to america ah, one year ago president joe biden told the american people this we can join forces, stopped shouting and lower the temperature. for our unity, there is no peace, only bitterness and fury, no progress, only exhausting outrage. no nation. only a state of chaos, however, guessed that unity does not include those who do not follow every order of the white house as this was the message sent on monday, by the, by the white house for the unvaccinated. your looking at a winter of severe illness and death for yourselves, your families and hospitals, you may soon overwhelm what happened to this theme of unity and peace,

no outrage or bitterness. i guess that is easy to say when you had the impression everyone is going to go along with your wishes in your agenda. but that is not how the structure of america was created. now, this country was actually built out of dissension with a ruling government and those who came to america did, which were willing to risk their life all for freedom. in fact, it is that those in history who have stood up against the mob who made the most difference even if it was not recognized until the next generation. now this brings us how rittenhouse, who was found not guilty, acquitted of all charges in the killing of 2 during the riots in kenosha wisconsin . during the summer of 2020. what kyle and his supporters claimed was soft to france. self defense has now been confirmed any court of law by a diverse, a jury of his peers. but if you would have listened to the anger and condemnation of the media over the last year, you would have thought kyle was a cold blooded murderer. a fact that white supremacy has run the halls of congress

freely and celebrate this little murderous white supremacists and the fact that he gets to walk the streets freely. and today we're be asked to say that it is legal. introspect the rule law because a white boy deputized himself and went out and terrorized people who were actually rec, you know, using their constitutional right to protest. and that heil rittenhouse, who for instance, when he was released pre trial, hung out with members of the proud boys. this is the ultimate entitlement. if you look at the rittenhouse case, he cross state lines. his mamma drove him across state lines dropped him off. so that he could help the cops or do whatever he thought he was doing. and the only person who fired shots that night was rittenhouse. i didn't do anything wrong. i defended myself. now bologna, there's a thing about both white vigilantes and white tiers, particularly gail white tiers. and it makes me angry that they can't take the time

to at least get the generic basic ax, correct. and because it didn't fit in the story that they wanted to tell, it makes me angry when they, the media, don't get the generic facts correct. because that is exactly that. anger is why the opposite of the crowd, how they reacted monday when cal rittenhouse is a, came out on stage at a concert, a conference in las vegas. now, following the fanfare, car was still very vague about whether or not he was going to pursue legal actions against the same people who are so quick to pass judgment. so let's discuss the 2 polarized approaches, and if legal action will actually be pursued and bring in line of why no media, thanks for joining me. a huge point out to people did die and can osha and i'm not really a big fan of making kyle out to be this rock star. like bon jovi, there should be consequences for his actions. i don't necessarily agree to fan fair and the light and the music and the smoke. he does it, i'm sorry,

actions. he still took 2 people lives and that does not deserve to be celebrated in any form. and that's sort of the, the impression that was given at the same time. do you think it matters what the judgment was to those in the media and how they felt about kyle, for the last 2 years or even now that we have the decision? well, 1st of all, it doesn't matter what cnn and m as dnc, think it, i don't care about that, but let me just echo what you're saying. as an absolute is when it comes to the 2nd amendment and a proud believer in the inherent and natural and god given an constitution right to defend oneself. i think what he did was correct. the fact is scotty. they're using him using him like a pond. they're dragging him out. everybody wants a documentary. there are no king him for everything he's worth and he's enjoying this, this, the celebration. and once they're done with him, once he doesn't serve their purpose. he is going to be cy. an hour and otto's may address this notion of his filing legal claims at this success. picketers always as

paralleled as being made to nick sandman, who sued up locally, see it and, and then the washington post. because if you think that, that rittenhouse is in any way the new in the pay day that we'd be leave sandman had you out of your mind, it's a completely different story, apples and oranges. so shannon was a young man who was standing there, who basically was accosted by people because he was joining his fellow or classmates as they were celebrating life or protesting abortion, or whatever was he wasn't bothering anybody. rittenhouse was a defendant, he's a he is a public figure and it's a different story completely. so let's just get that out of the way. but scotty, why is it? and i asked his rhetorically, and actually, why is it that we care? what joy, weed, or anybody says this is their script. they are shadow government,

