If you believe we’re in a “climate emergency” or a “climate crisis” then wouldn’t you support doing whatever it took to end it? The Democratic Party says we’re in a “climate crisis,” but acts like we aren’t. They sign toothless international agreements to relieve the political pressure of having to actually do something meaningful. They preach about the importance of the environment while attacking those who are doing the most for it. They are against raising the federal gas tax, which hasn’t been raised since 1993. They cancel the Keystone Pipeline even though it’s a better and safer way to transport crude oil and then go ahead and waive sanctions on Russia’s oil pipeline. They are in lockstep with academia and the teachers' unions, which do an expensively poor job in educating our youth in STEM therefore creating a STEM shortage. They are against oil subsidies in theory, but then increase oil subsidies and oil drilling. Now, the Democratic Party is in favor of “green” subsidies, but even Elon Musk who could be on the receiving end of some of them in the Build Back Better bill said, “don’t pass it” because he sees it for what it is: cronyism. The Democratic Party is against natural gas, even though it's much cleaner than other fossil fuels. They are against nuclear energy, which is the single best way to reduce CO2. They tend to live and govern from concrete jungles as they fly around in private jets. And they rather fear-monger over a “climate crisis” as it helps them win elections instead of uniting in a genuine bipartisan effort to reduce pollution. Actions speak louder than words. The Democratic Party wants to keep a “winning issue” an issue for as long as possible no matter how many people die from pollution because inside the beltway the goal isn’t protecting the environment but winning elections; not change, but control. Read FULL Article @ www.AnthonyGalli.com. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg1UZWp9JkE

In this video I breakdown the exchange between Joe Rogan and Joey Diaz on immigration to gain a broader deeper understanding on the topic... Let me ask you, as someone who was born in another country, how do you think that they should handle the immigrants that are here? This is the big question. A lot of people know people that are, I mean probably a lot of people listening know someone who they love that's illegal, whether they're illegal from Canada or they're illegal from Europe, or they're illegal from Mexico, where the f*ck there's a lot of people that get over here and stay over here that aren't supposed to be here some of them turn out to be amazing people so how do you decide how do you decide who gets to say and there's someone coming over here trying to make their life a better a better thing but just doing it illegally does that automatically discount them from staying here that seems crazy what if they're great because a lot of people come over here because they were super unfortunate and where they were born and they dude they grew up in a shitty place and they wanted to make it better but they didn't know how to do it so they came over to America by hook or by crook they figured out how to get here they got here and now they're kicking ask why why would you want to get rid of them as long as they're not criminals long I hurt (immigration joe rogan) anybody why would you want to get rid of them? Did you ever notice that maybe were full yeah we're probably it's maybe we'll full did you notice that when you go on there's homeless people I'm in Torah f*cking Boulevard I'm Lancashire Boulevard under bridges everywhere has that ever come to your mind that anywhere you go this cars that we're and the between uber and lyft and cabs now there's traffic every major f*cking city there's a lock or whatever did you notice that maybe Immigration Joe Rogan it's not that I hate Cubans or Mexicans or Puerto Ricans or black for Germans Irish maybe that will f*cking fault have you ever come to that conclusion yeah we're just full right now yeah we have to take five years or four I would accept that I would accept that I would accept a special circumstances like why you have family here so but this point right now I will f*ck them for ya yeah we'll fall we don't have nowhere else to put anymore we really don't looking no steadies unless we pack them all to Iowa and send them all you know send them all into my where's the highest population of Mexicans in the country I would probably say Southern California right wrong really Chicago in Chicago yeah hi they form a ton of sh*t up in Chicago ah Illinois you know where's the highest population of Puerto Ricans the Bronx you're wrong Cleveland clean doesn't the 50s they shipped today all the dealers were wo ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtvvDDw21sA

