The Jay Weber Podcast #0014 5-22-26

now wanting to blame other people. And then the final segment of the show today or the podcast today is more on how the white liberals and America haters over time sanitized the histories of Native and black populations as a way to ensure the white European is an evil monster in there in their midst. All that more is coming up, but Grey Jean producer extraordinary. I just that last segment comes out of a Lewis and Clark book that I just finished reading, and it's right from their

journals and their Lewis and Clark experience. Very different than what we were taught in schools over the years, and certainly very different than what the left says. Now. For example, did you know Saka Juella was pretty much useless?

For those who missed it, O'Leary is he's one of the hosts of Shark Tank, very successful businessman. He's sent in a podcast. Most people waste about fifteen thousand dollars a year on stupid stuff like five dollars coffees and door dash.

a little bit. They wanted to defend the wasteful spending of gen zers by saying, well, college is three times more expensive, mortgage rates are huge, everything costs more, as if that's an excuse for people to engage in wasteful spending, and then cry poor I think.

is expensive. It's made worse by bad choices, So make good choices here. But what tickled me is here's a rich guy telling you how I got rich. Basically, make smart spending choices, don't waste money, unnecessarily create a budget. So you can either take that, whether your gen z or whether you're a little bit older, you can either take that advice and end up financially comfortable as well. You can just blast him and spit venom at him and call him stupid.

more of our paycheck. That's true, but today's kids are also wasting a lot of money in really stupid ways, with streaming services and door dash and destination weddings and seven dollars coffees. So step one of dealing with higher prices should be do an honest evaluation of your spending. Are you being stupid or arrogantly unwilling to sacrifice even a little in order to save for the future. If you do it right, you'll have the ability to retire early, as I did, at least with the help of a

good investment advisor. Mine's creative planning. Have you heard of Creative Planning, Greg see how I can always bring this back to our.

to schedule your introductory meeting. That's Creative Planning dot Com. Your team awaits paid for by Creative Planning and sec registered investment advisor. The speakers statements are not an endorsement of the firm. I have a longer segment on how today's activist left and white historians in general have sanitized and mythologized Native Americans, And so I'm hoping to move faster through some of the other stuff that I've found

interesting over the last few days. Let's start with Thomas Massey's removal from Congress by his own constituents in Kentucky. It's more than that, though President Trump displayed his power in all sorts of ways in Tuesday's primary. So it solidifies my explanation as to why President Trump has a stronger grip on the Republican Party in the final years of his presidency than he did in the early years

of his president It's historically rare, if not unique. Trump's moving into the period in which he's supposed to be a lame duck in Washington, d c. And within his own party, and instead his control of the party has never been stronger. Thomas Massey was until recently a popular multi term incumbent House member out in Kentucky. He called himself a libertarian, but really he just spent his time

in Washington opposing everything. He was a difficult jag in just about every way, and whenever the Republican caucus really needed him, he disappointed them. Massey perpetually made things more difficult for Mike Johnson and Kevin McCarthy and was proud to do so. And that's the biggest reason Donald Trump and his allies put a target on Massey's back for removal on Tuesday. Massey didn't only lose his seat in Congress, though he lost in a primary and by ten points.

A lot of attention is being given to Massey's loss, of course, but fewer news outlets and fewer pundits are emphasizing this guy lost in a primary by ten points. He was a sitting house member. He went from popular incumbent to turd within his own party and within his own constituency rather quickly, and Folks, losing your primary by ten points means that it was about more than Trump. Sean Davis of The Federalist explained why Massey lost on

X and I think he got it right. He said, Massey went from principal libertarian to anti Trump Epstein, obsessive and voting against Trump and leadership at every turn. Massey lost because he went from being perceived as a quirky but lovable nerd who seemed to genuinely believe everything he said to looking like a clout chasing influencer who cared more about getting TV time with Democrats than he did

about representing his voters. Davis says we'll never know what caused the apparent personality change, but the drastic change was undeniable, as was the seeming lack of interest in much of anything happening in Kentucky. He says, blame Trump, blame Israel, Blame Epstein, blame the tragic death of a spouse. I don't care, but you can't just wave away Massey from twenty twenty, going face to face with the Trump machine and winning in a route, only to get smoked six

years later. Massey's voters didn't really change all that much, but he did, and they noticed. I think that's right. In the end, Thomas Massey was like so many other former Republicans suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. They initially leave the party saying they just don't like Trump and won't give up their principles, But then months or years later they've given up their principles. They're sounding like radicalized Democrats.

