Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: In this episode, we take a look at the tiptoeing around many leaders have done in appearing to criticize the shooting of another American citizen by President Trump's paramilitary force.
Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast. I'm James Keys, and joining me today is a man who knows in the end, it's all about power. Tunde. Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to show us something beautiful, dark and twisted today?
[00:00:41] Speaker B: Yeah, man, That's a strong entry. I didn't realize it was all about power.
[00:00:47] Speaker A: Hey, that was your, your, your call.
[00:00:50] Speaker B: But what I put it, like Teletubbies and Care Bears, man, I thought we.
No, not, not today, not on today's show.
[00:00:56] Speaker A: If it's all power, maybe not, maybe not.
Now, before we get started, if you enjoy the show, I ask that you subscribe and like the show on YouTube or your podcast app. Doing so really helps the show out. We're recording on January 27, 2026. And Tunde. Over the past week, we've seen tragedy strike in Minneapolis again. Alex Preddy, an American citizen from Minnesota, was summarily killed by federal immigration agents, the same agents that have been terrorizing Minneapolis on President Trump's orders for some time now. The people in Minnesota have done an admirable job standing up to Trump's oppression. And we've seen many images of them braving the cold in the cold of the winter, staging protests and demonstrations against Trump's federal occupation of their city.
And now we've seen these federal agents continue to escalate things, and this is the second person they've summarily killed.
Even more incredibly, after these things happen, we keep seeing Trump's White House lie about what happened, despite the video comes out and stuff. And like, for example, in the killing of Preddy, they used a fire hose of falsehood style blitz to try to quickly brand the guy as a domestic terrorist and falsely claim that he brandished a gun. And again, we get to see the videos of these things, you know, because there's bystanders and so forth. So, tonde, all of this has been established and is being hashed out in many different places. So that's not really where I want to start here.
What I want to look at is we've seen many business leaders in Minnesota get together, issue a statement, and they're calling for a, quote, immediate de escalation of tensions. And I want to ask you straight up, could this be any weaker of a response to the killing of an innocent man by federal paramilitary agent? Like, who is this statement for this obviously isn't meant to get the Trump administration to stand down, you know, like that. That, that's not going to get that. To make that happen. Is this just performative or, you know, do they think that this is, you know, again, going to get to these federal aggressors and be like, oh, well, they said de. Escalate tension, so we better question what we're doing. Like, what is this? Who is. What are they doing?
[00:03:04] Speaker B: They're doing a lot and they're doing a little. All at the same time.
[00:03:07] Speaker A: All at the same time.
[00:03:09] Speaker B: And I think that this is another example where you have conviction on two sides. The Trump administration has conviction of how they're going to behave, and the protesters have conviction of how they, they don't like that behavior. They're going to behave their way.
[00:03:22] Speaker A: These guys. And these guys have.
[00:03:24] Speaker B: Not in the middle, they're waffling. Yeah, yeah, there's, there's. They're waffling. And I think that's an interesting thing, James, because we let you let this off with power, so you're going to put that in my head. But there is a certain level of power with conviction. And even though I just named two opposing sides, the Trump administration and the protesters, both of them have legitimacies because of their conviction. And what you pointed out is the business community and a lot of people that want to be squishy about this and not pick a side, they are going to be the ones that look like they're just going to look soft.
[00:04:01] Speaker A: Yeah, it's soft.
