And now I present to you James B. Madonna and the reference Dr. William J. Eisenman. Okay, we are here. Naturally, we're here because you hear us. And you see us. Here, here. Here, here. It is officially the last show of March 2015. It's not exactly going out like a lamb. We've been in spring for one week and it's still winter. The month of starch is not going out like a lamb at all. Not a leg of lamb, a breast of lamb, a lamb chops, lamb with mint jelly. No kind of lamb. Or lamb sluvaki or lamb gyros or lamb shish kebab. No lamb. It's been cold and damp.  This is the very tail end of March and the last show of March. But anyway, April showers, brings me flowers. Is that how it goes? Whatever, whatever. But usually the weather is very unpredictable and erratic in the springtime in general. And in some parts of the world, very severe, like Tornado Alley in the Midwest. It's nothing to joke about. But anyway, welcome to Uncensored Hard Hitting Truth. I'm your host James P. Madonna of Megalife21. And we're coming to you from the newsletter censored in Northeastern New Jersey. And I would like to introduce my illustrious co-host and mentor and the very founder of Newsletter Censored in 1977. The one and only, the Reverend Dr. William J. Eisenman. How are you feeling this week, sir? Well, as I said, I would prefer it to be spring. Even though technically it is, but it isn't. Right. It's like, it's kind of like, you know, the reality of the world and somebody's perception or fantasy versus reality. In reality, it's spring. In actuality, it's not, not yet. And I hope we just don't go one of those winter into summer thingies. Oh, boy. You know?  Well, yes, we believe in science and climate change here at Newsletter Censored because we're highly intelligent people. We're not numbskull, imbecilic, nincompoops like conservative Republicans are. And speaking of, I was just telling Reverend Dr. Bill, before we started the show, that Ted Cruz, a waiter from Pinocchio to the Penguin on Batman. Oh, he used to, I used to call him the Tin Woodsman from the Wizard of Oz because of his schnazola, his proboscis. His pointy, his pointy proboscis.  And all this face time too. And mind you, the mainstream media is not broadcasting any rebuttals from any Democrat or progressive. God forbid that they should criticize a right winger. Pussies. Okay. They don't have a spine like this black thorn chilele. Pussies. I want to give greetings first to my near dear friend in Osaka, Japan, Miho. Hello, Miho. And also to Ken Thiessen, a former WWE star. Okay. And the president of KT Training to win. All right. Personal trainer extraordinaire from Boca Raton, well, he's from Long Island but he lives in Boca Raton, Florida. Ken Thiessen, I send you greetings. Also greetings to all my Facebook group administrators. Sasha Boyle, Jolton Joe Stevens, Anthony Laura. He's the administrator of everything is food, Anthony Laura and Jean-Luc Rodin from South France. Greetings to all of you. You know, let's see what I got here. I was reading an interesting article in Banner saying that corporations now own the rain that falls on the planet Earth even though it falls on your property. And you could be fined for not paying a fee to whatever corporation for using rainwater. Where water? Which falls from the first heavens, from the sky and lands in your bucket or pickle barrel on your property, right? Which means if they own the rain then they must also own the airspace surrounding the planet Earth. And if they own that and being that Nestle's is trying to buy up and control all the Earth's aquifers to control the drinking water that must mean that corporations also own the planet Earth. The essence of life itself which is pure water, the skies, the resources. So I guess they don't follow the verses in the Bible which say that God owns the wealth of the Earth and the profit belongs to all. The profit of the Earth belongs to all. The fractures own all the water too? Yeah, it's their water. So my grandfather wasn't too far off when he said mark my word pretty soon they're going to charge us a fee for breathing. Well I said that many times years and years ago. Well you know why he said that? They do have oxygen bars, you know, where you can go in and breathe clean. He said, you know, when cable TV came around he took me out of fit. I am not paying for television. I am not paying to watch television. And then the first bottle of spring water came out. What are you crazy? Pay for water? You're out of your mind. And that's when he came out with this statement. He also came out with this statement when we used to watch professional wrestling that mark my word society in America is going to become like the Roman Coliseum where people will have bloodlust. It'll get worse. They'll get bored with pro wrestling and then they'll want more. And now we have ultimate fighting UFC, you know, where they try to take each other's heads off. Why do you think they stop on the highways when there's an accident? For real. And gawk. Oh, the rubber-neckers. The rubber-neckers, yeah. They gawk at gore and accidents. Of course. To Timothy, read it, people. Look it up. How people will become in the end times. And it's sad. It's becoming that way. People are showing less compassion, less empathy. More selfishness. More iron-randish, if you want to follow that. Fishness as a virtue. So all this nonsense between that and judges allowing Monsanto to patent Mother Nature, patent DNA, have a patent on Mother Nature. It sounds like, it's not just the United States, but it sounds like our elected leaders, the politicians of the United States. And I don't know how the corporations get away with it in other countries. I'm assuming it's either the corrupt politicians in their countries or the United States giving ultimatums and using blackmail with other governments to force these 1% corporations on. It's the World Bank and the IMF. That's doing it, right?  Yeah, so they're selling out... In forced countries. Yeah, we'll give you a big loan here. You don't pay it back, buddy. Isn't that extortion? Of course it is, but that's how America operates. It's corrupt. War is a racket. Schmedley Butler, General Schmedley Butler. That's the corporations, that's it. So listen, we all know CEOs are demons and scumbags, but a person does not have to take the bribe or meet with lobbyists. Now, who do you blame? Do you blame the CEO with his lobbyists? Do you blame the politicians? Do you blame both? I blame both, but... You blame the system. It allows it. So the politicians have sold out our planet Earth that God said we were supposed to share. And they have a fit over some few crumbs like food stamps and welfare and something that's not an entitlement at all, social security. The Koch brothers don't want the mainstream masses to have anything and they don't want the poor to have anything.  So that's why this whole stuff is done on their part. They'll unionize. Of course, and then what will that do? That will benefit the middle class and the poor. That's why we have privatized prisons built by corporations for free slave labor. The outsourcing.  Since when is a Republican, a conservative Republican a patriot? Is there anything but a patriot? That's correct. Offshore bank accounts and mailboxes, avoiding federal taxes, outsourcing American jobs, owning the water, owning the oxygen, owning the sky, owning everything, neglecting our veterans. So how are they, how on earth? The veteran is supposed to die on the battlefield. Are they patriots? And not come back here and bother us. Oh, oh, sabotaging the Constitution. Is that a patriot? Well, jeez, I mean, not spaces. Edward Snowden is a patriot. Yeah, that's true. But they wanted to get him on the espionage act. Well, even John Kerry, a Democrat.  A Democrat who's supposed to feel your pain wants to arrest him. Edward Snowden. But uh... Corporate Democrat does not feel your pain, believe me. No, not anymore, I guess. Not anytime. Yeah, since FDR. Oh, since JFK. Corporate Democrats do not ever feel your pain. You're trying to say JFK was a corporatist? Of course he was. Where did he get his money to run? So he owed somebody favors. That's great. They all, all favors. Now this, what I just said, is leading into something that is tragic, infuriating, extremely frustrating. Dr. Gary Knoll was sabotaged. He was hacked into, and they destroyed what you tell me, his archives and lock, stock and barrel. The web page was hacked, yes. I guess Facebook too, because he's been updating that too, so I don't know. I think, I haven't, I haven't checked it. A lot of damage. I haven't checked the progressive radio network Facebook page, but that's pretty horrible. He had a vast amount of archive material, extremely valuable. That's why it was hacked. And because of corrupt, evil, obsessive, capitalist, corporate greed, they sabotage one of the progressive movements most dedicated, hardest working leaders. Gary Knoll. And this goes to show you, this is tied into the planet Earth and all of its wealth and resources being sold out by our politicians, our capitalist, party, system politicians to the fat cats and corporations.  We don't know the rest of the story. We don't know everything. We're not speculating. All right, let's not speculate. All right. The damage occurred and that's all we know. Now, speaking of wickedness and evil, before we start the show, I have a question for you. Being that you are a doctor of divinity, I have a Christian, Christianity Bible question. It's not a silly question.  Well, I take that back.   Yeah, they ask the obvious. No, they don't.   Well, Les Brown on that popular hit TV show Hardcore Pawn, you know, the pawn shop, he says the customer is not always right. Of course not. It's never been that. If the customer is always right, why do we have a saying, caveat emptor, buyer beware. I give you a perfect real life example. One of my exes was a fine jewelry manager at Lord and Taylor. And there were these people that periodically went to the counter and they would buy a very expensive piece of jewelry and then they would always return it for a full refund coming up with the same excuse. Well, my husband didn't like it. It turned out they were buying it to wear it to a special event and then returning it. And what happened? They set up a pattern. It was a pattern. So Lord and Taylor actually refused them as a customer at fine jewelry counter because, hey, this is not rent or lend, I'm sorry, not rent. This is not lend fine jewelry. Lend not to keep. Yeah, so they were scamming. This is a little scam that they had going and they were actually refused business. So the customer is not always right. But this question is about angels and demons. And if the customer was always right, why would they make obsolete, products that become obsolete almost immediately, or bad product? Yeah. Or import them from Japan? China. Yeah, tainted low quality. Dog food. Yeah. Melanin, whatever. Plus no quality control whatsoever. Exactly. All for greed, all for cost. The first part of the show is technically and officially a part of our new series, Capitalism in a Conkshell. Capitalism in a Conkshell. And there's so much evidence to prove that capitalism, at least the capitalism that conservatives want and what America has is the devil's economics. Not the fair hybrid blend of capitalism sort of that they have in Scandinavia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, et cetera, et cetera. That's not capitalism. Where education and healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Yeah, it's socialism. It's a brand of socialism. Capitalism in a conkshell. I like waving it. I like saying it too, in a conkshell. Well, you'll see more at a Conk later. If I have to conk somebody in the head with it. But anyway, angels and demons. Here's my question. If angels or fallen angels, which are demons, but they're