Have you checked in on Bill Crystal or Joonah Goldberg lately? They sound like liberal Democrats now on everything and at every turn. Their discipline conservatism evaporated as their Trump hatred grew. Did oh with Massey? His disciplined libertarianism, if he ever had it, evaporated as his Trump hatred grew. That's why this term derangement syndrome really is accurate. When it comes

to Trump haters. They start by insisting that they aren't the one who's changing that all the rest of us in their party are changing because of Trump, and then months years later they're talking like aoc OR chairman MAO and refusing to support any Republican in any manner. But it's worth pointing out that Trump's victories on Tuesday weren't limited to taking Thomas Massey off the board. Also in Kentucky, his endorsed candidates won their primaries for both the House

and the Senate. Andy Barr is a congressman who left the House to run for Mitch McConnell's Senate seat in fall, and he won his primary as a strong Trump supporter with the Trump endorsement. The guy Trump endorsed to replace Barr in the House also won his primary. His name is Ralph Alvarado, who was the first Hispanic lawmaker in

that state. Meanwhile, over in Georgia, Trump's influence was also evident, as Brad Roethensberger came in third in a primary for governor in a race that he was expected to win. If Roethensberger's name sounds familiar, it's because as Georgia's Secretary of State, he defended the twenty twenty election results against Trump's accusations of cheating and turned himself into a Trump enemy.

So this guy goes from a top statewide elected official in Georgia to unemployed next year because he refused to take accusations of election irregularities seriously. And some of those election irregularities in Georgia, by the way, have been proven to be real since it's taken years, but investigations into twenty twenty fraud in states like Joe Georga in California had been proven since, not that the Democrats and the

Trump haters will admit it. They still don't want to look at the clear evidence that twenty twenty was a sloppy and unfair election. But the evidence does exist, and so all these Republicans learned the hard way, don't cross Trump. Now, let's be clear about how all of these men were targeted as part of a personal and political vendetta that Donald Trump had against them. They weren't necessarily targeted because removing them from their seats would make the Republican Party stronger,

or it was smart in that regard. It's a mixed bag. I'm seeing and hearing all sorts of Republican insiders insisting that Trump's vendettas are making it harder for Republicans to keep seats and move their agenda. That's only the case in a few instances. The truth is nearly all of these men that Trump's influence helped kick out of office are in safe red districts that are very likely going

to be won by their Republican primary replacement. And so if like Massy or Bill Cassidy, they were holding seats that could have and should have helped Republicans and Trump pass legislation in Washington, DC, but they were refusing to vote for the party or be helpful to it, any replacement is an upgrade. But if they were otherwise solid lawmakers who Trump just didn't like personally, then shoving them

out could harm the party strategically. And out of all the recent wrangling and Trump influence, I can only see one clear instance in which Trump's meddling might hurt the party both numbers wise in DC and with lawmakers who are helpful to the party. I think Trump's endorsement of Bill Paxton in the Senate primary in Texas against sitting Senator John Cornyn is dumb. Cornyan has been a very good Conservative senator. He's voted along with the Trump agenda

basically at every turn. He doesn't have any of the ethical problems Paxton has with Trump's targeting of John Cornyn. Who will hold that important Senate seat becomes more of a question. And I know it's Texas, but you can't automatically assume the Republican, any Republican will win in Texas. Remember Trump's moved to medal in the Georgia Senate race was based on the same thing. This is in twenty

twenty two. It ended with the GOP picking a crummy crackpot in the primary, who then lost to the ridiculous Rafael Warnock in the general election. In Georgia. Right now, there is a Senate seat that should be in Republican hands, but isn't because Trump and his mega members tampered too much. Since we're on politics, let's switch to the Democrats. Clear need to cheat and rig the game any way they

can in order to win folks. Gavin Newsom's cryptic comment about how he and the California Democrats can ensure that two Republicans don't end up winning their jungle primary runoff should be alarming and concerning to everyone. If you're listening to this podcast, I assume you know what a jungle primary is. It's a system in which you don't have primary runoffs by party. Everyone who wants the seat just

runs in one large primary. Republicans, Democrats, Green Party candidates, Socialists, independence, whatever, They're all piled into the same group, and then the

top two vote getters advanced to the general election. This year, since Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass and lefty lawmakers in California have been so genuinely awful at running that state, refusing to allow people to rebuild their while f or wildfires, etc. Because Democrat governance has been so dreadful in California that it's even angered a big chunk of Democrats there this year, there's a chance that two Republicans could end up finishing

in the top two in that primary. So a reporter asked Gavin Newsom what his reaction would be to that happening, and his response was, basically, it won't happen. We, meaning Democrats, have a way to rig things, so it doesn't.

is that other than election tampering. Even a few other leftists out there in California raised an eyebrow and said it'd be nice if Newsom would tell us to what lengths he's willing to go here to ensure a Democrat wins, because that sounds illegal. And what's he talking about here, Ted Cruz said in his podcast, understand what he is saying to the voters. If you pesky voters vote Republican, he will quote break the glass and rig the results. Newsom said we have the agencies, we have the power.