Like, to me, I look at this and it's like, okay, one person is shooting another person and you're telling both of them to de. Escalate tensions, like that message. If you're not going to tell that the shooter to calm down, to cool out, then you shouldn't be saying anything, you know, like this to me. That's why I asked also, like, who is this for? Because clearly, like you just pointed out, one side has conviction. Hey, we are going to occupy this place, we are going to terrorize this place, and we're going to wear masks. These are not law enforcement people. Let's first get that out of the hand. Law enforcement involves things in our country, involves things like warrants and Miranda rights and all this other stuff. These guys aren't law enforcement. They run around in masks and they yoke people up. No warrants, no nothing like that. That's not, they're not, they're not law enforcement officers. So I call them a paramilitary Force, They're a paramilitary force running around in the streets that have been deployed to terrorize people. They have conviction, as you pointed out. I disagree with it, but at least I recognize they have conviction. Hey, they're out there doing what they say or what they're going to do. They're doing what they say they're going to do. The other side I respect and I like saying, hey, no, this is not how this country works, you guys. You got to get this military force off our street, you know, and so forth. And they have conviction. And these guys step into this, into this fray that's happening. And like, hey, why didn't everybody calm down? Like, so should the person who's getting beat in the head, should they calm down while they're getting beaten ahead? And the person with the same obligation as the person who's doing the beating, no. So to me, they should, like, don't say anything if that's what you have to say, because it seems performative. It seems like there are a lot of people that may believe that things are just at some point gonna magically go back to something that's more complacent. You know, the complacency will rule the day. And that's not what's happening right now. And it seems to be a message directed at people like that. Like, oh, well, after blank happens, everything will go back to normal, or after this happens or that happens, then everything is fine. And it's like, no, as we. As you. I think you laid it out very well. As you said, there are people with convictions that are. That are going head to head right now. And one side, in my opinion, represents what America is, the United States Constitution, freedom, power with the people and all that kind of stuff. And the other side represents an oppressive force that's occupying a city. And if you can't pick a side between the two, then just shut up.
[00:06:16] Speaker B: Yeah, well, there's a lot, man. Because I think there's a couple things I want to say. One is the nature of radicalization and that we have had a chunk of the American population, maybe a third to half, that has been radicalized over the last, I'd say generation to two generations. This is probably starting in the 90s with Fox News and AM radio and then morphed itself as technology got a little bit more prolific with the Internet and all that.
You know, we can talk about all the characters and the baby faces and heels, but the reality is, is that there was this, you know, the country was. Has been going kind of in a Certain direction, some of it has been.
[00:07:03] Speaker A: I want to say something real quick, just real quick to add, because I think you're making a great point, but I see how this point gets bastardized sometimes. And I'm not saying you're doing it. I'm saying that I can see how in people's minds this gets bastardized. Just real quick, what's meant by radicalization is that they get in this thing in their mind that compromise is no longer can happen.
So when Obama's in office, for example, compromise, the Republican Party is like, we can't compromise with him on any front, but when Trump is in power, the Democratic Party is still willing to compromise with him and say, okay, all right, we'll vote for this. We won't do this, shut down or whatever. And so when compromise becomes no longer part of what you can do, you've been radicalized. And so that's. So I just want to say that this isn't some both sides thing where you got both sides have been radicalized. It's like no one side still does come the table and compromise, and the other side actually compromise will get you voted out in a primary.
[00:07:58] Speaker B: Now, I appreciate that because that actually helps me get to a point that I think was somewhere in me, but now I can get to it actually quicker because. No, because your explanation is. Yeah, yeah. No, you're definitely just grabbing it out of me.
[00:08:13] Speaker A: No, because.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: Sorry, man, I just got to get my thoughts together. Because where, where I can see that after your comment is what this is still a fight about. I mean, we have a very young country, right? If you go to Europe, you know, places in Africa, all that people will tell you about the histories of their ethnicity or their people going back, you know, hundreds and thousands of years. We're 250 years old, so we're still having this conversation. Sometimes it's ugly. Sometimes it's a little bit more civil about who's an American who gets to participate, who gets to be part of this thing.
And as you were talking earlier, before, you know, you made that explanation, my mind was going to certain areas. Like, James, our history has seen this before. It's just that the people that this was happening to were disrespected by a lot of other Americans. And you could say, because as you were talking, I could think of the civil rights era and Americans saw people marching and getting beaten up. And somehow half the country still said, well, it's their fault they got beat up because they should know their place, right?
So that's where these Tensions. And these convictions come up periodically in our history as a country, and today is one of them, which is there's a group of Americans that are saying, these other people in this country don't deserve either to be here or to have the equal rights that we have.
Those other people that are here are saying, hey, we're human beings too, and we're here, right? And now we have a clash. Both sides have this. This conviction. And I think whether it was the Civil War or the civil rights era or whatever, it's. It's the people that you just identified, the people in between the two sides that have conviction, however they move determines the outcome of the whole thing.