One of my key political beliefs is that cheap is better than free! You see we hear politicians promise “free” stuff, but what they’re really promising is a government monopoly, but monopolies are never good, whether they be public or private because they lead to rising costs and diminishing quality. This is why I not only differ with the socialist-left, but also the libertarian-right because the free market can lead to the consolidation of power too, but instead of being in a few government officials hands it’ll be in a few private individuals hands, which is preferable to the former because they won't have a trillion-dollar military behind them, but it’s still far from ideal because once these corporate monopolies become entrenched they can be very difficult to break up. To break up a corporate monopoly, you either need to embrace your inner Teddy Roosevelt, increase taxes on them to level the playing field, or hope some new technology that could be 10, 50, 100 years away will be capable of dislodging them. So I believe rather than the government trying to make things “free” by taking over the market it should make things “cheap” by growing the market. Using this chart, we can see Americans spend the most amount of money on housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and education… So I think the central question we should be asking ourselves is, “How can we reduce costs in these areas so Americans can have more disposable income?” And don't get it twisted... making things cheaper is not an ideological purity test. There are proposals on the left and on the right that can help reduce costs. For example, a “public option” in housing, transportation, food, healthcare, and education could help spur competition and therefore reduce costs and increase quality. Most conservatives support a “public option” for K - 12 education, aka vouchers. Most conservatives support a “public option” for transportation, i.e. trains, buses, and sidewalks. But the problem with a “public option” is that the government is not operating on the same market based incentives as the rest of the competition, which means a “public option” can be sabotaged by conservatives who want to make sure it’s underfunded so they can say, “See! I told you it would be bad!” or conversely it could be so well-funded that private companies couldn’t compete to the point where the “public option” overtime would turn into a government monopoly, which is what a lot of Democrats openly hope for and believe will happen when it comes to healthcare, i.e. Pete Buttigieg saying in the debates that his “public option” would eventually become medicare-for-all because everyone would want it. But personally, I believe if there is to be a “publi ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzZX3V44A6g

The filibuster isn’t a constitutional creation. The filibuster is a creature of the swamp. In its current form, the filibuster was created in the 1970s. As a matter of principle, anything created in the 1970s should probably be killed, including the Department of Education and my cousin Chuck. Prior to the 1970s, the filibuster existed as a “talking filibuster” whereby a Senator had to literally speak on the floor of the Senate to stall the will of the majority, but the longest filibuster was 24 hours so it wasn’t a very effective obstruction tactic hence why it was rarely done whereas today just the threat of a filibuster effectively kills a bill. The filibuster was created in its current form, I’d argue because Democrats wanted to maintain party unity. Democrats had control of the U.S. Senate from 1955 to 1997. You see, during the 1960s Democrats had fractured over Civil Rights so by increasing the power of the filibuster Democrats could say to black voters, “Shucks! We’d really like to help you there, but unfortunately, we now need 60 votes to make it happen so we have no choice but to focus on other issues. Peace!” The point of the filibuster therefore was to INCREASE political polarization, i.e. increase unity among Democrats. Democrats liked the filibuster when it helped them maintain power, but now that the American population has become more urbanized/coastalized it gives rural states even more disproportionate power in the Senate, which now hurts Democrats. Politicians being politicians, Senate Republicans of course want to keep the filibuster as it is because it basically means it’ll be impossible for Democrats to pass more than one bill a year (reconciliation) without their approval since the chances of Republicans having less than 40 seats in the Senate is close to 0. As a conservative though I think we should reform the filibuster because the filibuster has been one of the greatest culprits in creating a ballooning federal government where the only legislation that can get passed is that which is stuffed with pork and is voted on before any Senator even had a chance to read it so as to have “plausible deniability” and where the president is effectively extorted into signing the omnibus bill to avoid a government shutdown. In addition, the filibuster has clogged the legislative pipeline too much, therefore, leading Democratic and Republican presidents to increasingly go around the Senate, and therefore the U.S. Constitution, to enact their agenda. Republicans like David Harsanyi acknowledge some of my concerns but think, “conservatives would be better off living with what they have now,” i.e. a slow creep toward socialism is better than a sprint toward socialism. I think we owe the future more than tha ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdVcssuVDa8