that's okay. That's how the system is supposed to work. I suspect a lot of America will actually end up where Europe is, where abortion is technically legal, but very, very restricted and very difficult to get that's the, that is the democratic small D consensus that most advanced countries in the world reached because they were allowed to do it through a democratic process. We were disallowed from that. We were restrained from that illogically so and unconstitutionally. So for 50 years now, we're going to have that conversation and debate in this country. I think ultimately it's a healthy thing. And I frankly, Doug, I don't see big consequential fall off of the 2022. Doug Truax: Yeah. Yeah. I'm with you. I think it's the extremes that will be involved in the, in any fallout if there is any, which will be small, but what a great day, what a great day moving in the right direction. For sure. For sure. Last question for you. So we get into this next election, you know, how do we avoid complacency? I ask everybody this, like where it's looking pretty good. How do we not be, you know, get into complacency and, and, and hurt ourselves here. And then how do we going on the other side of that lecture? How do we go on 20, 24? What do we need to maintain? What do we need to grow into in your opinion? That'll get us, keep us on this good path that we're on. Steve Cortes: Well, listen, it's a fantastic point that, yeah, we sure can't get complacent. You know, cause to our earlier point we've been winning elections, but losing the country for a long time. Now, thankfully I think the Democrats in a way and Biden and the ruling class in this country, they've almost done us a favor. Not that they meant to, but their policies have been so disastrous so quickly. You know that again, a lot of people have been forced to care. And what I mean by that is people who may not be all that political people might not be that engaged in the end. You know, following the economy, they had been forced to care because every time they go to the gas pump or the grocery store or pay their rent, they are being crushed right now. Real wages are crashing in this country and that's not bad luck. It's not because of the business cycle. It's a consequence of terrible policies. So thankfully I think our job is relatively easy in terms of getting people motivated. Because again, I think they're being forced to care, but, but we can't only rely on that, right? We can't be lackadaisical in terms of motivating people. I believe firmly that there are sort of so many things going wrong right now. So many created crises because of Joe Biden and because of what Pelosi and Schumer and I would argue Mitch McConnell and Republicans because of what they have inflicted upon this country, that we can lose focus. And as a messaging guy, which is my world, where I live in, in political messaging and in media, we need to, don't major in the minors. We need to focus on the things that matter most to real Americans. And I believe it's the two eyes it's inflation and immigration inflation immigration. I think if we focus on those two issues, we not just when our base, I mean, we will get them and we will motivate our base to turn out and coalesce and unite behind real America, first candidates all over the country. But I think we also get them people who either weren't politically engaged or were leaning to the democratic side because no one, no reasonable person, unless you were a hardcore dogmatic, leftist, no reasonable person thinks that effectively open borders, which is what we have in this country right now is good for our country. And no reasonable person believes that surging prices 40 year highs by every single metric on inflation would crashing real wages is a good scenario for this country. So things are pretty dire right now, Doug. And I think it's important. I'd never sugar call it, code it for the American people. They know it. And particularly the horribles are our people, our Mo most motivated people know it out there. So don't sugar coat. Things are bad. Unfortunately, I think they're likely to get worse in the near term, but politically the situation is becoming better and better for the America first movement. I firmly believe we're going to elect Republican majorities in the Congress this year in both the house and Senate, but not just Republican majority's America. First Republican majority is with the kinds of stalwarts and fighters and outsiders that I was talking about earlier. And that can transform politics in this country and prepare the way for a 2024 election where we either re-elect Donald Trump. I would argue for a third time, that would be his third victory or another great America personally. Doug Truax: Yeah. We're on the edge of something. Great. I think, and that's really well put and we're all praying for that and hope it comes to be. And Steve, you've done great work over the years. Really appreciate you coming on and sharing your opinion. And I think you're dead on us. So many things and look forward to you continuing to contribute to the success we have ahead of us here. Steve Cortes: You're back. Thank you so much for having me, Doug. Appreciate it. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting sort of media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we can serve as can bring our country back to true greatness until next week. Let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First right, A new kind of new summary without the liberal slant. Every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first right 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word 3, 0, 1, 6 1.