So historically, there's been a move in certain directions, starting with the Civil War and maybe culminating bookending with the civil rights era. Right now we have people in leadership today that are trying to take it back to wherever it was when those battles were happening a little bit more kinetically. And I think that goes back to your point of we do now see this. And for Americans who have been projecting on their opponents that the Second Amendment's at risk all the time and all that stuff now get to see.
And this is where I think a lot of people that have been radicalized are having a tough time with this because they're seeing the side that they have always been told is the right aside, behaving in a way that, you know, they've been told the other side behaves. So I think we're in the middle of this. I don't think this is anywhere near being finished.
[00:10:50] Speaker A: No, no. I mean, and that's. That's why I think, like, the people who want to go back to comfort, you know, which again, I think this statement is like, hey, can we just go back to something comfortable?
I got. No, I don't know that's going to happen right now. You know, I don't know.
As you said, two generations from comfort. This debate has been happening the whole time. We don't learn our history in this context, but if you. To look at how Native Americans were dealt with in the United States, you look at the Dred Scott decision, you look at the Civil War, you look at the Reconstruction and then ending with the Redeemers, you look at Jim Crow, you look at the Civil Rights movement, all of those, which is almost continuous. If you really. I didn't give everything, but if you lay out the timeline, in this country is a debate about what is an American who is an American who is entitled to be here and so forth, and so that debate has been ongoing the whole time. I think also part of the problem with that debate is that there is a misalignment amongst Americans which I think is really harmful to us. On what is it? What are you proud about? About being American. For some people, literally the thing that they are proud about are being white or being Christian or both. White, Christian. That's what makes me proud to be an American. It's like, well, hold up. Constitution, you know, says all men created. We're saying, we're talking all men are created equal. Everybody, equal protection under the law. And we're talking, you know, no establishment, no religion. So if it's like, those are the two things that make you proud to be an American, there's an inherent conflict there, you know, so you end up wanting to put other values on top of that. So I think, be careful.
[00:12:20] Speaker B: You're talking all this truth, like, be careful, man.
[00:12:28] Speaker A: Hey, this has to be said. I'm just trying. I'm trying to give a broader context, because the thing is, is that the debate over immigration, we can have a debate, and we can have, as you've said, many shows that we've talked about. The debate really seems. Not. Seems to be about whether we just have anybody come here. The debate seems to be how do we deal with people once they either come here or they're people. How can we deal with people humanely or not when they come? Do we put up barbed wire fences and put alligators in the Rio Grande, or do we say, okay, let's put them in. Let's try to get them back to where they came from or do whatever? So that seems to be the debate.
But right now, admittedly, the debate was won, and the people who said, we're going to get a bunch of people out of here won that debate at the last presidential election. So that's going to happen to some degree. But what we're descending into now under the guise of immigration enforcement is police state stuff. This is not immigration. These are not immigration officers in Minnesota. Come on. This is not occupying the city, shutting down, just pulling people over, saying, hey, let me show you. Let me see your papers. That's police state stuff. That's not what was signed up for, so to speak. And then obviously, just shooting Americans summarily is not what was signed up for. But when you put a paramilitary unit in the streets, that's what happens.
Hammer, meet the nail, you know, so to speak. So I want to say one more thing on this, and then I want to move us to the next section because what these leaders, you know, leaders in quotes, because they're not behaving like leaders, you know, what they need to understand is that don't say anything if you're not going to say it with conviction. Because the people who are the aggressors in this sense, the people that are summarily shooting people on the street, they only respond to power.
They don't respond to, oh, well, maybe we can be friends again. No, they're not responding to that. They're laughing at you. So either say something, say it with conviction, understand you're going to wield, figure out what power you have, what leverage you have, and do that, or just sit on the sidelines because the people in the streets of Minnesota, they deserve better than that. And so to me, that, that's really what stood out to me. And it was offensive to me to see that when you got people in the street putting their bodies on the line, putting their lives on the line, and you got these leaders coming out with some soft stuff like that, it's like, nah, man, we didn't need to hear from you guys, if that's what you guys got to say. So you got into this a second ago, and I want to touch on it a little more directly.
