The Prepper Broadcasting Network - Patriot Power Hour #284 - Presidential Election Debrief

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Each week on Patriot Power Hour, Ben ‘The Breaker of Banksters’ and Future Dan explore the latest Liberty, Security, Economic & Natural news, providing the situational awareness needed to execute your preparedness plans. Questions, Feedback, News Tips, or want to be a Guest? Reach out!Ben “The Breaker of Banksters” @BanksterBreaker on Twitter; [e-mail] Future Dan@FutureDanger6 on Twitter

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro. And in the midst of his story, one of my friends turned to the other and said, we don't know how lucky we are. And the Cuban stopped and said, how lucky you are. I had some place to escape to. And in that sentence, he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. And in that sentence, he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to.

This is the last stand on Earth. This is the last stand on Earth. The last stand on Earth. Sous-titrage ST' 501 © BF-WATCH TV 2021 You are now listening to the Patriot Power Hour. This live episode features the situational awareness you need to practice self-reliance and independence. Introducing your hosts, Ben, the breaker of banksters, and Future Dan, the editor of futuredanger.com. November 6, 2024, Patriot Power Hour, the day after the election, and, well, simply put, Trump crushed it.

Future Dan, this has got to be a top 10 percentile best outcome I could have ever seen after July 13th. If you asked me then the ideal outcome up until this point, this would have been it. Great to see. Yeah, don't call it a comeback. He's been here for years. Yeah, don't call it a comeback.

He's been here for years. And barring some of the contingencies that you and I talked about on our election special just a few days ago, he's coming in as the 47th president of the United States after serving as the 45th of the Gap. So quite extraordinary times we're living in. And I would suggest we kick this off with some analysis on how the vote was different this year. Or, in fact, the same again from previous years. from previous years. Well, we can look at the overall vote for 2016, 2020, and 2024.

The overall turnout, a number of votes from Democrats. Let's just say it returned to the mean this time around, and it just makes 2020 really stick out as a sore thumb. So that's something big in of itself right there. I'd go back to 2012 too. So Obama's first win was low to middle 60 million. Did it a little bit better, 64, 66 in 2012. And then Hillary was right about the same number. And Kamala might have done a little bit better than that.

You know, population is growing too. So 66 million, I believe, is her popular count right now. Although New York and California, they're trying as hard as they can to continue counting. Trump holds a 4.8 million nationwide popular vote win. Wow. Right now? Yeah. And then there's Joe Biden's 81 million votes from somewhere. I don't know where.

In reality, there was 16 million voters who showed up that year but never were there for Obama, Hillary, or this year Harris. Clear evidence that fraud must be investigated. How the mail-in ballots were broken. Trump, if he's promised something, like he said, this can never happen again, can't ever happen in our elections again. My hope is that is a top priority in this winter to go and get the documentation, take it to the states that did that cheating. Take it to the counties.

Peel back the network. Because we are only one bio attack away from suffering an election like that again if we don't fix it. That's why I'm so surprised, honestly, that this happened. I wasn't surprised that they tried to kill him in July. And I wasn't surprised they tried at least another time. But if, as we've said here on Patriot Power Hour a few times, we've insinuated that COVID-19, a main reason, if not the main reason for its release, was to dethrone Trump,

to get him off. Get him out of there in 2020. So if they did that. A worldwide pandemic. That just cost trillions of dollars. And killed lots of people. Maybe less than they claim. But still a lot.

If they did that. At least in part to dethrone Trump. I figured they would pull out the stops even bigger and not let him back where he could expose all that happened in 2020, not to mention all types of other shenanigans going on with the DOJ nowadays. So we're not totally over the hill yet. So I'm very happy. I woke up this morning and I was happy, but it ain't over yet.

You hate what word? Shenanigans. To me, shenanigans is something like five-year-olds doing in the corner in kindergarten. I consider them crimes against our constitutional order when you cheat on that level, right? Ordinated, widespread, Dinesh Sousa, 2,000 mules, ballot stuff and drop points, ballot custody, packing it with suitcases. None of that was possible, apparently, last night. And on Saturday, I spoke about the question, has Trump thoroughly gained control of the Republican establishment? Is Trump the Republican establishment? activists who could be bothered to go to the polls and keep an eye on what the hell was happening.

And I think that's how Harris comes in at 16 million less votes than Biden. I saw unsubstantiated claims four years ago of the sheer amount of ballots by mail that Biden received a vote, Biden-Harris ticket got a vote, but no other candidates were marked off on those ballots. And I was thinking about that again last night, and I'm kind of wondering if that was a strategy, if that was on purpose, because if no other candidates were on the ballot in 2020 in a particular state, no House or Senate or I'm not on it, but not marked off on a ballot, then those candidates wouldn't have standing to challenge the ballots. then those candidates wouldn't have standing to challenge the ballots. And I think that's how they did it. They stuffed the ballot boxes with mail-in votes and tagged them, voted just for Biden-Harris, so they could not be challenged, and they're probably all destroyed now. But there are witnesses to this.