Doug talks to John Mattingly, retired Louisville police sergeant involved in the Breonna Taylor case. (MACHINE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. They are blessed to have a first-time guest who has quite a story to tell he's retired Louisville police, Sergeant John Mattingly, who was involved in the Breonna Taylor shooting case like other such cases, the liberal media twisted and distorted it to fit its preferred racial narrative. John has a new book out set the record straight. Hey John, thanks for coming on the show. John Mattingly: Good to be here, man. I appreciate you having me. Doug Truax: Yeah. So I'd love to hear your background. Let's get up to the March, 2020 shooting and kind of stop there. And we'll obviously get into that a lot, but just give the audience a little bit about your background and what led you up to that point. John Mattingly: All right. Well, I came on the police department in June of 2000 and it was on late watch for five years. After that, I went to what's called a flex platoon in 2005 and that's a, a division-wide narcotics unit, or if they need it for robberies or prostitution, whatever the major needs, but 95% of it was narcotics work. And then in 2009, I got promoted to Sergeant. I went back to late watch for a year. Then I went to a district detectives office for about a year and a half, 2012. I went to what's called Viper. It was a new unit. We created that attacked violent crime and criminals and went after murderers carjackers robbers that, that extended people. And then in 2016, went up to our narcotics division or major narcotics division and was there until 2020 in March when this event took place. Doug Truax: Okay. All right. So now our March, 2020. And so now just talk us through that day. What happened? Give us, give us a snapshot or as much detail as you want. And we're obviously going to get into the media coverage and all that after the fact. John Mattingly: All right. So our unit was requested to assist a different unit inside narcotics because it was a Superman power intensive event that night and required about 50 detectives. When we went there, it, it was roll call at 10, o'clock starting to rain outside. It was March 12th, which was a Thursday leading into Friday the 13th. It was a full moon out. Like I said, it was raining. Things just were kind of, the picture was on the wall. Different things happen. I came outside, I had two flat tires on my vehicle, had to go in and find another car to get to the scene. So things were a little bit hectic to begin with. But once we got through that night, I went by and got a visual on the apartment that we were supposed to be at. Because again, we hadn't done any of the background on this. We were just simply there to, to assist. And I went back, told the guys that we were good to go. We went up to the door, we knocked and announced. And that's one of the big myths that you hear this, this was a no-knock warrant and it was this that couldn't be further from the truth. We knocked. It announced several times, almost a minute, banging yelling, even the upstairs neighbor came out and was like, man, what are you guys doing? And we told him to go back in his house. We explained to him later, he finally went back inside. We still got no answer to the door. So at that point, my, my boss looked at me and kind of gave the nod to go ahead and let's breach the door because we had to go in, at some point, the SWAT team was already moving down on Elliott for the main suspects in this case. And so everything was supposed to be simultaneous. So no evidence was destroyed. So we breached the door. And as soon as that door came open from a swung from right to left and I was on the left side of it. I was able to see the living room on my right side. And as soon as I couldn't see anymore, I was forced to step into the doorway area. So I could continue to clear the apartment. As soon as I did that down a long hallway, probably 25, 30 feet away, very narrow, three foot hallway, a little bit of ambient light coming from the TV, outside from their bedroom. There were two individuals side by side almost, they were overlapping. One, another one was taller. One was shorter, but they filled the entire hallway. And as soon as my brain adjusted to what's going on here, there's two people here. This is this isn't normal. I saw the outstretched gun from Kenneth Walker and the, the shot ring out. I was struck in my leg and returned fire. At that point, I knew I'd been severely wounded because I reached down and felt the amount of blood that was coming out of my leg. And due to all the training, we knew that most leg wounds, if, if they don't hit arteries, then they're, they're fairly, non-dangerous, you know, there's not a lot of bleeding that takes place, but I knew instantly when I felt that handful of blood, that something was wrong. So I got out of the line of fire, got myself to the parking lot, requested