Life Liberty and the Pursuit
Welcome to the Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit podcast. Come join Eric and Matt who are freedom-loving, meat-eating, gun-shooting American guys as they discuss a broad spectrum of topics ranging from States' rights, culture, and the 2nd Amendment to scotch, bourbon, and cigars. Eric & Matt are both former US Army combat veterans who served together while deployed to Iraq during OIF III. Eric is most notable for his YouTube channel Iraqveteran8888 which has over 2.75 million subscribers currently as well as his outspoken and no-compromise stance regarding the 2nd amendment. Matt, founded Ballistic Ink, a branding and merchandising company that serviced 2A content creators and the firearms industry. He also is a partner of Alliance jiujitsu Roswell located in Roswell GA and trains daily and competes regularly. He is very passionate about the 2nd amendment and freedom. Come along for the ride!
Life Liberty and the Pursuit
LLP Ep128: Will We Ever See the Epstein List?
Ask us a question. We will answer it on the podcast.
Show sponsors:
AllegianceGold
844-790-9191
AllegianceGold.com/Veterans
Get Up To $5000 In FREE Silver
Video Reference Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo&feature=youtu.be
The veil surrounding the Jeffrey Epstein files has created one of the most fascinating political reversals of our time. What began as a rallying cry from Trump supporters has morphed into a complex web of shifting alliances, with approximately 250 Republicans voting against transparency when Thomas Massie called for a public vote on releasing the Epstein list.
We dive deep into this political about-face, examining how those who once demanded "justice for the children" now seem reluctant to follow through. The edited CCTV footage from Epstein's cell raises serious questions – forensic analysis of the metadata reveals multiple edits during crucial moments. When evidence of this magnitude shows signs of tampering, how can anyone maintain faith in the investigation?
At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental question about institutional accountability: who watches the watchers? As Matt observes, "Can we trust a machine to deliver justice when the grease of those wheels are the very people that are accused?" This crisis of trust transcends party lines, emerging as a genuine concern for Americans across the political spectrum.
Throughout our conversation, we explore the power of public pressure in shaping political decisions. Politicians respond most effectively to constituent demands when they still have elections to win – "sometimes pressure makes diamonds." We also discuss the growing influence of AI in shaping public discourse, the dangers of relying on technology without verification, and what these developments mean for our collective ability to discern truth.
Justice must be applied equally and transparently, regardless of who stands accused. The American people deserve nothing less than full disclosure – "release the information, release the data, release the videos, release everything and let the cards fall where they may." Join us for this thought-provoking exploration of accountability, transparency, and the future of institutional trust in America.
Welcome back everybody. This is Eric and Matt, and this is Life, liberty and the Pursuit, your beacon of freedom and the American way of life. Tune in every Monday for a new episode as we dive into the world of liberty and what makes our country great. All right, folks, welcome back to today's show. This is LLP with Matt and Eric. We've got a great show for you this week and I apologize for our absence last week. Somebody had to go on a freaking cruise and get sick.
Speaker 2:Yes, man, that was diabolical. What happened there at the end, man? It was like everything was going perfect until day number seven on the eight-day cruise Creeping death.
Speaker 1:Huh, yeah, man, we'll talk about it. Yeah, otherwise, though, things going well. Yeah man, everything's been great, you know, and?
Speaker 2:death. Huh, yeah, man, we'll talk about it. Yeah, yeah, otherwise, though, things going well. Yeah, man, everything's been great. You know, obviously we apologize guys.
Speaker 1:We were out, we had a little bit of leave of absence there, um, but we're back hopefully yes well, today's show is going to revolve primarily around the jeffrey epstein list debacle and I know it seems like this subject matter is getting, you know, really tossed around by a lot of people and people say, well, why are you going to beat a dead horse? You know, everyone is trying to run cover for the Trump administration, trying to run cover for whatever they're told to run cover for, apparently.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you know people were so hot and heavy to have this Epstein list released, ok, and to bring all of these perpetrators to justice and to get justice for the children.
Speaker 1:It was just such a trope that seemed to be such a popular idea.
Speaker 1:And I hate to say the right, but let's just say, those that were hardcore supporters of Trump and continue to be hardcore supporters of Trump, you know, they really wanted that Epstein list to get out there and you know and that was a huge part of Trump's campaign when he was running was, hey, we're going to release the list, we're going to go after the Epstein types, and I mean, of course, we're going to, we're going to dive into some sort of deeper, deeper nuance, ben, and deeper minutiae to this whole equation. However, you know there's a lot of people on Trump's camp that you know are not overly happy with the way that this whole situation has been handled. They seem to have shifted gears and then they shift back and they shift gears and they apply, you know, public pressure. It gets applied to them and they shift gears and they apply. You know public pressure gets applied to them. Then they respond to pressure and, if anything, I think what maybe this debacle really sort of teaches us, matt, is that you know politicians respond to pressure.
Speaker 2:Yes, they respond to public scrutiny.
Speaker 1:They respond to public pressure, and sometimes pressure makes diamonds respond to public pressure, and sometimes pressure makes diamonds, and I'm not going to say that that's always necessarily been. You know, what ends up happening is we apply the pressure and things go the way we want. Sometimes it doesn't always go that way, but it would seem that, you know, perhaps in this situation the administration has responded to a lot of pressure from their own, their very own base. And what are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2:You know, I think this would be kind of the double-edged sword on term limits.
Speaker 2:So you'll see, you know I'm in favor of term limits, but this is this particular situation can be shown that, you know, sometimes not having term limits or catching somebody when they're not a lame duck, when they still have one more term left, or whatever it may be, can work out in your favor, because their constituents are applying so much pressure to them and, like you said, that pressure creates diamonds. They are in office, they want to continue to be in office, so that pressure that's being applied is working in the public's favor versus, let's just say, they're a lame duck or they're on the last term of their term limits. There's absolutely no reason for them to switch gears or to cave to any type of pressure from the constituents because they won't be their constituents next term. So they could theoretically tow the party line and just lockstep. In this particular case, I think that we saw the opposite. We saw that, hey, there's still elections to be won and they need to almost cave to the political pressure from the constituents in order to win the next election.
Speaker 1:You know, matt, it seems that that, what the scenario that's playing out, it would seem to me, that is that, you know, people are much more better informed now and without all this censorship going on, I mean right now, not not to necessarily pump x, but look, I love twitter, slash x. I'm very active on x and right now I believe I saw some stats the other day that saying like what is it? Some 70, some odd percent of people now get all of their news from X. Now, some have accused X of continued censorship. However, overall, the platform has done a pretty good job of being relatively transparent.
