The Ryan Samuels Show
Dive into The Ryan Samuels Show for hard-hitting discussions and sharp analysis of modern American politics, current affairs, and hot-button issues like gun control, free speech, and presidential elections. Hosted by conservative commentator Ryan Samuels, this podcast delivers unapologetic takes on today’s political landscape, endorsed by heavyweights like Donald Trump Jr., Sarah Palin, The Hodge Twins, and Ted Nugent. Each episode breaks down complex topics with clarity, offering insights into U.S. politics, policy debates, and cultural controversies. Whether you’re seeking bold perspectives on government shutdowns, Second Amendment rights, or election analysis, this show is your go-to source for conservative commentary. Tune in for engaging episodes that spark conversation and keep you informed. Subscribe now on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or Podbean to stay updated with the latest in conservative political analysis!
The Ryan Samuels Show
Trump Targets Big Tech Censorship, Fed Shake-Up, and Australia’s Bold Move Against Iran | Podcast Episode
In this episode, we dive into three seismic stories shaping free speech, economic policy, and global security. President Trump’s executive order on Section 230 takes aim at Big Tech censorship, challenging social media platforms’ liability protections under the Communications Decency Act. With conservatives facing demonetized accounts and content removals, we explore whether platforms like Facebook and YouTube should face accountability for political bias or retain their legal shields.
Meanwhile, a dramatic shake-up at the Federal Reserve sees Trump fire Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, sparking a legal battle over central bank independence. Will this unprecedented move undermine the Fed’s credibility in a polarized world?
On the global stage, Australia severs diplomatic ties with Iran after uncovering state-sponsored antisemitic attacks. Prime Minister Albanese’s historic expulsion of Iran’s ambassador and designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group signal a bold stance against terrorism.
Join us as we unpack these pivotal moments impacting your rights, freedoms, and the global order. Subscribe for hard-hitting analysis on Big Tech censorship, Federal Reserve controversies, and international relations. Share your thoughts in the comments!
Keywords: Trump executive order, Section 230, Big Tech censorship, social media accountability, Federal Reserve firing, Lisa Cook mortgage fraud, central bank independence, Australia Iran relations, IRGC terrorist designation, antisemitic attacks, free speech, political bias, global security.
Uncle Ted says subscribe on Facebook!
RyanFSamuels.com
https://www.mypatriotsupply.com/?_ef_transaction_id=&oid=1&affid=176&source_id=RyanSamuels
https://theryansamuelsshow.myshopify.com/
https://twitter.com/RyanFSamuels
https://www.facebook.com/TheRyanSamuelsShow/
https://rumble.com/user/RyanFSamuels
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1ha_kVpgTc6K2cvbPVKGjQ
In one, he was sitting at the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office. In another, he was sitting alongside other leaders and JD Vance and South Korean dignitaries and leaders. It was a completely ridiculous and unhinged day. And here is Donald Trump.
Speaker 4:All right, thank you. It's going to be a good show tonight.
Speaker 2:We got some great things to talk about. Thank you, so, oh, I'm out.
Speaker 4:Good evening patriots. Welcome to the show. I hope that the sound is working and that my microphone is doing well. I'm not sure if it is, but we definitely have a really good show this evening.
Speaker 4:Always something going on in the world. There's never a shortage of news for us here at the show. So a couple of things we're going to talk about. Number one we're going to talk about the firing of Lisa Cook, who is at the Federal Reserve. We're going to go over all of that. Iran is misbehaving and they need to get spanked. And we're going to talk about Section 230 and Donald Trump's executive order on Section 230 and what it is and how it affects you, and especially podcasts like this. So those are the three topics for tonight.
Speaker 4:We are totally, 100% going to get into them and before we begin, make sure you hit that like, share and subscribe button. Follow this show. If you're on the podcast, make sure that you download the podcast and turn on automatic downloads. So if you turn, if you're on Apple podcast or Spotify and you turn on automatic downloads, then every time you open it it'll download. It downloads then every time you open it it'll download it. Now, when they say download, it's not like. It saves it to your device and you got to keep it there. It kind of saves it to the background of your device, so it's not going to take up a whole bunch of room. Just turn on automatic downloads. It is probably the best thing that you can do for the show, but let's get into it.
Speaker 4:What do we want to do first? I say let's do Section 230 first. So now we're going to do Section 230 first, primarily because it really does affect the show. Now, section 230 was passed by Congress and what it does is that this is what regulates the Internet, this is what regulates Facebook. This is what permitted Facebook and X and Twitter to censor conservatives across the country. Donald Trump just signed an executive order. We're going to go over that. I definitely have some comments on that, but this is just a short, quick video by the Wall Street Journal. An executive order. We're going to go over that. I definitely have some comments on that, but this is just a short quick video by the Wall Street Journal explaining what this is.
Speaker 5:Leaders in government and tech want to rewrite a law that shapes the internet.
