Summary
âž¡ The text discusses various financial systems, including the potential implementation of a cryptocurrency by central banks, and the Global Gold Monetary Fund, which aims to be a decentralized utility backed by gold. It also mentions Sarah Westall’s work on her Substack, where she discusses these topics and more, including a series on fifth generation warfare and mind control. The text then transitions into an interview with Bill Walton, who worked on the Trump transition team, discussing the process of staffing for the Trump administration and the challenges faced.
âž¡ The text discusses the transition from a small team to a larger, more complex office setup during the Trump campaign. It mentions how many people initially didn’t want to be involved with the campaign, but changed their minds after Trump’s victory. The text also talks about the development of plans for various departments, including the Education Department and the Small Business Administration, with a focus on reducing bureaucracy. However, these plans were not fully utilized due to Trump’s distrust of Washington insiders. The text also mentions the potential for modern technology to streamline and improve the IRS.
âž¡ The article discusses concerns about government overreach, particularly in relation to data collection and tracking. It mentions the Corporate Transparency Act, which requires small businesses to provide detailed ownership information, causing fear among business owners. The article also criticizes the government’s focus on ordinary citizens and small businesses, while seemingly ignoring larger issues like crime. Lastly, it discusses the potential for a different approach to government under Trump, suggesting a more entrepreneurial attitude could lead to significant changes.
âž¡ The text discusses the difficulty of managing change, especially among people who are set in their ways. It highlights the potential for conflict and resistance, possibly leading to a “civil war” of sorts, if there’s a controversial election result. The text also talks about the fear and tension in expressing political views, the deep division between political parties, and the distrust in mainstream media. Lastly, it mentions the struggle of being independent in a polarized environment.
âž¡ The speaker discusses their concerns about freedom of speech, particularly on social media platforms, and their experiences with censorship. They also touch on gender discrimination, arguing that merit should be the basis for judgment rather than gender. They express frustration with the current focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion, believing it undermines the concept of merit. The speaker also shares their personal experiences and views on cultural biases and the need for change.
âž¡ The text discusses the importance of hiring based on merit and performance, rather than identity, in both small and large businesses. It suggests that larger companies can sometimes hide mediocrity, while smaller businesses cannot afford to do so. The text also discusses Donald Trump’s leadership style, suggesting that he challenges people to get their best answers and prefers those who stand up for their beliefs. It dismisses claims that Trump would roll back on social issues, arguing that his diverse employees and entertainment background contradict this.
âž¡ The text discusses various political and social issues, including the financing of abortions, the impact of a Trump presidency, and concerns about health and food regulations. It also mentions the potential influence of Bobby Kennedy in these matters, and the importance of public opinion in shaping political decisions. The speaker also talks about the global financial system, the power of economic forces, and the effects of sanctions. Finally, the speaker introduces his show, The Bill Walton Show, and invites the listener to tune in.
Transcript
So you shouldn’t be writing plans for it. You should be writing plans to dismantle it and maybe move people into something more productive. So that was the big plan. Just a quick break from the program. Are you worried about the government overreach and about the freedom crushing CBDCs that are threatening to be put in place that will take away our freedom and our independence? I am, too. You can have a hedge against all these economic uncertainties by investing in gold and silver. They have been holding the price of gold and silver down. And it not only is a hedge against these uncertainties, it’s also a good investment.
So contact the company that I use, which is Miles Franklin. You can contact them@infomilesfranklin.com tell them that Sarah sent you And Andy Schectman, the president promised me that he’ll give you the best prices and service in the country. Again, infomilesfranklin.com tell him that Sara sent you. Welcome to business Game changers. I’m Sarah Westall. I have Bill Walton coming to the program. He was on Trump’s first transitional team that formed the plans for Trump’s organization back in 2016. He had about a third of the entire federal government plan. And he’s going to come on and talk about that, what they were thinking, how that went, why they did what they did.
He also was part of that project 2025, but he was the financial part of it. And he talks openly about what happened there and why Project 2025, you know, what they did, how they took a portion. It was too many people involved, too big. It was just interesting. And this is an interesting. I like talking to people like him because he gives you an insight, knowledge on. On things. Right? That’s how you learn. But I also talked to him about the woman’s issue. Is it real, why they use it for abortion. I usually hate talking about those issues.
Right. Because I don’t Think it’s the most important issue we have. I’m really merit based. I like to look at merit no matter who you are, color, race, skin, whatever. Merit’s the most important thing. This DEI crap is not, is the opposite of that. Right. So we’re going to talk about that and then we’re also going to talk about the women’s issue because that is being used right now. And what does that mean? And I was realistic about it, you know, and you’ll hear me if you want to listen to it. It’s closer to the end.
And then we, we just dive into the all sorts of issues and I hope you watch this whole thing and you get something out of it as well. If you’re going to make a comment, please be respectful. I’m hoping that our, the comment section is a place where people can learn and engage and debate and talk, but not just sit there and think you’re going to get over on someone by being an a hole and saying something clever that just everybody thinks you’re a jerk. And if it’s too bad, I’ll just delete it. Do something productive where people actually think and engage and interact with each other.
That’s how we get things done. We’re in a. We also talk about how we’re in like a Civil war mentality right now. And I for one don’t want to be in. I mean, it’s really uncomfortable and especially in the front lines talking about things. I’m trying to talk about hard issues in a civil war kind of mentality space. How do you do that without making yourself a target? And the best way to do it is for us to be as respectful as we can to each other and actually talk about these issues because we are dangerously close to getting to something that none of us want.
And so we got to talk through these things and start to face some of these hard problems and realize there’s going to be extremists on both ends. Maybe we just cut those people loose and the 90% of our 80% of us in the middle start working together and getting something accomplished. Maybe that’s what we do. But we got to stop this extreme. I get it all the time, the emails I get, the comments I get it’s, it’s really obnoxious. And you know, I don’t know if I deserve them, but I don’t like them. So anyways, if you like this show, do a thumbs up because I don’t get enough likes.
And I, if I was watching a show, I hardly do any likes. And now I’m starting to because I’m realizing they actually matter. The likes matter on these algorithms. And. And so you’re probably like me, you’re like, I don’t even think about liking something because I’m so focused. I don’t know, I don’t even. But like it because we need. I need more people to like my shows. So please do that. And I also want to remind you to go to my substack. I’ve been posting articles about the. Well, about the world financial systems. Right. I know the bricks are coming and I’m going to have Andy Shackman back.
