Hey, I'm good glad to have Connor back on the show. We had a really good get together right before Christmas. I hope everybody had a good Christmas. Got some deep stuff to talk about today. I think one of the things that strikes me is what we're trying to do is we're trying to get information out there that happens on a day to day basis, and a lot of people will take information and run with it, and they don't have all the information, and so the hope is with truth for change and what we're trying to do here bringing Connor on here kind of looking from the left side, me kind of on the right side. I don't think either one of. Us will be extreme either way, just kind of we just want people to come into this with an open mind. Hey, I might not think that the same way, but let me take the facts. That's one of the biggest things in law. Enforcement when we work a case, it is let's see where the facts take us. And that's what I would ask for anybody that tunes in glad to have Connor here to give his perspective on things. But let's follow the facts, and sometimes the facts aren't gonna fall on the right. Sometimes facts aren't gonna fall left. One of the things that bothered me read a story Conservative story. It was talking about Marco Rubio, who is Secretary of State now and he basically said it basically basically the gist of the story was that, hey, we are going to enact Rico Statute and for people that sponsor protest, so we're gonna get into George Floyd, the BLM movement, Antifa, different things like that. But from my standpoint, what I look at and obviously Connor is chumping at the bit to go after it. Just explain to you what RICO is. If you're not familiar with it. We've worked some RICO. I've worked some RICO cases. In the past. Basically, it's organized crime. It was was. Developed in the sixties to go after people in the mob. One of the things that they one of the things that they're doing. This story that came out, but it said Secretary of State Marco RuView introduced legislation and it was going to change the way they go after these billionaire I'm quoting the Rico acted is to target billionaire back protest networks that spiral into violence and chaos. I think people need to be held accountable. And one of the things from an accountability standpoint is Marco Rubya's Secretary of State. He's not going to enact legislation. Connor's got a. Little research on the RICO bill. I'll feeling as we need to talk a little bit about. What this RICO bill is based on your research, Connor. So thank you again, Happy holidays everybody. Thanks for having me back on. I do think you're spot on and the importance when pursuing these things of being able to expand your research and not just stay in your lane, but look at you know, what's going on around. So Senator Ted Cruz introduced a bill to the Senate to target RICO, using RICO to target pretty much anyone associated with protests that turn into riots. From my understanding of this, looking at it in the sense of not only who was there, but also who organized it it, who organized it, who funded it, and sort of expanding from there. Now, the obvious for my side of things jump on this is they're looking at people like George Soros or other major Democrat investors into politicians or groups or projects or whatever. I know, I'm personally not super familiar with the depth of Soros' involvement in things, but I know that he's kind of to the left what Elon Musk was to the right this last election cycle. So my understanding as I sort of look at this or. One of the key as you can go on. Yeah, but one of the key points in that is I think what was really cool about this is Connor gets his research from Rock. Right. It's typically a jumping off point if it's something I'm not. Super familiar with X, and that is Musk correct, And then so it is a starting point. The cool thing I think and Connor can. Talk a little bit about that later, but that research tool gives you the ability of not just saying, Okay, this is what Grock says, because a lot of that is a combination of a lot of different stories, and it's using AI to arrive at a conclusion. Is that correct? Yeah, for the most part, it's it's using AI to do a down and dirty, quick essentially blitz of the internet, grabbing sources, grabbing references, and give typically something like Rock. I tend to follow on that one because it will do its best to pull bias out. It will it will use whatever sources are out there. So if the if the only sources it has are left or right leaning, then you're gonna get that lean. But if you try and prompt it with crazy left blah blah blah blah blah, it'll it'll pull it back to center a little bit and say, oh, well that's a bias question. Here's some more information. How would you like to like, how would you like to keep going with this? Uh? This question? So it requires some honesty on your part. It requires some honesty. I'm not trying to arrive at a destination. And that's what I would tell people is don't go into it thinking like I'm going to prove my point. I think it is like I'm going to collect the information and then make a decision after that. So this Rico Act, first and foremost, Marco Rubio did not introduce this legislation, and it's not going to change everything. It was actually Cruiz put it in correct, correct, and that was in June, and as of a day ago, it has still not made it through committee. As far as I know, it is not right. I also know I think right now at least the House is on recess. I'm sure the Senate is also on holiday. Recess, and so if you want to look at it, if you're like, want to go that much further, the act is called the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Rights. It's called the Stop Funders Act. Is a proposed bill in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress, and it is under the Ricoe by adding rioting as a predicate offense predica. Basically, there are a lot of different offenses. I think there's thirty five or thirty six state offenses, homicide, things like that, human trafficking, all those different things, and rioting is just part of it. I think the goal of it is probably a good thing. But again, anything that's good and involves. The government, I think you want to take a take a take a second and look at it and say, hey, is what we're trying to accomplish here, Because I think about the thing in a Somalia, and you can say whatever you want about the funding in Minnesota. And I know we're going off topic a little bit. But at the end of the day, I don't think anybody did that thinking, hey, here's a here's an opportunity for us to give a bunch of piss away a bunch of money. I don't think anybody had that intended government. I think it is a program that was created in a good place and it was misused and people as a result of it a lot of money is it's not missing, it's just been sent to places that it didn't need to be sent. So go ahead and talk about what you found out about Marco Rubio's uh center, Cruise not Ruvio. I'm sorry, I'm going to give out bad information. So Senator Cruise's bill basically, and do you want to share that scrange just so people can see what you're talked about. Give me one second to pull that up. So here, just to follow how I do my off the cuff research on these, go ahead and share this. So this is starting with just Grock. This is where at any point you can jump off. So when you're looking at this, you can see that there are these different tags that will tell you exactly where this information is coming from. Up at the top. You can pull it for fast if you won't, you can read but quick responses, expert thinking hard. Let it choose what it wants to do. But it's also based on your prompt. So for me, I just put in Summary of Funders Act, which, as a side note, how much time do you think goes into them creating the names that come up with these fun little acronyms of funders or chips or all these other things just to. Make it's that's why they. Oh yeah, that's that's hours of staff work of trying to come up with just some clever little name for for what this is. So, as you know, stop financial underwriting and nefarious demonstrations. So what you see right here, just right off the cuff from and it's from Cruise's website himself, is the change we would enable the Department of Justice to use RICO tools such as joint liability group prosecutions, conspiracy charges, asset forfeiture, and enhance penalties against individuals, organizations, or foreign adversaries involved in funding, organizing, or coordinated, coordinating repeated interstate violent riots. OK. So, as I've looked through, and again this is more surface level understanding, the main gist is to be able to go after anyone involved in pick a situation, pick a riot that there's a peaceful protest in Kansas City and then it gets out of hand and people die or get hurt or property is damaged using RICO under this bill would allow whoever organized that event. You know, if it's whoever it may be to be held liable