Speaker 4:It is clear that Section 230 in its current form is no longer working. Aren't you so glad we're out of that when people are wearing masks when they talk to you, like how preposterous was all of that.
Speaker 6:When you look back, Law needs to be updated so that it continues to work well.
Speaker 7:I think that Congress should update the law to make sure that it's working as intended.
Speaker 5:Section 230 is a law that governs who's liable for what people post on social media, but some critics say it lets platforms censor users or spread harmful information and should be rewritten.
Speaker 1:Most everyone agrees that it's time to review Section 230, but there's not a lot of consensus about what the problems are with it or what to do about it.
Speaker 5:To understand this debate. It will help to dissect the bill. Here's the first critical passage no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. This gives websites the first of two key protections.
Speaker 1:One is immunity when one of their users posts something that might be offensive or harmful. In that case, the user is the one liable for the speech, not the internet company that hosted it.
Speaker 5:In other words, twitter isn't liable for what people tweet. That's different from traditional media companies, who can be sued over what they publish. The other key protection that Section 230 gives internet companies is the freedom to moderate the content that users upload. The freedom to moderate comes from this passage Companies that operate in good faith have the power to restrict access to material that they consider to be objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Speaker 1:So if they take down a post that's offensive or harmful, they won't be held liable for that either. It was written when the internet was really so.
Speaker 4:This is the problem. Right there, we don't need to watch any more video. But this is the issue is that they're not held liable if they take down your content for any reason. Now, they can take down your content simply because of the color of your skin. They can take down your content because they don't like what you have to say. Now, this is a tough topic. Does a private company have the right to do that? I would argue well, yeah, right to do that. I would argue well, yeah. But if the federal government is coercing the private company to do that, which is exactly what we saw in the 2020 election, this is what we saw under the Biden administration.
Speaker 4:We saw all of this, and I was a victim of it. I mean, my Facebook page had been demonetized forever. It still is. So I mean, they've gotten a little bit better. But my YouTube account was shut down. You know, I had thousands of followers. Now I have 300 because I had to start a new one, my Twitter, same thing. It was reactivated by Elon Musk, thank you. I was one of the ones taken off of the block list, but you know, what does Congress need to do? This is a law enacted by Congress. So we need to fix this.
Speaker 4:Say what you want to say on these platforms, but you should not be shielded from facing the consequences. If you lie about a company or slander somebody, you should be able to face the consequences because you are the publisher. I agree with that. But I don't think that these companies, these publicly traded companies, should be withdrawing content. I think a much better avenue is content preferences, which we're starting to see with X or Twitter, where you can choose the content you would like to see.
Speaker 4:Do you want to see graphic content? No, okay, well, make sure you don't have graphic content. Also, you should be able to select I want to see Republican news. I don't want to see Democrat news. This is disturbing to me. I don't want to see anything anti-white or anti-black. You should be able to select all of those things. But you know, limiting speech at all is dangerous. But Donald Trump has definitely taken a step towards this, towards fixing this he has. What Donald Trump has done is he has signed an executive order which he promised that he would do. Here is Donald Trump when he was campaigning for president. This is remember when he used to do this out of Mar-a-Lago. Then we just don't have a free country.
Speaker 8:It's as simple as that out of Mar-a-Lago, Then we just don't have a free country. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 4:If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish then the we got a comment here from Josh Snoke. Thank you, buddy, I appreciate it. Comment from Rayleigh. President Trump, three hearts, yes, I agree.
Speaker 8:The rest of our rights and liberties will topple just like dominoes one by one, they'll go down. That's why today, I'm announcing my plan to shatter the left-wing censorship regime and to reclaim the right to free speech for all americans and reclaim is a very important word in this case, because they've taken it away. In recent weeks, bombshell reports have confirmed that a sinister group of deep state bureaucrats, silicon Valley tyrants, left-wing activists and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American people Correct. They have collaborated to suppress vital information on everything from elections to public health. The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed, and it must happen immediately.
Speaker 8:And here's my plan. First, within hours of my inauguration, I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business or person to censor, limit, categorize or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as mis or disinformation, and I will begin the process of identifying and firing every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship, directly or indirectly, whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health, human Services, the FBI, the DOJ, no matter who they are. Second, I will order the Department of Justice to investigate all parties involved in the new online censorship regime, which is absolutely destructive and terrible, and to aggressively prosecute any and all crimes identified. These include possible violations of federal civil rights law.
Speaker 4:This is what I'm looking for. This is what I'm waiting for. Okay, so obviously, when Trump is campaigning, he embellishes a little bit. Within hours of my inauguration, I'm going to sign this executive order. I'm going to start putting people in jail. Obviously, that didn't happen. He's campaigning, I get it, but this is what I'm looking for. I want those FBI agents that went to Twitter and that went to Facebook and forced them to take down information. They should be in prison. Their directors should be in prison. The people above them who ordered that, the politicians that ordered that they should be in prison, because that is government interfering with your basic, fundamental rights to free speech. And that's precisely and exactly what I'm looking for. So it is now August and Donald Trump has signed the executive order. Here is a video of him signing it.
