If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. But that is the primary argument for well, we need to know everything about everybody so that if something does go wrong, we can find out who did it. Like, well, okay, there's a thing called police.
Work, do it.
I thought that we the people, were supposed to be private citizens and the government was supposed to be public.
Oh yeah, that's not how it works. Now if you tell the truth, you get thrown in jail. They have their assets here in this state, and the Fed doesn't need to know about that. There's no functional legal nexus other than where you live. So if you live in New York, new York's going to say that asset is in New York. If you then moved to Virginia, now New York can say, well, it was in New York, so we have we can control it. In Virginia to say well, you're here so we can control it. That
gets to be a problem. And the governments of the world want to have absolute visibility into the assets of their citizen. Right if you look at the results, I believe they're there to allow them to collect massive taxes from people when the inflation does start to get out of control.
It's not really that bitcoin's on the ballot. It's that freedom's on the ballot. The freedom to choose how we want to store value, how we want to transact. That's what's really at state sovereignty is on the ballot, right, the ability for us to remain a private citizen, as I said, a government trying to take away our ability to be that private individual. Is that how you see it, all right, Colin. So we were talking about the inner workings and the belly of the beast and the political
fighting that's happening. Specifically, there's a power struggle between states rights and fed rights. I want to get into that. I want to talk about, you know, what's happening on the political field in terms of those those fights, as well as what's happening obviously with bitcoin, the right to mind, bitcoin, those types of things, Bitcoin of the balance sheet of
the United States. A lot of stuff to talk about, but we were talking about just before we start recording, I want to jump back into So you're in you work for the Secretary of State State of Wyoming, and I was saying how I've registered corporations in the State of Wyoming because of the privacy that it allows and some of the that's been lost, and you were saying that it's not it wasn't Wyoming's fault. It's the Feds that are putting this in. And now it's going to
this Alabama. I think you said suing, go ahead and fillis jump back in on that.
Okay.
So there's a small a business coalition called I Believe It's National Small Business United sued the federal government and Treasury Secretary Yellen about the finn centrule called the Corporate Transparency Act, and based on the burden that it creates for small businesses, as well as the fact that it's potentially or allegedly unconstitutional.
The addition it's unconstitutional because well.
There's a whole bunch of reasons why they've alleged, but the primary ones are the Feds are intruding on an area that is traditionally regulated by the states, as well as the fact that so the Feds don't have general or police powers, so when they do regulate inside states, they have to tack it to one of their actual powers. One of them, and the most broad spectrum one is historically the commerce clause. Their argument is that corporations implicitly
impact commerce. Well, the alternate argument is interstate commerce. Specifically, when a corporation is formed a it might not be engaging in commerce at all, and there is no guarantee that it will ever engage in interstate commerce. So their power to demand all of these corporations register at the moment they're formed is that by that argument would be unconstitutional because you're forcing them to do something that they that defends don't have the power to force them to
do yet. So those are the two primary arguments in that case. The District court found that the fin Sen rule was unconstitutional limited it to the parties in the lawsuit, So if you were a member of this group, you don't have to comply with the fin Cen rule right now. Everyone else does. It immediately got appealed to the Eleventh
Circuit and it is pending expedited review right now. Hopefully that decision will come down before the end of the year, because there is a deadline for all existing corporations to register by January one of next year, and the fines are substantial, something like five thousand dollars a day. I'm not one hundred percent sure that's the exact number, but it's it's a very large number, and the cost of
compliance is very high. But of course they've exempted large companies, so it's and ones that can afford.
It don't have to do it.
If you are a publicly traded company, if you have more than twenty five or fifty employees, if you're a bank, if you are a CPA not a lawyer.
Lawyers have to do it, but CPAs don't. It's it's it's a bizarre set of exclusions. Even nonprofits, though, have to do it.
