Attention. You're listening to the Todd Huff radio show, America's Home for a Conservative not Bitter Talk Radio. Be advised. The content of this program has been documented to prevent and even cure liberalism, and listening may cause you to lean to the right. Here's your conservative but not Bitter host, Todd Huff. There we go, my friends, Welcome. You have tuned in to America's Home for conservative not better talk. A great, great decision on your
part. Email should you want to be part of today's conversation? And I'm gonna pause and say this, and pause and say this was talking with a good friend the other day, and I'm going to you know, I always say thoughts, questions, opinions, of course, of course, of course always include that adoration and praise, but in all seriousness, you know, if there is a specific question on any issue. But even beyond that,
I know that this upsets some of you in the audience. When I talk about biblical things and so forth, it is not meant to do that at all, But the vast majority of people appreciate that from those that I hear
from and what we know. But if you have questions, questions about things that you would like to get an answer maybe something you've not not that I'm a pastor, but you know, there was a time that I was thinking very strongly of studying Christian apologetics, which is an interesting field for those of
you that maybe follow that. But anyway, there's a question that you would maybe like to ask about those sorts of things as well faith, a question that you would maybe want to ask someone that's a pastor, but you just can't bring yourself to do it because of that title or what have you. I welcome you to ask those questions as well. You can ask anything,
ask me anything, I guess. Of course, I reserve the right to answer some of those questions, but you can also text them three one seven two one zero twenty eight thirty three one seven two one zero two eight three
zero. Let's get right to it here this morning. This is I wanted to start by talking about something that I think echoes or reiterates a lot of what you hear on this program on a regular basis, And I just want to point this out because I think that this is fundamentally true and necessary for us to understand, to truly understand what we're up against here. Headline here. Why am I getting feedback in my ears? These videos are playing automatically
on the website. I don't like that. Here we go. This is former White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain Ron Klaine. He says that the Democrat strategy is going to remain the same in twenty twenty four. Now here's the kicker. This is what matters, and this is what we must wrap our minds around for those of us who vote Republican, albeit sometimes reluctantly like me. He says, it's going to be the same. The strategy will be the same in two twenty twenty four, no matter who wins the nomination.
Mark that down. We have talked about this a lot on this program. In fact, you will have heard me say things like this in the past. You will have heard me say things like the strategy for dealing with Trump was no different than the strategy for dealing with Reagan, for dealing with Joy George W. Bush when they were in the White House, and with other individuals as well, individual members of Congress, senators and so forth.
Governors. If you will, and the strategy goes like this, we will attack, malign, call this person names names like racist, bigot, homophobe, sexist, whatever, someone who is against democracy, someone who's an insurrectionist.
Again, the terms can continue to expand into whatever area they need to get the terms expanded into, so that it silences and this is the point, it silences and intimidates the person who is a Republican or a conservative or libertarian, or someone who just doesn't want to grow government and give them a blank check to do whatever they want. And typically it works. Typically it works because there's a conversation that's being had behind closed doors, and sometimes it
involves well, it always involves consultants, advisors, party officials. You know that they come in and they strategize, and it involves spouses, family members, maybe some close confidants and friends, and there's always a conversation about things like legacy, things like reputation, things like, you know, are we going to be able to sell books after we leave the White House? Are we going to be able to get invited to the fancy parties on Martha's Vineyard
or wherever they do these crazy things somewhere on Capitol Hill? Are we going to continue to be able to be part of the end crowd? Because that's what a lot of people want. They just want to be accepted, even if they have even if they come in fairly principled or sometimes even with strong principles, the pressures are too much for some individuals to manage. And so what happens is the left, the media, they ratchet up the attacks on
a particular person. They isolate this person, they demonize this person. They start doing things like counting how many lies this person has allegedly told in some period of time, and they get lie trackers on President Trump or whatever it is, and they just put this consistent negative pressure, negative pressure on Trump or whoever. It doesn't matter, it's going to be whoever the nominee is.