We’re going to talk about the bricks. I’m diving into that more, but I’ve been talking to a lot of people behind the scenes and I’m doing some research and some investigative work on what’s going on around the world. There’s three systems that I see that are realistic. That what makes something realistic. This me, what I think is really, although God has another plan, something smaller, some other. These other systems that people are working on, maybe they’ll work. Okay, I don’t want to say that those won’t work because you never know. But the three that I think are the most realistic from a being, not the only player, but the dominant player is the world financial system that the, you know, the world central banks, the U.N.
those guys are putting into place. They’re not talking about it much because if they do, it’ll undermine the current system and they don’t want to bring it out until it’s ready to go. So they’re not very public, but I know they’re working on stuff. Okay, there’s that one, then there’s the BRICs, who are really public about stuff. They’re trying to get all these countries involved. And what I want to say first is that how I’m defining what is serious is are there world governor, are there presidents of countries, are there financial ministers, Are there people in high levels of countries that are taking these systems seriously? If they are, then they’re more likely to be the dominant system going forward or in a contender.
So the first one I said was the central bankers one, the western central bankers one, because all the east have central bankers too, but the western central bankers one, the BRICs, which is more serious as more and more countries are joining because they’re trying to get out from underneath the western financial systems. And we’re going to talk about that more and how maybe some of them are being duped and, and what this really is. And the majority of them just want a utility and to be left alone and to be able to thrive. And we’re going to dive into that.
And the third one is a gold, global Gold Monetary Fund. I’ve started to introduce that. Why are they a serious one? Well, first they have enough gold to back the ENT world financial system. I know that’s strange, but they do. And they also are a serious contender because they’re talking to leaders in countries, in top levels of countries. So what does that mean? And what are they? That’s something I’m diving into. So those are the three that I think are serious contenders. Then you have cryptocurrencies, but cryptocurrencies, I might be wrong, but I think that they will be secondary monetary systems with inside the overarching monetary system.
And I think they will flourish. I think some of them will. And hopefully the really decentralized ones will. But the first system, the UN and the BRICS countries are going to be using central bank digital currencies. They’re going to be using. And that’s not even a good word. The CBDC isn’t a good word for it because a CBDC still can be a utility. What they’re using is digital currencies that can track and trace everything. And I want to warn people, if you get caught up in the terminology, you might miss out on something being a track and trace digital currency without understanding it.
You want to look at what the actions are behind these digital currencies. We want things that are utility and completely decentralized. If you want more freedom and you don’t want the government tracking and tracing everything. But the first system, which is the un, you know, the central bankers, the bis, those guys they’re going to probably put in place. So they’re talking about it putting in place cryptocurrency central bank digital currencies that are tracking and tracing everything. And they want to do it based on carbon. And it’s a whole nightmare that they’re putting in place total control.
The BRICs, they claim they’re not doing that, but each country has the ability to do it. And for sure China is and other countries are. And then we got this other one, Global Gold Monetary Fund. And that one I’m really excited about. So I’m starting to talk about some of that. What is that? Right? What are these things? And so we’re going to be talking about all these and I’ve been doing a lot of it on my substack. So go to sarah westall.substack.com I’ve been writing articles and talking about it. I’ve just introduced what the Global Gold Monetary Fund is and I’ll be talking more about that as we go forward.
I don’t know if it’s the best, but I like the idea that they have enough gold and their whole goal is to be a utility and totally decentralized. Kind of like that. So anyways, check that out. Sarah westall.substack.com if you become a subscriber, you have access to my 10 part series on the fifth generation warfare and mind control, the whole control grid. I touch on some of this new nanotech. But I don’t go, I, I don’t go super deep. I try to get people a broad understanding from military, social media, some of the tech and engineering from targeted individuals.
Just a whole broad look at what this really is, get our arms around it. And Nobody leaves that 10 part series not believing that this exists. There’s too much evidence, there’s too many whistleblowers where you see that this is happening. And so you get a free access to that and a whole bunch of other things. So hope you sign up for it. Sarah wessel.substack.com and let’s get into my really interesting conversation with Bill Walton, who again, who was on the Trump transitional team, he was in charge of building out the, a third of the organization for the federal government.
He’s also the leader and the chairman for cpac. And I will have a link for his, he has his own show and website and things so you can check him out there as well. And let’s get into my interview with Bill Walton. Hi Bill. Welcome to the program. Hey, great to be here. We’re going to have an interesting discussion on the staffing that you did for the Trump transition team. And then we’re going to tie into a bunch of other things. But tell listeners what you did for the, for Trump, for his, you know, when you did the staffing.
What does that mean? Well, it’s a saga really. It’s the backing up just a bit. The, I don’t know, think that, I think last 20 years ago, 25 years ago, Congress passed a Presidential Transition Authorization Act. And what it does is it provides money and space for the campaigns to pull together their action plans and their thoughts about personnel during the campaign. And then after the election and before inauguration, it’s an opportunity to stand up a government before you actually start job on day one, after the inauguration. And I was pulled into this group when it was July of 2016, 2016, when the campaign was fully, fully engaged.
And of course, at that point, July 2016, nobody thought Donald Trump had one chance in a million to become president. And so my primary background is Wall Street. I was CEO of a New York Stock Exchange, a financial company, and I’d never worked in government. And they asked me to come in and head up a group that we’re putting together plans for 25, 26, 27 of the financial oriented agencies like the treasury, the Internal revenue service, Commerce, U.S. trade Rep. And so we were, we stood, we got the group going and it was headed up by a guy who ran Boston Consulting Group.
I keep getting BCG confused with Bain. It was one of the two, Ron Nicol. He was a great, great guy, great leader. And so we had a very, very organized effort to pull together plans for all the agencies. We had Ed Meese, former Attorney General, involved, Ken Blackwell was Secretary of State of Ohio, and then K. James, who later on ended up running the Heritage Foundation. And so the four of us were leaders of this team along with Ron. And we were stay, we were put in an office on, I think it was East Street, I can’t remember.
Oh, maybe it was Pennsylvania Avenue. And we were in the same building as the Kamala Harris. Not Kamala, no, no, the, I mistake my female, my female Hillary Clinton. And we would ride up in the elevator with the Hillary Clinton team that was putting together the Hillary Clinton plan. And of course they didn’t, they just assumed they were going to be, you know, in office. And they looked at us at the elevator, in the elevator as if we were, should I say, deplorables. And you were, they were smug. We already won, you guys, we were, they looked down upon you.
They were smug. And so we, we worked together, pulling together the plans and we pulled in a lot of top, top political people, thinkers, policy people in Washington, all of whom are, were conservative from a lot of the major think tanks. And not, not just conservative, but people who, and we were very much aligned with what Donald Trump said he wanted to do when he became president. So that’s one part of the story. The other part of the story is that Donald Trump, as you know, made his business as a deal guy, putting up hotels and resorts and things like that around the world.
And he at the time had never really run anything very big. I mean, he had a deal shop, he had a few people in Trump Tower. And in that time he was running for president. And Donald believed then, and he believes now that it was bad Luck to create plans before you actually got elected. And so the guys in New York didn’t really want to have a lot to do with what we were doing in Washington. Well, hold on. There’s a different idea. Because if he hasn’t ran a bigger company, he has more of the. Because I taught entrepreneurship at Carlson School and there’s stages.