So all of these companies have to register immediate, and companies that have pre existed have until the end of this year to do it. If this case comes down in the way that I hope it does, which is this law is declared not a constitutional, then it ideally would go away or at least have to be refactored and fixed, and a lot of the problems would be removed, But
the cost of compliance are extremely high. Into the extent of they want to know not just who all the beneficial owners are, which is anybody who has an economic interest or controlling interest doesn't necessarily have to be the same thing. At the same time, they also apparently want your succession plan so if you have, if it's a husband and wife that own like a corner store, they want to know all the personal information about your kids.
Which why do they need to know that today? It's a ky see all the things mentality.
Yeah, now you said this is sort of the States rights versus FED rights, but specifically it's more not the FED. It's fence and which is part of the Treasury that's doing this. Is FinCEN one of the three and four letter administrative state agencies? Or are they part of the FED?
They are I believe they are, well, it's the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Vincent. I believe they're qualsiti governmental. I'm not entirely sure precisely how they fit in, but effectively they're granted regulatory.
The reason why I asked that is because of what just happened with Supreme Court overturning the Chevron Chevron is so they have just basically neutered a lot of these three and four letter agencies, including the EPA and you know, SEC and all these agencies. And so I'm just curious if maybe that has them to do with fence in.
For the purposes of Chevron and it's removal and lower Bright, I believe that that aspect would apply here. It would it would so I to the ex So if Fincent is analyzing their rules in a way that they should not be granted Chevron difference. Now that the Chevron cases come down, that doesn't necessarily mean that will change anything. That is an argument that I don't believe was made in the district court. So that could be a new
argument that's made the problem in this case. And I have not done this analysis yet, but one of the problems that I see is that Congress very specifically ask them to collect a lot of this information. So there is unlike say Lope or Bright, where the enforcement agency just randomly created this rule that they could collect seven hundred dollars from fishermen. The Finn said, the Corporate Transparency
Actor CTA has a lot more specificity from Congress. So while the removal of Chevron would apply, I don't know how valuable that is in this case. That said, it is a definite argument that can be made if the Eleventh Circuit doesn't find it unconstitution under the arguments that are already before it.
So we could if this fails, then potentially there's a tried again yes, a different.
And there's a there's at least there's a couple of other angles that could be tried even if the Chevron one isn't brought to bear. So there's there's several avenues that can be brought. Still, the problem is.
The decision.
If everything goes into effect on January one for the existing businesses, and of course every business that's been formed since January one of this year, they have to comply within ninety days of formation. So to some extent, you know, the horses are out of the barn now in the e In the ei A case, the judge in that case forced the E i A to destroy all the data that they had collected. I don't know or if that is the kind of thing that a judge would demand in this case if it was found that they
the fincent had violated some rule. It's it's on a table.
But now why that's the question I want to ask. We just saw this week the EU put out a thing They want an asset registration list, and they want everybody in the EU now to register. I don't know if you saw that register every asset they own, including watches and bank accounts and cars and the whole thing you mentioned. This is sort of like a KYC power grab, so to speak. Elaborate on that.
I believe that part of this is just based on the fact that they want to the governments of the world want to have absolute visibility into the assets of their citizenry. Partly they'll claim anti money laundering, they'll claim all of these things. But as we as bitcoiners know, these laws do not collect or solve the problems that
they're passed to attempt to solve. They fall on normal people, and they fall on the costs of enforcement fall on people who aren't otherwise problematic if you look at the results. I believe they're there to allow them to collect massive taxes from people. When the inflation does start to get out of control, they need to they need to pull money out of the system that they've printed. The only way to do that is taxation. So they need to
know where all these assets are. If you're going to implement a wealth tax, you need to know where the wealth is and how how much is out there. So similarly to the concept of should we have a registry of everyone's firearms in this country, we see that A lot of us see that as a front to the Second Amendment, because as soon as they know where they all are, they can come and get them. Well, if they know where all the wealth is, they can come and get it.
If you have to.
Register it, don't they already know that they.
Know it in your bank account. Certainly you have to file.
You have to claim all your assets every year when you file your taxes.
You have to claim all of your income.