Speaker 8:Therefore, today I'm signing an executive order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people. Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they're a neutral platform, which they're not. I'm not an editor with a viewpoint. My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield. That's a big deal. They have a shield. They can do a big deal. They have a shield. They can do what they want. They have a shield. They're not going to have that shield. My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission FTC to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. This authority resides in Section five of the federal trade.
Speaker 4:So essentially, he's saying that, under this act, if you violate the act, you violate, if you violate this executive order, you violate your protection. Okay, this is a very good thing and this is a step in the right direction. This is exactly what we're looking for. The problem is, the left side of the aisle wants to change it too, but the left side of the aisle wants to change it in a manner to which it's not going to benefit you. They want total and utter censorship from the federal government. That's what the left wants, and the left will fight this.
Speaker 4:So Donald Trump has one term three years and four months left, or three years and three months left, really to get Section 230 revised. We need the midterm elections for this. This is going to be huge, huge. It's going to be huge for us to get past it. Guys, make sure you hit that like, share and subscribe button. This is a good time. If you haven't liked it, if you're new here, I appreciate you. We have a lot of people on right now across all channels. We're now on Amazon Live, so we have hundreds of people on live. I appreciate all of you. Make sure you hit that like and follow button. But Section 230 is an absolute disaster. It benefits the social media companies, it benefits the websites. It does not benefit you, the consumer, and it does not protect you, the consumer. In fact, it ensures that you receive all liability. So here's Hillary Clinton talking about Section 230 and how it needs to be changed any day.
Speaker 10:Now we should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave you know platforms on the internet to immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn't be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view, that if the platforms, whether it's Facebook or Twitter X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are if they don't moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control, and it's not just the social and psychological effects, it's real harm. We should be, in my view, repealing something.
Speaker 4:It's not real harm. It's nonsense. It's absolute nonsense. Hillary Clinton wants to censor you. Hillary Clinton wants to put you in jail for sharing things on the internet. The satire. Oh, ryan, that's hyperbolic. Ryan, you're lying, ryan, you're exaggerating. Am I? Am I exaggerating? Here is an article, not an article. This is a report from the Department of Justice.
Speaker 4:Social media influencer sentenced for election interference in 2016 presidential race. The defendant attempted to trick voters into believing they could vote by text message. They could vote by text message. A social media influencer was sentenced today to seven months in prison and fined $15,000 for his role in a conspiracy to interfere with potential voters' rights to vote for the 2016 presidential election. According to court documents, by 2016, douglas McKay, aka Ricky Vaughn, had established an audience on Twitter with approximately 58,000 followers Very small account. This is not some massive social media influencer who changed the outcome of the election. A February 2016 analysis by MIT Media Lab ranked McKay as one of the most significant influencers of then upcoming presidential election. Between September 2016 and November 2016, mckay conspired with other influential Twitter users and with members of private online groups to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages that would encourage supporters of presidential candidate, hillary Clinton, to vote via text message or social media.
Speaker 4:First of all, you can't vote via text message. Your normal person believes that. Your normal person believes that this is just a proxy. They used to silence free speech and this guy went to jail for making a satirical social media post. The left wants to put you in jail. The left wants you. Here's the picture. They want to put you in jail for what you say on the internet. It's happened. Don't say it didn't happen. There's a conviction of a right-wing provocateur, douglas Mackey, jailed for posting anti-Clinton memes in 2016, overturned on appeal. It was overturned, but this guy went to jail.
Speaker 4:Avoid the line. Vote from home. Text Hillary to 59925. It's a joke. He's not responsible for you being an idiot. He's not responsible for you being an idiot. So Trump wants to limit the censorship. The left wants to increase the censorship. They think the censorship is too much or not enough. So everybody wants to change Section 230. It's just a matter of how they're going to change it. So even the ADL weighed in on this, which is the Anti-Defamation League. It's super freaking liberal. I can't stand them. To be honest here, let's listen to what they have to say.
Speaker 6:Yeah, I would say. Look, I can speak specifically from an ADL perspective. Adl Center for Technology and Society has done significant studies in the responsiveness of pet platforms, and we've actually graded them on their responsiveness of anti-Semitism, holocaust denial, other forms of hate. You have a platform like Meta that just gutted its entire fact-checking department and they're moving away from it, and so what we need to do is we need to apply pressure in a real, significant way on tech platforms that they have a responsibility, that they have an absolute responsibility to check and remove hateful speech.