collectively the royal angels. Some are good, some are evil. Okay, if they have this superior supernatural power and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, then what was so damn special, even though they were so powerful, what was so special about the creation of Adam and Eve, the creation of men, that was so special if the angels were far superior in every way to man? It's very simple. It is the thing that escapes most of your counterfeit Christians. What's that? They don't understand that God is reproducing himself. Oh, angels can't do that. The humans become God, but the angels are what they are. There is no more potential for them. They're immortal. That's correct. They cannot reproduce, but they are not God, but they're immortal. They have the freedom of choice. They can make their own decisions. They are brilliant. They are super talented. They are very strong and powerful. Lucifer was very talented. They could fly anywhere they want. He played the pipes. He did a lot of stuff. There's some girls in showbiz that play the pipes, too. He was the second to get to the top. The old casting couch, the little levity belt. He was the second carob, whose wing covered the throne of God. The cherubons, yeah. That means he was most likely, if you were looking at a line of hierarchy, he was third in line, third in line. God the Father, the Word, and Lucifer. I imagine he was the first angel to be created. And he was the primary archangel. He had like a four-star general rank or secretary of state rank. Well, he was right there in the government of God, like I say, maybe probably the third, the third, you know, I'm not going to say in line for the throne because he's not in line for the throne. I mean, that's what he wanted. He wanted to exalt himself above God's throne. You said vanity was the first sin that was ever created. Well, that's what he eventually, iniquity, his iniquity was. Selfishness. That he thought he could take over God's throne. Sounds like I and Rand, right? Selfishness is a virtue.  It's a C. No, no, no, no. There was a word carib. Wow, that's a carib. And the statues of an ancient Mesopotamia and in Babylon, and I think in Persia too, the statues of the carib would a K look just like gargoyles and that's exactly the description found in the Bible of angels. Well, they're all the ones that, in Ezekiel, where they transport, they transport this spiritual vehicle that God travels in and they have four faces. They have a face of a man, an ox, a dizzy, they have four wings.   I mean, these are gargoyles. Of course, they're like gargoyles.  Angels don't exist. They were actually extraterrestrials interacting. There's no proof of that. And the immaculate conception was from an alien... If you accept what the Bible says, you cannot accept that. Number one. Well, they're both contradictory. The ancient aliens, whatever you want to call them, archaeologists, they have a little bit of proof in terms of the drawings that they have found, the carvings, that look like... They look like what? Aliens and vehicles flying in the sky, extraterrestrial. They look like our idea of aliens. Not what would have been or whatever. You better ask me, if there were aliens here, where the hell are they now? What was their business here? Why are they always landing out in the country bumpkin land? That's correct. Why are they in hiding? Why don't they... I was kidnapped by a flying soldier. I was abducted. I was abducted. They examined me all over.    They couldn't communicate with me.   Let's understand your basic question. Basic question, answer is that God, when he could, he put one third of the angels on the earth to beautify it and to take care of it, et cetera, et cetera. And of course Lucifer had a throne and he was the head of that little excursion. Unfortunately, they did not do what they were supposed to do. They tried to hide it from God. They were in charge of the earth. So God understood that he could not... He was probably his plan to make those angels into gods. That was probably his plan A, but it didn't work. So he had to go to plan B. So the ideal scenario did not work out. So plan B came along. And plan B with humans made from the dust of the ground. If they did not perform, they could be dead and burned up. And returned to dust. That's correct. And... See, because the angels cannot. They are immortal. And speaking of the creation of humans, when... When is it mentioned in the Bible when life first begins, explained to these people out there? Well, it was when God breathed into the nostrils of the inanimate, Adam. You hear that?  You hear that right wing, fundamentalist, zealot, evangelical, right-to-lifers, when Adam received the first breath of life from God. Because there was no sperm at a zoom and ovum that got together at that time. And Adam did not have a belly button. That's true. So it's not the fertilized human egg conception where life begins. It is not the embryo that breathes like a fish. It is when the breath of life enters the body. And that's the only... That's the only time the Bible mentions when life begins, isn't it, Dr. Bill? And after that, of course, it mentions that the life is in the blood.  Bela Lugosi said that too. The life is in the blood. He also said, I don't drink wine. That's when his guests asked him to join him. I don't drink wine. The life is in the blood. Blood, blood, blood. Okay, now let us sink our teeth into these readings. It's kind of appropriate that I ask that question because the next so-called holiday is Pagan Easter Ishtar. Ishtar is the next holiday coming up. And let me just say a word about that. Just to get people riled up and to start asking themselves stupid questions about their beliefs and everything. If Jesus died on Good Friday, Jesus knew how many hours there were in a day. Or if Jesus died on Friday at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and he was in the grave for three days and three nights, which is 72 hours, count it from Friday 3 to let's say Sunday morning when the women went with the spices to the tomb and he was already risen. Count it. How many hours do you get? I'm not good at math. You do it for me. 36. Okay. Not 72. The fact that a matter was with a little deductive reasoning, Sherlock Holmes, et cetera, you find out that Jesus died on Wednesday at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Count it. You're 72 hours on Saturday. He rose already on Saturday. So when the women went to the tomb on Sunday, he was already risen. Three days and three nights. Just as Jonah was in the belly of a big fish in three days and three nights. You just said proves to all these holy role of Christians out there to think they have all the answers. What are you proving to this misconception that they might have? Well, you're proving the fact that they believe that he died on Friday. Good Friday. A lot of them.  It's a pagan fertility goddess. That's right. Ishtar. Ishtar, yes. And you could listen to two Easter readings by the Rev. Dr. William Eisenman. I think you have two. You have the Easter lie, I think. No, I just titled it Easter. In the newsletter. Another one called Jesus Did Not Die on Friday. So there's technically two readings about the truth about Easter. It's on the internet if you look it up under Megalife21. It's on YouTube. I don't know what browser the gentleman was using last night, but I was playing chess with a gentleman in India. And I had referred him to newsletter censored. And he went there and he said he couldn't pull it up. I told him you have to use IE in that explorer, but he said he couldn't pull it up. So I don't know what the problem is. If I remember tonight, maybe I'll check it out.  They can't pull up pages. From what I hear, Microsoft is giving Internet Explorer the axe. I don't care because I don't use it. I don't either. I'm very happy with my Firefox. The point of it is even my one chess website that I go to, there's a lot of people using IE8. We're up to IE10 or 11 for crying out loud. Well, pretty soon there's going to be an IE0. But with all the wonderful free add-ons that's available with Mozilla Firefox, and it's free, of course. I'll tell you why.  I cannot download anything, especially from YouTube. Did you check to see if it was enabled? The Net Video Hunter is not on my toolbar anymore, but the arrow is. And when I click on the arrow, it says go download this session. That's strange, because I have the icon in the upper right-hand corner for Net Video Hunter. And you click on it and then the page comes up and you choose who you want to download.  So anyway, technology is wonderful. Gotta love science. Can't stop science like George Costanza said. Can't stop it. Can't stand you. Can't stand you. George Costanza. Can't stand you. Can't stop science. No you can. Just keeps on moving ahead. You know, technology, you know, hey, the technology in the science is fantastic.  They, in the past, the Dark Ages, they did censor progress. Yes. But you know what I mean? Like people lost, younger generations lost the ability to be able to communicate with others, you know, and they use it, they use their tablets and their smartphones as an excuse and their texting. Hey, I think the smartphone and the tablets are wonderful. I think the tablet will replace the laptop someday, completely.  But, I still am able to communicate with people face to face, you know. I haven't lost any of my social skills or abilities.  You know, I'm always aware of my environment. Very important. So anyway, sink your teeth into the first reading. Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Penguin or Pinocchio, take your pick. Isn't the only ardent critic of Obamacarey who is signing up for health coverage under a law he vowed to reveal? Well, as long as they can benefit. See, they don't amount to it. They want the poor and the little guy to have anything nice. As long as the rich, white conservatives get to have everything. That's all that counts. Kansas Representative Tim Huell's count, chairman of the Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House, admits he too has enrolled for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act, despite repeatedly voting to repeal. He is a needle-nose manuch. For the record, I am an Obamacare. Yee-haw! The Republican Huell's camp recently confessed two constituents at a town hall meeting in North Central Kansas. According to the Clay Center dispatch, my wife complains about it all the time. Cruz and Huell's camp and other far-right lawmakers are in an awkward political position. Do they use an Obamacare exchange to purchase insurance and risk being charged with hypocrisy? Or do they stand on principle and decline coverage or resort to the private insurance market, giving up thousands of federal dollars offered to government employees to help pay premiums? They have a choice. Some are choosing Obamacare. Cruz, a Republican senator who is running for president, said that his family plan to go on Obamacare because they'd no longer be able to get health coverage through his wife's employer. Oh, so what you're saying is poor little Theodore and his wife are having a tough life, and they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, and poor Teddy might not be able to see his doctor, right? Remember, there was an editorial some time ago about this family. I think they were a family of four. They were having a hard time on $412,000 a year. Yeah? Yeah. That's the kind of stories we write about. The poor, the needy, the foggles. People making $412,000 a year. Unbelievable. What about the people on minimum wage that are making $15,000 a year? Way below the poverty level. Way below the poverty level. She's taking on-paid leave from her job to join Cruz on the campaign trip. Oh, go ahead. Like Cruz, Hulestand has met rail for years against Obamacare in speeches in Congress, on the stump during