And as an entrepreneur in a smaller, mobile kind of company, you want to be like. More like that, but in a late stage, later stage organization, you operate different. It takes a different mindset. Oh, I could not agree more. But that’s what I. Donald Trump suffers from. What a lot of other billionaires suffer from is that once you’ve made a billion dollars, and I don’t care whether it’s in real estate or artificial intelligence or whatever, you know, whatever your field is, once you become a billionaire, you think you know pretty much everything there is to know, and particularly if you’ve made it as an entrepreneur and as a deal guy.
I don’t. I think you wildly underappreciate all that goes into running a big organization. And Donald, you know, believed that then, and I think he also believes that now. And so you’re right. By the book, we should have. He should have paid more attention to it. But his, in his, in his smart, he learned. In his defense, this was 2016, and when we, I first joined the team, I got a whole stack of the books that were prepared by the Romney campaign when Mitt was running in 2012. And that was sort of the gold standard for plans.
You know, Mitt ran a big consulting shop, private equity, very successful organization builder. He was much more of an organization guy. And they had the best plans. I mean, they were written, they had charts, they had personnel, staffing, ideas. And the only problem is Mitt didn’t win. And Mitt was a different. I’m not a big fan of Mitt Romney, but he was. Neither am I. Okay, neither am I. But that doesn’t mean you can’t. You don’t know how to build an organization. It’s a different skill set. And I like the renegade I.D. tRUMP because we got to change things up.
But you still need to build an organization. I’m sorry. Keep going. Well, I think you and I are in complete agreement. Although I look and of course, what happened was we got. When he won the election, there was just the dynamic in the elevators changed considerably. And then because there were so many people flooding the dynamic in the elevator. That’s so funny. It’s like the office space, the elevator Dynamic. That’s awesome. We could do a sitcom of all the dynamics, because what happened was the elevators all of a sudden became jammed with job seekers and people who wanted to go to work in the Trump administration.
And so we had to leave our office on Pennsylvania Avenue, where we had sort of the mighty small band of brothers, and move into much more complex office spaces. Over in each street, I think we had three or four floors. Well, let me ask you. So the same people that were smug before suddenly wanted jobs? Was it the same people that just. Well, no, no, no, no. The smug people were the Hillary people. Okay. They, they didn’t want jobs, but there were a lot of people who didn’t want to have anything to do with the Trump campaign, didn’t want to spend time on it because they didn’t think he could win.
And once he won, that’s the 180s. Okay, 180. And then we had all the people coming in, we had all sorts of, quote, help and in creating the plan. And of course, we were pretty far along with all this, and we had some people join us, and it worked pretty well. But we got to the point where we developed the plans, and we eventually collided with the reality of Trump. He did not really want to work from plans that were developed from people, people in Washington, because he distrusted, you know, he thought somehow we were tainted with the deep state.
We weren’t, of course. We, we were very much with him on all these sort of things. So they ended up musing as much as they should have. And I think his administration would have gotten off to a much better start. Well, let me ask you something, and I think that’s. That’s a really important point. Okay. Is there is a. There is a lot of corruption and swampiness in D.C. and. But you were saying your plans weren’t that. How did you, how were the plans. How were you able to strip that swampiness out of your plans? Well, we did.
We were quite blunt about it. In fact, one of the plans for the Education Department was to get rid of it. Oh, okay. That was pretty simple. And I. I had a similar view of the SBA Small Business Administration, because I’d had some dealings with it, and it absolutely does not accomplish its mission. And as A. Elon Musk has pointed out just recently, what do we have? Something like 350 different agencies that have been stood up over the last 150 years, and most of them shouldn’t even exist. So you shouldn’t be writing plans for it. You should be Writing plans to dismantle it and maybe move people into something more productive.
So that was the big plan. One of the most consequential lies of history is that Karl Marx put forth an economic theory or doctrine. He did not. He put forth a totalitarian religion. This was a rape of the body of Christ. He said the ultimate objective was to destroy Christianity. Those were his words. And Khrushchev bragged about it. We’ll take America without firing a shot. Hi, I’m here to impoverish, enslave, and murder you. They were actual communists. The result, you can see we have to say, no, please. There are ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing all over the place.
And of course, what we were doing suffered from the problem of, well, you got a Commerce Department, you got to do a Commerce Department plan. So the thing I like about the approach they’re taking now, and they’re talking about bringing Elon Musk in, and he’s not going to run an organization. He’s going to come in and there won’t be a cabinet position for him, I doubt, I suspect. But he’s looking at all these agencies and saying, should these even exist? And I think that’s the right way to approach it. Well, shouldn’t Elon Musk be talking to you guys, too, since you guys spent some time.
Well, that was a meeting just. Well, that was way back. And, you know. Well, I was involved more recently in the. In the infamous Project 2025. Oh, were you involved in that? That one, everybody. That one’s not going well. Well, I. Steve Moore, who’s the famous economist, he’s on Fox and CNBC a lot. He’s great, great guy. He was asked to write the treasury plan and he said, bill, I don’t know anything about the Treasury. You. You were involved in this. So you write the treasury plan. And so together, Steve and I wrote the. The plan for the treasury for Project 2025.
I think Bay and Steve was involved in 2016. I think. I think we were a little dubious about whether this thing would ever be. Trump would ever like the product. Because when you get 200, 300 people who’ve got policy backgrounds writing a plan in Washington, everybody’s got their pet project they want to put in or whatever. There are a lot of agendas, and it’s hard to look at things fresh and it’s hard to, you know, and then again, heritage. And it’s. At a time this made sense, I don’t think it no longer makes any sense. I think the book itself is almost 960 pages with about 300 pages of footnotes.
I mean, nobody’s going to curl up with that as a guide to government. So it. It was not. It was not well conceived in terms of the way you’d roll it out or get it implemented in. In time in a new Trump administration. But they found little pieces of it and so easy to do. Yeah. And then they made it out to be like you guys were a bunch of freaking nut jobs. Well, that’s the other thing. You know, when we wrote our plan not, not to. I mean, that’s happened to me. So I know what it’s like when you get something small and then they make you out to a nut job.
But I’m saying that’s what happened with 2025. And they still are pounding, you know, that drum. Well, exactly. I mean, and anytime you put together a document that big, you’re going to find something on page 43, footnote number two, that says, we’re going to do this, and then you lock onto that, take it out of context, and make that your headline. And, you know, it’s not really my issue, but I think the whole pro life issue was they had a chapter on that, and that was seized on as a radical thing, and it was a mistake to put the book out.