to certain degrees. I'm sure there will be statutes and limitations and guidelines added to it, but not just the person who threw the rock through the window, but who coordinated the event, who funded the posters and the marketing and all that, Like, anyone associated with it could then be liable, especially if it's then found that those same individuals were presumably provoking more of a violent reaction out of these situations and trying to instigate more of a response. So from your standpoint, what do you think when you hear that and you hear that language, does that make you think, oh, I think this is something that's needed or do you think, hey, this could be a problem. So I think, off the top of my head, I feel like it's reactionary and not actually addressing the root of these situations, and it's focusing on a small percentage of the negative individuals associated with these. To me, it's a red flag off the cuff, And I would say the same thing if it was coming from the left or the right. It is too vague and too open ended, and to me, it looks like it is something that will then be utilized to pull in anybody. It'll be Oh, you know, AOC talked about this protest on the Capital steps in one of her tiktoks and it got out of hand, so we're going to pull her into it. Or you know, Bernie spoke at this at nine am and at eight pm it got out of hand, So we're going to pull him into this. And it can go the other way too. It can be you know, Don Junior was an investor in the company that helped promote whatever this event is, let's pull him in. I think it opens a door that is not necessary to be open. I think there are other ways to go about this type of accountability and right now, and I can fully admit that it's probably my personal bias in this moment. It comes across as an opportunity to expand the targeting of Democrat liberal left leaning and I only say that because it's coming from Ted Cruz on the right to then target more than those who are probably due to be targeted. And I know that the left is just as guilty of that. They went after President Trump and Rudy Giuliana in a handful of others trying to use Rico in Georgia for the election fraud allegations. Right, here's the thing that I think about, and I just I just and we'll go straight into the riots. I just looked at up that the damn image, and it's just a comparison. I understand the capital, the historical significance and things like that, but I want to kind of talk about the numbers. The numbers in the twenty twenty protest. It said that. Which which protests the protest, the BLM movement estimated cost of the twenty twenty George Ford protest and associated like damage costs was one billion to two billion dollars in insured losses from arson vandalism. It's and it's the highest recorded for civil unrest. Correct With that in mind, do you not think if there, if if, is that something that you would want to apply federal code to if you found that there were agitators and there were people that sponsored that. Because I think one of the things that I think is one. True is our biggest enemy right now now are ourselves. I think we're being influenced by a lot of different individuals. They get online. They stir up the left, the right, and everything else. And if we identify an agitator, is that not the person that we should look at and go, hey, you could take this, you could do this. But like at this point, based on the amount of money and what it costs in lives, I think even more than that, Like that's just what it cost in property damage, not what it costs in I'll call it social capital. Law enforcement lost a ton of social capital in those riots, and like it was very divisive. I think you see people swinging back the other way. You had the defund police and everything else, and like, I think everybody that has participated in that is kind of gone the opposite direction. And I think that's it's kind of interesting when you talk about how that works, because I think about the first I mean, we had that conversation. I think when we were out of town. I think we talked about sending the National Guard into LA and targeting the worst of the worst, and all this stuff kind of flows together. But like, from my standpoint, one of the things that I think is the most interesting about that is you have a democratic governor and a mayor in LA that says, no, we don't want the National Guard, But when you look at the amount of money that it costs, is it not better to, like, in my opinion, is it not better to like hold a single person accountable or a group accountable if we find out because if if because I think that's one of the things that. The code says in that in that bill. What they want to go into the bill and make code and modifications to the RICO Act would include other countries? Is that correct? International? And that one of the word words that was used to describe it. Yeah, foreign foreign entities, Yeah, something like that, which does seem to say that they're opening it to, you know, opening the door to if there's money is coming from overseas organizations or if it's money is associated with various groups that can link back to a larger umbrella corp over overseas. And I think I think you are right in ther your viewpoint on the damage and how to go go after that. But I think where RICO is the wrong way to go about it is that from my understanding, And again I fully admit that my understanding of RICO is a couple headlines and pretty much mob movies, you know, good Fellows and whatnot. But it's those aspects of they're going after. You know, RICO was built or was put together to go after drug dealing, racketeering, grafficking, illegal gambling, bootlegging, any of those types of things, all associated with a crime family or a mob boss or whatever. So it's not it's using all of the arrests at a lower level to go after your John Gotties as a whole organization. But everyone under that umbrella is presumably at least adjacent to the illegal behavior. So RICO as a whole, from my understanding, was established to use a few individuals criminal charges to go after an entire criminal organization. Where I think that then does not apply in this situation is once you start to tie in. You know, I was a psych major. I have a degree in psychology, nothing fancy, just a bachelor's. But one of the things we studied was groupthink, and this essentially recognition that humans, at the end of the day, are a bunch of dumb sheep when they get in a group. And so when you look at a riot or or you know, one of these Black Live Movement peaceful protests that got out of hand, it wasn't an organized crime mafio so agenda. It was a couple people took an opportunity to take advantage of a situation for their own personal gain, and it's snowballed from there. It wasn't really an organized violence. It wasn't really a for the most part. I'm sure there were instances. Where what if you found out? What if? What if? From your standpoint, if you find out, because that's what RICO is as Rico gives you the opportunities to Because let's use the sheep comparison, I say, the people that are out there with their heart in the right place. After George Floyd saying like I don't want this in my community. I don't I want law enforcement to be better, I want all these different things. But then you have agitators that are getting paid to go out there and throw people up. Shepherd and the sheep to a violent event. Here's a couple of numbers you can say with them as you wish the George Floyd. The twenty twenty George Floyd protests show over fourteen thousand arrested nationwide. Most of those arrests were for local and state curfew violations, fair to disperse or low level offenses, but they did one million dollars worth of damage. Correct, I'll take your word for it. That's according to Grock. Okay, all right, January sixth rites involved anywhere from fifteen hundred to sixteen hundred federal charges and arrest and those were probably I would say most of them the federal charges were felonies. And so like, from my standpoint, is that disproportionate for because you had federal buildings in Portland that. Were attacked, correct during BLM. BLM, and it doesn't appear that we spent the federal government spent a lot of time going after are the people. That were involved in those arrests? And to me, what this is and is just my opinion on the right side, this bill is to address that gap I don't like from my standpoint, I don't think people that are out there that are peacefully protested, and I think that's the other thing is like we have to be honest, like when people are throwing bottles and the burning stuff, it's not peaceful. No, So how about this, This is a good thing to talk about. So what in your opinion from the left side of things, what is defied as a peaceful protest? So you're you're absolutely right that that, you know, throwing a bottle, breaking a window, that type of stuff is not by definition peaceful. Now, I also don't think throwing a bottle, getting