Speaker 1:They just released Grok 4.0 and 4.0 seems to be, you know, running pretty well and they've added some other. You know functionalities in there. And look, many have accused Grok of being biased or of applying, you know, let's just say, a bias towards a given opinion rather than just simply stating the facts. However, overall it's been pretty consistent. But there's a danger in AI that I think that maybe enough people aren't really talking about or thinking about, and the last thing you want to do is deny the human soul its creativity and to deny the human conscious its ability and duty to scrutinize and think critically. And the problem is, if there's just some magic eight ball that you can just spin the wheel and always get the answer you want, you don't think anymore, you don't think critically, you don't really become your own personal. You know your own person. You lose what it means to be an individual and to be. You know to have your own identity. And you know what AI essentially is.
Speaker 1:Matt is a collective consciousness, right? Ai knows what people want to know because they know what people ask. It knows the answers, matt, because it has all the answers. It knows what people's opinions are. It knows what's popular, what's not and, quite frankly, everything in between. So AI essentially just like some crooked politician. Ai can become a crooked politician in a way, because it can tell you what you want to hear. It can tell you what they want you to hear and anything in between, and it can even decide, really, if it wants you to know the truth, quite frankly, at all man. So it's a scary environment.
Speaker 2:Well, that has already started to happen. So people are becoming so dependent on AI for answers that they're not following their due diligence to follow up, to make sure that what they're being fed is correct. They're asking but they're not verifying. So you'll see it all the time, even on X. I like X. I think that what you said is true.
Speaker 2:Most of my news content comes from X. You'll see the little snippets, the little pop-ups, because it's so quick. You can get that on the ground news almost immediately. You'll see it on X before you see it in any other format, whether it's through traditional media, social media. X has almost become exclusively news, uh, news content. But you'll see people all the time in the comment section grok, is this true? And, like you know, grok will pop up. Hey, it is, but here's the, here's the, the caveats to it. Um, there was a case where a lawyer was using ai to help him with his cases and he was asking AI hey, can you provide me with previous judgments so I can bring this to the judge and use it to win my case, because he has to have precedence? And AI was just making stuff up. He was like hey, in this particular case in 1983, this was like so-and so and so and this guy lost his law license, his, his bar license, everything because he was using ai and they gave him completely wrong, like just made up completely fictitious stuff.
Speaker 2:So wow and yeah if you're kids in college using ai to write papers, yes, and but, most importantly, there's people that are on x or social media, using ai to verify sources, quote, but they're not actually going and seeing the ai could very well just be throwing stuff out there if it doesn't think about, like, talking to a human. Like if, if you're like a smooth talker, there's an art to talking to somebody. Like if you don like a smooth talker, there's an art to talking to somebody. Like if you don't know something, you still have to have that confidence to give them an answer. It might not be entirely true, or it might not be 100% correct, or it could have a bias towards what you want them to believe and not give someone the full story to make their own opinion.
Speaker 2:I think of AI as a very smooth talker. You ask a question, it's going to give you the answer you want to hear and it knows the bias, the algorithms, like all right, this guy is so-and-so, he leans right or left. We're going to give him this.
Speaker 1:Correct. So before we get too much further in the show, I do want to give a quick shout out to today's sponsor, and that's Allegiance Gold. You ever notice how gold doesn't get much airtime until the system starts to shake. Well, here's what nobody's talking about. Starting July 1st, basel III global banking rules classify gold as a tier one asset, the same level as cash or US treasuries. This is huge. It means that central banks now treat gold as the highest quality form of capital.
Speaker 1:They're not doing this just for fun. They're preparing for something. If gold is good enough for the world's most powerful banks and governments, why shouldn't it be good enough to protect your retirement? This may be the best moment that we've all been waiting for. Gold could reach levels we've never seen in the past. Whether you've got five grand or five million to safeguard, now is the time to act.
Speaker 1:I've seen plenty of gold companies advertise and come and go, but I chose to partner with Allegiance Gold because they actually care. They care about their pricing, about integrity, about doing the right thing by their clients. They make it simple to move part of your 401k, your IRA or savings into real, physical gold and silver. As a veteran, you may even qualify for up to $5,000 in free silver. Call 844-790-9191 or visit allegiancegoldcom. Forward slash veterans. It's smart, secure and simple. Call 844-790-9191. Tell them Eric and Matt sent you. Get on down there and get some gold, get some gold. I like gold, gold finger, I love it, I love it.
Speaker 1:So, getting back to the Epstein debacle, I know we kind of talked a little bit about AI, about Brock 4.0, specifically because AI is a tool that can shape the public opinion, and has AI played a pivotal role in changing what people think about the whole Epstein debacle? I think the answer is yes, but let's take a step back and sort of look from a broader view. Okay, what would be some reasons? Right, like so if you look at the Epstein list and everything contained within it as just raw intelligence, okay, look at it from an intelligence operation. Okay, if you're performing an intelligence operation, or let's say that you are engaging in a law enforcement investigation, you don't want the perpetrator to know what you know. You don't want anyone to know what you know, and maybe you want to put out false information about what you know because you want them to think that what you, what you know, that you're not on the trail, so whereby, yes, it is frustrating to see things within, let's just say the political sphere that seem to clash with things that you just know in your heart are true, based on what many people have come out and released. You know leaks and things, and all the information that's come out let's just say photographs and media and, god forbid, what they're saying is depicted in some of these content that they have in their possession incriminates a lot of people. But you have to also kind of think that maybe there is a double edged sword to the whole situation. Maybe they're trying to be purposely misleading about what they really know so that they can nail the sons of bitches, all right. Or, and this is, I think, where a lot of people in Trump's base and people on the left, both sides of the political coin, where they're coming from, is well, well, well, dang. If you don't, if you know who they are, why aren't you nailing them? So people's perception, people's opinions on the matter, is that you know dang well who the hell they are. You probably have their phone numbers. They're probably down the hall from you in the Pentagon. I mean, some of these people are well known, allegedly Right, and I think where people tend to have this separation of OK, well, this is a law enforcement investigation, this is an intelligence operation.
Speaker 1:Some okay, well, this is a law enforcement investigation, this is an intelligence operation. Some people say, oh, this is a blackmail campaign. Oh so, wow, now you're talking to me. You hear rumblings of a Mossad blackmail campaign. You know, now, that's when it gets into, let's say, conspiracy theory territory, gets into, let's say, conspiracy theory territory. However, given how these people have conducted themselves in the past and given the type of, let's just say, the type of work they do, that's what they're in the business of. Right Is intelligence control, manipulation and ultimately, you know, having you tie your own damn noose.