Whoever. I know that there's a desire from some to say, let's get someone who doesn't have the baggage of a president Donald J. Trump. Let's get someone that doesn't have all of those negatives. Well, the problem is it will never stay that way because as the investment and the strategy and the tactics and the bully pulpits, the big microphones, the social media and
big tech control that the left and the radicals have is massive. I alluded the other day, I think I alluded on this program to the ways that we've been shadow band by the likes of Google and Facebook and YouTube, Instagram. So one of the reasons why we don't do a ton there is because we can reach more people on these channels and we would rather put our efforts here. Now, as we grow, we're going to continue to do more. I don't want to be misunderstood and saying look and if we connect there.
I love that we can connect wherever, But I'm not personally, this is my world right here. This is where I don't know that. This is where I feel like I'm in my comfort zone. This is where I feel like I can relate to you. This is where I can be I don't know the most. It's the most natural form of myself. I guess and social media any Honestly, when I write something, a lot of people are the opposite of this, A lot of people are the opposite of this.
I Actually I'm not saying I ever regret anything I've said. Sometimes I might have said something and turn out that I was wrong or I misspoke or something like that. But I don't want to paint the picture that I regret something that I said. But I'm much more likely to say something in conversation than I am to write it, and the reason and I'm thinking about writing
it on a social media platform. I know we can do video too, but to take the effort to write it, I have to write it, and then I have to read it, and then I have to run it through my brain, which says, how are what are the possible interpretations here? Right? What are the possible interpretations? Because I don't have the tonality that's on my side. I'm on the radio program. People can detect the ever so slight hinse of sarcasm and hyperbole and just the conservative not better tone
some of this stuff. If you wrote it down and took out all of the emotion or the tonality the nonverbal communication is, it just has a different impact. And so I'm less more likely I should say to hesitate before writing something that I am to hesitate before saying something. Because of that, I
feel like I am a better verbal communicator than a written communicator. Because because of tonality, and I think tone of voice, inflection, and of course if you're in person the person or you're on video, you've even got you've got mannerisms, You've got facial expressions that you can draw from draw from as as well. But it's this is something that we're truly contending with, is being silenced or shadow band even in ways that I had no idea we're happening.
It's massive, It's truly massive, and it's unbelievable really. But that's the point in bringing that up, is only to say that that is going to be part of the Democrats strategy in twenty twenty four. So when they isolate whoever it is that's the nominee for president, whether it is Donald J. Trump, whether it is Ron DeSantis, or if it's somebody else, the strategy, as Ron Klain, former chief of staff at the White House,
said, is going to be the same no matter what. And so there's an inclination by some, a desire by some to say, well, let's find someone besides Trump to run, because Trump has been demonized so much, so much that we cannot possibly get behind him. And look, I'm happy to have the discussion. We should have those things. We should be able to express those ideas amongst one another and not completely just have a litmus test and say you can no longer be part of the group if you choose
this person over that person or vice versa. But I want to point out something that I think is interesting, and I just I read this a few times, but there was a I think it was during World War Two. Think about this when you think about the analogy of Trump and the Santists or whoever. I like. There's a lot of things I like about de Santis.
There are some things I've there are questions that I have too. Anyway, I have questions about everything, to be fair, but questions about Trump still and his strategy and his attacking of the Santis and all that as well.
I don't want to say that I don't have those questions too. But the point here is the point here is that it's going to happen the same exact strategy it will be employed, will be implemented by the left, by the media, buy big tech by the deep state, just like they did with Trump in twenty twenty when they wrote the make Believe Intelligence Letter from fifty one make believe intelligence professionals somehow getting outwitted by some talk show host here from
the from a tiny town called Monrovia, Indiana, I knew more about national intelligence, apparently, than these fifty one clowns who told us that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was Russia Russian disinformation or they actually hedged their bets because they knew that they were eventually going to be found out, so they said something like, it had the all of the markings, all of the indicators,
it had just had the flavor and the smell of Russian disinformation. So then when it came out that it wasn't really Russian disinformation, which of course is where we are today, we know that it was not, as a matter of fact, Russian disinformation. Now they and simply say, well, we didn't actually say that it was. We just said it looked like it. So you know, no harm, no foul, except for there was harm,
and there was a foul. In fact, we know from research from post twenty twenty election research, there's something like ten percent I think it was ten percent of Biden voters and I don't I'm pretty sure this is what I read would have at least wanted to reconsider their vote had they known about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. The Hunter Biden laptop story, so the same. The point is the same strategy is going to be implemented no matter what.