in a fistfight, breaking a window warrants the National Guard or declaring it a violent protest. Now, for me, that differentiating factor people degree is like stuff that you might see at the end of a Washington Dallas Cowboys game in a parking lot. It's not a violent protest. It's drunk idiots or people emotional, people getting worked up, getting out of pocket essentially. And so you know, using that comparison sort of BLM LA and JAN six, once you start to look at like, were there violent protests for Black Lives Matter? Absolutely there were. There were numerous. I think Ferguson was part of it, some stuff in Portland Ferguson maybe separate. I could be mixing up my events in that timeframe, but the point being, yes, there were. But if you also look according to time in USA today and a couple about ninety three percent of BLM movement of BLM protests were peaceful, no incidents at all. Of that, there were twenty four hundred locations that reported peaceful protests, while fewer than two hundred and twenty reported did violent demonstrations. This is coming from Time magazine, and they defined that violence as acts of targeting other individuals, property businesses, other rioting groups, or armed actors. So that's kind of an expansive criteria for it to be deemed violent. Now that's not condoning the actions, but it is also to me, it's important to cast the right optic on it. Where BLM protests were statistically not violent at all, ninety three percent nothing happened, seven percent bad, and let's talk about that, but let's acknowledge that ninety three percent were totally fine. When you look at La. It was made to seem like from our president, from various political figures, various people in social media, that all of La was burning, that it was a hellscape to be dealt with, when in reality, it was about a block to two blocks to one to two square blocks sort of near the downtown courthouse if I remember correctly, and the rest of LA was totally fine. I had friends that lived there. I've seen videos of people that were there where you had no idea what was going on. So was that two blocks a problem. Yes, absolutely, they cast a bad light on the importance of the rest of people's free people's right to peaceful protest right. But in that situation as well, that is a small percentage of the overall narrative of the overall performers. Now, if you tie in jan sixth, that was one hundred percent of jan sixth White House protests were excessively violent. There was just that one that was not a national protest. Those weren't in every city and there. But when you say violent, it was. An exaggeration, you know, Yeah, I mean. Absolutely, I think there were people in there, because I feel like one of the things that you hear from a lot of different people was they're like, all these dudes were violent. The thing is is that if you say, okay, in Portland or wherever else, that nine through percent, Let's read that criteria again for what they said to be violent, and let's apply it to January sixth. Absolutely, and I will before I do that, I will also apply my exact same stance on some of the BLM movements that got violent. Of people are dumb sheep when we get in a group. And so while there were thousands of people at the White House, and maybe only one hundred of them were actually intent on doing these things, and another fourteen hundred got roped into the swell and the throng of emotion and momentum. That's still like, I can acknowledge that people, not every one of those fifteen hundred people were necessarily an awful human being, but real quick, the definition that they had for violent demonstration was acts of targeting other individuals, property businesses, other rioting groups or armed actors. Okay, they include vandalism, property destruction, looting, roadblocking, using barricades, burning tires or other material. So from my standpoint, you to me, what you've articulated is you've articulated a reason to target the people that are driving the sheep into a violent protest overall, yes, and so why not apply like do it carefully? Keep in mind the government is selective and what they choose to prosecute not prosecute. But is this not something that is like not something that you have a knee jerk reaction to go, this is a horrible idea when you look at the riots. I think one of the things that I think we both agree on is de Boores sheet And you can get people fired up about emotional things. Anyone that watched the George Floyd, watched him die on camera, had a very emotional reaction. If you didn't have an emotional reaction of like, I cannot believe a human I'm watching this, Yeah, I think there's a problem. So for me, I just think it's important to look at that and go, hey, let's be let's be honest. That is, you're having an emotional reaction. And if the people that are taking that emotion and directing in a in a way that is violent and aggressive, and what was the word that was used is towards others? What was the wording on that exactly? I think that's targeting other individuals. Okay, targeting, So you're targeting, and I think that's the whole point, the whole point is. And I think, honestly, when you look at it, I think a lot of the stuff that's getting put out is targeting the other side. It might not be to that extent, but I think about all these conversations we've had. Trump gets shot all these different things, Charlie Kirk gets shot all these different and in fairness, I believe it was in Minnesota. You had two people that were killed up there, that were on the left side of things, and so there has to be to me, there has to be some accountability because you can't have It's one thing to have a peaceful protest, it's another thing entirely different in my opinion, when you take that violent protest, and that would be the question. And I think that maybe is the middle ground. Is one of the things that you say to the Department of Justice is here are the parameters of this, and this is how it needs to be applied. It doesn't need to be applied to hamper free speech or anything else. Let's target the worst. The worst example I can give is this human trafficking. We don't charge the females. We shouldn't charge the females that are trafficked here that are engaged in prostitution. If they are engaged in prostitution and they are trafficked, they are victims. And I'm not saying people that write are should have that same status, but they certainly should have a status of like, hey, you're part of a criminal organization, correct. I think you target the people that are getting everyone's startup and directing them to commit the ace of violence that you towards individuals, are targeting of individuals. And that's where you know, to kind of go back. That's where I don't think Rico applies to this situation, is that Rico's foundation was around a criminal organization, And how do we go after a bunch of people that were intentionally participating in these activities willingly from start to finish, going into it knowing exactly what they were getting into. When you look at people trying to be a made man or whatever, you know, it may be Rico. The people associated in a Rico bust are all willing participants in that. Now to then tie that to, for instance, a Black Lives Matter protest, if we have street cameras and documentation and everything, and we can look and say, oh, it was peaceful up until this point when that dude in the purple jacket and white baseball cap through a brick through a window and got people around him amped up, and that was the catalyst. Yeah, we can go after him, and maybe the first couple people that spurred it on and willingly partook, but it's then the next one hundred or the next whoever. And that's where to me, Rico doesn't necessarily I'm sure there are parameters where it could, but overall, I don't think it necessarily applies because the people who went to the protest went for a peaceful protest. They for the most part, I'm speaking generalities, but people are also advantageous when they can be. But for the most part, people went because they were protesting something that they disagreed with. Did people take it as an opportunity to then have some gain or you know, break something or yeah, absolutely, it happens, But we look at it as they were not an entire criminal enterprise established for the act of doing criminal behavior. And I agree, and I think the way that Ricos statue needs to be applied is if the federal government, through a reco investigation, they have the ability to open it under this statue. Under they have to have other things that are predicate offensive. It's two or more so, but so here here to tie it the other way to kind of expand into your territory. If we're saying that we're using recal or just in you know, Joshmoba, any legislation to go after an instigating group within a protest that takes a protest from peaceful to violent, do you feel that that should apply not just to the protesters, but to law enforcement or any