Speaker 1:And so that I think, when you consider all those factors in totality of the way that the Epstein-List debacle is being handled, you know, I think it's purposely set up, matt, to where it can be anybody's ballgame. It can be in the court of the righteous that are actually going to do the right thing with the play, or it could be in the hands of the manipulators and the people who are going to do everything they can to hide the truth from people and they're going to make you deny what your own eyes see and what your own heart feels and what your own mind tells you to believe. And that's what I think is troublesome about the current state of this Epstein debacle. Because first you had all of the, the, the, the pro-Trump people saying, all right, well, I'm voting for Trump because he says he's going to release the Epstein list. You know, we got Pam Bondi in, we got Kash Patel in.
Speaker 1:Dan Bongino came on board as deputy director of the FBI, which the first time we've ever had, to my knowledge, a deputy director of the FBI. Why? Why now, after all these years? Why now? And why Dan? All right, was Dan being groomed to be a fall guy for some information? Was there so much intelligence on the board that, you know, maybe Cash was overwhelmed and needed someone to kind of help him.
Speaker 1:Or maybe is it because, you know, they just wanted one more person to point the finger at and blame, to take the blame off Bondi, to take the blame off Patel and ultimately take the blame off Trump, who his own constituents are rather mad at how this is all being handled. Let's just say the first batch of the Epstein list to a select group of you know social media talking heads, which I know a few of them. They're not bad people, but you have to wonder what the what the play is when Bondi spends more time on Fox news than she does, you know, prosecuting crimes or going after people, arresting people, like it's like what, what? What is the play here? You know, if bondy were to resign, she wind up with a position at fox news next week, you know, and you, you begin to see a pattern of events that that you can't really deny after a while right like okay, uh, jen jen sake, whatever that the lady that was the Press secretary the press secretary under the Biden administration, the redhead lady the first press secretary Peppermint Patty.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the first one, the little Peppermint Patty lady right, she left the White House and what'd she get? She went and got a job in the media. First thing.
Speaker 2:Boom.
Speaker 1:Now one would say okay, a press secretary, you're taking questions from the media, you're responding to the media, so yeah, that would give you a uniquely posed position to have contacts within the media right People that might want to bring you on as some sort of consultant or to run a show or something, and I'm not saying that that's not the case.
Speaker 1:However, it just does seem that a lot of our politicians have, incredibly, too healthy of a relationship with the media and they wield the media like a weapon. And they wield social media like a weapon because they know the court of public opinion is not on their side and they have to purposely manipulate the data and the facts in ways that get their base sort of back on their side and to try to keep people always guessing.
Speaker 2:I'll say just in general, there's not very much job opportunities, very many job opportunities for that particular skill set other than going into media. Because I know that the Trump press secretaries also ended up doing the same thing, most notably Kayleigh McEnany. She was like a little firecracker man, like she was very good. She was on it, probably one of the best, in my opinion, one of the best press secretaries that I ever saw handle Very combative journalist and she handled it very well. She didn't have to like flip through a book for every answer. It was like, hey, you have a question, I have an answer. Not only do answer. It was like, hey, you have a question, I have an answer, not only do I have an answer, I have a rebuttal and then I have statistics on why my answer is correct and why your fake news. It was just like I think that was really the the beginning of seeing the whole like fake news type of organizations get dismantled because they're getting picked apart with asking the same questions, getting called out and then the answer being given.
Speaker 2:But back to the Epstein debacle. It there's only one answer, which is everybody was compromised and everybody still is compromised, whether it's, you know, through heinous means when they all go to this island, but that is the only way that this whole thing gets swept under the rug. Um, it's very similar to like what happened, like you'll see the memes, the diddy memes. Same thing, man, like those types of crimes involving heinous acts uh, unspeakable, unspeakable, heinous acts, sometimes involving children. Get anytime you have like a high level official compromised with that, like you have them. And you know sean combs I'm gonna it's weird calling him diddy sean combs um, that was his, that was.
Speaker 2:He did the same thing epstein did. He would have his white parties that are very famous, very well known in the hamptons. He would have all white parties. Everybody, that was everybody would attend these parties. If you were, if you were well known, if you wanted to be well known, you were invited. You went to the party. Yeah, unspeakable things happened at that party that people will not say and, like the people who are leaving the party, they're like I'm getting out of here before any of this stuff gets any crazier yeah, things started to get crazy.
Speaker 1:The night goes on, and as the night goes on, things get darker.
Speaker 2:Yep.
Speaker 1:So just to say that, matt, if somebody was at a diddy party, does it automatically mean that there's some you know, mean that there's some you know terrible person? Well, maybe early on all they were doing is kicking back some cristal and eating hors d'oeuvres, you know, and hanging out and having fun by the pool. And then, you know, all of a sudden some debauchery starts going on. They go all right, I'm out of here you know, and do I?
Speaker 1:am I the kind of person, matt, that believes that? Okay, if trump was on the epstein list and there's pictures of him and Epstein together and the saying he's on the flight log allegedly right, we don't know? I'm just saying what I've been told, and what I hear Is that to say that maybe Trump was in a similar situation, that things might've started to get a little hairy and he went whoa, I didn't sign up for this. Out of here, right. How many people continuously went to the island over and over and over and over and over again? That's what you have to consider. So if you went to Epstein Island and you saw some straight up debauchery and you said, okay, look, I don't know what kind of crazy shit you're into, but I'm out of here. I'm not, I won't, I won't rat on you because whatever, but I don't want no part of this, which that's probably just as bad. To have knowledge and not tell anyone is bad too, but what about the people who kept going knowing what they were going back for?
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:All right, the first time you have the benefit of the doubt, of not knowing what might happen on that island. Maybe you don't know what they're doing there. But then you find out and you continue to come back Highly sus.
Speaker 2:Yep, highly sus. So let's look at what's been released. All right, so they released the video of the security, the CCTV footage of Epstein's cell, and it was professionally edited. All right, why, why? Why would you do that? Why not just release the unedited video? Still no answers. No one's asking like so here's the weird thing, eric. Nobody's asking why, like it's. For some reason it's like hey, here's the stuff and everybody just accepts it. Like why, why is this video edited? What? What other world? Is CCTV footage edited?
Speaker 1:Let's say that the CCTV video file started and stopped in a certain spot and maybe you had to go into editing software and just splice them back together to create one continuous track for the court to see. One could understand that, but when you're talking a section that's missing, especially a pivotal, important section that is highly pertinent, yeah, like if there's hours of watching this and I sleep.
Speaker 2:There's like three minutes missing and there's three minutes of incredibly pertinent, important information to account for and it's gone.
