[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [00:00:05] Speaker B: You're listening to casual talk radio where common sense is still the norm whether you're a new or long time listener. We appreciate you joining us today. Visit [email protected] and now here's your host, Ler. [00:00:21] Speaker A: Welcome back everyone. It's been a while. Been a long while. A couple weeks. We are hope you had a happy Halloween. Hopefully the situation is, I don't want to say dire but it's concerning for people with the, the shutdown. And I'm gonna, that's I thought about a specific topic. That's the reason I took a little time because I was flip flopping between topics. There's like three floating around and I figured I would start with the one that had the broadest points of consideration. This one was, I was, I was inspired by a young man that did something on video and I don't want to use his content but I wanted to take parts of what he was saying and use it as the topic for my return. First, I still going to cover the other topics. I'll tell you what those are in a second. But I learned something real quick. Just a personal something. I learned something real quick. It turns out I'm pretty sure that I am partially related not by blood, well, by blood maybe on one of them, but at least with the other one, not by blood to very recognizable people. And this journey was fascinating for me. I got the last bit of evidence. It was a photo. This photo connects the dots with one aspect of the family where it confirms that indirectly because of the way things were. And that's part of what one of my topics that I'm not going to cover here. But I just wanted to tell this fascinating story. I have a theory that, and I, I do have books on this that I'm going to pull out and go through. But I have a theory that the whole, you know, Pearl harbor, World War I, World War II, the way that our military men were treated and perceived back then, that rhymes. I think it lent itself to a lot of the findings that, that I'm now coming up with that it just happened to be the sign of the times. This is how they were treated and as a result things happened naturally. But I'm fascinated by it because it's not been the case for so long. And it also goes like Roseanne Cash, if you don't know who Roseanne Cash is. Roseanne Cash is one of the daughters of Johnny Cash and Vivian Liberto. The story of the time. This isn't my topic. I'm just Telling this fascinating story, the story of the time. Remember, we had black and white newspapers, black and white TVs. You know, you're talking 40s, 50s, 60s. And so the story of the time. Vivian would occasionally go on the road with Cash. And then she was at one point photographed. And because of the way she looked, she was very exotic looking. She has Sicilian blood, but she also has in her heritage, she had a slave. Was one of her ancestors, a great, great grandmother, I believe it was, was a slave, freed slave, and I believe a mulatto. The mulatto is part of this fascination that I now have found where Roseanne Cash then years later, is talking to a historian who tells her this. So she. At all. If you look at Roseanne Cash, you would. It's unthinkable that she has any sort of black ancestry in her lineage, but she does by way of her mother. And it simply said, I've kind of taken a step back. I've looked at when people say they're colorblind, if you, if you say you are, you're fooling yourself because you shouldn't be colorblind. It's not about being colorblind yet the recognize color for what it is. But you have to also understand how little it matters in the grand scheme that it's such a small aspect of things and part of the past bias of it, like redlining and the, the tests that were purposely designed to make blacks fail and all the, you know, the, the voting rights and everything I gave on one of my past ones about how the push for black rights was largely contributed to by white Americans at the time. But also that push for civil rights was a good part of the reason that women's rights became a thing. That. And if you think of women's rights, it had nothing to do with race at all. If you think about at the time, how women were treated and this was. They were talking about in one of these articles, the birth process, the birthing process, and how at a time this was covered in the video for Vivian Liberto back in an older area. Some of you might know this or remember this, but some were actually put to sleep. They were knocked out, put to sleep. This was spurred by feminist, you know, advocates that they didn't want to remember the pain. So it's not that you didn't feel pain during the process. The pain was still there. You just couldn't remember it after the fact because you were knocked out. You just woke up with a kid in your arms and said, it's yours. Which Is like, okay, well now it makes sense why like some of the people in the ancestry were having like six, seven, eight kids, which now is kind of unthinkable. So at some point, and I don't know when I'm going to be digging into that mindset, the feminist mindset a little bit and some of these behaviors that were considered mainstream or normal accepted things that they're unthinkable now, but they're part of the feminist, you know, psyche of the time and those that consider themselves feminists. Now how you're not a feminist, you might think you are, but you're not. And then we'll go a little bit deeper into what that means. So just a fascinating roundabout of. Through my research, I find this thing with notable people and as digging I find information with the cash and, and Liberto, you know, Dynasty and understand that it's all just one story at the end of it. It's all one story. And fascinating stuff, truly fascinating. I will dig into it today though. This is why I said it was hard to pick because you heard I just went on for seven minutes, ish, talking about something