But you don't necessarily have to claim like you don't have to claim your rolex you have real estate.
If you have monetary assets that are over certain denominations.
But certain types of things, you don't have to But if they're actually going and you don't, you have to file a tax return on your company, you do have to.
Report that.
But the if your company isn't generating a ton of income, if it's basically a relatively balanced company, like a lot of small LLCs are mom and pop things where you know may be the income.
Or hold income or even holding company.
Yeah, a lot of that you know may not provide much detail on the tax return. Now you're going to get not just who owns it, but potentially all possible future owners. If they're getting all of this all of this succession information, so they'll know now if you're going to inherit, so they could use that information to jack up the inheritance taxes. Which that's that is a policy argument.
That's fine, we can have that argument. But should we do we need to destroy the last vestiges of whatever we feel as privacy just to get that, and I don't think we.
Should do that.
Yeah, do you think it puts? Do you think it creates more harm than it does good?
Yes, in the long run. Well, first of all, you've now created a massive database. It's a honeypot honey if you first have to trust that the government is going to handle the data properly, that's an open question. I don't I don't necessarily want to go there. But let's assume that the government itself is going to handle the data in a in a totally ethical way.
Big assumption, do you I mean, before we move on past that point, do you think they can handle the data in the best possible way? Oh?
No, not even close.
But that's for the sake of let's say they can. Okay, the Office of Personal Management was hacked. All of the personal records are huge numbers, millions of personal records of government employees, including social security numbers, pensions, All of that information was taken. You've just created a database now of all of the business information and valuation for the entire country.
You think that's not going to get hacked. So, even assuming the government is going to do its best job, they are not necessarily going to prevent that information from getting out. And while some people will argue you, you know, you shouldn't have you shouldn't hide from the government.
I don't agree with that argument, but some people make that argument.
That doesn't necessarily mean your neighbors need to know everything about you. If you have an LLC that owns a business, you're if you're in your neighbor can find it now that now they know what or it can get a really good idea of what your net.
Worth might be.
They don't need to know that. They don't need to know that I have a house that I rent. They don't need to know that, you know, somebody might own a rivate jet or precisely how so all of this stuff, Sure, the government can get it, but now there's going to be a push once the state is out there, to just make it public.
I thought that we the people were supposed to be private citizens and the government was supposed to be public. So I thought we were supposed to know everything about them and they don't know everything about us.
Oh yeah, that's not how it works. Now they want you know, you get as we as we saw.
With Julian Osange and others. If you tell the truth, you get thrown in jail.
So yeah, So the KYC power grab is a honeypot. Who knows what they could do when they get that information. But it's one of those things where it's like almost like nobody should concentrate that much knowledge and power. There's just no there's no upside. The upside almost seems nefarious in any way that you look at that in a sense where the upside is, well, now they know or anybody could find out who has it, so they could go get it. That's the upside.
Yep.
And I suppose back if you're you know, super pro government, in pro tax then you might think that's a good thing. But it also puts everybody into this. Uh, everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Ye taxing.
Uh, they have it for the ability to if they can seize your bank account, they can seize your real estate. They clearly can do that easily. They can't necessarily easily seize your rolex, especially they don't know it's there now. If they know it, they can you have rolex, you registered it, bring us the role ax.
Yeah, although that's not on the docket right now.
Not here. It is an EU it's a yeah.
But once you once you have all of these these connections on the business side, you can start to look into that.
And it's just it's a one way ratchet, right.
We're just because of things like the First Amendment, we are a little bit and the way our government is constructed in general, some of these stuff that Europe is doing takes longer to do here and you have to move more slowly. But if you don't put your foot down on this, then you will get to the next step.
Yeah. Yeah, And I know Wyoming, which you work in, the State of Wyoming has been with Caitlin long and has been really sort of trying to be at the forefront of protecting asset rights, right, so like the state has sort of tried to reinforce their right to control assets, specifically around Bickquinen cryptocurrencies with like UCC filings and saying wait hang on, these are assets. These are protected by the state. So I guess that's sort of this power
struggle that you're talking about. Then, So the states are like, hey, these are our citizens in our state and they have their assets here in this state, and the FED doesn't need to know about that.