elections, on meetings with voters, in emails. Hold on. We're doing a show. We're doing a talk show. Thank you. It's all BLs above. In a petition, Hulestand. Working through a human being. Circulated among supporters to defund Obamacare. He described the health care law as a disaster. And the most despised legislation in recent American history. Asked whether he sees any contradiction between his outspoken opposition to Obamacare and his families in enrollment. He said the law forces members of Congress to sign up. Like millions of other American families, he said, we object to this expensive liberty-attacking mandate. It's true that members of Congress who want to take advantage of health benefits offered through their employment or the federal government must use plans offered through a government-run exchange in the District of Columbia. But that's not the whole story. Hulestand could have foregone coverage completely or shun the exchange and purchased a family health plan directly from a private broker. Representative Lewis Gohmert. Republican Texas. Gohmert Pyle? Yeah. Decided to go without health care insurance rather than sign up for Obamacare. Jackass. Yeah, because it's probably rich. Some other lawmakers have said they would go through the private market to avoid exchange. Representative Frank Lobiondo. They can afford to go through the private market. Of New Jersey. And Representative Diane Black of Tennessee, both Republican. That's why they're being all independent about it. But purchasing insurance on the private market would mean that Hulestand, a married father of four, would have to forego the employer contribution that the government offers to offset the cost of the members premium. Oh, that's really going to set them back there. They're going to end up in the poor house. Give me a break. That contribution could be worth nearly $1,000. Listen, I know for a fact, I know a small to moderate, low-established middle-class business owner that's paying about four or five hundred a month for a moderately decent health insurance plan. You mean to tell me these crooks can't afford to pay for top of the line privatized health insurance? All these public servants should be paying for their own health insurance privately. They can afford it. That would be $1,000 per month. I don't know what top of the line cost, but I'm sure these people can afford it. Of course they can afford it. But they're not going to do that if they don't want to pay it. Yeah, like Chris Christie and his wife supposedly are worth $17 million, I hear. Might be more now. And he's making, being governor, even though he travels most of the time, he's making about the same as the Congress, $175,000 a year. You mean to tell me he can't pay $1,000 a month for his own health insurance? No, no, no, no. Come on. Anyway, continue. Can you salary for a rank and file a member of Congress is $174,000 a year? Yeah, not counting perks and... And some members have said they will use exchanges to purchase health care, but... Rives. ...planned to return the federal contribution money to the U.S. Treasury. Oh, yeah, boy. Hughes Camp spokesman did not immediately respond to a request to clarify whether Hughes Camp had accepted federal dollars to help pay for his premium, because there are subsidies involved. I believe... I would... No, actually, I was gonna say I would believe a car dealer before a politician, but I'm not too sure about that. Anyway. He's a beauty. Let's look under the hood. Kick the tire. Kick the tire. Kick the tire. The U.S. Representative Aaron Shock, who last week announced he is resigning, says he has reimbursed the government for all the mileage he has claimed since he was elected to Congress in 2008. Really? A spokesman for the embattled Illinois Republican said that Shock, age 33, has reimbursed all the money. Oh, Republican is Republican. Received for official mileage since his election. The move came after an analysis of government documents and Shock campaign finance record showed that from January 2010 through June 30th, 2014, Shock was reimbursed $90,000 for putting about 171,000 miles on his personal vehicle. Well, I would be very shocked if Shock reimbursed anything. Any of the taxpayers' money. But when Shock sold his only vehicle, a Chevrolet Tahoe...  In July 2014, it had about 81,860 miles on it.  Oh, same thing. Far less. Cheap bastard or... than the miles for which Shock was reimbursed. Federal and state laws required that the owner report mileage when transferring ownership. Earlier this year, Shock repaid $40,000 for controversial redecorating work said to mimic the set of TV's downtown alley. Abbey, excuse me. He had done it on his Capitol Hill office. The Justice Department has begun investigating Shock's congressional expenses and business dealings. That's why he's resigning. Okay? He got caught. He got caught.  You know, they just get all humble. But who knows if they did not get caught if they would continue...  They would. The in-depth... we still have some time. All right, because the in... I'm going to blow my stack if it happens. The in-depth attempt... Go out there. at an explanation of the relationship between business and government deserves kudos. And a round of applause for exposing the chummy relationship between our elected officials and the corporate fat cap. Right. Involvement by the states and local officials sends up red flags to homeowners constantly seeing an increase in their property taxes. If corporations can entice the states and the towns with promises to develop dormant or fallow properties and win huge tax giveaways, residential property owners should be part of the deal and also reap some benefit. That's not the case in Hackensack, New Jersey. With many development plans in the works, homeowners were recently told by the mayor that they would never see lower taxes. Really? Well, but the corporations do. 60% of corporations don't pay any taxes at all. Yeah, and how come nobody shouts that out to the politicians when they make that statement? So how do the politics of development survive? By apathy. And by having elections in May, instead of November. You hear that? It's time to discuss the relationship between government and business.  I told Sasha Boyle. I posted it on the Uncensored Hard-Hitting Truth Facebook group. I said, you know what would be nice? What would work? If law enforcement officers and federal agents would get bonuses for investigating and arresting, taking down bad crooked cops and bad federal agents. I think we had to pay them off. Bonuses. Didn't we have a guy some time ago called FBI called Elliott Ness? Yeah, they made a TV series about him. Well, that's what he did. That was his job. To take down the big guy. Like in other words, instead of these worthless CEOs getting bonuses, why not give FBI agents, police officers, etc. They are public employees. If they see corruption in their own police force, excuse me, they get a bonus for busting the bad boys. A big bonus. But according to the Republicans, it is our public sector people who are causing all of these problems. Really? Therefore, you don't want to give them more money. What is Scott Walker doing to the teachers, the firemen, the police, etc., in his Wisconsin? Did you imagine how fast Scott Walker and Chris Christie and their ilk would get nailed if federal agents or state police on the cover, police would get bonuses for getting, for digging, for finding dirt on these high-level politicians, finding dirt, flushing out the skeletons out of their closet, arresting them, convicting them. They'd be flushed out of their jobs. No, no. Not by the... No, in other words... In other words, what you're trying to do... The United States would, on a federal level, have to be the one to offer the bonuses for bringing down corruption. It's not the bonuses that have the problem here. The problem is... Well, how do you get a cop on regular salary to bust another crooked cop? Well, you gotta pay him. You gotta pay him a commission. Don't you understand what I'm saying? The people on the top are in charge. They will not let it happen. You have to change the system. So they... There is no way around that where an FBI agent, agents would be sent in to investigate Scott Walker. Who's gonna send them in? The president. Have it secretly. Send them in to investigate. But the president is not in charge of the FBI, per se. There's a guy that leads the FBI. There's a guy that leads the CIA. There's a guy that leads the... Well, the president... Is the president the commander and chief of the... Yeah, but he doesn't control everything. Of the Pentagon? He doesn't control everything. He doesn't control the Pentagon either? When he wants to send troops out to go to war, there's a commission of Congress. Right, he's not a dictator, of course. But what you are doing is you are saying, I want the little guy to be in charge. It ain't gonna happen. I'm talking about real life superheroes. I'm talking about bugging people. I'm talking about using high technology surveillance. I'm talking about bringing down governors that are crooked. You're talking about whistleblowers. And what are they doing to whistleblowers? They should be paying them bonuses, not the CEOs. But who's gonna pay them these bonuses? Their bosses? So that they will uncover the bosses' corruption?  The head of the FBI should not be in cohoots with people like Rick Scott or Scott Walker. You know what I mean? They should be a separate entity. They are not independent. Nothing is independent. That's why they won't send anybody in. That's why they won't pay the bonuses. Because if they did, my system would work. Never mind what Bill said. My system would work. There are a lot of people in police and etc. that would do the right thing without bonuses. But it can't be done. It can't be done because you want Beezlebub to do what he wants. He's in charge! Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit! It can be done. Keep hope alive, like Jesse Jackson used to say. Yes, there is hope alive for changing the system. Why do you deny this?  He doesn't even involve salary. It involves his job. He won't do it. Because his job will be at stake. He'll be gone. Why does it have to be a civil suit against a bad cop? Why can't it be because... Because the criminals... The grand juries won't do it. They will not... Do you know what would happen if... Then they're corrupt. Of course they're corrupt! Oh my God, ladies and gentlemen! He just found out that the whole goddamn system... The goddamn... This damn...  Look, I'm a liberal. Don't get me wrong. I'm a progressive. But I'm not, like, so far to the goddamn left that I have apathy about taking action.  You know what I mean? You gotta know what the bull you're taking by the horns! Yeah, by fun ghoul. Listen... And it's not making bonuses. It's changing the system! How do you get somebody to do their job better? You pay them. You pay them extra. Oh really, boy? Gee, the CEOs are making a lot of money. Are they doing their jobs better?  Well, how can you be? You just said that this is how to do it. I'm talking about whistleblowing receiving a commission to do whistleblowing. Change the system. You are putting the card before the horse. Too much to the right is no good. No, it has nothing to do with that. Too much to the left is no good. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with you coming up with some ideal situation which does not exist. So ideal situations will... Your book will not work. Yeah, when you change the system! Why can't you get this through your head? No need to tell me. If you cannot start a task force of undercover federal agents or cops that investigate political corruption by offering them bonuses. Who's going to start it? I just said we had Elliott Ness. Where's the Elliott Ness's today? Why did they disappear? Ah! Corruption! That's why they disappeared. The corrupt are in charge. Alright, alright, alright. I'll be just going to sit around and wait for the second coming of Jesus to do absolutely nothing. Alright, we're going to break. Why do you keep saying that it is nothing? Change the system! I don't believe in... I don't believe in passivism. Why do you keep doing this? I don't believe in passivism. Changing the system has nothing to do with passivism. I believe sometimes you got to... Change the system! How many times do I got to say it? Take up arms. Vote. That would put the same type of people back into power. Well, actually, you know what? God could do that today. He ain't. Bezo Bob is still in charge. Well, you don't believe in the death penalty so that makes you more to the left than me. What does that have to do with changing the system? Because I'm trying to figure out why you're bucking a simple plan that will entice... The plan will work. ...agents and law enforcement officers... The plan won't work. ...to go beyond. The plan won't work until the system is changed. Why are you constantly against changing the system? I bet I... It's wrong! Did you ever hear of special elite task forces? They have them... The bad guys have... You keep doing it. You keep doing it. You know what? I do have a bit of idealism in me. Yes, I think things can be done if the right people are in control. If they're... Yeah, bingo! Changing the system! So if they're done right, done right doesn't mean... You know what you're fucking? What you're trying to say is... What's the right people in power? What you're trying to say is giving big bonuses to federal agents and cops won't make them whistle-blowing right out their own people? Forget about it. Why don't you ask... Why don't you go and ask some other people? If this will work... This guy is incredible! This will work in the corrupt system we have. It won't. And it has nothing to do with me or my ideas or I'm left the right or in between. So you mean to tell me there's nobody in Washington that is nice and honest enough to start a program like this, a whistle-blowing for bonuses, for payoffs? Keep pushing it, okay? That's all I'm going to tell you. Nobody's going to work. It ain't going to work. Because you have to change the system.  Right? But he would have got fired from his boss. Who is in charge? Let me tell you something. Snowden was not in charge. Let me tell you something, bosses that are in charge. Here we go. If you have a boss that's in charge and you tell the truth under the Constitution of the First Amendment, he should not be able to fire you for telling the truth. But he does! But that ain't fair.  So what are you supposed to do? In other words, if you work for... We have the Constitution, we add slavery. In other words, if somebody worked for Nestle's and somebody said in the cafeteria, you know what, it's not right that our CEO wants to control all the drinking water of the world. It's not right. And then he finds out and he fires a guy. That guy, by right, should not be fired. Well, of course, he disagrees with the CEO of a company.  You can fire me because... The CEO is in charge.  When the king is in charge, you do it.    You know... What was that? It's the same thing with MSNBC pussies. They don't say what they really want to say as real journalists. They... Because they ain't real journalists.  Racial matter. There's a lot of talking, but she could do more talking if she wanted to. Anyway, Ed Schultz too. We're going to be joined now by How to Defeat a Conservative and William H. Morrill III with a special message from both. Very special message from How to Defeat a Conservative and William H. Morrill III, our commercial voiceover artist.  Hi, I'm William Morrill. Wake up, people, because the truth is often, very often, a very, very hard pill to swallow. Hi, this is William H. Morrill. The best way to join our organization is to get your free annual subscription to Newsletter Censored with your gift to support this work. The newsletter of Hard-Hitting Truth and News Fighting Censorship in Conservative Propaganda since 1977. There is nothing out there like the newsletter censored in the mainstream media or the press. This newsletter is the very best way to join and be a part of our organization. We're living the end times, so you need Newsletter Censored. Go to www.newslettercensored.com. For the real Hard-Hitting Truth, you need Newsletter Censored. And now, back to the show. Okay, we're back. Thank you very much, William H. Morrill III for promo and your words of wisdom and also you've viewed our debut of How to Defeat a Conservative in Biblical proof with the Scripture. All right. Let us sink our teeth into these readings. Now that Dr. Bill finished his lunch. While phasing out plastic microbeads is a victory for New Jersey, the battle is only half won. The legislation signed by Governor Christie this week defines synthetic plastic microbeads as any intentionally added non-biodegradable solid plastic particles. However, by including the word non-biodegradable, the personal care industry will be able to sneak biodegradable plastic such as polyelactic acids into toothpaste and scrubs to replace the current polypropylene plastic microbeads. Well, polypropylene is pretty tough. Formal plastic. Here's the catch. Bioplastics like polyelactic acids can decompose only in high heat environments such as composting facilities and thus would not decompose in New Jersey's waters or in the human body. Yeah. Hey, you know all those non-stick pans that people have that scratch and chip eventually? Well, if those flakes enter your body, they don't come out right away. They stay there for years. Or... I hear seven years. I've been doing marine life. Why? These plastic beads travel down the drain but are too tiny to be filtered through wastewater treatment plants and end up being discharged directly into our waterways. Hey, there's a humongous amount of garbage floating in the Pacific Ocean. There's this sludge, you know, from the... That's the main area there. British Petroleum... From Alden Junk. The Gulf of Mexico has the pollution from the BP oil spill. It's like a ring around a bathtub. The seafloor of the Gulf of Mexico is still contaminated. From there, the plastics act as a sponge. Absorbing harmful substances such as insecticides and industrial chemicals. Fish mistake these particles for food. And they potentially enter our food chain. Plastics of any type or size do not belong in toothpaste and exfoliating products. The abundance of natural alternatives are available to replace plastic. You mean common toothpaste? Common toothpaste! No, I'm going to use hydrogen peroxide from now on. I'm not buying any more toothpaste from the store. What is plaque anyway? It's bacteria, right? Plac is, yes, it's solidified. Plac halitose, it was a bad breath, is from bacteria, right? So, you know, peroxide kills it on contact. Plus it'll whiten your teeth. Change of pace. I make no secrets that I am not a fan of kids. I feel you. I can identify with that. I don't want a baby sick. I don't want kids of my own. I don't think kids of any age are cute. I definitely don't want to hold them. Well, they're cute if you're visiting them, but if you have to live with them and take care of them and deal with their tantrums and everything, a different story. Those last two items are causing me trouble. See, many of my friends and relatives are spawning. Inevitably, I wind up looking at pictures of their offspring and are going to see the newborn critter. This person's funny. This person's funny. You know what?  I can usually put on a smile and pretend I'm enjoying myself for a short time. How cute. How adorable. People often ask two questions. I have no idea how to answer. The first question is some variation of is a little so-and-so cute? How adorable. The second is, do you want to hold this so-and-so? No, no, especially if the diaper is loaded. Especially if the diaper is loaded. I don't find their kids cute and I don't want to hold them. But how do I say that gently? No, thank you. That's as gentle as I could think of. I would say, quote, about the grouchy, commander-in-chief of baby-sitters and baby-haters W.C. Fields.  Do you bother me? Anyone who hates dogs and children can't be old, man. Didn't he have a flask of whiskey in his jacket? He had a cherry nose. He had that bright, like Rudolph. Rosacea.  Perhaps if you had this printed on a t-shirt to wear in the presence of babies and their parents, you wouldn't be invited to interact with them. However, if the worst happens and you are ambushed and confronted with a baby, here's how you respond to the cuteness question. You turn away and say, yeah, yeah, he's cute, he's cute, he's cute. No, thank you. I don't want to hold him. Isn't baby Sophie cute? If you say so. Answer. I've never seen anything like her.   Of course she was ugly. When someone asks if you want to hold the baby, you can say, no, I don't think so. I have some idea of where that baby has been. You know, people in general, and this goes for parents too, the way they interact with their children. People have to just not feel guilty and bad about saying no. No, thank you. Well, that was a good answer. Is the baby, you think the baby's cute? I've never seen anything like her. Never. Not even in Madagascar. Oh, man. Anyway. My fiance, Jerry, has a daughter-in-law who flashes both of us intimate parts of her body. She's a beautiful woman. She flashes both of us intimate parts of her body. She's a grown woman. She's a daughter-in-law. She flashes the...  He's the one she's flashing at. Both of them. Both of them. One of those, huh? At a recent gathering, she went down to the floor. Two feet away from where Jerry was sitting and gave us both a full view up her dress. This is like a public family affair. There was a group of people there. And you mean she's lifted her dress? She went down on the floor. Like a spread eagle kind of a thingy, maybe? I don't know the position.  She did it deliberately. I thought the time one of her breasts popped out of her blouse was a wardrobe malfunction. Oops. Oh, yeah. One of the Super Bowls was a Janet Jackson accidently. Oops. I no longer feel that way. There's a pattern here. Jerry is a pushover. He doesn't say anything. That's kind of embarrassing, man. He just runs away from it. Yeah, but in front of family and all that? I'm afraid things will only get worse. She must be trying to run me off. Maybe. What's next?  I can't think of any other reason for her behavior. Jerry has decided to not go on vacation with them this year because of this. Jerry is doing what he can for us to avoid being around her, but he has a one-year-old granddaughter he adores to consider. What do you think is going on? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Monkey see monkey do. Who? Now I'm saying the... Who's the daughter emulating? The daughter law. No, I'm just saying. You said they have a child? There's a one-year-old granddaughter which Jerry likes. Yeah. So he doesn't want to cut ties so he can't see the one-year-old granddaughter. Or you don't want the one-year-old granddaughter to be witnessing this type of behavior either, right? I don't know if she was involved. Answer. I think the daughter-in-law either has no sense of modesty or she's an exhibitionist who enjoys shocking people.  