where I didn't want to focus on it yet because there's so much to unwrap today I wanted to talk about the, not just the shutdown in the macro, but the specifics around the food, snap benefits, welfare. So a gentleman on it originated on TikTok. I don't go on TikTok, but it was shared around and he was talking about, and some people are now sharing a quote around about if the government, this is about socialism. If the government controls your access to food, that means they can also take it away whenever they feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it. That self sufficiency is the real threat. That that's what they don't want is for you to be self sufficient. People like Thomas Massie, who's one of the reps, he's talked about this as well. The concept of self sufficiency is truly a threat. Dependency is what they really want. They want you to be dependent on the system. That's what socialism essentially is, is creating a dependency on the system. And this gentleman is a black American gentleman and he was trying to appeal to people to understand you shouldn't want to be dependent. There are certainly situations where you kind of get, you know, stuff happens, medical disability, etc. But the programs are flawed. They're flawed in that they don't do what they should do. You get the food, but at what cost? The Money. There's a money aid program. You get the money, but there's all sorts of hoops. They really don't want to give it to you. You have to re. Qualify like crazy. But on the medical side, they'll throw it at you. They will adamantly throw it at you. Why? Because it creates a dependency on the system. It creates a dependency on meds, it creates a dependency on the money, it creates a dependency on the food, which creates a strain on the entirety of the system, which creates a strain on taxpayers, because that's who's paying for it. It's basically a transfer of wealth. You've got. And this is now me adding context to what the guy's saying. But it, it's, it's in a sense a pyramid scheme because the programs, they're not free. Stuff's not free. It's Social Security is essentially a pyramid scheme because you are paying in for people that come after you, for the younger generation after you. It's not to benefit you. Your money that you may or may not qualify for, by the way, came by way of the people who came before you and their work efforts. If you don't have people working, Social Security doesn't get funded, or at least not fully. That's why it's going to be insolvent. And anybody younger that happens to stumble on this, yours is not going to be the same percentage as your parents or your grandparents might have been because the program was never built, it was never designed like we expected to have pensions and other supplemental forms of money coming in and that the cost of living would be adjusted. A lot of these never happen. So then people are heavily reliant on Social Security. Being heavily reliant or dependent on Social Security creates a drain. The drain just trickles down. You have to bump taxes. You have to do something to get more, more and more and more tax the rich. Doesn't work. People might say it does. It doesn't work. The wealthy people are who create businesses, who then create jobs, who then pay people. If you tax and tax and tax, they're not going to find it to be sustainable to set up or maintain a business. I can speak firsthand about how challenging it is to maintain everything it takes. Like the business itself is easy to run. It's everything else. Insurance, things. You got to have the. You can't. Like in Nevada. When I was in Nevada, you could not refuse a person if they fail a drug test for weed, which is the stupidest thing, because weed, if you are at a point where you're failing a drug test that you knew was happening weeks in advance for weed, you are an excessive smoker of weed. Excessive smoking of weed, it's on record. It dulls you. It doesn't. You're not as effective. So, no, if you fail a drug test, I should be able to say, I'm not going to hire you because you're not clean, because you knew weeks in advance that you were going to be drug tested. So the minimum you could have done is just clean yourself up for the drug test. So I don't find it. But if you still fail for weed, that means you're smoking in excess and you didn't think enough about my job to clean yourself up for the two days it would have taken to flush it out of your system or whatever, because it's a regular urine test. But the state imposes this burden that says you cannot discriminate just because they fail a test over weed, like, specifically weed, I can fail them. If they fail for cocaine, which people. They're not applying for these kinds of jobs doing coke. They're not applying for these kinds of jobs doing crack. They're not applying for these kinds of jobs doing X. They're. The weed is going to be the most common thing you fail for. And it's also the easiest thing not to fail for. Like, people listening to me, you're like, yeah, of course. I had a guy, he failed the test. He failed for weed. If you failed for weed, it's at enough that you p because the test has a threshold. It's not like you do a little bit of weed once a week and you're going to bomb like it is a threshold. You'd have to be an excessive weed smoker to fill that test. But also you knew weeks in advance. So all you got to do is stay clean. Like, just stop doing it for a while. Flush your system. Most know how to do this because it's just a urine test. It's not that hard to do. But this person, he fell for wheat. The state will not allow me to not consider him. And he was the only one of the candidate pool that I could hire. And I was disappointed because, again, I would have loved to hire the other person that was in play, but that person disqualified themselves. So then from a business perspective, I got to go back out to bat. If I don't hire this