Transcription
I want you to look at everything that is happening right now. You, you just go on to X or whatever and scroll down. Scroll on your phone, turn on the TV, listen to the noise that you're hearing, maybe even in your own offices. You will hear labels being thrown away, thrown around all the time. Fascist, traitor, threat to democracy, radical, yada yada yada. And it is a really strange way to run a country, especially on in a country that was built on argument and free speech. That's what built us.
People on the left will say it was revolution. No, it's a very different kind of revolution. Our declaration of independence is what made our revolution work where every other revolution in the history of man ends poorly. This one ended with the people who started it because they had a very clear vision of what they were trying to build. Okay? And we're sitting here, um, arguing about things that, you know, we're not, we don't, neither, neither side, I don't believe that either side of the average American believe in some of these things. Okay. We should be laying our cards face up on the table and say, "This is what I believe. This is what it costs. This is why it's worth it." And argue about that. You strip all the names and the labels off of it.
The truth is, we have real disagreements, serious disagreements. The country is in a, in, in bad shape. Okay. But the question now is, do we want it to come apart? Do we still believe that it's worth saving? I am, maybe perhaps too naive, but I happen to believe that most Democrats do not get up in the morning and say, "I just want capitalism dead. I want the president dead. Uh, you know, I want a dictatorship. I want, I'd rather have China run things." I just don't believe any of that. Okay.
So, what, why, what is it we should be talking about? I, I, I, I jotted some notes down last night and I want to go over them on the things that we should be talking about to show you that we're really not that far apart. Let's start with money. One side looks at the national debt and says, "Uh, real danger. Too much spending, too much borrowing, interest payment, eating away at the future. It's going to collapse." And their answer is cut spending, limit government growth, try to stabilize the dollar before it slips and crashes and burns. Okay. The other side doesn't deny all of those things. They, they also see the same thing. They're like, "We're never going to make it. You cannot do this." But they see a government that still has room to act, especially in crisis. They argue about, you know, pulling back will stall the growth, hurt working families, weaken the safety net. So they still believe spend more, but maybe we spend less on defense, whatever. Are those that different? Yes. They're talking about higher taxes, spending, yada yada, manage the debt instead of slamming on the brakes. We're all dealing with the same number. This one's math.
But what you learn when you look at this particular thing, and this is a huge crisis, both the Democrats and the Republicans know, I mean, people who vote for them, they both know, my side's not serious about debt, okay? They're not serious. This, this is, this is all bull crap. I know that debt is a problem. My Democratic neighbor knows that debt is a problem. Shouldn't we be uniting on that one? That both parties are lying to us about it, right? But that's something that we actually all believe in. And that's one thing that we say we're arguing about. Hear me out.
Let's talk about the border. One side sees a system that is completely out of control. Too many people crossing illegally. Too much strain on cities, schools, and hospitals. They, they argue that law enforcement has to come first, physical barriers, stricter asylum rules, faster removals, yada yada. The other side, and I'm talking about the honest people, okay? The other side see an economic system under pressure. They see, uh, problems, laws that are outdated. Workforce needs immigration. Enforcement won't fix it. Blah blah blah. They push for legal pathways, reform, a structured system that still allows entry, etc., etc. Both sides are reacting to the same problem, the same reality. What we have right now is not working, but they each have different levers. They're both argues are reasonable to a degree. Okay, I happen to disagree, but I can see reason in the argument. Remember, I'm talking about the average voter.
Energy. One side says we're sitting on resources. It, it will make us dominant. Oil, gas, natural reserves. We should dominate. We can use them. We can drill. We can drive prices down. Reduce the dependence on unstable regions. Get out of the Middle East. Growth will come from abundance. It's a way to be able to pay down our debt. It's a way to stop the endless wars. The other side says, "Well, no, wait, wait, wait. Climate, climate, climate, environmental damage, long-term instability. It's not the future. We're going to run out." They push for a transition. Even though it's messy, renewables, stricter controls. Okay, one side is saying cheap energy now. Another one is saying a different system later. I don't agree with them, but that's at least a conversation you can have.
Foreign policy. How long is the United States going to carry the weight of the world? Endless commitments, endless conflicts, endless bills. Why are we over in the Middle East? Why are we over, uh, with Ukraine? Pull back, let the alliances step up, you know, let the allies do all of these things. Choose our fights more carefully. The other side says pulling back creates a vacuum. Vacuums get filled by countries that don't share our interests. They lean towards, "No, we got to be more involved, staying engaged, projecting power, prevent bigger conflicts later, blah blah blah." Here's what's crazy about this. You know what? Most Democrats that I know are actually saying more of what the Republicans are saying, which is, "I don't want any of these wars anymore." It's the big government people on both Republican and Democrat side that are still pushing for more wars. They're still pushing for what the State Department has been pushing for a hundred years. But the average person is like, I don't want my kid dying in a war for what? We're not that far apart.