There has been people expressing support. You know, maybe they're a little quiet right now, but over the course of the last few months, people expressing a lot of support for ICE and the terrorism type tactics, you know, like videotaping. And I say terrorism type tactics, meaning admit to incite terror amongst people. Like if you, if you go around beating people and you record it and then put that online, say, hey, this is how we're treating people. That is meant to incite terror. Like that. That's kind of what it's for. That's why you put it on, on tv.
So. But there are a lot of people that have supported the saying, yeah, this is what I wanted, you know, and so forth like that. Why do you think that, you know, what do you think is happening? You know, and I know some of it is, is going to be the messaging, but I mean, just, I want you to expand on that, you know, why, where you have, like, this stuff is clearly unconstitutional, yet you have some Americans, a number of Americans that are like, yeah, this is what we want, you know, so is, are we just seeing stuff that we just didn't see before, or is this something that's a growing kind of sentiment, or what do you think here?
[00:15:45] Speaker B: So I'm writing my notes, there's a couple Things I'll say. And I also want to point out this. I looked this up in preparation for today, this 2026. Now, last year, in 2025, 32 people were killed in ICE custody, whether, you know, like we've seen so far this year or in detention center. So I just want to say that, that the fact that it's happening in the streets of big city now and it's on camera makes us a little bit more aware. But these guys have been hard at work, you know, ICE doing what they're doing since they were given these new powers by this. This current administration. So what I do see, James, is several things. One is, I think what we're talking about is a little bit of the outcome of the radicalization that we just discussed that's happened, been happening for the last generation or so we have. And with the siloing of information networks due to the modern technology, you know, I would say starting, like I said, this trajectory, starting with radio and satellite radio technology, then the cable news by the late 90s, and now with the Internet, let's say since 2010, when kind of some of these silos of the Internet got much more mature. And I think what. What I realized, James, and this is why sometimes even in our own private discourse, I'll send you some stuff I see from certain publications, because what I learned in just having, I would say, a vast diverse group of friends, people who kind of are all over the political spectrum, is how different the things all of us see that are that the algorithm send to us.
So I'll see certain things in my news feed, in my Internet feed, and the cookies that get saved because of things I search, if I grab, if my friend shows me his phone and starts showing me the news that he gets. It's be totally different if he's got a different political ideology than me, even though we're both friends in the same people living in the same neighborhood. And so. And so what happens is, I think for millions of Americans, their realities are kind of, I don't want to say warped, like I have the right reality and someone else doesn't. What I'm saying is their misalignments are just different.
[00:17:49] Speaker A: They're misaligned.
[00:17:50] Speaker B: That's the right way to put it.
[00:17:51] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:17:52] Speaker B: So I would say that. And then the last one I would say, and then I'll throw it back for your opinion is, is I think we're also dealing with something serious, James. And I'm not gonna like, blame everybody who supports this and all that, but I Do think there's a large percentage of people in this country who have a lot of pain. There's a lot of trauma in childhood for a lot of people.
You know, my favorite, one of my favorite expressions is misery loves company. And I think they on purpose, especially with ice, the way they recruited these men. They recruited men that could have made law enforcement or military. Right. The crew. Crew to men that seem to have a chip on their shoulder about society. And I could see, you see the way these men behave in public, like they've got a vendetta against their fellow American. And so I do think that this is very disrespectful to organizations like American law enforcement and the American military. Because law enforcement and military, like, like, like you said, are trained. They're trained professionals. They have to deal with certain things like constitutional warrants and, and due process. Where these ICE agents, being federal agents, were almost like deputies. Like somebody put the wand on them and said, hey, you can go out there and do whatever you want. And we're seeing what this looks like. Untrained guys who want to hurt other people and now they have the backing of the state.