There are people that can be turned. It's just like working away through a crime network. You start at the bottom and you get them flipping to the top. The next DOJ under Trump has every opportunity to do this. Something has to be explained why there's 16 million less Democrat voters this year. Better. I mean, this has got to be priority number one or 1a i think trump's very motivated to do this so that's good um i'm gonna be holding him to account on a lot of other things he's said over the last several months i'm probably gonna be his biggest critic here on pbn but i'm damn glad he got in. And, you know, if only for self-preservation of the MAGA movement and his legacy, he better get down to business and at least put a couple people in jail. I mean, damn, there really probably should be hundreds,

but at least a couple of the leaders of the leaders who were caught red-handed. Better happen. If it doesn't, it would be shameful. hot red-handed better happen if it doesn't it'd be shameful whoever's the next attorney general is is gonna make all the difference right and his his first attorney general out of you know a senator out of alabama who immediately recused himself of everything to do with the Russian hoax, leaving Trump powerless to stop it in his own department. I think if that lesson was learned, Trump's going to have two years before the next midterm to do some real rollback of what we've endured for four years.

Well, he's definitely a lot more hardcore which is what i like to see definitely my opinion's grown quite a lot over the last uh what when did he first come i mean of course everyone loved trump on the apprentice but i mean more like in 2016 i didn't really take him too seriously and then obviously one i'm like all right let's see what he actually does he did all right obviously had a lot of obstructionists in his first administration so he better have learned a lesson to uh have the right people in there and I feel like he is starting to surround himself with a lot of people like whether it's RFK Tulsi Gabbard Ron and Rand Paul definitely allies now at this point. Elon Musk, lots of others.

Hopefully he's rooted out turncoats or people that would be obstructionist, right? That's the goal. So easy for people in the White House to leak. He had a hard time finding anybody that wouldn't be absolutely pitted against each other. But if you ever watch The Apprentice Show, I gotta be honest, I didn't really like it because it was just a group of celebrities, you know, given a task in business, supposedly,

and then they're all just at each other and backbiting each other and he was you know part of that like fostering it and getting it going on and i watched that first white house where it looked like that apprentice show he'd always be bringing in new talent listen to new people giving new people a shot but had no fucking control on how they you know went you know disloyally against each other, left and right and left and right. If he hasn't learned that lesson, maybe he never will,

and it'll hamper his effectiveness. But he's learned a lot, right? Getting shot at probably helped with the focus on that point. Yeah, there were many steps between getting shot at and let's just say the apprentice years, but getting shot at was probably as big a leap as all the other steps combined before over the last decade or whatnot. So you can see that in his demeanor and what he was saying,

more hardcore but more focused, I think, not just saying, build the wall, we're going to make Mexico pay for it. He had a couple throwaway lines like that, but that's the charm of Trump. But he actually, I hope, has some solid plans and solid people to put in place. So come January, you know, January 20th, January 21st, better get to work.

Says he will. Um, we'll, we'll be here at Patriot power hour reporting each and every week. I'll tell you that. Yeah. And globalist new world order is not done, right?

They're defeated last night, but they're not done. So there's gonna be a lot of dangers from many angles abroad and festering up at home, right? I would expect to see Antifa riding over something next summer. I'm making that call. There's going to be violence in the streets this year after he takes power. So tonight we're not even going to do a news blitz, are we?

We're just going to go through this. I can give the listeners just a basic rundown. There's some natural headline, natural column headlines, typical stuff we talk about and relatively low level and it's abroad. Right. But there are fatal natural disasters ongoing. There always are. But otherwise, in the Middle East, it's silence. In Ukraine, it's silence. It's just the entire world just basically stopped to watch this election. At least it seems that way. It could also be a function of all the reporting resources in the world are absolutely directed and focused

to elections. So there's probably a lot of stuff going on that the headlines will be coming back at us in a week or so. They're just, they're not here tonight. And then there is also a decent set of indicators of potential stolen election. And it's clear now that it was not widespread. And the glitches in machines and the signature validation software, those are indicators of a potential stolen election. I have not heard anyone assert that yesterday was stolen by either party in any credible way. No, no one was even mentioning that as a possibility on the MSNBCs of the world. So I stayed up until 3 in the morning or a little later i know you did as well i but i will say today i did not spend hardly any time reading news or on twitter and all that

i did a lot yesterday trust me but uh you know long story short no one that i saw was even pushing a narrative that the republicans this. One of the telling, you know, we're not going to go down every single clip or talk about all the memes and meltdowns, but something that was telling, and you might have seen the clip, I saw it live last night when they were asking, you know were on the on the big board someone asked hey did uh did harris take any county over and above biden in 2020 did did she outperform biden anywhere i think it was by three percent anywhere perhaps zero counties yeah that was c that was c, that was CNN.