other d visual group or entity associated with the event that could be instigating. And I say that because according to Amnesty International, during the BLM protests, of which again they're twenty four hundred and about ninety three percent were peaceful. But of them, it says, the most comprehensive report into protests yet records eighty nine cases of tear gas used across thirty four states and twenty one incidents of unlawful use of pepper spread. Tear Gas and pepper spray are often used as a first resort tactic against peaceful protesters. And then it goes on to talk about where these. But that statement's not accurate because and the reason I say it's not accurate. If you could show me, hey, this is how they applied it improperly. It is a group of people that are trying to find like something to lay their hat on, I'm willing. So, for instance, in Portland during the protests against ice, there was a pastor or priest or someone praying in front of an ICE detention center peacefully. I think he raised his arms up in prayer gesture and then was shot in the head with a pepper bullet. Totally nothing. He wasn't doing anything, He had no weapons, he wasn't instigating. He was standing still on a sidewalk praying and got shot by a pepper round. Should that if that had then resulted in people getting up to defend him and pushing into that facility out of anger and frustration and emotion. Should the officer who seemingly had no reason to fire that shot and was the catalyst that kicked it off, would he be held to the same level of accountability under this RICO or whatever else statue because he was the inciting factor in the violent protest had it gone that way. It did not, thankfully. But I think one of the things that is missed in the part is they occupied the area around the federal courthouse, so business couldn't be conducted for over one hundred days. At what point do you say, but. How is that different from people who are picketing or people who have ever held a protest. But it's the whole thing has to draw attention to something so surrounding. But there also has to be law and order, and the law and order, from my experience, it isn't the police rolling in there and starting to fire tear gas and everything else. You will hear an escalation. You will hear an escalation. It is your presence from there, like and you you see like normally dressed police officers, then you see people dressed for a ride. What they are. Telling them is they are saying, and this is what where you have issues is they're saying, here is where you need to protest. Protesters cannot they can, but like they're they need to be held accountable. You can't just have a protest where you. Want to have it like you have to. Why not? What do you mean why not? I mean if you look back through the history of this country, protests have been at places that get the attention. You think of the sittings at restaurants, or you think back on you know, the march on Washington with Martin Luther King. Like you look at the history of protesting in the US, and it's never an effective protest is never let me call ahead and coordinate like in a Hilton ballroom to have a pro It's it's you show up where the issue is. You know, you look at Portland or other places associated with ice and they're showing up at ice detention centers because that's where the issue is. You're you're seeing people go to the places where their voice is heard. So to say that there are certain places that you're allowed to have a protest. I don't think location is the issue is that you but you're saying showing up to know. What I'm saying is is that that if you it's there's a difference between a lawful protest and one that's not lawful, or that. What's that threshold. The threshold is whatever the local if you want to change the law, and the law says that if you have a protest, you have to have a permit, and if you have to have a permit, and all the different local codes, state codes, and federal codes, if you meet each one of those, what typically happens and you have opposing and it works both ways. The craft that happened in Charlottesville, when that all that happened, one of the problems was they allowed the different. Organizations to go through areas that were a. Predominantly black neighborhood and they were acting like they were being in they were intimidating. That population and wrong. Yes, and and that is one hundred percent wrong. And I will say with one hundred certainty without question, that is wrong. It is wrong to go to where someone is to try to draw them into a fight. And for me, it needs to be applied on the other side, when somebody wants to have a protest, it's fine, but you are going to have to follow the rules just like everybody else. To me, this is like for me when I look at protests, it is like somebody deciding I'm important, like I want Let's say I want to say I want to get a message across. So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna drive as fast as I want down the interstate just to get attention towards a tesla or whatever else. You still have to follow the rules, and I think that is how it should be applied. It should be applied that if you want to protest, you have to stay within the parameters of what the protests are. One of the things that people don't take into consideration like this is my opinion based on my experience with law enforcement, is. That we have rules that we have to follow. The population has rules that they have to follow too. So what I would ask about that priest and everything else is I would I would do a freedom of information request from the Department of Homeland Security and say what were the what were the events that led up to the fact of that being deployed? If there was a if there was an agent that was out there and just decided like, hey, I'm gonna take a shot at this, dude, I don't I do not believe are there is there a chance that that could happen. But these dudes have like we want to throw words out there like well, that's unlawful, that's this, that's that. Well, no, it's just because you deployed it in a way that you don't like doesn't mean it's unlawful. It just means you don't like it. And so from my standpoint, Amnesty inter National, I would not put them. As a. They just like what you said with the protests, what I've seen with Amnesty and what they come up with. Their facts don't always match their facts, Like they'll have facts, but they don't take into consideration like well there were all these things that happened to put us to that a point, Like they said in Portland, they said the protests, well this this happened. There still has to for us to in order for us to. Exist in a in a peaceful population, you cannot have like lawlessness. And when I say lawlessness is if you have a protest, you have to follow the rules for a protest. I'm not saying you don't. You don't have the right to go there and say what you want to say and do what you want to do. What I'm saying is is when you start, when you get to the point of where you're occupying an area that is not your own and it's affecting other people. That's the whole point of our country. Our country is a democracy, is the majority. There are people that that have valid points, but they have to stay within the parameters just because like if I'm pissed off at President Trumpet, I can go hold a side down there, but like. I can't go on the on the on the east lawn or we'st long or whatever. I can't go on White House property and start swinging aside around because like that is a designated area. And I think that's one of the problems in these protests is people continue to try to press their luck and press further and further, and then they get a reaction and they want to react to what happened, what law enforcement reaction. I don't feel like any of the people that you're talking about went out that day and are like, Hey, I'm going to take a shot at a protest or a priest or anything. They just said, my responsibility is this, this is my job. I have to follow these rules in order to engage these protesters. They are not following the rules, which has resulted in an escalation. Portland during BLM was an example of like there was lawlessness. I mean, they occupied. I think it happened in Atlanta too. They just let. People just do what they wanted to do, and at some point, I think that's one of the problems with our country at this point is you give and you give, and you give people the opportunity to express themselves, and at some point the rest of the population is like, Okay, that's enough, We've got to get back to business. And I think that is like that is my opinion based on my experience with law enforcement and the rules that we have to follow. So and I do think it's important. I don't necessarily disagree that there are guidelines and parameters that are in place for protesting. I would obviously disagree and push back a little bit on the nature of how one goes about protesting. I think throughout the history of