[00:19:07] Speaker A: It's a really interesting point because also the oath in the military you take is to the Constitution and you have a clearly defined kind of purpose, you know, like law enforcement, same kind of thing. Whereas ice, it almost seems like if you look at how they're recruited, it's all, it's like, hey, you're being recruited to intimidate and push people around. You know, like it's, it's, it's not just, hey, we got, we have, you know, like we, we have intel here. This is going to be a pocket of people. We're going to go pick them up, we're going to go, you know, deport them or whatever. It's like, no, no, we want everybody in the whole area to feel us, you know, like we would be scared. Police state style. Police state, you know, that form of societal order, that style of governance is what they're doing here. There's something interesting that I think does reveal the breakdown of the nature of the breakdown. And it's really in what you said. One of the things that you've all. Noah Harari, the guy who wrote Sapiens and who wrote Nexus, one of the things he talks about, I think it was in Nexus was talking about how democracy is a conversation that's the nature of a democratic governing system. It's a conversation amongst the people. And he talks about this and it actually, it really is relevant to what you just said in terms of like, so once we're able to be separated sufficiently in terms of our information, like you said, we have misalignment in terms of what we perceive is going on around us, then we can't have a democratic style conversation anymore. Because if one person is looking at, okay, hey, the sun is out right now, so we need to put up a shade. And then the other person is saying, hey, it's the middle of the night, why are you putting up a shade? We don't need a shade. You know, like we need, we need a blanket, you know, so to speak. And so it's like this. So. And then it's like, how are you going to tell me there's no sun out? You know, I'm looking at the sun right now, like so. And then you get mad at each other because people are literally talking about different realities and then trying to figure out how to deal with how to respond to the reality in light of those different realities. So, yeah, if you think there's a quote unquote invasion of people coming in, then you may follow that more extreme action is necessary than necessarily what you may think under a, nor under what would you consider a normal circumstance. You know, particularly if you're a person who is more triggered, you know, more and more by differences, by being around things that are, you know, and this is, you know, this is righteous mind stuff, you know, like some people are more bothered by differences. It's more, you know, it affects them more than other people. So I think that the challenge that we really have right now is being on enough of the same page that we can use collective action to solve problems, you know, because right now what it seems to happen is, seems to devolve into, when we're not all on the same page, a person who can capture the imagination of a large enough number of people, you know, and then use media apparatuses, use, use a siloing of a media apparatus to just maintain undying loyalty from one group of people no matter what I do. You know, you can brag about, you know, hey, I can shoot somebody in the middle of the street. I won't lose any support like that, that, that reflects something wrong. Actually, if that's the case, you know, so to speak. Unless what you're looking for is a duelsman, you know, but I think that.
Oh, go no, all I was going to say is that I think that being.
Figuring out a way to bring realities closer together because with the realities disparate, the style of collaborative government will Seemingly will take a back seat to whoever's willing to be the meanest and the nastiest to take the power.
[00:22:41] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think because you said enough on the same page, I actually wrote it down because.
Made me think of the strategy of divide and conquer. Because part of. As you're talking, I'm thinking.
[00:22:51] Speaker A: Exactly.
[00:22:52] Speaker B: If I was, if I was someone who was, you know, I'll just say it right. If I was like a hard MAGA person. I've been following President Trump since 2016. I really got into all this. And I believe you're not.
[00:23:04] Speaker A: I thought you were a hard person.
[00:23:05] Speaker B: All this time and hey, man, sorry, but no. And just, and just, you know, and I believe that, you know, I was being replaced and I believe this and that and the Biden crime family and that Obama was, you know, shouldn't have wore the tan suit and all of it. Right. And that and everything, man.
[00:23:23] Speaker A: The tan suit and that. Everything.
[00:23:26] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:23:26] Speaker A: So that was the end of everything. That's what did all that.
Yeah.
[00:23:30] Speaker B: And then all of these busting of norms and all that that I've seen in January 6th and all that stuff was, was, Was justified because my leader told me so.
[00:23:38] Speaker A: Right.
[00:23:39] Speaker B: It's, it's, it's.
Why would. That's what I would say.
[00:23:43] Speaker A: Someone.
[00:23:43] Speaker B: I could see someone asking us if we're telling them this tune to James. Why would they lie to me? Why would they lie to me? And I think this is classic. Like, it's amazing to live through this and watch it happen.
[00:23:53] Speaker A: Yeah. That.
[00:23:53] Speaker B: This is classic divide and conquer. And that's my point about actually watching.
[00:23:57] Speaker A: The scenes like the silo. Just. I'm sorry, but from outside the silo, watch it. And like you said, you have a lot of relationships with people who are in. And you communicate and it's like, oh, wow, you know, like, this is, it's. It's pretty crazy to see.