There are break the glass scenarios if Republicans win. Cruse said, he's literally declaring war on the voters. This is Democrats gone wild. And Gavin Newsom, Abigail Spanberger, Kamala Harris, they're all doing the same thing. They're freaking out, they're panicking, and they're saying, we got to keep changing the rules so that under no circumstances is it possible that we lose. And Cruse said, those actions are dangerous and cynical and

assault on the constitution and assault on democracy. And this is where today's Democrat are. He's absolutely right, of course, and the rest of us need to push back on it. Across the political spectrum. The rest of us need to push back on this sort of talk and these sorts of actions. It's interesting to hear Ted Cruz also say this is today's Democrat party, this is where today's Democrats are now, because I've been using that phrase for a few years now as we've talked about this socialist anti

America creep that's been going on in the left. Today's Democrat Party is being run by a bunch of people who now pretend to be the ones to defend democracy, and yet they're the ones who are talking constantly about destroying democracy, ignoring the constitution, ignoring the law, destroying democracy so that they can have a sort of dictatorial control over this country in which they never lose another election. It's all so dishonest and there's so much game playing,

and in a way. The next topic on the stack is related the ridiculous and idiotic attempt to smear Wisconsin GOP candidate Tom Tiffany with the who won the twenty twenty question been following this, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel trots out this question out of nowhere. Again. It's nothing more than a trap question that the Democrats have been using since twenty twenty to try to frame any Republican candidate as extreme and ridiculous in anti democracy, anti and unwilling

to stand up to Trump. And it doesn't matter what the Republican's answer is to the question, because the leftists and their media minions have been really good. It's just simply spinning it anyway they want to spin it. This is exactly what happened here, and that's exactly what happened here this week. Tom Tiffany was asked about word of the FBI looking into the twenty twenty election in Wisconsin and no one knows what they're looking at or how it might turn out, and Tom Tiffany gave a perfectly

reasonable answer. He basically said, I don't know what they're looking into, but I'm not against them looking which led to the claims of Tom Tiffany won't admit Joe Biden won the twenty twenty election, Tom Tiffany won't say if the election was fair. Tom Tiffany won't stand up to Trump. Good grief, it's all the same old gotcha nonsense, and it doesn't matter one bit. No, it doesn't even matter

to voters. Some of the left are really invested in this smear though, as a way to trash Republican candidates for office. They want to use it as a litmus test as to how loyal this person is to Donald Trump or how cowardly is he. He won't stand up to Trump. It's all bull crap. My advice to Tom Tiffany and every other Republican candidate would be come up with a response that shuts down the question completely. The way questions about twenty twenty should be answered is you're

just looking to twist any response I give. We can all have our own opinions on the results in twenty twenty, it's six years in the past. Next question, That's how I'd answered it, and any reporter attempted to follow up would be next question, That's how I'd answered it. None of that matters anymore. Next question, and BOYD does that response? Are the leftists and the Trump haters? I know because that's the response I gave on X this week, and whoo it had the leftists wanting to argue with me.

My initial post was this question has become a silly misstest for lefty activists and Trump haiters. The truth is the Democrats have never ever wanted to look into a potential fraud in any of our elections, and they try to bully everyone into silence anytime accusations or cheating or irregularities are made. They try to bully the masses into silence on any claim of election fraud. And this has been going on for many decades, so twenty twenty is

just the most prominent and most recent example of it. Really, the entire country knows the twenty twenties election was sloppy and not secure. I don't care what you think of the result or who won. Everyone in this country knows that twenty twenties election was sloppy and not secure. It was a last minute mail and disaster. And so it's the ultimate test for these Democrats, who by God want

to bully everyone into saying it was fair. This is an even bigger effort than trying to get everyone to say, Caitlyn Jenner is a beautiful woman. Remember that fiasco.

Nothing odd about it. Damn it. Say it. That was a fair election and Joe Biden won big say it.

They invented drop boxes that could be stuffed by any anonymous actor. They invented vote in the park where ballots could just be handled like Christmas cards, etc. Then we were all supposed to trust the result, a result, by the way, that was patently ridiculous, doddering, dementied old Joe Biden won the presidency while only campaigning from his basement via zoom call, and by nearly ten million more votes than the most popular presidents ever had won the presidency.

Come on, complete bull crap, And I've said, since you will never convince me that that was a fair and accurate election, I'll go to my deathbed believing that there was no way Joe Biden fairly got sixty million votes? Did he win? Did Trump win? I don't know, but when this came up on X I made it clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump really won. I'm not even

saying Donald Trump really won Wisconsin in twenty twenty. The Wisconsin results have been looked at by several different credible groups and people, and the overall result in Wisconsin that year, with Biden beating Trump by about twenty one thousand votes, does seem believable. That's the result of just about every presidential election in Wisconsin throughout my entire lifetime. The Democrat

normally wins by twenty or thirty thousand votes. But what I am saying, and we'll always say, is twenty twenty was not a fair and accurate election, and I think anyone with any intellectual honesty would say the same. Twenty twenty was not an honest or well run election period. And years later the Democrats and Trump haters forget that. In the midst of that election, they on their side were saying the same thing. They were certain that quote