Speaker 6:that is insightful, not insightful with a S but insightful with a C, and so we need to do that, congress. There's a role for federal regulators to play, and there's also a role that states can even play too, and we've seen that in places like California and others, you hold them accountable, like right now. Tech platforms are not accountable for having misinformation. Was it Chair, section 230 of the Communications, national Communications Act, or Federal, the Federal Communications Act? Congress needs to amend Section 230, which provides immunity to tech platforms right now.
Speaker 4:So they don't want tech platforms to be immune, because what they want to do is be able to have control over the tech platforms. And having control over the tech platforms is what? So that they can, by proxy, silence you, which is what they've been doing for years. All right, so Donald Trump is in a beef with the Federal Reserve. I hate the Federal Reserve. I do not feel the Federal Reserve should exist. I'm going to preface with that. I actually sell T-shirts that say End the Fed. That you can get at ryanfsamuelscom slash shop.
Speaker 4:But the Federal Reserve, if you're going to have a Federal Reserve, is supposed to be independent of the executive branch and of Congress. They're supposed to be making decisions when they are not accountable to people, so that they will make the decision. That is what is best for the economy. That's the way it's supposed to work. Okay, that they don't have to worry about an election. So when they get, so that they don't have to lower the interest rates if it's too early to lower their interest rates or raise interest rates if it's not time to raise the interest rates, they're supposed to do it on what's best for the economy to prevent a Great Depression. Is that happening in the Federal Reserve. I'm not sure I don't put too much stake in them, but Donald Trump has caused controversy by pressuring Lisa Brooks, who's a member, lisa Cook excuse me, who's a member of the Federal Reserve, to resign.
Speaker 12:Now here is a story on that I do want to talk not so much about the veracity of the claims against Lisa Cook, but more about the veracity of whether there is indeed cause for the president to remove her.
Speaker 7:Yeah, and that's the main legal issue here, because the Federal Reserve Act says that the president can remove a Federal Reserve Board governor for cause, but the statute doesn't define or specify what cause means. So we have to look to some other statutes for other agencies that say cause generally means some sort of inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance. The question here is whether the allegations against Fed Governor Lisa Cook, you know, rise to that level. You know rise to that level and my feeling is that until you have some sort of investigation by, let's say, the Fed inspector general or some sort of investigation by the Justice Department that results in charges, it's probably a little premature to say that the allegations alone satisfy the four cause standard.
Speaker 13:We should mention that the Federal Reserve, according to a statement issued by the central bank, said it will abide by any court decision, as this will likely be resolved legally. And that's kind of where I want to go to. Next, elliot, because lisa cook's lawyer has made clear that they will file a lawsuit challenging this firing. Tell us a little bit about abby lowell, because he's a high profile white collar defense and trial lawyer, known as a top all right.
Speaker 4:So here's here's. Here's what happened. Okay, lisa Cook, for tax benefits, claimed two separate properties as her primary residence. Okay, one in one state and one in another state, which is technically fraud. Okay, is it a super egregious act? Was she forging checks? Is it super neglect? Neglectful? My response to that would be no. Ok, if you're going to have a Federal Reserve, it should be independent of government so that it can make decisions. But we haven't gotten to Lisa Cook yet and who she is and kind of who her character is, and that is what kind of changed my mind. She was appointed by Joe Biden, so right off the bat, she loses a little bit of dignity with me on that point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she is absolutely dreadful, necessarily. Here is Donald Trump answering the questions from the press.
Speaker 15:Let's listen the questions from the press. Let's listen. You have spoken out very strongly for a long time about what you see as the weaponization of government? Is your administration weaponizing government by digging into the mortgage records of officials in Goldmine?
Speaker 8:No, they're public. I mean, you can find out those records, you can go check out the records yourself and you should be doing that job. Actually you wouldn't do that because that's not the kind of reporter you are, but you should be doing that job. I shouldn't have to be doing it. If you did your job properly, we wouldn't have problems like Lisa Cook Go ahead. You were going to say something.
Speaker 4:Go Blue.
Speaker 8:I think we have to have lower interest rates.
Speaker 4:He wants the interest rates on national security. I think we have to have lower interest rates. He wants the interest rates lower. Obviously, any president wants the interest rates lower because the economy booms. But if you do it too soon it's not good for the economy. It's actually worse for the economy and it won't get any better. So that's why it's supposed to be independent. However, apparently allegedly, the situation is that the trump administration did look into her mortgage records and discovered this. So it sounds like, if this is the truth and I'm not sure because I haven't verified it yet that the trump administration was looking through her records trying to find something that they could use against her and maybe other people to try to pressure them to get the interest rates down. That is the accusation. Whether that's true or not, again, I don't know. But let's listen to what Lauren Ingram had to say.