If the son delivers the message to his wife, it should not cause a family rift. Exhibitionist or she's trying to keep her mother-in-law away. I have been listening to the U.S. House Democrats object to the fact that House and Senate Republicans want cuts in necessary domestic problems such as Medicaid, Medicare, and aid to crime victims. Everything to benefit the people. Meanwhile, the supposedly fiscally prudent Republicans want to increase U.S. defense spending. Even though the United States spent $640 billion on defense in 2013. Not to mention corporate subsidies. The country spending the second-most amount of money is China. At $166 billion. Talking about the military budget? Yeah. Oh, China's given up for something. What about the United States? Worse. Jesus. Like the guy in India I was playing chess with last night. Why does the United States feel it has to be all around the world? This is the guy who lives in India. Yeah. He had a very legitimate question. No kidding. Very intelligent. I am a legitimate answer. Corporations. That's why. Read. Yeah. Read. To me. Yeah. It's true. It appears that the United States is either not utilizing its defense spending wisely or has misguided concepts at what it needs to spend on defense. I believe in a strong defense. But to spend as much as the United States does seems to indicate either a bloated defense budget or a military attempting too many functions. One would think that the House and the Senate Republicans would be as demanding of the defense budget as they are of spending for domestic problems. Not only have conservatives made the United States a laughing stock of the world, but also a great embarrassment. Well, here's the thing. You know, I can't, I can't, when people from other countries ask questions like that or say things like that, I have to, if they're telling the truth, I have to agree with them. It's an embarrassment. Now, some flag waving inbred hick, some tea bagger from the lives down yonder.   He's against America.  America's exceptionalism. Yeah.  We're getting back, we're getting back to perception. I mean, if somebody is wrong, they're wrong in my book, unless they prove themselves right. Yes, but unfortunately, the hardest thing for a person to do is unlearn something that is wrong. Okay? Well, I guess there's only one hope for people that are absolutely impossible. You know what I mean? You've got to do what you've got to do, brother. Now, I forgot what I was going to say. I had something very important. You digressed. I digressed right off the road. All right. House Republicans launched a boldly conservative 10-year budget on Tuesday. Boldly conservative, let me guess. Cutting everything away from the poor. That would favor the Pentagon, partially privatize Medicare, and rely on deep cuts in other social programs in a bid to wipe out deficits at the end of the decades. Social programs to wipe out deficits. That's correct. Not corporate welfare. That's one percent. One percent of the total budget is for the little guy. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Most of it is for the military and corporate welfare. Fifty-seven percent. But that's not the fiscal plan to deal with the deficit. It's starving off the little guy. That's the secret Republicans have. Capitalism in a conch shell. Corruption also in a conch shell. What I was going to say before when I forgot was that all this mule that the United States spends on the Pentagon and the military, et cetera. The United States won its last war in World War II. It has not won a war since. With all that money going on, all these weapons of mass destruction and whatever. World War II was also the last time the United States freedom was threatened. World War II. A legitimate reason to declare war. You know what I mean? Instead of just trying to steal somebody's oil. Or poppies. Poppies. Remember that from the Wizard of Oz? Poppy flowers. Get it? Afghanistan. Well, there you go. Afghanistan. Eleven years war, the longest war in American history. And what did we gain out of it? Poppies. Zero. Zero.  And what about the collateral damage of civilians? Civilian casualties? Same thing in Iraq. Complained that Saddam Hussein killed 20,000 people or whatever.    And now the United States is sorry for aiding Saddam Hussein? Well, they're not sorry because it's part of the spending for the Pentagon, the military. It doesn't matter. It's business, baby. So everything with capitalism is business before, even if it's ill-gotten gains. It doesn't matter. Republicans like any way to make a buck. As long as you make a buck, you're satisfied with it. You can do no wrong because a buck... Sounds like a certain... Equals success. Sounds like a certain group of people, I know. A buck equals success. A buck equals success. Money equals worth. No matter how you make it. That's correct. But... He who makes hate to be rich shall not be innocent. So how... Hold on. So how are they any different from the criminals they sent up the river? They sure arrested Bernard Madoff. They have the ability, like they did on Wall Street, under Clinton. They have the ability to change illegality into legality. Depending on who it is, right? Those in charge. They turn corruption into... See? Their pain. Bernard Madoff, he happens to steal from the 1%. So he got life in prison, right? He made off with the 1% money Bernard Madoff. No, can't do that. Can't do that. But if he were ripped off the middle class... He would still be in business. He would still be in business. Because they are ripping off the middle class. What are the taxpayers and the real consumers of the United States? The Republican plan also promised an overhaul of the federal tax code. Called for a repeal of two. Of President Obama's top legislative achievements, Obamacare, and a measure enacted to crack down on Wall Street to the economy's near collapse in 2008. They don't want to crack down on Wall Street, do they? Of course not. They gutted the Dodd-Frank bill. They wouldn't elect Elizabeth Warren to be the head of that program to go after Wall Street. Republicans said their balanced budget promise came with no tax increases. Though the fine print assumes the expiration of about $900 billion in breaks for business research and development and other items. It is a plan that balances the budget. In 10 years, secures and strengthens vital programs like Medicare, said House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price. Projected spending for the budget year that begins October 1 was $3.8 trillion. Rising to $5 trillion in 2020. Obama countered Republican claims instantly. He said the GOP prescription is a failure to invest in education, infrastructure, and national defense. They always talk about education, infrastructure. Not everybody has kids in school. Not everybody's thinking about... I mean, there are other things too, spending money. These things, great jobs. Bernie Sanders.  The people who aren't skilled for those jobs. Let people go and do that. Go up high there and freaking... How can they do that if there's no money behind it?  I'm sure it wasn't a glamorous occupation when Mr. George Washington was at Valley Torch. No, it was... But he did it. That was a bit shilling, isn't it? Yeah. But he did it. All the things we need to grow, to create jobs, to stay at the forefront of innovation and to keep our countries safe. We got to have jobs in the U.S. to get into it. That's where you get the jobs, from infrastructure, from education. God is helping. Oh my God. What about discouraging many of the jobs that are outsourced now by perhaps tariffing the products as they come back to U.S. ports? That requires a law. Who's going to put it in effect? Actually, that kind of a law is very similar to the law we used to have when the rich pay like 91% tax rate. The United States used before it had an income tax. That's how it got its money. From tariffs. Tariffs? Because people wanted to sell their products in the United States. Today they don't. We want to sell our products in China. So in other words, the consumer to the top 1% or 20% is no longer just the American people. It's international, international sales. So we're the priority of bringing products all here.  So it's global. The global economy. The bigger economy out there than over here. Well, the progressives tax system must originally go back to the way it was. But I don't see Democrats changing that either. It was like we talked about. The Democrats had control of Washington in the first two years Obama took office. And there was no universal single payer healthcare put in. There was no raising taxes on the rich. Such and such. What does that tell you? The party system is totally corrupt. They weren't priorities. Because maybe these people are marrying in puppets. Not the maybe. What do you mean maybe? They don't want to ruffle the feathers of somebody on puppets. Throwing them cash. That's great. They cannot do that. Because then the cash flow will end, right? They are corrupt. Yes, of course it will end. And they will be all for science. And without a job. Well, then they just have to be independents like Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders as an independent needs money too. Okay, I talk. We're not changing the system. In other words, if Jesse Ventura runs under the Libertarian Party. He's going to need big moolah from somebody, right? That's correct. That's correct. That's the way the system works. And when Ralph Mader ran under the Green Party.  That's correct. So all these people that are running. They didn't have enough to be on television all over the United States, did they? Was he? Because he only got 207,000 votes. I don't think he was even invited to the presidential debate. He was not debating, no. Debates. That's correct. The Republicans and Democrats have sewn up the debates. The League of Women Voters don't run the debates anymore, right? No, they don't. The fairness doctrine is also not in place. Thank you, Ronald Reagan. I'm trying to think of her name. I think she's on Channel 2. I know, she's on Local New York News. When Chris Christie debated Barbara Bono at William Patterson College. Christine Johnson. Very attractive, slim, mixed race girl. Very pretty. And right at the beginning, she attacked Barbara Bono. So I'm wondering, being that she's from a major network, news team, that there was some corporatist's force behind that. Because why would a woman, considering the wicked evil track record of Chris Christie, why would a female go after a female Democrat? Being that Democrats have women's interests at heart. Especially, you know, a female Democrat. Okay. She went after, tried to make her look bad right at the beginning. You know, you'll see it. Anybody watches the debate from William Patterson College. It's on YouTube. You'll see how Christine Johnson just attacked Barbara Bono. And it was, it sounded unfair. It was like, oh, what is your solution? What is your plan? You haven't answered me. What is your plan? She explained everything in detail throughout the debate. Oh, she had a plan. Of course she had a plan. Does Chris Christie have a plan? Yeah, to raise the taxes on the poor in the middle class and give tax breaks to the rich. The reverse, the reverse Robin Hood, right? That's his plan, yes. That's his plan. Yeah, it's a plan. I didn't say it was a nice, good plan.  The starving sea lion pup was so tiny that it looked like a rock at the base of the seaside cliff until it struggled to raise its head as humans approach. Yeah, they're pretty cute. Bleeded weekly as volunteer Brennan Slavik eased it into a crate for transport to a rescue center where it peered from a child's playpen with woeful eyes made enormous by an emaciated frame. It probably was nursing. It might have been at nursing age. At almost a year, the pup weighed just 23 pounds, a third of what it should. A staff quietly took it to a private room, euthanized it, and moved on. That's it? Euthanized it? It's a scenario playing out daily in California this year as rescue centers struggle to keep up with hundreds of sick and starving sea lion pups washing up along the coast. How much effort does it take to treat the wounds and get a bottle of formula and feed the pup and let it suckle?  It was starved. Huh? It was starved. Stick a bottle on its mouth. There comes a point. Let it suckle. There comes a point in starvation where you can't feed anymore. You mean up no return? You mean the systems? Everything shut down. Vital systems are shutting down? So even if you shove food in its gut? Like a human. Let's just take a human and a human who's not really starving, not to that point, you can't feed it a steak. No. You have to feed it a gruel or something. Some kind of predigestive milkshake, you know, a liquid meal. Something easy. And I don't mean insure or ultra-slim fats. I mean a medically, from a zoologically prepared veterinary formula. More than 1,650 pups have been rescued. Right. It's not unusual to have some sea lions wash up each spring as the pups leave their mommies. But so far the number of stranded babies is more than five times greater than in 2013, the worst season on memory. These animals are coming in really desperate. They're at the end of life. They are in a crisis. Oh, I should say so. They're not sure what's causing the crisis, but suspect that warmer waters from this winter's mild El Nino weather pattern are affecting the sea lion birthing rounds along the Channel Islands off the southern California coast. The warm water is likely pushing prime sea lion foods, markets squid and sardines and anchovies further north, forcing the mothers to abandon their pups for up to eight days at a time in search of food. Is there a male sea lion keeping an eye on the pups? Well, you can't feed them. No, I gotta wait for the mom, I guess. The pups are weaning themselves early out of desperation and setting out on their own despite being on their way and ill-prepared to hunt. The Mines would not normally start showing up in large numbers until April or May. But this year, rescue centers began to get calls in December. They're leaving with a very low tank of gas. They're running out of fumes. And when they get over here, they're showing up on the beach basically starving to death. Oh well, that's it. That's a wrap. I just want to say for those of you that are wondering why we have a skull and a skeleton, it represents the end times, end time prophecy. Anyway, thank you for joining us for Uncensored Heart-Hitting Truth. We'll see you again in April, you know. It won't be April Fools, but we'll leave that up to other people. Yeah, yeah, it'll be April. So take care, have a good weekend and a good week. Bye-bye.


Before I begin, I want to shout out to my friend Maxim, who made my new YouTube banner. He does amazing photoshop art and graphics, and I'll put a link to his Instagram below. Southeastern Europe has always interested me. In fact, my interest in Bosnia and Herzegovina led me to my current infatuation with the rest of the world and its politics and history. But today I'm talking about a different Balkan country, Albania. Also one of my favorites, its eventual turn to Islam in history is one of the more overlooked events in European history. But today I will answer why Albania, along with much of southeastern Europe, retains a large Islamic population. Where was Albania's religious affiliation before its Islamization anyways? Like most of Europe and the Roman Empire, the people adhered to local pagan faiths. Christianity eventually became the main religion by the 4th century AD in much of Roman Europe. Despite retaining Christianity's the dominant faith, much of Albania was part of the Byzantine Empire several times, but also fell under the control of states like Venice, giving the country a unique position at the border of the east-west schism. As a result, much of the north of the country, which Venice controlled, maintains a Catholic majority population, while in the south and east, an Orthodox majority population remains, where the Byzantine influence was the strongest. So yes, Albania was a Christian nation before its conversion to Islam. But how did this conversion take place? One simple answer, the Ottoman Empire. But the means is not as simple to explain. The Byzantine Empire was struggling to survive in the 2nd millennium AD, and the Ottoman Turks were not aiding them. Though the Byzantines were able to hold on to Constantinople after much of their European territory, including Albania, was lost by the 14th century. That city fell too in 1453, officially marking the end of the empire. The Ottomans could now fully focus their attention to Europe and the Islamization of their new territories. In some areas it was successful, including Eastern Thrace, which now holds a Turkish majority population, and among the peasant populations of Bulgaria and Bosnia. Yet in Albania, only the Christian elite population converted to Islam, so they could retain their power and money in the new Ottoman society. One of these men was Skanderbey, one of the most well-known Albanian historical figures. Despite this, later in life he reverted to Christianity and led a revolt of Christian Albanians in the north of the country. In fact, several revolts of Christian Albanians occurred throughout the 15th to 19th centuries. Many Christians, including Pope Clement IX himself an Albanian, tried to stop the Islamization of Albania, though it was clear these efforts were futile, as many Christian Albanians ended up fleeing to southern Italy in fear of persecution. Like the rest of the Ottoman Empire, Islamic citizens had higher status than those who were of other faiths. As I mentioned, methods of persecution were used against Christians to try to speed up the Islamization of southeastern Europe. Their efforts were met with varying degrees of success, with places like Serbia having very low Muslim populations today, but for the Albanian population it was a bit more successful. The Albanians are a unique ethnic group, much different from the surrounding Slavic population, but also different from their Greek neighbors. This difference may have contributed to the swiftness of Islamization in their country, due to their uniqueness. In fact, because of the conversion of Albanians to Islam, many of them held high-ranking positions in the Balkan territories of the Ottoman Empire, despite their nation's small size. However, like all empires, the Ottomans completely fell apart in 1918, with Albania becoming independent in 1912. Unlike Balkan counterparts Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece, whose Muslim population to a large degree moved to the newly created Turkish Republic, Islam remained the majority religion of the Albanian population, both in Albania and Yugoslavia. However, the repressive communist regime of Enver Hoja and similar dictators threatened anyone who practiced religion in the country, and now Christians and Muslims were both equally oppressed by the anti-theist government in place. Despite this, religion has prevailed through the country, even if the population of Albania today is not super-observant about the religions they profess. Today in Albania, 59% of the population is Muslim, 10% is Catholic, 7% is Orthodox, totaling 17% Christian, with the other 24% either being undeclared or non-religious. In Kosovo, an Albanian majority state. Islam is professed by 88% of the population, and in North Macedonia, Islam is practiced by 29% of the population, many being Albanian. And hopefully more than 29% of you have made it to the end, and if you did, please like, subscribe, and share this video with all your friends. Also, please click the link to Maxim's Instagram page to see what digital art he can make for you today. It's been a pleasure making this video, and I appreciate all your support in helping me on this long road so that one day, soon, I can get 1,000 subscribers. So until next time, this has been Mac.


Welcome to What's Next in AI, a seminar series presented by IBM Research in which we spend time with some of our top scientists and researchers learning about the exciting work they're doing and then have an opportunity for a bit of a discussion with them to get into some more of the details as well as think through some of the business applications of their work. I'm Shaheen Parks and today we'll be speaking with Dr. Sumia Ghosh. Dr. Ghosh is a research scientist at the MIT IBM Watson AI Lab within IBM Research. His research is broadly focused on statistical machine learning and he holds a PhD from Brown University. Dr. Ghosh has talked today is about a form of model criticism, assessing the impact of modeling decisions on final output. He'll talk about both how to measure that impact as well as how to use that measurement to evaluate the robustness of your model. Essentially, putting eyes on the influence some of your early choices have on your final results, allowing you to make an informed decision about how to handle that influence. Before I hand it over to Dr. Ghosh, I'd like to encourage our live audience to please drop any questions or comments that you have in the chat and we'll incorporate them into our discussion after Dr. Ghosh's talk. With that, Sumia, take it away. All right, so thank you for that introduction, Shaheen and thank you all for joining us today. As Shaheen mentioned, today I'll talk about some of our recent work on studying the effects of modeling assumptions and statistical data analysis and their results. Let's begin with a motivating example. Let's say we are interested in predicting the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as a function of time. One might be interested in such forecasts for several reasons, including the implications of such forecasts on climate, on future climate. The plot above, the plot here shows the average monthly carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere recorded at the monolow observatory in Dubai. The data stretches from the late 1950s to the present day, but I'm only showing you a subset of the data up till the year 2003. Based on this historical data, can we predict carbon dioxide concentrations? The answer to this question is obviously yes, yes you can and you can, you may even be able to use off-the-shelf statistical models and tools for making such forecasts. But any such prediction requires assumptions. Assumptions about the data, assumptions about the model and assumptions about the procedures used to learn such models from the data. A national question then is to ask whether the results of such an analysis are robust to the various assumptions that we have made along the way. Or would the results change substantially under innocuous perturbations to the modeling assumptions? That is when the modeler creates in one set of assumptions for another equally probable set. If under such perturbations, the results change drastically or substantially, then one should perhaps not trust the results of the analysis at all. As an example of what such a substantially different prediction might be, consider the carbon dioxide prediction problem again. The predictions from this model are shown in black. As it turns out, the model's predictions itself are a little bit too optimistic. Reality was much worse. In green, you can see the actual observed carbon dioxide levels over the same period and time. In particular, before being breached in 2015, sorry in 2019, carbon dioxide levels had not exceeded the 415 parts per million level since the mid-pliasing era, some 3 to 3.5 million years ago. For a scientist back in the early 2000s, analyzing forecasts for the year 2019 or 2020, predictions exceeding this threshold of 415 parts per million could reasonably have constituted a substantial change from the actual predictions provided by the model. So this is one example of what a substantially different prediction might be, but as you can well appreciate, the definition of a substantially different prediction changes from application to application, and it's very application-dependent. There needs to be done on a case-by-case analysis. In this talk, we'll focus on tools for assessing robustness to modeling assumptions in a particular analysis. These tools are a type of model criticism and set after the model