When we did it in 2016, we had these roles. These are all secret plans, and that’s the way it should have happened. You don’t put it out there for the Democrats to pick apart. And so that was, I think, a strategic mistake that took place more recently. But it’s fun to have written the chapter in the infamous Project 2025 book. Mine, by the way, is excellent. What is, what is your chapter? Well, the thing about the treasury is that 95% of the employees are employees of the Internal Revenue Service. And, you know, I’m considered a radical because I think the irs, we shouldn’t get rid of taxation, but we should get rid of the Internal Revenue Service as it’s presently structured and start over.
And if you look at all the technology that now exists, artificial intelligence is just the latest. But you could reconfigure the IRS. You could dramatically take its 87,000 employees or whatever and radically reduce that headcount and end up with a much better user experience, taxpayer experience, much more streamlined cost structure, and you could do a lot of good. So I actually ended up recommending spending a lot of money on information technology. I mean, if we’ve got ATMs that you can spill out cash and things like that our user experience online with our banks and other financial services organization.
There’s no reason the IRS couldn’t be doing exactly the same thing if they wanted to. And so without tracking every single person and every single thing they do. Right, because that’s what people are freaking out about. They don’t, they want freedom. They don’t want, they want it to be a utility, not something where Big Brother comes in and tracks everything. Exactly. And we could have made it a lot less intrusive and a lot more streamlined. You could probably increase the revenue because you end up with lower costs and big, big opportunity to rethink agencies. So that was, that was the centerpiece of the plan.
It was part of the Heritage Group though. And I think as I recollect some of the more radical things we put in there got edited out, which is, you know, again, what happens now? I think you’ve got a background as a professor, don’t you? Weren’t you a teacher and. Yeah, I taught entrepreneurship. Yeah, I taught at Carlson School for five years. But I have a big tech background. I’m a systems engineer by training. Well, think about the irs. Couldn’t we do some damage there? I mean I just remember when I was doing. We could automate. I know this, I know this scares people, but things are.
Was so inefficient back then. We could take a hundred person organization and turn it into a three person organization and automate a lot of that stuff because they were just hand doing things. And I think IRS is prime for that. I just don’t want the tracking and tracing and all that other crap. I just think things need to be more efficient. Well, they do. And the tracking and tracing is a political issue and you’d have to have Congress address it and say we’re not going to allow you to collect this kind of information. I mean it’s.
But the government I’m going to get off track a little bit is even, you know, they get this thing called the Corporate Transparency act, which is been put into one of the big bills that Biden signed into law. Trump vetoed it in 2019. But what it does is it requires every small business in America to turn over a lot of the information about who owns the businesses. And people are fearing that that’s going to also include their customer list and their supplier lists and the sort of things that would be involved in having political oversight of some.
It’s like half of the workforce, it’s like 50 million are in these small businesses and they want you to send in your information to the Financial Crimes Unit in the Treasury Department as if every small business was a, was a suspect in committing a financial crime. And so you tie that with the Internal Revenue Service and its intrusiveness, and then you take the Treasury Department and the Financial Crimes Group, collecting who beneficial ownership information. And then the SEC has got something afoot where they want to collect information about every single one of your securities holdings. So your account did, you know, pick and pick a place.
Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, all your securities holding would be in a database that the sec. And again, what they’re saying is, well, this is just in case there’s some. There’s some bad things happen. We want to have the database. You don’t need the database. I mean, it’s something that should only happen after the fact. But yet if you’ve got the database, that sec, another database at the irs, and a third one yet again at treasury, and then you’ve got artificial intelligence tools and they’ve got all this information about people, you can put. The government, federal government can put together a very scary profile.
That’s right. Of, of, of, of, of everybody in the country. And of course, the, the Finn is part of the, the terrorism group at Treasury. Well, now they’re declaring parents of schools in, in Faure county here in the D.C. area terrorist or, you know, potential bad actors. And so when you’ve got what used Islamic terrorist aimed again now at parents and the Catholic Church, by the way, who’s also on Merrill Garland’s list, it gets to be, it gets to be a problem. Well, it makes people angry. This is what makes people angry is you’re going after people that go to p, you know, PTSA or whatever, those, you know, PTA meetings.
You’re going after all these parents, you’re going after churchgoers. Just. It’s horrendous. While you’re allowing the human traffickers, the drug traffickers, the crimes that we’re seeing being committed are not being tackled, you know, especially at the border and elsewhere. But yet you’re going after all these innocent people. It really makes people angry. Well, angry. And also they can end up in jail and they’re, you know, just. That’s right. So it’s an extreme overreach, and it’s all the more reason that we need extreme. Yeah, it’s an extreme overreach while you’re not doing the other side, which is to actually take care of criminals.
You know what I mean? So that’s what’s the rule of law. And justice has fallen apart. That’s what’s peeing people off. But the reason why I want to have you here is because I wanted to understand one of the things that people are complaining, complaining about now, and you’re saying this is happening is that Trump doesn’t have a transition team. He’s not like, serious about getting things going. Now, are you seeing that or is he just, or is he more serious? He’s just more of like a cross between, like a big company, big organization person. And I’m assuming he’s ran a big organization for four years.
You learn a lot. So I would assume he’s some crime. I mean, what is he doing? Well, there was a report this week that the Trump transition team, Linda McMahon, who ran the, coincidentally, the SBA for Trump in the previous administration, she also was involved in worldwide wrestling. I think she’s a billionaire. Is she the wife of Ed McMahon? No, the wife of. Is that the guy that formed it? Not Ed. It’s not Ed. I don’t know. I’m sorry. You know these guys. I don’t know. Vince. Vince McMahon. This. Okay. Yeah, Vince, he’s sort of a wild guy, you know, Matt.
And slapping. I’m not, I, I won’t watch that. I refuse to watch two people slapping each other as entertainment. But go ahead. I’m with you. Anyway, Belinda’s running it. Then there’s another fellow who runs a big, runs a very effective securities for financial securities firm in New York who’s the co head of it. And I think they have, they do not want to put into, in for the presidential transition money because what comes with that are restrictions on how you can raise money for it. We had a $5,000 limitation, which is not a very big number in today’s world of big, big, big ticket donors.
And also there are lots of disclosure issues if you become part of that. So if you rethink the transition and you think, well, if Trump want to reimagine government, if he really does want to go after the deep state, if he really does think that there, there are dozens of agencies that it’s not a question of improving them, it’s a question of asking whether they should even exist. If you bring in Elon Musk to begin looking into that, if you bring in Bobby Kennedy, who’s got a very, I think, interesting approach toward our food, food and drug and health care, and I think he’d be a fresh breath, they’re not going to look at the existing institutions and say, we want to tinker with These, I think they’re going to ask, well, should these institutions exist? And if we do want to take care of safe drugs and healthy food, is there a better bureaucracy? And it shouldn’t even be a bureaucracy necessarily to bring about those results.