radical left these, these anarchic neolithic merchandise, these handmaids who are handed the script. and if you notice, once they get a phrase going, they all repeat it. they have no, they are of no relevance beyond negligible de minimis. it doesn't matter what they think the point is, he was a credit. he wasn't not guilty of something. by the way. there still may be some civil liability that he might be enjoying. so she should keep his target, if that's a bad pun keepers, his limelight and his and his spotlight lower. well, it's interesting that you bring that up because here's where i agree. it's all about making money. and unfortunately we see on the republican side, they're really good about taking an issue and just putting it through the shreds and get as many pennies can out of it. and then they drop them and the person is gone. what just happened to my life? because very rarely does that money come back to them and not to point this out.

but glen back last week when when cow went on the urged him saying please pursue legal action. i'll even help. hey ford, as an attorney, if you are advising kyle on this, like you said it's a different situation. i don't think they some money necessarily from a judgement coming from this. but i think they also, i think it's more about they just, they want to make money off their own to their own base. how would you advise? well, the 1st thing it's, it's almost like an scott is like a knee jerk reaction. now whenever you are quitters, you, you then sue, it's this that the salmon printable. let me explain to the whole, almost having any toes. the republicans today, these conservatives of which i am not a member, by the way, at all, have this idea to put his dog and pony show. he starts with c pack and he started all these have bake lousy 2nd rate country music people. and as ye, hon wave the flag or ronald reagan, or are we great and to me, a trivializes and it basically reduces, i think, a very serious and important message to almost this is this comic a stage of up,

isn't it? great. now let me, let me ask you this. so the flag, the constitution america, and kyle written house, and we're supposed to clap. what exactly did he do? let me ask you something. you're a mother, you're a rational person. if your and, and i believe you, when i share a belief in the 2nd amendment as the constitution provide, if your son or daughter said, hey mom, would you drop me off? there is a riot going on 22, i'm going to bring my, you are my a are 15 is look at this man who shows up with the cap back was a young, friendly, friendly in this kind of like hyper militarize set. what would you think? would you say you go son, you go daughter and utilize your right and you go and render aid with your bag of medicine. and if anybody gives you a heart, it's insane. i'm not saying he was wrong to be there. i did

a lot of what he there was boy scout ash, but it's loaded chorus. you don't do this, you're asking for trouble. and let me ask you something also, what if he had been a not as good a shot on his b and some innocent bystander, some civilian journalist, somebody standing there gets and they are 15 round, some nato around through the neck. i mean, this is, this is not john wayne, this is serious business here. and i think i know that i have to wonder, you know, when they have it originally to kyle. there were very few conservatives that actually said this is wrong, that he's being put through the ringer. they did not go on the major networks defending him. nobody wanted to put the target that was on him at that time on their back. but now that he's received this quite a lot of law, i just think it's very just, it's very superficial dollars that make him out to be a hero. and i really think they should tread lightly. why no, thank you for always coming on and she's shedding your wisdom with our crowd. thank you so much for the pentagon has just said out in detail,

a new policy that is meant to stop the rise of extremism within the ranks. however, could issue policy actually were strict the freedom of the men and women who are actually tasked with protecting it while discuss, let's bring an investigative journalist, been one, been of all the issues in the world. everything we're doing, we're becoming a politically correct military, which i'm sure makes all of our enemies gives them a good giggle. but now you're dealing with this new thing where they're going to go after extremist. talk me about this policy because i know you've read it. it is, it's kind of an insane policy, i guess, you know, spoiler alert. you know? i was gonna say that, right? so here's the policy, right in the past, depending on is already and the deities already had a policy about active military in their ranks participating in what they call extremist behaviors. right. and that includes working with extremists, organizations, planning events that are considered extremist or fundraising on behalf of those organizations. well, now they've updated the standard and now the standard is simply on social media,

liking something that is considered to be extremist right now the word extreme, this is already a huge problem because who defines extremism who to find exactly what that is? it's a very vague term. however, even if you're scrolling through facebook and you like a mean or you like a picture that is posted by a group that's now considered extremist, you have now participated in extreme affinity and you can face it disciplinary action. according to the pentagon, in the d o d, it is completely in say, well, and you have to look at the majority of the military. i think this is overwhelming, is conservative slash republican. they voted time and time again in elections for republic. and so the majority of them are this way, so they go in like a republican website or conservative website, they're facing some sort of punishment. but here's where that i think the blurry line is, did the military, this policy actually define specific extreme is what that means to them, or they leading up to the social media platforms to make that definition and