[00:24:08] Speaker B: Yeah. Well, let me, Let me keep going because. And do this for a second because it's like you're watching it and it's like you can see the seeds being sown over the years of the radicalization. Right. And the hyper partisanship, the need to have people own like a horse blinders on. Like only looking at the, the one channel on the, on the TV or the one place on the Internet or the one radio station and only getting, you know, like, dare I say it, like a religion or a cult, only getting the information from this one source. And if you look over or if you actually eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge, you're going to be in trouble because that means you're going to get something else new in your head. And you might not follow me. And the reason why people would do this in a society that gave them everything. Think about it. We've got the wealthiest people, some that are immigrants, like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel come to this country and Rupert Murdoch making billions of dollars and then want to ruin it for everyone else that can do that. Or people like the current president who come, who's made a great living for himself, but now wants to go wheels up on a lot of things that could help small businesses or people start becoming entrepreneurs or things like that. And what happens is they were misdirected by telling, we're going to get these people, that people, whatever, right. The people replacing you. And then the first thing they do in the first year they come in, they cut Medicaid by 10%. They cut departments that help people. Right. American people. And so in order to make sure that the American people that are going to be hurt the most by this, which is a lot of people that supported this administration, they need to continue this activity to try and divide the populace. Because if I can send ICE to Minnesota to go deal with black African immigrants that I'm telling you, stole $9 billion. First of all, I thought about this. That's a white collar crime. Why are you sending paramilitary guys in the street?
[00:25:58] Speaker A: Right. Yeah.
[00:25:59] Speaker B: When you send a bunch of lawyers.
[00:26:01] Speaker A: Haven'T used that for white collar criminals. Because there's a lot of white.
[00:26:03] Speaker B: Correct.
[00:26:04] Speaker A: White collar criminals in the government right now. Yeah.
[00:26:07] Speaker B: Because they sending those guys to Wall street, if they're really serious about that.
Right. So, number one, so they're not gonna do that. Right. The second thing is, I thought, you know, to be still $9 billion of the number they're telling us, these Somalis, they must be pretty damn smart. So you do want to have white collar, you know, lawyers and all criminal, you know, prosecutors, and not these guys. So, I mean, it just.
[00:26:26] Speaker A: It's a mess.
[00:26:26] Speaker B: And that's why watching it, like I said, and I'll hand it back, but watching it from the outside, this is how it looks. It's just a big mess and it's a joke. I mean, it's like, I just want to finish on this. And I'm sorry, this is my last.
I saw the FBI director, Cash Patel this week being interviewed, and the lady asked him about, you know, why this guy was killed in Minnesota and all that. And he said, well, when you're bringing an armed gun, you know, an armed weapon to. To a.
They protest and da, da, da. And I. First I started thinking about Kyle Rittenhouse.
[00:27:03] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:27:04] Speaker B: And that goes back to a comment you made in a recent conversation that we had on this show in the recent weeks about there's no principles. That's why the Constitution doesn't matter, because it's if.
[00:27:15] Speaker A: If the guys I like, that's literally what it is.
[00:27:18] Speaker B: I'm saying. That's why it doesn't matter to these people. Because if the guys I like are doing something, it's okay. And if the guys I don't like are doing the same thing, it's not okay. So if Hunter Biden makes 50,000amonth on a board of Burisma and Ukraine and all that, I don't like it personally, but I also don't like Donald Trump selling chotchkis out of the Oval Office or having a meme coin. I don't like any of it. But some people will get on Biden's kid or Biden himself, the crime family there, but then they turn the other way.
Look away when Trump's getting $400 million planes from a country that now is going to have Venezuelan oil money go through their banks.
So, you know, I mean, you're right.
[00:27:58] Speaker A: The degradation of principles. And so. And honestly, that's part of the radicalization, is that if you can radicalize people enough, then principles, that they will become more negotiable, so to speak, or, you know, will drop altogether, because it's like you're living in a constant state of emergency, you know? And so that, I think, is what really can explain a lot of why people are like, yeah, this is what we want. Or, you know, like, some people are just bad people, you know, like, just want to treat other people poorly. But I don't think that's the bulk of what we're seeing. A lot of it is is that people being put in a state of emergency all the time, fight or flight.