a tourniquet, the officers there, fortunately, one of them headed on and actually paid attention in class and got the tourniquet on me and was able to save my life. Doug Truax: Okay. Well, first off, thanks to you for your bravery. Thank you for your service guys. Like you, we, we have to have guys like you and gals like you out there, but you know, otherwise it's, it's the thin blue line. Right? All right. So, okay. So you knew it was going to be bad. I mean, you probably were aware of media bias and things like that, you know, and you already mentioned the no-knock myth of this whole thing. So how bad was it when you started realizing, okay, the media is going to totally twist this thing. I mean, where did you have to go in your own mind from thinking that maybe, maybe the media would be like, well, they'll cover it fairly too. Oh my gosh. These guys are out of control. John Mattingly: Right? Well, initially there wasn't a whole lot of media covers because we were right in the middle of this pandemic. You know, the governors had taken over press conferences all day, every day on TVs. The president was on every day. So it kinda got pushed to the side. And, and in my mind, I'm thinking, cause ever since Ferguson 2015, every police shooting that comes out. The first question I asked, which is asinine, but the first question that's asked is were they white or black? And again, that shouldn't matter. It should be totally, was it a good shoot, bad shoot, but unfortunately that's the state we're in. And so I knew the potential would be there, white cop black suspect that that died. And so that was always in the back of my mind, but we we'd kind of escaped it for a few weeks. And then a model robbery happened and Ben Crump jumped on that case. And the lawyer that's involved in BR with Breonna Taylor's family had worked with Ben Crump when she was in law school. So she reached out to him and asked him to, to jump on this case, which he gladly digs. He saw dollar signs. And so when he came on instantly, it started getting national attention. Now it still wasn't to the level of the George Floyd stuff yet, but that was coming. We had the perfect triangle, the perfect storm. You know, you had Ahmuad Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and then George Floyd is really capsulated all this and pushed it into high gear. And once that took place and just all hell broke loose, not only within our city, but then our personal lives, the threats just, they were already there, but now they just came in by the, by the hundreds. I mean, we just got inundated with them. We had to, we had to move out of our house and go into hiding because the FBI received credible threats through legitimate sources in town that, that there was hits, taken out on the officer's lives. So it was a scary time. Doug Truax: And so how long was it that intense when it really ramped up and you're moving and you're thinking, what the heck? You know, how, how long did that go on? John Mattingly: And that went on for quite a while, probably six months, because you know, around the country, a lot of places calmed down. They had constant every day protest and Louisville for over a year. And along with that came all the misinformation. I mean, there was a laundry list of lies put out by the media, by, by the attorneys that were never combat. And to this day, not combated by our department or by our city. And so naturally when lives are being told for a year straight and nobody's refuting those laws in any, in any position of authority, then people start to think, well, there must be some truth to it or else they would stand up and defend themselves. Right. And we were hoping they would, we begged them to, and they refused to do it. I don't know their intent behind it. You know, I'm not the judge of that. I've got my, my beliefs, but the fact is we were just hung out to dry. And I just don't want to see that for future guys. Doug Truax: Yeah. Good for you on that. And so what's that like internally, I've always thought about this piece when you feel like nobody's got your back, you know, the guys at the city, the politicians that are supposedly for law and order and protecting law, abiding citizens, basically just turn their back on you. What's that like internally with you guys on the force, the talk that starts to emerge or just, if you're willing to be Frank about it, what the, you know, willingness to do the job you used to do kind of thing, you know, how does that all play out? John Mattingly: Well, I think you, you already see the result of, of this type of attack on law enforcement with the murder rates and the car jackings and the assaults up nationwide. I know Louisville went from, I think like 120 homicides in 19 to 170 something, 173 in 2020, then 184 and 2021. And we're on pace to, to pass 200 this year. And if you look at that per capita, that's more than two times the amount that Chicago has now, the numbers aren't there, but the per capita wise it's there. So what happens is you get these guys who are doing their job, the job they're trained to do the job, they're asked to do the job they're expected to do. They go out and do it. And then they get hung out to dry by their administration. It's like, you taught me how to do this. You paved the path. You, you