That was John King on the magic board. And I'm going to give that guy credit. He worked that board and got that. Whether or not you believe that that is accurate, but this year everybody's believing that the vote totals are accurate, you know, relative, within a reasonable margin of error, one or less percent, right? John King did a great job, and he revealed that he's the poor guy on CNN

that had to basically break the news slowly. They did it as slowly as they could. But the scene that you're talking about is Jack Tapper standing next to John King asking, and it wasn't counties that harris flipped it was just counties that harris did up to three percent better than biden zero none didn't happen anywhere in the country not a single voting district county or township in the east did she improve about by greater than 3%? So I did watch more CNN and MSNBC this afternoon before the show. Okay. And it's literally like the only day in the last probably 12 to 16 years

where I've watched CNN two days in a row. I'm missing a lot of good stuff, aren't I? I'll have to go check the compilations this weekend. Watching Democrats reconcile themselves to reality is vital. Vital. Watching them, you know, birth new lies and lies they're going to tell themselves repeatedly is fascinating to me. And, you know, I'm also watching for, you know, context on, you know, that,

that ends up coming out in their policies later and it could be dangerous. But tonight, John King was being interviewed or standing at the board and, and Cooper Anderson was asking about this exact same issue. And King went to use his magic board and the feature that was revealed live on air last night, Harris did not outperform Biden by 3% anywhere. It was disabled. It was like almost super, and it was going to run through this and kind of debunk it

or just have a final say on it and and and and and actually they tuned it so now any county where she outperformed it by any margin like less than three percent they scaled it showed up on the board and it was still a small amount maybe to show the inverse the ones that went down 0.1 percent or less right you know negative 0.1 percent or lower i bet that would be the majority of counties because she totally underperformed no king king did that but that's that's trump out for performing from four years ago and and and that that map boards lit up nationwide so yeah it and with a popular vote vote you know winner you know and john king's where she's calling it a trophy but you know

trump trump team is calling it a mandate and so long as a large amount of close House races return a Johnson-led Republican majority in the House, the GOP has all three branches or all three parts of the popularly elected branches of government for two years. And the Democrats are scared. That's what they were really worried about, the judges. That's what I caught on. They were really concerned about that,

just being able to get a lot of, maybe a couple Supreme Court judges replaced, getting all the confirmations from the lower courts. So that's good news for me. Yeah, Alito will retire, and Thomas will retire, and Trump's going to get me. Yeah. Yeah. Alito will retire and Thomas will retire and Trump's going to replace him. They're smart enough to know that, you know, you can't just last there like Ginsburg to your death. If you want the legacy of your jurisprudence to survive, you got to pass the torch. So he's that that that court majority is really going to lock in when that happens.

But it's all the judgeships lower than that. And Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC has the first word out of his mouth when that network shortly after CNN basically capitulated and started, you know, admitting defeat without saying it. And their board didn't say it, but they started just having to admit it out loud. And I do watch that. A few times they're saying, well, the mail-in votes and the absentee votes may still come in just in time.

Like they literally were saying that. And, of course, it wasn't enough, but they knew that there's a plan b and a plan c but too big to rig looks like to me well the backbreaker was uh on one of those networks uh in georgia where someone that cnn was talking to uh in state, said there's 100,000 outstanding votes. And Trump was already up by 118,000. And it was John King's turn to just say, well, Trump, Harris isn't going to win all 100,000, but even if she did,

she's still losing Georgia. And it kind of folded in their minds from that point. Yeah, that's a death blow. Now, we don't have much structure to this show i have a lot of questions a lot of routes to go i guess what i'm gonna pick right now is i forgot who it was it might have been it's probably on msnbc but i think both msnbc and c CNN, I was watching both of those, getting the diverse networks. Both of them and multiple guests on both of them, both of those networks, were talking about the loss of the reserve currency for the U.S. dollar. And they even pointed to the 30-year bond market.

They pointed to all this and how Trump's going to have overspending lead us to bankruptcy and the reserve currency is going to be lost and all this. And I'm like, first off, you're possibly right because there is an economic time bomb. So that's one of Trump's major issues he's going to have to deal with. But they just came straight out and said, yeah, we know. I mean, the way I interpret it is that they know the reserve currency is going to blow apart. Might as well have it on Trump's watch. If Trump could actually fix that, not just survive that time bomb,

does he go down in your books as the greatest president in your lifetime? Yeah, he already is in my lifetime already. I mean, I guess you could say Reagan because I was born for a few years while Reagan was in there. I was only a little baby, though. But Trump already is top five. Who would I put above him? I'd put Washington above him.

I don't know. Andrew Jackson, you know. Who would I put above him? I'd put Washington above him. I don't know. Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt. All right, there's several that I might put above him or equal. But he's a top ten already, don't you think? What, you think Reagan is above Trump? Has to be. You have to make the call that way. I guess because he took out the Soviet Union, if you give him that.

He took out the Soviet Union, if you give him that. He took out the Soviet Union, man. That was a long burn, but he did finish him off nicely. Oh, they were stout when he got into office. They were riding high after Carter. Eight years later, they were pretty much done. That's still a big accomplishment. But also, arriving in D.C. in the early 80s and tearing down the regulatory state that existed since the New Deal, since Roosevelt. He got a lot of laws, a lot of reform, and the economy boomed.

So Reagan's up there, too. Trump has every opportunity to match him. But Trump's first term did not match that. Bringing apart what Trump's just his election by a popular vote majority sort of like undoes the Soviet Union features of the Democrat Party, at least for tonight, right? They're going to regroup. They're not going to stop. They're not morally bankrupt and defeated like you might be optimistically hoping tonight. They're not, right?

