RestorationPAC

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.

Doug talks to Emerald Robinson, a fearless conservative journalist in America. (MACHINE GEENRATED) 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 with us a first-time guest who was beloved in conservative circles for her truth, telling she is Emerald Robinson, a former white house correspondent for one America news network and Newsmax. She now has her own show on Frank Speech TV and has a large sub stack blog following. Welcome to the show. Emerald. Great to have you on. Emerald Robinson: Thank you. I'm so happy to be here. Doug Truax: Very good. So you've got this really interesting background, born a coal mining town. Your dad was a pastor. He ended up in journalism. So I always have for all the guests, we want to hear, you know, all of our viewers want to know, how did you get to where you are? Tell us a little bit more about that story, all that stuff. Emerald Robinson: Wow. Well, it definitely wasn't the conventional path. I didn't have the plan to end up in the white house press pool though. I always did. I went to school for journalism. I, my, my family tells me that. I said since kindergarten I was going to be a journalist, but I did sort of go the long way about it. I did theater and I, I went to Hollywood and things like that, diid some soaps. So that's often used against me, you know, by the critical corporate media. But yeah, I grew up in a tiny, tiny coal mining town in the mountains of Virginia on the West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee border. That felt a little bit more like I'm from Tennessee, probably even than Virginia. Cause it was just down the road. My daddy was a pastor of a tiny church that was just across the field to the left of my house, where I grew up and had a really lovely country upbringing. And then I, I left that small town, pretty young and headed for the, the big, like the, the different cities. And I was in LA for a while and I just realized that wasn't a fit for me. And I decided to get back to my education, which was journalism. And at first I moved into science and tech, every science and technology or a popular website at the time, I think it's now defunct, but it was called a red orbit.com. It was one of the top science sites at the time. And that actually brought me to Washington DC. So I didn't come to Washington DC to cover politics. I was one of the unusual people covering science and tech there, but then it sort of progressed because I mean, when in Rome, right, you're going to end up covering Rome and that's sort of how it happened. I didn't really want to stay in DC, but I met my husband fell in love and ended up taking a job with one American news and officially moving into a covering Congress. And then the white house. Then sure realized it was actually a pretty good fit for me. I really ended up loving politics and getting a little bit, you know, obsessed with it. Doug Truax: Yeah. Well, you're a truth teller in a world where there's not a lot of that going on. And it's interesting, you know, times that we live in, if you want it to be a journalist your whole life, and then you end up in this spot and you find, Hey, there's not a lot of people like me, they're telling the truth and it all kind of comes together. So that's, that's a, that's a really a great fit for you. So, oh, go ahead. You can say something. Emerald Robinson: Well, I just going to say it, I think because I did have the goal, like everyone else in that press pool with me, that was their ultimate goal. And then the next goal was to get a show on the network with ABC, CBS or Fox. And that just was never my goal. I didn't necessarily lay a path for this career. And so I've been, I find myself in a place that I didn't necessarily intend to be, but that, you know, suited me. And I think it's, you know, because God had a purpose. So I never though, I guess I wasn't different by, by design. It's just that I didn't have the same goals. And so then I, I didn't feel like I needed to compromise because you know, ultimately my, my goal was not the Fox or CBS. It was just being, you know, an honest person. Doug Truax: Yeah. It's, it's freeing when you get to the place where you're free, you're free because you're where you want it to be. And you're like, well, I don't, I don't have some additional thing I'm trying to get done here. So I'm just going to say it like it is. And you know, the truth telling kind of juxtaposed against the timid press Corps. Now, you know, we've watched the media kind of disintegrate and the press Corps and all this and Trump really pushed that whole thing over the edge. So just give us your take on why you think they're also timid nowadays. Emerald Robinson: I don't think they were, I don't think they're so timid as different from before. Really. It's just that Trump was like a flashlight. He exposed the rod that was already there and the fake narratives, it just came to light. More people were paying attention. He, that was probably his greatest legacy, honestly, out of all the things he did, it was the mosaic of not only the media, but our institutions like the DOJ, academia, Congress, he just, he just was a flashlight. And I would say that the media had long had problems. Is it getting a bit worse? Yeah. Just because there may be more overt about it. Cause there's no reason to really hide it anymore. I would say Doug Truax: Absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. It's a, it's a new day and it's not the world we grew up in. That's for sure. And now it's, now it's a matter of, okay. Who's actually going to tell you the truth. When so many people realize that the people in the media they've got their own agenda and you know, I was thinking too about the time after the election and we'll see how much you want to share about this. But so we had right after 2020 Fox news was there, you know, kind of on the ropes, cause people are like, okay, what just happened here? And so then we get to this place of like, all right, are we going to, are we going to, are we going to have a new version of Fox out there? And so Newsmax kind of comes around and they were doing great, but they kind of lost their edge. So do you care to comment on how you see how you saw that playing out? Emerald Robinson: Yeah, so it was interesting because clearly we had soared after the election and just really took off as the audience grew exponentially because people were really starving for the truth. And there wasn't an outlet after Fox called Arizona to early in what was clearly some kind of play on the network and, you know, Arnold, Michigan, who was on the desk that night calling the election for them, he, he w he was questionable when they hired him anyway. So again, it was, you know, people guys were open and they realized, wait, bought boxes and what we thought they were. And it was a big opportunity for Newsmax. I think that it's very tough when you get that far, you get that much spotlight on you. They had not been used to having the kind of attacks that you get from the corporate media and from intelligence, the intelligence community, when you are being watched by so many people and your voice is influential. And it's tough to be that outlier, even if you are telling the truth and you have to make a decision when you get to that point, I had to make a decision when I got to that point, I get, you know, I got attacked all the time. I got called all kinds of crazy things, but you had to make a decision. What what's more important? Is it important to be accepted and to be afe? Or is it important to tell the truth and, and, and honor the truth and, and keep your integrity. Now, I will just say, cause I do have to be a little bit careful. I think that it was, they, they wanted to feel safe and look, you can get your license it's full and you can not get your, how they do. It really is that they just don't like you saw with the OAN recently one American news, they don't renew your distribution contract. And so essentially you, you're not being shown and that's, that's a big part of your business model. So I get it. But I often feel like if you're willing to and, and have courage, that there's always a way made. It's just having to trust that if you do that and the right thing, that it it'll in the end work out in the way that's supposed to, or for your good that God has for you, but that's tough for some people. And also you got to look, a Biden administration had already pulled people in already told outlets during the 2020 campaign cycle. That if you report on the hunter Biden laptop, if you report on the clear mental deterioration of the president, then handed a Biden, you're going to be frozen out of a white house. And a lot of these news networks want access. Ultimately it's about access Doug Truax: That's right. And then to go back to what you said a second ago, you have to ask yourself, are you looking for approval? Are you looking for the truth and to your credit, you've been sticking to the truth and it's been going well. I mean, every, every career right, has it's a here and there and ups and downs and stuff. But I think that, you know, that's, you know, that's why we're having you on because you tell the truth. And, and that's really important nowadays, especially as the next question I was to ask you in this whole woke world we're living in, and, you know, you've been taking the, taking the Republicans to task for a while on it. Even when, you know, there was a window of time where, well, we all kind of knew stuff was happening, but we weren't really awake to the woke stuff. And, and, and you were, so what do you think is going to happen though? Let's assume that, you know, don't, we don't want to get over confident like we do, but we assume we take back Congress. What do you see happening with regard to taking on the woke left from the Republicans? Emerald Robinson: Oh man, you know, I wish I could be more optimistic, but there is nothing that I've seen so far in covering Congress and DC. That makes me hopeful that even if Republicans takeover over both houses, that they will truly push for accountability and different issues, whether it be a Hunter Biden's laptop, corruption, Fauci I mean, maybe Fauci, because he is now such a safe figure to hit. Cause most Americans are tired of him. They do realize that there's clear corruption there and you would have Senator Rand, Paul, likely as this, that it helped chairing the Senate health committee. So there's possibility maybe on FAuci, but I, I, I tell you even some of these insurgent candidates and they were really great during their campaigns and they're really grassroots. They get to DC and they see just how hard it is to operate because they still had to play nice with Kevin McCarthy. They, they kind of, and then they ended up, you know, they want to get reelected and that ends up being the death of a true grassroots movement, right? When you care about getting reelected, instead of just doing what you got to do while you're there and given the time there. So I've seen too much of that. I'm not super, super hopeful. I tend to think there would be more strongly worded letters, you know, really, really good soundbites from Lindsay Graham on Hannity. So I'm not super hopeful. I just wish we had more Ron DeSantis' and you could just clone him and put him in different districts in different states. But unfortunately most of the GOP just doesn't have that spine. And honestly, a lot of them, it's not even that they don't have the spine. It's that they're just ideologically. They're not really far from the establishment. There really is just one party there. And they sort of play at being opposed to one another and maybe on certain issues, they're really opposed. It really comes down to taxation. Right. I mean, for Republicans, that's the hill they're always willing to die on its taxes. Doug Truax: Sure, sure. Yeah. That's a great point. The unit party thing, and I, you know, I'd be interested to get your take on how it was to, with the group that was legitimately conservative and they wanted to do great things. And then they saw Trump and Trump, you know, helped them stiffen their spine for awhile. But then we got into the whole, well, maybe he's a Russian agent and all that. And they, you know, then they started to cave on that. But I mean, there was a window of time. Once you agree though, that Trump was like, given all those folks like, Hey, this may be our time to stand up and actually do the right thing here. And then it, then it faded Emerald Robinson: Some of them. Yes. Some of them, but then a lot of them were still pretty obstructive to his agenda. And look, Mitch McConnell didn't do any favor to the Trump agenda or the Trump white house. He was one of the biggest obstacles in pushing for a lot of what Trump wanted to do. And I it's, you know, it's funny because honestly, one of the members of Congress who was most behind what Trump wanted to do and really generally liked what he was doing. And I think there's a pretty honest actor, and then, you know, I say out of all of them, he's, he's more solid than any Congressman I know there. And that's Thomas Massie for Kentucky. And remember that was the one Trump blasted so hard on the day that they were voting for the cares act and they were all, you know, COVID locked down at their homes and they didn't want to come back to DC and Massey like forced a quorum on it because he's like, this is a massive amount of money. This is going to affect our children for decades. You have to come vote on this. And Trump called him that he was grand standing show voting. Doug Truax: Right, right. Yeah. It kind of flipped on it, then it, yeah, no, that's a great point. I forgot about that. Yeah. Well that gets to, you know, back to what you're saying, you know, the unit party and the money and never let a crisis go to waste. And so it's just print a lot of money and shove it out the door and, and the, you know, the guys, somewhere down the road, after I'm done running for office, we'll take care of it. And speaking from somebody who's been living in Illinois for 20 years, it's, you know, we're on the, we're on the down slope of that now. So yeah. Yeah. It's tough, tough environment. So, so back to, to something you mentioned at the beginning, you know, your, your upbringing, your dad being a pastor and stuff. And so, so you clearly have a biblical worldview and, you know, that's that, you know, impacts everything as it should. So, but talk to that a little bit, how that makes you feel sometimes relative to some of the other journalists and you know, you're saying one thing that's super truthful and they're just looking at you, like, what are you talking about? You know? Right. So, Emerald Robinson: You know, it's funny. I mean, they they'll send out to gather the media and pretend like I'm crazy. But then when we were all in the room, I mean, they, it was funny because I would get a sense for them that there were sort of like, it was just a shock to them to have someone not care and just, you know, tell it like it is or be that truthful. And it was just sort of look at me sometimes like, wow, you know, cause they're, they were really trying to tell the line on what they said or what they reported and that they wouldn't get in trouble with the DNC. And so that they could get promoted, they could go to CBS or, you know, some of them were just pure activist. And I knew that sometimes they weren't reporting the truth, but they had an ultimate agenda that lined up with the DNC and the far left of the DNC. And so they did it, but I always felt like it was important to be very clear about the world view that I came from. And I, I wish more journalists would be whether even if they're not Christian, because at least, you know where they're coming from, right. What lens they're giving you the news through. And then I think Americans are smart enough to gauge for themselves, you know, to say, okay, well this is, you know, their, their, their point of view, but then gauge the information. And I think, you know, it's interesting because becoming a journalist in DC moving to cover politics actually really strengthened my faith. It made me feel bolder in my faith and more assured in it, even it grew me so much grew me so much in, in, in strength and, and, and boldness and having, and having to really have faith. But sometimes it was a little scary going up that when you knew you weren't like everyone else and knowing that you were going to get so criticized and it potentially, and you know, which ultimately happened to me, your contract would not be renewed, but I would initially feel that I would pray. There's a lot of times I would I'll call back home and I'd have my mom and my aunt gather and in prayer for me. And it always came through. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. Well, wouldn't you say though, too, that that added strength that you got, I mean, it's directly from God because at some point, right, everybody around you, you know, even a lot of people out in fly over country or praying for people to tell the truth and you know, you're right in the middle of a, of a, of a city that, you know, shifting morality, if there was such a thing back and back to your point about, well, just say what your worldview is, if it's not biblical. Okay. But then you're back to, you know, do you believe there is truth with a capital T you know, or are you just making this up every day? And then you're just looking for the approval of the people around you, so you can advance your career, which is what I see them. Like what you said, everybody's just acting, you know, sometimes a lot of these, a lot of these quote unquote journalists, they're just acting. So the unit party can keep doing what they're doing. Emerald Robinson: Yeah. There was actually one really good example of this. I thought one day in the briefing room and it was not too long after Biden taken office. And there was a reporter from, I believe it's called, has served a new service DNS. They were relatively new in the briefing room. And then there was one from the Washington blade. It was a blade or blaze. Yeah. It's one of those and it's, it's an LGBT outlet. And so two totally dimed, diametrically opposed, worldviews. Right. And these two outlets, they were trying to nail Joe Biden down on his stance on abortion. And so the conservative outlet had asked first, you know, when does he think life begins and try to really get, you know, nailed them down. It was the press secretary jen psaki she wouldn't answer. And then, so she went to the blade or blaze, whichever one it was, but that reporter, and he said, you don't know. Yeah. What is it? Because we're not sure either. So she got grilled from both. And there's a moment where everyone knows which side they're coming from, but they both want to get to the same truth. Like what, what does he believe? And we still didn't get the answer. Doug Truax: Exactly. Just move on. Right? Yeah. No, that's usually what happens. But, but that, yeah, to your point on that, I mean, everybody does want to know the truth, whether you admit it or not, you just, there there's truth out there and people want to want to find it. Yeah, for sure. So, well, Hey, you're telling the truth. We appreciate it a lot. I love all your stuff and just hang in there, you know, it's, it's the ups and downs of the career, but you know, people like you, it's going to go, okay. Right. Emerald Robinson: It's turned out to be a huge blessing working for Lindell TV. And it has been a joy. And I have, I feel like you have an even bigger platform. I have, I have even more freedom to cover what I want to cover. And you know, I do my sub stack it, it it's been really well received. And I feel like, actually I feel like actually my microphone was grown And it's must me. It's in a different arena. But I think this is where the landscape is heading. So I feel like God is just, could be a little bit ahead of the curve and I get to see my kids more. Doug Truax: There you go. It's a win all the way around. Right. Yeah. Perfect. Perfect. Well, Hey, thanks for coming on. I'd love to have you back on some other time. Emerald Robinson: Absolutely. Doug Truax: All right. Thanks, Emerald. 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 subscribed 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 John Lott Jr., founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. (CHE GENERATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. Your weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and CEO of Restoration PAC. Today. We're blessed to have a first-time guest on John Lott Jr. Best known for his book. More guns, less crime. He's the guy that's used hard data over the years to really knock down liberal narratives. And he's still doing it because the liberals like Joe Biden are still attacking guns. So it's really great to have John to talk about this and this in this time that we're in. me to the show, John! John Lott Jr.: Thanks for having me on. Doug Truax: So you've got this incredible background on the gun issue, and this is just one of those narratives that, you know, in as conservatives it's, it becomes our opinion at this point, it's almost fact that the liberals take facts and just throw them out the window in support of their narratives. And it feels like the gun issue was the first one that went down this path. Is that kinda how you see it or what's, what's your history on, on how you view their take on guns? John Lott Jr.: Well, I mean, for decades, if you look at surveys, the one issue that's most divided liberals and conservatives has, has been gun control. I think if anything, that's just become exasperated. Even further recently, there were polls that came out at the end of last year that showed that while support for gun control was falling overall. And following among, I mean, it was already low for Republicans, but falling among independents, it was actually still rising for Democrats. You'd have something like 94% of Democrats want to have stricter gun control. And also he would notice just how extreme a lot of the claims were go. So you'd have 40% of Democrats would support a complete ban on the private ownership of handguns. Obviously it'd be talking about something around 80% or so that would support a ban on so-called assault weapons. Of course, Biden would include any type of semi-automatic gun as an assault semi automatic gun as a weapon. And some of his recent statements and 85% of handguns sold in the United States are semi-automatic guns. So, you know, it's, you look at something like surveys on, on gun registry. You have like a two to one support among Democrats for a national gun registry, two to one opposition to it among Republicans. But what's interesting is, is that the Republicans oppose the national registry because they think it would lead to eventual confiscation of all guns and by similar percentages, the reason why the Democrats supported national registry is because they believe it will eventually lead to confiscation of all guns. So, you know, it's, you know, the question is to some extent, why is there such a dichotomy there? I think there are a couple of reasons for it, but the most basic one is just who do you trust to make decisions? So I suppose kind of the analogy I could make is two views on healthcare. When that is, you know, Democrats don't trust individuals to go and determine what's going to be covered by their health care. You know, with Obamacare, the only decisions you had was the size of the deductible that you were allowed. Basically Republicans support a much broader array of choices for individuals to make. And, and the point is is that if you don't even believe people can properly choose what health insurance that they're going to get, are you going to rust them with web? And I think that's kind of the ultimate decision on whether you trust individuals to make decisions or not. Doug Truax: I was wondering too about all these labels they put on there, what's up with this ghost gun thing that Biden was talking about. I mean like this for most people, like, is this some new category that we've got to deal with now? John Lott Jr.: Well, I mean, ghost guns are privately built guns. People in north America have had privately built guns since before there was a country. The type of people who normally do that are kind of engineer types, who like to take around with different things with Biden left out in his discussion was that, you know, it's already, there are already many laws that deal with ghost guns. One of the laws is that if you make a gun and transferred or sell it to somebody else, it's a felony punishable by five years in prison. So, you know, the types of criminals that might have guns, and it's extremely rare, aren't the type who go and are building their own gun. They'd go and obtain it from somebody else. But, you know, I think there are a couple of points to make here. One is by once when he talks about violent crime, his entire focus is on guns. And you know, the problem is, is that over 92% of violent crime has absolutely nothing to do with, if you want to go and reduce gun violence, it's the same way you reduce this huge percentage of violent crime, which has been increasing. And that as you make it riskier for criminals to go on committed crimes, you increase arrest rates, conviction, rates, prison, sentence, legs, and that's not been the approach that Biden has taken. Doug Truax: And so now you've got this spilling out into the swanky neighborhoods. You know what, what's the, what's your take on what's going on in, in those situations? John Lott Jr.: Well, we just look through some numbers for Los Angeles county where over 37 months from January, 2019 to January, 2022, we looked at where the crimes were occurring by zip code in Los Angeles county. We linked it with the census data to get information on like immediate housing prices and the different zip codes or racial breakdowns or income. And it's really startling to see how the share of crimes has changed over just those 37 months. You see big increases in crime and in areas where you have high housing prices, like over $2 million for the median price. At the same time, the sheriff primes biomed crimes in four areas has, has fallen, you know, and property crimes like car theft and shoplifting has increased dramatically in the predominantly white, heavily heavy high-income areas have fallen. And the other, I think part of what's going on is you've had big changes in how California and Los Angeles approach CRI they made it so that it's not as risky for criminals to go and commit crime. And that I think explains why violent crime has been going up, but my own guests and more work needs to be done on this is that that drop and risk as pretty much occurred all over the place. But it used to be a lot riskier for criminals to go and commit crime in, you know, high income wealthy areas. And, and, and if it falls dramatically, it's fallen dramatically, even more in, in these, in those areas where it was particularly risky. So now criminals are, are moving out of the areas, which are kind of their home turf and to other areas. Doug Truax: So let's go back to this other issue too. So if this is such a issue for them, that this crime is going up and they're coming, why would they come out against guns even more now with crime, such an issue? It just seems so counterintuitive. We've got an election coming up, or maybe it's just a dumb thing that they're doing, but what's your take on why the Democrats would go down that path to, John Lott Jr.: Well, I think they, they don't want to blame their policies. So they have to blame some guns, an easy scapegoat, or they think it is. But you know, the irony is at the same time, they've made it very difficult for law enforcement to go and do its job. They want to make it difficult for private citizens to be able to go and protect themselves. And I think, you know, people, the reason why people have been buying a lot more guns. So for the last couple of years is because they've seen violent crime go up, they've seen violent crime go up in their neighborhoods and they are worried that people aren't acting to protect. And so they've realized that ultimately protecting themselves and their family depends on their own app. And so look, the types of rules that Biden wants to put forward, really aren't going to do anything to help solve crime, take something like the so-called ghost guns privately made gun regulations that he wants to have. He wants to have serial numbers on essentially all the different parts of, you know, before it was the firing mechanism and the mechanism that took a magazine that had to have serial numbers on them. But now, basically everything you could break a gun down into is going to have a serial number on it. And I think that's partly the point. They want to have the zero tolerance policy for any paperwork, mistakes, no matter how trivial, you know, they'll look at your paperwork over the last 15 years, whatever. And if they find something they're going to click out of business, just one mistake. Well, you know, having to keep track of what are all the different serial numbers for all the different parts of a gun. If you move a barrel from one gun to another, you're going to have to redo all the paperwork. They just want to try to make it more difficult for them to be in business. Just be one more mistake that might be possible for them to make, but serial numbers on crimes don't really work. I mean, maybe in the TV cop shows who something that does, but in the real world, you know, in theory, if a criminal leaves a gun at a crime scene and it has a serial number on it, and the criminal obtained the gun legally through some, you know, licensed dealer, then you could go and trace it back to the criminal and find out who committed the crime. There's big problems with that. One crime guns are very rarely left. The few times that crime guns have been left at the scene, the criminal is usually killed or seriously wounded. So you got them anyway. And the couple of times where they're not killed or seriously wounded the gun, isn't traceable back to the person who committed the crime because they didn't legally buy the gun through a licensed dealer. They got it through some black market or they got it from a drug dealer someplace. And so, you know, the reason why you see it on like TV shows like law and order and what have you. And then they usually bring in things like gun registry, which is even a step further is, you know, they got a half hour to solve crime. And so they go and bring it in and just say, well, you know, this solves a crime, but you look at even registration and licensing. There are plenty of places in the United States or a number of many way that have had registration licensing. And yet time after time, therefore could admit that they can't identify a single crime that they been able to solve. As a result of registration licensing, Y said, registration licensing since 1960, it's an island state. You would think it would be an ideal place to be able to go and use that type of system. But yet they can't point to cases that they've been able to solve. So, Doug Truax: And just the, the government overreach all the time. And to your point, they're going to try to find any reason they possibly can to get you to do whatever they want you to do. So last question for you in this, in this day and age, where we have so much government intrusion, what's your, what's your best advice you can give to, you know, patriotic Americans out there who want to protect their second amendment rights? What would you tell? John Lott Jr.: Well, I think they need to be well-informed about the issue so that they can go and push back on a lot of the claims because the media is constantly giving this information on this type of stuff. Not only in terms of what they cover. So, you know, for example, my guess is very few people hear about mass public shootings that are stopped from people that are legally have guns with, you know, the, the media rarely covers defensive gun uses just in general. We went through media coverage last year on it, and you may find the top five newspapers in the United States may cover thousands, literally thousands, many thousands of gun crimes. At the same time, the top five largest newspapers have carried a total of 10 defensive gun uses combined between the five papers. You know, I don't blame people who may think that they're, well-informed watch CNN and MSNBC and ABC, NBC, CBS, and read, you know, major newspapers who come away with the view that, well, you know, there are lots of gun crimes, you know, essentially zero defensive gun uses, you know, what's the harm for getting rid of guns. Let's just go and ban, you know, a few people would know that people use guns defensively about five times more frequent to stop crime. Then guns are used in the commission of crime. But you know, it's understandable to some extent if your editor, but a newspaper or something, and you have two stories that come across your desk, one case, a simple person, like a victim's been killed. And another case let's say a woman's brandished a gun. It wouldn't be a run runaway, no shots are fired, no dead body on the ground, no crime actually committed. You're the editor. Which one would you pick? Most people I would, I'm sure most people would pick the first story. Now we may hear about it from a newsworthiness standpoint, what's going to get people's attention. But if you care about it from a policy perspective, in terms of what's going to save the most lives, you know, you're going to care about both stories. And so, you know, that's just one out of many, many examples I can give you with regard to the media bias, but that's the reason why we have our website at crimeresearch.org, where we put together, you know, academic studies and other things so that people have an idea of the balance out there. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's a good, I would encourage all of our viewers to go check out that website, great book, great points you make on all this. And I think we all just need to, like you said, at the end here, just stay super informed on this and make sure we know where they're going with it so that we can do everything we can to, to prevent them from going that way, especially in this day and age. Well, John, thanks so much for coming on. Hope to have you back and really appreciate all that you've done over the years. John Lott Jr.: Thank you very much for sharing. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thanks so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media owner. Forget that by working together and staying diligently, 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 FIRSIGHT All caps. One word to, 3 0 1 6 1.