trusting facebook and twitter for that. c definition, right, so they are trusting, they are trusting social media companies that are labeling things extreme is right, which is across the board, right. so it's not just conservatives under republicans. if you're libertarian, if you're an anarcho capitalist, for instance, that would be considered to be an extremist, because you believe in, don't know, sovereign money and something called bitcoin. and so now you're considered an extremist. here's the other thing about it, is that the pentagon and the d o d r actually advocating responsibility to investigated themselves. they say we're not even going to lay out a list of organizations that you're not allowed to be a part of because that will change. instead, what they're doing is they're simply relying on essentially a snitch system where they want the members of the military to watch for each other . and then report if you see that someone's doing something that you think is extremist. here's another example. they say there's been a rise in cases of extremist behavior and crimes by members of the military over the last year. so i looked at the numbers. what was this incredible rise?

$2424.00 members of the military and veterans they say were involved in extremist crimes over the last year. ok, great. what about this pentagon and deep 22 veterans every single day in this country commit suicide. where the policies that are changing that were the policies that are focusing on that issue. there is what 19000000 veterans in this country right now. 19000000 and you have 24 cases. and you're going to revamp the entire policy of the pentagon in the, at the institute of snitching system so that they can monitor each other on social media. but you're going to keep it all very vague so that you can punish essentially political enemies. that's really what this comes down to talk about sabotaging yourself. because been in situations when they're actually in a place of war or attention, they've got to trust their brother or sister to have their back. but yet that same brother is the one and possibly turned them in for liking a page like in the show, anything that they're gonna terminate streaming, right? that right there is how you defeat,

what was the greatest super power in the world military wise hope we don't do anything to get involved. i'm not to worry about how this is going to hurt future recruitment. like i said, republicans conservative they're, they're usually the 1st ones to enlist in the military. this would probably keep people from doing and to started. if they know their rights are going to be limited . i think i think it does, and i think there's something else to play here. there is a, an active purge going on of our military right now. and the purges to remove anyone who is a freethinker. let's not everyone who likes. so, you know, republican mean is a freethinker, but it's what they're looking for is anyone who does not follow their exact order. so that's why they have the vaccine mandates that have been put into place. that's why they're instituting these policies and extremism because they say there were 55 veterans who were at the capitol on january 6th. and so we need to know who the extremists are in our ranks. they're not looking to root out extremism. they're, they're looking to root out anyone who thinks for themselves or has a different belief in the administration, because they want

a complete top down control over the minds and hearts of those members of the military. and when you politicize in the military to your point, you completely lose its ability to be a successful fighting force. we do not select members of the military based on how obedient they are to a political ideology. we should be choosing them based on how much they believe in and love their country and work to defend their country. and by the way, i truly believe we should allow members of the military to speak more and to criticize leadership. and maybe we wouldn't be in so many foreign interventions that we shouldn't be an embalming countries around the world. if we allow members of the military to speak up rather than keeping tape over their mouths, every time a terrible policy is instituted, which they're the ones in the front line who are actually watching their colleagues are the ones are having to stay for the most their families are then like, always, always great that you're on top of the story. i'm cheryl continued to follow. scottie, thanks will be right back. as our quick break with

a technology is a very big industry and there's a lot of opportunities for hackers live in that it's not him, but he didn't bring the law in that country you're dealing with why rest him that the major cybersecurity challenge is the sovereignty of laws that cyberspace has no borders, new sovereignty we ended up with, for example, the national health service in the u. k. the and a chest was completely wiped out from a ransomware attack. if you are coming in to

a clinic, because you had a test or you had an operation, they can't find your records. they had to go back to pen and paper. look forward to talking to you all. that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. and the point obviously is to great trust, rather than fear i would like to take on various jobs with artificial intelligence, real summoning with a robot must protect its own existence with