And there's an analogy I want to point out here, but I'm going to take a break. I'm going to do my best here. Yesterday I did not do well sticking to the first segments time clock. And that's a new year, you know, it's a new year's resolution for me. Here we are into May. Now, we're fastly approaching the midway point of the year, and I'm still violating my new year's resolution. But I'm not going to
do it today. I'm going to take a break. In fact, I got a text yesterday from someone who told me the great opening twenty four minutes, which, of course I can't disagree with that, but he also pointed out that I was off the time clock, but he still showed the appropriate amount of adoration and praise, so I gotta give him that. Anyway.
After the break, I want to share an analogy of something that happened in World War Two, And I want you to think about this when you think about which candidate we're going to have as the nominee, because the strategy here is going to be the same no matter who it is. The strategy will be personal destruction. The strategy will be to demonize, to isolate, to call an extremist to plant those seeds. If it's Trump, of course,
they've already got the groundwork there. But if it's someone else, if it's the Santist, they're gonna say he's the next version of Trump. I mean, they're still going to be able to start and quote unquote benefit from the equity if you will, that they have invested in in hating Donald Trump and causing people to fear him and loathe him and absolutely have unbridled rage against him, and they're going to whoever the nominee is, that is still going to
be essentially the starting point. They're going to tie these people to Trump or they're going to again do the same sorts of things. It is the strategy.
It is who they are. It's the only way candidates like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris can win is if they demonize attack and cause a certain percentage of the American people to be absolutely terrified at the prospect of Trump or to Santis or someone else winning, then they force them to vote for the only other alternative, which of course is crazy in this if we had the same
world. But that's the strategy. I got an analogy to share with you after the break that I think is a pretty good one as we think about who really has how much damage Trump really has, because maybe it's not damage. Maybe it's actually an indication that he can prevail through, prevail through the damage. Just somebody think about timeouts in order that my friends sit tight. We'll be back here in just eight minutes. Welcome back, my friends.
So I want to reference a story from from World War two. World War two, I'm actually looking at a story that was written, and there's lots of places you can find this information. I'm actually looking at a story on Medium, which is a place where blog posts and that sort of thing are posted, written by a gentleman named Chris Dobert back in March of twenty nineteen.
Head line of this is the missing bullet holes in Abraham Walled. So I want to read this to you and think about Trump, Think about Trump as a candidate, Think about Trump as a candidate in relation to what we just listened to first segment, or what we talked about. We talked about
having you know, the same strategy by the left. So in this analogy, in this plane analogy, which is what this is talking about World War two aircraft, they're going to employ the same sorts of say, surface to air ammunition, missiles and so forth, that they're firing at the metaphorical candidate, and envision them as an aircraft. Here a plane, different types of planes. That Santis is one type, Trump is another. Pick whichever makes the most sense for you here. But I want I want to read this
because I think that there's something to be said about this. I think this is actually brilliant. So this is how, this is what the post says. During World War Two, the Navy tried to determine whether they needed to armor their aircraft to ensure they came back home. They ran an analysis of
where planes had been shot up and came up with this. The Statistical Research Group, where Wald, and this is again a guy named Abraham Wald spent much of World War two, was a classified program that yoked the assembled might of the American statisticians to the war effort, something like the Manhattan Project, except the weapons being developed were equations, not explosives, and the SRG was
actually in Manhattan. It gives the address. It's near Columbia University. In nineteen forty three, he writes, it was the buzzing sparking nerve of wartime math at the Applied Mathematics Group Columbia. Dozens of young women. We're working with calculators, calculating formulas for the optimal curve a fighter should trace out through
the air in order to keep an enemy plane and its gun sights. And another apartment, a team of researchers from Princeton was developing protocols for strategic bombing. Again, these are mathematicians, they're doing mathematical equations. How do we know what are the routes that we want jets to take when they're doing when they're in a dogfight? What can we learn from the mathematics of strategic bombing? And that sort of thing, right, And so there was another group
that was called what is this? It says here the most influential. The SRG was the most high powered and ultimately the most influential of any of these groups. The atmosphere combined the intellectual openness and intensity of an academic department with the shared sense of purpose that comes only with high stakes. So they're making these recommendation, these recommendations on a variety of things. And so what they want to do is they want to protect these jets, these fighters these folks
that are making bombing runs and everything else. So here it is you don't want to You don't want your planes to get shot down by enemy fighters, so you armor them. But armor makes the plane heavier, and heavier planes are less maneuverable and use more fuel. So it's you know, it's almost like a you just have two very different things to consider. You don't want them to be sitting ducks with too much armor, so you gotta keep it
light enough to where they can maneuver. But also there has to be enough armor to protect those key and vital areas. So the military came up with this, came to this SRG group with some data that they thought would be useful, and so what they had were basically diagrams of what these planes would look like, with little red dots on them that show where the gunfire or where the bullet holes and so forth would be in planes that returned from battle.