Doug talks to Jenny Beth Martin, leader and co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. (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 were blessed to have with us, one of the founders of the Tea Party movement in America, Jenny Beth Martin, her organization, Tea Party Patriots is still going strong as our citizens. Again, grow more restless with the way government and our liberal institutions are robbing our freedoms and stifling our lives. Well, welcome to the show, Jenny Beth, Jenny Beth Martin: Thank you so much for having me Doug Truax: Great to have you. You've got this great storied career and I just want to go back, you know, put these two timeframes together. So it's 2009, your form and your organization, the tea party has taken off. Everything's going. And now we have today where there's a lot of angst out there amongst conservatives in particular. So what are the comparisons that you're seeing right now to 2009 to today? Jenny Beth Martin: Well, I think that there is a lot of anger and frustration, so that emotion, that conservatives feel is very similar to what they felt in 2009 and 2010. I think that there is a little bit of a difference. Now, back in 2009, we were so frustrated and we didn't know what we could do. So we took to the streets and, and had signs and we're protesting. But I think that in the last 12 years or so, we've learned a lot more about how we can put pressure on government, how we have a lot of people who are running for office. Now we have parents and other citizens who are engaged at the school board level at their local county commissioner city council level. And then I've been working with thousands of people from around the country who are working on election integrity. Doug Truax: Yeah. There's a lot going on and speak to that for a minute in terms of how you feel about the overall trajectory of the conservative movement, because, you know, you've made that comment about, well, back in the day, everybody got really upset and a lot of people didn't even know what to do, right. And so we're in a different place now. So talk to your perspective on, you know, overall organization and not just the energy, cause we all know that's there, but how, how, how we're kind of operationalizing this to, Jenny Beth Martin: Well, I think the big thing now is that there's been a lot of training over the years on how to get out the vote, how to run for office, how to contact your local elected official and people are doing that kind of work. And the, and the new people who are coming in, of course, they're learning how to do those types of activities. And then I think one of the biggest things that's different this election cycle than what we've seen previously is an effort among the grassroots to do everything they can to ensure the integrity of elections. And it's, there's a lot of learning and educating that is going into that because it's something that conservatives up until now really have not been engaged in. And in fact, really the Republican party has not been engaged in it because of a consent decree, the entered back in 1981 and they didn't get out of that until the year 2018. And so there's a lot of institutional knowledge over the decades about election integrity that does not exist. And we're trying to build that infrastructure now. Doug Truax: Yeah, you really are. And you're doing a great job. And I think that that's a great point as far as where we've been historically, I know living outside of Chicago and you know, you go through an election and you're like, well, it seems like maybe there was some fraud and some cheating there, but you know, we'll get them next time or something like that. There wasn't ever this concerted effort to look back at it and say, okay, well, was there anything wrong at all? Because the goal here is zero fraud. Not just the little, you know, not whatever it's zero. And so you're right. We just, over the years we have just not been that engaged. And so now we're at a place I know you've seen the numbers that, you know, the conservatives out there, they're still furious about the last election and they don't want to, but they don't want to bring it up necessarily in play company because you know, you might get, you might, so somebody might try to cancel you. So, so talk to that right now in terms of where we are in that space with, you know, you're having these events. And so many people are showing up. I know we are doing things and voter reference foundation and you know, we don't have enough seats for the people, want to hear everything here, all this stuff and how to get involved. So just talk to that, that contrast between the energy and people want to do stuff, but there's also that fear of what people might say about you or try to cancel you. Jenny Beth Martin: Yeah, there is a lot of fear that you might be canceled or even worse. The department of Homeland security issued a bulletin saying that if American citizens talked about certain topics, including election integrity, they might wind up being labeled domestic terrorists. Of course I'm, I'm, I'm summarizing that bulletin, but that's kind of the impression that people people have. So there's a fear about can't the cancel culture and a fear truly just about the Biden administration and government overreach. What we really try to do is address known problems that have been very, very well-documented when we're doing training with people. And that way, if they want to go and talk about it in polite company, they're, they're sticking to very hard provable facts about what happened in the past. And then we're talking about ways that we can can correct correct problems or maybe correct is not even the right word, but prevent problems from even happening largely by being engaged and showing up at election board meetings and, and becoming pull workers in some states it's called election officials are judges of elections, inspectors of elections, the people who actually work the polls and the precincts. So we try to focus not just on the past, but also what can be done in the future. And we, we try from our organization's perspective, a lot of our social media may not even be talking about the problems from the past, but just letting people know if they want to come learn how they can help ensure fair, free and secure election. So we have training for them available and we don't, don't wind up getting involved in a lot of those details online for exactly what you're talking about, that, that concern that we will be canceled. And we won't be able to reach the audience that we've built on our social media platforms. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's a good idea is make it very factual going forward. It's like, Hey look, some people say this about the last election. Some people say that, but I just know going forward in my precinct individually, I'm going to be a poll watcher. I'm gonna make sure everything goes exactly as it's supposed to go and who can argue with that. Right. We all just want the thing to go well. And just the, and if everybody would be a hundred percent confident on the other side, because we're not in a very confident place nowadays. And I think what you're doing is going to get everybody to that more confident space. Jenny Beth Martin: Yeah. I think that that's right. And in my state of Georgia, I'm doing training all over the country, but I think that Georgia is especially has, is uniquely messed up because in 2018, the Democrats did not believe the outcome of the governor's race and the elections from 2018 and 2020. We have that, that problem where Republicans don't believe the outcome of the election. And now we're about to have elections again this year. And I've talked to people all around the state of Georgia, regardless of political party. We just want to know that we can trust the outcome of the election. Once we vote. None of us, no matter what party you are, no one wants to lose an election. That is no fun at all, but we can deal with that loss. If we know that the law was adhered to, and that legal votes were counted. So all legal votes were counted, but only illegal votes were counted. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's right. I think there's the operational side of this right around the election and how it's actually run and who's showing up. And then the other side of it too, and I know you're, you're, you've seen what we're working on to vote rev.com, where we're basically putting the voter file online and let everybody take a look and crowdsource who's on there and who shouldn't be on there. And things like that. Because the other side of this, I think is if people are intent on committing some kind of fraud, if there's a higher degree of possibility that they're going to get caught, whether it's, you know, a poll judge or whatever, whoever's looking at that, or later from what we're doing online, that somebody might see, Hey, wait a minute, you wrote in two different places or there's not, you know, there's not 30 people living at this place or all that stuff. Then they'll, there'll be a, there'll be a less likely to go commit the fraud. And that's what we're really after here. Jenny Beth Martin: Yeah. I think that that is exactly right. And I think also it may not even be that people are thinking that they maybe they don't even intend to commit fraud. But I think that having this kind of information, like what vote ref has online, it winds up ensuring that people go and make sure that their, their voter registration records are up to date. And if they move from one state to another, I think we're going to see that people are much, much more likely to wind up following through and making sure their voter registration record was canceled in their previous state. And maybe they would not have done that in the past, but with so much transparency online, you don't want to be the person who, who did not take care of that. And then people think that, that you were doing something wrong. Even if it, if it wasn't deliberate, it just was an oversight in the middle of a move. Doug Truax: Yeah. Right. And so back to the confidence theme. So we want everybody to be confident in the election and do all these things. And everybody, I think as citizens, we all need to be much more engaged in our election process just in general to make sure it's right. But then you have political confidence. And so to kind of segue here, you know, the polls are looking good in terms of, for our side and, and bad because of the direction of the country. Obviously everywhere you look, everything's falling apart. So, you know, in your, in your conversations with, with your folks and when you're making the rounds out there on the country, are you getting any kind of semblance of a fear of overconfidence on our side that we might not, might not pull this out? Like we, you know, we think we should at this point. Jenny Beth Martin: Yeah. I have seen some of that. I hear people who, who remember how things looked in February of 2020, and president Trump was coming out of impeachment. He was not removed from office. The economy was booming. So from economic indicators in February, it looked really good. And then we had the pandemic and, and everything just turned completely upside down. And so I think that, and then we've got the situation right now with Russia and Ukraine, in addition to the econ, the economic issues and inflation that we have going on. But I think that those kinds of situations like Russia and Ukraine, they create a known set that you can't really account for. So I know that there are people around the country who are concerned that perhaps we might be a little overconfident and others who understand, even if it looks excellent right now. And even if it looks really good in September, we as conservatives still have a lot of work to do to make sure that we get the vote out and that we are swaying hearts and minds. So people understand that what we want for the country benefits all Americans. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. So talking about going forward, benefiting all Americans. So there's two types of people watching this broadcast, the folks that are already involved, you know, some of you may have met and they're out there doing the thing and there's other folks that aren't involved yet, but they know something's wrong and they need to work to, you know, fix the what's ailing our country here. So, you know, obviously this is an opportunity for you to give a blatant plug for your organization as well. But so what do you, what would you say to them, Hey, what's the first step? How do you go out there and get involved and, and, and what's that path going forward when you really want to do something for the country? Jenny Beth Martin: Well, I think that if, when I talk to people, if they want to know how to get involved right away at tea party, Patriots action, we have different action items for people to take every single week. And so I encourage people to go to our website, click on the take action button and they can find this week's most current call to action. But then beyond that, we encourage people to sign up for our email list, get involved on our social media. And then look for when we're going to be doing training is especially in, in the key states that had so many issues in 2020 with elections, we're doing a lot of training in those states right now for election integrity. And then if we're not hitting any of, if we're not hitting your state, then we urge people to still sign up because we are going to be doing training that will apply everywhere. Even if it isn't tailored specifically to, to the states, we were targeting, which are Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Doug Truax: Well, for such a time as this Jenny Beth, I mean, you guys have done a lot of work over the years and here we are, we need that. We need those boots on the ground, making sure that everything is done appropriately and properly and so that we can give back to confidence in our system and get our country back through. So thanks for all you've done over the years. And thanks for coming on the show today. Jenny Beth Martin: Thank you so much for having me, dad. 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 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 Michael Betrus, researcher, and Brownstone Institute contributor. (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 have a chance to meet another COVID19 era hero. Michael Betrus, Michael is a writer and researcher of public policy. He cut through the media censorship to publish a book and several well-read summations of lockdowns, and whether they worked, he also graded the governors on lockdown policies. Michael, welcome to the show! Michael Betrus: Thank you. Doug Truax: All right. So let's hear a little bit about your background, definitely what you were doing before COVID hit, because that's a, that's an important part. We're getting all the COVID stuff for sure, but like to get a little snapshot of your background Michael Betrus: Years or so, and, and, and also had, you know, a day job and what kinda got me into this was recreationally, I was following the cruise ships. There were two cruise ships that were quarantined off of Japan and California. And I I'd actually, I've been on one cruise ship and it was the one that was quarantined off California. And so I followed that with a little bit of interest. And if you remember, it was kind of covered, like it was the Bronco chase when it was pouring into Oakland and, and then nothing really happened. So I thought that was odd. You know, Wuhan had lockdown and, and, and it was getting a lot of attention. And then about two weeks later, the Imperial college released their model that predicted in a do nothing scenario. Like the cruise ships. We would have over 2 million deaths in America by summer 2020. So I took the Imperial college model inputs and plugged them into the demographics of the cruise ships. We should've lost 155 people on those two cruise ships and we lost 10. So I thought, wow, this is incongruent, right? It you know, it feels like the model was kind of off the rails. And then, you know, days later we locked down and had 40 million people unemployed. And that's what prompted me to write my first book Lockdowns on Trial and have done a lot of analysis on this ever since, and then wrote the second book, The Science versus The Lockdowns. Doug Truax: Yeah. So that's a, I have a similar story too. I happen to be in Utah when this all started happening and the numbers were coming out like what you were saying. And then, so I, they were putting the numbers of people in hospitals, in Utah. And then I, the number looked, you know, it's not, it's, it's an important number, but it looked kind of small. So I looked up the population of the state and I did the math on that. And I'm like, whoa, this is we're going to be fine. We don't need to freak out about this. But to your point, everybody had math all over the place. And nobody was really, you know, at the helm here saying, this is right, and this is wrong. This is the math we're going to go with. And so as you look back on this now, and we progressed into that window of time where, you know, as a conservative, I would say, Hey, don't give the government any power more than they already have. Obviously, what were you thinking as you watch this kind of roll through different states and everybody's got their different attitudes and, and you're thinking, I think that these numbers are wrong in general. Michael Betrus: Right? Well, so it's, it's really how we see the numbers, right? I mean, the numbers were, they kind of are what they are. I think they're, I estimated based on some analysis that the inflation on this is probably 30% or so. So if we've had a million recorded COVID deaths, that number is closer to probably about 700,000 in terms of dying from that, that's, that's a large number, right? That's bigger than the flu. That is, you know, there's no question COVID-19 is a pandemic. What's interesting about this though, is the underlying condition age stratification, right? What we did was we apply these one size fits all mitigation, things, methods, closing schools, restaurants, et cetera, but COVID, it really wasn't an equal risk to everybody. It was highly age stratified. If you, if you took the vulnerable people, if you took basically everybody over 65 and the people that were even overweight, we really didn't have a pandemic. That's a mathematical term. It's 7.4%, I think, of additional excess stats. And so by applying these one size fits all mitigations, and I tell you like the school thing is the mountain that I'm dying on over the us. I just can't believe we kept in certain states, you know, kids out of school for 17 months Doug, 17 months. And so, so, you know, we have these, these different policies across all these different states. The, you know, th the CDC never did any randomized clinical trials, not on therapeutics, not on masks, not unreal, really not on anything, but we do have great data samplings from states that had different mitigation methods. And so I would challenge anybody to look at at case hospitalization or death charts for any of the states, and then be able to identify from those, which were the states that had the tightest lockdowns, where it's highly correlated even more than age is the obesity percentage in the states. And that's just, you know, it's not a message that the CDC has, or the media has really communicated out as is the high risk of obesity. If you're not, you know, you know, very old and, and even I learned through this, right, I'm not a healthcare expert. I've I I've analyzed this from a data perspective. I didn't realize how important