Trump was going to steal the election. People forget that in twenty twenty a lot of average Democrats were as alarmed and worried about the sloppy nature of that COVID era of voting, as we were on the right, then Biden won, so oh it was fair, it was above board. And they've been clinging to that ridiculous position since because their guy won. Suddenly there were no questions about the validity of the twenty twenty election, and everyone's got to

take it as gospel. Joe Biden won. History's got to insist Joe Biden won and everything was fair, and anyone who disagrees as a traitorous cuck, because the truth is it was fair and wonderful. Come on, No, that's not the truth. That's one version of events many years later, and so this is a trap question. Liberal calumnist Dan Schaeffer responded to a post on x by insisting this was an important question. No, this is an important question. It shows whether Tom Tiffany will respect the will of

the people. In twenty twenty eight, he said, quote Tiffany is showing that he would fail basic tests of American democracy. Schaeffer said, good lord, what nonsense. I couldn't help but respond by posting, this is not an important question. It's just not. It's six years and two elections in the rearview mirror, and people can disagree on things like this, Folks, people are going to disagree on the validity of the twenty twenty election forever, just like they still disagree on

the validity of the twenty twenty election. This is not an important question, certainly not for twenty twenty six or twenty eight. It's meant to be a trap or a gotcha question from activists pretending to be journalists. Moreover, the reason why the accomplices in the media and the activist left keep bringing it up is, I swear to you the people controlling today's political left really are many dictators. It drives them baddy, just battie that they can't bully

everyone into line on things. And it's not just this question. It's driving today's left and top Democrats insane that they cannot get their way on everything, they cannot bully the American people into agreeing with them on all things. This is just one example. And so if you want to hint as to what sort of country America would really turn into if the people controlling today's Democrat party would

be put in charge, this is a hint. They're socialists and America haters who would destroy the republic and ignore democracy, and by God insists that you thank them for doing it. These really are some of the worst instincts of communist dictators of the last century that we're seeing. By God, you are going to bend to our will and thank us as we f you and destroy your life. Say it, your dear leader is wonderful. Say it. Say it. You got to say say it. Joe Biden won a fair election.

Say it. Sorry, not me, Ever, I have a shorter segment here so I can have a longer one debunking the myths that have grown up around Native Americans. But last night was Stephen Colbert's final late show on CBS AH and it ends one of the biggest campaigns to gaslight the American people since the forty nine Ers cut Colin Kaepernick because he sucked, and he and his fans turned it into a racial thing and a political thing.

was being canceled because of Trump. Those on the right insist that his ratings tank because he stopped being funny and turned his show into a leftist rant every night, and there is clear truth to that. But those in the left insist he was canceled because Trump bullied CBS executives into canceling him, which is patently false. Now Trump is happy Colbert got canceled, there's no mistake on that. Knowing Trump, he might even take credit for it moving forward.

But CBS executives have made it clear all along Colbert was canceled due to low ratings and a loss of profits, And as someone who spent his entire life in broadcast and knowing the inner workings of broadcast, this is clearly the truth. Trust me. If Colbert's show had been making money for CBS over the last three or five or ten years, he would still be on the air. And the fact that he turned his show into a lefty

echo chamber. Wouldn't matter. CBS wants the revenue period. Doesn't matter what the content is if the revenue is there. This is just the truth when it comes to radio and TV. It's one of the reasons that liberal political talk shows haven't worked. They'd be on the air if they could bring in the revenue. Broadcast companies care about the revenue period, and good evidence of that can be seen on Paramount Plus. Currently they're heavily CBS products and

CBS reruns. Watch any show. During the woke era, CBS shows went woke in a big way, that's clear, and CBS aired them and collected any profit they made. Now that the woke era is waning, CBS executives have shifted to a more pro America, pro law enforcement batch of shows like Yellowstone spinoffs. It's all about the profit. If Colbert had been profitable, he'd still be on regardless of

content period. But the guy has lost forty percent of his audience since twenty eighteen, and he's been costing CBS thirty or forty million dollars every year in losses since when shows are supposed to be profitable, So CBS needed to keep him. Even the horrid Jake Tapper over at CNN has been admitting to his audience Colbert was not

canceled because of Trump. There's no evidence that Trump demanded Colbert before fired or his show canceled, Tapper admitted, and then he of course went on to try to convince his audience that Trump really might have been behind this. Though meanwhile, NBC incorrectly reported that Colbert was fired because one of Paramount's hot shots, David Ellison, is a prominent Trump supporter. That's flatly wrong. David Ellison is not a

Trump supporter, prominent or otherwise. In twenty twenty four, Ellison donated nearly a million dollars to the Joe Biden Victory Fund. In fact, it's the largest corporate contribution that Ellison has ever made to a political candidates. So, if David Ellison is a big Trump supporter, he had a weird way of showing it in twenty twenty four when he gave Joe and Cammy a million dollars to defeat Donald Trump. There is zero evidence that Colbert's cancelation had anything to

do with anything other than profit. Still, if Colbert managed to make his show unprofitable by choosing to appeal to only half of the country. That's on him, and he clearly did. As Stephen Colbert's content got more and more political, he lost more and more viewers. Colbert lost forty percent of his audience between twenty twenty eight and now that's not just due to streaming, that's due to intentional audience choice.