And I'm looking at one now and it shows a lot of red holes if you will, along the ends of the wings, along the where the wings and the fuselage meet, and along the tail. There's really no damage. There's no there's no bullet holes around the engine, and around the midpoint of the wing or along the fuselage from basically where the wings connect to where the tail connects and the engines and the cockpit. So you can look at
this online if you want to see it. But there so what they're saying is that they sent these these diagrams in that showed these mathematicians these are where we're getting damage when when planes come back from making bombing runs, when they land, this is where the damage is. And so this Abraham wall to
stab a stition. He came up with an alternative viewpoint. An alternative viewpoint he thought, instead of looking at where the holes were on the aircraft and saying, how do we provide more armor here, he said, that's not the right way of looking at this. The right way of looking at this is that the planes that come back, these are we're looking at the planes that made it back, and so we're looking at where the damage is that they have. But they came back. They were not shot out of the
sky. They were shot, but they were able to limp and make it their way back to the base. And so mister Wald said, the right way of looking at this is to say, where do we not see any holes, where do we not see holes? And so his point was, and there's a thing now that we refer to as I think it's called survivor
bias or something like this. And so the point is not to say, when you're again thinking about Trump here as a candidate or as in this metaphor or de santis, and we see the damage, we just want to focus on Trump. We can see the damage that he he has taken. And so we're inclined to say people who have damage in these areas cannot be president, right, or they can't win, or what have you. That's that's that is a possible explanation or possible interpretation. But it also may be the
case. It also may be the case that the damage that Trump has is going to happen to everyone, and that there will be more damage inflicted in key areas that may actually bring candidates completely down. While while Trump certainly didn't win in well don't, I don't want to. I'm gonna take that back. Trump was not declared the winner of the twenty twenty election. He certainly has not lost support, He certainly has not crashed and burned as a candidate,
and he has damage, right, He has he has damage. But the question is, to me, the question is, when we think about this analogy or this this metaphor, this story of reality, what aircraft during World War Two we're dealing with, we ask ourselves, maybe Trump has damage, but he doesn't have it in those key areas the engine, the cockpit, the part of the tail. I guess, well, not the tail, but the part of the fuselage behind the tail up or behind the wings,
back to the tail where the gunner would often sit. Those those were places that these that the military was not seeing damage on aircraft that was returning. And the reason was if there were damage, if there was a lot of damage in those locations, it was enough to bring the aircraft down. And so it's easy to see an aircraft in the metaphor. If you think about another candidate, and I don't care who it is, I don't care who the candidate is in your mind, Nicki Haley, Mike Pence, Rhonda
Santis. They're all going to take flak in the media, in the campaign. They're all going to take fire, They're all going to get hit. And the question is, the question is we know what Trump's aircraft looks like because he made it safely back in the metaphor. He has been just the resounding winner at this point in the primary. And I'm not suggesting there shouldn't
be a primary or shouldn't be any of that. I'm just saying when we think about the candidates, I think that this analogy might be a good thing to consider as well, because Trump has not taken the hits to certain parts of the metaphorical aircraft here that would have made it crashing him, crash and burn, his campaign crash and burn. Now some people will say, well, he's been in Peach, he's get Russian collusion, delusion, all these
things, But that's all again, that is the same strategy. Those are the bullet holes in the tips of the wings, Those are the things that they that they're trying to convince the American people are a direct hit on the engines or the cockpit in the airplane analogy here, And but the truth is that's just not that's just not the case. That's not the case. And all of these folks when they campaign, it's easy to see it in a
vacuum, it's easy to see it prior to the attacks. But the attacks will be the same, and the attacks will be as intense as they need to be in order to elicit the response they want from these candidates, which ultimately is to stop pushing for conservative or limited government agenda items, not to push for things like border security, tax cuts, free markets, educational choice, right to work, those sorts of policies, balanced budgets. They don't
want that. They don't like that stuff at all, a limited power in the bureaucratic state, reducing the size of the bureaucracy, reducing the size of the red tape for every new federal rule that's being introduced, having to reduce or eliminate two as Trump did. They don't like those things. They don't like those things at all. And so these other candidates, because they haven't been sent out to take flak from the enemy, the Democrat Party, Democrat
Party apparatus, funded by George Soros, the media. Trump's been taking the flack. He's gotten some damage in the minds of many people, in the eyes of many people, but he's also returned safely home to the to the base, right to the base of support, and he is highly energized.