Speaker 1:That is highly suspect. Now I don't remember the user, who it was, but there was somebody on Twitter that got a hold of that file and of course you can look through the metadata of the file. I think there's a command that you have to put on the computer but it'll pull sort of a forensic snapshot of the file's history If it's ever been edited, what editing suite was used to edit it Like. You can find all that out by running certain protocol. You can look at sort of the forensic you know history of the file, right, and someone with access to the actual file that was given to the court. They're like, look, I mean, right here it shows where it was saved multiple times. Obviously someone didn't want to lose their work. I mean, think about it, it makes sense. How many times in an editing session are you going to control S, control S, control S, because you don't want to lose your progress? Let's face it, if you're running Windows, you know sometimes programs crash.
Speaker 1:And the last thing you want to do is lose your progress. And what do you do? Just, you know you move something around. Ctrl s, ctrl s, ctrl s locks, the saving right. We all do it, every editor does it. But you can't sit there and tell me that, oh, the, it wasn't edited. When there's forensic proof within that file, the actual file is given to the court. That shows all the ctrl s's where they saved it, where they changed the name, where the editing suite they dropped it into what they cut.
Speaker 1:I mean you can't get around that. It's quite clear that the clip was edited for content. And the question is was that content destroyed? We'll probably never know what the content was. At this point, the ball is in their court to say, well, it was a corrupt file, or the file never existed, or it's not edited. See, it's just a lapse and whatever. Oh, the DVR heated up and overheated and quit working. They're going to come up with whatever excuse they think they can sell you, except telling you the truth that, oh, someone from our team edited that out because they don't want you to see it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they don't want you to see us. You know, murder him, hell no right.
Speaker 1:So now, if the guy did commit suicide, well then, by god, show us improve it. Yeah, but no one believes that the guy killed himself, and I would even venture as far to say that I don't think the guy's dead at all. I think they did a body swap or something. I think there's some greater protection or something that is in play, that I think he's worth way more to them alive than dead, and that's why Ghislaine Maxwell is still with the living.
Speaker 2:Well, she just had a meeting and she walked out with a little special box and she had a box of goodies going back to prison and now she's requesting a full pardon, a presidential pardon, and it's just crazy how that happened. But here's what I don't get All right. For the longest time, eric, it was the prerogative of the right to expose this list and I think that they got a sneak peek at this list and realized that they don't want that list coming out. Now they're all. They voted against releasing it.
Speaker 2:And at first they tried to say it wasn't real, yeah, and then, but you know who held him accountable was Thomas Massey, so he called a vote. He said he wants a public vote. So it's on record for all of the reps and the senators that didn't want this exposed. It was actually a pretty smart move because they were trying to and it's interesting, they did that as well. They adjourned the Congress early so they wouldn't have to deal with it. But he vote. He called and that's why they voted for it publicly and you got to see how many republicans it was like 250 something republicans voted.
Speaker 1:no way, yeah, they voted nay on but all the democrats want to release the list yeah, it flip-flopped before.
Speaker 2:It was the opposite. This is like this. That is the wild thing. But I just hate to see what happened, because they all, like, basically turned against Thomas Massey and he's just trying to do the right thing, Like he is like to me. That is exactly what you want. You want accountability. I mean, the dude is just all about you know. Hey, let's run a smart government, like smart spending. We're not trying to spend more than we have. We're going to not do crazy bad things to kids and if you do, we're going to do bad things to you. That's what are we missing. Yeah, this is crazy. What do we learn? We're living in a crazy world.
Speaker 1:What are we missing here? I mean, why is that such an outlandish idea with these people? Simple accountability If you can't be accountable, you have no business being in government, because you are given the trust of the people, you are bestowed a very sacred trust that you have to accept. That if you do something wrong, you're going to face the consequences. And you know to think that now Massey is the poster child for everything that the Republicans don't want, right?
Speaker 1:Oh, massey's a, you know, second-rate, republican second-rate person. You know they throw so much mud at him. Apac spent a million dollars on campaigns ads recently to try to boot him out and I don't think the election has been held yet, but they did run some polls. And even with all this blasting, like blasting these ads, and, of course, Massey being the genius that he is, posted those ads on his very own social media, like, look what they're saying about me. And he's like just doing it in some satirical way, like, yeah, okay, here I'll promote the ad. He's putting the own ads out there that his enemies are trying to throw at him. Apex made a million dollars and then they did a poll and he's like 76% approval rating.
Speaker 2:Yeah, of course, man.
Speaker 1:I mean, you can't throw shade on somebody who's a real one, yep, and I think that there are a lot of people, I believe on both sides of the political aisle, both Democrat and Republican, and libertarians, of course, that love Thomas Massie. I think that it doesn't take a genius to see what the hell is going on with everything and the level of debauchery that is occurring with these people. And they're running cover for each other and the media is running cover for them, right? You think for one second that if there's some government approved message that needs to reach the masses, that they don't have direct access to people, that they can say, hey, we want this to run on the news tonight. Well, that's not news to us. Well, it's news because we're saying it's news. We're telling you it's news here. Or they say here's tomorrow's news, this is what's going to be news tomorrow.
Speaker 2:It's already been proven, I think. What was the name of that campaign? It was like Operation, something. Well, if you look at about to look it up, but they showed on the news, it was like 200, 200 news channels all with the same intro, with the same apology messaging yes and like this is a. This is. This is not a conspiracy theory, guys, this has been proven. They, like some guy, put together like 200 clips. We'll put the video in the comments or so, and we'll put it in the thing.
Speaker 1:So you guys see, but it would just, it just blew me away it's absolutely wild, yeah, to see it in in concert, all those people delivering the same message, just like, holy crap. Yep, that's real, you know. And um, I want to take a quick moment before we, uh, get too much further in the show. I would like to talk a little bit about my new merch brand. Okay, based in Mad. All right, I just want to kind of give a little talk about it. You've probably been seeing that in the show here. I've got the little Magnet sticker back there. Based in Mad. I got the Based in Mad cap. I got the Based in Mad mug.
Speaker 1:What the hell's based in mad, eric? What are you doing here? What's going on? Well, you guys know that, if you know, stranger to what I do that I've been very vocal about a lot of things and some of those things have gotten me maybe in a degree of hot water. Okay, I'm not going to lie, I've gotten into some degree of hot water with many people over some of my opinions, which they may not be mainstream opinions yet In fact they probably go quite against the mainstream and what they believe. And I do believe that a lot of that is just due to ignorance and them not knowing and avoiding and not wanting to understand history and things.