David Harsani is a great columnist. He says Stephen Colbert became the sort of pompous partisan jackass that he started out mocking. That's correct. Colbert turned his show into a nightly centerpiece for the American left and only ever had liberal politicians on it, and the fact that he, as a late night comedy host, felt the need to have a bunch of politicians on his show at all is a good hint at where he decided he was going

to take the show. But ninety nine percent of his guests were leftists, and the few Republicans he did have on were failed duds like Adam Kinsinger AND's Liz Cheney who were brought on to trash Trump and Republicans who in Middle America getting ready for bed wants to watch that not many of us as it turned out. The truth is the entire late night talk show model is

dead because the economics of it don't work. Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, they're losing as much money as Colbert's show did, and it's just that ABC and NBC, the executives haven't made a decision on what to do next. Their shows are also not long for this world, and is due to the economics of the industry, at least as much as their choices as hosts to turn off half of the country's viewers by going leftist. Those choices clearly played a part in their demise. But no, Trump didn't get

Colbert fired. Colbert got Colbert fired. His SUCKI ratings got him fired. Period. I did several radio shows over the course of a forty year career in radio, and they each had varying levels of success, But the entire time I had a basic agreement with management. If my show is getting ratings and making profits and you're satisfied with that, I'm employed. If my ratings tank or the advertising drives up,

you'll fire me. That's the broadcast business, and Colbert, Fallon and Kimmel aren't special or exempt from those business forces just because they're famous lefties, speaking of excuse making failures that the left won't acknowledge. According to al Gore and his global warming alarmists, were living in the year of our extinction once again. If we had anything resembling an honest media, this would be a national news story and

a much bigger deal. Twenty twenty six was supposed to be the year of global extinction if al Gore was going to get his prediction right in twenty sixteen. And this is simply one of dozens of climate predictions that al Gore and his activists have gotten wrong over the decades. Of course, but we should at least stop and note each one that they get wrong, because it's the only

way to end this climate change nonsense completely. This myth was nearly dead about a decade ago until the global socialists decided that they could co opt it and use it as a way to control the masses and push socialist legislation. It's a powerful thing to say, we all have to come together and you have to agree to do what we want you to do to save the planet. So then all of suddenly every left wing and cook fringe organization was finding a way to tie their effort

to climate change, and it got new life. I used to explain to my radio listeners that the power of the climate change movement is really that it's a useful umbrella under which every left wing, fringe alarmist, Greens, and crackpot group could huddle to get attention to their cause. That's why it still exists decades later, and even though every prediction that al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists have ever made has been wrong. There will be more

and stronger hurricanes, Nope, wrong. There will be more in stronger tornadoes. Nope. There will be no polar caps by two thousand and five. Wrong, there will be no polar caps by twenty twenty.

one of them wrong, every single prediction wrong. But ifew conservative outlets made it known this week that we've passed another milestone Back in twenty sixteen, Al Gore insisted there would be no more human life on the planet in ten years, and here we are in twenty twenty six still thriving. In his book in nineteen eighty two, Gore predicted that the population of Florida would be cut in half by now because people would need to flee from

the rising sea levels. Nope, Florida's population has nearly doubled since he wrote that book. And we can laugh and scoff at all of this, but there have been terrible consequences to Gore's lies and this fraudulent climate change movement. David Strom is correct when he writes, if you measure success by the influence one has in the world, one

has to call Gore a major success. His hysteria has changed the course of history, although in much the same way that visionaries like Margaret Sanger and Paul Erlich have changed history for the worse. Strom continues, there are two generations or more that are substantially smaller and less mentally

healthy because of climate change hysteria. He says, I personally know quite a few younger people who declined to have children or limited themselves to one to save Mother Earth or prevent them from having to live through the apocalypse. Strom says climate change has been the ten pole issue for the Revolution for decades. Every problem is either caused by or exacerbated by climate change, and the solution to

every problem is limited growth, higher taxes, and socialism. If climate alarmists were right, we would already be dead many times over. Yet the failure of predictions to meet reality have never had an impact on the propaganda. The dates of our imminent destruction just get moved back. Strom concludes the trust the science folks have managed to transfer trillions of dollars into their own pockets over the past few decades, and our lobbying to get trillions more per year to

transform our societies into poorer, more controlled places. No matter how absurd it may seem, the propaganda works. Once people are induced into a panic, their capacity to think evaperates. Emotional appeals work. I agree with that completely. It is a dirty shame how effective this misinformation and alarmism has

been on generations of our children. And as much as we'd like to say the fever has finally broken on this nonsense, we still can't say that the socialists and climate activists are still going to keep trying to use this and then revive a all the next time leftists are back in charge of America in Europe. It's good to see the climate idiocy fever finally break, but that doesn't mean we're past this nonsense yet, and we won't be until today's leftists have no more use for the lie.

We won't until they lose their convenient umbrella. This podcast is still only a few weeks old, and the most popular segment so far by far is one that I did early on about how the American left has worked hard over decades to sanitize and bastardize our history in order to make white settlers the villains in the story

of America. It's infuriating, but it's now an article of faith on the left that white colonization was bad and every ill or evil that exists in America or globally for that matter, is the fault to the white person. In their new retelling of American history, all white men were evil and terrible, and in the instance of the recent podcast I'm referencing, all Native American tribes were wonderful

and peaceful. By today's telling, Indians respected every rock and tree and leaf and animal and fellow human in the forest until white men arrived here. The old cliche about how if we don't remember our history, were bound to repeat it comes to mind here, but for our purposes today. My point is more about how if we don't remember and teach our history, it's bound to be lost to time and or corrupted by others for their own purposes.