So if you think about like that, that’s the kind of transition thinking that I believe is happening inside the Trump campaign now. And they’re serious about it, because that’s what the country needs. They need it to be serious. I think they’re deadly serious about it. I think they’re, I think they’re. And that’s, of course, the reason that he’s being fought tooth to nail. It’s the reason you’ve got Joe Biden telling people that he’s going to murder Americans and fire every single civil servant. And it’s why the K Street army of lobbyists is absolutely losing their minds because of, you know, their, their effectiveness depends on the relationship with these agencies and with Congress and with the existing bloated system.
And if, if he’s serious about it, and I believe he’s deadly serious about it, bringing in these people that are, that are totally different breeds of cat could actually make it happen. That’s right. That’s what you, you run organizations, you know, that you bring in somebody totally different. That’s why I’d say the, the entrepreneurial attitude and is actually a really positive in a big organization a lot of times, because think differently. Well, I think that’s what we’re going to get and that’s the reason this is such a unbelievably toxic political environment we’re in right now. Because this is, and I hate this word, it’s overused.
This is existential for the deep state. I mean, they’re concerned. I don’t believe Trump’s going to do. I don’t think Trump’s going to be locking people up. I don’t think Trump is going to be doing all the egregious things. That’s what they did. That’s what they did. Take a look at how they handled some of the J6 people. So I don’t think that’s going to happen. But do I think he might say, we don’t need this agency, or does he think, does he say to the FBI, you don’t need a big new headquarters out in Maryland.
We may want to rethink what the FBI looks like. You may not have that big building here and was on Constitution Avenue. You may end up on Pennsylvania Avenue. We may out, we may put you in Kansas. They may move for the federal government. These are the same idea. I mean, to just blow up Washington D.C. and move things around and change how everything is done. And that’s the other reason, I think, not doing the transition the way we did it in 2016. I think it’s a smart move because even the people we had in our team came from think tanks and whatever and they may be a Social Security expert and that’s their bit.
That’s their life. You know, they do, they know how that works. Yeah. They’re not going to think about should we have something completely different that’s not in, that’s not in their personal self interest. And people just don’t think that way. So if, but we’re dealing with. And you, I know as a business executive you’ve had to deal with change management. Change management is. Yeah, you’re, it’s really hard. And we’re dealing especially with people who are very, even though they claim they’re liberal and so very conservative and set in their ways about how things should be run and they’re not this liberal minded people.
They are about society. They, you know, they’re out there when it comes to social issues, but when it comes to, they’re entrenched in their environment. Changing the mindset of people like that is extremely difficult. And you know, you’ve done change management. And so those people are going to dig in their heels. I mean, are they going to dig in their heels so much that it could cause a civil war? Because these people are out there. I mean, we know what they’ve been doing. I think we could see some version of a civil war. Yeah, I mean, I don’t, I don’t see us lining up in blue coats and gray coats and, you know, mounting picket’s charge.
But I think there’s going to be a, a version of a civil war that I don’t think it necessarily is a hot civil war, but these people are not going to leave their positions easily and there’s going to be massive resistance to an election result if that produces a Trump win. You know, I don’t want to. You don’t want to fuel that. Obviously. I don’t want to feel right. Yeah, you don’t want to create that. You don’t want that. We don’t want that. We want, we want to transition to something healthier. But we, but we did want to.
I do want to make this point though, that I think bears on the fact that their fears are justified and that they might lose their livelihood because in terms of Changing an organization, it usually comes down to changing people. And my experience of managing people is it’s very hard to change people. I mean, you’ve got people that have this talent or this temperament. And you don’t change talent. You don’t change temperament. You move it a little bit, but not dramatically. And if you decide you need a radical change in the way the federal government goes about its business, you’re going to need different people.
And that’s where, you know, I think there’s something called schedule F employees. I’m not familiar with the technical part of that, but there’s a way to have more outside political employees come in to change things if you want to do that in an agency. But, you know, even that’s going to be hard because if you look at the Internal Revenue Service at the time, because I was doing all the plans, people said, well, gee, you ought to run the irs. You’ve got some really big ideas here. And I took a look at the agency, and there are 85,000 employees or so at the time.
And do you know how many political employees the president got? How many? Two. Two. He had the commissioner and the general counsel. Other than that, everybody was career. And so, I mean, you can’t. And, you know, you’re trying to change an organization. Everybody’s entrenched. The only way that you’re going to be able to change it is to change it. Right? Yeah, you got it. And sorry, but you guys are entrenched. We need. The people of this country want something different, and that means you need to go. Sorry, but you’re, you’re, you know, and that’s what they’re fighting in.
I live in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, and there’s almost just a civil war going on right now. Like, if you. It’s not a civil war in the sense of what is civil, but it’s a. It’s a very tension. Like nobody will have a Trump sign up. Right. I’m in a very, you know, with the walls as the governor. But if you go around in St. Paul, Minneapolis, you see a whole bunch of Harris wall signs, no Trump signs anywhere. Everybody’s afraid to put a Trump sign up because they feel like they’re going to get banned a lot.
And I think there’s probably more. I don’t know how many Trump supporters are versus Harris, but it probably is pretty close to. Even if not. I mean, I don’t know. But the fact that so many people are uncomfortable with expressing their political views is new in this country. Right. This hasn’t wasn’t like this 10 years ago, but people are afraid. So there’s a whole nother attitude right now. We had, we had Bush derangement before we had Trump derangement, but it was nothing compared to what, what we’re seeing today. And you’re right, I mean, people don’t want to come out if they’re, if they’re for Trump.
They’re, and it’s not, it’s not irrational. I mean, you see, you see tires slashed and, you know, there was a, there’s a, there’s a clip out on YouTube just recently, just, just yesterday about a woman who’s, you know, these ring cameras on the porches for. People have them out there. They don’t want packages stolen. Evidently, this woman saw a Trump sign, somebody’s yard, came up to the door, pounded on the door and started haranguing the owner of the house. You know, how could you be for Trump? He’s this, that and the other. And, and it was, it was, it was scary to behold.
And I, you know, I think we’re all worried about this idea of we don’t want to talk civil war, but there is, but there is a clash of cultures here. That’s, that’s profound. And, but there’s another poll that’s interesting that shows Trump way ahead. Well, there’s a lot, I think, starting to show up. But the poll, this poll where evidently the pollster, I got to remember his name, doesn’t ask you what, who you’re going to vote for. He says, who’s your neighbor going to vote for? And, oh, interesting. And so, so, so people who don’t want to out themselves say, oh, well, this neighbor, he, she’s going to be for Trump or going to be for Trump.
So it, it’s, it’s, it’s, you’re able to find out more what people are thinking by getting at. Indirectly. Yeah. Because people won’t tell you right now in that rightfully so. Right. So these polls are totally off and. Well, they’re off for a couple reasons. They’re off to try to manipulate the public, but they’re off also because people just won’t tell you. No, they won’t. And you know, well, I think we’re all going to be happy this, when this election. Oh, for God, yes. I hate this. Yes. Because it’s not really my, my alley. I don’t like talking.