Speaker 11:Let's listen to what Warren Ingram had to say this is a contagious disease. Ok, because now the Federal Reserve Governor, lisa Cook, is under pressure to resign due to allegations that she may have engaged in mortgage fraud. Bill, tell us about this. I mean someone who has a say in the Fed rate and what that's doing to mortgages across the country. I mean this is crazy stuff. She could be potentially abusing the system. Again, no one's guilty until proven.
Speaker 17:I'll tell you she has a very big problem. She has a situation where she claimed primary residency on a condo that she bought in Atlanta. I mean, this is supposed to be somebody who's entrusted with the public good, who's supposed to be looking after interest rates, and I believe it's blatant and massive mortgage fraud. I believe that there will be a criminal investigation. I'll leave that to the DOJ whether they do that or not, but I would anticipate Singer be prosecuted and criminally charged for mortgage fraud, just based on what I've seen. You know I refer people every day to the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice prosecutes cases like this all the time. Laura, and whether it's the Schiff case or the Letitia James case or this case or all the other cases that we refer, this Cook one is not going away and she can laugh all she wants, but the law will catch up with her.
Speaker 11:Yeah, she responded to this today saying she doesn't have any intention of being quote bullied to step down from her position because of some questions raised in a tweet. I do intend, she said, to take any questions about my financial history seriously and I'm gathering accurate info to provide the facts. She also mentioned that this all occurred before she was a member of the Board of Governors at the federal reserve. Would the timing matter?
Speaker 4:To me it doesn't matter. As you guys most of you know the avid fans I appreciate you guys. I don't usually watch a lot of these videos. I get the general gist of it and then I watch them live on the air so that you guys can have a genuine reaction. But I don't think it matters If you're committing fraud on financial statements for tax purposes or whatever, and then you're going to be on the board of governors, whether or not. I mean, if you're open to corruption, you're open to corruption and you shouldn't have power over the economy. And I can't anticipate what he is going to say.
Speaker 17:No, it wouldn't matter. First of all, she's within the statute of limitations. Second of all, she received a benefit while she's been on the Federal Reserve Board and I would actually argue that her statement tonight. You know, I think that that's going to be a big problem for her criminally. This is just my view. She lied in my view in her statement tonight because she said that the first time she heard about it was through my tweet. She didn't hear about it from my tweet. There's no way she doesn't follow me on Twitter. And last night Bloomberg contacted, according to their story, her and me for comment. So I think this lady is a professional liar. She shouldn't be at the Federal Reserve. She's going to resign, in my view, and if she doesn't resign, I do believe that the president has cause to fire her, and that will be up to the president whether he decides to do that or not.
Speaker 4:So Trump is saying that he has cause to fire her and he has legitimately fired her. Ok, obviously she is contesting that and she is going to fight that and we're going to see what the ruling is, because it's rather unusual for a president to do that. It's not very common for that to happen. But I'm totally good with clearing out anybody that was appointed by Joe Biden. I mean, what a disaster that administration was. What an absolute disaster. Here is MSNBC.
Speaker 14:Her nomination was a highly contested nomination along party lines by the Republicans. The Republicans tried to paint her as unqualified and a left-wing extremist, to the point where she was confirmed by I think it was 50-51, and Vice President Harris had to come in to cast the tie-breaking vote for her nomination. I read through her bio at the top of this she's extremely qualified, but the point here is based on an allegation that the administration themselves don't even know to be true. Where's that part in the line here?
Speaker 12:It says there's sufficient reason to believe you may have made the false statements Sufficient reason to believe you may have you hear that you may have A 14-year term sufficient reason to believe you may have.
Speaker 9:You'd think someone would call someone's lawyer and someone would have this conversation with them.
Speaker 14:Correct, or you think it would have came up in her highly contested confirmation, so I just think it is it is. It is not lost on me that the that the person other than the chair that he's decided to target, is the only black woman to be serving on the board and the legal it's always racist.
Speaker 4:With the left, it's the only thing they have to say Well, you're racist, you don't like her because she's black, not because she committed fraud and there's evidence to suggest that she committed fraud and that the evidence is clear but it is just an accusation, and that is something that we do need to keep in mind. However, trump sent her a letter that says we believe that there's sufficient evidence to go ahead and remove you. They feel that they have the authority, so that's what they have done. Sucks for her, but she's going to fight it. Let's see. There's another news story here.
Speaker 9:Hey, sarah, yeah, I have confirmed that the Fed Governor, liz Cook, is here in Jackson Hole, is actually in the room and we had said earlier. You asked me if she was there. I said I didn't see her last night but I didn't notice that she was actually in the room here, obviously FHFA Director Bill Pulte upping the ante this morning, doing something that you had pointed out yesterday, sarah, which was that the apparent violations that are being talked about were not committed during the time that she was at the Fed. But now the idea that Bill Pulte is saying today well, she filled out a Fed form. Well, that creates the possibility that maybe there was some of that issue with the allegations. That does actually relate directly to that work, and the president this morning obviously saying he would fire her if she did not resign. My understanding is he's in the room in the conference here at Jackson Hole, sarah.