Speaker 1:So I started Based in mad as a brand for people who are not afraid to break loose of the mold of society and be their own person. Right, based as in you're based. We all know what it means to be based and mad because, yeah, mad can represent anger, it can represent discontent, but mad can also represent represent discontent, but mad can also represent, you know, the sort of artistic eccentric nature that people in my type of shoes tend to have. You know, I'm a very eccentric person and I wanted these designs to be eccentric and edgy and I wanted some of them to be kind of simple and artistic and I wanted to make a statement. So my clothes are for people who want to make a statement, people who are not afraid to. You know, upset someone at dinner, okay, someone who's not afraid to go out in public, and someone go, wow, that's a that. That that's close to being an unwearable shirt, right, but it's not my goal to make shock shirts that just you know that you can't wear. But for some of you who are down, we've got you covered. So look, I've got.
Speaker 1:If you support my message and you support the work I've done over the years and you support my Second Amendment work, my First Amendment work, which you know I have been censored and canceled by a lot of damn people. If you want to support my work, you can buy a mug. I've got hats, I've got shirts. Check out basedinmadcom. Real nice layout.
Speaker 1:Just a quick forewarning on orders. If you do want to place an order, I'm a couple of weeks out. I do have to produce this stuff as it's made, so bear with me. It is a couple of week lead time and I know the prices are what they are. But look on merch, you know it's just to be profitable. I have to charge. I got to charge what I got to charge to make any money off it, because it's not getting any cheaper y'all. I mean, unfortunately that's just the grip of capitalism. But if you want to support my efforts, that's one way you can do so. Get you a Basin Mad mug. So this one's got the Basin Mad.
Speaker 1:And then on the other side we've got the same image that is on my shirt. That's King Baldwin. That's an artistic rendering of King Baldwin IV and of course you know that he essentially saved Christianity. Okay, he was a very well-known and respected king and he didn't take any shit from anybody. Okay, uh, he was a very well-known and respected King and he didn't take any shit from anybody, okay.
Speaker 1:So that's the essence of what I want to do with this brand is, you know, it's for people who are fed the hell up with what's going on and, uh, I thought this video would be a perfect way.
Speaker 1:Well, today's show would be a perfect way to kind of talk about, based in math. This is the first time y'all are going to see it, so I've got some other shirt designs I'll show you in some future content. But anyway, I just wanted to do a quick plug, a shameless plug for some of the merch. And if you want to support what I do I guess it's me just being my loud mouth self If you like the things I say on Twitter, buy a damn mug and put some coffee in and take a picture of it and send it to me. I'll share it for you. Okay, so we are going to talk about Epstein a little bit more, but we're going to lighten up the conversation a little bit. I've got some 50 caliber rounds here in front of Matt and, you know, I thought it would be fun to test Matt and see if he can identify all the 50 caliber ammo in front of him here um, I can probably identify two of these.
Speaker 2:I was not a 50 gunner, you were a 50 gunner, I was a 240 gunner. I can identify two of these rounds. The other three, two slash three. I have no idea. So I'm just going to jump in. I'm going to pick the first one. I know this one is an a-pit, which is the armor piercing incendiary tracer. Is that correct?
Speaker 1:no, all right, all right but you're, you're close to one that is okay, uh, this one, that's an A-Pit All right.
Speaker 2:I knew one of them. That was one of them, all right. A-pit Armor piercing incendiary tracer.
Speaker 1:Yep.
Speaker 2:Then that means, that is a Ralfus.
Speaker 1:Yes, okay, ralfus, that's a Mark 211, ralfus, all right.
Speaker 2:That's a Ralfus and it's explosive. I'll be close. I'll be careful. Is that a slap? Or that is a hornady amax that's a match round, so that's not a military cartridge. Yeah, I was like I'm not. That is a 750 grain amax.
Speaker 1:You notice the ogive of the bullet compared to the yeah, it's very, very much more aerodynamic. So that's a match bullet from hornady max I'm not familiar with this one at least.
Speaker 2:A brown tip tracer, just a straight tracer tracer, I'm not used. I mean, usually I see ball, and this one so there's a.
Speaker 1:There's a spotter tracer round. In fact, god dang it, I forgot to grab a spotter tracer to show you. The spotter tracer round is used in the um, in the recoil, you know those big recoil-less rifles oh yeah, they have a mortise tube insert that you use to sight in the recoil-less rifles and it shoots a special spotter tracer.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 1:And it's like a real bright tracer that's real heavy and I think it's yellow and red. So if you see a striped yellow and red. It almost looks like a yellow jacket. That's a spotter tracer and it's a real heavy bullet. It's designed as a heavy bullet to replicate the trajectory of the recoilless rifle round, like that lob that nerf football, so you can sight the gun in. So you're not wasting full ammo just to sight the gun in. You put the mortise tube in and run the 50 in it?
Speaker 2:who wants to just lob, you know recoilless rifle rounds and javelin missiles and at4 rounds? Who wants to just throw those? Remember?
Speaker 1:the uh, the trainers for the at4 yeah, nine millimeter.
Speaker 2:Nine millimeter, nine millimeter, tracers, all right, and then show that projectile that's in the bag there, all right.
Speaker 1:So now you get a cheat code there, because it says what it is on the bag. Yeah, now I don't have loaded ammo, but I just want to show this projectile Look at that freaking thing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, man, that's nice, that's a nice looking round this turn brass Yep, the control chaos that's Lehigh 750 grain. Controlled chaos and lead free. Yeah, 3,000 feet per second. It, it's a beast.
Speaker 1:That round is a beast. Yeah, man, that looks nice. It'll destroy anything you want, you know. You know. I was going through the studio. I found some 50 cal rounds. I thought it'd be cool to have a little session where we try to stump you on some of the 50 cal ammo. But that's the king of them. Right, there is the ralphus.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that'll, that'll blow some stuff up, so um, so the ralphus those are made by bofers in sweden for us. Those are made bofers is contracted to make those projectiles for us and they have a tracer, but but they also have an explosive core rdx in the core, yep, so they so they kind of explode when they hit. And I remember we would ride around in a rack Matt, and when I was gunning on the M2, it's so weird to think back that I'd have a whole belt of Ralfas and it's just thinking like that round is so awesome and when you shoot things with it you just see a flash, I remember. And so the other .50 round that I've actually forgotten to break
Speaker 1:out. I don't know if I had any loaded up, but the blue tip is incendiary only, it only is to burn things. It's incendiary. So the projectile itself when it hits a hard object it's sort of frangible, it just sort of breaks apart. But that powdered metal and the way that the, the mixture of the incendiary is made in the tip, it makes fires. It's for setting things on fire. So if you're trying to catch a structure on fire or something like that, you use incendiary. Or if you just want to I don't know the enemy's in a field and you want to catch the field on fire. You can just find a hard object, you know, shoot a rock and then it'll just catch a field on fire. Yeah, that sort of stuff, like when you need to burn things it was just.