Even CNN and MSNBC today, they were just running guest after guest after guest that was just trash talking Trump and carrying on like usual, right? So Trump has an opportunity. Getting a peace agreement in the Middle East, ending the Ukraine war, maybe even doing something that changes the status in Korea where it's not just absolute war footing. If he knocks some of that out the next four years, he's right up there with Reagan. Yeah, there you go. Fair enough. Maybe this is an age thing because I didn't live through the Cold War.

But I feel, and I can explain why I feel this way, the threats Trump's up against is wider, broader, deeper, and stronger than the Soviet Union because China is as strong or stronger than the Soviets ever were. Then you have the entire financial cabal. Reagan didn't have to fight that much against the banksters, whereas that's going to be one of the biggest fights, I think, for Trump. So, okay, I agree. He hasn't accomplished as much, but he's on a path.

I guess I'm projecting that he gets a lot done in the next four years, that he would be at least equal to Reagan, but if that all falls apart or something, Black Swans and or assassination, whatever, that could be different. But J.D. Vance, I'm a fan of him too. So I've said keep them far away from each other as often as possible. Sorry to say, but it's reality.

In a baseball metaphor, I say Trump's at the plate. He's got bases loaded. And he needs to get a double or a home run. Two outs. If he does that, if he knocks it out of the park in some of the dimensions you're talking about, yeah, then he goes above Reagan for presidents in both of our lifetimes, no matter the fact that you were little at the time. And this is also, you know, we talk about lifespans.

You know, I'm Generation X. You're millennial. We are multi-generational commenters on this partnership on Patriot Power Hour, bringing, you know, two different perspectives. And I think it's good because I learn a lot from your perspective. Hopefully you do, I. Oh, yeah. One of perspectives, historically is a trend since I met you and started broadcasting with you. When I met you, you were firmly, firmly in the,

and perhaps not even that long ago, certainly during the duration of majority of our Patriot power hour episodes in this perspective, held the point of view that Washington, D.C. was dominated by a uniparty, that there was no difference in parties, and that voting didn't matter because they're beholden to the banksters either way. they're beholden to the banksters either way. I've got to believe in hindsight that that entire point of view was fostered by essentially Democrats, that they preferred to have a certain segment of the population, libertarians, sitting on the sidelines, not voting against them. sitting on the sidelines, not voting against them. But when things get bad enough, there will always be an electoral reaction. I never wavered from the point of view that elections do matter.

So I don't think it would have mattered if it was Gore or Bush in 2000, for example. I personally don't think it would have mattered. And for most of the elections in my life I personally don't think it would have mattered. And for most of the elections in my life, I don't think it would have mattered either who won. But, yeah, Trump definitely changed that. And I think it's just way more extreme. This is the end of the republic level. I feel like we're at that level. So, with that, plus Trump has impressed me a ton ton way more than anybody except for like ron paul

so ron paul or trump only guys i voted for except for you know voted for congressman and whatnot on the same ballot but long story short i sure as shit would not vote for romney i'd say romney's might as well be obama in my book Maybe that's a little whitewashing, but that's how I definitely felt in, let's say, 2012 or whatever, right? So that's a vault for sure. I think it felt like there's a uniparty. I think the moderate Republicans behaved in a way that lended to that impression. Moderate Republicans behaved in a way that lended to that impression.

But fundamentally in the system, there's nothing that requires a Democrat Party or a Republican Party to even exist, right? Those are private entities. They're not enshrined by law. So when things get bad enough, the truth of the matter comes through. The elections matter. The 51 state and D.C. District of Columbia elections that amount to the Electoral College, that is the source of power in this country, and it functions. It did. it did and uh if it did not we could probably do a whole show on what would happen if uh we thought harris had won but i don't even want to go down that road right now

who if harris had won what would have happened for example then i think the unit party would have gone on you know i don't know the way i look at it uh this is the last election harris who oh yeah that is your little joke that's true like she's barely a footnote in history at this point now um never heard of her can't believe you're coming up with a good nickname for her. But, yeah. I think what happened is. He called her Comrade. There's a throwback to the Cold War.

Comrade. You know, throwing out Comrade Kamala Harris for my generation and older, that was straight up Cold War speak, right? McCarthy-type stuff. That mattered to people old enough to have lived through the Cold War. It applied quite nicely to her. I think what happened for the unit party, I think it pretty much was won as long as the Republican side bent the knee to the Democrat side. But at some point, the Democrats started persecuting and purging and forcing the issue.

And that pissed a lot of people off. I guess you could probably say the Tea Party might be the maybe not the start of that but that was big in 2008 and then 2010 2012 that was people that were being seen as the garbage and being seen as the the kooks or being seen as the the nazi right and then that small small group grew into MAGA. And then over a decade, the entire Republican Party became the deplorables and wore that badge of honor. So I think it just backfired on the Democrats. They wanted to totally crush any dissent and cement their uniparty, and that just blew up. And pretty much thank Trump for that. When doesn't tyranny and evil backfire eventually?