not just the US, but anywhere, a key factor of successful protests for change are getting peacefully in people's way, being on a street, picketing on a street, in front of the White House, or in front of an ice detention center, in front of whatever the institute may be, being seen, being heard, being organized. And again, as long as we remain peaceful. Now, if you want to go back and say, oh, well, you guys are loitering, so we're going to hit you all with a twenty five dollars loitering chick or whatever that may be. But going to you know, blocking a sidewalk or being positioned in front of the location that you are protesting is part of what drawing attention to your cause is. And there are ways to go about their ways to still be respectful and still be understanding of not pushing that threshold into violence. And for the vast majority, again, you know, ninety three percent of BLM. You look at the No King's protests and it was minus la. I think all of the rest of them were generally peaceful to mind. I say generally only to cover my own butt because I don't know the specific data on it, but I think the vast majority of them were perfectly You look at Chicago, you look at d C, Atlanta and New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, like they were in every major city. Nothing happened minus LA, and LA was contained to you a couple of black radius. You're talking about bing, but we're talking about fourteen thousand people, fourteen to seventeen thousand people that were arrested. For like jumping to jam sixth No. Fourteen thousand. Only fifteen hundred got arrested in January sixth and most of them are federal fourteen fourteen arrest during BLM, and they didn't get arrested because they weren't. That's the that's the that's the whole problem with riots in my opinion. My opinion is, and this is for personal experience with dealing one during BLM in a neighboring jurisdiction. The person that was involved in that was from out of the area. The agitator that stirred all that up, they should be on the count. Yeah, And they burned police cars, they flipped police cars, they did all kinds of things, they destroyed property, but there was one agitator. And I think that's what this law was made for, is that one agitator who is being funded. He didn't come here from where he came from. Do we know where he was being like you say, he was being funded. Or That's what Rico's for. Organized crime, to identify the person that is ultimately responsible for the end crime. And because because like let's just let's just apply. A Rico statue. For example, let's say you have a a drug enterprise. We're not They're not out there going after the people that are using let's call them cheap They're going after the people the production that what got that person into the position where they were consuming an illegal substance. That's who you go after, the organization. And I think that's what they're saying is the end result of the rioting is not What we're is a predicate offense, which means this, if this offense matches something else, we're going to look at the organization that put us in that place, which is to go after those people. I mean, we can talk for hours about protests and how they work, but at the end of the day. At face value, yes, I think it's at face value. If it's this person did this, Let's take a minute to look at his history and see if he was brought in to be an agitator, and if not, we'll stop it there face value. If that's how it goes, great, I would love that. I think it would make sense. I think it would be effective. I don't think it necessarily needs to be. I guess traditionally would be underrego because you'd be working. If he was brought in and you found something, then what is that person associated with? And so on and so forth up the chain. But for me, again, the red flag that comes up is and you said it earlier and it made me chuckle, was if it's used carefully. Yeah, and right now quite frank, not just current administration, but let's say the last ten years or so carefully hasn't really been Justice Department or judicial purviews. MO. It's been kind of a round him up and see what happens. Not in acessarily yeah, specifically immigration, right, but just in general, like carefully and even if you look at uh, the history of the US proportional response is not necessarily what we're best at. So that's for me where you're relying a whole lot on discretion, and again we haven't seen, at least in recent history, in my opinion, good examples of discretion. Again, going back to the priest, from my understanding of it, there's no reason he should have been shot in the head with a pepper bolt. That was bad discretion. Well, it's it's more on than that. But I think you can say it's a bad discretion, but without all the facts, I think it's absolutely does that beg for the research to determine, like what drove us to that end result? Yes. The other issue with it though for me too and to sort of not tie in but use an example elsewhere, is and it's something that I with these conversations feel is very very important when we're looking at you know, my left leaning, your right leaning. Whatever it may be. Is also clarifying the narrative of what is what this information is being presented as, because so often we get that clickbait headline that doesn't really expand on it. And my example being, you know, if you look and say this agitator that came into that that you're talking about came in and he's he was funded by the pharmaceutical industry or or the gun into whatever it may be, and then come to find out, no, he just worked at MRK, so his funding was his pay check. That's not. A valid reasoning to pursue that line of arrest or investigation. It's it's something that's come up. You know, on the politics side, people jump on people like Bernie and Elizabeth Warren for being funded by big pharma, when if you look at the actual breakdown of what they get, it's like, yes, they're getting individual donations from people that work at a pharmaceutical company. It's not a million dollars from whatever. So just being sure that the information that is being put out is as we are trying to do in these conversations, is accurate and truthful. Yeah, And I think I think that's we're going to touch on something that's probably gonna get you you fired up, because I think we've covered the b l M. There's probably a lot more we can. It's a huge spider web. But which from from my standpoint, I think that that there is. So one of the things that I think is really cool about our country is you have three this thin. Parts of the government. You got the judicial branch. You got the executive branch, and then you have the legislative branch, the legislative brand. Yeah, why do you say allegedly. From there's just a lot of intermingling right now. There is a balance of powers, checks and bound. But I think I think again it goes back to we'll get into that, but like it's it is, the system is not set up for the average in my opinion, based on what we're dealing with, it's not set up for the average person. It's for the one percent, and they have cover. I think what this law. I think the legislator legislative branch has a chance to give law enforcement a tool that could curve violence. And so I think that is the way this should proceed, I understand. And if that's how it proceeds, that's awesome and it does a very good job. We just have to make sure that we. Have to make sure it needs guardrails, It needs clear language, It needs limiting factors that can't let you just tie something off because they got they texted someone who's associated with some other The purview at least right now needs to be limited, respectful in the sense of I just don't want to see it again, left or right be used to pull in people that someone just doesn't like, didn't really have anything to do, but there can be a loose affiliation made. All right, So this is gonna set you all, all right. Trump administration in twenty twenty five issued in executive order designating Antifa as a domestic terrorism organization amid renewed Portland unrest. So what what is your feeling on Antifa, because I know we had a discussion about that, and I understand. Tell us what Antifa is supposed to be or what it stands for. That's probably the best thing. So face value, it's it's it's funny, and I will fully fall into the left side narrative for thirty seconds of antifa's anti fascism. It stands for anti fascism. My grandfather, who fought in World War Two was antifa. He fought against fascists. So at a very surface level, low hanging fruit, if you will, we all should be Antifa. We all should be anti fascism. Fascism is not a good thing. We fought world wars against it. It is counter to what it means to be an American. And again that's the low hanging fruit. Response. The slightly higher up, low hanging fruit is where is Antifa? Where is their headquarters? Where are their organizing events? Where are their presidents or vice presidents you can