Well, there's a couple of different things specifically with digital assets at the moment, with the exception of Wyoming, if you have a digital asset, it exists everywhere and nowhere, so there's no functional legal nexus other than where you live. So if you live in New York, New York's going to say that asset is in New York. If you then move to Virginia, now New York can say, well, it was in New York, so we have we can control it in Virginia and say well, you're here, so
we can control it. That gets to be a problem, like with a car once if you move and you register it in Virginia, now it's in Virginia. Obviously, you can't physically move real estate, so that's always under the purview of whatever location it's in. With digital assets, it could be anywhere. California, for instance, could say you've never been to California. But since it's on the Internet and
the Internet runs through California, it's here. What Wyoming has done is said, if you want to, you can register the asset in Wyoming, and that will It's not been tested in court, but under Wyoming law that will mean that because you have elected that asset to be domesticated in Wyoming. Now that asset is in Wyoming, which means you can then take advantage of the Wyoming laws, one of which is you cannot be compelled to release your
private key. So a court can issue you a charging order and say you must you must give us the money in the account, right, but they can't force you
to disclose the private key under Wyoming law. And that's that is very important because if you disclose the private key under Bitcoin, of course, if the master private key, now you know every single account that's in there, not just the ones that they're doing a charging order for, and that also means that you know you've now burnt that account in every sub account forever, so you get that key is now in the public record, so you can't if you ever receive anything to that out in
the future, it's just gonna get stolen. So Wyoming does have that protection. We also have some lean washing rules where if you if you receive something that has a lean on it and it's in good faith, the same way you would say if you received a physical good under the UCC. Well, we've basically read that into digital assets in some ways, and of course we're pushing the envelope on that as well.
Yeah, how is that going?
It's going pretty well.
The Digital Asset Registration went online officially first of December, and we've had a few do it. If you're a citizen of Wyoming, obviously you live there. There's not much necessary, not a need necessarily to do it. If you have an LLC in Wyoming and the asset is under the LLC,
well that LLC is a citizen of Wyoming. So the registration is really for people who don't live in Wyoming and don't have a business in Woming, but want to domesticate their asset into Wyoming and basically take advantage of Oiling's laws without necessarily going through the process of forming a business or moving to Ailing.
Got it. So if you're a resident there or you have a business there, then you're sort of already just under that. If you're non resident or non registered business, then you would need to register the asset.
If you want to take advantage of it.
Yeah, got it, which is then still a big registry, a big honeypot.
It is.
But and so you wouldn't necessarily register these assets if you want them to be private, and there's no necessarily need to do that. But certain assets like the reason why you would do this intentionally, and that's really what it's about choice, right, you should be allowed to choose to disclose or not personal details. And what you own
is a personal detail. So if you were to say, want to leverage an asset as collateral, then the bank is going to want to know a lot about that assets, such as do you really own it?
Where is it domesticated?
Well, if you take that asset, let's just say it's a bitcoin public key, You register that public key. Everything in that public key is now registered in Wyoming. We say that public key exists in Wyoming. The bank knows that that public key exists, you have registered it. You are on under oath or you're under penalty of perjury for filing the document saying that you own this, and now it's effectively a public record.
The bank has a little bit more concern that that's there.
Yeah. So I was working the news desk this morning and here at the at the Bigcoin conference, and we're talking about politics. Trump speaking here later this week. By the time people see this, he'll have already spoken RFK speaking. So it's not really partisan. We have people on both sides dial not kamalas you do climate invitation. But you know, one thing that I said on the news desk was that this is you know, it's not that bitcoin became political.