Well, the problem is now they got, like, nukes, and they got bioweapons, and we're on just-in-time supply lines. That's why I'm a prepper. So I agree. Tyranny does get beat in the cycle over time. But it's just a whole other level where the whole world could be blown apart or 90% of us killed. Seems like it's way too easy for that to happen in a collapse. So that's what I've always been worried about is if tyranny does lose,

they're just going to hit the kill button and just blow it apart. And we ain't out of that yet. It's still gonna happen yeah i think if if you're willing to step back and say all right this might take longer than my lifetime then you can draw inspiration from that but we do have to protect our own lifetimes, right? True. Oh, yeah. It can't be only long-term. At the limit, you've got to have some short-term considerations, whether that's every breath you take to eating and defending against tyranny

today, not just 20 years from now, for sure. What else did you notice last night that anything else surprised you ah they were at howard university waiting for kamala to speak obviously she did it i thought that was just perfect example how she's not fit to lead. Couldn't even come out there and give a five-minute speech. And, you know, the guy that came out, I forgot who it was that came out there. You can just tell. He came out trying to strut and seemed so confident.

And then it was just short in fraud or whatnot, I guess, for me on that one. But it was just pathetic. She couldn't even come out and talk. Like, come on, man. That's pathetic. So a defining feature to me of the Democrats is they don't learn from their mistakes in recent years at all. Not at all. And that's probably led to last night's outcome.

That's our only hope is they're actually mostly incompetent when it actually comes down to brass tacks. They're half incompetent. So that's our only hope. If they actually were competent, we would be in trouble. Well, on that note, at the rally that was meant to be Harris's victory speech platform, but then she just did nothing and sent a guy out there and said she's not addressing the crowd tonight, just failed to appear. The people that organized that were wise. that organized that were wise people they they they they smartened up a little bit because the 2016 video of crowds of hillary supporters just bawling their eyes out was just meme fuel

right just absolute meme fuel they they it seems like someone was smart enough to be like let's just get the crowd out of here don't let that happen again and it matters memes are very influential these days you and I were texting in the back channels and

I said that all the networks should just go to infomercials, prescription infomercials you said like a meme prevent defense. I was like, yes, exactly. Yeah, they just cut away to infomercials and just stopped addressing it entirely. Yeah, we'll be back in a week. In fact, MSNBC, they had no choice.

They just aired all of Trump's victory speech. I thought they'd cut away about 20 minutes into it. I went to bed, but they stayed with it. They basically had no choice at that point. Yeah, it was a pretty good speech, you could tell. Even though Trump looks pretty damn good for how tired he must be. The dude has super energy. But it was 2 in the morning, Eastern time, and pretty good speech overall.

Not his best speech of all time, but again, he's been running ragged. So it was a good time. Dana White was up there. It's always a trip. Trump and UFC, my man, Dana White, and Elon Musk, and Joe Rogan. But I went to the polls yesterday to vote. I was listening to Elon Musk on Joe Rogan on Joe Rogan Experience. That was good.

I listened to Trump on Rogan as well. I haven't listened to Vance on Rogan yet, but I should. Very influential. And the mainstream media, they know it now. So I think going forward on future danger, it's pretty hard for any mainstream media to even qualify now in the news censorship indicator, news blatantly censored, because not enough people are listening to him anymore and the democrats are in an echo

chamber where they get a massive massive group think that had to meet reality last night yep what kind of cognitive dissonance or excuses that are just, you know, kind of the, what is it, the kettle calling the teapot black? Is that it? What's something you heard that the Democrats were just saying Trump is evil of, but actually the Democrats have been doing that for the last four years or longer? Oh, jailing their opponents, bringing the DOJ against their political opponents. Total Soviet tactic of blaming, accusing your opponent of what you're exactly doing.

I mean, that habit is deeply, deeply set in that side if they do any retrospective honest out loud you know debate amongst themselves that they always do it behind closed doors you never see it out in the open well they gotta be at each other's throats in the back right now like i don't think they're just gonna be i'm talking about like the senior leadership i don't think they're just gonna be sad and depressed like They've got to be so pissed at each other. There's probably so much infighting right now, a blame game.

But also just desperate at this point. Always worried about a desperate animal. But a big win to say the least. Is this win bigger than 2016? Or was just the shock and awe of 2016 just can't be topped for Trump?

That's bigger. He got the popular vote this time. He did not in 2016. That's true. Very great point. Very good point there. All right, no breaks tonight. We're just going to keep grinding.

Probably got about another 20 minutes in. going to keep grinding um probably about another 20 minutes in the one thing i want to note was bitcoin all-time high as soon as it was known that you know 99.5 chance trump was going to win on the betting markets and everyone knew it was i'd say about one in the morning maybe 12 30 eastern about that time bitcoin ripped to an all-time high. Continued that today. Has pulled back a little bit. But let's take a look. Here it is.