go to, you know, for instance, MAGA groups or QAnon meetings or these other right wing side organizations. There's no real Antifa merch, there's no Antifa flag, there's no Antifa hat, there's no like. I get that it does exist, I mean, but to me, it's made to be the left wing boogeyman of I. Mean, I think it's a I think it's a covialism. Yeah, but I think I think it's been it's been used to be almost a covert actor members of Antifa, a covert organized group of actors that are inciting a lot of violence. And I won't in any way say that that's not true. My my understanding again of Antifa as a whole is probably more limited than it should be because I think unfortunately the term gets thrown around too much that it has devalued or blurred. Like so, from my perspective, seeing President Trump or or anyone in in in the ar extreme conservative side of politics, uh talking about protests or this Antifa is just that thing that gets included. It's it's you know, when when he would give his campaigns and it's, oh, you know, Harris is a fascist, socialist, communist, whatever like. For those you can't be all of those things. They're individuals. I think, I don't know. To me, I think fastest is and I can never say right, so one can get on me with my pronunciations. But I think that has. Applied more towards the right, and I think I think that we on the right use the term of a communist very very loosely, and I think it's it's not it's not a fair thing. It's not fair. It's not it's it's not it's an unfair utilization. Of a word. I think there are a lot of the people that are that. And we're gonna take a little detour because I know, like a lot of people talk about the socialist mayor in New York and everything, and I think give us a soft approach to what social socialism, the Bernie Sanders socialism that scares the right to death? Really, what is the purpose of social programs? And in light of everything that goes on in Minnesota where social programs are abused, talk about talk about when you think about socialism, because like I feel like when we talked last time, you talked about growing up in a single parent home and programs and different things, and like using every bit of the small resources you had to help the betterment of society. Yeah, and I think that's the soft socialism. But again, like, how does that apply day to day? Because I don't like, from my standpoint, I think they're I think it's very unfair when people say all Muslims believe that they should take. Over the world and all this other stuff. Like I've met some really good Muslim people, and I don't think that all of them feel like that. I think that's a fringe element. Absolutely. I think you can take things in the Kouran out of context to make them into this bloodthirsty people. You can take things out of the Bible, take things out of the Bible. We had the Crusades. I mean that was a very bloody time, I think. Any I think the bottom line on any of it is anyone that uses religion as an excuse to go out and harm other people instead of using the because both from my understanding of Islam and also of Christianity, like both of them, is about love and doing better for you for a mankind. Well, I think to take that even a step back, is any time you use a term to generally as a generality for a massive group of people, whatever it may be, religious, political, anything, you're just setting yourself up for a fight. You're trying to instigate a fight or an argument, I should say, because yeah, you know people, you know, not all Muslims are Jihattists, not all Christians are Westboro Baptist Church, not all right wingers are fascists, not all you know what like. No, that's not how it is applied. That's not how it should be applied. Now, you can come across people who are those things, and you can be specific to certain groups or certain you know, isis is a terrible example of Jihattist Islam, if I understand it correctly. But the fact of the matter is that does not They are not every the worst of the worst are not indicative of everybody. Right. So, so for me to go back to your question, when you look at socialism from a very surface level left leaning or just surface level understanding and a simplified presentation of it, it's just helping those less for at the end of the day, like socialism should not be the boogeyman that it is perceived to be because on paper, and that's the thing is, on paper, a lot of things look great, but that doesn't mean they are in execution. So socialism to me, to my understanding, is you can't have you know, I can't afford school lunch as a second grader. It's provided to me, so I don't go hungry. I can't afford healthcare because I'm either homeless or I'm whatever just poor. I should still be able to go to the doctor and be seen and taken care of. I shouldn't have to suffer in pain because I can't afford hundreds of dollars a month in health care. To me, it's a general social conc or social obligation to love thy neighbor, to steal the Christian or Christian saying, And it's this approach. Now it hasn't been manipulated and abused and exploited and defrauded, and we can absolutely go down that entire rabbit hole of all the ways that's been broken or manipulated. Absolutely, But the concept is a pure concept, the concept helping your fellow man. Just because of the government entities that are supposed to participate in and see it out, you know, and and make it work just because they're they failed at it well and doesn't mean it's failed any more than like the right wants to look at it. From my standpoint is free enterprise. We need to have less regulations, and I. Think that I don't think. I don't think that's worked out real well when you look at the how disproportionate, you know, when we think about our economy and everything else. I think part of the problem is is that there is no competition. We talked about that last time. There's no competition. You've got four air lines, all majority owned, according to what I have read, majority owned by a single individual. He's he's playing. He's he's going to. The races and betting on his own regards what horse wins. He's he's a winner. And I think that's a problem, and I think it's I don't there's got to be a balance. There's got because I feel like right now, the government is not a good official. It's not a good referee. And on both sides, the socialism side of it, like the execution of delivery of services is is not good. But the flip side of it is is telling the telling the one percent that are operating the majority of the successful corporations. Small businesses aren't doing with these to farmers aren't doing with these do and so we're not the regulations and everything else. It's just to me. I think the frustration is because the general population looks at it and say, he says. Not being represented by this government. And so I think there is there is a draw either the socialist side of it of like, hey, maybe this will work. Maybe maybe if we have less regulation. I think one of the things that is interesting and it will probably get a lot of people upset, But just talk through. And I hate to put you on the spot, but I'll give you. I'll talk for a little bit, so it'll give you time to go talk a little bit. I know we had a conversation before about the I'm trying to think of the exact way you worded, but basically it is, if you started taxing a certain percentage of people, what would that do? Just talk about that. I think I think we've had these conversations about and I'll start talking you think about that. What I'm going to talk about is I want to talk about the tariffs and how that's supposed to make us competitive again and everything else. Before before you completely move off the social social just real quick. I think what has been lost in modern times, in our current day and age, is that socialism and capitalism are being put on the same pedestal, and that's not the application that they're being attempting to be utilized in capitalism in terms of personal growth and profits. And you know what America was built on the capitalism is capitalism. We're never going to get away from that. We're not trying to replace capitalism with socialism. Socialism from an economic standpoint is, if I understand, if I remember correctly, everyone works together for essentially the same output. I think communism as you give everything to the government and then the government portions it out how they seem fit equal to everyone, regardless of your input. So we are when when you hear stuff being talked about as socialism right now, it is not economic socialism. It is policy social socialism. Social policy in the sense of its healthcare. That's not capitalism. It's food not capitalism, it's school education. These aren't capitalistic things. These are social societal needs that are being pushed to be socialized so to speak, the sense of everyone should have health care, everyone should have access to food, and an education and a roof over their heads to the