[00:28:34] Speaker B: God forbid, James, we get paper straws. Oh, my God. Or gas stoves go away. That's the. That's the emergency.
[00:28:40] Speaker A: Right?
[00:28:40] Speaker B: It's this con.
[00:28:41] Speaker A: It's all this stuff, but the stuff of people getting shot dead by federal agents in the street, that's all. That can be all explained by something or that's whatever. So the last thing I'll say before we close this up, though, is I think also the idea of how.
And actually, I make this point by how late in this podcast we're bringing this up, but the fact that they just lied about this so easily, so quickly, and they lied about the other stuff, like the fact that lying has become so normalized, like right now. So much of the discussion goes on about this, about how bad the actual acts are and so forth like that. But the lying is equally damning on the kinds of people that are in power right now. And as a society, unless and until we can get enough people, everybody's not going to care. But if we can get enough people to care about people who are liars and not give people like that the reins of power, I mean, I'm straight liars, not like, oh, you know, people, sometimes adults understand sometimes the truth is not always completely the full part of it told, but like just straight, bold face lies to your face, get caught on the lie and stick to it. Like that kind of stuff. The level of disrespect that is to the, to everyone else and what that says about the person, the nature of the person. And this is one of the things, like our system of government was designed in many ways to prevent an autocratic takeover. That's why so much of the protections in the Constitution are there.
But one thing that I read one time, and I'm sorry, I can't place it right now, but just that you can't legislate or put rules in place away to avoid the possibility of just bad people getting into leadership. If bad people get in, there's no government that could protect you. Basically, in that kind of sense, we the voters are the ones that are supposed to be the ballast against that. And if we are going to go ahead and be able, enough of us are going to be voting for people that admittedly are bad people, then we're probably not. Our government system isn't going to save us in that scenario. Like as we can see right now, you know, so. But I think we can one thing. Oh, go ahead. I'll let you close before we go.
[00:30:57] Speaker B: Because as you're talking, actually, I'm going to say this is serious and I think the audience will remember these names.
This is the logical conclusion from what happened on the inauguration day in 2017 when a man named Sean Spicer and his first gig as press secretary walked out after the inauguration in front of the press room and said that was the greatest, sorry, the largest crowd ever at an inauguration period. When all the photographs, the aerial photographs could show that it wasn't. And then I remember that the police.
[00:31:27] Speaker A: Correctly, people laughed at it. Oh, that guy's stupid. Da, da, da, da. But it's like, no, they're normalizing the fact that this was it.
[00:31:33] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I mean. And so the next day on one of the Sunday shows, I think it was. Or, you know, with soon after, Kellyanne Conway, who was the communications director, was asked about it and she said, no, we have alternative facts. And then the rest is history. Right. I mean, this is a logical conclusion. I want to point this out, too. Those two names are nowhere to be found because it's amazing that this type of way of being, if you go into it, it's a meat grinder. And think about how many people supported this along the way that we never hear from again. Rudy Giuliani, all these guys.
So this is also what it's going to get us as a country if we continue going down this road. We're all going to be Sean Spicers and Kevin.
[00:32:13] Speaker A: We're going to be. The country's going to be that. Yeah.
[00:32:16] Speaker B: We're going to be just. We're going to be ground up in the speed.
[00:32:19] Speaker A: Some relic to history that was a stepping stone along the way for, for some, for a person who's a bad person to.
Yeah.
[00:32:29] Speaker B: The rest of us didn't get paid like Giuliani and we were getting used.
[00:32:34] Speaker A: All the same, though, so. So, yeah, but I mean, again, you've got to get a handle on somehow get a handle on and, and, and more people. We need more people to care about lying. You know, like, that's, that's, that, that does set us up for some really bad stuff.
So. And hand in hand with that is, you know, we, if we can get rid of, if we can all agree to not support liars, you know, or at least the most egregious liars, we probably can avoid putting the worst kinds of people in power. So. But I think we'll wrap from there. We appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call. I can see it, subscribe to the podcast, rate it, review it, tell us what you think, send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
All right, we'll talk soon.