Here's the chart. So at exactly, I guess it was a little earlier than I thought, 10 p.m. Eastern last night, Bitcoin ripped from $71,000 grand so that's four thousand dollar increase in bitcoin in 15 minutes and uh it went up to about 76 500 so another 1500 today now again it's dropped a little bit here sell high buy low people want to get some profits as well but i was pretty surprised by that big uh trump's talked a big game about crypto and bitcoin but he's also years ago at least said that bitcoin could never compete with the dollar and anything that threatens the federal you know the reserve currency of king dollar is a threat he said

differently he says there may even be a strategic reserve you posted and sent me something on x i believe i forgot if it was a congress someone from congress uh yeah okay and so i again i'll believe when i see it i don't think they're gonna make uh one million bitcoin strategic. That's 5% of all Bitcoin that will ever be created under a U.S. strategic reserve. I would love that. I would love that. And also, Bitcoin would go up by a factor of at least 10 to where it is right now. So it's not too early if you think Trump's actually going to do that.

I think it will be a lot harder to do that. But they're saying he's a Bitcoin president. Meanwhile, gold was down more than $100 today. Silver down a buck. I guess that's kind of an indicator of threat. Kind of interesting, though, that Bitcoin

spiked gold and silver down a bit. So, let me ask you this from a Bitcoin- a bitcoin dollar relationship point of view let's just say that in the next 24 months while the republicans have the both you know houses in congress that trump was able to pass a law that established a strategic reserve. Even if it was just the fact that the U.S. government won't auction or sell any Bitcoin that it seizes. Right. They have a lot. Yeah, and they hold that.

Let alone the idea of they actually treat it like a strategic petroleum reserve and buy, buy Bitcoin, U.S. government buying Bitcoin. If that happened, you're right. Times 10 increases, probably not even close to what it'll be if government bought Bitcoin, but at least establish that. Do you think at this point in Trump's mind, he's looking at a way of basically denominating Bitcoin, most Bitcoin in dollars for a generation, for decades, by establishing a U.S. government presence or a holding? a U.S. government presence or a holding? Or because Bitcoin, I think from your point of view, originally at least, was a hedge against the fiat collapsing. So the U.S. dollar backed by nothing since Nixon is fiat currency.

But could Trump tie Bitcoin to the dollar, thus strengthening and reinforcing each other? I like where you went with maybe a compromise or more realistic, especially in the short term, is just not selling Bitcoin that U.S. owns. The U.S. already, gosh, I used to know the exact number, but the United States owns a U.S. already, gosh, I used to know the exact number, but the United States owns a fair amount of Bitcoin already, mostly seized

from criminals. That's just public. Yeah, it's known. It's well-known. U.S. government, I think, is like a top-ten holder, known holder of Bitcoin. Think about the intelligence agency. Think about what the intelligence agencies have seized.

That's just a public number. There's a classified number, too. All right. Fair enough. For certain. That definitely sets more of a floor on the price, and that floor might be higher than what the price is right now. I think the actual buying would be the difference,

like how El Salvador buys a Bitcoin a day. Well, if the U.S. starts buying 100 Bitcoin a day, which it could easily do, even if it started spending 10% of its interest payments, we talked about how the interest payment on the debt is now higher than the defense budget if they only spent 10 of that amount on bitcoin yearly i mean that would be tens of thousands of bitcoin a year and of course the price of bitcoin would skyrocket so then they wouldn't be able to buy as many now that's the game theory is in el salvador is all in legal tender. You can pay your taxes. I mean, it's literally legal tender,

so you must be able to use it as such. And as well as they kept their fiat currency, though. So if we go to that level, I don't see Trump declaring Bitcoin as legal tender. But if that happened... That would be a law. He can't declare that. Right, or had a movement to... So, I mean, without that...

He could sign a bill. Exactly. I don't mean I'm, like, decreeing this. I'm not a Democrat. I don't think the president could just decrease shit. But, I mean, like, trying to force it as an issue really uh lobby for whatever what a president goes to congress and tries really hard to make it happen you know what i mean whatever the hell you call that there might be laws that allow him to buy it treasury might have the power to buy assets

without specific authorization from Congress, actually. You know what they should do? Go ahead. Well, for decades, Congress kind of, you know, abdicated its responsibility, and someone got the wise idea in the 40s and 50s, and it got worse after to just delegate to the federal agencies authorities to make administrative law, they call it, right? And just give them boundaries and let the agencies set what they're going to do. I bet you Treasury might have the authority to buy it. But coming back to my point, Ben, is there a way, instead of making it dollar versus Bitcoin, to make a dollar-Bitcoin relationship so entrenched that it's literally not even 1% the value of all the dollars in existence in terms of money supply and debt and all that.

Well, what percent would it have to get to to build a permanent relationship between the two currencies and have a strengthening effect long term to the dollar? That's good. I'd have to guess. What? a strengthening effect long-term to the dollar. That's good. I'd have to guess. What? 25% of GDP, at least? So that would be... So what percent of Bitcoin, what percent of the total Bitcoin blockchain?