I don’t like the horse race about it. I’d like to talk issues. I like to deep, you know, actually have intelligent conversations about Stuff and it feels like the entire conversation has been boiled down to middle school theatrics. It’s just so stupid. Well, everything’s become personal. People are making policy arguments. It’s just these people are evil and these people are evil and I don’t, I don’t, you know, I mean I’m clearly on one side, I’m on the Trump side. But what I can see is that both sides hate each other. And that’s unusual. I mean this is not your father’s Democrat Republican Party.
I belong to a golf club in the D.C. area that used to be, they called it the Senators Club and it was a place where senators would go and play golf and you’d have Democrats and Republicans and, and you know, things would happen because they were more or less on the same page with 75, 90% of the issues now. I mean the membership now is mainly business people and things like that because the politicians don’t want to have anything to do with each other other. And so we’re, we’re deeply divided. We are deeply divided, but it just feels like they’re not even dealing with the same issues.
They won’t listen to the, the media is very different. Like the, I just saw a poll that showed that the trust in the mainstream media is, that isn’t an all time low. Only 12% of Republicans trust the mainstream media but something like 60% of Democrats do. So the Democrats are. I think it’s state run media. I think it’s propaganda and they’re just all watching that non stop. Well, non stop. But they trust it. They trust it. And that’s. Well, I, I don’t, yeah, this. Whether state run or whether media runs the state or the state runs the media.
Right. It sort of goes back activists and people were paying and there’s a whole payment structure of activists this paying media folks and then they won’t get paid unless you talk about this candidate this many times. You push these products, you do all this kind of stuff. It’s. I’m independent and I’m, I. It’s an interesting how I won’t be supported by so many outlets because I don’t behave that way. So it’s real. I don’t care what people say. That’s real. You’re independent. But I don’t know what that means anymore. That’s right, that’s right. That’s true. You can push back at me on that.
That’s very true. But. No, but that’s true because what is independent. I actually say I’m More of a constitutionalist. I believe in the Constitution, that’s the place to be and, or a speech person or First Amendment person. And I think you, where I come out is you can’t be independent when people are trying to take away your speech rights. And we’ve seen with the Twitter files, which is where all the, the, all the, all the communications between the White House and the social media companies to shut down not just the White House, but like seven or eight different federal agencies to shut down speech of people on the, on the social media platforms was widespread, persistent daily.
And the White House was threatening punishment unless the social media companies knuckled under. Now, not exactly that the social media companies were pushing back that hard, but they really, they, if you look at those, those Twitter files, the censorship, the aim were to really to not only deplatform people, but for sure I’ve been more, there’s probably not many more people been as unpersoned as me. I wrote a whole article. I’ve lost, sued Google. Oh, you’ve been unpersoned? Oh, for God’s sake. I sued. I, I, yeah, I led a lawsuit against Google that went to the ninth Circuit.
And then I also worked to get added to the, my thing get added to Missouri versus Biden, which they just ignored. So there isn’t. Good for you people. Good for you. Yeah, no, because it’s not okay. Right. I’m a, that’s why we said independent. What does that mean? Well, I was saying more independent from a. I like to think independently of an independent thought. But yeah, when it comes to the Constitution, I’m like, okay, I’m clearly about the Constitution. That’s what I. And any candidate that cares more and follows more than that Constitution is who I support.
And I also say that you can’t be a thinker or a free thinker anymore in the Democrat party at all. I mean, you are in their party. You don’t follow them. You’re done. At least in the Republican Party you can still have free thought. You can have people fighting to change things. That’s the only place you can belong at this point. Exactly, exactly. Well, you know, I’ve got my own webcast and when I’m doing some of them, I’m sort of looking around the room saying, well, what we just said is going to get a warning on YouTube or they may pull the whole show because we wander into areas on a vaccine or masks or, you know, the censorship regime here in here in the D.C.
area. And YouTube doesn’t like you saying things like that they’ll put a warning label on your content in a heartbeat. That’s. Yeah, I know I’m not on YouTube right now, but, like, I gotta. We. One of the things that is going on, and I don’t think this is. I said I would want to. They wanted me to bring this up. A couple people that I know, and so I’m going to. But I don’t think it’s the number one issue for our country right now. And so I don’t talk about it hardly ever. But it’s the fee female issue and Harris being a woman and the male female thing.
And I’m really into merit, right. I think people should be judged based on merit. But I gotta. You know, as a woman, there’s a lot of times where. Where I and other people I know are the one with the most merit. And you get passed over because you’re a female. That happens. And so what happens then is a lot of women who’ve experienced that over the years, and it’s not just women. It’s all everybody. Everybody gets hosed over. But it just happens. It happens probably to females more. Right. Or people of certain races and things and whatever.
And I have examples of it. Especially now, it’s happening a lot more in the independent media where people specifically won’t even hire a female. It’s all male spokespeople. And so I know it’s happened. To me personally, I don’t think it’s the most important issue for the country right now. So I don’t focus on it. Just a quick break from your programming so I can give you a little information about Masterpiece. They are the masters at removing toxins and heavy metals and aluminum and microplastics out of your bloodstream, out of your body. We are being bombarded with this craft from all over the place, and we need to get it out of our bodies that you are more susceptible to every disease imaginable when that’s in your bloodstream.
And I like Masterpiece. That’s the company I endorse. Why? Because they’re the only company out there that’s actually doing trials to prove to you that their product works. It removes graphene oxide, it removes aluminum, it removes microplastics and all sorts of toxins. You can try yours today as well by going to sarawessell.com under shop or with the link below. But what happens then is women then internalize the pregnancy. The abortion issue is a freedom issue. Women’s rights, because they have all this other stuff that they’ve experienced through their life, and they think that’s a freedom issue, and they dig their heels into it, not realizing they’re being manipulated over that issue.
And I see that, especially in my state, where. Where they’re going hardcore. It’s like the one issue, they’re getting women to vote for this because they. It’s. They tap into that. That rage that you have of not being treated fairly to deal with this freedom issue on abortion, which is bs. I mean, it’s not. It’s bs, Especially in my state. What do you think about that? I think you’re spot on. I think they’ve taken the issue, the life issue, the right to choose issue, and that’s sort of a symbol of everything else that are people’s agendas.
But it’s the easiest thing to talk about because we’ve got the recent Supreme Court ruling which changed all the rules. But I. You know, when you. When you look at Kamala, I don’t think the issues she faces. I don’t think anybody thinks of her as voting a male or female. I think a lot of people, the more you get out and hear her talk, she’s a Marxist. She’s not a feminist. She’s. She’s a terrible candidate. She just is. She’s terrible. She just. She just, beyond belief, bad. And so I. It’s interesting they’ve made Hillary vote for a woman.