Crime and policing. One side sees disorder. Okay? You can't weaken the system like this. You, police have been pulled back, laws soften, nobody is going, nobody's paying a price for, there's no, there is no, uh, consequence anymore. And the answer one side, restore authority, fund the police, tighten the system down. The other side sees a system that has overreached, has been a problem in the past, uneven enforcement, uh, you know, lack of trust in communities. And their answer is reform, oversight, changing how policing works, you know, uh, and, and how much there is of it. Okay, I don't agree, but we could have that debate. I could go through safety versus fairness. Both sides claim to defend it.
Healthcare. One side says free markets, competition, privacy, you know, private, innovation, less government control. The other side says, "No, more government control, you know, uh, because we got to have access. We have to have taxpayer funds in it." Blah, blah, blah. The fight isn't whether healthcare matters. The fight is who should control healthcare.
Education. Same thing. Parental authority, no. More state authority. People pushing for school choice, local control, transparency. The other side says no. Institutional structure, public system, standardized approaches, yada yada yada.
Gender identity, medical treatment, especially for mo, uh, for minors. One side says this is serious life-altering decisions involving children, strict limits, parental control, caution. The other side says, well, they can be necessary, but this side is saying follow the science. And yet, as the science is coming in, they're not following the science.
Why technology? We're on pretty much the same page in some way. Um, one side is worried about censorship. I don't want the government having influence over these platforms. I don't want them restricting information and, and, and conversation. I don't want it filtered by the government. I'm worried about AI in the hands of the government in the Pentagon. The other side is saying, "Well, but there's chaos spreading and we have to have, and foreign influence and destabilization, we have to have some control." But that's a reasonable conversation. But is that where it lives? Is that the conversation that we're actually having? I say no.
All of these things, elections. 80% of the population, both Republican and Democrat, are saying the same thing. You got to have an ID. You got to have an ID. Reasonable people on the, on, on the Democratic side would say, "Yeah, but I, I, I want to make sure that we're not stopping people who can vote to vote." But 80% say, "But people who shouldn't vote shouldn't vote." You could go down this list on absolutely everything. And that brings us back to America, cuz those are real arguments that we need to discuss. They all have trade-offs. They all have consequences. But that's not what we're arguing, is it? Is it? We're not talking about those things. We're talking about how people are not just wrong, they're evil. That they're Nazis. That they're fascists. That they want to round up and put everyone in jail. Those are not real. Okay, they're not real.
They are with some, but that brings me to the third group, because there is a third group, a third category that doesn't fit into this neat little two-sided, uh, argument of America. There is a f, a faction, and it's mainly on the left, but it is now growing on the right. But the one on the left is active and organized. And they're not arguing about trade-offs at all. At all. Their goal is not better policies for working families under the American system. It is to overthrow the system itself, capitalism, the Judeo-Christian foundations of Western life, the nuclear family as the core unit of society. We're not talking about Democrats. We are talking about radicals who have infiltrated the Democratic party and convinced Democrats that they're arguing what I had just laid out. But they're not, because the power structure behind there are working to erode the, the roles of moms and dads, normalize gender confusion, accelerate medical interventions on children, pursue the red green alliance, you know, the tactical marriage between Marxism and Islamist forces that will kill democracy outright. They align themselves with the World Economic Forum, with the top-down global governance that treat national sovereignty as a joke, individual liberty gone, traditional culture as obstacles to be managed or dismantled. And that's not just the Democrats. There are a lot of big progressive Republicans that want that, too.
My point is, the third group doesn't share the goal of the regular Democrat or Republican. The millions of working people, the parents, the small business owners that just want a safer street. They want to be able to afford groceries and good schools and have a fair shot. We can disagree with one another on real issues. Unless you're trying to tear down the country that gave all of us a shot in the first place, we can argue that this isn't working. We can argue and say, "Hey, you know, the, the dream of America is fading fast if we don't have a conversation." But we're not talking about compromises. What we're talking about is destroy the system. The radical faction wants it destroyed. They see crisis as the opportunity to accelerate the takedown. And that's why they pour every resource into convincing ordinary Democrats that Trump or anyone else who resists is not just wrong, not just a conservative, but a Nazi who has to be stopped at all costs, including street violence, assassination, whatever. Because once you can convince one side or the other that the other side is Hitler reborn, you stop asking questions about the actual agenda.
America, you got to distance yourself from people who are, who are trying to convince you this is all about, let's say Donald Trump. Why is it every society in the Western world is going through exactly the same arguments? Why is it all of our countries are being torn apart? They don't have Donald Trump there. So what's their excuse? Their excuse is whatever party is saying, "Hey, we should really not go down this road of the red green alliance or the WF." There's a third category that no one is arguing. And if we can find our way to each other and say, "I reject, I want the United States of America to remain free, to remain under the Constitution. I believe in the Declaration of Independence. We have big problems, but let's fix those and restore it." Instead, too many people are being, um, convinced that destruction, that the destroyers are actually one of them. They're not. You're either a restorer or a destroyer. I don't think that we're destroyers. I don't think the average American is a destroyer. The destroyers are betting that we never figure this out. You better figure it out quickly because I want to fix the country and I think you do, too.