guy, I hired him. And when he was on, like, when he was switched on, he was perfect. He had the work, he had the quality down, but he wouldn't apply himself. He would frequently miss meetings. He was not paying attention. Sometimes. Sometimes he would oversleep. Like he just. He was not pushing himself to clean his act up. And I knew the weed was doing it, but the state's protecting that. That creates a burden on the business owners, who then say, you're creating all these onerous laws against us that make it not as appealing to set up a business at all, much less here. So then businesses will move to a different state, which is what I did, to try to find a state where they'll let us run our stuff because we want to do it. Then we have to deal with whether the candidate pool is strong. I have a girl, really good friend of mine, we had a falling out after the fact. I talked to her during the COVID thing, and I just reached out to see how she was doing, and she said, no, anytime, just reach out. She forgave that. She refuses to leave San Diego. That's just how she is. Even though she knows the job market sucks, the cost of living sky high. And yes, I'm putting on record, I'm basically admitting I was trying to in some way get her to elope with me. I mean, not really, but I was trying to get her out of there to go somewhere else to help her, you know, get back on track. And I knew she could make a killing because she has certain skill sets that I knew would apply very well, just not that there. And she refused to leave that place. So the candidate pools for businesses is hard. You might go to a place where it's perfect from a business health perspective. It doesn't have onerous laws. You don't have crazy chaos with the hiring process. You got control of what you're doing. The tax system's not chaos. And then you can't find the right workers because they don't want to live there. Because let's say. Let's say it's a place that's some backwater something in the Midwest. And, you know, people don't want to be there because they like the fast life in San Diego, or they like the nightlife in Las Vegas, or they like the. The liberalism in Washington state, or they like the craziness down in Texas, or they like the sunshine in Florida. Like, there are key pockets of states where a lot of those workers are, but they may not necessarily be as business friendly. Why am I telling all that? Because when we have these kinds of shutdowns and then the food service gets shut down, snap gets shut down, they're not able to do it. The Air traffic controllers to get $0 checks. People don't seem to get that. All of that is not the fault of the President, even though the President is the one. If you get to the point where it is shut down, the President ultimately has the flex to override it. But if he does that, he's going to be perceived as a king. The shutdown that we're currently dealing with is a byproduct of the dependency that the government wants to keep. When I say the government, there's different levels of dependency. The snap, the Obamacare, all of these socialist programs. The Democrats want to keep those. Why do they want to keep those? Because keeping those makes you dependent on them. The dependency makes you more likely to vote for them, which is why they keep pushing and pushing and pushing to keep those programs on the docket and then refuse to talk about the impacts on the economy. The impact on the economy is driven by the very same degradation on the business side I talked about. If, if the businesses can't support having or hiring or firing those workers, they're going to become dependent on the system. The blame then shifts over on the Republican side who largely focuses on business health. That's what they do. People phrase it as that they're catering to the wealthy. In some ways they are, but they're doing it for business health. They're doing it because they're trying to get the businesses to be healthy and strong and free to do what they do because it lessens the dependency on the government by opening doors that otherwise wouldn't be there. The Republicans by and large are looking to see how can we keep people out of these socialist programs as much as possible. Many of the people that are not happy with what's happening, it's because they become dependent on it for whatever they did. Again, that might have been a valid reason. Disability is a good example. But there are people who are abusing the system. They are choosing not to actively work. There was a story about a girl who's on the system. She's working part time by choice. She doesn't want to work full time because she wants to spend time with her kids. I understand. However, if you think about a world prior to when these food service benefits became a real strong thing. There were women that were working full time and still seeing to their kid and managed to pull it off. There's been countless women that have been able to pull that off. But there are some that feel the need in priority to spend time with their kids. There's nothing wrong with that. If you Want to, you know, bias towards spending more time with your children and not beholden to the work, that's fine. But the byproduct of that is that now it creates a strain on the system. If you have, let's say you're in a relationship. This goes back to the nuclear family theory that if you have the breadwinner who's usually the male, and they're going off, whether it's to war or to full time work, and they're making the vast majority of the money, it lessens the need for the woman to have to go and expend excessive time. But you have that dual income. Some women, they're single, right? Single mothers or something where they don't have that luxury. Well, are you single because the, you know, that person died. Are you single by choice? Are you single by not choice? There's all sorts of reasons that they're single. But the