Would they have to own? Yeah, what would the strategic Bitcoin reserve have to be in percentage of total Bitcoin that'll ever be mined before you would recognize that, hey, this actually strengthens the dollar. It'd be the only currency on earth and the most powerful currency on earth, and it'd be that entrenched that entrenched with bitcoin okay i get it i was thinking of if bitcoin is still at a low price the u.s government can own every bitcoin if bitcoin's only 75 000 and it won't do much if they own one percent of bitcoin and bitcoin's five million dollars of bitcoin then that's a different story. So there's multiple variables scaling there. But the U.S. government couldn't own 100% of all Bitcoins in existence without driving

the price to the point where it wouldn't be able to purchase 100% anyway. So that's like on an end of the scale that's an extremely impossible scenario. Hyperinflation, really. That'd be hyperinflation at that end of the curve, yeah, of the dollar. On that curve, 5% of all Bitcoins in existence, would that benefit the dollar long term? I'm really focused not on what it does to Bitcoin. I guess. long term. I'm really focused not on what it does to Bitcoin. I'm really focused

on, does Trump have a strategy that would be absolutely unique in world history in terms of currencies, right? To link to a digital, private, autonomous

currency and lock the dollar in for the next hundred years as as the world's reserve currency it would help and the earlier he does it the more the more it'll be effective if you wait till the very end when bitcoin is a million dollars of bitcoin and then they start buying that's too late how much would how much of the total blockchain would the U.S. government have to own? 5% is a very big percentage. So if they actually accomplish that, they would be a big market mover

and it would influence and somewhat back the fiat. But again, it wouldn't pay off the debt at all. I guess a question is, what would Wall Street, what would the international bond market think about this? Would people be like, damn, the U.S. balance sheet's much stronger now, so we value the dollar more? Then there you go. If not, though, for whatever reason, that's a different problem. And think about the people who are not established within the Democrat Party that could become billionaires if the U.S. government headed in that direction.

Think of the monetary. That is going to be the driver for headline after headline. anywhere near a strategic Bitcoin reserve, the arguments against it from the Democrats are all going to go about, you know, making it nearly impossible to enforce, you know, against international terrorist organizations, against international drug cartels, all the downsides to, you know, allowing such a currency to exist is it could be used anonymously. But that's not what their real fear is going to be, because I don't think any of us care or think that the Democrats really care about the amount of terrorism we suffer and the amount of damage that's done by drug cartels. It's their political power

or the relative shift in political power that comes with money. And again, that's how they think. They think it runs that way. Of course, Harris just spent X billions of dollars to lose this election. So ultimately it's not true, right? You know, money doesn't buy elections, and I think last night proved it. Trump did not spend anywhere near as much as she did. Sure. This will be studied for many centuries to come, I think, by all types of people. That's going to be the driver, though. The driver of their headlines.

They're already getting ready to write them. If it gets anywhere near becoming a reality of a strategic Bitcoin reserve, it'll be a full court deep state press to fearmonger it and make middle-of- of the road Republicans vote against it or, or, or prevent it because they're scared to death of the, the power of the money shifting away from them. They got Soros and that kind of money in their back pocket. And they, that's the one thing they fear is having to be outspent in the

future. Definitely glad you brought this up because it triggered a memory of last night who i don't even care what her freaking name is but one of the msnbc hosts it wasn't sake the freaking press secretary is one of the others but uh she she mentioned what i forgot if it was a senator or, it was probably a senator, heavily backed by crypto. He made his fortune in crypto. And she said, look, these crypto people aren't just donating and supporting candidates. They're becoming the candidates.

And America's going to become an oligarchy like we started as. I guess she's trying to refer to the founding father slave owners it was joy whatever her name is the race baiter um so anyway they are absolutely we're already talking about how crypto is going to destroy democracy and yeah if you see lots of crypto millionaires and billionaires coming about oh man they're gonna cry foul in a lot of ways but i think it's that that'll be harder to stop than the vote i think we'll see watch who's the next treasury secretary yeah if that person is pro bitcoin i i'm betting right now there are laws that allow Trump to start a strategic

Bitcoin reserve, maybe not in name, but purchases by the U.S. government. I mean, we all know that the intelligence agencies could purchase clandestinely on orders from the president, and they would classify it, and only the intelligence committees in the houses would get to know that. Coming it right out in the open so that it really drives up the price, that could be happening next year. We could have a big, big conversation about this. But I'm kind of thinking it's always going to be on the sideline of Patriot Power Hour after we talk about threat indicators because I'm not entirely convinced that the U.S. government getting a decent stake of Bitcoin

isn't going to be beneficial to the dollar long term. I got a gut feeling that someone might have talked to Trump and convinced him that if you want King Dollar all the way through the lives of our great grandchildren you know co-opt crypto don't don't pretend like it doesn't exist oh you definitely can't pretend it doesn't exist i am concerned about this because he's launched a couple of his own coins in the past and he did have a speech where he said central bank digital currency cbdc's he's totally against which is good but i don't want him to try

to come up with some some for lack of a better term fiat crypto that totally misses the mark because i'm a bitcoin maximalist. I only believe in Bitcoin. And he's been saying good things about Bitcoin, and he also said he's anti-CBDC. So that makes me hopeful. But if he tries to come up with some other blockchain and says it's as strong or just as strong as Bitcoin, but it's a new one. No, that ain't going to work,

so I'll be calling foul on that. Here's one thing they could do, even if they don't buy the Bitcoin, how about accept payments, penalties, fines, taxes, accepted in Bitcoin potentially, tariffs, force China to pay Bitcoin. That would be awesome.