selection step in the typical modeling workflow. So the rest of this talk is going to focus on model criticism on this bit, on this bit of the typical modeling workflow. We'll further restrict our attention to model perturbations in a particular class of models, guessing processes, guessing processes or GPs are flexible statistical models that provide accurate predictions, as well as useful uncertainties, and are widely used for modeling spatial temporal data, especially when that data is low to medium dimensional, just like our carbon dioxide prediction problem. It's ideally suited for that sort of a problem. In a bit more detail, a GP defines a distribution of a function. In the one-dimensional case, you can think of a sample from a guessing process as this squiggly magenta line shown in the paper here. So this guy is a function that I've sampled from a particular guessing process. The GP itself is completely specified by a mean function and a covariance kernel. The covariance kernel is a key modeling choice and will be the focus of our reverse analysis. The importance of covariance kernels stem from the fact that they, in quote, prior beliefs about functions preferred by a guessing process. For example, depending on the choice of the kernel, GP could prefer smooth functions, rough functions, or functions with other kinds of properties like local periodicity. This kind of local periodicity is also important for the carbon dioxide example, as you saw from the data that we already have seen. So while there are results out there which guarantee that the mean predictions of a guessing process are independent of the choice of the kernel, if we have infinite amounts of data, we do not live in that scenario. In practice, we never have infinite amounts of data. In the finite data limit, it turns out that the choice of the kernel function really matters. For example, here are predictions from GPs with the three different kernels that we saw in the previous slide, fit to the same set of six observations. As you can see, both the uncertainties shown in the shaded blue regions here and the mean predictions vary dramatically between the kernels. Guessing process kernels just need to be carefully designed or learned from the data and must really be probed for robustness. Do they change the results of the analysis drastically if the choice of the kernel changes just a little bit? To assess the robustness to kernel choice, we pose the following question. How much do we need to perturb the chosen kernel to produce a substantially different prediction? If it turns out that we need to perturb the kernel by a large amount to the extent that the new kernel now encodes very different priorities from the original kernel, then maybe there isn't as much to worry about. We simply need to reason about which set of priorities are more appropriate for the task at hand. If, on the other hand, it turns out that we need to perturb the kernel very little and the perturbed kernel encodes essentially the same priorities as the original kernel, but produces significant substantially different predictions, then the results of the analysis should be up for questioning and perhaps your analysis is not as robust as you'd like it to be and we need to redo the analysis from scratch. Okay, so to answer the robustness question we just posed, we are going to propose a recipe. The recipe involves two steps. Given the original kernel, step one involves specifying an epsilon neighborhood around it and searching this neighborhood for a kernel that causes the predictions to change substantially. If you fail to find such a kernel, we grow the neighborhood by just a little bit and repeat the process till eventually we find a neighborhood denoted here by gamma epsilon, which is large enough and contains the alternate kernel K1, which produces the necessary change in predictions that we're looking for. We're going to express this whole thing more formally as an optimization problem. Now, after the step, we have this alternate kernel K1. Step two involves evaluating whether K1 and K0 are qualitatively interchangeable. Do they capture the same prior beliefs that we had or do they capture very different priorities? So the overall recipe is very simple. Given the original kernel, search in some neighborhood of that original kernel to find another kernel which produces the desired change in predictions, which produces substantially different predictions from the original kernel and then go back and evaluate whether these two kernels, the original kernel K0 and the alternate kernel K1, capture the same prior beliefs or not. If both of these things happen, then the analysis is not request and you need to revisit, revisit the problem. So let's now get a little bit more into the weeds and look at these steps in a little more detail. So the first step, we are required to specify a kernel neighborhood. Broadly, we have two desiderata for these kernel neighborhoods. The first is that they should capture any quantifiable prior belief we have about K1, the alternate kernel. For example, we might believe that K1 is stationary. In that case, we would want the neighborhood to be comprised of all stationary kernels within some distance of K1. Or we might have stronger prior beliefs still. For example, we might want the neighborhood to be comprised of all kernels that produce functions that are M times differentiable. Both of these things are possible and we can construct these neighborhoods to be restricted to these kind of sets. The second requirement really stems from the need to search these neighborhoods to find an alternate kernel K1. We want to be able to represent the neighborhood in a form that makes searching over them easy and efficient. So now with these two desiderata in mind, next we'll provide two concrete examples of neighborhoods which make minimal assumptions about the alternate kernel K1, but give us procedures that are amenable, that give us procedures which allow us to easily search over the neighborhoods. Other neighborhoods and parameterizations are certainly possible, but not explored here. Okay, so first let's assume that we believe the alternate kernel K1 is stationary. That is, the kernel output depends only on the difference of the inputs and not on the locations of those inputs. Then we can set the kernel neighborhood gamma to be the set of all stationary kernels and leverage existing theoretical networks. It turns out that we can represent stationary kernels in the spectral domain by their constituent frequencies. The big advantage of doing this, representing kernels by their constituent frequency, is that we can then search over this neighborhood by just solving a continuous optimization problem in the frequency space, subject to a closeness constraint shown here, which forces us to stay close to the original kernel K1. Okay, so stationarity is fine, but maybe it is too restrictive an assumption to make for the alternate kernel. I can certainly imagine cases where the alternate kernel should not be stationary. So in that case, we can relax this assumption and expand gamma to include both stationary and non-stationary kernels. Again, for this to be effective, we want it to be efficiently searchable. So for this, we rely on the observation that what may the inputs of a kernel per kernel produces valid kernels, which in general will not be stationary. So we use a neural network with weights w to parameterize a warping function, which takes the original inputs x and warps them, and then feeds them to the original kernel. Now searching over this expanded neighborhood just involves searching the parameter, learning the parameters of the neural network, which is again fairly standard. And we do this subject to a regularization constraint, which forces the original kernel to stay close to the alternate kernel. So here, so these were two concrete examples. The key takeaway from both of these examples is that we carefully parameterized the neighborhoods, the kernel neighborhoods, which allowed us to rephrase this difficult discrete search problem over kernels as a continuous optimization problem. The continuous optimization problem is both simpler thanks to monotonous differentiation tools and significantly more computationally efficient. Okay, so now that we have seen the overall recipe and the mechanics of constructing kernel labels, let's rebuild our carbon dioxide prediction example. It is literally a textbook example on how to carefully design Gaussian process kernels to capture trends in the data. It's taken from Rasmussen and Williams influential textbook, which came out in 2003. Their kernel is a composition of several kernels, each capturing a distinct trend observed in the data. So the first term here captures the long range smooth increasing trend in the data. The second term captures the near periodicity that we see in the data. The third term captures medium term irregularities, deviations from the structure that we have seen before. And the fourth and the fifth terms capture whatever was missed by the first three terms. In other words, they captured noise. Okay, so the book itself came out in 2004. The authors trained on data up till 2003. This is the reason we've only been looking at data up till 2003 and predicted forward over the next 20 years or so. I'm showing their prediction in black here. One thing to note is that the prediction is very reasonable in the sense that it captures the same sort of periodic structure that we saw in the training data. So the green periodic structure is reflected in the forecast here. And the predictive uncertainty is shown by the shaded gray region grow as we move farther away from the data. So this is again desirable to have the farther away into the future you try to forecast something, the more uncertainty forecast should be. That being said, we would now like to probe the robustness of these forecasts. Those minor perturbations to this particular kernel produce substantially different predictions. And if you recall from the early bit of the talk, substantially different predictions here would be predictions which exceed the threshold of the 415 dots per millimeter level. Okay, so to do this, we ran our procedure, our algorithm for detecting robustness using the non-stationary neighborhood kernel in red and discovered alternate kernel K1. In red are the predictions from that alternate kernel K1, which look just as plausible as the predictions from our original kernel shown in black, but exceed the 415 dots per million threshold. So they are substantially different according to our definition of substantially different. So now all that is left to do is we need to evaluate whether K1 and K0 encode the same prior beliefs. For this, we propose two tests, one quantitative and one qualitative. First, let's look at the quantitative evaluation. Here we use the two Washerstein distance to measure the distance between two Gaussian processes. We are going to conclude that the prior beliefs expressed by K0 and K1, the original kernel on the alternate kernel, are close if the distance between them is smaller than the distance between K0 and variance of K0 learn from slightly perturbed versions of the training data. For example, from bootstrap samples of the training data. For our example, the distance between K0 and K1 is shown by this red line here. And the distance between K0 and variance of K0, bootstrap variance of K0 are shown by this blue histogram here. Since the red line is significantly closer to zero than the blue histogram, we can conclude that the discovered kernel K1 is much closer and likely captures the same or very similar prior beliefs as K0. Next, since our data is low dimensional, we can do a qualitative check. We can visualize functions sampled from from Gaussian processes employing K0 and that employing K1 and assess qualitatively whether they