having a healthy lifestyle is to stave off things like this, but I'm a pretty fit guy. And I climb mountains for hobby, but I tell you, I'll, I'll always be watching my health from now on. Doug Truax: Yeah. Right. It opened her eyes to that side of it. But to your point about the CDC, and I've said this before on a show is like, I used to think for years, well, you know, we're a big powerful country and we've got this thing called the center for disease control. And if there's a problem, there's some really smart people over there. I think they got like 30,000 employees or whatever else, but there's some smart people over there and they're going to figure it out. They're going to do all these tests. I'm going to tell us what to do, and it's going to be great. We won't have to deal with this, you know, in this crazy way, like, we've read historically with these pandemics, but you're so right. It was just this narrow it down to who's most vulnerable. And let's really talk about doing the right thing for them first and foremost. And then everybody else will get to later. And to your point, if we were to do it that way, we wouldn't even been talking about the kids at all. And that's the hard part for me too, is this kid thing. And so, you know, I guess what you're saying is like, it's on the people who impose these things to demonstrate this actually works. So back to the schools, then have you ever seen any proof at all or anything that, you know, that helped in any way to do that to our kids for all those years or all those months? Michael Betrus: So what's interesting is that the prior to COVID the CDC and the WHO had created pandemic playbooks, and so COVID-19 would really fall under a high level category, two out of category one through five. So kind of think of it like hurricanes. And the assumption that would be made is that kids would be the primary spreaders of COVID or a pandemic influenza, because if you're a parent, you know, that, you know, kids are the primary transmitters of the flu, that's just real. And so what happened through this as the playbooks that recommended in a category to that possibly closing schools for three to four weeks at the time that there was a community spread, you know, there, the peak, these things come in waves and communities and staying isolated. If you're sick, that's obvious, that's good. That's a good one, possibly wearing masks in public, if you are sick or symptomatic. And, but, you know, the WHO even came out and said, there's a mechanistic plausibility behind the face masks. And what that means is that it feels like it should work, which it kind of does, but there wasn't any data. There was no studies prior to COVID and there really is aren't any studies after COVID that validated that doing masks did anything. And so we locked down schools for a very long time. Then we rationed it off where they had to social distance David's wives done some excellent reporting on how flawed that model was and some of those calculations. And, and then about two months ago, I did a, a study with a couple other guys from rational ground on this. And so we looked at the 10 or 12 states that had mask mandates in schools. And then we compare that to the 10 or so states that didn't have any that actually banned mask mandates. And so you would think that if, if you're a fan, if you're batting mat, if you've got a mask mandate, the results should just simply be better. It should be somewhat obvious. And so what we found was in the states that had a mask mandates, they averaged at the time that we were at our peak in the U S this was the first week of January. We had 4.2 pediatric hospitalizations per 100,000 in the mask mandate states in the states collectively. And these are millions, the sample sizes in the millions. And then the, in the states that banned mass mandates, the average pediatric hospitalizations were 4.9. So when you consider that the pediatric hospitalization inflation is at least 50%, that's not my number, that's that's numbers from other studies and, and possibly even the CDC. And so you're really talking about a rounding error between the two, if mask mandates work, it should be demonstrable, right. I don't know what that number is. It should be twice as much, five times, 10 times, but when you're talking about it being, you know, less than 10% or something accounting for inflation, it, it, you know, it just, it really invalidates a lot of these policies. Doug Truax: Yeah, it's amazing. And I think, you know, you made the point in your article, we'll get to grading of the governors here in a second, but you made a point in that article that I thought was really great is that if you impose these lockdowns, it's on you, whoever impose these locked down to prove that this worked better for you than it would have not by, by not imposing them. And there's been none of that. And that's why I'm so thankful. There's I think, you know, you're on the tip of the spear on this thing, but this whole piece of going into the data and looking at what actually happened, and putting aside the media hype on this, it's going to be a whole, there's going to be a whole wave of this going forward. And, you know, you're, you're the one that really set this off and I really appreciate you doing it. And so we'll, let's talk about the governors and the states. And one thing I want to ask you, and this isn't so much data. And so I'm just going to ask your opinion on this a little bit. So what is it about these governors then that say, well, you know, we're going to do all these things, even though there's no data behind it. And these other ones that say that they don't, and then they also happen to break down quite largely between red state governors and blue state governors. And then, so my thought too, on that is, is this coming down now to some politicians just wants you to feel better about this mentally and other politicians want to actually solve the problem. And so you have these groups of these lockdown people that just went crazy with no numbers, and they're just doing it primarily to make their population, you know, it's like a virtue signal. I want you to see that I'm trying to make you feel better all the time. Do you feel better? And if you do, let's just keep the masks on or keep doing all this craziness. So that's just my conjecture at a high level. W what are your thoughts on, on how you see that playing out? And it's almost like the motivations behind what these people are doing or we're doing, Michael Betrus: You know, if I knew the answer to that. So, first off, I want to say, you could read both of my books and see most of my interviews and not know who my voted for. Right. I, I didn't to say political or freedom oriented analysis. I tried to provide a lot of data and let the readers or viewers really kind of make their, just, you know, make their minds up. But it's highly correlated that that Republican led states had far less restricted, you know, restrictions or rules than, than Democrat led states. That's, that's just what it is. And Republican led states certainly had more kids in the classroom than, than Democrat led states. And so, you know, why is that w election implications freedom, you know, from my perspective, is this, isn't a freedom argument. It's a data argument. It's so it's a balance of risk and consequence locking kids out of school, right? There's if, if there were health benefits to that, you, you can make that argument. And if there weren't consequences to keeping them out where, you know, the loss learning and social development and, you know, athletics and activities, et cetera, you know, if you could, if there weren't those trade-offs, you know, it's a simpler argument, but there are trade offs in everything, right? I mean, it's all our policies that we have. Everything is about the greater good. And so, so what I found was in, in analyzing these different states and in my, my article grading the governors, which was a book excerpt too, is again, you can't find correlations between tight restrictions and COVID outcomes. You just can't. In fact, when you look at the age stratification and Florida's large population, and there, there may the second oldest population after main, but Main's a very small isolated state, Florida, anything less than number one is sort of a win for Florida, right. In terms of leading and COVID deaths. And, and they were right at the national average, you know, for exceess deaths, they're hovering right around California. And so we see in some places, is that in these tight restricted places, let's take California. They, they, they were below the national average and deaths, but they're right at. And at the time that I wrote did this analysis last year, they were far above the national average and access that. So you're trading off things, right? You can lock down everybody, but if they die from something else, whether it's missed healthcare or depression or overdoses, then what have you really gained? And so the, what I term lockdown to us, you know, it's sort of a balance between, for every two COVID deaths, we really had a lock-down death. And so then you start really looking at the trade-offs the lockdown dust, the average age was about 48 and the average age for a COVID deaths was hovering close to 80. And so, so in terms of life years lost, the lockdowns would probably cause more harm than COVID did. That doesn't mean, you know, I lost a relative to COVID in a care facility in Detroit, in the first wave in April. And I kept my 90 year old mom under wraps in Detroit, you know, for really two years now, having her keep a low profile because I, I do respect what COVID could do. It's it's really, these one size fits all mitigations. And so in the grading, the governors, the governors that I first off nobody would have gotten an a, but we're on a curve, right. We grade a kids on a curve now. And so we're grading governors on a curve, on a curve. I thought that Kristie Noemm and DeSantis, you know, they stood up, they resisted the lockdowns as much as probably was politically and media wise feasible Wyoming and Nebraska did a pretty good job. They kept kids in school. I think Wyoming kept kids in school more than any state in the country. The states that I thought were so poor at this, when you look at California and New York and Illinois and Michigan, these are states that have the tightest lockdown measures, and they really didn't have better outcomes than their neighboring states or, or the national average. And so, you know, there's a point when you have to, like, there's a lot of forgiveness that we can have for what happened in March and April. Right. I get it right. I mean, let's say there were unknowns. I, I didn't see the unknowns because of the data I was studying, but let's go with that. By summer of 2020, it was just painfully obvious that kids should all be in class with normal protocols. That just was obvious. And we just resisted it at night. You know, I think one of the things we'll end up evolving into this discussion is talking about the media implications, but that's where I really think this came from. I think the media drove so much fear and so much endorsement for like a, COVID a zero COVID type of environment that the governors had free reign. It didn't nobody help any, nobody in the media really held the governors accountable for collateral damages. It was all about zero COVID, right. It was like a race to see, you know, let's, let's mask everybody up, but, you know, five and then at two, and then, you know, I mean, it got to be crazy. And so fortunately we're on our way out of it. Doug Truax: Yeah. It got to be ridiculous. And, and also too, when you talk about the governors, I am a conservative, so I have an opinion about this, but you know, the Democrats are owned by the teacher's unions. And so that just prolonged everything. And even in the face of the common sense of it all. Cause I live in Illinois and I, and I saw it happen all the time. Michael Betrus: Actually. Let's, let's talk about that for just a second. We'll talk about the teachers' unions. One thing that's really amazed me through this whole journey is for example, I'm not a climate change expert. I'm really not. I have some opinions, but I'm not an expert on that, but I've become an expert over data. And if I don't know that anybody will ever see articles or studies where 97% of scientists agree. And so with all the data from COVID out there in the open, I'm surprised this is the, the mountain that everyone's died on and how much they've overplayed their hands. And so you look at teacher's unions and, you know, specifically you look at, you know, the big ones are Chicago and Los Angeles where the, the, you know, the two that made so many headlines for so many, you know, wanting so many things in order to, to go back to class. I just wonder, do parents know, like I live in Dallas, that kids were going to school with normal protocols, you know, they weren't actually distanced, they weren't wearing masks. You know, you take Florida. I wonder, I bet you, most parents in those communities, didn't dig into this enough to say, well, wait, they're all the kids, they're doing athletics and they're not wearing masks. And they're, you know, they're not. So you know, all the, all that stuff is normal and in these other states and nothing's happening, I wonder maybe. So why would the teacher's union? I can't understand this. I mean, I get, it comes down to money, but I'm surprised that this is the card they played with so much public data available. Doug Truax: Yeah. I think that there's a high level of confidence on that side, on the Democrat side, that a lot of people are not going to watch alternative media too. Like the mainstream, the typical mainstream, well, I even try to use mainstream media anymore, but this, you know, I think there's still a lot of people out there moderates in particular too. They're like, well, if I, you know, I can check CNN and it'll be okay, I'll figure it out. But to your point, if they're not even talking about what the, you know, the great news coming out of Florida or Texas or whatever else, I keep people in the dark and I was good. I'll go ahead. You guys say something? Michael Betrus: No, I agree. And so one of the, one of the pieces I talked about how in the media chapter of, of the lockdowns science versus lockdowns about that, it was the greatest campaign, greatest advertising campaign in history, right? And so you can't really blame people. It wasn't just CNN, right? Nobody hardly watches CNN, but you know, it was, it was almost dark things, social media, it was on Facebook and Facebook would ban things that, that, that, you know, sort of were aligned with some of the thinking that I'm talking about are opening schools, things like that. And, and so in a way, I don't, I don't blame people for wearing masks today. I, I don't, I try to educate them. That's really my charter on this. And people were afraid to send their kids to school or they feel like, you know, their five-year-old should get, you know, three shots. I more feel sympathy for those people who for, for not either being blessed with critical thinking or just getting access, easy access without having to go through all the research I've done to get that data Doug Truax: That is so kind of you, they have not been blessed with critical thinking. That's a good one. I got to remember that. Yeah. I just, I just, it's crazy to watch. And I think that there's also, you know, just in my, you know, you talk about social media and by anecdotal interactions and things like that. I think there's definitely a spot in here for, you know, the constant virtue signaling around, well, if there's one person out of a hundred, that's concerned about this, then we'll address the other 99 of us have to do this thing, you know, and it's just gotten out of control. And I just think it's so much people just giving up so much of their freedom in exchange for people, you know, the opinion of other people about, well, do you think I'm a good person and stuff like that, we just got this. We're going to dial back the virtue signaling and just be more critical about our thinking and bad things that happen in the world. Just like what you said about the pandemic. It was never going to go to zero. It's a viral, it's a, it's a respiratory viral infection. It's not going to go to zero. You just have to deal with it. But instead, you know, I dunno, it's been crazy. I was going to ask you to, oh, go ahead. Yeah. Michael Betrus: So, you know, on the virtue signaling and the masks, you know, I did, I opened up the book with a chapter called the science BC before COVID. And then I went into the science AC after COVID and then facemask science, BC, and AC. And so the, the reason that facemasks haven't worked is the pore size in a cloth or a surgical mask are 300 to a thousand times larger than a viral particle. I would challenge anyone, anyone, you know, I'll I put my house on it, but I'd easily put a capital girl gift card on it to, to show that that that mask mandates and wearing masks has resulted in sustained suppression of the virus. There's not a place in the world that that's happened. You know, you look at what's even happened in Hong Kong and, and South Korea lately and Australia a little bit ago. I mean, there just, isn't a place that you can point to, to say, oh, that worked, that worked and we should do that. And so I wish that I, you know, really, I wish that more people knew that. So they'd feel comfortable forget the politics out of this It's more peace of mind. It's feeling safe just to go on or a restaurant or to, you know, your kid's school or a shopping mall. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. I've had a lot of the, you know, COVID doctors that I think are heroes on talking about therapeutics, you know, early on and the right drugs and things like that and how many lives they've saved. And it's just, it's, you know, they're depressing conversations in a way to your point. It's like, well, how many people died that didn't have to die because we were, we were doing things that didn't really make any difference. And we should have been looking over here, you know, back to what you said about the grading of the governors and all that. I mean, there's, there's things that worked and things that didn't, and the people that, you know, blocked down so hard that it's on them to say, well, what, where were you even getting this? You know? And if they can't come up with it, and that's the other thing I was going to ask you about too, is the data in general, you know, you made reference to, you know, people in the media, the media, and it's hard to figure out exactly what's going on. And if they would have known more, they would have, you know, acted differently. You know, what do you, what do you think about the suppression of data out there in the media or in the scientific establishment? I mean, you've got your hands on a lot of it, because that's what you do. You're a smart guy like that, you know where to go, what to do. W what did you look back on it? And, and even now the suppression of that data, you got any comment on that in terms of, you know, maybe it is too darn hard at this point for people to go out and just figure these things out. If they're not, if it's too hard to get. Michael Betrus: Yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean, you said that a lot of, a lot of suppression on this, so it's really like, how do you interpret the data? The data is all in front of us. It's just, how do you see it? I see it through a different lens, you know, about proportionate risk and balancing risk and consequence. Some people just see that through a different lens. You know, I thought it was a great comment, Jay, Bhattacharya made a, I think about a year ago or something, but, but he did, I think it was a round table with the Desantis and the other great Barrington declaration docs. And it got banned on YouTube. And I th I think he made a comment like, you know, I'd love to talk to the 24 year old intern that decided that what we were giving, you know, discussing was misinformation. And so it's a very surreal time that we've got so much suppression I've been blocked. I think only one of my interviews is of a block so far, but, you know, I try not to get too aggressive. I really, you know, again, my charter is to really educate people on this, but I tell you 84% or something of all the COVID news was negative, even when we had good times. And I documented this. And at the time that the EU was doing running around 55%, we were at 80, 84, 86%. And so again, you can't really blame people. Why we, the media chose to suppress so much that the tech companies, even, even today, I mean, I had, I had reviews of my first book blocked by Amazon for seven months. And I know this because I've gotten letters from readers from five different continents, you know, it's crazy. Like you get these people reaching out to you from all these different countries around the world that are thirsting for this information. And, and they would say, Hey, like Michael really liked your book a lot. And I just want you to know, I tried to do a review and here's the letter from Amazon, but they blocked it and said, if I try to resubmit it, you know, I, I might lose my account and this guy emailed me or emailed me and said, dude, I love your book. But like, I can't lose my amazon account. It's not, Doug Truax: It's terrible, isn't it? Yeah. It is a surreal time. And it's almost like, I don't know, going on a limb here, but it's almost like the big media executives who are also Democrats who might have an interest in getting mal ballots out in the mail and more people to watch their shows and get ad revenue are all kind of thinking the same thing over this window, period of time we've been, and it's just been, so it feels so corrupt, you know, and, and the lack of the free speech of what you're talking about, you know, here, here you are a guy you're just talking about the data and what you see in it. And it's like, no, no, we're not going to talk about that. That's misinformation, you know, it's like, oh, okay. And then, and that comment by Dr. Bhattacharya, I think is the right one. It's like, you know, yeah. What 24 year old intern is just making this stuff up now. And we gotta be real careful about this going forward. So last question then, so as, as we are going forward, what, what do you think? You know, we have our viewers and our listeners and they all want to, they're all thinking, oh, we got to avoid this next time. That's for sure. And so what do you think in terms of how do you keep things honest going forward? You know, tips when suddenly in the fall it's like, oh no, there's another variant. Everybody get in your, put your mask back on, you know, w what, what should, you know, our viewers in particular be looking for? Michael Betrus: You know, it's such a good question on where does the future go with us to forget COVID for just a second, but really in general. And so we've got trust in public health is fractured. I don't think anyone would really disagree with that at this point. I think even the CDC would concede that there's the public health trust is fractured. I think at this point, you know, we've got so many medical experts that have cried Wolf and jumped sharks through this process. And so on the CDC level, you know, we're going to need a leadership change. That seems pretty obvious. I'll a little bit of an admission or a big admission that some of the policies they endorsed towards just simply wrong, that they should have done a randomized control trials on therapeutics and face masks. You know, we, we, we, we did none of that. And, and so what I'd encourage everybody to do through this as, as again, it's like, I'm no expert right on climate change, but I'll probably do more research if this ever becomes a real active topic, because I I'll be more apt to want to gain my own knowledge. And so I think people should do some independent research look, you know, whether you're a conservative or a D or a liberal, I think it's worthy to fact check any complex thing with a couple of data points and perspectives from either side. And then you just need to think back, think broader. What really makes sense again, you can believe, oh my God, like we need to lock down schools and like our poor kids, and they're going to kill grandma, but you need to look back and say, okay, well, where is it happening? You know, a different policy happening somewhere else and what are those outcomes? And so, again, I think it comes down to critical thinking and, and what I've learned through this as a, there's a lot of people in power that, that some are really bright and, and some aren't, and maybe some that are, might have an agenda or something. So again, I think it's doing independent research as my recommendation for everybody going forward. Doug Truax: Yeah. Amen to that good old days, you got to go out there and figure it out on your own, and you can't rely on some media outlet to tell you what to do. So we're good. Well, Hey, Michael, really appreciate you coming on. Love the book, the science of lockdowns there, it's in the background to encourage all of our viewers to go out and get it. I know that we really appreciate all that you've done. And now that you're out there, I hope that a guy like you, next time we run into this, you get a lot more visibility right out of the gate so we can make sure we do the right thing. So appreciate, appreciate you coming on. Michael Betrus: Thank you. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting and serve the 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 firstright, 3 0 1 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word to 3 0 1 6 1.

Doug talks to Dr. Mary Bowden, courageous COVID era doctor. (Machine Generated) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. Your weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, president and founder of Restoration PAC Today we're blessed to have a first-time guest and one of our COVID heroes, Dr. Mary Bowden. Now during the pandemic, she was treating her patients with therapeutics and she wasn't listening to big tech, big pharma, big media, that the only thing you can do is the vaccines and no therapeutics. And for this, she got publicly shamed, but to her credit, she was very courageous and she stuck with it. So we're really happy to have her today. And we applaud her courage. Welcome to the show. Doctor we really want to go back to the beginning really when COVID hit and a lot was going on, you're seeing patients, you're doing your thing. You've got your therapeutics going. And then the medical establishment starts talking and doing maybe different things. So just take us back to that window of time and how that played out for you even give us the month so that we kind of know the context and what you were up against in that window of time. Dr. Mary Bowden: Right, So I say I'm an ear, nose and throat doctor. And I see a lot of people with respiratory tract infection. And I had patients coming to me who were sick at the beginning of the pandemic, and they wanted to get tested. And early on, you may remember it was very hard to get testing. And as an ENT, I was working with a slab called MicroGen DX. It was doing PCR testing for patients with chronic sinusitis. So it's a test that gives you information about bacterial infections in the sciences as a PCR test. And they came out with a saliva test for COVID. So I started using that on my patients and it was great cause I was able to get turnaround times and 24 to 48 hours is a contact free process. Patients can go to their car, spit in a cup and then leave the cup outside the office that there's no exposure risks. And so my practice kind of morphed into this COVID hub because I was able to provide testing when testing was hard to come by, then I had patients telling me, yeah, they would test positive and we'd say, okay, well go follow up with your primary care doctor. And as we all know, many primary care doctors either refuse to see patients, they shut their doors or they said, oh, you'll be fine. Just, you know, treat it like a cold. And if you get really bad, then go to the emergency room. Well, this was more than a cold and people were obviously getting pretty sick. So the first thing I tried to do, I purposely located my clinic in a strip mall because I wanted it to be easy in and out. I can't stand the whole parking garage thing when you go to the doctor. So I was able to provide breathing treatments and patients cars, and that started with that. And then I just started researching more and more things about what we could do to try to keep people from going to the hospital. And I basically sort of started adapted the FLC CC protocol and I've had a, you know, tweaked it a little bit with my own things and then also doing monoclonal antibodies. And so I became a testing center to a outpatient treatment center and most recently sort of the next best thing the hospital, because patients have become so worried about going to the hospital and either getting neglected or trapped or given medications they don't want to get. So I have been seeing patients who probably should be going to the hospital, but won't, and that's been very interesting because I've been able to help them much more than I would have previously thought possible by giving them basically high dose IV steroids, high dose, IV vitamin C in conjunction with, I don't know if I'm allowed to say it, if it will get banned, but that were, you know, other medications. So anyway, it's just been a gradual evolution that just sort of pivoted as needed in response to what's going on. And it's, it's, it's, it's been a whirlwind, but it's been very rewarding. Doug Truax: Yeah. Speaking of the whirlwind. So we're just grateful for doctors like you. So what was that like though, when it started to be like, Hey, you're not doing the protocol that we expect you to do. What was the media, the medical establishment, all those types of things. What, how did, how did that feel when all that started coming through? Dr. Mary Bowden: That's great. I, so I basically, I got into trouble because I sent an email just to my patients. So it was about 7,000 people on the email. And I was complaining about some things that I was seeing and that got me in the spot. It got me under the radar of Methodist hospital and Methodist started paying attention to what I was tweeting. And they didn't like the fact that I was tweeting against vaccine mandates and you know, talking about the potential benefits so that I word. And so they kind of went after me publicly. And you ow, prior to that, I was, I was known, you know, in a small group in Houston, but they put me sort of in the, in the, in the thrust me into the Publix spotlight and that, that was pretty bad. And since then, I've had no complaints against me to the medical board and, you know, I've gotten a lot of negative responses from the public, but you know, on the flip side, a lot of positive responses as well. Doug Truax: Yeah. How would you say that I'm always interested when people get attacked. I would just say that's balanced out in terms of the positives, people being appreciative, maybe even, you know, increased traffic to your, to your clinic, you know, how how's it, how's it played out over time in your mind at this point. Dr. Mary Bowden: Yeah. They go back and forth deciding, okay, is this how bad is this? You know, I'm very glad that I have helped people who needed help. And then on the flip side though, like it's had some personal problems, you have lost friends. And I mean, we all have, but I've, I've lost some friends that shocking to me. I had, I found out that one of my sons didn't get accepted to a high school. He wanted to because I was too controversial there's parties, I won't go to cause I just don't want to run into a lot of pushback or negative vibes at a party. So it's, it's, you know, it's a good, it's good, but there's also some bad. Doug Truax: Yeah, it's tiring. I get it. You know, it's like you get out there and you, you get out on the front edge of something and especially in your case where, you know, in your heart and your mind, you know, what's right. And you're going to do that for your patients. And then suddenly you get attacked for it. And, you know, people like you, we just really, really admire your courage. And I just wonder too, how many of your peers have you talked to that have told you privately that, you know, you're, you're, you're probably right. Or I wish I would have stood up more or anything like that. I'm always interested to hear if there's there's folks out there that are staying under the radar, because they're afraid to take some heat. Dr. Mary Bowden: Not that many. Doug Truax: I was hoping for more so. Yeah. No, I got it. Dr. Mary Bowden: Not totally hopeless, but not that many. Doug Truax: Yeah. Yeah. So, so in that regard, so like, it feels, so I'm just speaking to ordinary Americans, it feels like we went from, you can trust your doctor no matter what and hear, hear what they had to say, and they'll direct you to the right, right place too. There's protocols. Now there's the medical establishment. And you know, I like you talk to a lot of people that are now super distrustful of the whole thing. And so what, what do you, what advice do you give now to people, even if they aren't your patient, just to somebody you just met and they're saying things like this, what do you, what do you tell ordinary American citizens about the state of play and what they should do? Dr. Mary Bowden: Well, I, I would say first is you're looking for a primary care doctor. I would go to FLC cc's website and you'll find like-minded doctors. I think the direct primary care movement is to grow because of this and that that's physicians that don't contract with insurance companies or hospitals. They only work for their patients. So there, they can't be influenced by third parties. Now they're not all like-minded from what I can tell, but it's a good way to start. And yeah, I think there are going to be parallel tracks of healthcare. Now, you know, this is going to create two systems and, you know, if I had to get open-heart surgery, I, I don't think the COVID situation would be an issue, but it's for those every day sort of issues and the ongoing chronic care that I think you need to be particularly choosy about. And I think, you know, you'll, you'll, you'll find it if you do some research. Doug Truax: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that you're, you're dead on about where this is going. I was looking at your website and the way you're set up, like you said, you don't like the parking garages, so people just walk straight in and you take good care of them and do different things. And I think you said that you try to make sure when they walk out, they're feeling better and they got the medications and things like that. And then also the direct contracting piece in my, this is my political world in my entrepreneurial world, I do health insurance and we work with a lot of self-insured employers. And that direct contracting thing is a very big deal now. And because people are seeing what's happening, if you sign these massive contracts with these hospitals, you don't know exactly how this is going to play out, but if you can find the right places and you say to your 100 or so, or 150 employees, Hey, if you've got a problem go over here. And so what, talk to that a little bit, are you seeing more and more employers? I mean, as, as has your notoriety on some level helped you in that regard? I know I'm going to do everything I can to help in that way. Cause we do have Texas clients as well. So, but what's going on with that with you? Dr. Mary Bowden: Yeah. So I, I work with this company called Texas free market man medical management. I think this is, nah, it was Texas free market surgery, but then they've expanded and they basically send me patients who are all worked out to have some sort of ENT surgery, but because I can afford it, I, I can provide it for a more affordable price. They get sent to me and said, so that business is thriving. I don't, I haven't had any, from what I can tell, I haven't seen a dip in that and I love it because, you know, it's, it's easy. It's, you know, they've already been evaluated, worked up determined that they need surgery and they just come to me and then I get to do it. And you know, it's a win-win situation because I provide them with, you know, more efficient and more personable care than what they were receiving. It's more affordable for everyone. So I love that. Doug Truax: Yeah. And it's created the two systems, which basically comes down to affordability and quality of care. And if it gets easier for the patients to see all that, then it's definitely going to, it's going to speed it up. So last question, have you seen anybody that, how many patients have you seen that have come in that have basically gone to somebody else and they're not vaccinated and they have COVID and, and the people, you know, at the hospital and I'm just speaking from experience. I have a friend that went, it's not vaccinated, but he got COVID he's in the hospital. The doctor shows up in a basically is like, get them out of here. I don't want to see him. And so, you know, he ends up at a doctor in the suburbs of Chicago that takes care of him and basically says, yeah, you were about a couple of days from the pneumonia was getting so bad that you're probably gonna die. And, and, you know, he gets kicked out of the hospital because he's not vaccinated. So, you know, I, that was really eyeopening now. He's fine. It's all good. But I was just shocked that that's how this is breaking out too, on the, on vaccine status to Dr. Mary Bowden: Right. Unfortunately I don't have definite proof that this is happening, but I do hear it from patients. One thing that people should know is COVID kind of things start going badly around day seven or eight. So, and that you can intervene a day, seven and eight with high dose steroids, if needed. And that's what, how I've kept people out of the hospital. I've had people show up in my office with oxygen saturations in the eighties or low eighties. And you can, you can treat them as an outpatient with high dose. I think the high dose steroids really, and the breathing treatments really can save a lot of lives, but that day seven and eight is when things start to go badly. Doug Truax: Well, Hey, I just really appreciate all that you've been doing. I know it's been a tough road and we're, you know, folks like us are here for you and we'll do everything to, to promote what you're doing. And like I said, I looked at all your stuff online. It's a great clinic. I would encourage anybody in Houston that wants to go a different route to, to come and see you. And thank you for standing up and doing the right thing over this last window of time. Dr. Mary Bowden: Well, thanks so much for having me and letting me talk Doug Truax: Well, all right. That's our show for today. Thanks so much for tuning in and for supporting conservative media. Don't ever forget that by working together and staying diligent, we can serve as can bring our country back to true greatness until next time, 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 warning in your inbox, always free subscribed by texting First Right to 6 1 that's FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word 3 0 1 6 1.