oh, should we describe our time? what is the zeitgeist, as they say, do we have a sense of direction and purpose? we also hear a lot about the desire to return to normal. what does that mean? are we actually living in the new normal? ah, okay, so let's what after math, because they consider racist and a symbol of white supremacy. and schools are now debating whether mash we taught the way it has been taught. now renowned university ditching a require a requisite for admissions, and students still longer will need to submit their s a t or a c t score to get into harvard. many other universities are already talking about following suit. is this the best idea? yeah, to increase student count and universities or a glimpse of the future of a dumbed down america for that we ran handy langer the president at the institute for you. thanks for joining me, andrew. on this. always going to be on when you scottie. ok. you've gone to the

college process, you have one in college, now you're going through with a senior. first of all, you went through a multiple levels of education. no, a c t score, no s a t score. is this a positive move for american universities to make? i don't think it is, i mean part it's part and parcel of this effort to get rid of the concept of meritocracy. and the, the objective meritocracy in america. this idea that you can actually have some way of looking at folks and empirically comparing folks one to the other. but there's been a movement over the course of the last 15 years to make it once again more subjective . and i think students are not going to be very well served by this and long term. ok, so to get into harvard, you need a 2 out of 1600 score there to g. i know you beyond that, but most people don't. but you also have to show other documentation proving you are worthy of studying and such a prestigious university. so what are they going to base their selection on? if the score is no longer needed anymore, i mean, we all know the gpa have different ways and different scales. how do people get

into schools like harvard? well, that's exactly it. in the interest of disclosure, i did not get into harvard when i applied back in the late and i did apply, but i did apply. yeah, yes, i guess i did apply, but the reality is right, this is, this is the real problem here, right? this is, you know, we, we've been moving, we were moving as a society in order to combat historical inequities in our society. we tried to move towards a way of objectively measuring and being able to objectively compare one student to the other. now we're moving away from that. here's, here's what we know. this is one of the great problems and especially looking if someone who is applying to colleges my, my one child is this year, it essentially becomes a gamble. i'm going to use the phrase a crapshoot on because there is no way for a student who might be applying to one of these schools to really figure out if they have a shot at getting in. and that does a real disservice to those students as well. because it big, it comes down to these intangibles. now universities have been doing this and university emissions of been doing this for a very long time. now this idea of trying to find

a way to get the most diverse and they can mean diverse by any kind of a definition, the most diverse entering freshman class that they can. but it comes down to intangibles how they feel that they can fit in. most of these universities will tell you that they can probably populate their freshman classes with everybody who has 1600 on the rest is and a 4.0 or greater grade point. average of all student body presidents are quarterbacks for their football teams or whomever. but they look at these other issues, these, these things, it, what it does do is it means that it comes down to the essays, the other experiences that a student has. but if you are a student who is a hard worker and is focused on your work and probably would do very well, one of these i be of the university settings. if you don't have that other intangible in there, you're going to be left in the cold and that would be a real shame. well, there's only 24 hours in a day, and i can tell you to fill those lots of things. mainly there are studies in high school,

so it's hard to actually create that diverse diversity on their resume. but you know, harvard is actually assuring that emissions based on test scores will actually resume in 2027. and they've, are, they're doing this because of cobit 19 limitations for students in the testing. i understand that i respect that to a certain extent, but do you really feel like they're actually trying to diversify one apparently the one night and they welcome minorities that usually don't benefit from test score missions and, and bad test taking kid doesn't matter. doesn't have a color, skin, or background people could just be bad at test taking. do you really feel like they're using these coded limitations as an excuse to really put what they want to do all along? i think it was. i think there's, there's certainly merit to that, right? we're getting down to this across the board in terms of public policy, in terms of outcomes and goals. that progressive left his head for a very long time. and they're using the pandemic as a pretext for implementing these things as part of the reason why we're seeing the implementation of the great reset across the board in terms of public policy build back better is certainly an example of that. so this is

a manifestation of this within the college admissions program, right? and certainly as a way of trying to inculcate the kinds of progressive values and outlooks that the progresses have been trying to do with the university level for a long time. course migrate, fear is that once again will be left in a situation where they're focused on less about diversity of thought and more about the diversity of genetics. which of course, is not what these universities necessarily need. which is interesting because it's all about the bank account and universities like harvard or trying to increase or student count with ones that have $54000.02 pay per year. what did that better be a better option? how about you just lower the costs at the average person could try to get in without having to worry about the overall cost and total they pay at the end of 4 years. well, right, it's about that, and it's about the endowments themselves. i mean, this is certainly the perennial issue. the fact remains right, that it's us government policy that is going to dictate these outrageous tuition, the more the government is willing to pay or, or bankroll the students are the more these universities are able to charge. and