capture the same qualitative characteristics of them. So here I'm showing you 10 noise mesh random functions sampled from the two Gaussian processes qualitatively looking at these figures, one would be hard pressed to say that K1 is expressing meaningfully different prior beliefs about preferred functions than K0. Okay, so let's recap. What did we learn about the monolow analysis? You were able to find an alternate kernel K1 that produced substantially different predictions. But the alternate kernel K1 also encodes essentially the same prior beliefs as K0. So by our definition of non robust analysis, this does fit that definition. It does produce drastically different predictions while encoding very similar prior beliefs. So we should probably not trust any of these results and deem the entire analysis not proposed. Okay, finally, this talk provided one example of analyzing robustness issues using Gaussian processes. If you'd like to learn more about this and see other examples, including higher dimensional ones, you can check out our paper on this, which is up on archive and is currently under review. This line of work for us, we emphasize the crucial role modeling assumptions play in any data analysis. In particular for Gaussian processes, we found that they can be very sensitive to the choices of the program. And although such sensitivity has long been suspected, our work provides the first practical tool to check for such issues in a data analysis of interest, perhaps your data analysis. And with that, I'll end and take up your questions. Thank you. Thanks, Sumiya. You've given us a lot to chew on there. And so I do want to move us into some discussion. And as a quick reminder to our live audience, please feel free to drop your questions in the chat and we will do our best to incorporate them. To get us started, Sumiya, I wanted to ask you a bit about setting the threshold value. It's from your talk that this whole analysis is predicated on a comparison to a threshold value. And in your example, somewhat natural fit in terms of picking a threshold value that represented a significant point in climate change, shall we say. So my question is, how do we generalize this? How could you pick a threshold value to make this sort of analysis useful for any particular case? Right. That's a great question, Shireen. So as much as we would like for there to be universal threshold value, a single threshold that works across problems and across domains, that just isn't the case. And these threshold values are inherently problem dependent. What we have found in practice is these thresholds naturally arise when you start thinking about what you're going to do with the predictions of your model. Typically, given the predictions of your model, you want to use them to make some decisions downstream. And it's often the case that if your predictions are in a certain range, you take decision A versus your predictions in a different range, you'll take decision B. So these kinds of predictions, changing decisions, give rise to these thresholds. They sort of naturally arise when you think about how will my decisions change based on the predictions of my model. That makes a lot of sense. Can you give us any examples of an alternate way to pick a threshold or a different situation? Right. So for one, if you look at the paper, we looked at an example of heart rate monitoring. So it turns out that the standard resting heart rate of an adult is around 130 beats per minute. Could be around 130 beats per minute. And you want to predict if the heart rate is going to change substantially over a period of time or not. So in that case, the 130 beats per minute turns out to be a natural threshold for these kinds of things. So often when you're making these kinds of predictions, there's some underlying value that you really care about. It's in the context of the particular application. And you as a practitioner would often care about a certain value of your predictions. And that's where these thresholds would typically show up. Yeah. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I can see why generalizing them would be a challenge. In another point that came up through your talk, you talked a bit about when making this comparison, doing it in a qualitative way and a quantitative way. And my question to you is, how would you pick? When would you use a qualitative comparison versus a quantitative one, which seems a little more precise? Right. So the short answer is, ideally you would do both. And sometimes you can't do both for a variety of reasons. So the quantitative comparison, while it might seem a little bit more precise, it doesn't really tell you whether it's capturing the same prior beliefs. It just gives you hints, right? Like, if two Gaussian processes are close, then they are likely capturing the same prior belief, but you can't really tell if that is the case till you do the qualitative test. So ideally, if you can, you should probably do both. There are situations where the qualitative test is a lot harder to do. For example, if you live in some super high-dimensional space, and you don't have these one-dimensional functions, then you can't really visualize these functions, which makes the qualitative test much, much, much trickier to do. So in that case, you have to rely on the seemingly more precise, but in this context, somewhat less precise as it turns out, quantitative test. But ideally, you essentially do both. Yeah. I think that there are a lot of situations in which sometimes patterns reveal themselves to your eyes in a way that sometimes the mathematical tests don't always show this long, so that that makes sense. Right. Like, the fundamental issue that we run into while doing these kinds of analysis is some things are just hard to quantify. Right. Like, we can quantify them to a degree, and the quantitative tests are telling you basically that, like, how close they are according to the beliefs that you were able to quantify. And then there's a whole host of things that you are able to precisely quantify, but like, when you look at the data, you're like, oh, of course, these things look similar, or these things look very different. And that's what the qualitative test gives. Hmm. So we have a question from our audience around how to execute this sort of comparison or criticism, asking if there's a way, if there's a list or process to follow that might make it easier to run a test like this. Right. So firstly, these tests that I spoke about today just apply to Gaussian processes. So if you're doing it for some other kind of model, you'd have to design a workflow which works for that set of models. But assuming that you're doing it for Gaussian processes, the first thing to do is to actually think carefully about your application and figure out what decisions you actually care about. So once you figure out what decisions you actually care about, that gives you this notion of the decision-altering threshold that we've been chatting about for a bit. Once you have that decision-altering threshold, then you can apply essentially our workflow, the tool that we just described directly to the problem. We are in the process of releasing software which makes this easy for other people to use and hopefully it'll be out soon which would allow you to use this tool. That's great. I think everybody likes easy. And certainly it would be great to have a way to apply this in a, in an easy way. So we have another question and it is around building this in. The question is, can these concepts be implied or can they be embedded into your process initially or is it a test that you need to run kind of after the fact? Right. So right now we view this as a test that you run after the fact. Obviously as you, it's an iterative process, right? So you run this test, you learn something about your data and then you try to incorporate that into your next data modeling iteration. Right. So one, one ideal way or one way in which you might want to use some of this is right. If you run this test, you find this alternate kernel, which is very close to your original kernel but giving you slightly different predictions or substantially different predictions as it might turn out. Then in the next data modeling iteration, you could imagine averaging over these two kernels. So which would give you more robust predictions. So. Yeah. Yeah. Well, so you said initially that this is very specific to Gaussian processes. Do you feel is there a logical way to expand that and to, to use other types of functions and processes? Yeah. So our analysis is rooted in, in Gaussian processes, right? Like we were interested in understanding the sensitivity of kernels in Gaussian processes, the choice of kernels and Gaussian processes. If you have a completely different model, those make very different assumptions and then you have to think about how to, how to understand how those assumptions affect your results. That being said, like many models reduce to Gaussian processes. So for example, if you have a neural network and you take the infinite limit of that neural network, you make it infinitely wide, it turns out that you recover a Gaussian process. So there might be ways in which you could criticize those kinds of models under certain assumptions. You're making them infinitely wide, for example, via this Gaussian process construction. But if you have a completely different model, then you have to essentially redo this kind of analysis. This is like one of the issues that you run into when you're trying to assess sensitivity to modeling assumptions, because every different type of model makes very different, potentially very different types of modeling assumptions, you necessarily have to do this on a case-by-case basis. So when you think about kind of the diagram that you showed initially around how model criticism fits into the process, and this is a part of that, do you feel like that's a standard part of the process? Is that something that's being done on a regular basis? Or are models maybe not getting the level of criticism that they need, whether this kind or in general, the kind of robustness testing? And is that kind of a risk that you see? Right. So certain types of model criticism is quite standard. So certain types of model criticism is routinely done in practice. People do, for example, cross-validation could potentially be thought of as a type of model criticism, and people do this all the time. That being said, the particular types of criticism to prior assumptions is not as common in practice. So while the robust-based community has been advocating for this for a while, it just hasn't caught on. The several reasons for this one is it has this qualitative flavor to it. So it involves a little more work than standard automated model criticism things, tools.  So we are hoping to change at least the second bit a little bit by making our tool available. So we should, you'd still be required to make your qualitative prior assumptions explicit, but like this tool would allow you to check for some of those prior assumptions that you're making. Well, that sounds like an excellent direction for this work to be moving, to make it a little bit more practical, a little bit more usable, and ultimately to ensure that more models have that robustness that they need. Indeed. Fantastic. Well, we are at the end of our time today. So I want to thank you, Sumia, for spending this time with us to learn more about this topic. And I want to thank everyone in our audience for spending this time with us today. And if you enjoyed this piece, we are this is part of a series. So go ahead, subscribe, like and you'll get notifications of some of our other content. And if you're interested in this topic we discussed today, there is some more information in the links in the video. So thanks, everyone. And we'll wrap up. Thank you.