Eighty bucks to fill up. Biden and Warnock did that.

Doug talks to Thomas Klingenstein, conservative scholar and board chairman of the Claremont Institute. (Machine Generated) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast, a weekly conservative news show brought to you by restoration pack. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration . Today. We're excited to have a first-time guest who is one of America's foremost conservative thinkers. Thomas Klingenstein is chairman of the board of the Claremont Institute. He's a writer, a public speaker and playwright. He's the architect of the idea that America is in the midst of a cold civil war and conservatives better understand the terrain they're standing on. Well, welcome to the show Thomas. So great to have you on. Tom Klingenstein: Well, it's very nice to be here. Doug Truax: So I want to dive right into this concept that I mentioned a second ago, about a you're so articulate on this, this cold civil war that you believe we're in, that, you know, a lot of Republicans may or may not realize it, but you do such a great job in your videos and your speech. So just share with our audience, that concept and, and where you think we are with it today. Tom Klingenstein: I think that there is, we recognize that there's a divide Republicans as well as anybody else. And I think most people would think about it or would assess it as a serious divide. But I think it's more fundamental than just a divide or a greater than normal divide. I think it's actually a war and what makes it a war is different differences in ends. We have two societies which have different understandings of justice and so have different ends. You know, maybe the most simple way I could illustrate this is to say, I'm in New York. If we are New York together, you want to go to Maine. I want to go to Florida. There's no basis of negotiation. Those are two different ends. If we both want to go to Florida. Well, we could agree on means when to leave and how fast and what the route is, et cetera, or to give now in a historical example, before the civil war, the south had decided that slavery was a good thing, that all men were equal, but black men in like all good things. They wanted slavery to expand in the north, the course wanted to contract. So you can't expand and contract at the same time. Those are differences in ends, which is why in the civil war, we had a choice we could fight, or we could part ways. There were no other choices. So this brings us to the present. What is the end of our enemy? And I might stop a second to point out that our enemy doesn't have a name or an agreed upon name. And it's very, very difficult to fight an enemy that doesn't have a name. Sometimes people speak of identitarian as in identity politics or multiculturalism, or, you know, anti-racism, but we don't have agreement and we need to have agreement my name, which I wish everyone would adopt, but I'm not sure they will is woke communism. Now, what is the goal of woke communism? It is what I would call outcome parody. That is all the identity groups equally represented in all aspects of American society. For example, blacks represent about 13% of, of America. Therefore, under the woke comm thinking they should have 13% of the prisoners and senators and chief executive officers and high test scores and home loans and everything else you can think of. And of course, this is not blacks, but women and other identity groups. Now, the problem with this, the fundamental problem is that this understanding of justice outcome parody cannot exist with American justice because American injustice allows individuals to pursue their own understanding of happiness. And that will inevitably lead to outcome differences between men and women, between Asians and blacks and whites, because subcultures are different. They may have different talents. They have different cultures and preferences and so forth. So those two things, outcome parody, social justice, we call it and American justice just don't fit because the only way to move from outcome inequality, American justice to outcome a quality is by force. Just one example of what it means to achieve outcome equality is defunding the police. Now that sort of was a crazy idea that seemed to come out of the blue, but it didn't because it's part of an effort to bring down the percentage of blacks in prison, decriminalizing, certain laws failing to enforce others early release of those, again are not arbitrary. They are efforts which we could have predicted and we've been focused on and they are policies designed in this case to achieve outcome parody, equal representation of blacks in prison. And one could point to examples, including taking down statues, rewriting history and all the rest of it that are all pointed in the direction of outcome quality. So your choice here is tyranny again, because that's the only way you can go from outcome equality or inequality to equality, tyranny, or a free society. And just end where I started, I don't think Republicans understand this. They don't understand the severity of the problem and therefore they can not act accordingly. Doug Truax: Yeah. And I think that's a huge point is just, if you, if you don't even know you've got a problem, then that's a problem. And we're going to get back to that in a second. I just wanted to ask you too, you talk a lot about systemic racism and this is the way this is being, I mean, you're talking about the inequality and our, this is the way this is being foisted upon us. So how do you, how do you tell, what do you tell Republicans, conservatives? How do, how do they deal with the systemic racism accusations? They get thrown around everywhere. Now in order to push this woke communist agenda forward, Tom Klingenstein: Or let me just back up and explain the importance of systemic racism. If the woke comms can convince us that we are systemically racist, then we will agree to change the system. That's why convincing us that we're systemically racist is so important as is by the way, convincing us that we're about to be run over by white supremacist. Now, what should the Republicans do? What the most important thing they can do is just speak out and rebut without qualifications, that we're not systemically racist, that the police are not racist. Then America was not built on racism and the desire to perpetuate slavery as the 1619 account. Hasn't. So a lot of it is speaking up because it is speaking up our national leader, speaking up, allows other people to speak up. One of the important jobs of an elected official, particularly high level officials is to voice the concerns of their constituents to give their constituent voice, to say what they believe, but are intimidated from saying. And of course the problem here is most Republicans except Trump and a big exception are reluctant to rebut the charges of racism because of course they will be called racist. And that's obviously debilitating the one, there are many good things about Trump. One of them was he didn't care whether you called him a racist, it wasn't by the way, I don't think, but he didn't care. And he didn't care what the media said. And there's almost no one else in the political landscape who doesn't care. They may recognize that the media is corrupt still. They care. And that was one of the great virtues of Trump. He didn't care in the least, he didn't negotiate with the media. He didn't, you know, change what he said because of the media. He was just unequivocal and he was unequivocal in many things. And that's a great virtue in war. He didn't apologize for past racism. He didn't apologize for America generally. And in this moment when America is being attacked, when you're in a war, you don't apologize. Doug Truax: That's right. And I think that amongst the many virtues of his, I think the top one that got him to the place where he is today with conservatives, is this concept of in this war, the person at the top better, know, it's a war and better not care about any other outcome other than victory, because if you don't, you're going to lose. And I think people saw that in him. And I think that that's a, that's a really great thing for us to always remember, especially as conservatives as we go forward. And I want to talk more about the, the Republican base and where they are, where they aren't. I did, you did mention one thing though, real quick, and that was this tearing down of statues and critical race theory and all of these things. It really, I can remember a decade ago, this stuff didn't exist. And you know, here we are, it just kind of, you know, in the, in the grand sweep of history, this came on really fast. And so I I'm in no way giving anybody an out, we got to realize this is a battle of war that we're in and we got to fight it. And we got to speak up like what you just said, there's an element though. It's just, everybody's still taking it in. So how did this happen so quickly in your opinion, where did this all come from? These woke communists and their tactics, and how did it get to where we are today? Tom Klingenstein: Well, it, it, it originated as most noxious ideas do in the academy and it's been growing for a long time. What allowed it, I think to escape ivory, color cupboard walls was George Floyd and the riots, right as, as is frequently said, you know, you can't let a crisis go to waste. And so this was a tremendous opportunity to promote the woke com agenda, but by the way, it also, and this is very important. It revealed the WokeCom agenda in a way that at least the public has not seen. So BLM, for example, had in its mission before it was airbrushed away that it wanted to destruct to destroy the American family. Well, most Americans hadn't heard of that. And that by the way, is an element of achieving outcome equality defunding the police taking down statues, taking down statues is part of an effort to reformulate, basically destroy our history and make it conform with where the woke comms want to go. So I would say the answer to your question is it was grounded in the academy, but allowed to escape in a big way by George Floyd and the subsequent riots. Doug Truax: Yeah. And there's an argument too about the Wolf corporations getting on board with corporations, getting on board with the woke concept after the financial crash. And then they just been growing that attitude going forward because it lets them distract from any failures or lets the big tech guys keep censoring and things like that. And so it's, it's yeah, it's spreading, it's going everywhere. People are taking advantage of it as best they can. And I think it does go back to what you're saying too. If conservatives or Republicans are not speaking out against it, then it just keeps advancing. You know, and again, we're back to the war. You know, if the other side has declared war on you and you're not even, you know, acknowledging that, then they will just keep advancing into your position until you do finally say that's as far as you could come and no further. Tom Klingenstein: And I think you implied earlier, the greatest virtue of Trump was the, he let us know we're in a war. And as I heard you say quite correctly, you can't win a war. If you don't know you're in one. Now Trump may not have been able to explain it as, as he might, but he was, he recognized that we're in a war, he understands in a war, you gotta win that compromise reaching across the aisle is usually a fool's game. You can reach across the aisle when you win. But Trump understood the moral imperative to win so that, you know, people say about Trump, that he was very divisive. That's not true. What Trump was. He re he exposed the divide. We said it was divisive. Or our press said he was defensive, but I think that's not the way to look at it. Doug Truax: That's right. That's right. Yeah. He exposed a lot. And that is the most important thing I think he exposed. And if, yeah, if you don't know you're in a war you're going to lose. There's no doubt about that. So, so back to Republicans fighting, you know, I, I get the sense at times, conservatives will, you know, kind of flare up and fight this battle over here, you know, do a good job at this. Or, but there I there's this growing sense that there's a lot of them missing the bigger picture of this. So, you know, speak to that for a minute. I mean, what's the timeframe on this. If, if we are to get to a place where enough of the people on our side realize, wow, this is more serious than we thought, how long is this gonna take? And where are we currently? You know, I even think about the Congress, we've got 211 Republicans in the house and 50 senators, you know, what percentage of them actually get this concept? You know, that's kind of a scary thought. I mean, those are the types of things I'm looking for you to talk to in your opinion on that. Tom Klingenstein: Yeah. And you may be looking, but I'm not sure how an answer on it, but it's the number one thing I'm trying to do. Everything I'm trying to do is trying to explain to the Republican party that we are in a war. And here's how you ought to think about it. If you, if you can't think about it, right, as you say, if you don't recognize you're in a war, that's, that's the end of the game. But even beyond that, you have to understand your enemy, what it's trying to do and how it is going about what it's trying to do. I think Congress, the titillate people who were running for Congress, many of them are serious. Trumpsters I talked to a lot of congressmen. In fact, I get so many calls that I've stopped talking to them, but I talked to them enough to know that there are a lot or many who really understand the severity of the problem. They may not be able to articulate it in quite the way I do the way I think they ought to, but like Trump, they appreciate the danger we're in. I don't see many senators who do, and I would also add, and, and in fact, you know, within the conservative movement, perhaps the most fundamental divide is between those who think it's a war and those who don't, as you know, on the chair of the board of the Claremont Institute, a conservative, California think tank, and we are strongly on the side. In fact, we're leading the effort to convince people that this is a war, right? And they ought to think about it in a particular way, but there is a large portion of the conservative movement who don't agree. And by and large, those were the people that became never Trumpers. And I understand that because Trump is a wartime president, he might not have, he might not have been. I think it's quite likely he wouldn't have been an effective president in peacetime. You know, the analogy I draw sometimes is general grant, you know, a drunk or loose morals, but in war time, he was the only one that was willing to fight fighting was absolutely essential. So he was a great wartime general, what you, whether he would have been a great peace time. General is another question. And Trump too one has direct ignites that despite the limitations of Trump, his personality and his character, he's a war time president and he's got the grit and he's got the courage that's required in a war. Doug Truax: Right? Absolutely. And the virtue of exposing that is, is highest. I think you've said that a you're, you're looking to support him until you can find somebody with his virtues and less of his vices, but to your point in a wartime situation, a lot of times those vices come along with the right people. And it's just the way it's going to be. If you're going to win, you know, I think a patent and all that, you know, I went to west point, so I had all that military history stuff and yeah, that is often the case. And those guys, when the war is over, they don't, they're not appreciated as much, you know, it's the, it's the Winston Churchill thing as well. So yeah, we'll see what happens. And I think it just, we got gotta, you know, the work you're doing to call attention to this is wonderful. And, and, you know, you get the feeling when you watch your videos and hear your speech, you remain hopeful, you talk about Lincoln's quote, you know, the, the, the, the defiance and, and fighting it out. But you know, the erosion of a culture or a country or a civilization is, is a painful thing, a painful thing to watch, you know, for our country as we're going through this. So talk a little bit about why you're still so hopeful about our future as am I. And so I think our audience always wants to hear, you know, we all know the bad stuff a lot at times, but how, how, how do we stay hopeful in the face of this? And, and what's the best approach going forward here? Tom Klingenstein: First I would say if I were betting on this, I don't think I would bet on the side of we can defeat this, but that doesn't mean I don't have hope. I have a significant amount of hope part of it is, and this may not be so reassuring to your audience, but it's still, I think we're saying is there is always hope who would have guessed that we would have got a Donald Trump, a man who was I've said is particularly suited to the moment. And that was an example again, of, you know, what can happen. I think that, you know, the American people are beginning to push back against CRT, against changing our history and names and all the other things. And you'll notice that even the Democrats understand that the coms got ahead of themselves, and there are certain things that they were promoting destruction of family, for example, or a revisionist history. That was a step too far for Americans and Americans at some point are willing to step up and push back. So it's, Trump's base, I think, and Trump's base enthusiasm, which is partly what gives me hope. I mean, if you watch some of Trump's rallies, you know, he's not a, not a professor. Sometimes they make you cringe, but yet they give you hope and you know, the people there are profoundly pro American. And that's another thing about Trump. There was never any doubt. He never apologized for America's past no guilt, right? America was unequivocally good. And in fact, I hope this doesn't aggress too much, but if you want to think about in the most simple terms, the debate in this country at the moment, it is between those who think America is good and want to preserve it. And those who think it's bad and want to destroy it. And Trump unequivocally thought it was good. If you listen to his press conference is, is COVID press conferences. He basically made two points over and over and over because Trump is a good marketer. He said, the news was fake and America is incredible. It's scientists, it's military it's people. And of course Trump himself, but he expressed this unreserved unmitigated support for America at a time when America's basic goodness with being attacked. So again, it's, I think the American people that's my hope, but they need leaders. What they don't have now with the exception of Trump is a leader who can help explain what's going on and giving them guidance. So that's it's leadership that we need. Doug Truax: Right. Right. And I think that, that, there's lots of reasons to be hopeful. It's still a great country. I think it's still centered. Right? The media has got ahold of a lot of people right now. I like what you've done with the woke communist piece. It feels like to me, it's patriotic Americans versus woke communists kind of at the top of the, at the apex of this, on each side. And then there's a lot that falls down below that. And to your point, you got to stay hopeful and you know, you don't know exactly how it's going to turn out obviously, but you do know the right thing to do is to fight for it. And, and that's what you're doing. That's what we're doing. And I think it's what a lot of patriotic Americans are continuing to do because it's worth the fight. And, and Thomas, I appreciate everything you're doing. I think you're dead on and, and we're gonna do everything we can to make sure people see it more like you and your group sees it because that's the way forward. And, and thanks for all you're doing. And thanks for coming on today. Tom Klingenstein: Well, thank you for all you're doing and having me on. I appreciate it. Doug Truax: All right. Well, we'll talk to you soon. Tom Klingenstein: Good. Thanks again. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thanks so much for tuning in and for supporting and serve the 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 news summary without liberal slant. Every morning in your inbox, always free subscribe, by texting FIRST RIGHT to 30161 thats FIRST RIGHT all caps, one word Firstright to 30161.