Speaker 2:It was like a. You know, I remember being in iraq. The buildings were so uh, like industrial, yeah, but they're like everything punched, like it was hard because everything punches through them. Like you would shoot through the front of the building, it would just go out the back because, like it's mud, like everything is like a a straw mud mixture. So if you hit it, if you hit a building with a 50 cal, you literally just punch, you just see hole punches in it and it's like, okay, I mean hitting it with the ralphus, it would literally probably just punch through it I remember they don't even have enough resistance.
Speaker 2:Yeah, like we stopped we stopped shooting buildings with at4s because it literally wouldn't even blow the building up, it would just like you'd see it punch through one wall, go out. Then you have a hole in the building and you're like, oh nice way to waste a couple thousand dollars.
Speaker 1:Have you seen the new at4s?
Speaker 2:uh, no, I saw, I've seen the water variation where it has, like, the water in the back so you can actually fire them inside of buildings. So like is that the one you're referring to?
Speaker 1:well, there's that, but then they also. I know this is going to sound like such a basic thing. You would think, oh, why that? Why is that not a thing they have? Uh, all the at4s now are reloadable that's actually nice. So you know, before what we were taught was you shoot it and you break the sights off and you throw the tube away. Yep, what a waste. What a waste. One use, what a waste. But this way you carry a launcher and you just have extra projectiles and you shoot some bitch again.
Speaker 2:It's almost like a recoiler's rifle, like a Carl Gustav.
Speaker 1:Right, well, I believe they are made by Carl Gustav. Yeah, I mean, they're made in Sweden, maybe.
Speaker 2:Bofors makes their AT-4s as well. I think Saab makes their Carl Gustavs. They're Sweden, aren't they?
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's so random how a lot of our military tech that we get out of the Scandinavian countries and they don't play around like man.
Speaker 2:they know how to make anti-tank weapons Dude, have you seen their artillery pieces? Oh my God, pieces. Oh my god. They have one that's like uh, I know, it will shoot five artillery rounds at the same time and they all land in one spot at the same time. It just changes the angle of fire. Yeah, I was like isn't that wild?
Speaker 1:that's nuts, you know I remember when, when I first got in the military you know, you and I got around the same time but they were still training us on, very briefly, they still trained us on the four deuce and the rifle before deuce and essentially what they were going for was a breech loaded mortar that was rifled. So the idea was that it would be more accurate. Yeah, but I think they found that like, maybe it just in practice was not as good of an idea. Because yeah, a four deuce is nice, you can load it from the breach. So like, hey, if you're in a, you know, an enclosed area, you can just load it from the breach and not have to expose yourself to get up and put a round in. I suppose there's that factor. But it's faster to just drop damn rounds down a smoothie than it is to have to open the breach. And I think you had to like grease the breach and clean it and keep it clean as you go.
Speaker 2:It's like well, the hard thing was calculating the charge, because it was like so with with 120 millimeters, it's like charge one, two, three, four or zero and it's there.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's either it's already there, that's it, you just pull it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's already there, you just peel them off and go with a four deuce you had to like take a knife into like it was like four and three quarters. You're like, oh man, it was ridiculous. I remember seeing those.
Speaker 1:I was like there's no way, no way there's a reason that the four deuce went the way of the dodo. It wasn't a bad system, but that 120 millimeter mortar man that that thing is no joke yeah, that thing will absolutely lay down the law and you can run the inserts and run like you know. You can run a loom with the 81s, you know no problem.
Speaker 1:Just drop the mortise tube in there and just run the conversion tube. I think at one point didn't we extrapolate the unit replacement cost on running a loom and a 120 versus running the the insert tube.
Speaker 2:It's like 67 or 70 cheaper to run the 81s than it is to run 120s but the, the 120s, the, they have a higher hang time. Like they, they stay in the air a lot longer. Um and they do I think they're a lot brighter, like double the the brightness.
Speaker 1:I think that you know that one night that we ran an alum mission that one night in Lyons Dunn and I think that I think we kept continuous alum for like two hours, yeah, something like that we had two guns running.
Speaker 1:Oh, we had two guns running, we had continuous alum going for a hot little minute and I think we were running inserts, we weren't running 120s and I guess they just they're like, I don't need that kind of brightness, because I think, if I remember correctly, these guys were ingrained in some crazy firefight and they wanted just enough a loom to kind of give their night vision a little, a little help. They didn't need it to see, they just wanted to.
Speaker 2:You know, kind of it was a dark night and I think they just wanted a little extra ambient light in the sky to help. Nobody wants to throw the irs on and you're gonna start catching fire with that.
Speaker 1:Yeah so, um, it's just interesting to think about all that you know, but anyway, there's our 50 cal rounds and, uh, I wanted to show those off yeah, no, I mean it's been a while.
Speaker 2:I mean the definitely familiar with the a pits, yeah, not so much the ralphus.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I remember. Um, I'm not going to say the exact website because I don't think the the gentleman is in business anymore. He, I think he's retired, he's down in florida, um, but there was a guy that I was buying a lot of my projectiles for uh from, for the 50 bmg in it not to go off on another story because I don't want to take this much time to discuss it but, um, let's just say that when you order components you don't have to pay hazmat. So if I order primed brass that already has a primer in it and then I order projectiles, he can send that all to me and I'll just put my own powder in there and I have to pay any kind of hazmat charges, like if I'm ordering primers or powder. That's very good to know and they're already primed. And plus, I was getting a lot of really rare and hard to get stuff from him.
Speaker 1:I bought a whole bunch of those 50-cal and cindergary projectiles and I bought a bunch of A-pits from him. In fact that's A-pit that I loaded. The one with the silver tip, that's one that I loaded there. Now the brown tip tracer is a cartridge. That's a military one and of course the Ralph is that's? That's an OG, military one. Don't ask how I got it, I'm going to tell you. And then the A-Max is a factory match around. Anyway, I loaded the A-Pit but I bought a, a whole bunch of projectiles like 250 cal ammo cans full of just the projectiles. Nice and uh. Now I wish I would have bought 10 cans for what they cost. I can actually afford to shoot my bear, hit and and not go broke. Um, I think I extrapolated at one point what it was costing me and for me to load my own 50 rounds, to load my own A-pits with brand new brass already primed, and just me add the powder and throw the A-pit on top. I think at one point I figured it out and I'm spending like $3.50 a shot.
Speaker 2:Which I mean- $4 a shot. Yeah, which I mean for an A-, an a pit. Oh my god, that's like.
Speaker 1:And I was paying the same thing for the freaking incendiaries which I kill myself for not buying more of those incendiaries I was gonna say that's like ball pricing. Now, like I know, that's what I'm saying now, speaking of incendiaries um, we'll get back to this jeffrey epstein thing and we'll kind of close things out, because we're kind of getting a a little far on time here on today's show and look, I know we we sort of went in a bunch of different directions today and I appreciate you being patient.