It's political in a sense only because money is because weaponized, and the dollar has been weaponized against almost everyone in the world, I mean countries anyway. And I said, it's not really that bitcoin's on the ballot, it's that freedom's on the ballot. That's that's the way that I say it, Right, So it's like the freedom to choose how we want
to store value, how we want to transact. That's what's really at stake, not bitcoin per se, right, but really sort of when I think about these types of things that you're we're talking about here, it's really like freedom's on the on the ballot. Sovereignty is on the ballot, right, The ability for us to remain a private citizen, as I said, and the state or I really actually in this case, like the government trying to take away our ability to be that private individual. Is that how you see it?
Yes, And they.
To participate in the modern economy, you have to live with some removal of privacy. Just you have ideas, you have like it, just it's just the way it is. The point is you should be able to choose how much you want to integrate with that if you don't, if you don't ever leave your state, you don't want why do we need to know everything about you? And there are certain times of your life that you may not want to be fully integrated, and other times you
may want to. So people should be allowed to pick and choose how much integration that they have at any point in their life. In addition, there are certain legal activities that you may not want to have widely disclosed.
Sure you know tons of them.
Tons of them, Like I mean, that's just straight up operation choke point that kind of stuff, like why do we need to know all of this stuff about you when these are perfectly legal activities. One of the analogies that I use when people say, you know, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, like, okay, fine, then you're okay if the New York Times comes into your bedroom and films you with your partner because you're not doing anything illegal, or I.
Would say give me your phone, Yeah, let me go through your phone if you're gonna want that.
Yeah. And so.
That argument of you, if you're nothing to hide, you have aything interfere is crap. But that is the primary argument for Well, we need to know everything about everybody so that if something does go wrong, we can find out who did it. Well, okay, there's a thing called police work.
Right do it?
A small business owner? Are you buried in all types of work keeping you from the real thing that makes you money? Well that's where just Works comes in. They're the all in one platform that supports small business growth. You can get all their tools that help with benefits like payroll and HR and compliance with transparent pricing. Now they help you hire top talent internationally, internew markets, quickly scale international operations without the workload, and for every how.
Do I do it?
Question? You can reach out to their expert staff from sole proprietor or a team of twenty Just Works empowers all kinds of small business. This is with real human support. So visit Justworks dot com slash podcast to join the thousands of small businesses that trust Just Works to take care of payroll, benefits, compliance and more. Again, that's Just Works dot Com slash podcast. It's the whole, it's the whole pre crime thing, and and really you know, it's
it's constantly. We see it everywhere, inconveniencing everybody for potentially catching one or two percent of bad people.
Yeah.
Right where I live down in southern California, we have like you know, immigration checkpoints, which I don't even know why we have them anymore. We used to have the border open, but like, uh, you know, very often there's massive lines on the freeway and you have to wait
because they have like a checkpoint going. It's like, I'm gonna get inconvenience everybody for that, right or in this KYC situation, maybe there's one or two people that will do something bad, but let's inconvenience everybody put everybody at risk. Let's talk about another thing that's that was happening in Wyoming and with Caitlyn Long as well, which was Custodia Bank and so we've seen the dangers of the banks.
We understand most people watching this understand that the banks are in great danger, partly because they were buying government bonds that are no longer holding their value. We saw banks collapsing, and custodia banks try to do something different, which would be like a full reserve banks. They wouldn't be subject to the ups and downs of the bond market like other banks are. Seems like a pretty good idea, like the bank actually holds my money so I can
get it when I want. But yet the FED didn't like that.
The FED has they have a lot of arguments as to why they don't want to grant custodia a master account. And of course the master account is the.
First building block to having a real bank.
You can have a bank with what's called a correspondent account and you can function, but it's a significantly more expensive and I'm sure Caitlin or other bankers could get into precisely how much more expensive and why that is. But without a master account, you're not a first classes and of the banking system. Similarly, if you're not running a node, you're not a first class is in the bitcoin system that is effectively.
Your mastercount means you have your own account with the FED.
Exactly so that you, if your bank effectively, can clear directly with a FED.
The FED doesn't.