Doug talks to Dan O'Donnell, Wisconsin election expert and radiohost. (MACHINE GEENRATED) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. The weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today, we are blessed to have a return guests from the all-important state of Wisconsin. His name is Dan O'Donnell, host of a popular morning talk radio show on Milwaukee on WISN 1130. He also contributes commentary and investigative pieces to the free market MacGyver Institute, an organization that we're a big fan of Dan, his tune as anyone regarding the 2020 election and how it was conducted in Wisconsin. So welcome back, Dan! Dan O'Donnell: Always my pleasure. All right. Doug Truax: So in Wisconsin, there's always a lot going on reports and media reports and everything. Everybody's writing up about everything over there. And, but lately we've got this retired Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice, Michael Gablemen, with his report out. So give us your thoughts on that. I know you've written a lot about this stuff for the MacIvers we love all the things that you put out there by the way, but you're the expert here. Tell us what you're thinking about that report. Dan O'Donnell: Well, thank you. I, I would say Gablemen is probably the expert here. I've been following this for a long time though. And, and Gablemens report sort of ties together a lot of loose ends that I've been reporting on for going on two years now, almost since the election happened here in Wisconsin and the primary area of focus of Gablemens investigation was the influence of what we call here. Zuckerbucks, $10 million in funding that Mark Zuckerberg put into Wisconsin's elections from his center for tech and civic life. This was part of a $330 million grant that interestingly enough, Zuckerberg didn't use to try to support any candidate or political party, but he put it directly into America's election infrastructure. In other words, he was funding directly cities like Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, Green Bay and Madison here in Wisconsin, not coincidentally the five most heavily Democrat cities in the state and the five cities most critical for Democrats to win. If they want to have a prayer of winning Wisconsin, $8.8 million of the $10 million that went into Wisconsin, went into those five cities. And what Gablemen was able to demonstrate is that the clerks and the elections commissions in those cities were using that money as part of a massive get out the Democrat vote effort, get out the vote efforts are done by candidates. They're done by parties. They're done by political actors. They're not done by cities, just the act Gablemen said of those cities, taking money with the purpose of getting people to vote actually violates our state's election bribery statute. Doug Truax: Yeah. And so there you have it. They actually did that. And we're, we're finally calling them out in a report from a gay woman, super credible. I think even last time you were on the show, we were, we've all been talking about what's been happening. What had happened here with the Zuckerberg money and how appalled we all were with it. So finally some progress here and we're seeing what's going to happen, but you never know. You know, we had the situation that we're seeing county sheriff with the nursing homes and then the da takes a pass. So get us up to speed on that. Were you disappointed in how that played out? Which I don't mean to sound like I'm going to be cynical, but you know, I'm always hopeful that justice is going to be done, but in this case it sure looks like it, it wasn't done. So what's your take on that? Dan O'Donnell: Well, just to back up a second, the Racine county Sheriff's office investigated what it thought was massive fraud, excuse me, in a nursing home, in the town of Mount pleasant. And this happened because people whose parents were in that nursing home noticed, Hey, wait a second. My mom voted. She hasn't known who the president was since 1984. What this clearly showed was that people were from the nursing home voting either on behalf of the residents or essentially coercing them or in some way, influencing their vote. This happened dozens of times and the Racine county Sheriff's office said, all right, this is per se evidence of vote fraud. And the vote fraud was happening because our Wisconsin elections commission, the entity responsible for enforcing Wisconsin's elections laws simply didn't follow our election law here in Wisconsin. Voting in nursing homes can only happen through what are known as special voting deputies. There are two people who go into the nursing homes. One from the Republican party, one from the Democrat party, they're set by the city clerk's office and they help residents absentee vote. The reason for this is that no funny business can happen, right? If one special voting deputy is trying to cheat. The other special voting deputy will notice it well because of the pandemic. The Wisconsin elections commission said no special voting deputies are allowed in. That was in direct violation of state laws. State law says special voting deputies are the only ones who can conduct the vote. And in fact, nursing home staff members cannot. It's actually written in state law. If you work at a nursing home, you can't help with voting. Well, guess what happened? That was a violation of state law. The Racine Sheriff's department said, all right, because the elections commission, because these people in this nursing home to violate state law, the elections commissioners themselves, we're guilty of election fraud. Now of course the Racine county district attorney's office did not want to prosecute this and came up with, I'll be honest with you an excuse for this that I didn't buy that she lacked jurisdiction. Of course, our attorney General's office is controlled by a Democrat. Josh Kaul our attorney general. He declined to prosecute just a couple of days ago, Milwaukee county district attorney John Chisholm declined to prosecute, not surprising. We can't get Chisholm to prosecute murderers and carjackers let alone the Wisconsin elections commission. So yeah, it's definitely disappointing. And what the Gablemen report actually just uncovered was that this happened at more nursing homes than just the one that Racine Sheriff's department was investigating. In fact, this was likely happening in all five of the cities that got a lot of the Zuckerberg money. In fact, Gablemen alleged that in dozens of nursing homes that he looked at, there was 100% voter turnout by nursing home residents. I don't need to tell you that that immediately raises red flags. Doug Truax: Oh my gosh. And, and we look at this after the fact. And when we think about somebody taking advantage of our, our elders here, that the most of the people that should be protected in the name of winning an election. And then, you know, like what you just said, if you can't get people to prosecute, that's where elections have consequences and even worse than that is that people, you know, what it looks like they're cheating in elections. Those have even more consequences down the road. So hopefully we can get this back on track. And so getting back on track with, you know, getting back to the place where we need to be law and order, everybody trusts the system, there's all these reports floating around Gablemen and obviously is a big deal. What other reports out there in Wisconsin that people should be looking at that you think are the ones that kind of put the finger on what happened in that last round of elections? Dan O'Donnell: Well, our legislative audit bureau, which is a nonpartisan agency of the state, which was actually tasked with auditing the practices of the Wisconsin elections commission, as well as clerks in all of the 72 counties here in Wisconsin that was released last October. And it found multiple violations of state law, not the least of which was that our elections commission simply refused. It's legally required duty of cleaning up the state's voter rolls. There are hundreds of thousands of names that are still on the voter rolls that shouldn't be in addition policies were not followed with respect to what's known as curing a ballot. Remember absentee ballots were coming in by the tens of thousands to all of these cities, what the clerks were doing. If there was a mistake on the ballot envelope, the thing that the ballot obviously comes in supposed to feature the name of the voter, the signature, as well as the name and address and signature of a witness. Well, if something was missing, say the witness forgot to put his address down, state law says the ballot needs to be mailed back to the voter. And the voter is responsible for curing the ballot, fixing the mistakes, and then sending the ballot back into the clerk's office, the Wisconsin elections commission with no justification whatsoever from state law, back in 2016, started saying, oh, you, in the clerk's office, you can just cure the ballot yourself. You can kind of guess at what the ballot signature witnesses address might be. You can fill in the name yourself. You can fill in the voters, address yourself. In other words, you can make the ballot goods. So it can be counted even though under state law, it shouldn't have been counted. There were thousands of ballots that under state law should not have been counted in Wisconsin in 2020, but they were counted because again, the point was, do juice turnout as much as possible in these five Democrat cities. So as to give the likely candidate that those Democrats would be voting for Joe Biden, a leg up, in other words, what the cities were doing was working on Joe Biden's turnout efforts, not the Joe Biden campaign. Doug Truax: Yeah. How bout it, well, you know, Trump beats Clinton back in the day in Wisconsin, when nobody saw that coming and you better believe they're going to be coming to win Wisconsin, no matter what you throw in a pandemic. And then you got all kinds of opportunity for things to go wrong. And so I guess my big question for you, there's a lot, there's a lot to talk about here across Wisconsin, a lot of different things, but if they did still the election in 2020, in your opinion, what was the most likely way that they did it? Dan O'Donnell: The way I've heard it described by a political operative friend of mine was that the election was stolen fair and square. And what was happening was the Zuckerbucks were used in order to get turnout as much as possible. It wasn't one specific thing that costs Donald Trump, the election. It was the combination of all of it. Our Wisconsin elections commission ignored its own prior precedent, as well as the letter of state law by keeping Jill Stein or rather the green party. I forget how we something, the candidate of the green party in 2020 off the ballot, same thing with Kanye West, the rapper who remember ran something of a campaign for president in 2020, in 2016, Jill Stein was essentially blamed for costing Hillary Clinton. The state Jill Stein got about 20,000 votes. The green party therefore has about a 20,000 votes support base in Wisconsin. The green party allowed on the ballot. Joe Biden won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes. In addition, all of these ways in which votes that shouldn't have been counted were counted. Ballot curing voters in nursing homes. Maybe they were voting for themselves. Maybe they weren't, but nursing home staff members and heaven knows who else were assisting them in voting because the Wisconsin elections commission was simply ignoring state law. If the election was stolen, it was because the elections commission acting in concert with the center for tech and civic life. And all of the groups that were deployed to Wisconsin actually took over the election process in the city of green bay. We're actively working to get as much Democrat turnout as they could in a pandemic. And Republicans didn't have nearly that same turnout machine laws were broken in the way that the people who are responsible for administering elections simply ignored the law and substituted their best judgment, which amounted to a partisan Democrat advantage. Doug Truax: Yeah. And your, your point about their best judgment is tied to their best judgment of how they can get their candidate to win. And when you have situations where you have the will to power, which these guys obviously have, and you lack morals, you'll just go do anything. And I think our place now obviously is to go and investigate. Some people are needing to go to jail because otherwise, you know, next time around, everybody's just gonna be thinking, well, we got away with everything last time. Let's double down on that and do twice as much this time. If we don't, if we don't keep rounding this up. So what based on where we are now and what you've seen and all the things that are out, what, what, in your opinion still needs to be investigated more thoroughly? Where should this all go to keep, keep it, you know, on this path of like getting everything discovered going forward? Dan O'Donnell: Well, selfishly, since I was basically the one in Wisconsin who first noticed all of the unlawful voting going on in nursing homes, in fact, it was just a couple of days after the election that a woman contacted me and said, my mother voted, she did not know who the president was. I told her story on the air and told her to contact her local law enforcement agency. She did. That was the Racine county Sheriff's office. That's what started that investigation. I was focused very heavily on nursing home fraud, because I believe that is actual fraud. That is the theft of the franchise. And that is the systematic disenfranchisement of our most vulnerable citizens here in Wisconsin, in his testimony before the Wisconsin legislature last week, or a couple of weeks ago, Gable men said he wants to audit every single nursing home, every single vote there across the state. To me, that's what should be done to figure out exactly who was voting in these nursing homes in these group homes that shouldn't have been voting, who in other words, actually had ballots cast in their name or cast without them ever, actually, knowing that to me is the most pressing concern Doug Truax: Because once we get to the bottom of that, then to your point, it's, that's a pretty quick step to say, Hey, this is illegal. And this is it's, it's obvious that something terrible was done here. So let's, let's get to the bottom of it. So as this continues to get exposed, just give us your opinion on how the Republicans are handling this in Wisconsin. They do it enough. They aggressive enough. I mean, I certainly admire your courage and your aggressiveness, but what do you think about them as a party and what they're doing? Dan O'Donnell: Well, this is an issue that's really divided Republicans here in Wisconsin. And a lot of that I think is unwarranted. And it's being stoked by the local and national media. For example, the big focus of Gablemen's 135 page report, extensive investigation. When it dropped in the Wisconsin, media was appendix to the five pages at the very end of the report in which Gablemen doesn't make the case for, but says it would theoretically be possible for Wisconsin to decertify its electors and reclaim its 10 electoral votes. I happen to disagree with that legal analysis. I'm an attorney Gablemens an attorney. That's what we're paid to do. We're paid to disagree, right? It's what reasonable minds can disagree about that. But the focus was all on de-certification. There've been about a half dozen major articles in, I believe it's rolling Stone magazine, Politico, vice news, the Washington post all on Timothy Ramthun who is a Wisconsin assembly member. Who's done great work on the issue of election integrity, but who has said, no, we need to decertify Wisconsin's election. Now are lawyers for the Wisconsin legislature have said, that's not possible. Once the electoral college votes, the vote is done, the votes are already cast, okay, you can call back the electors. What does it do? Right? There's no legal or constitutional mechanism for doing so. The reason that Ramthun who launched his governorship bid on the strength of his, his call to decertify the election. The reason that the media is so focused on him and a recent poll showed ramp thin at 5%, the candidates who are running for governor are being ignored in favor of this so that they can all be discredited. The Republican party has done as much as I would hope. There was a whole package of election bills that were up for a vote just last week and the most recent legislative session. They're good bills that of course are going to go nowhere because our governor, Tony Evers will