Speaker 15:I guess the question now from her is what kind of response do we get? And it seems like it has to come sooner rather than later, because the president is making it very clear of his intentions. If she wants to defend herself and explain the paperwork and produce more evidence, she should do that.
Speaker 9:The problem becomes, sarah, I think you're absolutely right from a political standpoint, from a Federal Reserve reputational standpoint, political standpoint from a Federal Reserve reputational standpoint. However, she is now in legal jeopardy and I believe I'm not obviously an attorney, but I've covered enough of these things. The attorney would say don't say anything until you're charged, right? So there is this balancing of the reputation of the Fed, her own reputation, against the legal jeopardy she faces, maybe a little hamstrung. As you know, she did put out a statement saying she would not be bullied to leave office by a tweet and she was going to be gathering up to check the documents which she did not have handy. They're about four or five years old. So you know, we wait, obviously, for a response and very strong comments from the president, from the FHA director about the need for her to resign and obviously Ed Martin yesterday from the Washington Attorney General's office. So there's a lot of pressure on her, but also she faces this legal jeopardy, tara.
Speaker 6:But, steve, no reports or information about how she's been received at the symposium by participants.
Speaker 9:No, I've not had a chance to see that yet. My guess is she will be received well.
Speaker 15:Yeah, although some questions may be from journalists, I would think as well.
Speaker 4:Trying to track her down and I'm willing to go ahead and bet that journalists will not be chasing her down to figure out what is going on with that. The media is already running cover for her and we're going to stay updated on that. There's kind of big news that's being not intentionally suppressed but not making it to the top of the news. Australia has done something pretty significant that we have not I have not really seen in my lifetime. Australia has severed all diplomatic ties with Iran. They've expelled the ambassador, ahmad Sadehi, and three of his envoys and they've only given him seven days to leave of his envoys, and they've only given him seven days to leave. The IRGC will be designated as a terrorist organization. Embassy operations in Tehran are suspended.
Speaker 4:So there are a couple of things that led to this. Number one the Iranian government. Reports are coming out that the Iranian government was behind the Adas Israel synagogue firebombing that hit on a Jew, on a Jewish restaurant. And Iran is just a problem. Iran has been a problem for a very long time, a problem that should have been dealt with before we dealt with Iraq, although it was a different dynamic at that time before we dealt with Iraq, although it was a different dynamic at that time. That was, from what I understand, was the original plan to take over Iraq very quickly, then Iran and just eliminate the entire Middle Eastern problem at one point. But Australia is very weak. Okay, australia is a very left-leaning country, very European-like, they're not very tough. But here is the Australian prime minister announcing what Australia is going to do appalling anti-Semitic attacks.
Speaker 18:Since the terrible events of October 7, 2023, we have witnessed a number of appalling anti-Semitic attacks against Australia's Jewish community. I've made it clear that these sorts of incidents have no place in Australia and that I wanted ASIO and the AFP to investigate as a priority. Asio has now gathered enough credible intelligence to reach a deeply disturbing conclusion that the Iranian government directed at least two of these attacks. Iran has sought to disguise its involvement, but ASIO assesses it was behind the attacks on the Lewis Continental Kitchen in Sydney on October 20 last year and the Adas Israel Synagogue in Melbourne on December 6 last year.
Speaker 4:So they've recently discovered that Iran is definitely behind these attacks. Iran is behind just about every terrorist attack in the world. That's not propaganda. That's not BS. That's exactly what is happening. If you don't think that, or you're not aware of that, or you want to disagree on that, that's fine and I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong, and I cannot have that. The Iranian government is pure evil. This is a regime that wants you dead. Okay, the Iranian government lives for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to kill Jews and kill anybody who's not Muslim. They are dangerous and they need to be stopped from hurting other people. I think this is a great step by Australia to try to resist this situation and put enough juice on it to where the world is watching.
Speaker 18:As he assesses it is likely Iran directed further attacks as well. These were extraordinary and dangerous acts of aggression orchestrated by a foreign nation on Australian soil. They were attempts to undermine social cohesion and sow discord in our community. It is totally unacceptable and the Australian government is taking strong and decisive action in response. A short time ago, we informed the Iranian ambassador to Australia that he would be expelled. We have suspended operations at our embassy in Tehran and all our diplomats are now safe in a third country.
Speaker 18:I can also announce the government will legislate to list Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, as a terrorist organisation. I've said many times that the Australian people want two things they want killing in the Middle East to stop and they don't want conflict in the Middle East brought here. Iran has sought to do just that. They have sought to harm and terrify Jewish Australians and to sow hatred and division in our community. The actions of my government send a clear message a message to all Australians that we stand against anti-Semitism and we stand against violence, and a message to nations like Iran who seek to interfere in our country that your aggression will not be tolerated.