And just because he's damaged does not mean that he needs to be you know, have repairs, so to speak, done to his you know, to his campaign to this analogy, because the other campaigns are going to suffer the same, except they may take direct hits to places that Trump is not taking direct hits too, because he connects with his audience, because he is someone that excites people that don't maybe don't vote sometimes maybe won't vote for anyone.
They won't engage in an election if he's not running on the ticket. I just find this. Al Abraham Wald very very brilliant in this, in his findings, and it's just it's just thinking about things a little bit differently.
Instead of looking at planes that are coming back to base and saying, wow, there's holes here, let's protect those parts of the plane, it's actually wiser to say, wow, these aircraft were able to return to the base in spite of having holes here, None of them have damage here here and here. Those are the things that we need to shore up. President Trump, I would maintain, has proven that he has very very good armor in those critical areas. Will the others? I think that there could be others,
certainly, But they also look nice and new. Their campaigns might look nice and new, their messaging might look fresh. And new and highly polished. But again, once we enter into this campaign, they're going to do the same thing to whomever is running. They will take flak, they will take damage, but will they all have the wherewithal like Trump did to just walk through it like teflon don I don't know. This isn't meant to be. Look, this isn't meant to be a complete endorsement of just you know,
having Trump be the nominee and forget it. I'm just saying we need to think about this as we're preparing to ramp up for twenty twenty four, because the left is coming at this with everything they've got, no matter who it is, and it's going to get nasty. We've got to have someone that can deal with it, prove that he has the battle scars to walk through all the stuff, all the crap candidly that stands between him or her
and the not just the nomination, but actually winning the presidency. Timeouts in order. I'm going to post this on our stack of stuff page as I always do, but a timeout is in order. My friends, sit tight, you're listening to conservative not better talking. I'm your host, hop tough back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends. Look, wen, I gotta get it back on the time clock here. But I think I think it's clear that as we think about twenty twenty four, we need
to understand where we are in this country, Understand the stakes. Understand that these leftists their biggest fear is a president like Trump and maybe like the Santis too, But they do not want to see the gains that they've had politically in this country, politically, ideologically in this country. They don't want to give those up. They see, I've said this before, it is in their minds ever so close to their fingertips. They can almost reach the prize.