asked me, you put me here. I didn't ask to go there that night. You asked for help. So I did what you asked me to do. And now you just totally abandoned me because you're afraid of the backlash that you might get from the community or for your next voting cycle. Doug Truax: Yeah. It's pathetic. So looking back on that time, you mentioned there like a lot of different lies and things that are coming out, what are the one or two things that you're still to this day, most, you know, irritated by, in terms of what were they able to set or what was, you know, how you were hung out to dry? What, what were they saying that still bugs you the most to this day? John Mattingly: Well, just, just on the apartment itself, there's like four things that are just, or five things that, that just constantly get repeated. The attorney said we were out drinking before this event. It's impossible. We were at two separate locations before we did this warrant that are both videotaped timestamped in and out from when we went in. So everything's documented that we weren't out drinking just another outlandish claim to throw things off. They said we had the wrong apartment, which her name, her car, her social security number, date of birth everything's on this warrant. We were where we were supposed to be. They said she was asleep in her bed when she died, not true. She was in the hallway. The, the fact that they said the boyfriend or the ex boyfriend, that was the main target DeMarcus Glover. They said he was in custody a day prior. Now he was taken into custody at the same time, we were making entry into this house. So just a lot of those things that are still getting spread by the media, they're saying there was no drugs or money found at the apartment. True because we weren't allowed to go back in and search it. I say, we, I was in the hospital and surgery, but the guys asked, can we go back in now and serve this warrant? And they were told no by hopper command. So there was never even a chance to retrieve the evidence that they were there for. So just those lies right there that are just front page that make every single event. And most of them, most of these articles or these, these news media outlets leave out the fact that I was actually shot and almost died. It was always, there was a confrontation with the boyfriend and then they killed Brianna. Well, it's a little bit more than a confrontation. And so it's just another slap in the face. Doug Truax: Yeah. How bout it? Little small detail there. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Thanks. Thankfully, someone knew how to tourniquet. That's good. Like you said. Yeah. So what was it like to, so did you have situations I'm assuming you did where you were, these lies were going out in the media and you're talking to your boss and he, or she's talking to their boss and on up the chain and then somewhere up there, it's just like, it flips the politics and everybody's just like, no, we're not gonna, we're just gonna, we're just going to leave you out there. I mean, I always think of like the, the police chief, right? He's like, he should be the one, right? All these politicians, all weak and everything at times, they want to do everything to please everybody they're just looking for approval all the time. You would hope that the police chief would be interested most in the truth, at least looking out for his guys. Right. John Mattingly: Well, you got to realize police chiefs are nothing but politicians themselves. Now they're appointed by these mayors. So these mayors put the guys in that that are like-minded to them, or at least guys they can control. And our, our chief was no different, very weak, very anything the mayor's office said or directed, there was no pushback. And so basically our department was being run by civilians who had never been police officers and everything was, was slanted to a social agenda, everything. And so they would want things cleaned up, you know, especially like Derby time's coming up. Man. Our mayor is a super progressive guy. We've got homeless camps everywhere, trash feces, you name it. It's just scattered around Louisville. Derby time comes on. It's amazing. These two weeks, when you come into Louisville, you won't see any of that. They come in with the, with the bulldozers, clean, all that stuff out. How's these guys in hotels for a few weeks by a new tense when it's over and put them back on the street. So it's a lot of facade going on and that's government in general. But when you see it firsthand, when you're involved in it firsthand, it gives you a whole new perspective on how things really, really row. And to answer your question though. So we pushed back, we asked, we said, please put out the information, please put out the facts, because everything that's ever been put out on this case was leaked internally by people that were just fed up with the lesbian spread and nothing official has ever been put out. So when we asked that and it went up to the chain up to the chief's office and up to the mayor's office, we were told, no, we don't want to set precedent for future cases about putting information out. So my response was, so we want to let the city barn and people lose their lives and businesses destroyed because you don't want to set precedent on things that you set precedent every day. You do whatever you want. So why wouldn't you just do it on this to help people out? It made no sense. Doug Truax: Yeah. They're just, they're just choosing temporary public opinion over the safety of their citizens. And let's backing up you guys. Yeah. It's horrible. Well, and you know, that whole concept of just them cleaning it up temporarily. I just, that is so, so disturbing that that happens. I mean, I kinda know it. Does you think of that? How that happens only in North Korea, right. When the media shows up? I do, but they do it in Townsville. And I didn't realize that what you were saying about the, I hadn't done the, looked at the numbers on that, the per capita of the murders relative to Chicago, we're outside of Chicago and I've been here for a couple of decades and it's, you know, disheartening it best at times. But yeah, if they're not going to, if, if they're, if they're always, always going to pay attention to that, but I mean, w what's the situation right now in Louisville politically? I mean, are there people, is there beginning to be a wave of discontent with this and we're going to get some people out of office here eventually, what do you think? John Mattingly: Well, fortunately, this is our mayor's last term. It's his third term in office. And more than enough damage he's done in that 12 years, you know, the first couple of years he came in, he was a businessman, not a politician. He didn't, he actually did pretty good. And I was for him, I'm not a Democrat, but I was for him because I don't care. Who's in office, as long as you're doing the right things. And as long as you're, you're, you're there for the right reasons and helping the people. And he did that the first couple of years. So I thought, okay, I can get behind this guy, no big deal. But then something switched. And he became number one, when Obama was in office Louisville, Metro police became the flagship department for 21st century policing. We were at, we were the face of it. And so he got tied into the politics in DC. And once that happened, he totally changed. I don't know, I don't know the ins and outs of it, but everybody could see the change in him and the way the city was run and the way our department was run. And, and once that switched, we never went back and just constantly declined to that. And we're, we're a very liberal, progressive city anyway, you know, we're, we're kind of like a small San Francisco, to be honest, it's the way we've always described it. Very eclectic, different groups, but very liberal. And so I can't see a change coming. I think they're going to elect another Democrat. I just hope it's not a Greg Fisher 2.0. Because like I said, I don't care if you got a D or an R in front of your name, as long as you're, you're doing the right thing. Yeah, Doug Truax: Yeah. Do the job well. Absolutely. And you made a comment a second ago that I've heard, if I had a dollar for every time I heard this, it goes like this. Once Obama came in and you know, you could apply that to so many things. I'm a former army guy. And I just, you know, I want to lose my mind sometimes. So, you know, every serious study out there says that cops don't disproportionately target minority citizens. Right. You know, but what the liberal media communists in the media, they run off and do their thing. break that cycle. What's the, what's some ideas out there that you've seen to get this turned around. John Mattingly: Well, I think it has to start in, in the elections and I'm not just talking about your mayors. You know, they'd get some, some pool, but the big issue isn't police reform. Now there's things we can always grow. If we're not constantly growing and evolving, then, then we're going to be left behind. There's going to be issues, but that's not our issue. Our issue is our, the DA's and our judges. And they're all electable. And nobody knows who these judges are. I mean, I don't know about you, but all my years of voting, I'm 49 years old. All my years of voting, I would go to the, to the booth and I would know who your Senate and Congress and mayor and governor and all that was. But when it came down to our local judges, all you see is names that you've heard in the newspaper, on the news that are familiar as you go, I guess that person's it. And you check it, not knowing any of their background, any of the problems they've caused by the constant release of these prisoners. You saw got a day on the news. Who's a 17 year old, up in New York who had killed someone. They let him out on these murder charges and he killed somebody else. Well, that's a problem. That's not the police's fault. They'd already picked this guy up. Now. They picked him up twice and had they gotten into an altercation with him and had to kill him. He was a black guy. We would be at fault. So the problem is the system at large, not just the police, we're just a small part of it. And, and so until I think those things get fixed, we as a community and as the police are going to be tough to, to merge back, to trusting one another again, Doug Truax: Yeah. It's going to take some time and it took a long time to get here. And you know, this is in my opinion, this is a lot of Soros money over the years, lots of millions and billions into these