I don’t think Kamala is quite in that same category. But then I turn around and think about the women’s issues. Women have done. 60% of college undergraduates are now women. They’re 52%, 55% in the grad schools. A lot of those wars have been won. And I don’t know, we still have some cultural baggage. There’s still some cultural baggage and some underlying bias that doesn’t allow us to get to merit. Right. And we also have a country of immigrants who are working with other countries who really do have biases, and that infiltrates into our country. So, I mean, it is there, but it’s a cultural thing that we have to work on, but the laws aren’t skewed.
It’s a cultural thing of just people treat people as people and merit and things and be better people. That’s a cultural issue versus a legislative issue in my mind. Am I wrong on that? I think it’s. Well, and not just women. It’s all different. Different areas. I. I don’t. I. You know what. What’s happened is, is that the. On the legislative front, on the legal, regulatory front, they’ve enshrined so many things involving diversity, equity, and inclusion. That’s right. That’s absolutely a dagger aimed at the heart of merit. And it’s the opposite going on right now. It’s going.
And it’s so, it’s so against the idea of merit. And they balkanized everybody into these categories. And we’ve got intersectionality where if you’re this race or this sex or this sexual, you know, this sexual preference, you’re, you know, you’re. You’re in this group or that group or whatever. I don’t know. I mean, I, I long for the day we could just be people. Yeah, but it’s hard. Yes. It’s hard for me to. You know, it’s funny as a, as a, as a, as a white guy who was a CEO of a New York Stock Exchange company and made some money.
You know, I’m the patriarchy. I mean, I don’t get a vote on these things. I don’t know. Okay, let me ask you. But on the other hand, I grew up in Indianapolis, and that conjures up an image. But I went to an inner city high school, is 80% black, and this was back in 1965, 1967. And so, you know, my, my personal experience has been very, quote, diverse and came out of a, out of a neighborhood and had a lot, you know, friends who didn’t look like me. And yet it helps you mentally, I think. Absolutely.
Martin Luther King, when he said we needed to meld together and that’s what will end things, that’ll end all this cultural stuff that we have, and running a company, there’s no way better than to realize that color, sex, all these things don’t matter than having your ass on the line running a company or running an organization where you personally are responsible for things and are good at it. Because. And that’s what I used to teach, is that you will learn quickly that it doesn’t matter what race you are, what color you are. It’s your attitude, it’s your persistence, it’s how smart you.
It’s how you work. I mean, all that stuff, what Milton Friedman said, there’s nothing better than. And then making performance. You know, actually, that’s what the economy, economics is about, is if you pay women or blacks or whatever, two less, then the competition will come in, get them for less than what they deserve, and they’re going to kick your butt. And there’s so many examples of that. So a good business person needs to see through that. Well, and a good person Good person does. It’s good person. Anyway, the thing is when you’re working in a medium sized smaller business, this, you can’t afford any of the sort of peripheral nonsense about identity because you got a business to run, you got to make payroll, you’ve got to make sales, you got, you can’t have people who aren’t pulling their weight regardless of their, their identity.
But where this, where this is most pernicious is in the bigger, the top 500 top thousand size companies where they got a lot of places to hide mediocrity. Mediocrity. And I think that’s where this, this, this sort of thrives. But it doesn’t, it doesn’t thrive and they have the average mom and pop or the average startup or the average, you know, medium sized business can’t afford it. They make it, it makes them angry because they just want to hire the best people they can find and they don’t care. It’s like being on the front lines of a war.
You don’t care who’s next to you in color or whatever. You just want the best people around you so that you survive. War has changed. So maybe on the battlefield you want a strong man next to you. But when it comes to war being all tech and everything else now, you just want the smartest, most capable person working with you. That kind of stuff. It just is the way it is. But we do have cultural biases that, where merit doesn’t rise to where it is and where it should be. And when you were placing people in positions of, of you know, positions or you were looking at the plan, where is Trump with that? Is he does that.
I mean, he wearing a company, I mean is he, you know, people say he’s a misogynist but he couldn’t afford to be, could he? I mean was he. Maybe in his personal life he does kind of in that way. But when it comes to running things, he’s not a misogynist. He picks people because he thinks he can get it done. I mean he has, he’s not an idiot. He has, he has some biases. You know, he loves, he loves entrepreneurs who’ve made lots of money like he has and he likes to pick people like that. But you know, he’s got Lyndon McMahon and his co head is his transition.
I know lots of people who work for him in his, in his White House women outstanding people. And he didn’t, he didn’t really see that. He just sees whether you’re, you’re, you’re accomplishing what needs to be accomplished. And the thing about him is that he has a sense of humor and he makes jokes and he says things that just drive people crazy. And he did this thing with John Kelly that people are talking about that General Kelly, the four star who worked for him as Chief of staff. Mercedes Schlapp worked in the White House when he was there and Trump was there and, and, and John Kelly.
And I’m, I’m not talking out of school on this because she said it on WM WMAL this morning. John Kelly sat, sat in the office with her and she said, I hate Donald Trump. And his, he couldn’t, he couldn’t stand Donald Trump because he’d get into a meeting with Donald Trump. And Donald Trump, when opened up in the meeting, well, we got a problem. Mexico maybe we got to build a moat down there. And he’d go, he throws out these crazy ideas and you get a four star button up, four star, like John Kelly made him crazy, you know, because that’s not the way you got things from the Pentagon.
And, and so Trump throws a lot of stuff out there as a, as a trial balloon that he has no intention of doing, and yet he knows it’ll get people thinking, it’ll react, things like that. And so I think his style conveys whatever you want it to convey, whether it’s misogyny or whatever, but that’s not what’s going on. What he likes to do is go into a room, shake things up, get people’s best answers, sometimes unsettle people because he wants them outside of their comfort zone. And you know, I have another friend, I guess, needs to go unnamed, who was the top guy in the White House in the economics field.
Trump likes to challenge people. And he came in and my friend was explaining something about econ, about real estate to Trump, Donald Trump, and know something about it. And Trump came back at him really hard and said, that’s not true, it’s not true. And my friend said, president Trump, it is true. This is the, this is what it is. And you know what Trump did? He said, you’re right, I was testing you. Really? Yeah. And so he didn’t quite say it that way. Trump would never quite put it that way, but it was, he was challenging him to stand up for what he believed.
And so when you got a leader like that who wants people around him who will say what they really believe, believe you’re in pretty good shape. That’s what you need. You need people who will tell you what they really believe, because if they’re just telling you what you want to hear. You’re in trouble. You’re dead. Yeah, you are in trouble. And the, and the person who wants that is not the person we want. I mean, they’re a narcissist. They claim that he’s a narcissist, but a good business person can’t afford to have that, although there are narcissists that run companies.