they're able to get that always ready to chat with you and your best wishes to your the young daughter may she get into the school of our dreams and that you can actually afford it. god bless you. god bless you. we've all heard that alcohol consumption is on the rise during the pandemic. and you can see why. but what we're just realizing now is that changes in state laws regarding alcohol sales are likely fueling this other pandemic of alcoholism. artesian rico rivera has this report a devastating pandemic that has taken 800000 live subsequent locked down that shattered the lives of many more. the united states has stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to dealing with a deadly highly contagious disease. on the one hand and the social cost of dealing with it on the other. nowhere is this dilemma felt more than in the arena of alcohol consumption. one study found that drinking rose 14 percent overall and 41 percent among women. another study found that 17 percent of americans reported

heavy drinking during the pandemic. heavy drinking is defined as getting drunk 2 days out of the week for 2 weeks out of the month. and perhaps unwittingly, dozens of states have encouraged this drinking by relaxing their laws on the sale of alcohol. in fact, cocktails to go with illegal in all 50 us states, with few notable exceptions, granted to cities like new orleans. but when the pandemic began, 31 states allowed restaurants and bars to serve cocktails to go. and 16 of these states they made cocktails to go a permanent law. and in the other 15, they extended the temporary relief to 2 to 5 years. although alcohol delivery was legal for most states before the pandemic, 7 states, alabama, arkansas, georgia, mississippi, new mexico, oklahoma with 3 ginia, joined in on the party post ben demick. and it just so happens that these are some of the poorest states and the countries ones that are already susceptible to alcohol and drug abuse. supporters of these measures say they've been needed to keep businesses, particularly small businesses afloat during what are tough times the tractors argue

whether it's small businesses or big businesses that are really benefiting. and more importantly, they point out that these measures are likely contributing to the pandemic within the pandemic. the gross of the deadly disease of alcoholism in the midst of a just as deadly highly contagious respiratory disease cove, 1940. i mean, we go there and that's all the time we ever today show, but i promise this is a conversation which will continue and how we do that all me on twitter at friday and use the hash tag team and be able to read every single. com that you make and for this show and more, make sure that sure that you download the fordable, that to be app for apple or android device. i go it, thanks for with

the ocean, we describe our time. what is the zeitgeist, as they say? do we have a sense of direction and purpose? we also hear a lot about the desire to return to normal. what does that mean? are we actually living in the new normal onto a national stand together. we'll continue to stand together against russia media in germany. repeat some of the areas that we doubt this made. they noticed vinitez chunky daughters about their ability to influence other nations, french, u. k. and even latin america and other countries in future than maybe knew where to high from cycle alone with members of your household, please, please, please,

please. we have to continue to fight with. you just need to rush, you must not be allowed in germany. i don't want you to call me leave it social out . so being out in office 5 of the yes actually indian ha the enough missiles guns until sunday. oh is your media reflection of reality in the world transformed what will make you feel safer? isolation, whole community. are you going the right way? where are you being led to somewhere? direct. what is true wharf his way in the world corrupted. you need to descend

a join us in the depths or remain in the shallows. ah, working room or shed in the back? she popped in. she said, well, i'm getting ready to go shopping for christmas. and when we say there was a good bye to another, shooting another safe part of american life shattered by violence. the gunman was armed with an a ar 15, semi automatic rifle. when the issue comes home, it's time to act when we're aspire on this issue, the other side wins by default, lady that lived over there. i was walking one of the dogs, which is why do you wear again when you scale, it doesn't take it off of it. i think the people need to take responsibility into

their own hands and be prepared. those kinds of weapons were less available. we wouldn't have a lot of the shootings and we certainly wouldn't have the number of deaths with gas prices smash oldtime records in europe with the e u. again pointing the finger of blame of russia despite moscow fulfilling its supply contracts. it's like doping, a top sports magazine, questions, transgender athletes, participation and women sport climbing. they have an unfair advantage over other competitors and to ra rages within the.