Speaker 1:It's a podcast, Y'all we're going to we're going to crap around here and there, and yeah. So you know Bondi's role in all of this, bondi's role in all of this. I know in a few of the previous episodes we've discussed Pam Bondi and we've discussed Bongino's role, cash's role and all the other picks in Trump's cabinet. You know we have Dr Gorka back on board, which I think very highly of Sebastian Gorka. I think he is a very fine guy and I know Dr Gorka and he is a fantastic guy and I know that if the president ever bends his ear for anything, I know he's going to get the absolute best advice he could ever ask for when it comes to our nation's security and internal threats and external threats and all the other things. I mean Dr Gorka is a very good guy and I'm not ever going to sit there and say that the people that Trump has picked are not good people. I mean, I have no doubt that Pam Bondi is very, very qualified for her job. I'm not going to ever sit here and say that she's not a qualified person. She's very qualified for the job. She's fantastic at being a prosecutor, being a legal mind that can determine if the crime's been committed, you know, and how to go about it, and that's what an attorney general essentially does. Like they're the chief law enforcement officer of the entire nation. Like the attorney general. If they tell you it's illegal, damn it, it's illegal, right.
Speaker 1:So has Bondi performed the highest of her potential throughout this tenure? So far? I think she's given us some crumbs presidential. Throughout this tenure so far, I think she's given us some crumbs right? We've gotten a few second amendment crumbs. We've got some literal Epstein crumbs. I feel like she's holding out on us a little bit and I think that seems to be the view of many of Trump's constituency is that not enough has been done fast enough? Trump's constituency is that not enough has been done fast enough and people are really starting to question the true intentions of this cabinet.
Speaker 2:Well, you say that and I was just about to say, the only cabinet pick that has been worth a crap has been Tulsi Cause. I mean, if you look at, you know, cash Patel. He was supposed to go in there and really clean house. Hasn't done anything. Dan Bongino left a you know, which is really crazy. He left a multi-million dollar position having a podcast, like being really well known. He was supposed to clean house Nothing. Pam Bondi the reason that she's not doing anything is because she doesn't want to set as the attorney general doesn't want to set a precedence against anything that comes out with these Epstein files, because she doesn't know how much pressure is going to be applied. So it could be very well that everybody caves and they release these or they get leaked.
Speaker 1:Or maybe they're going after all of them and they don't want anybody to know. Maybe, again, maybe there's this whole plausible deniability that surrounds the intricacies of a law enforcement investigation, the intricacies of an intelligence gathering operation, the intricacies of something so vile and pardon me but effed up, that maybe it takes a whole team of people to sit back and go. How the hell do we even? How do we? How do we?
Speaker 2:I mean this is torches, and pitchfork territory.
Speaker 1:How do we turn it from torches and pitchfork territory to everyone having their heads intact? You know, hey, maybe they're just like hey. Jail would be probably an opportunity at this point, like some of these people are on many, many a shit list, yeah, and, but there's so many heads that are going to roll.
Speaker 2:They're trying to figure out who's going to be the sacrificial lambs and who's not. In my opinion, that might be that, yeah, that might be one of the things they're like hey, maybe did he, was that, you know, maybe they gave him did he well, he well, he got out of jail like he, he same thing. He got off scot-free, basically, um, which is crazy in itself, but let's, I mean I just wanted to back up again about, you know, the cabinet pick, tulsi gabbard. Yeah, you know she's out there. You know, say what you will, think what you will. She's putting in work. She is, you know, going after the the you know russian collusion, uh thing.
Speaker 2:Lots of stuff is being uncovered, lots of evidence being uncovered with like comey and uh and Hillary, all this collusion there. But she's actually bringing up facts. So that I have to respect. I have to respect that she's been working in the background with all this stuff going on and this is what she's uncovered, and I think you're going to see a lot of you're going to see heads roll on that as well, because, based on what I've seen and what I've heard, there was some clear and obvious misrepresentation with how that went down.
Speaker 1:And you notice too, matt, that they are freaking shining a light on Obama again. Yeah, remember how early on it was all oh Hillary for prison. Everyone's making a joke about holding Hillary Clinton accountable for the email stuff and all that debacle, which they still haven't done, and they still haven't done.
Speaker 1:Now, what are they doing? Oh, they're pointing the finger at Barack Obama. Oh, he was implicated in this. Oh, he's committed treason. He's done this, he's done that, blah, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter what the hell they say, because, at the end of the day, if they don't, for one, he likely has varying degrees of presidential immunity. Yeah, Two the current administration can just pardon him, Yep which?
Speaker 2:what sort?
Speaker 1:of precedent would it set for them to allow a former president to get axed over a crime that was committed? They would much rather pardon him and go hey look, we know you did wrong. We're going to pardon you because we don't want them coming after us for something or future administration. So you know, yeah, would you expect Trump to come out and say well, you know, I know, barack, he's not a bad guy and this is all misunderstanding, so I'm just going to pardon him because you know my end.
Speaker 2:All do all wisdom completely outweighs any evidence you might actually see before you he also wants to make sure that he's going to get the same treatment if it ever like that and there may not even be anything that that he's implicated for but they may just be what is in the public eye?
Speaker 1:it might be. Oh, there's a picture of trump with jeffrey epstein. Oh, my god, you realize how freaking famous Trump is. How many famous people have pictures with him. I mean, I'm not quite convinced that just because there's a picture of him and Jeffrey Epstein together, that that means anything. Everybody wants a picture made with Donald Trump.
Speaker 2:It's not like he has a 14 or 16 year old girl giving him a massage in an airport like, uh, mr bill clinton there I mean, it's just so much to it all.
Speaker 1:and how does the average person, matt, make any form of sense over the whole thing?
Speaker 1:You know, if you you're told what you're told, you believe what you really want to believe and to some, maybe what they really truly believe in their heart might actually be pretty close to the freaking truth.
Speaker 1:And that is, I think, what is so scary to people is that they are worried that this could all be true, that maybe it's not some conspiracy theory, that if you are told the same narrative over and over again by people that have, let's just say, little bits and pieces of factoids and little bits and pieces of truth, it's like, I think, that people are set up for such a sore degree of disappointment if it's not true that that's what this debacle really is all about.
Speaker 1:It's not even whether or not it's true or not, or who is or isn't implicated. I think that what they're trying to do is they're trying to prepare for the downfall of what people are going to actually physically do when they find the answer out, no matter what the answer is, they're more afraid of the answer just being out there, right or wrong. I think that they're more concerned of the answer just being out there, right or wrong. I think that they're more concerned about what people are actually going to do with that knowledge, true, and I think that they think that people are not prepared to know the truth I'm with.