Such is the case here when it comes to the history of Native Americans and the conquering of the country by white settlers. My point in the first podcast was the left's sanitized version of history is not at all accurate. Podcast one was me debunking the stolen lands nonsense. We constantly hear we are not existing on stolen lands. Two sides fought over it in the European side one in this instance. But it's not like wars over territory were anything unique at the time or are unique to the

human experience. Moreover, the white settlers didn't start all of the violence against the Natives, nor did the whites wipe out the Indians in some sort of lopsided affair. This was a century or more of changing landscapes, confusing in complex conflicts, and it isn't easily summed up in a few political slogans. In the sixteen, seventeen and eighteen hundreds. Some native tribes were friendly, some were allies, others were

unfriendly and warlike. There were numerous tribes and all sorts of different situations up and down the East Coast and west into the Appalachians, where whites and Native Americans were coming into contact. The ultimate conquering of the country comes with all sorts of twists and turns and complications, often related to the fact that there were also the British,

the French, and the Spanish in the mix. At that time, they and their governments were roaming around the continent claiming territories for themselves, trying to protect their trade routes on fur and silver and gold and other minerals other natural resources. They were recruiting the local Indian tribes into their fights with other Europeans and settlers. This is all very complicated

and detailed stuff. When the colonies broke off from the British, the Indian tribes in the untamed South whi's now Georgia and Florida and west of the Appalachians and what's now Kentucky and Tennessee. Those Indian tribes had to pick a side, and most sided with the British because they wanted to fight colonial expansion. So after the wars, was the US government supposed to just ignore that fact and pretend as if all of those tribes weren't just trying to kill

them fighting side by side with the Brits. And that's not to mention all of the individual clashes between the settlers and the Indian tribes. As white expansion moved westward during the Revolutionary War. In the War of eighteen twelve, you had tribes fighting alongside and against the British, the French,

and colonial Americans occasionally to Spanish. Each had their own motivations and interests, obviously, but one basic truth is that the Native American tribes were not wonderful and peaceful and operating on a higher plane of consciousness or a higher plane of human behavior than the Europeans were until whites got here. That is complete nonsense. They also weren't savages. The Native Americans of the sixteen seventeen and eighteen hundreds were simply as much human beings of the era as

anyone else. The Native tribes warred against each other before the settlers were ever here, and they did wonderful and they did terrible things two and for each other before the settlers were ever here. They had alliances with each other before whites were ever here, and those changed often

depending on the situation. When Lewis and Clark asked one chief which surrounding tribes he was at war with and which were friendly, the chief said it changes, but as near as he could figure in the moment, his tribe was at war with about twenty surrounding tribes and villages, and was at peace with about eight of them. That was the reality for that Plains Indian tribe. Around eighteen hundred tribes stole from each other. They went to war with each other. They took women and children of other

tribes as slaves and property. They raped and killed entire villages if they could eliminate arrival. This is the real American history, not the sanitized and politicized nonsense of the

twenty first century. Last weekend, I read maybe the du one must thing that I've ever seen posted on social media some left wing influencer, a white female Karen An influencer of the sort that's just ruining this country posted quote, rape did not exist among Native nations prior to white contact, And then to make her point, because she was so adamant about this, she said it again, quote, I repeat, rape did not exist among Native nations prior to white contact.

That's the most idiotic claim expressed on social media since the invention of social media. Of course, rape existed among the Native American tribes before the white men got here. Of course it did. Rape has existed throughout all of human history, going back to the caveman. I'm sure ever since the dawn of time, some members of the male species have been forcing themselves onto the female of the

species or the juveniles of the species sexually. But certainly when it comes to the history of Native American tribes, rape, the taking of women and forcing of themselves onto women occurred. Of course it did, and it's documented. Guess that the defenders of this Karen could come up with on social media was to claim, well, rape didn't exist because women and children were just property to be taken and abused whenever men wanted. So technically she's correct. No, she's not correct.

Those women and children were being raped, They were being taken sexually, against their will, and it's foolish to argue semantics. Moreover, White Karen's inference here is clear. She clearly meant to say rape didn't exist on this continent, so the native tribes didn't even have a word for it until the white men came and started raping the natives. What a load of crap. Of course, Indians were raping other Indians before European settlers arrived on the continent, and it was

no doubt being done routinely. But that's an example of how much today's left wants to lie and sanitize the human existence of all black and brown peoples until they came into contact with the white men, and the reason to do what is clear, to vilify the white men every way they can and raise the other ethnicities and races any way they can. The same sorts of myths exists surrounding Africans before they came into contact with white

men on that continent. Sorry, but taking and holding slaves was a huge and routine part of the human experience on the continent of Africa among those tribes too. Black tribes held slaves from other black tribes, and it was routine in the Middle East among the Arab and Egyptian nations,