analysis, and I'm sharing what the analysis and the thought process is, that the focus should be on the nuclear family, that the focus should not be on being single. That the focus, and arguably the whole, the whole system is predicated on dual income. It always has been. There are outlier exceptions. I told the story once about, you know, women that I've gone to school with that turned out, you know, PhDs and doctorates and you know, all sorts of crazy credentials where they're making half a million dollars at the same time they're living in California. So the money doesn't go significant far, but they like where they're at. It's, but it's the only way that they could sustain that livelihood is to have pushed and gone that far. But at what cost? Were they able to raise children? Were they able to do that the same way as this other one I told story? Well, if they could do it, pulling out major degrees and everything else, what's the, that's the, I'm telling the thought process. If this person over here, this woman over here, pulls out a PhD, is making 500 grand a year, working full time, went to college full time, if she could do it, how come you can't do it? If you're healthy, right? How come you couldn't do it? And, and let's say you're healthy and you know, happens, right? You didn't have the education capability. The government would say, yeah, but we got student loans. You can go on the loan program. The counter would be, yeah, but I need to make enough money to pay the loans back. The government would say, if you got the right Educations, you're going to make enough money. That's a fallacy. But that's the thought. That's where they're going. And then they'd say, let's say that it's just not for you, right? You want to be a, you know, home maker. That's all you want to do. Or let's say you want to be in a career that's not super wealthy, then you need to find a man and have dual income so that you don't have to worry about it. And then you just need to play by the rules in the family by traditional gender roles. That's the thought process, right? What I'm saying is, is that this whole, this whole situation of the shutdown of benefits, the reason it's got people upset is because of the dependency, that it's just like drugs, right? It, you, you're dependent on it and there's withdrawal symptoms. That's what people are having. Then the blame game. Well, the blame is everywhere, okay? It's, it's Republican side, it's Democrat side. It's yourself. It's everywhere. Everybody has some blame to it. And this guy, he was basically saying, this is why you don't even want to be dependent on in the first place. Because if you, if you figure out a way, even if it contradicts what social media and the mainstream have told you about the modern female and the modern feminists and all this other garbage, even if you have to go that you should not want to be dependent on something where the government can take it away, that depends. That's the problem. It's not. All the other stuff is noise. All the other stuff is a distraction, is a Chewbacca. The real problem is, is that it's like a drug where you're, you're now dependent on something and you're experiencing withdrawal symptoms. The only reason that got to the point is because of choices. In many cases, not all, but in many cases of choices not to comply, quote, with the rules of the nuclear family and simply accept traditional gender role. And it's just kind of roll with it to get to dual income to offset it. Now when you start going, and I want to wrap up here soon, when you start going down and unraveling this ball of yarn, it becomes clear why. In the past, you would often see that the male was older than the female by a good margin. In many cases a really good margin. I'm not talking Jerry Lee Lewis type. I'm talking just, you know, you might have a male in their 30s and a female in their 20s as an example. The reason is because the male would have been working or in the military to get to a point where they were making enough money to support a family. The female now has just graduated high school. They're trying to find their way. They don't really know what their contribution will be. What they do know is that they can't do it alone. And so they meet somebody however they do. This is how it connects back to my story about my ancestry stuff. They meet somebody that they're well off, okay? And there was a girl on some interview and she said, and she was a youngish girl, she's like 22. And she said, the way it works is you, you bring the money, I bring the kids. That's how it works. That's the traditional gender function. That's the traditional gender role. That's the thought is, and I don't advocate that a woman should simply accept that their role is to have kids. Because I think that's not the real role at all. I think it's a, I think that's a byproduct of retention of wealth over time. You find somebody that you do, I, you should connect with at some level. I don't think you should just hook up with somebody. I think you should connect with them at some level. You come to an agreement, okay, the agreement might be that she'll take care of the home. She will, you know, maybe you do have kids, but she'll take care of the home. Cook, clean, she's taking care of the home. Which in its in of itself is a full time job. It's a full time job. People don't understand that, but it is. The ones who don't understand it, you probably have a jacked up home, but it's a full time job to take care of house at home. You know, the, the gardening, the cooking, the basic cleaning of things, laundry. If you do have kids, that kind of multiplies. Mail, bills, you know, making sure that your banking stuff's taken, all of these things. That's a full time job in of itself. If somebody is going to work eight hours a day or in the military, it's hard to maintain all these other things back home. So that's why that synergy is