Speaker 2:That said, I'm very surprised that we haven't already started to see like the next crop of presidential candidates start, you know, creeping up, because you know normally you wouldn't, because that traditionally presidents always run two terms. But right, this is trump's second term.
Speaker 1:It just happened adjacent to uh losing the second time so there's been some talk that because he was impeached right in one of his terms that I think they're now don't quote, well, ask AI ask Brock for Brock, Eric is right.
Speaker 1:I heard that there's some sort of precedent that if you are accused of some crime and impeached during your administration that you can run for a third term. No way, now your administration. That you can run for a third term no way, now I don't. And you're found to be exonerated. That you can run for a third term Now I don't. I don't know how true that is, and here's the thing Trump is not, even if he could run again there's no way he would because he's just.
Speaker 1:I mean, I'm not going to say he's old I don't like to no-transcript vast integrity, that maybe is misunderstood in a lot of situations and I do think that he is, overall, a very honorable person. I really do. I think he does want to do what's best for the country. He just has a way of doing it.
Speaker 1:He just has his ways and some people may not always agree with those methods and his delivery and the methods and the wordplay, but the truth is the world's a giant chessboard and I know people say the 3D chess, 3D chess. But the truth is Trump is a master manipulator.
Speaker 1:And guess what Sometimes you have to you gotta, you gotta convince the cards to fall in your favor. You know, and I think that there are a lot of things in play that are greater than the Epstein debacle, greater than the gun control debacle, greater than social media and all these things that you're sort of, you know, gaslighted to pay attention to. I think he's looking at such a broader picture, you know that you're forced to look at. A president has to look at things in such this broad worldview that maybe I would say normies and simpletons maybe don't have the mental capability to truly see the chessboard for what it really is and what's really at stake and what's really at play. And I'm willing to concede the fact that. You know, obviously the guy knows a lot more about what's going on than I do. He's the freaking president, okay, I mean. And he's not just a president, he's a very successful businessman. He's done very well for himself and, you know, do I want my country to do well, damn right.
Speaker 1:I do. If it means that we got to run the place like a business, why not bring in someone who's savvy with that? I mean, that was always my view from day one. I didn't even really like Trump that much. I thought he was kind of an arrogant person, a little arrogant. However, I grew up watching Trump on TV and his cult of personality that he surrounded himself with he created his own cult of personality around him.
Speaker 1:Created his own cult of personality around him, and I think that that's the most genius part of his entire story. Is not his business acumen, not the fact that he was president, not the fact that he did what he did or didn't do what he didn't do, that he fully monetized what Americans admire the most, and that's personality. He created an entire brand around his personality and people have bought it, and I admire that.
Speaker 2:It's definitely something to be admired gravitas and a magnetic personality, that you can go from being a businessman to the president of the United States in the span of a lifetime. Yeah, all right, you got respect.
Speaker 1:One last thing I'll say before we go. All right, I know we're kind of on time here, but in regards to this Epstein debacle, my view is that if someone is implicated and on that list and the evidence is overwhelming as to their involvement in these horrible things that we've been hearing about, I expect justice, no matter who they are. I might like who I like. Yeah, I mean. Are there famous people on that list that I would hate to see hemmed up? Yeah, I would, I mean, but the truth is I care about justice more than I care about my view or opinion of who they are or what they've accomplished. I mean and as much as I hate to say this, that includes Trump. No one should be free to behave in that way. And if it is true, what all these, all these accusations are true?
Speaker 1:I think where a lot of people are at is that they expect justice and they don't want that justice to be applied only to one group of people or that group of people. Where people are at is they want justice holistically, equally applied, and everyone have their day in court and we'll see where the cards fall. Release the information, release the data, release the videos, release everything and let the cards fall where they may. That's what people want. And what pisses me off right now is that the Trump administration and many other lemmings within the administration are playing cover and trying to pretend like it's not what people want. That's not true at all. People want justice. They've heard about it, they've been fed all the spoonful of crap for years and I think people want to see justice administered.
Speaker 2:We want justice, we want it now.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but can we trust a machine to deliver justice when the gears of that, the grease of those wheels, are the very people that are they accused?
Speaker 2:yes, do you really trust that?
Speaker 1:system to police itself, and I think that is the kind of clear and present danger of people's view on this whole subject. Matt is not about whether jeffrey epstein is subject. Matt is not about whether Jeffrey Epstein is alive or dead. It's not about whether all the people and the clients and all the you know none of that. The actual facts don't even really matter. What this is really about is people have lost faith in the institutions and their willingness to police themselves.
Speaker 1:And at what point? When an institution has to police itself, does that institution even deserve to exist anymore? That's what they're scared of. They're afraid that people are going to come to the conclusion well, god dang, every time we turn around, there's some person who's running our government, that's in the news for some accusation, that's true. At what point do you have to go? Wait a minute, I definitely am not going to allow myself to be policed by criminals, and the criminals are not going to police themselves. So where is the justice? Where does that justice lie? Where does it exist? Does it exist? And I think, once people come to the conclusion, right, that there is no justice anywhere for anyone and that these people are never going to hem themselves up over anything. I think that is what they're worried about Ultimately. Most is what people are actually going to do.
Speaker 1:That's what we're seeing when they come to that conclusion?
Speaker 2:Yeah, we're about to find out. I think so.
Speaker 1:We'll talk about the cruise a little bit on the next show. We really didn't talk about that in today's show, but, look, I really appreciate you guys listening If you're following us on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify, all the places where you can find your favorite podcasts. I appreciate you listening. You can also follow Matt and I on IRACVeteran8888 over on YouTube.
Speaker 1:We post this in video form if you want to see our ugly mugs and the mugs that we talked about in the video the Based and Mad mugs Mugs and mugs, so show your support for little old me and pick yourself up a hat, mug or t-shirt and wear it proudly, because we are based in mad, we are pissed and we're not taking no for an answer. And you know what? We're going to have some fun while we do it, you know we're going to, we're going to, we're going to upset the in-laws, you know, by all means, y'all upset the in-laws. It'll be well worth it, I promise. But uh, thanks so much for tuning in, and Matt, you got anything else for us before we head out?
Speaker 2:No, it was a very, very interesting conversation. We could have went a hundred different ways, but it went the way that it went.
Speaker 1:Let the cards lie where they're going to lie. All right, y'all have a good week. We'll see you next week. Bye, Thanks for listening to Life, Liberty and Pursuit. If you enjoyed the show, be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and anywhere else podcasts are found. Be sure to leave us a five-star review. We'd really appreciate that you can support us over on Ballistic Inc by picking yourself up some merch and remember, guys, dangerous freedom. Have a good one.