as well as the Inca and other tribes in South America. Sadly, holding other human beings against their will and making them serve you is something that more powerful humans have been doing to the weaker ones since the dawn of time, and since social structures began. Slavery thrived globally and for thousands of years before any European settler put them on a plantation down south. And I'm not saying it's a good thing or that we shouldn't find it a disgusting

part of our past. But let's not pretend that slavery or rape or treating other fellow human beings poorly is a uniquely American or uniquely European, or uniquely white thing. That's just silly. Since that first podcast, I've read a biography on Lewis and Clark, and it's simply entitled Lewis and Clark. It's by John Bakliss. It's an older work based on Lewis and Clark's actual journals, as well as interviews and research done from those men who were on

the trip and kept their own journals. The Indian tribes and their tribal histories, how they remembered the expedition and handed down the stories over the generations. This is the men at the moment capturing in their journals and in the newspapers and personal correspondents of the day what was going on. This includes correspondence between President Thomas Jefferson and Meriwether Lewis and William Clark. The author seemed to do very careful research and was good at giving different versions

of the same event if they existed. But I'll emphasize the bio takes heavily from Lewis and Clark's own experiences and journals, and those from the men who they took along on the expedition that kept journals. They had first hand contact with the Native American tribes of the time and would know what they were like. Wouldn't they certainly better than us in this modern era. This expedition started in Saint Louis and it followed the Missouri River to the northwest as far as it w was go into

the Rocky Mountains. Then they fouled the Columbia River down the other side of the Rockies into modern day Oregon. In the Pacific Coast. They met numerous tribes along the way, and yes, taking slaves and stealing and warring were all parts of those ingreened cultures well before they had ever met the White Man, or Lewis and Clark. It's a fascinating reed, and it described how through the Great Plains the wildlife was so abundant that they had no problem

feeding the entire expedition. They could hunt buffalo and elk, and deer and bear and squirrels and ducks and geese and swans. The wildlife was so abundant at the time, it's amazing. Then they got into the rockies and the higher elevations, and the hunting was so scarce that they ate a lot of dog and salmon. In fact, both Lewis and Clark initially hated dog, even when the rest

of the guys with them were fine with it. Most of the people they took along were veteran trappers and mountain men, they were quite fine and familiar with eating dog. In fact, they swore that dog was a superior meat to even buffalo, elk, or horror, they seemed to have so much energy afterward after eating it. Horse was supposed to be kind of the quality meat at the time if you were sick or malnourished, No, no, no, these

men set its dog by far great vitality. After eating dog well, William Clark never did get used to the taste, but Meriwether Lewis apparently came to like it. He became a fan of having dog for dinner. But as for the Native Americans they met, most of them welcomed them in, because by eighteen oh four and eighteen oh five, nearly all of these tribes had had contact with white men and knew them to have great tools and gifts for trade, iron axes and muskets and blue beads and grinding mills.

Lewis and Clark weren't the first Europeans to travel out west, not by a long shot. They were just the first one sent on an official capacity by an American president to map the land and catalog the plants and the animals. French, British and Spanish trappers and traders had been wandering those vast wildernesses in today's US and Canada since the sixteen hundreds and trading with the Indians along the way, so it's not like Lewis and Clark were rowing up on

tribes and making first contact. These Indians were familiar with European trappers and traders, at the very least familiar with them. So Lewis and Clark found most tribes to be friendly and helpful and wanting to trade. They became good friends with several of the chiefs that they met along the way, but not all of them were friendly or wonderful. The Sioux were notoriously to be avoided, along with certain other tribes, according to Lewis and Clark. But even the friendly Indians

could turn on you, obviously, depending on the situation. Sometimes it was just a miscommunication, but there were always squabbles between people and chiefs and settlers. Obviously. Also, the friendly tribes had bad individuals among them who wanted to ambush and rob or kill foreigners traveling through their land. A few chiefs made it clear to Lewis and Clark, I can't really control the hot headed young men in my tribes, so you know, watch out for them. And yes, these

tribes had defined lands borders, if you will. There were defined parts of the plains and the woods and the mountains that they considered theirs, and so wars with the nearby tribes were frequent, and frequently led to problems between the tribes and sometimes the expedition. Some of their native guides would patently refuse to go any further along a river or along a route because they were now entering into a violent tribe's territory. They knew if they got

caught there, they'd be killed. But as for peaceful natives who never fought amongst themselves or their neighbors, and who valued every rock and tree and animal until the white men corrupted them, that's all a load of crap. The truth has been sanitized and sanitized and sanitized, and ironically, it's been sanitized largely by white liberal men and women and white historians. The true story of these tribes, and the true story of America is far more fun, exciting,

and interesting. It's why I said Ken Burns or nat Geo should do a series on the true history of Americans Indian tribes. These tribes cannot have great warriors like Geronimo and Sitting Bull if they never went to war. And you know that not every Indian ship was wise and wonderful. Tell their stories. The taking of scalps was a real thing. Beheading or violently treating the corpses of your enemy was a real thing. So tell the true story of the tribes. It's far more interesting and far richer.