best of one's ability. It's taking care of your community from utilizing the resources the community has. But it's not replacing capitalism with economic socialism. It's it's it's individuals. So it's like a it's kind of like a blend of in your what your view of the way socialism should work is the blend between like successful social programs but with capitalism. But a successful capitalist should help his neighborhood. Which then yeah, so so sorry to interrupt, Now that's no. I thought that was a really good discussion. When you talk about, like from a financial standpoint, when we think about like the one percent of the population that owns over half of the wealth, I think it's more than that. Oh yeah, but with that in mind, and so I never understood why the stock market could be so good and everybody else can be like barely barely surviving to put food on the table, afford healthcare and everything else. And then I came the realization of most of the stockholders are the upper one percent, and so they just that the stock market gets bigger and bigger and bigger, their money gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and there's nothing that It is almost to the point where where competition is non existent because you can't get a foothold between the federal the regulations government regulations on the smaller entities and also the biggest entities being so big. And I would think as a as a country would look at like all the failures, the banking failures and everything else. What was the insurance come in raw? But you had like Merrill Lynch and all. Those and all those failed, and they failed because there was no competition. And we're at the same. There was no regulation. I mean, you look at the housing crisis of two thousand and eight. That was but. That was to me, that was that was a socialist thought process of everyone should have a home and everything else, and it just was executed poorly by the federal government. And and I. Think anytime that you have regulators crossing over to the side that they're regulating, there's no real rate relations. I think about what we do in different entity and it I think, just talk about it from. My standpoint on some of the stuff that I do, you. Don't ever want to be evaluated by the people that trained you, because they are going to look at you and go, oh, I did a wonderful job. So I want to evaluate them because my evaluation of them says that I did a really good job. Now you want somebody from the outside to evaluate you, because that's an honest evaluation based on Okay, here's the standard. Now come in and evaluate whether I'm at yeah. And it's that you know, you look at you ended up in a situation where you essentially were putting the what is it, what's the putting the criminal in charge of the prison or whatever you're you're you're creating the situation where the person in charge of regulating is also the person making the profit, and that's just doomed to failure because they're going to make whatever they can. And so when you look at like the housing, the housing, you said it was a socialist policy, which I would differ obviously. I think I think I think the I think the left wants to believe that everybody should have their own home, and but I think at some point the right was like, hey, we can make a lot of money off of this, and they started, you know, you have the predatory lending, lending money knowing that this person will never be in a situation where they can repay that note, and and and I think that's capitalism gone wrong where you have that you that you have a socialist program that is like, hey, this is a great idea because I don't think anybody would argue with that. Like I think from a law enforcement standpoint, the way we make our cars last longer is we have take on cars. So you're going to take care of it if it's yours and you you're responsible for it, and you know, hey, I'm gonna be dropping this for the next five years. It's the same thing with it's from a social standpoint, owning your own stuff means a lot and so like if you own your own house as opposed to rent it, I do think that that's a good thing. And that was the core at least, so like for home ownership. From the socialist I guess viewpoint is everyone should have the equal opportunity at housing. And right now we live in a day and age where your house the average housing price is you know, four hundred thousand or five hundred thousand right now, and you look at these situations, you know, my generation, millennials were given all this grief of, oh, they're just mad. Housing prices aren't what they were when we bought houses in the eighties. And it's like, no, millennials know that what a house cost in the eighties is not what a house costs in the twenty you know, in twenty twenty. The frustration was the change in housing price from twenty nineteen to twenty twenty three, like that jump in three four years. And so when you look at kind of that approach, and it always comes up in the oh, well, tax the rich more, do this more, or whatever it may be. And once you start to break it down to the numbers of things, it really put into perspective that yes, you're absolutely right. I think it's sixty percent of our nation's wealth is held by the top one percent of our of our citizens. You've got an estimated. I think it's about just shy of eleven thousand individuals in the US making over one hundred million dollars a year. And so when you look at these situations and you go, okay, you know why or for instance, you know, in the big beautiful bill that came out, Trump put or Trump whoever put in tax cuts that affected a pretty decent chunk of people, from the rich all the way down to I think most tax brackets got a tax cut, and they're set for three years. They expire when his term is up. When the next I guess, big whatever comes out. But what was also included was a massive tax cut for corporations. I think they went from like twenty two percent down to like seventeen percent. Quote me on those numbers, but it was a pretty sizable drop. And that's in perpetuity. That doesn't end when he leaves. He I say, he like he was the one that actually but the bill sets it up for corporations to be on I think it's like a sub twenty or whatever percent tax rate until someone changes it so that purely benefited corporations. You look at you know, people talk about these time periods in American history, and when America was the most successful, you had thirty or fifty percent corporate tax rates, you had higher tax rates on the upper percentages, and those helped fund arts and sciences and industrial development and the space race. And you know, the Carnegie Mellon Institute was put together by Andrew Carnegie when he retired or when he was at the end of his life, he put all his wealth into social benefit. And so, you know history, all these times where America has just improved and become a powerhouse has been on the backs of a higher tax rate of the people that make money. You look, I think it's Massachusetts or root Massachusetts. I think just added up to their highest tax bracket. And everyone was saying, oh, millionaires are going to leave. They didn't. Nothing changed, and they are pretty well publicly funding themselves better than any other state. And so you look at these moments and you go and to your point on the bailouts, Historically, bailouts in the US have not gone to helping the lower level employees, the janitors, the secretaries, the accountants, the you know, day to day grunts of the business. They've gone to executive bail or executive bonuses and stock buybacks. And so when you look and you go, why is it that if I'm hard up and I have debts, house gets foreclosed on, my car gets taken all this kind of stuff. But if it's a corporation, they get bailed out. And meanwhile they may have also laid off half of their lower level staff that might include me, the reason I am losing my house in my car might be because the company I worked for made a gamble and lost, and now they're getting bailed out and I'm not. And so you look at those and it's in a go, it goes back to the accountability of if we're going to bail out, like, for instance, I think we build out the car industry back in what two thousand and seven, two thousand and eight, somewhere in there, And I want to say Ford was the only one that didn't take any bailout money, and most of the other ones ended up paying back the bailout money that they received, which is good, it's positive, but overall it's still looking at these self inflicted wounds that are then taken care of or covered by the federal government. Meanwhile, you have people sitting going, I can't go get my rotten tooth taken out of my head because I can't afford dental insurance, right, but I'm watching forty billion dollars get dumped on Merrill, Lynchuer whoever else. And so to be told one thing but see another is really hard for people, especially in a tight situation, to live with. And then when you look at it and expand it