DA's and all these to your point, you know, it's a lot of racists. We didn't pay a lot of attention to, you know, on the conservative side. And now we've got to get more, much more serious about this. We've got a lot of ground to make up, but I think that that, that awareness is, is coming to be now. And, and so I think we're gonna, we're gonna make up that ground. So I, I hope we do relatively quickly here, something else you, you mentioned earlier, and then, you know, just the, the, the growth of crime in general and Heather McDonald has done some great studies on this in terms of just, you know, once the cops started getting assaulted and then, you know, not just like you, you go to a crime and you're in and something bad happens while you're there. It's like the crime is coming to you. You know, the assault is coming to the cops, right. Then see crime in general starts to go up, puts in disproportionately hurts a lot of times minority communities, because there's more crime even there. So speak to that for a minute in terms of like how that systemic thing is happening over time and what you saw in Louisville. John Mattingly: Well, I think it became again, it's the whole, they wanted to defund the police and they essentially did it without, or they effectively did it without passing any bills where they raised, same way. They've raised minimum wage. They've altered speech on these platforms. They've changed the voting the way we do it. So all these things have been backdoored in and around to get us to where we're at today. And I think that's the same way with policing. I don't think there's been, you know, we are so short and Belleville just like they are across the board that you're, you're, you're spread so thin that you can't focus on the things you need to, but when you do focus on the things you need to, then you just get criticized for it. And there's an ugly side. The police work just like the, you know, you were in the military, the same thing with military. It's an ugly job. When you get down to it, when the things you have to do to make things right, and it doesn't have to be illegal or immoral, but it it's going to be ugly. Sometimes it's just the way it is. And so until that, until people can accept that and, and, and harden up a little bit, and it sounds cruel, but until we harden up a little bit as a nation and quit being so soft, I think we're going to be just in this revolving door of chaos. Doug Truax: Yeah. That's a wonderful point. And I thought there's so many times over the years and it has, it was our parents. And even when we were younger, I'm 51. When we were younger, it was like, well, you know, we don't want to have to do this, but it has to be done sometimes. And you know, whether it was police work or stuff in the military, like you said, but now we've gotten to this place of extreme virtue, signaling, extreme touchy, feely. Everything's gotta be soft all the time. And now it becomes well, just because that bad thing happened to that criminal. There must be some other way that you guys could have done it. That would have resulted in like this really peaceful outcome. John Mattingly: Right. This deescalation term is so overplayed. For instance, in my case, the, when I did my interview for to see if I violate any policies, the guy kept pushing on with don't you think you could have deescalated better? I'm thinking I turned a corner and got shot. What do you want? And I told him, I said, me returning fire, deescalated, the situation. Yeah, Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. John Mattingly: We're not gonna sit here and talk about it. This is just the way it's going to be. I'm gonna live. I'm gonna go home tonight. And, and whatever happens to you happens, but I'm going home. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Yeah. In the military, just you're living in the N O W man, you just there's. No, there's no way around it. Right. And then all these guys after the fact, well, you know what I would have done. Yeah. You don't know what you would have done. All right. That's just John Mattingly: The six months to review what you write. Doug Truax: Exactly. Yeah, exactly. All that stuff drives me crazy. So yeah. Well, Hey, you know, I appreciate all you're doing now and the book, and we're going to promote that as well. And, and, you know, like I said, thanks for your bravery in the job. And you know, he got shot, thankfully, he didn't die. Like you said, but now you're being brave on the other side of it doing, this is a, this is a battle right here, you know? And you gotta you're, you're fighting this one too, so we really appreciate it. We definitely want to have you back on and stay in touch. John Mattingly: Right. Well, I appreciate you having me. Doug Truax: All right. Have a great day, John. John Mattingly: All. Bye bye. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't forget that by working together and staying diligent, we conservatives can bring our country back to true greatness. And so next week let's all keep praying that God will continue to bless America First, right? A new kind of new summary without the liberal slam Every morning in your inbox. Always free subscribe by texting first, right. 2, 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to, 3 0 1 6, 1.