Speaker 4:I'm pleasantly surprised. I am pleasantly surprised with Australia and I'm glad they're taking a stand. I think it's good. I think it looks good on them. I think that it sends a message to the rest of the world. I think it brings attention to the rest of the world and that the UN needs to do something about Iran. Let's watch this.
Speaker 19:This is Now to Iran, if we can. This week, Iranian officials are expected to resume talks with European Union members on nuclear issues. This comes amid threats of react.
Speaker 4:Right. So now Iran. The concern about Iran is that they're reactivating their nuclear program, which is not surprising. Hey Tom, welcome back on buddy. I appreciate it, jd. Hey Ryan, sorry I missed the live show. I'll rewatch. Hope you're having a good night, brother. I'm having a great night, man. Thank you so much for being here. I appreciate you, but Iran is trying to rebuild a nuclear program. Here's the thing. Iran doesn't have any other option. Okay, iran has basically two options Either submit to the United States, the West and Israel, which are people they hate more than anything on planet Earth, or what you need to do is become a nuclear power and then use in the field of politics. That is not something that Iran can do based on principle. That's going to be really tough for them to do. So let's watch this clip from Real America's Voice.
Speaker 19:Activating United Nations sanctions if Tehran continues to refuse to negotiate. These sanctions may snap back if leaders are not able to reach a deal on Iran's nuclear programs during talks this week. Let's welcome to American Sunrise the deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran and the author of the Iran Threat. It's good to have you with us. Alireza Jaffer-Deza. I'm sure I just said that all wrong, but you say your name for us, because for some reason in English this is just so hard for us.
Speaker 12:It's Alireza Jaffer-Deza. It's always a pleasure to be on your show.
Speaker 19:It's always good to have you, even if I can't say your name but your comments. As we look down the barrel of all the things happening on the geopolitical scale, how would you grade President Trump's actions so far regarding Iran?
Speaker 12:Well, certainly the the president, as ever since he came to office, has called for ending the nuclear weapons program of the Iran regime. He's been so focused on that and very unwavering on that, and I think that also look at the first term, when it came to the terrorism of the Iranian regime. It was under President Trump's watch that the terror master, qasem Soleimani, who was the commander of the Quds Force that carried out all the terror operations of the regime, but also their terror practices in the region, he was eliminated. So that's the kind of policy you need to see when it comes to the Iran regime being very unwavering in ending their nuclear threat, ending their missile program, ending their drone program, ending their terror operations, but also ending the killing of their own people inside Iran.
Speaker 6:So where does that leave Iran? Exactly Because you've got Iran's Khamenei.
Speaker 4:Iran's going to be a problem. It's not over with Iran. Iran is going to continue to do terrorist attacks. They're going to continue to pursue a nuclear weapon. They're going to continue to terrorize the world and try to kill Jews and people like you every day. Iran is definitely a problem. However, it's going to be. It's tough. It's a tough decision on what to do about Iran. Here is another report. It's just a quick little clip on australia severing ties with with iran. Now, this is a big deal. So typically, when a country severs ties diplomatically with another country, it's not a good sign of things to come.
Speaker 20:We have declared iran's ambassador to australia persona nonata, as well as three other Iranian officials, and they will have seven days to leave the country. This is the first time in the post-war period that Australia has expelled an ambassador. We have declared Iran's ambassador to Australia persona non grata, as well as three. This is a big deal.
Speaker 4:But it's not really being covered. As far as I know, we're one of the only shows covering it, and the Iranian people continue to chant in the streets. Just so you can see just how bad I ran as, let me pull this up here.
Speaker 21:Let me pull this up here, logan, then you realize Well, you might be hearing more of it. After the US bombed Iran, even President Trump made mention of it as he celebrated those strikes.
Speaker 8:For 40 years Iran has been saying death to America, death to Israel.
Speaker 21:So are Iranians really wishing death on Americans? Well, no, marbar-amerika might literally mean death to America, but it's generally translated as down with the USA. Iran's Supreme Leader, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, explains it here.
Speaker 4:Get the hell out of here. So if it is, then change it. Change your chant, if you think the whole world. This is what drives me insane about the left. This drives me insane about the left. This drives me insane. They're literally chanting death to you and then you're going to go and try to defend them for it. Oh, that's not really what they mean. Yes, that's exactly what they mean. That's exactly what they mean.
Speaker 16:They've even done this in the united states here, this is in dearborn, michigan anti-israel activists were heard chanting death to america and death to israel at a rally at a michigan city dubbed the jihad capital of the us. Dearborn michigan activist, tarik bazi, ripped the us for supporting israel and told the crowd the chant quote death to israel, has become the most logical chant around the world. He said quote it's not Genocide, joe, that has to go, referring to President Joe Biden. Quote it's time the entire system has to go. He also said that quote any system that would allow such atrocities and such devilry to happen and would support it, such a system, does not deserve to exist on God's earth. His comments, of course, spurred chants to call for the end of the Jewish nation, and his comments were then followed by Imam Osama Abdul Ghani, who declared that Israel is quote ISIS, israel. They are Nazis, they are fascists, they are racist.