They can almost remake this great nation in their little socialist utopian image. They can almost eradicate in their minds the Bill of Rights. They can see steps that get them to that point, this idea of liberty. They don't want anything to do with that, no need, no need to worry about that. That's why they talk about democracy. You know, democracy by the way. Democracy right, by the way, does not protect in and of itself the rights, the god given rights of the minority. The idea of
self governance is certainly a good thing. And we're a constitutional republic with certainly democratic aspects. We should be able to have the right to self govern, but along with that, we should have the right to be secure in our individual liberty without having to get majority supports for our liberty. And that, my friends, is the critical difference. That's what a constitutional republic offers that
a democracy cannot. And these folks that are in today's Democrat Party, these folks that are in these radical leftist circles, they see, they see an America that does not include liberty that's right within their reach. They've got professors teaching this, They've got young people hating this great nation, blaming this great nation for the ills of planet Earth, when in reality, the things that they're proclaiming as the solution are quite frankly the problem. They are the culprits,
they are the things. They are the ones that need to be blamed for the problems that we have on this planet. And so they don't want to lose that ground. This is a big election, and I know we're still quite a ways from it, but then again, we're not right. I mean, we're just we're into May now, so we're looking at November of next year. So we're what are we We're looking at eighteen months away and we've got a primary to get through, and we know that it's going
to get ugly. Buckle up, Buckle up. Twenty sixteen is going to look like a metaphorical joke. Twenty twenty is going to look even like a minor, tiny, little like little joke in comparison to that, and twenty twenty four is going to be off the charts crazy. But we gotta be
prepared to deal with it because we have to win. We have to understand that whoever the candidate is, we know the strategy, we know the strategy, demonize, just try to make the person hated, make it not about ideas, but rather personal politics, the politics of personal destruction, personality politics, and to make someone vote for a guy that again is going to campaign in his basement. They've already told us as much, and I don't blame
him. He probably won't be able to finish. He can't finish most sentences today. He probably by that point in time won't even be able to start any sentences as well. But I've got a good time out. We're gonna shift gears after the break. My friends sit tight listening to conservative not better talk. I'm your host, the one, the only top off back in just a minute. Welcome back, my friends. By the way, did you see pull it up here? Where did it go? Did you see
that Chuck Todd? Chuck Todd is actually on the record now of saying that there our own well, no, that there that science has proven that there are multiple genders, that there are more than two genders. I was. I got this in the stack of stuff for today, and you can always again go to the website Todd Huffshow dot com and just search for the stack of stuff and you'll find that. But I don't have time to play it. The other thing I want to mention Coca Cola. Coca Cola shareholders voted
on a proposal, and I just let this sink in. There was some leftist group that got into the executives at Coca Cola and they were able to somehow and I'm just not familiar enough as to how this would work. This is just crazy to me. They got a proposal in front of the Coca
Cola shareholders, so people who own stock in Coca Cola. This radical group was able to get a proposal in front of them, which effectively said, let's not sell Coca Cola and states that have a pro life agenda or legislation or whatever, now anything that's not any state that's not hell bent on killing babies basically, And so this literally, how does this go to I have to confess, I don't I don't know if this is how in the world
does this get to shareholders? But the executives let it get to the shareholders. And fortunately, you should take you should all take great hope in this. I certainly have. I told Oz that she should as well. But they had the vote in eighty seven eight seven percent of the Coca Cola shareholders
said that they're not going to go along with that. So now, on the other hand, thirteen percent of Coca Cola shareholders said that they wanted to stop selling Coca Cola products in pro life states, but eighty seven percent have proven that they are still saying. And again, you'll hear me say, and I've said on this program for a while, eighty percent of this country would agree with eighty percent of the things that we say on here. But
they have to hear it from me. They can't have it, they can't have it dissected and then put into the words of the average radical leftist into the words of the average dramocrat Democrat politician. I want to be able to talk directly to the people, and if I do, I think eighty percent would agree with eighty percent of what we have to say, and it's much
in line with this. Maybe it's eighty seven percent. Maybe eighty seven percent would realize that the things that we say on this program are infinitely more sane than the things we hear coming out of the Democrat Party today or that are ending up on well, I guess referendums for shareholders at places like Coca Cola. Anyway, I just wanted to share that with you timeouts in order my
friends sit tight back in a minute. I'm still shocked. I know it's Coca Cola, but I'm still shocked that this can find its way onto some sort of a I guess something that's akin to a ballot initiative, initiative or a referendum. How in the world does someone believe that's a good idea. I mean, we have woke people all over this country and they have worked themselves into every corner, every corporation, every school district, every well,
many classrooms every media outlet. Of course they own Hollywood. But that's all right, my friends. We own logic, we own truth, We have a lot in our favor. They are doing nothing but lying and deceiving the American people. But I've got to go. Have a great day SDGC tomorrow