Want to grant Caussodia a master account for a couple of different reasons. Their stated reason, I think one of the more later stated reasons was Cassodia doesn't have FDIC insurance. Well, we know that's not really that's a red herring because there's several hundred banks that have master accounts that don't have FDSC insurance, that are not fully reserved, so they're running there. There are other reasons why they've said this, but fundamentally they don't want to give Custodia a master
account because Custodia is potentially a risk to them. If you have a fully reserved bank, you can't have a run on your bank because if you if you put a thousand dollars in the bank, the bank has a thousand dollars, they haven't lent it out under in Custodia's case, it's a violation of state law for them to lend out that money, so they have it on their balance sheet and can immediately return it to you. The problem
is like, look at Silicon Valley Bank. A whole bunch of businesses that never had a relationship with Silicon Valley Bank got into financial trouble when Silicon Valley Bank went down because a lot of the FinTechs were routing their payrolls through Silicon Valley Bank and so the moment they
went down, some of these payrolls were in flight. Well you know little mom and pop that's running their payroll with a fintech company that happens to have their payroll in flight when the bank goes under and the payroll doesn't get to their employees, Well, they didn't have a relationship with.
With SVB, so they suddenly got impacted.
Well, if that mezzanine bank that was handling these payrolls with Custodia, and Custodia had a problem, all that money is still there, so it wouldn't have it couldn't have a run on the bank. So at that point, as a small business owner, what do you think do you think you want to have your payroll being run through a bank that could fail or a bank.
That can't fail.
I would like the can fail exactly.
So fundamentally, the risk that they're not going to say out loud, but the risk to the system is that Custodia is too safe and it puts stress on the rest of the system, which, of course it remains to be seen if that will actually happen. Because Custodia as a the way they have to make money is they
have to charge fees. So their fees are going to be, you know, significantly higher than someone who can basically give you a free checking account because they're making all their scratch on lending out the money.
Of course, JP Morgan just they're getting rid of free checking.
So even so, you're saying, the FED decline Custodia's bank, a full reserve bank that should be a lot less risky. They declined it because it is less risky.
I think that's I think that played a role. I'm not sure if that's the entire reason.
Obviously to the listener, they're scratching their heads. So they're saying, well, why would they decline it because it's less.
Risky because it damages the feds fractional reserve system.
So what you're saying is it makes all the other banks look so bad that everybody might want to come to Custodia, which would then cause a massive run on all the other banks exactly.
Potentially.
Potentially. The flip side is is that the question is, we don't know will people accept less risk and pay higher for it monthly?
Yep, we don't know that.
We don't know.
You can't know that.
That's what the free market would figure out exactly.
And another reason I think that the FED is going after or preventing Custodia from getting a master account is and this is the argument that a couple of individuals have made in the Custodia case, including the Wyoming Secretary of State, which is the Federal Reserve wants to pull back on the dual banking system, which is right now, the US has a dual banking system where there are federally charted banks and state chartered banks, and these banks
are supposed to be on a completely level playing field with.
Respect to access to the FED. I think they don't like this.
I think they want to effectively remove this system from existence, and they want everything to become a federally chartered bank because they they don't have full visibility, they don't have full regulatory control over what some of the state banks can do the state of Wyoming, the state of Virginia, State of New York does have full regulatory control over the state chartered banks, but their bank regulators can't touch
the federally chartered banks. So you basically are effectively having a battle of two regulatory visions fifty But yeah, no different than what we were just talking about is a state versus fed constantly.