Speaker 4:Dear board Sound like Democrats, because that's what Democrats say. They call Jews Nazis.
Speaker 16:Has the largest Muslim population in the United States and has become a hotbed of anti-Israel sentiment in recent months. Presidents there have led the efforts to vote uncommitted in the Democrat primary, rather than to vote for Biden, for support of Israel and the Middle East Media Research Institute executive director Steven Zalinski branded the city quote America's jihad capital.
Speaker 4:It's a problem. It's a massive problem, tom. It sounds like Iran doesn't believe that they will eventually be removed from the world stage. They're religious fundamentalists, so their principle of fighting is for all of all of eternity and their god. So that's a scary thing, because nobody fights harder. Okay, there's a fundamental difference about fighting a terrorist who's fighting on behalf of their god and somebody who's fighting on behalf of a paycheck. There there's that. That's definitely a situation that is widely different. So they're basically Iran is like the last terrorist country left on earth. You can make arguments about others, but for the most part, they are the last. Who is this Public Islamist prayer for Hamas? And then they support Hamas too, but they're behind Hamas. The country of Iran Is behind Hamas. Let's see this is Iyad Jihad. Abu Hamid Leads a public Islamist prayer for Hamas while blocking the roads in Montreal, calling for a swift defeat of the Jews in support of the designated terrorist entity under approval and protection of SMB. This is Montreal, not Tehran.
Speaker 22:Oh Allah, I hope that you will go mighty to us in those needs, the rational and the post-mortem numbers.
Speaker 5:What does it be read? No-transcript. What does it mean? What?
Speaker 4:He is praying for Hamas and the Palestinian people who support Hamas. All right. So it looks like sanctions are coming from Iran, which needs to friggin' happen. I'm glad we destroyed their nuclear program, but they're going to try to build it back. We got another comment here. That's their leadership and radicals' beliefs. But the majority of their population want a new regime and freedom. From what I gather, I've heard that too. The thing is, the United States always puts that statement out, that every country supports us and that our actions are justified, but a lot of times that's not the case. So I'm not sure about this situation, but a lot of times that is not the case that we are going to be fully supported by the Iranian people.
Speaker 4:With television they don't speak against the regime while they're friends and family. There's no like secret you know society of people that are aligning themselves with American values. You know, maybe there's some people there that say, you know, living here sucks. But these, these types of governments, these, these big, you know Islamic regimes. They use these big you know Islamic regimes. They use the Quran to oppress their people rather than teaching them the you know the peaceful aspects of it. We could talk theology on Islam, I mean all night long. I could do that for you know, 50 hours, because I definitely have some very strong opinions on it, but I'm not sure if I agree with you. I'm not sure. I think that they're Persian. I think they're unified from a very long history of culture, a beautiful culture that has been hijacked by Islam. That's what I think, and I think that a lot of them are not going to support the United States, especially when they're dragged out in the streets so that they can chant death to America, death to Israel. They got a lot of hate. There's reasons why we really haven't invaded, right? Let me see this. My comment comes from an Iranian board podcaster that is a US citizen, but he does say it will take the Iranian people to make the change From us doing it will take the Iranian people to make the change from us doing it will be the wrong move. Yeah, I don't know who you're talking about, but I know Patrick Bet-David is Iranian board. He's a podcaster. He talks about it a little bit, but that was. If you're talking about him. He was born there a very long time ago, on the left, when he was very little, so he probably knows more than me. But you know it's tough, it really is tough. We do have our own people here in the United States that hate America. So maybe, maybe there are people there that love us, and I'm sure there are people there that love us and like us. And you know we do have a significant following in Iran on this show and that's not BS.
Speaker 4:The stats came out. I have hundreds, hundreds of downloads in Iran. They may not sound a lot, but I'm talking about hundreds of downloads every episode. So when you put out an episode, the podcast is measured on how many people download it, not many, how many people just listen to it. You know so to get a hundred downloads or 200 downloads or 300 downloads, that means you know 20 or 30 000 people listen to it or 10 000 people listen to it. Yes, patrick bett david is who is I was referring to. Yeah, man, it's a great show. I like that guy a lot, I like the way he runs the show, so, but you know so they're listening to this show.
Speaker 4:So if you're an Iranian, send a message. Let me know. What is the, the, the? What is the feeling in your country? Is the feeling anti-establishment, is the feeling pro-American or is the feeling not so. Yeah, yeah, and we'll touch base, okay, but thank you guys, so much for tuning in. I appreciate all the support, as always. Make sure you hit that like share and subscribe button and I will see you next time. We'll be you next time.