a little further, and you go, you know, if you were to, you know, someone making forty thousand dollars a year, thirty thousand dollars a year, you know, ten percent of their taxes is three thousand dollars, three thousand dollars when you only have thirty thousand dollars. That's a lot of money. That's months of rent. Ten percent of someone making a million dollars is one hundred thousand. If you're in a position where you set yourself up for failure making a million dollars because your taxes are ten percent high or whatever it may be, like, that's not make or break. It shouldn't be make or break money at that level. And so that's to me where the optics of it, and I think a lot of it also comes down when you hear people push back on taxing the rich or doing whatever it may be for these other social policies, is there's this presumption that will one day that'll be me, and I don't want my money taken when I'm at that level. But the fact of the matter is there are three hundred and thirty seven million people in this country and eleven thousand of them make over one hundred million dollars a year. Hate to tell it to you or any viewers or whoever. You're not going to be in that group. That is, I have a better chance at making the NFL at thirty three out of shape. Then someone has a entering that group, and through all of it, they have the means to keep taking money. So when you look at you know, to your point about stocks. When COVID hit and everything dipped, I was able to have a little literally one hundred bucks, not a lot of money, and I bought a couple things to see what happened. I doubled my money or something like that. But what I realized in that moment was the saying of you have to have money to make money. When Ford stock dropped from twelve dollars a share to I think like four or five dollars a share in right at the beginning of COVID, if I had a million dollars in my bank to buy at four dollars and now that it's back up to twelve or so, I would have tripled my money. You have to have the capital to then make more money, and that's why that money stays up top because they already have it. The other saying is the first million is the hardest to make because there are so many roadblocks and getting to it for your average person. And I think that that's, you know, to kind of wrap up a whole bunch of things in this little rant, it's where the American dream has gone wrong. The American dream has been bastardized to be, oh, I want to be a billionaire. No, that never was and never has been the American dream. The American dream is I want to have a family I can support, want to have a house that I can come home to, a car that works, an expendable a little bit of expendable income, to get a new TV when I need it, to not have to worry about the water heater breaking or the fridge going out. The American dream is living a comfortable life with people you love and friends that you care about, not being a millionaire. And it shouldn't. It's been manipulated into that over years and years and years. But the truth that like when you think of that idealistic you know, wife at home in two cars, like the nineteen fifties or whatever version, that dude wasn't making a million dollars. He just had a livable wage and that's what's gone. Yeah, And the thing that I look at is the numbers, according to GROG are the top ten percent combine of ninety three percent of the share of total stock market wealth, equities and usual. Does it tell you what those parameters are like? Is that people making over. I'm looking. Uh anyway, while you're looking for that, you're much better at researching. But the bottom line is the top one percent. So this is just to give you an idea of something that you talked about. The top one percent now owns fifty four percent of the wealth in stocks. That is up from forty percent in two thousand and two. And I would say it's going up faster, you know, it's it's going out considerably. And so you know, at the end of the day, I always think about athletes, and I understand athletes, you know, the amount of money that get paid, But I mean, you look at the toll it takes on their bodies. But like when you have people that just don't know what to do with their money and. They're just reinvest in it, that's how to me, that's that's a very simplified way of looking at it, but I mean, at the end of the day, there are a lot of people suffering and their. Financial illiteracy is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for everyone, myself included in this. There were things that I've had to teach myself in my twenties and thirties that looking back, I'm like, why was this not something we were taught? And maybe that was something that back in the day parents taught. But overall, like being able to understand what you're signing up for when you take on student loan debt or a housing payment or you know, APR and realizing that that's essentially compounding over a year. For over simplification, but it's all. It all circles back to financial illiteracy, and it's it's a it's a massive problem for anyone to get ahead. People who know how the market works have a leg up. And so the threshold for that ten percent is estimated at about two hundred and ten thousand dollars a year individually, is the lower end of that ten percent threshold. I mean that's still a good living, yeah, definitely, And again we're going have to wrap it up. But we didn't get to Venezuela, and we didn't get the immigration. Start with that next time. We'll start with that next time. One of the thing that we'll say is we have a lot of different ways to get in touch with us. If there's stuff that you want us to look at and just talk about. And the goal for me and I think Connor is the same way is just open your brain up and get the facts on your own. I think the problem is very clear. The fact is there is there is definitely a clear separation between the upper part of society, whether it be government officials, corporations, things like that, and the people that are the workers at the bottom. And so I think everybody agrees the workers at the bottom. I think that explains a lot of what has happened. It's kind of my way of looking at I guess it is somewhat unique. And when I look at it, I think the people that voted for Donald Trump are people that are the workers for the most part. But a lot of the policy. Yeah and so and so I think it does bear and there is to me, people need to look at it and say hey, instead of like yeah, instead of the workers yelling at each other and saying like your socialist product product, you know, that doesn't work. I don't want to give up anything to the ones that are saying, like we need to have less regulations, we need to give, you know, the hope that our government officials, owners of large corporations are going to look out for the workers. My only thing, and I'll wrap it up with this, is the workers need to stop yelling at each other and they need to understand that, like, the people that are creating the pain that you're experiencing are well above your pay grade and the pay grade of the people. The belief that the socialists socialism uh that particular mindset taking care of your neighbor. And I think maybe that's a better way of saying socialism is like take it, you know, take take care of your neighbor. Because at the end of the day, that there is a lot of suffering in us, in our country right now, and the workers are yelling at each other, and maybe if we have a conversation Connor, maybe they stop yelling at each other and realize, like, hey, the problem is above us. Let's let's join together. Let's understand where the other person's coming from, and our path to getting better is not so far away. Our destination is the same, it's just how we get there. So Connor, again, I appreciate your time. And like I said, anybody that has questions, things they would like to talk about, post it. We're on all the different outlets, Facebook, all the way up to Spotify. We have a website. Get on there, send us in information. What's that I want to talk about? It is the Truth for Change. Just type in truth change dot com and you can get on there and it'll take you to every one of the outlets and we'll get our producer to put all that information out there. So yeah, and thank you again for having me in. I enjoy these conversations and I think it is an important outlet for people are important and important view and what I'll say and any one of these is the only way to truly be able to improve and have the conversation is be open minded to being wrong. It is okay to be wrong, and it's okay to learn something new. If you keep yourself closed off to that, it's it's nothing's going to change. You have to be willing to be corrected. So Connor, the next time it gets to the protest is going to stay in this designated protests the area even though it's not is it is not as glamorous then where. He wants to go. I'll fill out the right, all right, Thanks a lot for all y'all listen, then for