veto them. And it was unfortunate that Ramthun instead of voting on those bills was actually at CPAC receiving an award. So it calls into question the seriousness there about actually changing things here in Wisconsin that said our assembly speaker, Robin Voss has taken a lot of heat and a lot of it is deserved, but he actually just extended the contract of Gablemen through the end of April. So that Gablemen could continue his investigation. The unfortunate reality is, is that until we get a Republican governor and a Republican attorney general who actually care about faithfully enforcing the laws of this state, nothing really is going to happen. Republicans can pass as as many laws as they want, they're going to get vetoed. So that's what I think the focus for all Republicans here in this state is, and that's getting Tony Evers getting Josh called the attorney general out of office. Doug Truax: Yeah, for sure. And I think that there's a miss understanding amongst Republicans now. And it goes to this concept of being demonized. If you say anything about the election, I think that the Democrats have done a masterful slash nefarious job of tying the January 6th piece to anything that anybody says now about the election. Then you're all the same thing. And that's this point you made about them going to the decertification comment and all that stuff. But I think that, and I've seen this in polling where a lot like 60% of Republicans are totally convinced. There was a lot wrong with this last election, but then you have the, then you have the leaders they're unwilling to go there because they're afraid of, you know, they may have been a little squishy even before this, and now they're even squishier because they're afraid they're gonna, somebody's gonna say something bad about them when ironically the number one thing they could do for their supporters and their base is to dig into this and to work it. Dan O'Donnell: Yeah. In fact, the number one issue for Republicans in Wisconsin is election integrity. And until we have that, there's a widespread belief that we don't have anything that everything else is secondary to that I think January 6th really did change the calculus both here in Wisconsin and nationally, because remember there was a lot of appetite for continuing the investigation into the election. Once January 6th happened that all changed. Remember there was no more debate about certification or anything like that. The electoral count was quickly certified in the middle of the night after the capital had to be cleared. And after that, you talk about Democrats doing a masterful job, a couple of hundred yahoos getting into the Capitol and acting like riotous Democrats for a couple of hours was made to be presented to the public like the biggest coup attempt in American history that they were actually threatening to take over the government of the United States. It was ridiculous when it was first starting to formulate as a narrative on January 6th. And it's ridiculous. Now this was a riot sure. In the United States Capitol, but it wasn't an organized coup attempt. But because that message over the last year has been repeated over and over and over and over in the media. And because any attempt to point out election irregularities, as a result of January 6th, social media has felt empowered to actually ban people, including the president of the United States from their platform. What does that do to a Republican who relies on social media for fundraising, for getting his message out there for the lifeblood of politics and that's the ability to connect with the voter base, right? So there is a huge, huge incentive to just sort of stop talking about this. And a lot of Republicans have, well, we want to move forward to 2022 that sort of the narrative, but it really comes from a place of, I'll be honest with you. A little bit of fear of the consequences about talking about the widespread vote fraud in 2020. Look, this is nothing new. I mean, read a history book for goodness sakes. Democrats have been engaged in boat fraud schemes since before there was a Democrat party. Okay. Since the early 18 hundreds with the formation of the Tammany hall political machine in New York to the gubernatorial election in Illinois, which was rife with fraud, there were dozens of indictments in the early 1980s, right? This has been a common thing. And this is why it's so important to continue to fight for it, regardless of the consequences, because if you don't fight for vote fraud, you're not fighting for your voters. And the most basic fundamental right. We have is the right to speak and be heard and pick our leaders through free and fair elections. If we don't have that, we don't have anything. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's right. And that's where I get the most head nodding. When we go out and talk about this as people get that concept on, on our side, for sure. You know, they have elections in authoritarian countries, they just know who's going to win. And you know, if we get to that place, it's over. And so we can talk all the issues we want and we're all infuriated about inflation and the Southern border and all these things. But if the Democrats have figured out now how to cheat and then beat us down so that we don't back when they do cheat, then we're going to, we're not going to make a comeback. And so, so this is it. We gotta, we gotta stand this ground. And, and you know, I, I appreciate your courage. You know, you've mentioned Robin Voss and all he's doing, I mean, that's in Gablemen, it was good to see this come through and we just got to keep talking about it and there's going to be lost to talk about, and I'm sure we're going to have you back on cause you, you know, a lot about it and you won't and you won't stop talking about it. So yeah. So thanks for coming on today, Dan, and, and appreciate all you do and love to have you back at some point in the future. Dan O'Donnell: Well, thank you so much. I'd love to be back. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in and for supporting service 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 FIRSTRIGHT All caps. One word 2, 3 0 1 6 1.

Dougs talks to Mark Weaver, political expert and author. (Machine Generated) Doug Truax: Welcome to the First Right podcast. Your weekly conservative news show brought to you by Restoration PAC. I'm Doug Truax, founder, and president of Restoration PAC. Today. We're happy to once again, to have Mark Weaver on, a political consultant in Ohio who knows all about that state politics, and he's got great views on what's going on with the rest of the world. So we're super happy to have you back. Mark. Welcome. Mark Weaver: Thank you, Doug. Great to be here. Well good. Doug Truax: So before we get into the nationwide stuff, I just want to get your take on this Ohio Senate race. There's so much going on some big names, lots of people coming and going off of Fox and everything else. And so who better than you to give the rundown on what you think is going on in that race? Mark Weaver: Yeah, our Senator, Rob Portman said he was not running for reelection and we have many different candidates. Who've announced our former state party chair, Jane Timkin, J D Vance. Some people know him from the book. He wrote Hillbilly Elegy, Josh Mandel, our former state treasurer, Mike Gibbons. There've been several people in the race and it's really unclear. Who's going to win because the race is getting very close and president Trump has not yet endorsed. And that could be a key factor in this race. Doug Truax: So what do you think right now, as far as you can tell how you're handicapping this thing, how do you see a plan out? What's the timing on that? Mark Weaver: Well, our primary is supposed to be May 3rd, but we're having a little fight with the Supreme court and the legislature through the lines. And so, although the Senate race doesn't really matter what the lines cause the state is the state. It may change the primary election day. So whether it's May 3rd or later, it's going to be sometime in the spring. And it's really too early to say, who's going to win. Josh Mandel had been in the lead, but his numbers have been T eight down like Gibbons. Who's a businessman has been making up. Jane Timken. The former state party chair was recently endorsed by Rob Portman. And that has given her campaign some momentum. So it's one to watch. And obviously we want to win this primary with a strong candidate. The Democrats pretty much are coming up behind Tim Ryan, Democrat congressmen from the Youngstown area. Right,. Doug Truax: Right, right. I remember that guy from way back. I knew he was always angling at some point. So here's his chance and we'll see what happens there. But yeah, we definitely got to put up a strong candidate and what I think we've all been encouraged over the years to see Ohio trending more and more red, which is, which is great for everybody. So, so that's good. So turning to the national scene then, so here at Restoration PAC, we're always talking about the different issues. Obviously big ones around here and around the country, inflation, crime, you know, we've got the demonization of people based on their skin color. That's what we talked about a lot. There's a lot of other things going on the border. COVID still all that stuff. What do you think going forward now are going to be the big national issues that are going to be playing out? Mark Weaver: Well, I've done a lot of over the years and most times people aren't paying much attention politics. This year's going to be different. People have figured out in the last few years that bad government policy can get manually affect their everyday life. Though whether its mandates, where there shouldn't be mandates, shutdowns where there shouldn't be shut down or oh, government spending to the extreme, which creates inflation. People realize that when you elect the wrong people, you get bad policies. It's always been true, but it's more noticeable lately. As a result, we'll see a Republican red wave similar to what we saw in 2010. And if you're buying continues to make mistakes has been making, it might be the biggest wave in modern history. Doug Truax: Right? And we're seeing that with the inflation piece by itself too. I mean, there's so much going on, but inflation, it hasn't been a real problem like it is now for a long time. And so it's one of those things that just touches everybody all the time. It's hurting your friends, it's hurting your family. It steals your dignity in certain ways. Cause you were going to do this and now you're not. And you gotta admit that you're not. And just the instability it creates in our whole economy and the, and the impact it has on people. It's just, it's just an escapable. So we'll see where that plays out. And you know, what do you see in the future with the inflation piece? I, I don't see it. I don't see it moderating much at all. I mean, print trillions of dollars and just the, the pent up demand that was there and what an incredible blunder they've made here. Mark Weaver: Yeah. We all watched the video of his wife, President Biden Jr. And he acknowledged this errors in overspending and some supply that might've been the right direction to see some of the pooling, but he doubled down on the same kind of rock where we are he's demonized business, because it made them think that they be out there running their business prop businesses do, which allows them to create jobs and products and help us help us in America. Don't standardly, president Biden has doubled down on the sink kinds of policies. They gave us this information and I don't think anything short of an election is going to pay. Doug Truax: Right. Right. So that's where I am too. So I kind of know your answer a little bit to this next question. I just want to see if there's any outliers here. Is there anything they can do to salvage this in terms of where this is going? I mean, I don't want us to sound like overly optimistic, obviously about our chances. It's terrible that our chances are getting so great relative to the poor condition of the economy and everything else around the world. But from an election standpoint, that's the way this works out. But is there anything that, any advice that you'd give to the Democrats at this point, other than, you know, Hey, stop doing that piece with the inflation, for sure. Is there anything else that could salvage this in any way for them? Mark Weaver: Well, they are backpedaling away from whose policies they backpedaled. The markets might notice that, and that could think the markets and it could theme the inflation as well, but I don't think that's going to happen. The Democrat party is adaptive to it's far left. It's an anti corporate basis that anti middle class base, it's more interested in things like global than it is in investing in American domestic energy, like natural gas and fracking and oil brought from our own country or from North America. And so the more we see that done, the more we see attacks on the very people who could affect inflation and can inflect gas prices, the worst that's going to get, which is why I think only an election can solve the problem. Doug Truax: Right? The leftist took over all the policies from the universities. And let's just go ahead and just start rolling this stuff out and see what happens. And boy, are we ever seeing what happens? And this is, this is how it goes, like you said, it's going to happen an election. So the flip side of that though, is, you know, we want to make sure as conservatives and Republicans, we get this thing done and we don't want to blow it. So what, what advice would you give to our party that take, keep an eye on this. Don't overextend over here. You know, anything like that, that you have in mind at this point? Mark Weaver: Well, the best thing is you have to talk about what voters care about and what they care about mostly is economic issues. Our party must make the case for why Republican and conservative principles bring about better economics for everybody. So it brings about more jobs, more growth, lower taxes, lower inflation, lower gas prices. These are all Republican strong suits. Now, of course the culture wars are important, but that's not going to win this election. We need to win based on pocketbook issues. And along the way we can correct some of the far overreach that's affecting the culture. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's right. It's a good time to make some ground up on these things and show people what we're really about, because I think we really needed the country right now. That's for sure. So last question for you then. So as far as the Democrats go and their leadership over there, you know, to me, it looks like total disarray and chaos and not a lot of great people, you know, able to step up. And I think this is a function of, you know, the hyper leftist overtake of their party. But so anybody that you see on that side that could be a future leader for them that would, nobody's talking about right now. Mark Weaver: Well, sadly their most likely future leader is AOC. And I don't say that happily. She has millions of followers on social media. She, she has an attractive persona. She's particularly weak on policy. Logic is not something that's familiar to her, but for some voters that doesn't matter. And she speaks to a lot of younger voters. If she were to, for example, primary Chuck Schumer for Senate, it's entirely possible. She could win that primary. And it's entirely possible that AOC could be in the United States Senate. And from there, we all saw Barack Obama leap from being junior Senator of Illinois to, to president. So I'm not predicting that, but I'm saying she has a bit of the formula that Democrats need to pay attention. And for those of us who care about good governance, it's a scary thought. Doug Truax: Yeah, that's terrifying. But the upside right now, like we were just talking about is there is an outcome to all these policies that they've been advocating and we're feeling it as a country. And hopefully we get to a place where people just say, wow, AOC. She's just like the next version of that same stuff that we all hated for awhile. And we got rid of, so, you know, maybe we'll end up there. Who knows, but yeah,l we'll see what happens to keep an eye on that, but Mark really appreciate your insights. So it's super great to have you on, a super smart guy that we like here in front of, and appreciate you coming on the show today. Mark Weaver: Thank you, Doug. Doug Truax: All right. That's our show for today. Thanks so much for tuning in. We'll see you next time! 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.