Let's talk the bigger political picture here. So again, here we are at bitcoin conference. Trump and RK are speaking little bipartisan Kamala was invited to attend. She didn't attend, and you know, we can expect it as to why. But I'm curious your take on this and what's on
what's at stake here? The Biden regime has been openly hostile to bitcoin through you mentioned earlier choke point choke point two point zero Elizabeth Warren on the Biden regime has been openly running an anti crypto platform or campaign. President Biden himself vetoed a bill that would have allowed the banks to custody crypto assets. So it's like, not just the regime, but Biden even himself supposedly he did
his office veto to Bill. I'm curious your take on sort of what's at stake for the digital asset, for bitcoin space. You know, on this election, the well clearly the the RFK, so the independent candidate, and the Republicans have decided think of RFK as an independent candidate. Obviously he's run independent, but he's a Democrat. Yes, Yeah, And I just want to reinforce that point because it's not about Trump or Republicans or Democrats. I mean RFK is
a Democrat. He's a lifelong Democrat, his family's a long time in a Democrat. He's running on independent only because he has to because they wouldn't allow him.
But anyway, so yeah, and that's a good point. But those candidates, they've seen the writing on the wall. They know that this is where we're going, and they don't. Neither one of them believe in CBDCs for probably very different philosophical reasons, but it gets them to the same place. Elizabeth Warren is on record as saying she wants a CBDC, whether.
We want or not.
She literally said, I'm there, I'm ready, ready to go with a CBDC. And the only way you get to a CBDC in this country is if you consolidate the power, you will eliminate the state banks, you move everything to the federal chartered banks, and then you slowly remove those two and consolidate all the power into the federal reserve. So that's that's that's the that's how you end up getting one. So what that what that looks like for
the country long term? The conflict divisions is if you have someone like Kamala who gets elected as president, basically the continuation of the of the Biden regime, you probably still have Elizabeth Warren, even though the Harris campaign has made a couple of half hearted overtures.
I don't believe that.
I don't I don't think any any bitcoiner would believe that that's friendship. That's you know, we see that you all are a power broker. Now we have to play lip service. But I don't think that that goes anywhere. So if she were to be elected, I see that we're just going to get more of the same, possibly even more pedal to the metal on it, because they will they will have a limited time frame to do it. Does this mean that the Republicans and or r f K are good, No, it just means they're better. But
on certain on certain things. Yeah, for this for the purposes a big way right for now, and you know that could change on the time.
They could, but they they at least understand it.
They they are currently philosophically opposed to what a what Elizabeth Warren's vision is, and that means that we are aligned for now on this issue. That it's not necessarily gonna last forever. I hope it does, and I hope that the that the Democrats who understand that the CBDC is a bad thing went out and that if Kamalad is some how elected president, that it goes you know that that she's moderated on some of these issues and
Elizabeth Warren's faction is minimized. But if that were to happen, there's much I have a lot much less faith that that that's the way it will play out.
Well.
I would also think or do you think that if Kamala were to win, that it would actually show that their side is more desirable, that their side has won the pro bitcoin candidates the RFK and Trump lost. So people must want more regulation and must want a CBDC.
I think I think that that is a uh that is that will be used as a justification.
Absolutely, do I people spoke.
Look, but as you know, in any federal election, there are thousands of issues at play. Yes, the people spoke. But can you say that Harris won because of her and Trump lost and RFK lost because of their differential support on this issue. Probably not, but it will be useful as that.
Yeah, history is written by the victors exactly.
And you know there's there's there's you know, a dozen or more issues that could decide the election. But that just means that they're going to say we have a mandate on every single one of these issues, not oh wait, this is the one that mattered.
What do you think will be the top issues that would decide election?
Well, you have, yeah, the spending in Ukraine, the the the inflation that that well, I mean that that Biden has caused and others, but the the spending on that, the abortion decision at the Supreme Court, that's going to
be used considerably. I think there's a lot of anger from how COVID turned out, and basically there's what was kind of exposed pretty plainly is a level of incompetence at the federal level, specifically with the Secret Service, and there and they're handling of the Trump rally a couple of weeks ago, and so things like that are I believe, going to play a large role. Will that tippet toward one or another, I don't know, but I think that the Democrats move to eliminate Biden from the ticket and
put Harris up as their dominant candidate. I think that it was the only move they had left at the time.