You know, tariffs? Force China to pay Bitcoin? Now, that would be awesome. There's sort of a dialectic going on. So, you know, the thesis is, you know, fiat. At least since the early 70s. Fiat is the way to have a reserve currency. The antithesis of that was Bitcoin, right? The ultimate secure anti-fiat means to transact wealth privately. The synthesis, Ben, would be that the government issues the fiat, spends that fiat on a significant stake in the antithesis to the fiat, thus a synthesis, and the dollar has a long-term benefit.

We're going to be talking about this for a while because now I'm going to try to probe on this issue and think about it. Maybe it is dangerous. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it would ultimately cause the dollar to fall in value and, you know, worst-case scenario, stop being accepted, right? And the petrodollar absolutely perishing. I feel like that's almost nothing to lose at this point because it's pretty likely that's going to happen. I don't know if that's true.

There's nothing better out there. We'll see. There's nothing better out there. There's nothing less manipulated. For the first superpower to basically co-opt the Bitcoin blockchain by purchasing a very big chunk of it, a relatively big chunk of it, we're going to have to study that. Is it a threat to the dollar, or could it actually reinforce the dollar for generations?

Well, they do that, but they continue to have massive deficit spending, not even coming close to fixing entitlements, all that. Then it won't matter. But if they do that in conjunction and maybe strengthen our gold and oil reserve in of itself, why not? Yeah, I'm all about it. I don't think they're going to be able to cut $2 trillion in spending with the government efficiency office, but they really need to look at

cutting spending, cutting out departments even. So that's got to happen. Bitcoin is maybe part of the solution. I'm all about it, but not if they just keep printing fiat currency. It doesn't matter how much. It's going to be pretty damn hard to keep that fiat currency going, even with a Bitcoin supply is what I'm saying. Yeah, it's important to remember there's a lot of new members of uh congress that

you know have to look out for themselves in their re-election two or four or six years ago or from now i should say you know they got they got to get re-elected so there's limits to you know what kind of cuts what kind of austerity could be imposed on the federal government. And so spending cuts, you know, I'm not sure that's necessarily happening. But from Trump's perspective, you know, he'd just say, we're going to grow out of this, right? Going to run that GDP real hot, which is dangerous too. He ran that GDP at 5% or 6% for multiple quarters going into 2028. Perfect opportunity for banks to be all lined up to simultaneously collapse right at the end of his presidency, just like it did for George W. Bush.

And look what happened. Look who came in right afterwards. That could be part of the plan, Ben. Hey, there's a lot of stuff out there we're going to be following. And by the way, we've been archiving and using some software to help us archive and data mine prior shows. So you never know what we said could be prescient maybe not we'll find out but we're doing our best out here and i think this has been a great show so far future dan about to

get out of here anything else you wanted to touch on or memorialize before the end of the show. Yeah, I'm making the call. Early 2028, banks simultaneously collapsing with the objective of putting Trump down in history as the second Herbert Hoover. They're going to try to Hoover Trump, and I'm just hoping tonight he's wise enough to make sure that doesn't happen to him. Because the people that lost last night, believe me, this is not the end of this. They're not going to gracefully accept four more years of Trump and let him head off into the sunset as an all-time great American president.

I cannot believe that that's going to go unchallenged. And the they, the big, mysterious, the they that we often criticize ourselves for, for using, but whoever they are in the moneyed, elite-powered centers, as you like to call them, the banksters, they got the, they got the power to bring it all down at the end of his second term. And if you're prepping tonight, it might seem like everything just got a lot safer and a lot freer since

last night, this time, four years from now, dangerous territory in the economic sphere. I'm making the call tonight. There you go. Early 2028 economic rug pull. I think it's going to happen sooner than that, but I think that's, you know, I've thought it's going to happen for a while,

and it hasn't. Or maybe the banksters just keep kicking it down the road. Why not? They got to. They got to kick it. Because you got to pull the rug out when the guy has no power to do anything about it. Because they all know that when the economy goes to hell in the hands basket in one week, that the emergency powers that Congress will grant and the panic in the country will enable

what Rahm Emanuel called, you know, don't let a crisis go to waste. He warned Democrats that crisis has to be to their benefit. They pull that rug on Trump next year. It'll be the most powerful president we've seen in our lifetime to fix it. They're not going to give him that. They're going to pull it out right at the end and leave J.D. Vance trying to get reelected on an absolute horror show of an economic situation. Mark those words. There you go. All right. We're out of here, folks. I'll leave this

with, uh, foxbusiness.com. The four top contenders to lead treasury department under president elect Trump. The first one in the picture, at least Jamie diamond, the bankster of banksters. So let's hope it's not that guy. All right. We'll be back next week, right, Future Dan? Next Wednesday. That'd be a smart move. Then it wouldn't all be able to crash because that fool would be in there. See you next week, Ben. Great show.

Great show.