He’s a complicated narcissist. He’s like. He’s complicated. I mean, well, but he wants to be good, and so he understands that I need people around me like this. Okay, well, now here’s the deal. This is another thing that I hear because I’m surrounded by Kamala people, right? In this state. Right. And so when I go get my hair cut or whatever, I get to hear all sorts of stuff. And, and one thing that I heard is that they’re afraid we’re going to go backwards. Like, not. They say that anyways, but the, The. The sentiment is we’re going to go backwards on social issues.
Like, and I want you to address this on women’s rights, on black rights, on social issues, because they are, they, they want the. Well, they prop up somebody like Andrew Tate, that is an idiot. The mass media does, who has like, 40 million followers. And he says the rise of the. What does he say? The rise of the patriarchy needs to rise again. And he says all this crap. So you have this, like, movement of BS going on from some of the most sordid characters. But is there any truth to this? Some people. I actually think he’s probably paid by the left or some kind of operation.
But is there any truth to that where they want to change that dynamic? Well, look at his employees. Look at, look at the number of people in the Trump Organization who, who are people of color, you know, women, you know, gays. I mean, it’s not. He’s. He’s very, you know, he’s in the. He was in the entertainment business. You remember, remember the Apprentice? I mean, he’s got a Hollywood show business background. He’s the least. He’s the least guy. He’s the last guy I think is going to start rolling back on all the social issues. If anything, he may, he may push it further than maybe some of his social conservative friends might like.
So, no, that’s not a, that’s not a charge you can level fairly at him, but it, it. You know, as long as you’ve got supporters or some people, like, what’s, what’s his name? Andrew? Well, you, you know, you kind of looking into Andrew, Kate. He’s a nut bag. He’s, he’s, that ain’t gonna happen. Well, he’s been, that’s something that we, the, that is, is actually making people angry because he’s a human trafficking type that. He’s actually from England, but he has a lot of young men and teenage boys, like 40 million kind of followers. And, and in his own words, if you listen to some of his videos, he’s just the grossest guy.
Right. But he talks, kind of beats his chest about being a strong man. And it, it’s so not what a strong man is. It’s so not what it is. And, but, but they’re not doing that. There’s people on the right that are propping him up, up. And it’s, I almost think it’s an operation to make everybody on, to make people look bad. Well, I think that the, where, where there is the social piece, that one piece and again, it’s an isolated piece. It’s who pays for abortions? It says is should the federal government pay for it? I mean, what’s the kind of financing arrangement there? That’s, that’s an issue which I think some people in the Trump administration might push back against.
But all the rest of it, I don’t see it. I mean, I do think they’ll roll back the aggressive DEI agenda that. Which should be. Because that’s non. Narrative. Yes. And you know, the, So I don’t see people losing ground on any of these issues because of a Trump presidency. And I know a lot of the, I know a lot of the people who are likely to go to work for a minute and they’re not built that way. And they’re basically a lot of entrepreneurial types who want to see government a lot smaller, less intrusive. They’re interested in speech rights, they’re interested in a strong economy, they’re interested in a strong America in the world.
But that doesn’t mean military adventurism. Most of the people I know want to see us not get into more things like Iraq or Afghanistan or adventures like paying for 200 billion, $250 billion into Ukraine and watching Ukrainians get slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands to fight a proxy war on our behalf. I mean, that’s disgusting. What we’ve done with Ukraine, we should have done it or not done it. But what we did, it was a half measure. We’re still made the Ukrainians pay the price. And you know, the defense contractors made a fortune. Now, do you Think.
One last question. Do you think Bobby Kennedy will really be able to have a voice with this? Because that’s one thing people are worried about, is make, you know, America healthy again. There really does need to be some changes in legislation because. Yeah, because, I mean, there’s, there’s video after video of these, these beautiful children who were healthy. They go in and they get too many. There’s one going around right now viral, of a kid that was forced to get 17 at once and then he came out autistic. And I mean, there’s just too many of those examples and it, there, it just, just, it needs to stop.
Well, how effective he’ll be in the bureaucratic infighting and in the, I mean, the Drug, Food and Drug Administration, our food, you know, the way we’ve handled food, the dietary guidelines, the way the pharmaceutical companies have been captured, have captured the regulatory regime in Washington. That is an edifice which is just absolutely formidable. And so Bobby Kennedy is going to need a lot more than just his lone voice doing that. I think there are a lot of us who would wildly support it, and I think Trump would support it viscerally, but he’s going to be fighting, he’s going to be fighting a multiple front war.
And so I think he’s getting the wood on that arrow to fix that. I think, you know, Trump’s a populist and if people get concerned about food, food supply, health, they get concerned about the drug companies, and they already are. We’re all up very concerned. I think Trump’s going to lock onto that as a, as a, as a very popular issue. And I expect he’s going to give Kennedy a lot of support to make these changes. If people make an issue out of it, he will, and I think that’s important. And politicians are actually affected by what people make an issue out of.
I think the number one issue for him will be the global financial, financial system. I’m just saying we’ve got, we’ve got a lot of them. Yeah, we need to, we need to think a lot. I mean, honestly, how we, how we, you know, we got to think about the dollar. I mean, we’ve, you know, the things we did to Russia, the, the sanctions on Russia absolutely had a countervailing, had a counter effect where it made a lot of countries want to get out of the dollar. And they’re talking about currency blocks that are, that are not in the dollar.
That whole, the whole, the way the whole world is aligned against us, not militarily necessarily, but economically. We force them Together through, through bad policy choices. Well, and an economic force is stronger than a military force. Ultimately, you can’t. You. Ultimately, economics determines the outcome of any big war. That’s right. That’s absolutely. And they use economics. They don’t even want to get involved militarily, so they’ll just use economics. That’s what all the tariffs and everything else is about. Sanctions are about. Okay, where can people find you? You have your own show, right? The Bill Walton Show.
The Waltonshow.com we’re on YouTube and we’re on Rumble. We’re on all the major audio podcast platforms. I’m also vice chairman of cpac and so the show airs on cpac and we also have a substack page where we publish the. We, we post the shows and we also do some published writings and things like that. And if you go on the website, though, you can see we’ve had almost 200, gosh, I don’t know, 250 different shows with maybe a couple hundred different guests. My producer is saying two. How many? 280. Wow. And you know, we’ve had George Gilder on George.
George Will. We’ve had, you know, Ed Meese. We’ve had a lot of. We’ve had Jennifer say on who is doing the XXYY thing. She was the woman who got fired from. From Levi because of her stance on the lockdowns. And so it really runs the runs. Runs the gamut of the kind of people we have on. Anyway, the billwaltonshow.com you can find it and then you can pick where you want to. Where you want to watch it. And there’s some, there’s some bio little information about me which people might find useful. Well, thank you and thank you for entertaining all my questions and I really appreciate it.
Well, this is fun. This is fun. Let’s do this again. Maybe we’ll get you back on. Maybe we’ll do a Home and away. Yeah, that’d be great. I’d love to come on your show. Yeah. Good it. Thank you.
[tr:tra].
Author