critical that you come to an agreement. I take care of this and I bring money back home. You take care of this and make sure I got a home to come back to. And one has to be on the female side, has to be okay, that, that's an important job. Enough that I don't need this validation that I've got this, you know, six year degree over here and I'm making six figures. The society has told women that you should not just settle for being a home maker. Well, is it settling? Because. Because if you're good at it, if you're really good at it, you take pride, right in, in your home and its quality and its stability and its efficiency. Ideally, to get to a point where you start accumulating property and wealth and value between the two of you to ideally, this is where the, this is where I think the child conversation should come into play. Once we get to a point of that stability and we understand where our strategy is going to be for our household, what's going to happen to us right when we get to an age. Well, we have to, we have to give it somehow. Somehow we should not lose this that we've created. It should go and continue beyond us. That, that's the legacy part and that's where children usually come in, whether they're birthed or adopted. I don't think it matters. I think it's. You do. You should come to a point of conversation about it. You might decide that's not for us. We'll just do whatever. You still have to create a plan for what happens to your stuff afterwards. Because if you don't have any sort of children, then what happens to your stuff? You, you can talk about, you know, brothers and sisters and things, but what if you don't have any? What if they pass before you? This estate planning is what I'm talking about. The estate planning and the reason it's, it's a lengthy chain in this. The estate planning makes the assumption that you are accumulating the accumulation, makes the assumption that you were ahead of your expenses. Being ahead of the expenses assumes you're not dependent on, on something that's not designed for you to get ahead, it's designed for you to maintain. Well, if you keep maintaining and you never get ahead, so you're constantly dependent and so then you vote in people who keep you on that leash. My question to you as I close. How is that really any different than pimps and hoes, honestly, how is that any different from drug dealers independence? It's not. It's the same thing. And that's the, that's the aha of this event. Is it ideally would cause a rethink. I won't tell you what to do in your situation. I will never tell you what's right or wrong. Mine is about the Dependency part of it. If you're otherwise healthy, otherwise capable and think about why, right? If you got to that point, think about why. Think about, were you in a position where you could be in a nuclear family and chose not to. And if you chose not to, consider why, that's all. Is it because somebody told you it's the wrong answer versus you thought about it, you went through a situation, you know, somebody you really love passed away and so you don't want to do it anymore. Those are compelling fine reasons I'm talking about, you know, if you, hey, a bunch of people on TikTok told you this is not the right answer or you saw what was happening with, you know, Will Smith and Jada. Like if you were influenced by something but not your own decision. That's where I'm saying, I think myself that you should step back and consider what's right for you and why to avoid the dependency so that when the shutdowns happen, you're not as impacted. You'll still be impacted if you work for a company that is using those like the air traffic. But the dependency is a critical something that it's been exposed, it's been exposed as again, no different than pimps and hoes or drug dealers independence. It's no different. And I agree with the idea that it should be a wake up call for those that are physically capable to not be on the system. For those that could be in a nuclear family and could play on, on the women's side, the homemaker role and could go through that but have been conditioned that it's wrong for some reason. Even though if you were to do that it would have avoided you having to depend on the system. And you just have to be happy with the idea that you own property and you take care of your stuff and you work with your significant other to generate long term stability, financial stability for yourself, to create self sufficiency and keep it and not allow these people to do those kinds of things. I stress again, like with the military, certain military checks will be at jeopardy for this kind of, you know, once it gets to a certain point. So the military is not absolved of it. That's why the military is at risk too as a career. But there are other careers other than the military and many people are not going into the military like they used to because there's other options out there and they may not be the prettiest options. It might be as simple as going to work for the garbage company, as working as a janitor, as working as a plumber. Like there's all sorts of other careers that aren't the prettiest, cleanest careers, but they can make you decent enough money to create self sufficiency in of themselves. And there's a pride that there's a pride of hard work that has also been lost, and I think that also contributed to a lot of this chaos. These are all my just brain dump thoughts to hopefully share for people. In my opinion, focus around how you can not have to be dependent on these kinds of programs. Not to not use them. Use them if you need, but avoid the dependency aspect on them, because once you're in the trap, you can never get out. And then rethink that voting strategy. I don't support the idea that you vote for people that want you to be dependent on something, because once again, it's no different than pimps and hoes or drug dealers. Independence sh.