It's all speculation, we don't know. Some people are saying that some of the inner rumblings from the DNC are that Biden threw that out of throwing Kamala on there and just messed up the whole program. And that's not what Obama wanted and it was not their hope, and now they're stuck with it, trying to figure out what to do with that. But yeah, I would say those
are probably some of the issues. I think the inflation issue, specifically, just the cost of living issue, which is an inflation issue, I think is probably, I would guess, maybe most front and center of everybody's mind. The problem is that they've sort of, you know, they changed the definition of what inflation is. Now it's CPI consumer price inflation, and then we don't know what causes prices to go up and down, so it's probably hard to pinpoint that on somebody.
Yeah. Yeah, I think the.
Public data is horribly manipulated. Everybody or most people understand that what people do get is I go to the store.
It's costing me two.
Three x what it used to That video that went around recently of the of the individual that had a like a pre order like Walmart or Amazon or whatever from years ago and then just hit reorder and it was four x. Wow, same items four x or three x so like.
It, but a real basket of goods.
Yeah, and you know, the CPI is the CPI. They we know they manipulate. They've been manipulating it since it was formed to give the answer that they want it to give. But you can't manipulate the you know, the actual feeling of people at the grocery store. And fundamentally, I think that's that is the issue. In my mind, it's going to resolve this selection is the pain that people are feeling at the grocery store when they're trying to feed their families.
And that a lot of the a lot of the talk.
And education that bitcoin has done, even if you know, a lot of large chunks of society aren't ready to go as far as we did.
Mainstream.
They're talking about the dollar's fiat that was us. Yeah, they're talking about inflation. People understand that it's the printing that's doing it. They may not understand how it works out. But our education of people has been so successful that the MMT ers had to come out with their little movie, which, if you watched, was kind of hilariously opaque as to what's actually happening. But at some point in there they did basically admit that it's video game money, so we just make it up.
Yeah, you didn't mention border security.
I didn't mention border security. I happen to live in an area where we're pretty far from it. But that is another big issue, and I don't know how much of an issue that'll play because that issue was already so heavily polarized between the two sides. I don't know if that issue is going to be the deciding issue, because I think that.
Some people will change their mind.
I just don't know if that's the dominant issue that will swing the election one way or the other, because I think people are already pretty set on that.
I think the inflation you and I.
Think even if you were a strong Democrat and you lived in let's say, in New York, where in Manhattan and not just Manhattan, the boroughs, Bronx, et cetera, rape for up three hundred percent, does that think even if you're a lifelong Democrat and you see you're not safe in your own neighborhood anymore, you probably want those borders closed. And if even if it's the other part of it's offering to close the borders, maybe that swings you.
I agree that you will swing people, but will that swing the electoral college?
Like?
Are you going to move New York from blue to red? Now? What I what I could see happening is that.
That issue and other issues like it swing it so that if say Kamala wins, it may be the first time that the Democratic candidate has won without the popular vote that I see is potentially possible. And then you have the inconvenient truth of them saying, well, the national popular vote shoul decide the president.
But which is what Hillary trying to say?
Yep, so is that on the table? I think that could be on the table for just that reason. I just don't see. I don't see the border issue as a strong enough issue to switch a uh maybe a state like North Carolina. Maybe a state uh that's that's uh, you know, fairly on the bubble, sure, but not like in New York, not like California. The states where they're you know, they're they're in Texas, of course, is already
quite red. So I think that the the border issue, I don't know if it's gonna if it's if it's strong, yeah, maybe, well Arizona and Nevada, those those are two states that that could they could flip flop because of that. But taken together, I think I think the Democrats have a fairly tough road to.
Ho yeah row to sorry, yeah, okay, okay, all right, Well, I think we covered a lot of ground. I think I'm gonna continue to saying. I think freedom's on the on the on the docket here, the freedom to be sovereign, the freedom to choose, the freedom to open a bank. That doesn't cause any more risk. So I don't think people should be single issue voters, because I think you need to kind of look at the whole big picture.
But you've laid out the risk. I think pretty well, so I think we'll wrap it up with that.
Oh, thank you very much, thanks for coming on. Cheers,