Here's another interesting example from this book. Boy, have we as white Americans sanitized and rewritten the truth on Sakajawea. She's the Shoshone girl who quote led Lewis and Clark west. The modern day myth portrays her as a beautiful twenty five year old woman. She's standing on the front of the canoe pointing westward because she knew the way, not these pathetic white men. Folks. Sakajueya didn't lead Diddley. The

truth is she didn't even really know Diddley. The truth is Sakajuiya was twelve when the expedition was being put together in eighteen oh four. In eighteen oh five, Sakaguya was twelve years old and pregnant. She only went along on the trip because Lewis and Clark hired the scumbag French trader who kept her as a wife. They decided to let her go along because she'd been stolen from the Shoshone tribe and so she knew a few native languages.

But they really only took her along because they wanted this French trapper as an interpreter, and he wanted her along. This trapper, by the way, is a great example of how complicated men and our histories are. Even by Lewis and Clark's accounts, this trapper was a dirt bag, not particularly trustworthy. He liked to pray on young girls, etc. But hey, he could be useful, so they promised to pay him upon their return, and they took him along

as an interpreter. He knew several native languages. Saka Juella was a twelve year old girl who quickly had a baby and was mostly just an added burden now. Both Lewis and Clark liked her, and they came to love the baby. In fact, Lewis paid to educate him later in life, and both men basically treated the kid like a son. But not only was Saka Juwea not particularly helpful, she turned out to be nearly useless once they really

needed her. Once they got further up the Missouri River and moved into that Shoshone country, her native country, they thought she'd help them find the Shashi tribes, who were notoriously timid because the other tribes around them were so violent, but she was clueless. Okay, time for the payoff. Saki Ouji, come up here to the front of the boat and show us where we can find your tribe. Clueless. She was completely clueless. After all, she'd been kidnapped from those

lands as a nine or a ten year old girl. Right, she had no idea where she was or where the tribes might be found. Aside from recognizing a few landmarks, Sakagueia didn't know Diddley Now. On the way back, she helped Clark navigate a short stretch of the river because she remembered landmark, and Clark deemed her helpful. But that was about it, and both men spoke highly of her.

The guys on the expedition liked her and took care of and protected the baby, But Sakaguia was not an important part of that expedition, much less the wily native who led the men west. That's all Bolonei. It's legend that grew up around her over time, and that modern day feminists have really co opted in the name of women's rights over the last several decades. Her important contribution to the country is myth. Another truth that's well cataloged

by the expedition members. Is how Native American women and girls were treated. They were property to be hoored out. And I put it bluntly to get your attention, but

that's the underlying truth. Again. You need to step back and understand the traditions of those Native American tribes were very different than any European tradition, and so any comment on the morality of this is probably jaundice and unfair now, but Lewis and Clark and their men were quite surprised to see that every tribe except one came with the immediate offer to share the women, including the chiefs wives and daughters. I mean, that was the highest honor to

be given the chief's wife or daughter. Having a chief gift his wife or daughter to a traveler was simply good manners. Here, she's yours for the night, or she's yours for the duration of your stay. That happened too, and neither Lewis or Clark admitted to taking advantage of the offer, but all the other men did. The expedition slept its way up and down the Missourian Colleglorado rivers,

being offered Indian women wherever they stopped. And that's just the truth of the matter, right from every bit of documentation we have about the expedition, from their own journals. Another truth, most of the women in those villages were fascinated by white men and the one black man who was along. And so if we're relying on Lewis and Clark's perception anyway, they didn't really seem to mind the

sexual trading. Often it was the women and girls of a tribe who were rushing to surround them first when the canoe pulled up, apparently, and when it came to the black man. And again I'm just relaying history here. The one black man along was a slave of William Clark's. He was the only slave along, and his name was York, and man was he popular. First, He was an oddity to people who had never seen a black man before. So Lewis and Clark used as an icebreaker as much

as anything. He was an icebreaker along with other Western curiosities they'd brought along. York sounds like a pretty amiable fellow. He'd perform feats of strength, etc. And he would put up with a bunch of natives at every stop, licking their thumbs and trying to rub the black off. Yeah they did. After all, those Native tribes often painted themselves in different ways, right, so their first take on a

black man was he's painted. But the women loved York, and York loved the Native American women to the extent that one hundred years later, several tribes along that route had little, kinky haired, darker children running around again. Their terminology. York's lineage in those tribes could be traced at least through the late eighteen eighties just by sight, without even DNA testing. This is all part of the true story

of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Some of it might be uncomfortable for our average woke American or lefty Karen to hear now, but it's the truth. It's the written history of the country by those who lived it. And I don't say any of this to poop on legends or destroy myths. I say it to help explain how much history has been lost and changed over time, and to say what a shame that is. And this is

just a few examples. If you go back to the actual source material of the Lewis and Clark expedition, you realize just how much of that wonderful and interesting history

has been lost. How much of that story isn't being told to new generations of Americans, And worse, you find out how much of it has been hidden because it hasn't fit the country's political narratives over time, and sadly, it has led to at least a few new generations of Americans who are now genuinely ignorant of nearly all US history, and so when they hear stupid propaganda from the left, they believe it. Rape didn't exist in America until the white man came.